By 
Sweat drips from the walls of a small basement packed with six dozen high school students. The room smells of raw fish and socks in the aftermath of several wild games, but the sounds of screaming girls and laughing boys has given away to a single voice. A Young Life leader is giving an impassioned talk about Jesus’ death on the cross. He is nearing the end of his seven-minute gospel proclamation and the emotional climax of the message. With tears running down his face he looks up from his notes and locks eyes with a student. “Christ died for you.” Silence lingers for a moment. He shifts his gaze to another and repeats himself, “Christ died for you.” Twice more, and then he concludes with a few summary comments and a prayer.
Another leader comes up to give few announcements as they finish club. It won’t be long until “good 4 u” by Olivia Rodrigo is again blasting through speakers. The girls will return to their screaming and the boys to their laughing, except for one. He still lingers in the silence, pondering the statement that Young Life leader said to him. Did Christ really die for me?
The goal of this paper is to join this student in his silence and this Young Life leader in his club talk preparation as they consider for whom Christ died. We will explore the limits of God’s intent in the atonement and its implications for evangelism. In short, it aims to discern whether Biblically sound soteriology warrants the statement “Christ died for you” in gospel proclamation. Three different views will be considered: universalism, general atonement, and definite atonement. Ultimately this paper will argue that the classic Reformed understanding of definite atonement gives a better basis for clear gospel proclamation and would exchange the phrase “Christ died for you” for something more helpful and precise.
I. Defining Biblical Soteriology
Soteriology is the branch of systematic theology which studies the doctrine of salvation. Theology develops out of a close reading of the Bible. It organizes the facts of Scripture into logical categories to make the faith as clear and easy to apply as possible. Scripture is clear: salvation originates in God, is planned by God, is accomplished by God, is applied to believers by God, and is for God’s own glory.
God is the Lord and the God of salvation. This is how he reveals himself to Moses (Ex 3:8). This is how he identifies himself in the preface to the ten commandments (Ex 20:2). Prophecies and psalms uniformly identify God as the source of salvation (Ps 62:1, 103:12, Jonah 2:9) and as being salvation himself (Ps 35:3, 62:2, 69:19, Isa 12:2). More than that, salvation is rooted in who God is. God commands Jospeh to name his only begotten Son Jesus, which means “the Lord saves” (Mt 1:21).
While the Bible opens with creation, elsewhere Scripture points to events and decisions made before creation came to be. Paul notes that God chose “us” (specifically, himself and the Ephesian Christians, but broadly, all who believe in Christ) “before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4). This pre-creation choosing is called election. God has chosen all those he will save (Mk 13:20). This selection was made as a covenant between the three Persons of the Godhead.1 The Father promises to give the Son a people for whom he will accomplish redemption. The Son earns the salvation of his people through his obedience and is given the name above every name (Phil 2:9). The Spirit applies the salvation the Son accomplishes to his people by uniting them to Christ. This whole eternal plan of redemption is done for God’s own glory (Eph 1:6,12,14). It is an expression of the love the Persons of the Godhead share within the trinity (Jn 17:26).
An overarching framework for soteriology is necessary to properly understand the unfolding of redemptive history in Scripture. The Bible is a book about salvation. Scripture opens with a picture of creation spoken into existence by God and blessed by his good pleasure. The pinnacle of his creative work is his image bearer, humanity, which he commissions to fill the earth with his order as a vicegerent and with his image through procreation. God places Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden with himself. They share a perfect, immediate, face-to-face relationship rooted in God’s blessing and contingent upon one simple choice: Adam and Eve can eat of all the fruit of the garden but from one tree. Rather than trusting God, accepting his limits, and enjoying his blessings, Adam and Eve are tempted by the serpent and eat the forbidden fruit. Reality changes in two fundamental ways, one tragic and one glorious. Humanity falls in sin and pulls the rest of creation with them into misery. And God immediately responds with mercy to his fallen people. The rest of Scripture tells the long story of God working to redeem his people from sin and restore that paradisal, face-to-face relationship.
The center of redemptive history and the climax of Scripture is Christ’s atoning work. Jesus asserts this (Jn 3:16, Lk 24:25-27). Paul points to the crucifixion of Jesus as the core of the gospel (1 Cor 2:2). That Jesus’ death was to atone for sins is one of the most basic facts of the Christian faith (1 Tim 1:15, 2 Cor 5:14-15). The sacrificial system of Mosaic law, prophetic expectation, Jesus’ own teaching, and the apostolic witness all concur that sin demands death for payment (Dt 24:16, Ezek 18:20, Rom 6:23), Christ’s death paid for sins (Rom 5:6-11, Gal 3:13, Heb 9:11-14), and those who put their faith in Jesus receive the gift of forgiveness and redemption (Rom 10:9, Eph 1:7-8). On this all Christians agree.2 Disagreement arises, however, over the scope of the atonement.
II. Defining the Scope of the Atonement
Who are the recipients of Christ’s atoning work? Is there a distinction between those who can be saved by Christ’s death and those who really are saved? Various theologians and Christian traditions have offered different answers through the centuries. A brief survey of each of these positions will prove helpful in determining how best to guide the Young Life student and leader. The first potential position to be addressed is universalism. The second is general atonement. The final is definite atonement.
Universalism
Universalism follows the claim that Christ’s atonement forgives the sins of all people, making all right before God and ultimately destined for eternal fellowship with God.3 If universalism is true, that obviously warrants the proclamation “Christ died for you.” But is it true?
Proponents of universalism root their strongest arguments in Biblical passages which apply Christ’s atonement to an undefined, ambiguous, or universal group. These passages include Romans 5:15-21; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 19; Colossians 1:20; 1 Timothy 2:4-6, 4:10; and Titus 2:11-14 among others. The emphasis of these passages is that Christ died for all, that he loves the whole world, that he desires all people to be saved, and that he has brought salvation to all people through the cross. Universalism is not a denial of sin’s existence or power; it affirms with the whole church that sin demands death to fulfill God’s justice.4 However, it argues that God’s justice was fully satisfied in Christ. Therefore, the atonement worked at Christ’s death is not merely universally offered, it is universally applied. In other words, the scope of the atonement is not only potentially universal (all might be saved) but actually universal (all are saved).5 Universalism in this form was highly popularized by the twentieth-century theologian Karl Barth.6
Space does not allow for a full explanation of each of these passages in this paper, though others have given such a response.7 Nor is a full explanation needed to show the insufficiency of universalism. While there are many passages that speak of Christ’s atoning work applying to “all” or the “world,” there are many passages which also speak of the final and eternal judgement of humans who do not embrace Christ and remain in sin. Jesus himself preaches the eternal, conscious punishment of unbelievers (Mk 9:42-50, Mt 23:33, Lk 16:19-31, etc). Jesus says that his return will initiate the final judgement (Jn 5:29). The epistles frequently warn against apostasy because it results in damnation (Gal 5:2-4, Heb 6:4-8, 2 Pet 2:17-22) and points to the judgement of those who oppose the church as a source of hope (2 Thes 1:5-12, Rev 21:8). Universalism attempts to sidestep the irreconcilability of these passages by arguing it is more “fitting” for the God of love to save all people and therefore the universalistic passages take precedent.8 However, such an approach subjugates Scripture to reasoning which is foreign and contrary to the framework it provides. Paul asserts that the cross of Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing—again unavoidably asserting that some will perish (1 Cor 1:18). Furthermore, every universalistic passage in Scripture can been reasonably interpreted according to a particularistic understanding of the atonement; the reverse cannot be said. Scripture too frequently and consistently asserts the final eternal judgement of sinners to allow for universalism. Additionally, no stream of Christianity before the modern wave of Barthians and liberals has ever supported the view of universal atonement.9
What does this mean for the Young Life student and leader? In short, one cannot ground the declaration “Christ died for you,” in universalism. Such a belief would actually render Young Life and all evangelism moot. If all will finally be saved by Christ, if his death has already atoned for the sins of all, there is no need to evangelize. It would make no difference whether the student pondered the message he heard or immediately forgot it. Advocates of universalism argue that evangelism aims to rescue people from existential dread of hell in this life.10 But this seems odd in light of the fact that the Christian life is hard (and Scripture confirms it, Mk 8:34-38). If the whole point of following Christ in this life is to avoid comfort, one is better off not following him and simply enjoying the benefits of redemption after death. Second, Regardless, because universalism cannot stand up to the full weight of Biblical witness it is not tenable and cannot be used to support the declaration “Christ died for you.”
The next two views addressed in this paper claim the following concise description first coined by Peter Lombard in the twelfth century: Christ’s death is “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.”11 They recognize the reality of eternal judgement for those who go to the grave without embracing Christ as Lord and eternal salvation for those who do embrace him. However, what that phrase means to each of these views differs substantially. At the heart of their disagreement is the question “Does God have to have some universal intent if we are to call all people?”
General Atonement
General atonement is the belief that Christ’s death opens the door of salvation to all people. The scope of God’s intent in the atonement is universal; that is, all people can be saved even though not all will be saved. The preaching of the gospel is the means by which people find an explanation for their sin and misery and a solution to their problem. Thus, as Jesus commands, the church must bring the gospel to all people in order for anyone to be saved. General atonement would provide a much better foundation for the proclamation “Christ died for you,” because it takes the great commission seriously and the stakes of eternal life and death seriously. But can general atonement hold up to the full account of Scripture?
Advocates of general atonement argue that this view gives a better account for the diversity of Biblical witness regarding the scope of the atonement. It recognizes that many people will not respond to the gospel with faith, will continue in sin, and will face eternal judgement. However, it also affirms God’s desire that all people be saved (2 Pet 3:9) and the universal relevance of Christ’s work (Jn 1:4,7,9—he came to “the world” and not only the elect).12
Advocates of general atonement also see evidence for it in the universal preaching of the gospel. While it is clear that only some will be saved, God is equally clear that the gospel is to be proclaimed to all people (Mt 28:18-20, Ac 1:6-8, 1 Cor 9:22). This seemingly implies that all people have the real potential to be saved.13 If Christ’s atonement was only sufficient for the elect, why would God command the church to preach the gospel to the whole world? This view was popularized by Jacob Arminius in the seventeenth century, adopted by John Wesley, and is affirmed by many protestant traditions today.
Central to general atonement is the concept of prevenient grace. Prevenient grace is the work of the Holy Spirit which frees all humanity from the slavery and blindness of total depravity. Left to themselves, no person would ever seek God or be able to find God. But a core aspect of the trinitarian atonement is the Holy Spirit shining the light of the gospel to all who hear it.14 Advocates of general atonement point to verses like John 16:8-11 where Jesus says “[the Holy Spirit] will convict the world regarding sin and righteous” as evidence of the Holy Spirit working universal prevenient grace. By doing so, the Holy Spirit enables people to freely choose to either accept or reject the gospel—to commit to following Jesus or to refuse. Thus, the atonement is truly universal with respect to God’s intent (he wants all to be saved) and possibility (all can be saved if all so choose) and is only limited by human free will.
At face value, general atonement makes sense of both universalistic and particularistic passages. It also makes sense of passages which seem to indicate that those who are elect can lose their salvation: because atonement ultimately comes down to human choice, one can choose to reject it even after initially choosing to accept it.15 In order to hold to a view of general atonement, however, some concessions must be made with respect to the sovereignty of God and the actual object of the atonement.
First addressing the object of the atonement, general atonement attributes the universal scope of the atonement to Christ redeeming human nature through the incarnation.16 However, atonement cannot be made for human nature as an abstraction. Atonement must be made for persons who are guilty of sin.17 If instead the object of Christ’s atoning death is every individual human, God would be unjust to damn anyone; the penalty for sin would have already been paid for by Christ on the cross and could not be paid again by the individual going to hell.18 Thus it is wrong to attribute a universal scope to atonement accomplished by the Son and a limited scope to atonement applied by the Spirit.19 To do so drives a wedge between the indivisible acts of God in salvation.20 The Holy Spirit would not be applying atonement for all those Christ accomplishes it for. This would also leave the effectual application of salvation up to the believer who is atoned by their faith.21
Addressing the sovereignty of God, general atonement operates on the assumption that humans have libertarian free will. However, libertarian free will makes God’s plan of redemption contingent on his creation; predestination originates in God peering into the future of creation, watching to see what each individual freely chooses, and then deciding to create a world which honors those free choices. This cannot be the case. First, God’s plan for creation is not contingent on creation; creation is contingent on God’s plan of creation. Scripture presents the unfolding of creation as a story God freely composed in his own mind out of his own character and for his own purposes. All that unfolds in history is exactly in line with his plan. This plan was devised before the first act of creation ever came to pass.22 Furthermore, God cannot gain knowledge. He is wisdom in and of himself. To say that God observes and learns about human choice is to reduce God to a human level—it is an instance of univocal reasoning. God knows every human choice essentially, not accidentally. The error of libertarian free will rests primarily in theology proper, in the doctrine of God.23
Again returning to the Young Life student and leader, general atonement might offer warrant for proclaiming “Christ died for you” on the grounds that Christ’s death universally redeems human nature and all people are made “atonable” by the cross so long as they freely choose to put their faith in him. However, for reasons given above, general atonement does not cohere with Biblically sound soteriology.
Definite Atonement
The last option to be considered is variously called definite atonement, limited atonement, particular redemption, or even “personal intentional effective ecclesial atonement.”24 Limited atonement asserts that the purpose of Christ’s atonement on the cross was specifically and intentionally directed toward the elect, those whom God had chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world. The central idea is that Christ’s sacrifice was not intended for the entire human race in a universal sense but was rather designed to secure the salvation of a particular group of people. This is the classic Reformed position, though advocates trace definite atonement back to the first centuries of Christianity.25 It was most famously confirmed at the Synod of Dort in the seventeenth century.26
The Synod of Dort was called to respond to Arminianism, a set of beliefs coming out of the teaching of Jacob Arminius which included general atonement. The synod’s response has been synthesized to five main points of doctrine: total depravity, unconditional election, limited (or definite) atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints. These points will be addressed briefly.
First, the synod affirmed total depravity. Like the Arminians, they asserted that human beings are totally incapable of coming to God in faith, or even wanting to come to God in faith, outside of God working in their heart.27 Man is blind unless God gives him eyes to see. However, the synod disagreed with Arminians on how this happens. Contra prevenient grace, they asserted irresistible grace. Effectual calling cannot be refused by anyone whom the Holy Spirit calls; dead people can’t decide if they want to be resurrected or not. The Arminian mistake is equating the hearing of the word with the witness of the Holy Spirit. Effectual calling is both. One can have the word preached to them and even logically understand it well enough to preach it themselves, but if the Holy Spirit doesn’t grant them faith to believe it, they will never repent. Thus, the concept of prevenient grace is faulty. Intellectual comprehension and even initial assent does not cause atonement. Faith is the result of the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit which unites the believer to Christ and his atoning work on the cross, not the result of human choice out of libertarian free will.
Also disagreeing with the Arminians, the synod asserted that God’s predestination of the elect to salvation is not a result of God looking into the future to observe what individuals will choose by their own desire.28 Because of total depravity and irresistible grace, sinners can never “choose God” in the first place; if election was granted on the condition of human choice apart from God, none would receive it, nor would they even want it. This means that God necessarily must choose those whom he will call; predestination is the acknowledgement that God chose those whom he would call before he created the world.29
Most uncomfortable to the Arminians, the synod asserted that Christ’s death on the cross was not for all people, but limited to those whom he predestined.30 At first glance this might sound like it weakens the power of Christ’s death and makes Christianity too exclusive. After all, can’t anyone become a Christian? Aren’t believers called to preach to the whole world? Why preach if there is no chance someone can become a Christian? In reality, limited atonement ensures the full power of the cross.
Atonement focuses on the legal aspect of sin. Sin is a breaking of God’s law and it demands payment (Romans 3:23). The crucifixion was the legal expiation of sinners’ guilt. Christ calls out from the cross “tetelestai” which means “Paid in full.” This is the clinch question: What makes a person innocent? Is it Christ’s death or is it faith? Which pays the debt? Christ’s death does. The Arminian error is this: if Christ’s death paid for the sins of the whole world, including those who will never have faith in Jesus, then faith would be irrelevant—the debt was already paid, they were already marked innocent. So in the Arminian perspective, either faith isn’t essential and all people will be saved (universalism) or some of Christ’s blood was spilled in vain. In fact, if God refuses admittance into heaven for people who don’t have faith in Jesus but their sins were paid for on the cross, God is unjust—the wage of sin was death and the wage was paid; therefore there is no more guilt, nothing left to punish, and no reason to bar unrepentant people from heaven. Scripture is clear, though: sinners who do not repent are still guilty (John 3:18). Atonement must be exclusive for those who come to Christ in repentance and faith, and only those whom God predestined to respond to his effectual calling will come to faith. In other words, not a single drop of Christ’s blood is spilled in vain; there is not a single sin for which Christ died that won’t be forgiven.
Critics of definite atonement argue that this weakens the power and glory of the cross. Would it not be a greater display of God’s power and goodness to forgive all sins? Is the cross not infinitely sufficient to save? On the contrary, the death of Christ is of infinite value and sufficient to save all. What exactly advocates of definite atonement mean by this needs to be clarified. First, the value of Christ’s death is qualitatively related to his person, not quantitatively related to the sins he atones.31 The sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death is such that if he were to elect any fewer or any more to salvation, he would not have to suffer any more or less.32 In other words, the limits of the scope of the atonement are not in the efficacy of Christ’s death; rather, they are in the intent of God in election.33 Second, the glory of the cross is not rooted in the number of sinners saved, it is rooted in the reality that sinners are saved. A human perspective might assume that the greater number of those saved, the more glory God receives. God does not reason this way according to Paul. God’s purpose in election is the praise of his glorious grace (Eph 1:6,12,14). In fact, God’s attributes are shown specifically through the exclusivity of election (Rom 9:22-24). We ought to measure glory the way God measures it.
III. Implications of Definite Atonement for the Young Life Student and Leader
What does definite atonement mean for the Young Life student and leader who are wrestling with the question “Did Christ die for me?” At this point it would be best to address each person in turn. Turning first to the student, does this abandon him to unanswerable anxiety about the status of his election? Certainly not. The doctrine of election and limited atonement in fact offer a stronger foundation for assurance of salvation than general atonement. The canons of Dort argue as much. While the Arminians remained undecided on the matter of perseverance, the answer was obvious for the synod. Salvation was never up to believers in the first place; they didn’t receive it by their own choice or effort, and they cannot lose it by their choice or effort.34
A helpful way of thinking about all this is the Bible’s illustration of the Book of Life. God wrote the book before the creation of the world (Unconditional Election). The book contained specific, particular names of individuals; other people’s names were not written in it (Limited Atonement). Whoever’s name was written in the book was a person in whom the Holy Spirit would work when they heard the preaching of the Word and eventually come to faith in Jesus (Irresistible Grace). Other people might hear the preaching of the Word, but unless God chose to give them eyes to see and a heart to understand, they’d never come to repent and believe (Total Depravity). This last point simply states that God has never edited the book—no names have been added or erased since the beginning of time. In other words, God keeps good on His promises; those whom he promised to save, those whom he died for, he will carry through to glory.
Thus, the Young Life leader is not constrained to respond to his student’s question “Did Christ really die for me?” with a grim and short, “I don’t know, you might not be elect.” Rather, according to all gospel preaching presented in the Bible, the leader can answer, “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9). It would be wise to invite this student to lift their eyes from navel-gazing worrying about their own election and look to Christ. Jesus never commands us to speculate about the hidden things of God. He simply tells the crowds, “Repent and believe” (Mk 1:15). If the student responds with faith, trusting that Jesus is who he says he is and that his death can atone for his sins, he has good reason to be confident in his election. If he perseveres in faith and produces fruit in line with the Spirit, his confidence is bolstered. The longer he lives, the more he can say with Paul “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal 2:20).
Turning to the Young Life leader, does this mean he ought not proclaim “Christ died for you!” in his club talks? In short, yes. Such a statement implies either universalism or universal intent in the atonement, both of which do not hold up to Biblical soteriology. Some might fear this undermines evangelism. If only the elect are saved, what is the point of preaching to all? And if the elect can’t not be saved, why preach at all? These objections are commonly raised.35 On the contrary, definite atonement guarantees the preaching of the gospel will not be in vain.36 Acts confirms this in many places. In Acts 18, the Lord tells Paul to remain in Corinth “for I have many in this city who are my people” (18:10). If election rendered evangelism moot, Paul would have simply left, reasoning “If they’re elect, they’ll be saved, so there’s no need to share the gospel!” Instead, Paul was confident that his preaching would lead to conversions. Earlier in Acts when Paul preached to a crowd of Gentiles, Luke reports that “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (13:48). One would expect the opposite—that as many as believed were appointed to eternal life—if atonement were universal and contingent on faith. Instead, election and definite atonement again guarantee that evangelism is not in vain. God in his sovereignty brings about his eternal purpose in election through the secondary means of gospel preaching.
Additionally, many will grieve the loss of this statement in gospel proclamations because it carries such great rhetorical force. What else could a Young Life leader say that would move himself and his hearers to tears? What greater plea could one make? Isn’t it a good thing to draw the audience into the message and make them consider what the gospel means for themselves?
In response to these questions, adherents to definite atonement can and do preach sermons with just as much pathos as adherents to general atonement. George Whitefield was just as much a force of the Great Awakening as John Wesley. Consider his famous sermon “The Method of Grace.” Whitefield makes an impassioned gospel plea while fully honoring biblical soteriology:
Come away, my dear brethren — fly, fly, fly for your lives to Jesus Christ, fly to a bleeding God, fly to a throne of grace; and beg of God to break your hearts, beg of God to convince you of your actual sins, beg of God to convince you of your original sin, beg of God to convince you of your self-righteousness — beg of God to give you faith, and to enable you to close with Jesus Christ…If any of you are willing to be reconciled to God, God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is willing to be reconciled to you. O then, though you have no peace as yet, come away to Jesus Christ; he is our peace, he is our peace-maker — he has made peace betwixt God and offending man. Would you have peace with God? Away, then, to God through Jesus Christ, who has purchased peace; the Lord Jesus has shed his heart’s blood for this.37
There are many benefits to gospel proclamation grounded in definite atonement. First and most obviously from this paper, it is the most faithful to biblical soteriology. The task of preaching is described by Paul as heraldry (2 Tim 4:2). A herald’s job is to speak the exact words of his king. We want to preach the true gospel, and to preach it the way our Lord wants us to preach it. Second, as the leader ought to do with his student, it lifts the eyes of the audience away from themselves and points them to Christ. The glory of the cross is not that people get to escape hell and enjoy eternal comfort. The glory of the cross is that God saves. Salvation is about God before it is about us. Definite atonement lends itself to God-focused, Christ-centered preaching rather than man-focused preaching.
As a final note, there is at least one context in which the proclamation “Christ died for you!” is warranted, accurate, and edifying: preaching to Christ’s invisible church. Here, too, Whitefield serves as a shining example:
All hail! Fear not ye, my dear brethren, you are happy souls; you may lie down and be at peace indeed, for God hath given you peace; you may be content under all the dispensations of providence, for nothing can happen to you now, but what shall be the effect of God’s love to your soul; you need not fear what sightings may be without, seeing there is peace within. Have you closed with Christ? Is God your friend? Is Christ your friend? Then, look up with comfort; all is yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. Everything shall work together for your good; the very hairs of your head are numbered; he that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of God’s eye.38
Believers have every good reason to rest in the God who loved them and gave himself for them.
In conclusion, the most biblically coherent and consistent view regarding the scope of the atonement is the classic Reformed understanding of definite atonement. Rather than undermining evangelism or stifling gospel proclamation, this doctrine can provide the foundation for impassioned preaching which avoids the errors that come with universalism or general atonement. Though the Young Life leader might grieve the loss of his climatic declaration “Christ died for you,” he has lost nothing with respect to the beauty and power of the gospel. Instead, he could say with full conviction and emotion, “Christ—the Lord of life and God of love—died on the cross for his enemies. For the very people who nailed him to it. For unworthy, sinful, broken people like you and me. And he invites all of us to come to him.” All who come can rest in the assurance that it is God who saves and we are held fast in his arms.
Footnotes
1 Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt; trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 3:213-14.
2 Andrew David Naselli and Mark A. Snoeberger. Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement : 3 Views. Perspectives. (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2015), 223.
3 Tom Greggs, “Christian Universalist View,” in Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement, 197.
4 Tom Greggs, “Christian Universalist View,” 214.
5 Tom Greggs, “Christian Universalist View,” 216.
6 Blacketer, Raymond A. “Definite Atonement in Historical Perspective.” In The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Practical Perspectives. Edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 305.
7 Jonathan Gibson, “For Whom Did Christ Die? Particularism and Universalism in the Pauline Epistles” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological and Pastoral Perspective, eds. David Gibson & Jonathan Gibson (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 295-321. See also Owen, Death of Death, Book III, Chapters 1-3 and Johnson, Adam J., ed. Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2019), 218-240.
8 Tom Greggs, “Christian Universalist View,” 202.
9 De la Noval, Roberto. “Divine Drama or Divine Disclosure?: Hell, Universalism, and a Parting of the Ways.” Modern Theology 36, no. 1 (January 2020): 201–10. 203.
10 Tom Greggs, “Christian Universalist View,” 207.
11 Naselli, Andrew David and Mark A. Snoeberger. Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement : 3 Views (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2015), 219.
12 Grant R. Osborne, “General Atonement View” in Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement : 3 Views, 105-6.
13 Osborne, “General Atonement View”, 123.
14 Osborne, “General Atonement View”, 114.
15 Jonathan Gibson, “For Whom Did Christ Die?” 322.
16 Fred Sanders, “Wesleyan View” in Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement, 171.
17 Horton, “Response to Fred Sanders” in Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement, 189.
18 Owen, Death of Death, 43.
19 Fred Sanders, “Wesleyan View” 169.
20 Jonathan Gibson, “The Glorious, Indivisible, Trinitarian Work of God in Christ” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological and Pastoral Perspective, 335.
21 Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:469.
22 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Expanded Edition (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2021), 267.
23 I have given a fuller treatment of libertarian free will’s insufficiency in an essay titled “Critiquing Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Defense,” submitted as the final paper for Christian Thought and Philosophy. The paper addresses the shortcomings of middle knowledge and the coherence of compatibilism.
24 Lee Gatiss, For Us and for Our Salvation: “Limited Atonement” in the Bible, Doctrine, History, and Ministry (London: Latimer Trust, 2012), 14.
25 Blacketer, Raymond A. “Definite Atonement in Historical Perspective,” 308.
26 The Canons of Dort, https://prts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Canons-of-Dort-with-Intro.pdf
27 Canons of Dort, Article 1.
28 Canons of Dort, Article 9.
29 Canons of Dort, Article 7.
30 Canons of Dort, Article 15.
31 Michael Horton, “Traditional Reformed View,” in Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement, 132.
32 Gatiss, For Us and for Our Salvation, 12.
33 Gatiss, For Us and for Our Salvation, 80.
34 Canons of Dort, Article 12, 15.
35 Naselli and Snoeberger. Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement : 3 Views, 11. Sanders, “Wesleyan View,” 175. Osborne, “General Atonement View”, 114.
36 Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:36-40.
37 George Whitefield, “The Method of Grace,” from Selected Sermons of George Whitefield (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library), 585-586.
38 Whitefield, “The Method of Grace,” 583.
Bibliography
Bavinck, Herman, and John Bolt. Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
——— Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Expanded Edition. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2021.
Blacketer, Raymond A. “Definite Atonement in Historical Perspective.” In The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Practical Perspectives. Edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
The Canons of Dort, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary https://prts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Canons-of-Dort-with-Intro.pdf
De la Noval, Roberto. “Divine Drama or Divine Disclosure?: Hell, Universalism, and a Parting of the Ways.” Modern Theology 36, no. 1 (January 2020): 201–10. doi:10.1111/moth.12555.
Gatiss, Lee. For Us and for Our Salvation: “Limited Atonement” in the Bible, Doctrine, History, and Ministry. Latimer Studies 78. London: Latimer Trust, 2012.
Horton, Michael. “Response to Fred Sanders” in Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement. Edited by Adam J. Johnson. Counterpoints Series: Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2019.
——— “Traditional Reformed View,” in Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement. Edited by Adam J. Johnson. Counterpoints Series: Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2019.
Jonathan Gibson, “For Whom Did Christ Die? Particularism and Universalism in the Pauline Epistles” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological and Pastoral Perspective. Edited by David and Jonathan Gibson. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013.
——— “The Glorious, Indivisible, Trinitarian Work of God in Christ” in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological and Pastoral Perspective. Edited by David and Jonathan Gibson. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013.
Greggs, Tom “Christian Universalist View,” in Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement. Edited by Adam J. Johnson. Counterpoints Series: Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2019.
Johnson, Adam J., ed. Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement. Counterpoints Series: Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2019.
Naselli, Andrew David and Mark A. Snoeberger. Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: 3 Views. Perspectives. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2015.
Grant R. Osborne, “General Atonement View” in Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: 3 Views. Edited by Andrew David Naselli and Mark A. Snoeberger. Perspectives. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2015.
Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/o/owen/deathofdeath/cache/deathofdeath.pdf
Fred Sanders, “Wesleyan View” in Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement. Edited by Adam J. Johnson. Counterpoints Series: Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2019.
Whitefield, George. “The Method of Grace,” from Selected Sermons of George Whitefield (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library), 585-586.
