The Last Letter of the TULIP

No, not the "P"! I mean, the last letter that potential Calvinists finally come to terms with. I'm talking about the infamous "L," which stands for Limited Atonement. I am accumulating an ever-growing list of friends who have learned to rejoice in man's radical fallenness, God's sovereign choice, the Spirit's effectual calling, and his preservation of his people. In other words, I know a lot of four-point Calvinists. What I was going to do was call this post "Limited Atonement for Dummies," but it seemed a little too clever for its own good. Also, I didn't want these newcomers to think I was calling them dummies.

What I wanted to do here was a series of drive-by arguments meant to provoke thought and not to exhaustively answer this subject in a drawn-out way.

Thought #1:
Limited Atonement is not about how valuable the blood of Jesus is. Rather, it is a statement about the Son's intent in coming and laying down his life "of my own accord." What was Jesus' intent, in other words? J.I. Packer defines limited atonement in this way: "the death of Christ actually put away the sins of all God's elect and ensured that they would be brought to faith through regeneration and kept in faith for glory, and that this is what it was intended to achieve."

Thought #2:
If you believe that the Father elected only some, that the Spirit draws only some, then by denying Limited Atonement, you set the Son against the Father in his purpose, because you have the Father choosing some, the Spirit drawing some, and the Son atoning for all with the intention of saving all. This creates a Trinitarian dilemma which I would not want to find myself in. Rather, let us say that the Father chooses his elect, the Spirit draws the elect, and the Son removes the sin of the elect, giving them His own righteousness in their place. This is the single-minded purpose of God in salvation and brings him great glory.

Thought #3:
If Jesus really did atone for the sins of those in Hell, not only are we to accuse God of double jeopardy (punishing the same sin twice), but we have a situation where someone's sin has been removed. But then what sin, does the person suffer for in Hell? I have heard many argue that they are punished for their unbelief. However, John Owen famously argued that if Christ died for all of the sinner's sins, then He also must have died for their sin of unbelief. If, then, Owen argued, the sin of unbelief has been atoned for, they have no grounds for punishment in Hell. And if someone argues that all sins except for unbelief are atoned for, then it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement, but the person who is saying that Christ does not die for all of a person's sins.

Thought #4:
There are plenty of verses which teach that anyone who believes will be saved, but these do not contradict Limited Atonement. Likewise, there are many verses which praise Christ's dying for "the world." Each of these verses, on their own may individually be answered. D.A. Carson argues that "both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love." And so we do. We affirm that Christ died for the world, but we are careful to define what we mean by that, as we should all do anyway. (Incidentally, I recommend Carson's article, which fleshes out his meaning quite a bit.)

Thought #5:
There are many verses which teach Christ's particular intention in laying down his life. This includes Christ talking about intending to save "His sheep": John 10:11, 15; "His Church," Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27; "His people," Matt. 1:21, and "the elect," Rom. 8:32-35. Furthermore, The Bible does speak of Christ's only coming to save some: "John 6:37-40; Rom. 5:8-10; Gal. 2:20; Gal. 3:13-14; Gal. 4:4-5; 1 John 4:9-10; Rev. 1:4-6; Rev. 5:9-10. We also see Jesus' particular intention to only lay down his life for his sheep in the high priestly prayer in John 17:9: "I pray not for the world, but for those whom you have given to me."* If Jesus was trying to save each and every person who ever lived or ever would live, then this would be a very curious prayer, indeed. As Packer puts it, "Is it conceivable that he would decline to pray for any whom he intended to die for? Definite redemption is the only...view that harmonizes with this data."

*Many thanks to Louis Berkhof and J.I. Packer for the Scripture references.