In a recent post I insisted that everyone believes in election. Either one believes that a sovereign God elects his people or they believe that sovereign people elect their God. As such, I argued, election is an inescapable category. Now I would like to proceed with arguing that limited atonement is an inescapable category that everyone has.
In the Reformed understanding of limited atonement the sovereign Creator limits the extent of the atonement applicable to those He has elected. In non Reformed understandings it is the sovereign creature who limits the extent of the atonement to those who decide to elect God as God, arguing that it wouldn’t be fair if the sovereign Creator limited His atonement. What needs to be noted here that both the sovereign creature party and the sovereign Creator party believe in limited atonement. The question reduces itself to where the sovereignty lies as to the decision on the extent of the atonement. Further reflection by both parties should move them to agree that whoever gets to make the decision on the extent of the atonement is the God of their belief system.
As we have said, the argument by the sovereign creature party is how it would be unfair to the creature if a sovereign creator were to limit His atonement. They makes this argument without blushing over the fact of how unfair to the creator it is of the sovereign creature to limit an atonement that doesn’t belong to them to begin with.
So limited atonement is an inescapable category. The only question is where the sovereignty lies in the decision making process as to who will do the limiting. Will the sovereign creature limit the atonement or will the sovereign creator limit the atonement?
Now, if the sovereign creature must elect God before God can be God and if the sovereign creature gets to determine the extent of the atonement can any one tell me where the advantage is in being God?
So limited atonement is an inescapable category. The only question is where the sovereignty lies in the decision making process as to who will do the limiting.
Exactly. It is often effective to tell the Arminian that while Calvinism limits the scope of the atonement, his theology limits it’s power. It is efficacious only for those with the disposition to receive it and utterly powerless to convert the resistant. Poor God. Oh the agony of being rejected by finite creatures who hold sway over the creator who is helpless to save them.
Arminians fail to realize that for every bit of libertarian free will that accrues to them that much is detracted from God.