Celebrating Limited Atonement

This week in my New Religions class we had a discussion on Calvinism, TULIP, and what we don't like about it. I guess I was a bit surprised to hear that a lot of my classmates don't like the idea of Limited Atonement (the 3rd point of Calvinism). I guess I'm still figuring out that if I like something that doesn't mean everyone in the world likes it...

Most people struggle with the Limited part of the doctrine, so I'll start on the part that I would wager most Christians like: Atonement. I've heard this concept explained simply as "at one ment", the state of being at one with God.  Christ has paid the  price for our sins and as a result we are put in to right standing with God. To this I believe all Christians can say amen. 

Now the Limited part. Many see this as meaning A Select Few, A Small Group, it means not all people will be saved. People have issues with this because it seems to place a limit on the breadth (the amount of people that are saved) of the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross. I would argue the opposite. (Here's my thesis) The concept of Limited Atonement, when understood as Definite Atonement, lends itself to imply a larger breadth of atonement than does the opposing Arminian view: Unlimited Atonement. Let me tell you why I think this way.

In one of my doctrine courses we discussed TULIP in depth. My professor made it easier for us to understand by replacing the L with a D. They mean the same thing, but in our current culture and the with the way we use the word Limited now-a-days the word Definite more clearly communicates what the word Limited, in the context of TULIP, is meant to say. To explain further, the word limited in this context has little to do with the size of the number of the elect, rather it has to do with the fact that there is a defined number of elect. This is why the word Definite fits better. Definite Atonement more clearly emphasizes the fact that the breadth of atonement depends on God's sovereignty. God has defined how wide the breadth of atonement is, and this is good. You might agree with me if I talk about the alternative, Unlimited Atonement.

At first this concept sounds nice. Unlimited Atonement is the third point of Arminianism (the five points of Calvinism were written to refute the five points of Arminianism). According to the five points of Arminianism, salvation is for all who believe (I agree). The Arminians would say that the expanse of atonement, since it is dependent on the amount who believe on Jesus, has the potential to be unlimited, because there is a potential for all mankind to believe. What Arminians seems to over-look is the fact that there is also the possibility that none will believe and that Christ would have died for naught.  I don't like that idea. Unlimited Atonement de-emphasizes Christ's Sovereignty when it comes to carrying out His plan for our salvation, and emphasizes man's role in obtaining his salvation. We should not be ok with leaving the breadth of Christ's Atoning sacrifice up to man. 

Since Arminianism and the concept of Unlimited Atonement leaves the amount of people who will be saved by Christ's sacrifice up to man's decision I would argue that if that were true it would undoubtedly result in a smaller breadth of atonement than Definite Atonement would. Man is fallen, we can make good decisions, but when it comes down to it, I'd rather trust God to define who is saved and who is not... I think that that way many more people will be saved. 

Imagine we are all on a football team. God is the quarterback, we are all His team mates. Scoring a touchdown and winning the game represents God's purposes and plan of salvation for the world. Limited Atonement does not limit God's ability to win, it emphasizes God's power to win. Unlimited Atonement places the ball in man's hand. And if history is any indicator of human tendencies, we will definitely fumble and fail to score. Praise God for the fact that He see's fit to hold onto the ball Himself, remain the star of the game, ensure victory, and then allows us to join in the victory celebration.

This concept should comfort us when we think about our loved ones who do not believe the Gospel. It is tempting to feel anger towards God for not "electing" them. But I would argue that we should praise God for the fact that their salvation does not depend on their ability to understand the gospel, rather it depends on God's sovereignty. We should pray that God may chose our friends for salvation and praise God when it becomes clear that He has, and plea with God in their last days when it seems He hasn't. My non-christian friends' salvation does not depend on my ability to articulate the Gospel and their ability to understand it, rather it rest's solely on God's Sovereignty. However, this is no excuse for me not to make an attempt at sharing the Gospel with them. Let's go back to the football analogy. We as blockers on the team who will undoubtedly win cannot simply decide not to block. Sure, God will score the winning touchdown regardless of our efforts, but we cannot use that as an excuse to get lazy in our efforts to help. We do God a disservice by not doing our best to assist in scoring. And when we fail and miss our block, God will undoubtedly make some sort of spectacular play because it is in our "weakness that God's power is made perfect (2 Cor. 12:9)." Praise God for that!