I want to discuss the term “limited atonement,” which is the “L” in TULIP. TULIP is an acronym used to describe the “five points of Calvinism”, though as we will see, TULIP and the phrase “limited atonement” were not written by Calvin and was not coined until the late 19th Century. Let’s start with a very brief history of TULIP.
A Quick History
John Calvin lived from 1509-1564 and was an instrumental French theologian, pastor, and reformer. Calvin is closely associated with Reformed theology because his writings, such as Institutes of the Christian Religion, played an important role in explaining and spreading the theological system.
As Reformed doctrine grew in prominence, followers of Jacobus Arminius, called the Remonstrants, formally presented a document in 1610, called the Remonstrance, that gave five objections to Reformed doctrine. These five objections included:[1] 1) Conditional election (God’s election is based on foreseen faith), 2) Unlimited atonement (Christ died for all people, not just the elect), 3) Free will (Humans are not totally depraved and can choose to respond to God), 4) Resistible grace (God’s grace can be resisted by human will), Uncertain perseverance (True believers can fall away and lose salvation).
The objections by the Remonstrants triggered the gathering of an international council of Reformed theologians, called the Synod of Dort, which gathered in 1618-1619. They released the Canons of Dort, which was about 15000 words. It was an objection to the much smaller Remonstrance (which was only about 1000 words) and also gave a detailed explanation of reformed theology. The Canons of Dort was organized around the five points given in the Remonstrance, though not in the same order. This document was released in both Latin and Dutch.
Fast forward to the early 1900s in the United States. (So just to be clear, this is about 300 years later and in English). This is the first time that we see the use of the acronym TULIP. The goal of the acronym was the summarize the main ideas behind the Canons of Dort in a way that could be easily remembered. TULIP stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, Perseverance of the Saints. These sound very similar to the Remonstrance, don’t they?
Since TULIP is an acronym, the main goal of this is to be a memorable way to describe these five points. Remember, the original document was around 15000 words. TULIP is just a handful of words designed to aid people in summarize the point. It would be like taking a 15000 word paper and summarizing it with five quick bullet points. Clearly, this acronym is not meant to replace the original, detailed theology of the Canons. Or to put it another way, the summary is not meant to be a replacement for the original.
With the history in mind, I hope you can see that the acronym TULIP is not meant to be the most important part of Reformed theology. It’s the ideas behind them, as described in the Canons of Dort, that are far more important.
The reason this is important is because a lot of time and effort is spent on discrediting or defending TULIP. I hear people say, “I am a four-point Calvinist” or “I am a five-point Calvinist” (referring to the four or five points of TULIP that they agree with). Or people will hear terms like “limited atonement” and instantly throw out Reformed theology as a whole. But the thing is, neither Calvin nor the Canons of Dort mention the phrase “limited atonement.” It was a phrase made up in English to summarize one part of the 15000 word article. Therefore, it is a bad idea to accept, reject, discredit, or defend TULIP. Instead, conversations should be about the Canons of Dort, the Remonstrance, or Scripture.
“Limited Atonement” and The Canons of Dort
I don’t like the phrase “limited atonement” because it points to Christ’s saving work of atonement in a negative way. To say Christ’s atonement was limited is to suggests that Christ’s love, power, or sacrifice is somehow insufficient or restricted. Viewing it in that light, it misrepresents what Christ actually did.
If you read the Canons of Dort, you’ll find something very different: Jesus’ death is not limited in value but is intentional in purpose. Even more, you will never even see the Dutch or Latin word “limited” in the original document.
For example, in article 8, it says:[2]
“For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the… redeeming death of his Son should effectively redeem out of every people… all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father.”
The emphasis here is not on who Christ didn’t die for. Instead, the Canons focus on the sovereign purpose and successful accomplishment of the atonement. Christ’s death had a targeted, guaranteed result… salvation for the elect. This is intentionality, not limitation.
In article 3, it says:
“The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin… it is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”
Again, it says the atonement is not limited in value or power, but its effect is applied only to those whom God intended to save. This again reflects intentional application, not restricted potential.
“Intentional Atonement” Is A Better Phrase
If “limited atonement” is not an accurate phrase, what would be a better one? As the title of this blog suggests, I like the phrase, “intentional atonement.”
Now none of this would matter if I cannot show you from Scripture. So let me show you why “intentional atonement” is a very biblical idea.
John 10:14–15
“I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me… and I lay down my life for the sheep.”
In this passage, Jesus didn’t say he died for all, but specifically “for the sheep.” His death was personal and directed, not general.
John 10:26–29
“You do not believe because you are not among my sheep… My sheep hear my voice… I give them eternal life, and they will never perish.”
Those for whom Christ died for will not perish. His death secures salvation for them.
Matthew 1:21
“You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
Not “might” or “could” save, but “will save” his people. And notice who he is saving… HIS people! This is a definite group.
Ephesians 5:25–27
“Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her… so that he might present the church to himself in splendor.”
Christ gave himself up for the church, not generically for all. This points to the atonement being targeted.
Acts 20:28
“…the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”
Jesus didn’t shed blood as a possibility for people that may or may not decide to come to him. His death obtained a people.
Isaiah 53:10–11
“It was the will of the Lord to crush him… he shall bear their iniquities… By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.”
Jesus, the Suffering Servant, actually bears the sins of many (a specific group), and makes them righteous. Again, this language is deeply intentional.
Hebrews 9:12
“He entered once for all into the holy places… securing an eternal redemption.”
Jesus entered into the holy places (pointing to his atoning work) and secured redemption. He didn’t just offer it, he secured it!
Hebrews 10:14
“For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
This is a clear image of an accomplished and intentional salvation, not just a general offer to all who believe.
Revelation 5:9
“…you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”
The atonement was an intentional ransom for a people from all over the world. Not universally, but specifically.
Conclusion
Language changes over time. And what was helpful 100 years ago is not as helpful now. Therefore, I prefer to avoid the use of the phrase, “limited atonement.” Referring to it as intentional better describes the thought behind the Canons of Dort. But even more, it better describes the thought behind the message of atonement in Scripture.
On the negative side though, TUIIP just doesn’t have the same ring.
Note: As with all the blogs, unless otherwise stated, these are the personal beliefs of the pastor and not an official church position. To read the church’s doctrinal statement, go here.
[1] See The Remonstrance of 1610, available at Monergism.com or summarized in Roger Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, pp. 19–21.
[2] The Canons of Dort can be found at https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort