Calvinists claim something called limited atonement – the reconciliation of God and “the elect” through the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross. Calvinists deny that Christ’s atonement was for everyone. If atonement was for everyone, then everyone would be saved – or so the argument goes. And, of course, not everyone is saved so therefore Calvinists argue that Christ’s atonement was only for the elect. I don’t make that connection myself. But this makes me wonder – is atonement given to the elect person while they’re still in a reprobate condition? I mean, at what point is the elect person actually saved? Before the creation of the world? Or at the moment the elect person confesses their sin? Hence, if I follow the logic, it would seem that salvation is given to the Calvinist before any expression of faith.
So, if one is saved before any expression of faith, then why did God find it necessary to nail himself on a cross and ultimately die? For heaven’s sake (pun intended), if God decrees those who’re saved, then why couldn’t God have killed off, oh say, a spotted owl or some endangered species and call that sacrifice good enough? Animal sacrifice was good enough in Old Testament times. So, why did God, when feeling it necessary to develop a new covenant and bring Jews and Gentiles into fellowship through faith, feel it necessary to sacrifice himself for our sins? Why not continue with the OT practice of killing off an animal and make whatever required adjustments God deemed necessary for the remission of our sins? I’m not sure, but there has to be something exceedingly unique and otherwise sublime about God sending and sacrificing himself.
This, therefore, makes me think that atonement, in and of itself, does not bring about forgiveness of sins. Again, if I’m understanding Calvinist doctrines correctly, atonement is of no value until one steps out of the “reprobate condition” and is thereby given an “elect status”. Atonement, therefore, in and of itself is not effectual in that atonement is not (per Webster) “successful in producing a desired or intended result”. Atonement, then, would only bring about the possibility of the forgiveness of sins. In and of itself, atonement can’t (or at least doesn’t) bring about forgiveness.
This makes me further wonder, can the Calvinist’s concepts of total depravity of everyone and the inherent inability to seek God be defended scripturally given that both the OT and NT are replete with people responding to God’s initiatives. On his Facebook page, Pastor Bob Hadley phrases the question as to God’s sovereignty by asking, “How powerful can [God] be if He cannot speak to the unregenerate? The statement, one cannot be responsible if one is not response-able deserves thought.”
Furthermore, Bob George (author of Classic Christianity), talks about how the same sun which melts wax also hardens clay wherein God’s grace either brings about humility of spirit or the hardening of one’s heart (as a manifestation of pride?). If that is true, then it seems self-evident that we, as individuals are “responders” to God’s grace and mercy. And, if we are responders – as is apparent if only because some accept God’s grace while others don’t, then it only seems logical that individuals indeed have free-will in accepting or rejecting God’s grace.
Simply put, I reject the Calvinist’s claim of limited atonement and believe God saves those who repent. God isn’t the one deciding who repents. Scripture is clear, God wants none to perish. I bet there’s a verse to that effect.
Martin's Mercurial Musings 