Introduction
When the Bible says Christ "gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:6), does it mean that He gave Himself as a ransom for all men without exception, as Arminians and Amyraldians assert, or simply all men without distinction (i.e., Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, rich and poor, male and female, etc.), as Calvinists argue? In other words, did He die for all men collectively or all men distributively (i.e., "men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Rev 5:9)? The answer to this question, I believe, lies at the very heart of the debate between advocates of limited and unlimited atonement. How one answers this question, to a large extent, determines the whole fabric of one's soteriology.Calvinists often insist that the term "all" in 1 Timothy 2:6, and related passages, must be understood in light of Christ's statement in Matthew 20:28 -- "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (i.e., the elect, not all men without exception). Thus "all" is understood as all of the elect, the "many" chosen "out of the world" and given to Christ by the Father (Jn 17:6).
Arminians and Amyraldians argue for the exact opposite understanding -- that the term "many" must be interpreted in light of the word "all." Therefore, "many" simply refers to the great number of souls that make up the entire human race. Indeed, a large portion of the Arminian defense of unlimited atonement is derived from this one basic assumption.
What becomes immediately apparent, however, is that neither of these interpretations can be proved by referring to these two passages alone. If this is all the criteria one uses, then either of these interpretations may be valid. The question that needs to be asked is this: Are there other verses which clearly demonstrate the meaning of the terms "all" and "many" as they relate to the nature or extent of the atonement? I believe there are a few passages of Scripture that most certainly do.
Primary New Testament Passage
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. Rom 5:18-19These verses basically show that all men represented by Adam must have imputed to them the consequence of Adam's sin, and likewise all the men represented by Christ must have imputed to them the consequence of His obedience. As "all" represented by Adam are made sinners, so "all" represented by Christ are made righteous. Further, those represented by Christ are designated in this passage by the same two terms in question -- "all" and "many."The important detail to note here is this: The "all" or "many" who were represented by Christ in His "one act of righteousness" (which can be none other than His substitutionary death for their sins) are the same group of people who are "made righteous" and receive "justification of life" (i.e., elect believers). In other words, according to this passage, all for whom Christ died shall also be justified. He was "made sin" (i.e., a sacrifice for sin) for those who "become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor 5:21). The two are inseparably linked together; the one inevitably follows the other. As Paul wrote earlier in the same letter, Christ was "delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification" (Rom 4:25). Clearly Christ died for the same group of people who will be justified. Again, that the benefits of the death and resurrection of Christ have an equal extent is evident from Romans 8:32-35 (where they are both put together):
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ?According to Scripture, Christ died for us, was raised for us, and intercedes for us ("God's elect" v. 33)! Therefore, it is quite clear that when Paul used the terms "all" and "many" in Romans 5:18-19, he used them to designate a select group of people -- those "chosen" by God for salvation (2 Thes 2:13).
The next passage I would like to consider (where the terms "all" and "many" are used in relation to the nature or extent of the atonement) is Isaiah 53:4-12. Primary Old Testament Passage
Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him...As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; by His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He will divide the booty with the strong; because He poured out Himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.In order to properly understand this great passage of Scripture, a number of points need to be noted:I. The personal pronouns "us," "we," and "our" in this passage all refer to the same group of people -- the "all" and "many" for whom the Messiah died. The context clearly demands this.
II. Thus, when it is said that the Messiah was "pierced through for our transgressions," and "crushed for our iniquities" (v. 5), it refers to the same group of people who are healed: "by His scourging we are healed" (v. 5). So, those whose sins the Messiah bore, are those who are also spiritually healed. Again, the context makes this clear. Jesus didn't die for any that He doesn't likewise heal! Further, this interpretation is emphatically confirmed by the Apostle Peter. Writing to those who are "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father" and "sprinkled with His blood" (1 Pet 1:1-2), Peter declares:
...and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls. 1 Peter 2:24-25Peter was obviously alluding to Isaiah 53:5-6 in this passage, and clearly confirms that those whose sins Christ bore on the cross, are those who are also spiritually healed (i.e., God's elect). The one follows the other as surely as night follows day.III. Likewise, the "many" who will be justified, are identified as the same group whose iniquities the Messiah bore -- "My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities" (v. 11). This can be none other than the elect, for only the elect are effectually "called," "justified," and ultimately "glorified" (Rom 8:29-39). Thus, when Isaiah wrote, "the Lord has caused the iniquities of us all to fall on Him" (v. 6), the context demands that "us all" be understood as all of the elect -- His "sheep" who have gone astray (v. 6; cf. 1 Pet 2:25). This also indicates that when Jesus said, "I lay down My life for the sheep" (Jn 10:15), He meant just that! He layed down His life on behalf of His sheep, not for those who are not of His sheep (see Jn 10:26). Christ's "sheep" have been entrusted to His care by the Father (Jn 6:37,39; 17:1-26); and the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep alone -- not for the "wolves" (Jn 10:12), the "goats" (Matt 25:31-33), or the "dogs" (2 Pet 2:22):
I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is the hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them." John 10:11-12Jesus made this point quite clear: "For their sakes [i.e., those given to Christ by the Father; vv. 2, 6] I sanctify Myself" (Jn 17:19). So, according to Scripture, Christ died for His sheep, and for His sheep alone!IV. Finally, the "many" whose sins Christ bore, are said to be the same group of people on whose behalf He intercedes: "Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors" (v. 12). Christ's death and intercession are of equal extent in their object. Paul writes, "Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us [the "elect" v. 33]" (Rom 8:34). Scripture declares: "Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them" (Heb 7:25). Christ intercedes on behalf of His elect -- those whose sins He bore. Yet, Scripture plainly declares that Christ does not intercede on behalf of all men without exception: "I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You gave Me; for they are Yours" (Jn 17:9). Christ's intercession is not for the world at large, but only for those His Father gave Him "out of the world" (Jn 17:6) -- which does not include all men without exception (see Jn 17:14).
This can also be seen in Christ's High Priesthood on our behalf. The two functions of His priestly office, oblation and presentation, cannot be separated; they are coextensive. Those who have part in the former have part in the latter also. Scripture declares that Christ has entered the heavenly sanctuary "as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek" (Heb 6:20). Christ Our High Priest
For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself now to appear in the presence of God for us. Heb 9:24Who will bring a charge against God's elect?...Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. Rom 8:33-34The context of these passages makes it clear that the personal pronoun "us" refers to believers alone ("God's elect" Rom 8:33). Indeed, the book of Hebrews is specifically addressed to the "holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling" (Heb 3:1). Thus, Christ died for us, was raised for us, intercedes for us, and has entered the heavenly sanctuary by His blood "to appear in the presence of God for us" (Heb 9:24). All of these acts have equal reference as to their object, and are said to be accomplished by Christ on behalf of elect believers alone!But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. Heb 9:11-12Christ "obtained" eternal redemption for those whom He died, and "intercedes" for us on the sole basis of His shed blood. He didn't merely make redemption possible, or provide the means for redemption; He actually obtained eternal redemption for His elect people. Christ was "manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb 9:26). Clearly this was not for all men without exception, for millions of people will suffer the eternal penalty for their sins (e.g., Eph 5:5-6; 1 Tim 5:24). No, rather the context of this passage makes it clear that Christ was "offered once to bear the sins of many" (Heb 9:28). Christ "put away" the sins of His elect people, not all men without exception. According to Scripture, only those "chosen" by the Father are "sprinkled" with Christ's blood (1 Pet 1:1-2). In other words, Christ's blood sanctifies all for whom it was shed. That's why the writer of Hebrews declared: "By this will we have been sanctified [elect believers, not all men] through the body of Jesus Christ once for all...For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (Heb 10:10,14).
As we can see, the context of numerous passages of Scripture limit the terms "all" and "many" (as they relate to the nature of Christ's atonement, resurrection, intercession, etc.) to God's elect people. The purpose of Christ's death was not merely to make mankind savable -- to render salvation possible -- but to actually "save His people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). Christ said, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many [not all] for forgiveness of sins" (Matt 26:28). And the writer of Hebrews declares: God's Purpose in the Atonement
For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Heb 9:15Christ died for a specific reason -- so that those who are "called" and have been "predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom 8:28-29), may "receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." As mentioned before, Scripture declares that Christ justifies all for whom He died: "My Servant, will justify the many, as He will bear their iniquities" (Isa 53:11). "He was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification" (Rom 4:25). We have been "justified by His blood" (Rom 5:9).According to Paul, Christ died "so that they who live [i.e., elect believers] might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf" (2 Cor 5:14-15). Some have attempted to use this passage in support of universal atonement, since verse 14 states: "For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died." But clearly the term "all" here must be limited to all of the elect, for the context supplied by the very next verse makes it clear that Christ died and rose again on behalf of "they that live," which can only refer to those who are the beneficiaries of eternal life (see Jn 5:24; Rom 6:4). Further, Paul explicitly taught elsewhere that all who died with Christ, shall also live with Christ:
For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him. 2 Tim 2:10-11If we died with Christ, "we will also live with Him" (not might or could, but will)! There's no possibility that anyone who has died with Christ will not also live with Christ. Therefore, when Paul wrote, "one died for all, therefore all died" (2 Cor 5:14), he was clearly limiting the extent of the atonement to elect believers -- to all who "no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf" (v. 15). The elect, and the elect alone, were united with Christ (judicially and positionally) in His death and resurrection. So, once again, we see that the atonement is limited to God's elect -- to "those who are chosen" (2 Tim 2:10). As Dr. James White points out:The death of Christ obtained eternal redemption, not possibly, but with certainty. The elect were joined with Christ so that no possibility exists of their not receiving the benefits of their being joined to Christ. He procured actual forgiveness of sins in their place.1Thus, if all who have died in union with Christ shall also live with Christ, then His atoning death could not possibly have been made for all men without exception.Again, Paul says Christ "gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds" (Tit 2:14). This is taught over and over again in Scripture. "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save [not merely make savable] that which was lost" (Lk 19:10). "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1 Tim 1:15). Christ's atonement actually accomplishes its intended purpose -- to save and make righteous those for whom it was made:
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 2 Cor 5:21The personal pronouns "our" and "we" in this verse clearly refer to believers, for only believers "become the righteousness of God" in Christ (see also Rom 3:21-26). Thus, Christ was made "sin" on behalf of elect believers alone, not all men without exception! As Paul declares elsewhere, "God demonstrates His own love toward us [elect believers, v. 1], in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom 5:8).Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father. Gal 1:3-4But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Gal 4:4-5The purpose of God in the cross, then, is clearly seen -- not to make salvation merely possible (i.e., a theoretical atonement), but to actually save, to redeem, to sanctify, to make righteous, etc. Christ did not simply effect a method of reconciliation by His atonement, but actually reconciled those for whom it was made:For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. Rom 5:10Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us. Gal 3:13In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace. Eph 1:7For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. Eph 2:14-16And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach. Col 1:21-22Knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things...but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 1 Pet 1:18-19Scripture is very clear on this point: The atonement of Christ actually secured salvation for those whom it was made. Christ's death actually saves His people from their sins, redeems them from the curse of the Law, and reconciles them to God the Father! Christ's sacrifice is said to justify, purify, and sanctify elect believers from all unrighteousness! (Note: I'm well aware that the benefits secured by Christ's death and resurrection are only applied to the lives of elect sinners when they believe. I'm simply underscoring the fact that if Christ's blood actually saves, redeems, and reconciles, then it absolutely must be applied to all for whom it was shed, otherwise it was not a real or actual atonement, but only a potential one). As Dr. James White points out, "If Christ became a curse in our behalf (Gal. 3:13) and if He sacrificially bore in His body on the tree our sins (1 Peter 2:24), there is only one possible result: the perfect salvation of all those for whom Christ died."2
The theory of a general or universal atonement is completely incompatible with this clearly revealed design and purpose of Christ's death, burial and resurrection. If Christ's death actually effected a real reconciliation between God and man, and Christ died for all men without exception, then the whole world [i.e., every man] must be reconciled to God. Thus, to be consistent, the doctrine of universal atonement necessarily involves a universal salvation too. If it is argued that Christ's death merely provided a mode of reconciliation, or a medium of acceptance, then how can Scripture speak of men as actually being reconciled to God by the death of Christ? Dr. James P. Boyce comments: Inherent Problems with Universal Atonement
In what proper sense can Christ be said to have borne our sins, and to have been wounded for our transgressions, if his act was merely the arrangement of a medium for salvation? Christ, to make atonement, must have been substituted in our place, borne our sins, had imputed to him our trespasses, and the chastisement of our peace must have been upon him. But, if so, a true atonement must have been made. It could not have been the mere arrangement of a medium of salvation. It must have been salvation itself. And, if for all, all must be saved...This theory [of universal atonement] is inconsistent with one of the facts admitted by its advocates [i.e., Amyraldians]; that the death of Christ was a penal sacrifice. Penalty and guilt have no respect to sin in the abstract, but only to it as associated with sinners. If the work of atonement simply wrought out a medium of access, then it was a mere general exhibition of God's hatred of sin, having no respect to particular persons. On the governmental theory that such an arrangement was necessary simply to display before the universe the evil of sin, this idea of atonement might be allowed. But on the theory of satisfaction to justice, the atonement must be made by a penal sacrifice...This theory, like all others of a general atonement, lies under the difficulty that it extends reconciliation, or a medium of reconciliation, to persons, who by death have been confirmed in destruction, or it shuts off from its benefits all who have died before Christ. The theory of limited atonement recognizes all who are included in it as saved by virtue of it. The virtue secured, therefore, is applied to all to whom it belongs. The fact that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, or, in other words, the certainty of Christ's death, makes salvation beforehand possible, and permits God to bestow it. The death of Christ only fulfills what has thus been relied on. But in the case of a general atonement made for the whole race, we have Christ dying, not simply for those who shall not be saved, but for those who are already damned.3The last point made by Dr. Boyce needs to be stressed again: A general or universal theory of the atonement requires that millions of lost souls were paying the penalty for their sins in hell at the very same time that Christ was paying the penalty for their sins on Calvary. Incredible! C. H. Spurgeon, the great Baptist preacher and soul winner of the 19th century, cut right to the heart of the matter when he said:There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. Once again, if it was Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!4A further problem with the theory of universal atonement is pointed out by Dr. James White. After quoting Paul's statement, "I have been crucified with Christ...who loved me and gave Himself up for me" (Gal 2:20), he makes the following apt observations:Consider for a moment how precious it is that the Christian can say, "I have been crucified with Christ." This is personal atonement, personal substitution. We revel in the awesome love of our Savior who loved us as individuals and gave Himself up for us. For me! Me, the hate-filled sinner who spurned Him and His love!...But let us ask this question: can the justly condemned sinner who stands upon the parapets of hell in eternity to come, screaming in hatred toward the halls of heaven, say, "I was crucified with Christ! He loved me and gave Himself up for me!" Surely not! Can such a person say, "My sins have been punished twice! First they were perfectly atoned for on the cross of Christ, and now I am undergoing punishment for them again in hell!" The very idea causes us to recoil in horror. You see, particular redemption means personal redemption. Christ died in my place, not generically, but individually. What a glorious Savior!...The salvation of the elect is therefore certain...because God's decree makes the elect a reality (even before we, who live long after the cross, are born) so that they can be intimately joined with Christ in His death upon the cross. As Paul said, "I have been crucified with Christ." This is the statement of every one of the redeemed, but may we never teach that this is a statement that can be uttered by the rebel God-hater in hell!...5Dr. White's comments are even more weighty when we remember that, according to Scripture, if we have died with Christ we will also live with Christ (2 Tim 2:10-11), which clearly does not apply to the lost sinner who is in hell (Lk 16:19-31) or to those who are destined for hell (Jude 4; 1 Pet 2:8).Finally, if Christ actually paid the penalty for the sins of all mankind on the cross, then why aren't all men saved? If God's wrath against the sins of all men has truly been satisfied by Christ's substitutionary atonement, then how can anyone be condemned? John Owen stated the dilemma this way:
God imposed His wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?" Ps. cxxx. 3. We might all go to cast all that we have "to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty," Isa. ii. 20, 21. If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe." But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.6The force of Owens logic is inescapable. I have yet to see a satisfactory answer for the questions he raises. Personally, I see no way around his argument, and must concur with his conclusion. Unbelief is clearly a sin (see Rom 14:23). Indeed, God commands us to believe in His Son: "This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ" (1Jn 3:23). So, refusal to believe in Christ is an act of flagrant disobedience and rebellion against the Most High. It is sin on the most basic level. Thus, if Christ died for all the sins of all men, God could never justly condemn anyone for sin! All men would be saved! For how could God justly condemn a man, when Christ has already suffered God's wrath against his sins (even his sin of unbelief) on the cross?A careful comparison of the two views reveals that one has an atonement that actually redeems those for whom it was made (the elect), while the other only makes redemption a possibility (a mere hypothetical atonement) that is totally dependent on something that man must do for its success. In other words, the theory of universal atonement has, (1) a redemption that does not actually redeem but leaves many for whom it was made eternally still in their bondage, (2) it has a reconciliation that still leaves many eternally unreconciled to God and in their sin, (3) a substitutionary death that still leaves the sinner eternally without forgiveness of sins and forever lost in hell, and (4) a propitiation that leaves some for whom it was made eternally under the wrath of God! The meaning of the above four words would have to be radically changed or emptied of their biblical content in order to believe in a universal atonement.
The Bible clearly teaches that the atonement of Christ is limited to believers alone. He died for the sins of His "people" (Matt 1:21; Titus 2:13-14), His "sheep" (Jn 10:11-15), His "church" (Acts 20:28; Eph 5:2, 25-27), His "elect" (Rom 8:32-34), and the "many" (Isa 53:11; Matt 20:28) whom God had "given" to Him (Jn 6:39; 10:26-29). Not one sin is left unpaid for those whom God has chosen: "For Christ died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us [those "who are chosen" cf. 1 Pet 1:1] to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit" (1 Pet 3:18). No one can "bring a charge against God's elect" (Rom 8:33), for Christ has "obtained eternal redemption" for His people (Heb 9:12)! Conclusion
Therefore, when Scripture uses the terms "all" and "many" in relation to the nature or extent of the atonement (or other such indefinite terms), they should be understood to mean "all" of God's elect or chosen people. The Bible clearly teaches that Christ died for "all" men without distinction (i.e., Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, rich and poor, male and female, etc.). In other words, He died for the sins of the "whole world" (1 Jn 2:2). But it cannot be maintained that He died for "all" men without exception. It is without dispute that He died for "all" men distributively (i.e., "men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation" Rev 5:9), but not for "all" men collectively (elect and non-elect alike). The Scriptural evidence, taken as a whole (rather than a few select verses), clearly reveals that the atonement of Christ was limited or definite in its purpose -- that it was effected to actually save those for whom it was made, the elect of God.
1. James R. White, The Potter's Freedom (Calvary Press Publishing, 2000), pp. 269-270. End Notes
3. James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Reprinted by the den Dulk Christian Foundation, Copyright 1887, James Petigru Boyce), pp. 314-315.
4. C. H. Spurgeon, A Defense of Calvinism (Online article at http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm).
6. John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Reprinted by Banner of Truth Trust, 1968), pp. 61-62.
