Throughout history, there have been many theological debates regarding the atonement. With questions like; “Did Jesus die for everyone?” Was Jesus’ atonement unlimited or limited? Did He pay the penalty for the whole world’s sins or just the elect? 

The teaching of ‘Limited atonement’ (also called definite atonement) is a view that Christ’s sacrifice was limited to the elect only (those who believe and are chosen by God). 

This is the most logical view of the atonement because, ultimately, only the elect are saved. On the flip-side, if we concluded Jesus died for those He knew would NOT be saved, what would be the point?

Over the years this doctrine has gotten a lot of backlash because many people don’t like the idea of the word ‘limited’ being attached to the atonement. However, the reality is that everyone limits the atonement in one way or another—either in its extent or in its effect. Those who reject the doctrine of limited atonement limit its effect by saying Christ’s death was for all but that not everyone benefits from it because not all are saved. On the other hand, the doctrine of limited atonement limits the extent of Christ’s sacrifice, teaching that while His atonement is fully effective, it is only for the elect.

(Calvinism teaches the atonement is limited in its extent, and Arminianism teaches the atonement is limited in its effect – these terms are discussed further in another chapter)

But one might also think if these terminologies really matter? Yes, they do, because there is a huge difference between saying that “Christ actually saves” over and against saying that “Christ theoretically accomplished salvation that makes men redeemable, but now it is unto them.”

These are incompatible with the clear teachings of Scripture.

Matthew 20:28 (NKJV)

just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

It is clear from this scripture that Jesus did not come to give His life as a ransom for ALL, but for MANY. 

Had Jesus come to give His life as a ransom for ‘ALL’ but not ‘ALL’ are saved, Jesus’ ransom is ineffective. 

Surely, God would never allow His Son’s death to be ineffective. Instead, He would have ordained that Jesus’ death would accomplish exactly what He intended, namely saving all that the Father has chosen/elected. 

It is theologically inconsistent to hold to the view that Jesus died for everybody’s sins (which were once and for all paid for as per Hebrews 9:12), yet sinners are sent to hell to pay for their sins again. It makes no sense at all. 

Either the debt is paid or it is not.

Now, the next question you’ll have is what is the point of preaching the gospel, if not all will receive and be saved? There are two reasons for this. Firstly, because we are commanded to, and Secondly, because the preacher does not know who the elect are, so he must preach the gospel to everyone, and everyone who believes in Jesus is saved (and therefore one of the elect). 

We are called to preach the gospel, and God does the converting and saving.

Acts 13:48 (NKJV)

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

The doctrine of limited / definite atonement also addresses the false doctrine of a universal salvation. The general understanding of universal salvation is based on an incorrect interpretation of the scripture which says Christ died for ‘ALL‘.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (NKJV)

14. For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;

15. and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

The verses above is often used as proof for universal salvation. However, to fully understand this verse we need to define the word ‘ALL’. In context, the ‘ALL’ can be simply understood as “all of the elect for whom Christ died.”Furthermore, those who hold to a universal atonement must be logically consistent and say that there is no hell or that no one will be in hell. Which of course cannot be true since the Bible clearly speaks of hell and there there will be people not saved.  

So the question is, “did Christ die for no one or someone?”

By taking a universal approach and saying that “He died for everyone”, we are technically saying He “died for no one”. Because all He did was provide a ‘potential sacrifice’ that could only be applied by the sinner (if only they would receive or believe it). 

Simply put, unless faith is activated by people, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross will not really accomplish anything. This is quite troubling and cannot be categorized as ‘Good News’. 

Biblical teaching however clearly shows that Christ bore our sins in His own body on the cross, achieving total victory and redemption for His elect.