The ‘L’ in TULIP: Limited Atonement, Part 1

August, 2007

by: Jack Hughes

• Calvinism

We are presently looking at what are often referred to as “The Five Points of Calvinism” often designated by the mnemonic “T.U.L.I.P.” As we have learned in previous issues of the Calvary Review, the five points of Calvinism might better be called the five points of Arminianism. It was those who followed the teaching of Jacobus Arminius who isolated five points in the teachings of John Calvin to disagree with in a document called “The Remonstrance” published in 1610. It was at the Synod of Dort which followed The Remonstrance that the five points were defended by those who followed the teachings of John Calvin. Ever since, the five points have been the battle ground of much theological debate.

Probably no single point in the “T.U.L.I.P.” scheme is more controversial than the “L” which stands for “limited atonement” or as some like to call it “definite atonement” or as others call it, “particular redemption.” The reasons why the atonement is hotly debated is that some Scriptures teach Jesus died for all and other texts teach that Jesus died for some. Some Scriptures teach that only a few are saved by believing in the Gospel, yet other Scriptures teach a legitimate offer of salvation is to be extended to all men.

On one end of the spectrum are those who teach that Jesus died for the elect and only the elect, that God does not love the non-elect, and that it would be wrong to tell a group of unbelievers “God loves you” or “Christ died on the cross for you.” On the other far extreme you have those who believe in what is called “universalism.” This is the teaching that Christ died and made actual atonement for the sins of all men, so that all men will be saved and that everyone goes to heaven. In between these two extremes is a wide assortment of views.

Before looking at this topic it is helpful to point out that many hold the views they have about the atonement because they have been taught to believe something or because they have a desire to agree with a particular system of truth or theological heritage. While there is nothing wrong with favoring one system or theological heritage over another, we should never let a theological system or our desire to fit into a certain group tell us what to believe. We are to believe the Bible. Any theological system that conflicts with what the Bible teaches must be altered to submit to the Word of God. We will not be judged by our adherence to the teachings of John Calvin, Jacobus Arminius, or anyone else, but only by the Word of God.

It is true that those who adhere to a particular system believe their system to be biblical and supported by the Word of God, but it has been my experience that most people believe what they believe without having ever looked at, studied, or meditated on the broad range of relevant Scriptures which address their beliefs. In most cases, people cling to an isolated group of Scriptures that champion their view and then try to explain away any Scriptures which appear to assail it. Their goal is often to defend their system, rather than discover the mind of Christ in the text. Any honest Bible student will attempt to synthesize all texts, first looking at them individually and then together as a group, attempting to come up with a view that allows all texts to mean what they were intended to mean in their various contexts. If we cannot figure out how to do this, then we teach what the Scriptures teach and accept the fact that we can’t figure out the mind of God on the matter. Yet we must not explain away passages so we can package the truth in a way that makes us feel comfortable. Every text must be interpreted in light of what the original author and audience would have understood each text to mean, not what we want it to mean or what works with our system.

Yet this is difficult to do because we all come to the text with biases, opinions, and convictions about what we believe and what the Bible teaches. We also don’t like to admit that we can’t figure something out. We like to align ourselves with a certain camp or group because there is acceptance there. All of these things make studying doctrine and theology difficult. However, with prayer and by an honest, humble, investigation of the Scriptures, in most cases we can arrive at an explanation of how all the texts fit together even if we can’t organize or synthesize them into a nice, tidy, easy-to-explain package. One of my seminary professors who taught me theology said on the first day of class something that I understand more and more over the years. He said, “Gentlemen, learn to live with paradox when studying theology.” A paradox is an apparent contradiction. My seminary professor was saying we must be content to accept what every text says, even if they create an apparent contradiction. Sometimes you just can’t unravel certain theological truths. With that, let’s jump into the “L” in the T.U.L.I.P. and see what we can find.

Let’s start with basic definitions of words. The basic meaning of the Hebrew word commonly translated atonement” means to cover with tar or pitch. In relation to animal sacrifice it means to cover, pacify, appease or possibly wipe clean so as to bring forgiveness and reconciliation. In the Old Testament an animal without blemish was brought to the priest, the offending party would lay their hands on it, confess their sin, the animal would be slain, its life blood drained out, the animal would die and the death of the animal, as a substitute sin bearer would die in the place of the sinner and make atonement for sin or cover sin. Thus sin would be covered, or wiped clean so that God’s justice would be pacified or appeased. The sinner could then be reconciled to God. A word which describes what atonement provides is the word “propitiation” which means “that which satisfies God’s justice and appeases His wrath.”

In the Old Testament, sacrifices were offered up by the priests on behalf of the entire congregation of Israel. Even those who did not have saving faith received atonement from the sacrifices made on behalf of the entire congregation (e.g. Lev. 16-17). In this way, God’s wrath would be appeased and His justice satisfied against the entire congregation. As sacrifices were offered by the priest, they anticipated a greater sacrifice to come, the sacrifice of the Messiah (Isa. 53).

In the New Testament things change and get a bit more complicated. Jesus, God in human flesh, comes to earth, is born of a virgin, lives a perfect life, and willingly offers Himself up as a “once for all” human sacrifice (Rom. 6:10; Heb. 7:27; 9:12; 10:10; I Pet. 3:18). What this means is that Jesus is the “one” sacrifice which all other sacrifices pointed to and anticipated. The author of Hebrews speaks of this in Heb. 9:11-14 when he says, “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

The author of Hebrews later makes it perfectly clear that all the animals that were sacrificed in the Old Testament could never take away human sin. He writes in Heb. 10:1, “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.” Then in vs. 4 he says, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” The point the author of Hebrews makes is that if you are going to make atonement for a sinful human being, you have to find a perfect human being to willingly offer themselves up to die in the place of others. The author of Hebrews then goes on to argue how Jesus is the only sacrifice that can actually atone for the sins of men.

This then raises other questions. Did people before the death of Christ actually receive atonement from the animals they sacrificed? Or did they receive atonement from the animals they sacrificed because they looked forward in anticipation to Jesus’ once for all sacrifice? If the latter is true, and it must be true since the author of Hebrews makes it perfectly clear the blood of animals cannot take away sin, then it is also true that the entire nation, in some respects, received atonement from Christ’s once for all sacrifice. Israel, as a nation, received the benefits of Christ’s future sacrifice as they offered up animal sacrifice in anticipation of the great “once for all sacrifice.”

Does this mean that every Israelite was saved? No. But the wrath of God was satisfied against them as a nation because the priests on behalf of the nation offered up animal sacrifices in anticipation of the Messiah’s future sacrifice. It is also true that anyone who was truly saved in the Old Testament as an individual had to be saved by the sacrifice of Christ. Forgiveness requires perfect atonement and the only perfect atonement is the death of Christ. Hence, Adam and Eve, Abraham and Moses, along with all other Old Testament saints had their sins atoned for by Christ. Though Christ had not yet died, their faith in God laid hold of the future death and perfect atonement that could only be had in Jesus Christ.

This reality creates some interesting chronological questions concerning the atonement which effects what we believe about the atonement. For instance, Old Testament Israelites and believers had their sins atoned for by Christ before Christ died. Believers today have their sins forgiven in retrospect, looking back to Christ’s shed blood on the cross. Either way, atonement is only to be found in Christ. Unlike Old Testament believers who continually offered animal sacrifices and looked forward to the day when Messiah would come to take away their sins, people are saved today by believing in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ which happened in the past.

What is even more interesting is that believers, before placing their faith in Christ, do not have their sins atoned for, instead, the wrath of God abides on them. Paul makes this clear in Eph. 2:1-3 when he says, “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” John makes this same point in Jn. 3:36 when he writes, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” Unbelievers, even those who are the elect and who will eventually come to faith in Christ, have the wrath of God abiding on them.

Consider the implications of this. It can only mean that though Christ died to make atonement for their sin so that they could be forgiven and saved, until they repent of their sins and place their faith in Jesus Christ, they do not receive atonement. They are not forgiven. The wrath of God abides on them. They are not saved. They receive the benefits of Christ’s atonement when they first believe. What this means is that the provision and benefits of Christ’s atonement are available to the elect, but the elect do not receive atonement until they place their faith in Jesus Christ.

This creates one more intricacy. When Christ died on the cross, did He actually bear the sins of all believers who would ever believe, past, present, and future? Or did Christ bear the sins of all believers past and present and make provision or pay the penalty for those who would believe in the future? You see, if Christ bore the sins of all believers of all the ages and made actual atonement for them at the time of His death, then all the elect would have perfect atonement, forgiveness, and salvation at the moment of conception, but they do not. Before coming to faith in Christ, the elect are not yet forgiven though Christ has died for them. What does this mean or imply and how does it affect you?

As you can see, the issue of the atonement is not a simple issue, but time has run out. In the next Calvary Review we will investigate further the mystery of the “L” in T.U.L.I.P.