The following is another (yes, I know… yet another) line of argumentation designed to cause my High Calvinist brethren to fall to the ground in bewilderment, wondering how they could ever believe in limited expiation. This is meant to be read in conjunction with earlier posts on the subject. One, Two, and Three.
————
It’s a simple argument.
When the non-elect hear of God’s amazing offer of forgiveness through Christ, should they feel smitten? Astonished that God would do such a thing? Overwhelmed at such displays of divine mercy? Thankful? Humbled? Eager to receive it? Overjoyed? And so on.
Now keep in mind that we are not asking whether or not the non-elect will in fact feel or do such things. They won’t. The cross is foolishness to them. The question here is whether they should feel smitten, astonished, thankful, etc.
What is the answer? Well, surely the answer, in light of the fact that the Creator of the universe came and died a horrible, yet atoning death for the sins of mankind (so that a treasonous rebel like himself, who could not rectify the problem through his own devices or merits, could be offered a way to escape condemnation) is yes.
But given the view of High Calvinism, which asserts that Jesus did not come to die an atoning death for the sins of the non-elect, upon what basis should the non-died-fors feel smitten, astonished, or thankful for the gospel? Jesus did not in fact die for them on the cross. The atonement does not encompass their sins.
So should they fall down and say, “What an amazing Savior!”?
If the sufficiency of Christ’s death is not truly extrinsic, extending to include their sins, and if the non-elect are to be grateful for Christ, then it would seem the only thing a High Calvinist could consistently say is that the non-elect should be thankful to God for providing a Savior for the elect.
But of course that doesn’t make sense. Surely the non-elect should be personally grateful for Christ, the Savior. They should be amazed at the cross. The costly love of God should cause them to feel smitten and broken. The should feel compelled to accept the gracious offer of forgiveness.
But this can only be so if Christ paid an objective price for the sins of the non-elect. Only then would there be a ground for such thankfulness.
So we ask, along with what has been previously argued in other posts:
- Should the non-elect be thankful for what Christ did for sinners on the cross? If so, why? If no, why not?
- If Christ did not die for the sins of the non-elect, what in actuality is there for them to receive or reject, so far as the gospel is concerned?
- Will God hold the non-elect accountable for rejecting the gospel? If so, how can someone be held responsible for rejecting something that was never offered them? Along these lines, will the non-elect be held accountable for rejecting Christ’s death for the elect’s sins?
The Sound of Doctrine 