Layman's TULIP: Limited Atonement (Part I)

And we have arrived at the terrible L. Apparently, this simple letter makes so many people cringe. The idea of a "Limited Atonement" puts this urge in people to run into the streets and call Calvinists cultists and the like. Calvinists are heretics for teaching a "Limited Atonement." Funny thing is they say this before they read or hear what "Limited Atonement" means.

I guarantee many people will be surprised to hear that unless they believe in Universalism, where everyone will be saved, then you believe in a limited atonement. Even your die hard Arminians believe in a limited atonement. If you do not believe that the death of Christ actually atones for everyone's sin--or, as you may see around, for all people of all time--then you believe in a limited atonement. The limitation lies in the efficacy, meaning who is effected by the atonement.

Some Calvinists tend to define Limited Atonement with this maxim:

The atonement is sufficient for all but efficient for some.

Well, yes it is. But how is that any different than what an Arminian says? The terrible L means a little more than that. We've learned that all men of all time were and are sinners by nature, incapable of turning and coming to God by their own will (see the write up on Total Depravity.) We then learned that God elects those He will save on the sole basis of His good pleasure; He chooses the man, not the other way around (see the write up on Unconditional Election.) The Atonement of Christ is thus limited to the elect of God.

Other ways to refer to the Limited Atonement are "Definite Atonement" or "Particular Redemption." No matter what you call it, they mean the same thing. The Limited Atonement is a real, actual atonement. Christ actually died for the elect. He actually atoned for sin. The death did not happen so that salvation could be possible. Christ was slain in order to save.

I recall a debate on Bible Answer Man. There was George Bryson and Hank Hanegraaff versus James White. I had to go back to the portion a couple of times to make sure I could make out what was said, but surely enough, Bryson made the statement I still cannot find Scriptural support for (and of course on the debate--all three hours of it--he never gave any support or explanations...but anyways). He called what Christ did on the cross a "Conditional Atonement." While Christ died for all men of all time (absolutely everyone), the atoning work is of no effect unless a condition is met: the person individually chooses to accept the atoning work as having been done of their behalf. In other words, it's a gift, but the gift means nothing to you unless you accept and receive it.

In part II I will explain the problems with such a belief, and what the reformed understanding of the Limited Atonement is.