Cheryl Schatz

Mark, you said:

I see that Jesus secured my salvation on the cross by fully atoning for my sin. Because this is achieved by Christ, the Spirit then regenerates my heart to accept God’s gift of salvation.

So the question I have for you if your sins were fully atoned for on the cross, then was Christ’s payment worthless until you accepted God’s gift of salvation since it did not make you saved at the time you were born or at any time in your life until you received faith?

“So you will agree that there was a condition that must be met first before the atonement can become effective for you?”

I agree that faith in Christ is what saves me. However the atonement is the reason I am saved, not vice versa. The atonement secured salvation for God’s sheep, then when he calls his sheep they listen and follow.

But again the question is not future salvation but the uselessness that it would appear that Calvinists must attribute to Christ’s atonement during the time that a person is not saved. For how can one see Christ’s atonement when it isn’t active in salvation at a particular time in the person’s life? Did Christ atone for your sins on the cross and that atonement was enough? Or if faith is needed for salvation to come into effect, does that nullify the atonement on the cross? Can you please explain your position in a clearer fashion so that I can understand what value you place on the atonement at the time that you were still unsaved?

“Is the atonement not complete if it requires our faith? Is it just an offer and not given by Christ before our faith?”

Not at all because you see ‘faith’ as autonomous by the sound of it. The Bible sees it as a gracious gift of God.

Faith is never autonomous. God is always involved in our believing. Now I asked you if the atonement is not “given” to us before our faith. What is your answer? If the atonement is “given” to us before our faith, then how could God have seen us as in satan’s kingdom when we were atoned for? How could we be punished if we were atoned for before we had faith? If the atonement is not “given” until after we have faith, then does the atonement have no value during the time that we are “reprobate”?

Also the Bible doesn’t say that saving faith is God’s gift. The Bible says that salvation is the gift and we already went through this. If faith and salvation were both gifts and since salvation and faith are not the same thing, then the grammar would have to be plural if both were gifts. But the grammar is singular and not plural. Why would God not have made it clear that saving faith is a gift by making the term “gift” as plural? That would have been clear that all of it is a “gift” from God. But once again it seems like the Bible is made to be unclear and we have to fix it to make it right.

The atonement was 100% complete and because of that the elect put their trust in Christ.

But please explain if you consider the atonement to be 100% complete, then why do the elect not put their trust in Christ all of their lives? Why are they considered reprobate for a period of time if the atonement is 100% complete?