TULIP ... Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption)

I have been trying to understand the Calvinist doctrines represented in the popular acrostic TULIP for some time. I have, on this blog looked at Total Depravity, and (again,) Unconditional Election, and again, and now I will take a look at the doctrine of Limited Atonement.

Limited: Restricted, to have a limit on the bounds, to curtail or reduce in quantity or extent, lacking breadth, the scope or exercise of powers strictly defined.

Atonement: the removal of obstacles to reconciliation with God, the reconciliation of alienated parties, the restoration of a broken relationship, making amends, blotting out offenses, and giving satisfaction for wrongs done, reparation for an offense or injury. (according to Webster!)
When I first heard of TULIP, and the points were being explained to me, that was the first time I had ever heard anything like the doctrine of “Limited Atonement”. "What does that mean?" I wondered if it meant that the covering and cleansing of sin that I had found in Christ was available to all, but limited in effectiveness only to believers. I had learned that doctrine from the Bible, so if that was what it meant, well then absolutley ... it is true! I was corrected on this. This is not what it means. My 4-point Calvinist friend tried to make me understand what the word efficacious had to do with this. He believed that Christ died for the sins of mankind, but that the death was only “efficacious” for those predestined to salvation. (Efficacious: having the power to produce a desired effect.) Well, what is the conclusive difference between believing that He died for all men, but not efficaciously and believing that He only died for the elect … not much of a difference, I believe. The bottom line in this doctrine is: salvation is not available to all people, because Christ did not die for all of humanity.

I have searched for explanations to make sure I understand and I now think I clearly do grasp what the belief is (although I could be wrong). One of my favorite Calvinists has said: The doctrine of "Limited Atonement" answers the question of how God saves His elect. He sent His Son to die for them. That's the doctrine plain and simple. "Limited Atonement" means limited in scope, not in power or sufficiency. "Definite Atonement" might be a better description of the doctrine in this regard. Christ died for a definite people.

So it is: Christ died for the elect, (which had been chosen before the foundation of the world, for no other reason than that it was God’s will and that they are who they individually are) and ONLY for the elect. There are different reasonings behind this doctrine, a few of which are:

• Christ would not die for the sins of people He didn’t intend to save.
• Whoever He died for, would be saved and could never be lost .
• No person could go to hell if the atonement was not limited (Double jeopardy, hence God would be unjust).

One troubling thing with this doctrine is the lack of Biblical passages presented to support it. All the reasoning I have read is in some way based on the other points of Calvinism. Here is one example:

"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)

The Calvinist would say to the questioner of Calvinism (that’s my new label), “Did Christ really save His people from their sins or did He just make it a possibility?” Always there is a reference to His “people” being a group of unconditionally predetermined individuals, which hearkens back to the second point of Calvinism, Unconditional Election. I think it makes logical sense. If Unconditional election is true, then of course Limited Atonement is true. So often the biblical proof that is offered for Limited Atonement is connected to the “fact” of Unconditional Election. Any doubts that arise are overcome by hearkening back to the basics of the TULIP and viewing from that perspective. I have a real problem with this kind of reasoning. Why not, instead, take the questions that the Scriptures raise in the Bible believer’s mind about Limited Atonement and then, cast the doubt back onto the doctrine of Unconditional Election (asserted by John Calvin)?

There is plenty of doubt about whether there is room in these verses for the doctrine of Limited Atonement:

Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. (Romans 5:18)

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29)

Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. (John 3:14-17)

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6:51)

As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. (John 12:47)

It is interesting to read what Calvinists say to these verses. The position is not defended from a contextual perspective; there is not usually a reference to who the audience was or what the intent of the writer or speaker was. It usually boils down to a redefining of the terms. All doesn’t mean all. “The Greek word 'pas' (all) can either mean every single one, or some of every type.” Also, the word world is not all encompassing in relation to its people. The passages that say “the whole world is going after him” or “if a man could gain the whole world” are used to point out that world does not mean everyone. This doesn't seem honest to me. The first impression when reading these passages is the correct one, otherwise the gospel wouldn’t be the power of God unto salvation to anyone who believes. Also, can a little child do these kinds of acrobatics with language? (Matthew 11:25) You could look here for an interesting post and comments on Limited Atonement and wordsmithing.

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Does this verse say that he was made to be “the sins” of the elect? The absence of the article “the” is interesting to note. “Sin” is a pretty all-encompassing term. So does He save because of His death … the atonement? Is it necessary to say that the atonement is limited because otherwise we have a universal salvation (and we know this is not true, the scriptures say that many go to hell.)

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:21)

The atonement only applies to us if we believe. Just like Passover, (note that Jesus referred to it right when He was getting ready to atone) you must apply the blood to be passed over. Also note that the atonement it is an Old Testament concept. When the priests offered sacrifices, they were for all of Israel who would believe and obey God’s Word. (Were these references to atonement, for provision or payment? The difference between those two concepts is something I want to study further.) It’s important for the discussion to enter the OT ground from which it originated. I want to repeat the following passage with that in mind. Note the reference to the serpent which was lifted up for ALL of Israel (Numbers 21:8) so that whoever looked upon it would find healing.

Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. (John 3:14-17)

I read where one man said, “Did Christ enter the Holy Place having made salvation a possibility? Or had He actually obtained eternal redemption? The text is clear (Hebrews 9:11-12) that the Son’s work is, in fact, complete and perfect and not dependant upon man’s additions (even the addition of mere “faith”) is also taught in Hebrews… (Mere faith [!] ... Faith … which is how we are told that men receive salvation … is derided as being insignificant in the plan of God.) Does anyone else have a problem with this thinking? (I don't want to come right out in the post and disclose the quotee ... so as not to be inflammatory.)

Here is a question for my 5 point friends: If you are telling a person about the salvation in Christ, witnessing, sharing the gospel, (whatever we want to call the act that we have been commanded to perform), and they ask you, “What does that have to do with me?” … can you say to them “Jesus Christ died for you?” No, not according to your doctrine. What if you say, “Jesus Christ died for sinners.” … and they ask “Did he die for me?” What do you say to that person?