Unlimited Limited Atonement Part 2

First, I will start off by briefly explaining the view called unlimited atonement and give some of the scripture passages that are used to support it (it will not be an extensive list; only the verses that present the strongest argument). Now, before I begin, it must be noted that I am coming at the argument from the view point that the atonement was one of penal substitution. There are those Arminians who hold to what is called a governmental theory of the atonement. Recognizing the problem of a universal atonement that teaches a penal substitution theory, this scheme was birthed by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) who sought an intermediate theory between the moral-example view of the Socianians and the penal substitution view of the Calvinist. I will not diverge in a full explanation of this theory because of time and space. However, if anyone wants to hear more about it, just let me know and I will write on it later. For the time being, it will do to say that I reject that theory, and so do most of the people who are involved in the unlimited/limited atonement debate.

Unlimited Atonement: Unlimited atonement argues that Christ died for the sins of every individual person who would ever live. Thus, the atonement only made salvation possible, not certain, for those to whom it is offered. The design and purpose of the atonement was to save all men.

John 1:29- The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
It is argued that in light of the context and other usage of the word “world” in John’s gospel, it is evident that the text does not mean the elect only, but all human beings.

John 3:16-17- For God so loved the world, that he gave is only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.
Those who hold to unlimited atonement emphatically state that it is plain as day that God loves the world and gave his Son to die for the world. These verses also make it clear that the “world” here means the “whole fallen world”- the same world that is under God’s condemnation.

2 Corinthians 5:14-19- Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died…..God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them….And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. (vv. 14, 19, 15).
The reconciliation of all, argues the unlimited atonement advocates, did not guarantee the salvation of all, but the savability of all. On the basis of what Christ accomplished on the cross, believers are to plead with the world to be reconciled to God (vs. 20). Thus, the reconciliation mentioned here makes salvation possible. The “world” here refers to all men, not just the elect. Furthermore, it says he “died for all”- every individual person, not just the elect.

1 Timothy 2:3-4- God our Savior….wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
Those who hold to unlimited atonement assert that there is not much to be argued with here. “All men” refers to “all men”, thus expressing God’s saving intent for every person.

1 Timothy 2:6- Christ….gave himself as a ransom for all men.
This scripture, they argue, affirms that Christ paid the price for the sins of everyone.

1 Timothy 4:10- For this we labor and strive, that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.
This passage refers to two groups, and the fact that the word “believe” is used here indicates that this passage is used in a soteriological manner. The narrow group are the ones “who believe”- the ones who are actually saved. The broader group- “all men”, is an indication that Christ is in a sense the Savior of every single person. This is because God “desires all men to be saved” (vs. 4).
As stated earlier, this is not an extensive list of verses, but merely some of the main ones that are used by the proponents of unlimited atonement to defend their view. The next post will be the explanation and scriptural defense of limited atonement. If anyone wants to read further on the position of unlimited atonement, I would recommend reading the works of James Arminius himself, and Norman Geisler’s Systematic Theology: Vol. 3- Sin and Salvation.