# The particular "L"



## panta dokimazete (Nov 27, 2006)

I have found that I have much success discussing TULIP with my Baptist brothers, as long as I avoid the "L" in TULIP - that is - Limited Atonement really seems to stick in their craw.

I am forced to look for alternatives that will allow me to keep the acrostic and still convey the same context.

I have searched for synonyms and other "close" words - the best I could come up with is LINEAL.

lin‧e‧al  /ˈlɪniəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lin-ee-uhl] 

–adjective
1.	being in the direct line, as a descendant or ancestor, or in a direct line, as descent or succession.
2.	of or transmitted by lineal descent.

Lineal Redemption?
Lineal Atonement?

Help!


----------



## polemic_turtle (Nov 27, 2006)

"Limited" sounds bad; it's better to use the phrase "definite atonement" or "particular redemption". I particularly favor the latter.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 28, 2006)

TUPIP, then?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 28, 2006)

Yeah - I wanna keep the "L"...


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 28, 2006)

so - no ideas?

I was hoping the "brain trust" could help out...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 28, 2006)

"L" Lovely Doctrine

"L" Lord God Almighty

"L" Life Blood

"L" Life in Christ Only

"L" Last Chance to Get TULIP right  

There is probably a few things you could title it and then EXPLAIN it really well. If they hate it after you biblically demonstrate it then pray for them, and let them know you are.


----------



## Timothy William (Nov 29, 2006)

The "L" is in some ways the easiest point to explain. Ask a believer why they are saved and the most common response will be "because Christ died for me." Which says it all really. Try not to worry too much about the acrostic. Once they see that they are saved because Christ died for them, even if they refuse to fully acknowledge it, they will be more (or fully) convinced of the other four points. After that the "L" will fall into place. Don't expect one clever line from you to make all the difference, but if you keep chipping away at their defensive arguments then, if they are true believers, they will acknowledge the truth eventually.


----------



## AV1611 (Nov 29, 2006)

*A Paper I delivered to students at Durham Presbyte*

*The Death of Christ

By Richard J Sherratt*​
The doctrine of limited atonement follows logically from the previous two doctrines we have already looked at, as I hope will become evident as I progress. It is my intention to show forth from the word of God that when Christ died he died for the elect alone. This I shall do twofold: Firstly by showing that the very nature of the death of Christ necessitates a death limited in extent, and secondly by showing that the Scriptures themselves emphasise that the death of Christ was limited in extent. With this in mind I intend to divide my talk thus:

I.	The NATURE of the death of Christ, and
II. The EXTENT of the death of Christ.

So first; THE NATURE OF Christ’S DEATH. 

*(a)* The Scriptures set forth the atoning work of Christ as being propitiation, reconciliation, a ransom and redemption. All of these may be summed up as satisfaction. This is the key idea which is contained in all the scriptural terms describing the atonement:

_Propitiation: _this means to ‘pacify’ or ‘appease’ and is used in 1 John 4:10 . It presupposes wrath and the purpose of propitiation is the removal of this wrath, i.e. the justice of God is appeased and God has been satisfied. 

_Reconcilliation: _ Romans 5:10 states that “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son”. This emphasises our separation from God which was caused by sin. Our reconciliation with God is only possible because the demand of the righteousness and justice of God is totally met, i.e. satisfied.

_Redemption:_ this presupposes bondage and is the delivery of someone from bondage by the intervention of a ransom price. When in Mark 10:45 we are told that Christ came “to give his life a ransom for many” it means that Christ satisfied the demand of him who set the ransom-price. And so Christians are said to have been “bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20). The death of Christ satisfies God and so redeems us from the curse of the Law – its penal sanctions.

Now consider, if satisfaction for the debt of sin is made for any man, then that man's debt of sin and guilt is gone. From the moment that satisfaction has been made, that debt is forever removed from before the bar of God's justice. Hence God, for the sake of His own righteousness and justice cannot hold that debt against the man for whose debt satisfaction has been made. His debt is gone from before God, his debt of punishment has been discharged by his Surety. 

*(b)* So we see that the death of Christ was satisfactory. But more, it was vicarious (1 Peter 2:24 ). Because of our total depravity we are wholly unable to make satisfaction for ourselves. Christ died not for himself upon the cross but as a substitute for others. We read in Isaiah that he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, bearing the sin of many. This I hold sufficiently show that Christ died as a substitute for others. (In Isaiah 53 we find substitution and intercession linked but I will come onto that later)

*(c)* Finally, the death of Christ was efficacious. It actually accomplished something – its intended effect. The death of Christ was to make vicarious satisfaction. By his death it was intended to make satisfaction for the sins of those for whom he died, he died for many to make satisfaction for many and that satisfaction has been obtained, he has taken away their sin. Their right to all the blessings of salvation was forever established there, at the cross.

Now keeping all that I have said in mind I turn now to my final section; THE EXTENT OF Christ’S DEATH. Now if we put together the scriptural ideas that the atonement was satisfactory, vicarious and efficacious, then we cannot but conclude that those who were included in the atonement have had all their debt removed having been redeemed, ransomed and reconciled, which means that all those who were included in the atonement are saved. This accomplished salvation wrought upon the cross is then only applied to those who were included in Christ’s death through God giving them faith. Now God only gives faith to his elect and so only the elect are included in the atonement. And so, the answer to the question as to just who were included in the atonement? is that it is the elect alone, i.e. those God chose before the foundation of the world and whom he gave to Christ (John 6:37-39 ). This is taught in the following verses: 

*I.* Matthew 1:21 “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.” 

*II. *Acts 20:28 “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” 

*III.* Ephesians 5:25 “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;” 

All of the elect God gave to Christ and for each and every one did he lay down his life, and for them alone. They were in Christ at the cross some nineteen hundred years ago. Hence we read in Isaiah 53 that “when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed” – his Church, his elect, those for whom he was dying. But more, Christ shall see the travail of his soul and be satisfied knowing that in bearing their iniquity he shall justify them. Yet if Christ died for all and not all are saved, Christ can hardly be said to see the travail of his soul and be satisfied as was promised for what possible satisfaction can he have when he sees his labour, with respect to the reprobate, all wasted labour? (J. Gill)

Now as I mentioned earlier about substitution and intercession, Isaiah shows that they are linked saying “he bare the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” Therefore, Christ’s priestly work of offering himself as a sacrifice for sin implies the complementary truth that as a priest, he makes intercession for all those for whom he offered himself up. In his High-Priestly prayer he prays “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.” (John 17:9-10) God gave a people to Christ and he came to purchase those whom are his, and for these alone does he intercede.
Finally I turn to John 10:11, 14-18, 24-29. A close look at the text results in our discovery of two groups. Those whom he calls ‘sheep’, and those who are not his sheep. Who are those Christ calls his sheep? The answer lies in verse 29 where Christ states “My Father, which gave them me”. So we learn that the sheep are those whom the Father gave him – the elect - and it was for these sheep alone that Christ died. Hence in verse 10 “I am the good Shepherd” so Christ is the good shepherd and as such he “giveth his life for the sheep”. This same truth is stated again in verse 15: “I lay down my life for the sheep”. And yet there are some who Christ addresses as “not of my sheep” and for these Christ did not die. Here in these verses we see plainly how Christ’s atonement was made solely for the sheep as the context draws a sharp contrast between those who are his sheep, and for whom he died, and those who are not his sheep, and for whom he did not die.

*Summary*
I have shown that the very nature of the death of Christ necessitates a death limited in extent and also that the Scriptures themselves emphasise that the death of Christ was limited in extent.

“Complete atonement Thou hast made, And to the utmost farthing paid Whate'er Thy people owed: Nor can His wrath on me take place, If sheltered in Thy righteousness, And sprinkled with Thy blood. If Thou hast my discharge procured, And freely in my room endured The whole of wrath divine: Payment God cannot twice demand, First at my wounded Surety's hand, And then again at mine.” – Augustus Toplady

Date finished: 13 April 2006


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 29, 2006)

ok, then! Thanks for everyone's help - I like the acrostic because it is a good teaching tool and an entry point for a discussion on the Doctrines of Grace.

The principles of the 5 Solas and TULIP have been invaluable to me on my journey - this "simple complexity" led me to search and dig for deeper and deeper doctrinal understanding, so I have a bit of allegiance to the tool. 

-pax-

-JD


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 29, 2006)

Literal (as opposed to probable) 
Loving 
Large
Liberating (a good theological illustration)
Law keeping
Leagued
Life-giving


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 29, 2006)

> Good suggestions, Patrick. It made me think of these:
> 
> _Lawful Atonement_-It would be unLawful if it were _intended _for all men, but only _effectual_ for some.
> 
> ...



Actually the credit should probably be given to John Owen


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 29, 2006)

[mumble]
Why didn't I think of that???  
[/mumble]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 29, 2006)

Puritan Sailor said:


> [mumble]
> Why didn't I think of that???
> [/mumble]



Why do you wish _you_ would have thought of it - do you wish you could take _credit_ for it or something?  Of course, even then the credit would go to God in His providence!


----------



## JohnV (Nov 29, 2006)

JD:

How 'bout "listed", as in "listed in the book of life"?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 30, 2006)

jdlongmire said:


> I have found that I have much success discussing TULIP with my Baptist brothers, as long as I avoid the "L" in TULIP - that is - Limited Atonement really seems to stick in their craw.
> 
> I am forced to look for alternatives that will allow me to keep the acrostic and still convey the same context.



You know, just thinking out loud here... Arminians do believe in a limited atonement. Just ask your freinds if they are universalists. If they deny it, then simply, show them that even they limit the application of the atonement to only those who believe. That will get past the rhetoric to the real issue, how you receive of Christ's benefits. By grace or by human effort? Or you can get even deeper and ask, what was secured by the atonement? Everything we need for salvation (including the gift of faith)? Or only part of what we need?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 30, 2006)

Good ideas, all! 

Just to keep the focus clear, I hope to keep the "L" tied to the atonement/redemption qualifier.

I liked "literal atonement" and considered it early on, since it speaks to purposeful sufficient redemption. What is the antonym of literal? Figurative?

fig‧ur‧a‧tive  /ˈfɪgyərətɪv/ –adjective

1.	of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, esp. a metaphor; metaphorical; not literal: a figurative expression.
2.	metaphorically so called: His remark was a figurative boomerang.
3.	abounding in or fond of figures of speech: Elizabethan poetry is highly figurative.
4.	representing by means of a figure or likeness, as in drawing or sculpture.
5.	representing by a figure or emblem; emblematic.

As in - if you don't buy into a literal and purposeful atonement , you must believe that Christ death was just figurative - representing redemption, but not effective without some other factor?

One of the thoughts I had while pondering this is that the term "limited" is the potential stumbling block for folk - as in - "You can't limit God!" - but in some sense, does God not limit Himself? - that is - God cannot sin, so He is limited in that wonderfully holy way...just wondering if that might be the entry point for a rebuttal...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 30, 2006)

Great ideas JD. You could also take them through the biblical examples and definition of redemption. People are actually bought and freed, not potentially bought and freed. How could a man potentially redeem his kinsman?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 30, 2006)

Thanks, PS - also - is there anything other than particular, literal and limited redemption exhibited in the OT?

Or to ask another way - is there any example of a universal atonement exhibited or prophesied in the OT? 

unless I have somehow missed it (and I don't think I have) - the answer is a resounding "No!"

Even the disciples struggled to understand (initially) that the redemption was less limited that they thought (outside of the Jews), but still understood it to be limited/particular.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 30, 2006)

How about *L.* Atonement as in:

"Rich's sin was atoned for by Christ's perfect sacrifice by Cross."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 30, 2006)

...or I suppose you could go with *Longmire* Atonement if you wanted to be narcissistic. 

I teach SS at my SBC too. I teach the Doctrines of Grace all the time. I avoid the usually loaded terminology. The TULIP acrostic is nice but it's just an aid for remembering the term.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 30, 2006)

Speaking of narcissism...I noticed you put *your* name first... 

Yes - I do understand the acrostic is just a tool, but it is a good tool - particularly when you comapre the TULIP with the Arminian Daisy (He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me...).

Rich, it is good to hear that you teach the DoG at your SBC - have you run into any opposition?


----------



## reformedman (Nov 30, 2006)

> I have found that I have much success discussing TULIP with my Baptist brothers, as long as I avoid the "L" in TULIP - that is - Limited Atonement really seems to stick in their craw.
> 
> I am forced to look for alternatives that will allow me to keep the acrostic and still convey the same context.



If the phrase or term "Limited Atonement" were the problem and you want to teach through an acronym, have you thought of using a different acrostic?

R-O-S-E-S to represent radical depravity, overcoming grace, sovereign election, eternal life and singular redemption. 

There are others by the way, but just thought your answer might lie in thinking outside the Tulip.

edit-- forgot to encapsulate into quote. fixed


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 30, 2006)

ROSES, huh? hmmm...


----------



## Timothy William (Dec 1, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> How about *L.* Atonement as in:
> 
> "Rich's sin was atoned for by Christ's perfect sacrifice by Cross."


That's about the best description I have heard. The "L" comes down to simply "Christ paid for my sins on the Cross." All else is just elaboration.

If only my surname started with an "L".


----------



## Magma2 (Dec 4, 2006)

A rose by any other name . . . .

I don't think it matters what you call it. I had a Baptist take strong issue over the "error" of election this past week which turned into a friendly debate. I don't think he cared what it's called, he just didn't like it. The one blessing is that, unlike some Baptists I've met, he has a very high view of logic and the Scriptures. My guess (and prayer) is he won't be so hostile in the future and our debate bears fruit.


----------



## reformedman (Dec 4, 2006)

I said it before in an older thread but I think it's pertinent here also. I've opended the gospel many times through many years with so many people and have found that when I describe it as a doctrine, or that it is found of a particular faith or group, that it really only raises a red-flag with people. It's a real turn off to call it a doctrine or associate it with a group of people. 

I would like to know if there is anyone out there who agrees with me that plainly showing verses in the bible that illustrate limited atonement is better. I think it's best to just show the veses of the bible that show how careful God was in his election and that it wasn't a spurious or haphazard election whereby he just sent Christ to die for everyone and left it up for all of us to decide our eternal destiny. That God carefully chose us and sent Christ to die for those particular people is what's shown in scriptures (such as John 10 compare v.26).

Anyone agree? or do you think calling it a doctrine and then laying them out point by point is better?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2006)

jdlongmire said:


> Speaking of narcissism...I noticed you put *your* name first...
> 
> Yes - I do understand the acrostic is just a tool, but it is a good tool - particularly when you comapre the TULIP with the Arminian Daisy (He loves me, He loves me not, He loves me...).
> 
> Rich, it is good to hear that you teach the DoG at your SBC - have you run into any opposition?



Not really. I get good responses to it. Some don't always understand it and it hasn't sunk in but I developed in them a _respect_ for the Word of God and they know they have to submit to that first. I've even gone so far as to argue strongly against the SBC ban on alchohol consumption. In one case, one of the women (about 50 yrs old) mentioned her father had quit drinking alchohol as a condition of being a deacon and I was able to express that it was not a Biblical condition that the SBC had placed on him. She was not offended. I think it's how you go about it sometimes.

All the sermons I had to deliver some time back were well received. You can read them on the links below. Honestly, many SBC folks are just _starving_ for good teaching.

http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/08/06/04.01.08
http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/07/30/05.43.03
http://www.solideogloria.com/story/2006/07/21/01.09.30


----------

