The Doctrines of Grace: TULIP Revisited
by Carol Berubee
http://www.tonyabetz.org/MSM/Product/doctrinesofgrace9.htm
Page 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8 9
10 11
12
Limited Atonement, Part I
Introduction The argument has been
made that because God desires that all would be saved, then He must have died for all, so that all
people could have access to that atoning sacrifice. All they need to do is make the decision to
accept that atonement that is just sitting out there waiting for them. The counter-argument that
we will make is that when Christ died on the cross, He actually accomplished salvation for His
elect, rather than only make salvation possible for all people. This counter-argument is
called Limited Atonement, or Particular Redemption.
What is Limited? Both sides
limit the atonement in some way, but which limitation is the Biblical one? To get to that answer,
we need to see what actually occurred when Christ died on the cross.
A Scriptural Basis
When Christ died on the cross, He died in place of us; that is, He actually took the penalty that
we would have had to pay. If that is what occurred on the cross, and it was done for all people,
then all people would be saved because in His death, He actually paid the penalty for sins. If
the penalty was paid on the cross, then God would have no justification to punish people for their
sins when they die. If Christ already paid the penalty for all people, then all people would be
set free from the penalty of their sins. Rather, we see here that Christ paid the penalty for
sins when He died and since we know that not everyone will be saved, then that penalty was paid
for only the elect.
2 Corinthians 5:21
When Christ went to the cross, Father had appointed Him to take away the sins of the elect. The
doctrine of expiation says that Yeshua takes away sins. Father removed the sin and guilt of the
elect and put them on His Son. The sins of the elect were imputed to Christ on the cross and
Father punished Him for those sins. This means that the elect are no longer legally guilty. God
is not justified in punishing those whom He has already set free through the death of Christ.
If Christ's death removed the sin and guilt of all people, then all people would go to heaven.
Hebrews 1:3
Again, we see that Christ, by His death, purged the sins of the elect, after which He ascended to
heaven. When He died on the cross, He actually and effectively purged sins. If He had purged the
sins of all people, then all people would be free from the guilt of sin. Rather, He purged the
sins of the elect; His atonement was limited to only those whom He foreknew.
Romans 5:10-11
When we were still enemies, we were -- past tense -- reconciled to God. When? At the death of His
Son on the cross. When Christ died, the elect were reconciled to God. Paul then says that it is
through Christ that the elect receive reconciliation. At the cross, the elect were reconciled,
positionally, and when God regenerates the sinner, he receives that reconciliation, practically.
If, when Christ died, it was for all people, then all people, positionally, would be reconciled
to God.
Galatians 1:4
He had a specific purpose in His death. His death takes away the sins of the elect and delivers
the elect from this evil age.
Titus 2:14
He died specifically to redeem His elect and knit together His Body, the
Church (cf. Ephesians 5:25-27).
Hebrews 9:12
At that one moment -- death on the cross -- Christ obtained eternal redemption for His people. He
died to save His elect; He actually accomplished what He set out to do on the cross.
We have covered Total Depravity and
Unconditional Election, saying that because man is depraved and
unable to choose God while in his depraved state, God has chosen whom He will save based not on
anything man has done or will do. So, when the Son of God, Christ Jesus the Lord, gave Himself over
to death on a cross, for whom did He die? All people, or only His elect?
People on both sides of the argument limit the atonement of Christ. The Calvinists limit the
"quantity" of the atonement, if you will, while the Arminians limit the "quality." We would argue
that when Christ died, His sacrificial death actually purchased the salvation of a limited number of
people, His elect, whom He foreknew before the foundation of the world. This position recognizes the
effectiveness, in quality, of the atonement; that is, Christ actually accomplished what He set out to
do -- to seek and save that which was lost. The Arminian would argue that Christ died for all people,
not just His elect, but in doing so, the Arminian must limit the "quality," or "effectiveness," of
the atonement. According to this rationale, the sacrificial death of Christ did not actually save
anyone, but only made it possible for people to be saved (if they would exercise their
free will and choose Christ), thus limiting the effect of Christ's death.
Romans 5:8
"...while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
"For He (Father) made Him (Yeshua) who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the
righteousness of God in Him (Yeshua)."
"...when He (Yeshua) had by Himself purged our sins, [He] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty
on high."
"For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more,
having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in
God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation."
"[He]...gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age..."
"[He]...gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us...and purify for Himself His own
special people..."
"[Yeshua]...once for all...obtained eternal redemption."