Limited Atonement? I prefer Specific Atonement.

I've decided to begin a brief series on the topic of "Limited Atonement" aka, the "L" in TULIP. I honestly don't like that label. How did we Calvinists let the other side define us? That's simply unacceptable. Letting the other side brand your idea is deadly. To try to portray "limited atonement" as limiting God or Christ's sacrifice, well, that's just a smart move by it's opponents. Throughout this article I will use the term "specific atonement" to refer to limited atonement. I think that specific atonement accurately portrays the idea that is being represented. Because the core of specific atonement is God's election and plan for salvation. This doctrine is the logical outcome of God's sovereign plan of salvation. The object of God's plan of salvation is directed towards His elect. The doctrines of God's sovereignty and election form the foundation of specific atonement. Let's consider this from a negative view point. What would a universal atonement view do to God and Christ's sacrifice?

How could a God be sovereign and yet finite men reject His payment for their sins? How can a sovereign God have His Son pay for someone's sins and then that person must pay them off again? Can God be sovereign if He simply waits idly by waiting for men to decide to choose Him or not? God offers the contract and desperately hopes we decide to sign on the dotted line, right? What kind of a God is that? Clearly he is not only a weak god but also an unjust one. This simply flies in the face of what we know about God and His nature. God's love has an intimate and personal object. Those are His elect. The wonder of His salvation is that He personally pays for and applies it to each one. To limit the scope of Christ's sacrifice is not to weaken it, on the contrary, it is all the more powerful! Christ's sacrifice is holy and perfect for every single person He died for. That's the wonder and beauty of it! Yet, what use do we have for a Christ who sufferings are effectual for only a few and rejected by a multitude? Certainly He is not worthy of the title of Almighty God! I hope this brings things into perspective. God's holiness, justice, and sovereignty demands an all sufficient sacrifice and a universal atonement view of Christ's sufferings simply cannot provide that. Next post I would like to address this from a covenantal perspective.

God Bless,

Stanley

P.S. Thanks for reading my ramblings!