Universal atonement or Limited atonement

The issue on this topic is for whose benefit does Christ die? Who did Christ appease with God when He died on the cross? Who did Christ substitute on the cross? These are few questions that frequently asked when discussed the above topic. The Arminians would confidently utter that Christ died on the cross was for the benefit of all sinners and Christ appeased with God all sinners and He was the substitution of all sinners. The Arminians argue that Christ died not only for a group of people but for all sinners including Esau and Judas Iscariot. When Christ died He atoned for everyone and though Christ offered forgiveness to all sinners, yet not everyone is willing to accept that offer. The Scriptural supports often quoted by the Arminians are such as 1 Jn 2:2 “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world”; “this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world” (Jn. 4:42); etc. The universal redemption was in view when these verses read by the Arminians.

Calvinism on the other hand argues that Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only though the forgiveness and eternal life were offered to all sinners, yet this work of Christ is only to secure the salvation of those whom God chose before the foundation of the world. When Christ offered Himself to die on the cross, it was efficient only for the elect. As Khoo rightly commented, “Christ both procured and secured the salvation of the elect. He had in mind His chosen ones when He died on the cross. His atoning work on the cross was specifically and specially for them.” Steel said it in this way, “Christ’s redeeming work was definite in design and accomplishment – that it was intended to render complete satisfaction for certain specified sinners and that it actually secured salvation for these individuals and for no one else.” Christ was a substitutionary atonement of the elect people only. The work of redemption was designed in order to bring to pass the purpose of God’s election.

Having seen the comparison of the two views, the question is raised, if the atoning work of Christ was designed only for the elect, why does the Bible say that Christ died for the world? To this, Augustine said that “Christ’s death was Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.” God desires that everyone would come to the knowledge and faith of the Lord Jesus Christ. As Peter wrote, “The Lord is not lack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 2:9). The same desire is expressed in the writing of apostle John that God is truly love the world, when he wrote, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (Jn. 3:16). It is because Christ died sufficiently for the World that the gospel is preached and offered not only to elect but to anyone. The effect of Christ’s atoning work was limited only for those whom God elected. Khoo rightly concludes,

In discussing the third point of Calvinism, namely, limited atonement, we are addressing the intent, not the extent of the atonement. It needs to be reiterated that a correct understanding of Calvin’s doctrine of the atonement requires one to accept that the atonement of Christ is “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.