The ‘L’ in TULIP: Limited Atonement, Part 2

September, 2007

by: Jack Hughes

• Calvinism

In this series we are looking at “The Five Points of Calvinism” also designated by the mnemonic “T.U.L.I.P.” In the last Calvary Review we started to look at the “L” in T.U.L.I.P. which stands for “limited” or as some like to describe it, “particular atonement” or “particular redemption.” Out of all five points probably none have come under such debate and scrutiny as the nature and extent of the death of Christ and the atonement. For this reason we are spending more time looking at this important and complicated issue. If you haven’t read the previous issue on the atonement, you should probably do that to get some context for this Calvary Review article.

First, we learned that there are those on one end of the spectrum who teach that Jesus died for the elect and the elect only, 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 extreme there are 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. I believe both of these extremes are just that, extremes, and that they fail to communicate everything that the Word of God says about the purpose, nature, and extent of Christ’s death and the atonement.

In brief, we learned that Old Testament animal sacrifice never was sufficient to take away sin or to make the worshiper perfect. Sometimes individuals offered sacrifices for themselves and received individual atonement, other times the priests offered sacrifice for the entire nation. The Old Testament sacrificial system was a picture that looked forward to Jesus’ perfect, once for all sacrifice, which would take away sin and make the worshiper who drew near perfect. When a person receives atonement, the wrath of God is said to be propitiated or satisfied. Anyone that has ever received atonement for sins received it based on the sacrifice of Christ. Old Testament believers looked ahead to Christ’s sacrifice, we look back at Christ’s sacrifice. Either way, it is Christ’s sacrifice that enables believers to receive forgiveness, reconciliation, propitiation, and atonement for sins.

We then started to ask questions about the extent and nature of Jesus’ death and the atonement. The Scriptures teach that New Testament believers receive atonement for their sins when or at the time they repent and believe the Gospel. This then raises the question about what actually happened on the cross. Did Christ make provision for sins only for those who would believe or did He actually atone for the sins of all who would believe, or did He do some of both? Could it be that when Jesus died He made actual atonement for all believers past and present and provision for all, some of which would believe and have their sins atoned for?

I think it might be helpful to first begin by discussing the scope of the atonement. While this may seem to be the huge issue people have a hard time agreeing upon, the Scriptures make it clear that only believers have their sins atoned for through faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God could not cast someone into Hell if they had received perfect atonement. So the scope of the atonement can only be for the elect and the elect only. However, do not fail to see that there is a difference between the words atonement and death of Christ. They are not synonymous. Though the death of Christ made atonement for sins possible, the death of Christ itself does not give everyone atonement, not even the elect, until they believe and receive atonement from what Christ accomplished on the cross. Christ has already died but if someone believes today, they receive atonement today. Yes, it is based on what Christ did in the past, but we must not assume that atonement was actually made and received by all the elect of all the ages when Christ died two thousand years ago. As we have learned, believers in the church age receive atonement when they are converted to Christ.

This leads us to another important concept – the intent of the atonement. Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology says that this is the crux of the issue. Berkhof points out that when the Father sent His Son to earth to die on the cross, it was the Father’s intent, knowing all things before hand, and being sovereign in salvation, to save the elect and the elect only. With this, I agree. It was the Father’s intent to save the elect and the elect only. Obviously the Father did not intend to save the non-elect. The non-elect do not have atonement for sins because if they did, they would be saved. So we can agree with Berkhof that it was the Father’s intent in sending Christ to save the elect.

However, Berkhof assumes the Father had only one intent in sending Jesus to die on the cross. Could it be that the Father wanted Jesus to die for the sins of the world, making provision for all, so that the Gospel could be legitimately offered to all men? Could it be that it was also the Father’s intent to have Jesus die for all so that the non-elect could be judged for not receiving the love of the truth so as to be saved? It is my contention that He did. From what I read in my Bible it is clear that the Father sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die on the cross: 1) to save the elect and the elect only, 2) to make universal provision for the sins of all men (not atonement) so that the Gospel could be preached and legitimately offered to all men, and 3) to establish grounds for judging those who did not believe the Gospel so as to be saved. Having agreed with Berkof’s first intent, let’s proceed to investigate the legitimacy of a second and third intent.

Do the Scriptures teach that Jesus made a universal provision for sins? Again, this is not to be confused with universal atonement. Universal atonement means everyone receives actual atonement for their sins. Universal provision means that Jesus’ death is sufficient for all, that His death provides grounds for the atonement of all sin, which are received when a person believes. Of course only the elect believe, but the provision is universal. We must not assume that the death of Christ is a synonym for atonement. Jesus died for all, doesn’t mean Jesus atoned for all, though it is true that the death of Christ provides the grounds for the atonement.

Let’s say you had a business and you ordered credit cards for all of your employees. The credit cards are a provision that you have made for them so that they can charge business expenses to the company when needed. Once they have the credit cards, the provision, they are then able to purchase items with those credit cards. However, they do not receive the benefits until they actually purchase something with the credit card. It is possible for an employee to work at the company for many years and retire never having used their credit card. In a similar way, if it could be shown that Christ died for all, it would be correct to say that the death of Christ made a universal provision, a provision that is offered to all, received by the elect and rejected by the non-elect.

This is what I believe the Word of God teaches and if accepted it solves many problems. As we shall see, there are Scriptures that say Christ died for all and others that say He died for the elect or some. If you take Berkhof’s view, and believe the Father had only one intent in sending Jesus Christ to die, then you are forced to try and explain away the Scriptures that teach Jesus died for all. Yet, if you hold to the second intent, that the Father sent His Son to make provision for all, not atonement, but provision, then you don’t have to explain away those texts. You can take them at face value the way the original audience surely understood them. You don’t have to try and explain how “all” or “the whole world,” or “whosoever” means “some,” “part of the world,” and a “few.” We will get to the various texts that support universal provision later, but for now, let’s address a question that often arises when you say that Christ made a universal provision for the sins of all men.

Some are quick to ask, “Why would the Father send the Son to die on the cross and make universal provision for all, when He knew before the foundation of the world that He would only save the elect and that only the elect would receive the benefits of Christ’s death i.e., atonement for sins?” The answer to this question is so the Gospel could be preached and legitimately offered to all men and so those who did not receive the Gospel could be judged for rejecting it. Think about it, can I offer you something if I don’t have it to offer? No. In order to make a legitimate offer of the Gospel there has to be a legitimate provision for sin available. I would be deceiving you if I told you that repentance from sin and faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ could save you, if you weren’t one of the elect. I would be lying to you. I would be offering something that wasn’t available.

Yet what we see in the New Testament is universal proclamations of the Gospel to all nations. Paul said in Acts 17:30 that God commands all men everywhere to repent. The Gospel is to be offered to everyone, not just the elect. We don’t even know who the elect are until they believe. The Gospel, according to I Cor. 15:1-4, is that Jesus died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures. This is the Good News to be offered to everyone. Yet, if there was only one intent in sending Jesus to die on the cross, a legitimate offer of the Gospel could not be made to all men. However, if Jesus made universal provision for all, then there would be nothing deceitful or wrong in saying, “Jesus died on the cross for your sins, repent, believe, and you will be saved.”

Secondly, the Scriptures teach that those who reject Christ, are judged because Christ died for them, made a way of salvation possible, and they would not believe in Jesus so as to be saved. Paul says in I Cor. 1:18 that the Word of the Cross, when preached, is to some foolishness. The Word of the Cross is the Gospel, Jesus died for our sins, an invitation to be saved by grace, through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Peter describes unbelievers as suffering appointed judgment because they rejected the offer of Christ. They rejected the Corner Stone and were “disobedient to the Word” which means a provision, the Corner Stone was available to them, but they rejected it (I Pet. 2:7-8).

Paul in II Thess. 2:10-12 says of those deceived by the Antichrist, “and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.” Here we are told that unbelievers are judged because they did not receive or believe in the truth of the Gospel. God judges men because they reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Any sin can earn someone a ticket to Hell, but only one sin, the sin of rejecting the Gospel, ensures they will end up in Hell and suffer the wrath of God for all eternity. The Scriptures teach that Jesus died and made provision for all men and that the elect in receiving Jesus Christ have their sins atoned for. The non-elect in rejecting Christ do not have their sins atoned for. There is more, but this is all we have time for in this Calvary Review.