Irony (and a related pet peeve)

The sermon from this past Sunday was about the extent of Christ's atonement. As our church is Calvinistic in its theology, the sermon came down firmly on the side of Limited Atonement — that Christ's death was intended only for the elect, and not for anyone else.

The irony came when, after the sermon, the pastor had us sing Charles Wesley's hymn, "And Can It Be?" (which happens to be my favorite hymn). Wesley, of course, was an Arminian through and through, and firmly believed that Christ's death was for all people everywhere — although, of course, the atonement would only apply to those who repented and believed in Christ. Consequently, "And Can It Be?" is a thoroughly Arminian hymn, clearly expressing the doctrine of Unlimited Atonement in the following verse:

He left his father's throne above—
So free, so infinite his grace—
Emptied himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam's helpless race:
'Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!

Now for the pet peeve. Our church uses the Trinity Hymnal. The editors of the Trinity Hymnal, being Calvinists, couldn't allow such a blatantly Arminian verse in their hymnal. So they changed it! Instead of "And bled for Adam's helpless race" it reads "And bled for all his chosen race." In other words: Jesus died only for those people whom he chose to save, and no others. They edited the hymn to say the exact opposite of what its author believed. I find such editorial changes appalling. Were Wesley alive today, I imagine he would have a few words for the Trinity Hymnal's editors who brazenly re-wrote a line from his hymn to contradict what he believed and what he intended to say.

I sang Wesley's original words. I believe, as he did, that the Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus Christ died for all people, without exception. Anything less denies the explicit statements in Scripture that God loves the world and everyone in it, that Christ is the Savior of the whole world, and that God desires the salvation of all people (see nineteenth century Methodist theologian Thomas Ralston's discussion of applicable passages here). Every attempt I have ever heard to explain these passages in light of Limited Atonement basically amounts to "these passages don't mean what they say." As I see it, Limited Atonement is a doctrine that is logically necessary within the Calvinist belief system, but it has no true basis in Scripture. To me, at least, this calls into question the entire theological system — but that's a topic for another post (or probably a book).

Please note: I'm not expecting comments, because I rarely get them. If you do comment, please keep it civil. Discussion and disagreement are welcome. Attacks on Calvinism, Arminianism, or their adherents are not.