This post began as a comment on a post of Paul’s Passing Thoughts, the one called “Calvin’s False Gospel: On the Wrong Side of the Law; Galatians 3:15-25“ so if it seems like you are missing part of the conversation, you probably are. Anywhere, here are my thoughts:
On the idea of atonement and covering. The idea that an atonement refers to a covering clearly comes from the arguments against the efficacy of animal sacrifices in the book of Hebrews, but [t]he Calvinists have ignored half of the argument being made there. Essentially the book of Hebrews argues that the animal sacrifices never really “took away” sin. You can see this as an argument that THEY (animal sacrifices) merely covered sin, but Jesus removes or takes away sin. With those sacrifices, as it is said, “With those sacrifices there was a yearly remembrance of sin, because it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sin.” (Hebrews 10:3-4) So the animal sacrifices only covered it over for a year, but Jesus is the Lamb of God who “takes away the sins of the world.” In fact, I can’t fathom how anyone could even begin to attempt to understand Hebrews’ arguments about Christ’s sacrifice vs the animal sacrifices in any other way. Sure, atonement may mean covering when we’re talking about the animal sacrifices, but when talking about Jesus’ sacrifice it must mean removal, taking away. This is so very basic, how can they delude anyone on this point?