Our objector raises a few more confused objections, positing a nonsensical idea that the atonement somehow makes men ‘neutral,’ which I do not believe at all, nor know of anyone who does.

@Either Christ atones for the sins of people when they believe and thus limited atonement is true in some regard. This is understood by the idea that the imputation both ways only occur when someone believes. But Christ died 2000 years ago for the sins of all as Thibodaux states.

Christ atoned for the sins of all, but such that forgiveness is contingent upon faith in Him. Who is justified is limited by who believes.

Let’s just show the conflicting nature of these statements and see how his words are unhelpful and merely restating his position.

“Christ pardons the sins of all, but such that forgiveness is contingent upon faith in Him. Who is justified is limited by who believes.”

I’ve stated that either this means the pardon isn’t effectual unless one believes, which then means limited atonement is the case in a strange form. Christ died so people could have been atoned for or pardoned. Thus Christ only actually dies for the elect and the unbelievers merely had a potential atonement. Or Christ atones for everyone in the same way and men that don’t believe merely are not declared righteous but they remain neutral to God because of the work of the son.

@What atonement doesn’t actually atone for sins anyways? What did it even do on this view? Pretty much it isn’t an atonement without faith of an individual.

Christ’s atonement created the way for salvation to anyone who believes in Him. It occurred whether any certain person believes or not, but one only benefits from it by faith. He seems to be confusing contingency for non-actuality.

And of course none of this affects the problems with Owen’s argument.

I think Thibodaux is confusing contingency with actuality. If Christ only possibly atoned for you, then it obviously doesn’t mean he actually atoned for you. But Arminians maintain Christ actually did atone for everyone.

This is a reductionistic way of looking at the greatest event in human history. Christ isn’t merely “providing a way of salvation” he is defeating evil. Christ provides a way of salvation by dealing with the wrath of God on the cross. We should notice that the atonement does more than what Thibodaux is stating that it does. Take it’s typological OT sacrifices in parallel:

The OT sacrifices come in a bewildering variety, the distinctive functions of which are not always clear.4 Fortunately, we can determine the general function of the sacrifices without going into a delineation of the various kinds that were prescribed. In general, the sacrifices filled the twin fundamental purposes of expiation of sin or impurity and propitiation of God. “To expiate” means to remove, to annul, to cancel; “to propitiate” means to appease, to placate, to satisfy. The object of expiation is sin/impurity; the object of propitiation is God.

At least some of the OT sacrifices were clearly propitiatory. A premier example is the sacrifice of the Passover lamb. This sacrifice was not originally instituted for the purpose of expiation; rather, the blood of the lamb smeared on the doorframes of Israelite homes served to shelter them as God’s judgment swept over Egypt (Exod 12.13). Had they not offered the sacrifices, God’s deadly judgment would have fallen on the Israelites, as well. Propitiation is also in view in the various priestly sacrifices offered in the Tabernacle (and later, in the Temple). The careful regulations concerning the sacrificial offerings are to be understood against the background of God’s striking down Aaron’s sons for their unlawful offering of sacrifices in the Tabernacle precincts(Lev 10.1–2; 16.1). William Lane Craig, The Atonement: pg.10

God was conceived to be specially present in the innermost sanctum of the Tabernacle, which therefore had to be approached with utmost care. It was a dangerous business to have a holy God dwelling in the midst of a sinful and impure people, as we see in God’s warning to the people of Israel: “You are a stiff- necked people; if for a single moment I should go up among you, I would consume you” (Exod 33.5). The sacrificial system functioned to facilitate the juxtaposition of the holy and the unholy. It did this, not merely by purging the Tabernacle and its paraphernalia of impurity, but also by propitiating God and so averting His wrath upon the people. The roasting of the sacrificial animals, in particular, is repeatedly said to produce “a pleasing odor to the LORD” (e.g., Lev 1.9), which implies that the sacrifices helped to cultivate God’s favor (cf. Gen 8.21).ibid. pg. 10-11

Certain OT sacrifices also served an expiatory function. In the priestly system of sacrifices, the sacrificial offerings served to remove ceremonial impurity and/or moral guilt.5 Some commentators have overemphasized the function of the sacrifices in purifying the Tabernacle and its sacred objects to the neglect of the sacrifices’ role in cleansing the people themselves of guilt and impurity. Reducing the function of the sacrifices to the cleansing of objects alone is implausible and fails to do justice to the biblical text. For purging objects of impurity while leaving the worshippers themselves guilty and unclean would fail to address the root of the problem. Moreover, the text repeatedly promises, “the priest shall make atonement on your behalf for the sin that you have committed, and you shall be forgiven” (Lev 4.35; cf. 4.20, 26, 31, etc.). The word translated “make atonement” (kippēr) has a range of meanings – to purge, to ransom, to expiate – but what is significant here is the result: the person’s sins are forgiven. The ritual sacrifice has removed his guilt. ibid. pg. 11-12

The NT writers think of Christ’s death as both expiatory and propitiatory. With regard to the expiation of sin, the author of Hebrews hammers home the point that in contrast to the OT sacrifices, “which can never take away sins” (10.11), Christ, “having been offered once to bear the sins of many” (9.28), “remove[d] sin by the sacrifice of himself” (9.26), so that “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (10.10). John presents Christ as a Passover lamb whose death, in contrast to the original Passover sacrifice, is expiatory: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (Jn 1.29). Paul uses technical Levitical terminology to refer to Christ as “a sin offering” (peri hamartias) (Rom 8.3; cf. Heb. 10.6, 8). Those who have believed in Christ “have been justified by his blood” (Rom 5.9). Christ’s righteous act of obedience “leads to acquittal and life for all men. For … by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (5.18–19). ibid. pg. 14-15

These functions of the atonement are merely ignored by Thibodaux. While faith is needed, it doesn’t undermine the purpose of the atonement. The atonement has an expiation and propitious activity. If Christ is propitiation and expiation for the sins of mankind(that means no difference exists between the way Christ atoned for the elect and non-elect) then it follows that mankind is on eternal neutral ground with God because Christ has pardoned mankind. Or you may posit that Christ atones for the elect and non-elect differently. Given the lack of evidence for such a position and the fact these rigid categories for atonement have been defined through centuries of God developing OT theology, it would be hard to conceive that being possible. It would also undermine the claims of universal atonement already stated. Christ wouldn’t have been a “true” atonement for everyone. The other option is that the atonement only actualizes on faith. Which truly reduces to Christ only atoning for believers.