God’s Purposes in the Atonement for the Nonelect

By Gary L. Shultz Jr.

[Gary L. Shultz Jr. is a Ph.D. candidate in systematic theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky.]

The extent of the Atonement continues to be a contentious issue among evangelical Christians.[1] In discussing God’s purpose in His Son’s death some evangelicals say God offered His Son as an atoning sacrifice in order to save a particular group of people, His elect.[2] This position is known as limited atonement, definite atonement, or particular redemption. Others say God offered His Son as an atoning sacrifice in order “to make salvation possible for all persons. Christ died for all persons, but his atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual.”[3] This position is known as unlimited atonement.[4] The main difference between the two views is whether Christ’s atonement actually secured salvation or made it provisionally available.

Advocates of both particular redemption and unlimited atonement agree that only the Atonement is the basis of salvation.[5] Every saved person receives the benefits of the Atonement, whether it is viewed as a provisional payment or as a certain payment. These benefits include Christ’s substitution for sin (Isa. 53:4–6; 2 Cor. 5:21), propitiation (Rom. 3:24–25; 1 John 2:1–2), redemption (Mark 10:45; Acts 20:28), justification (Rom. 3:24–28; Titus 3:5–7), and reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18; 1 Pet. 3:18).[6]

A significant area of disagreement, though, is whether God, when He sent Jesus to the cross, did so with any purpose(s) for those human beings who would never receive salvation, the nonelect. Advocates of particular redemption believe that He did not, while advocates of unlimited atonement believe that He did. While some proponents of particular redemption affirm that the Atonement had benefits that apply to the nonelect, these are seen as secondary and indirect in comparison to the one purpose of God for the elect.[7] To be consistent, these advocates must deny that God had any intent(s) on the Cross for the nonelect, because the Atonement was designed particularly for the elect. As Lightner, an adherent of unlimited atonement explains, “The very admission of limited redemptionists that some benefits extend to the non-elect means they make the design of God twofold, applying some benefits directly to the elect and others indirectly to the non-elect. Thus, there is inconsistency in the limited view when some of Calvary’s achievements are made to extend to all men while others are restricted to the elect. Consistency would restrict all the benefits to the one for whom Christ died; and since in the limited concept Christ died only for the elect, it is illogical to include the non-elect in any sense. If they are included at all, they must be included in it all since it was one sacrifice in which all the effects are grounded.”[8]

Since the Bible seems to present several purposes of the Atonement for the nonelect, the effects of Christ’s death on the cross should not be limited to the elect. God’s purposes in the Atonement for the nonelect include (a) payment of the penalty for all of the sins of every person who has ever lived, (b) provision of common grace, (c) the reconciliation of all things to Himself, (d) the securing of a genuine offer of salvation to everyone everywhere, and (e) the provision of an additional basis for condemnation. The following pages focus on the biblical support for each of these purposes.

Three reasons express the importance of ascertaining the Bible’s teaching in this area. First, a better understanding of the Atonement leads to a better understanding of the nature of God’s love for all people, Christians and non-Christians. Second, an understanding of all God’s purposes in the Atonement may serve to provide an area of rapprochement for those with opposing positions on the extent of the Atonement. Third, an enhanced understanding of the Atonement leads to a better appreciation of God’s glory, which He supremely demonstrated in the work that Christ accomplished on the cross for all Christians and for all of humanity.[9]

The Payment of the Penalty of Sin for All People

That Christ paid the penalty for the sin of all people in the Atonement is the foundation of the other purposes that God had for the nonelect when He sent Christ to die on the cross. It is also the most contentious of these purposes among theologians, since it directly contradicts particular redemption. Strong biblical support exists, however, for this purpose. Christ’s payment for all sin is clearly stated in 1 John 2:1–2. “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” As Bruce notes,

Nor will John let his readers think of their blessings in restrictive terms. The propitiation that has availed to wipe out their sins is sufficient to do the same for all. Jesus is “the General Saviour of mankind” as well as the particular Saviour of each believer. According to the Fourth Gospel, He is “the true light that enlightens every man” (John 1:9) or, in the forerunner’s language, He is “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Christians must not rest content with the assurance of their own salvation, but spread the joyful news worldwide.[10]

Other verses clearly support the contention that Jesus died to pay the penalty for the sins of every person. For example Isaiah 53:6 reads, “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.” Commenting on this verse John Oswalt states, “The entire people is [sic] compared to a flock of sheep. [The phrase] All of us both opens and closes the verse, emphasizing the extent of the problem, and by its lack of specificity inviting an extension to the whole human race.”[11] And Erickson writes, “This passage is especially powerful from a logical standpoint. It is clear that the extent of sin is universal; it is specified that every one of us has sinned. It should also be noticed that the extent of what will be laid on the suffering servant exactly parallels the extent of sin. It is difficult to read this passage and not conclude that just as everyone sins, everyone is also atoned for.”[12] Second Corinthians 5:14–15 states, “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.” Paul’s motivation for ministry was Christ’s love, a love so great that He “died for all.” In light of this love, people who benefit from Christ’s death should live for Him. Paul’s ministry was based on the fact that the Atonement is for all people.[13]

Passages in the Pastoral Epistles also speak of this issue. Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:3–6, “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.” And in Titus 2:11 the apostle wrote, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.” The use of the word “all” in these verses, especially in 1 Timothy 2:6, clearly implies that Christ’s death was in some sense universal. God desires all people to be saved and He desires all people to come to the knowledge of the truth in the same sense that Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all people and that God’s grace has brought salvation to everyone. As Marshall concludes after his exegesis of these passages, “Thus we can find no good grounds for understanding ‘all’ in these texts in any other way than as ‘all without exception.’ ”[14]

Second Peter 2:1 speaks of those for whom Christ died as not being saved. “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.” Two things of importance in this verse bear mentioning. First, Jesus paid the purchase price of redemption for those who obviously will never accept it.[15] Second, this purchase price was paid for those who are vile and destructive heretics, because they deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ, the only possible basis of salvation.[16]

Arguments used in Support of Particular Redemption

Advocates of particular redemption interpret these verses differently.[17] They offer several arguments in support of their view. First, proponents of limited atonement point out that several verses speak of Christ dying on the cross specifically for the elect (John 6:37–40; 10:11, 15; Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:31–39; Eph. 5:25; Titus 2:14), and these are taken to be the defining word on the subject. Admittedly at first glance these verses seem to limit Christ’s atonement to Christians.

Second, some supporters of particular redemption assert that because God is completely sovereign and His will can never be thwarted, if Christ died for everyone, then everyone will be saved. Thus unlimited atonement logically results in universalism. They claim that if Christ paid for everyone’s sins, then God would be unjust to send anyone to hell, because He would then be making them pay for sins that had already been paid for by Christ.

Third, since Christ died to secure salvation for the elect (Rom. 5:10; Gal. 1:4; 3:13; Eph. 1:7), He could not have died for everyone because not all people are saved.

Fourth, Scripture seems to present Christ’s atonement and intercession as coextensive (John 17), which means that Christ died only for those for whom He intercedes, that is, the elect.

Fifth, supporters of particular redemption claim that unlimited atonement undermines union with Christ, for if believers are presently united with Christ, they were certainly united with Him in His death and resurrection.[18]

Responses To The Arguments Of Particular Redemption

Three responses may be given to the points raised by advocates of limited atonement. First, advocates of particular redemption are correct in teaching that certain verses state that Christ died specifically for the elect. Christ clearly loves His elect with a special love (Isa. 43:3–4; Mal. 1:2–3; Rom. 9:10–13; Eph. 1:3–6; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13), and He died to save them from their sins.[19]

Second, Christ’s love for the elect does not necessitate particular redemption. God’s saving work on the cross does not rule out His general work for the nonelect. Christ’s provision of salvation in the Atonement and the application of salvation in the Atonement differ.

Third, supporters of particular redemption rightly stress the application of salvation in the Atonement, in that “God purposed to apply the fruits of the Atonement to his sheep, his people, or the church who exercise God-given faith.”[20] The problem is that they slight God’s purpose to provide salvation for all people. As Demarest states, “In terms of the Atonement’s provision Christ died not merely for the elect but for all sinners in all times and places. Christ drank the cup of suffering for the sins of the entire world. He died as a substitute, a propitiation, a ransom, etc. for the universe of sinners. The non-elect had their sins paid for on the cross, even though through unbelief they do not personally appropriate the benefits of his work. Christ, in other words, provided salvation for more people than those to whom he purposed to apply its saving benefits.”[21]

Advocates of particular redemption err by collapsing the application and the provision of the Atonement into the same act. This is why they claim that if Christ died to pay for the sins of all people, then universalism is the result, and God would be unjust to send anyone to hell.

What separates the application of the Atonement from its provision? If proponents of particular redemption are correct and the Atonement actually saves the elect, then it logically follows that nothing else is necessary for the elect to be saved.[22]

In Ephesians 2:1–10, however, Paul wrote about the nature of the salvation the Ephesian believers possessed. He began by noting that they were born in sin and that they used to be “children of wrath” (v. 3) who deserved the judgment of God. How could Paul write that the Ephesian believers were once children of wrath if their salvation had been actualized in Christ’s atonement? How could he write that they had been saved by grace through faith (v. 8)? How can those who were saved at the Cross be described as sinners under the wrath of God who need to place their faith in Him in order to be saved?

Is not saving faith required for the elect to be saved? If so, how can it be said of the death of Christ in itself that by his death alone he saved those for whom he died? As long as one believes that all people (including the elect) are born into this world with the sin of Adam so that until anyone savingly believes in Christ he or she remains unsaved and under God’s wrath, then we cannot speak correctly of Christ’s death as actually and certainly saving the elect. No, even here, the payment made by his death on behalf of the elect renders their salvation possible (and because of their election, a future certain reality) while that salvation becomes actual only upon their exercising saving faith. If Christ’s death, then, is a payment for sin that makes possible the salvation of people, which salvation actually occurs only when they savingly believe, then there is no problem saying Christ’s death paid the penalty of the sin of all the people in the whole world, because until any believes, he or she is not saved.[23]

The application of the Atonement that Christ secured by His death is appropriated by each believer at the moment he or she places faith in Christ for salvation. Therefore this must be separated from the provisionary purposes of the Atonement.

The Provision of Common Grace

Christ died not only to pay for the sins of all people, but also to give everyone what is called common grace. “All the good things that the unregenerate experience are undeserved and are, therefore, possible only because of the grace of God that derives from Christ’s mediatorial work.”[24] The grace that God gives to humanity, salvific or common, is given on the basis of the Atonement.[25] Common grace is grace that is not limited to the elect.[26] Common grace is not necessarily distributed equally, nor does every person experience all its aspects in the same way. Common grace can come through general revelation, people can resist it, and it does not result in salvation.[27] Therefore common grace is not salvific grace.

Common grace includes three elements: God’s giving of natural gifts, His restraining of sin and evil in human affairs, and His patience in exercising judgment.[28]

God’s Giving Of Natural Gifts

James 1:17 states, “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” All good things come from God, and God shows kindness to all human beings (Ps. 145:9; Luke 6:35–36).[29] These gifts are referred to as natural gifts because they are not salvific in nature. God gives to people good gifts that are manifest in the physical world and in human society. He does this on the basis of the Atonement. As John Murray, who held to particular redemption, wrote,

The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. The mediatorial dominion of Christ is universal. Christ is head over all things and is given all authority in heaven and in earth. It is within this mediatorial dominion that all the blessings that men enjoy are dispensed. But this dominion Christ exercises on the basis and as the reward of his finished work of redemption. . . . Consequently, since all benefits and blessings are within the realm of Christ’s dominion and since this dominion rests upon his finished work of atonement, the benefits innumerable which are enjoyed by all men indiscriminately are related to the death of Christ and may be said to accrue from it in one way or another.[30]

All good things in nature and culture, as well as all good things that human beings do or accomplish, are the result of God’s common grace, a result of the Atonement.

God bestows the physical fruits of nature on saved and unsaved alike. Jesus told His disciples that God the Father “causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). And Paul said to the people of Lystra, “And yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). Psalm 145:15–16 states, “The eyes of all look to You, and You give them their food in due time. You open Your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing.” God is able to show this grace in nature to all of humanity because Christ satisfied His wrath toward sinners on the cross.

God’s grace is also seen in the amazing feats of intellect, strength, and beauty that human beings are able to accomplish. Jesus is the light that enlightens every person (John 1:9). This likely means that Christ allows enlightenment and understanding to come to all people; that everyone is able to know things about God and the universe.[31] “God has allowed significant measures of skill in artistic and musical areas, as well as other spheres in which creativity and skill can be expressed, such as athletics, cooking, writing, and so forth. Moreover, God gives to us an ability to appreciate beauty in many areas of life. And in this area as well as in the physical and intellectual realm, the blessings of common grace are sometimes poured out on unbelievers even more abundantly than believers. Yet in all cases it is a result of the grace of God.”[32] God is surely abundant in goodness and truth toward all people (Exod. 34:6).

God’s Restraining Of Evil

God also shows kindness toward everyone by restraining sin and evil in their lives. He did this for Cain (Gen. 4:15) and for King Abimelech (20:6). He does this in the lives of unbelievers before He gives them over to their sinful lusts for continually rejecting Him (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). He does this through the influence of the church in the world, which is to be continually fighting the forces of hell (Matt. 16:18) as the church stands for the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). He does this through institutions such as human governments, which are “a minister of God to you for good” (Rom. 13:4; see also Gen. 9:6; Rom. 13:1–3; 1 Pet. 2:13–14). This restraining of sin is due to the influence of the Holy Spirit, who during this present age restrains lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:7).[33] The Holy Spirit generally influences the world through common grace.[34]

God’s Patience In Judgment

God is also gracious in that He did not immediately judge the sin of humankind after Adam and Eve’s transgression. “If strict justice had been executed, the race would have been cut off at the first sin.

That man lives after sinning, is due wholly to the Cross.”[35] People are able to enjoy the blessings and benefits of this life because of God’s delayed judgment on sin. God is kind, forbearing, and patient so that people might enter into a relationship with Him (Rom. 2:4). Second Peter 3:9 declares that “the Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.” God delays His judgment because many people are not yet saved. God chose “to allow sinful humans to live for some time, so that they might have an opportunity to repent, and also so that they would bear children and enable subsequent generations to live and then hear the gospel and repent.”[36] This patience of God in withholding judgment demonstrates His goodness, mercy, justice, and gracious glory (Ps. 145:9; Ezek. 33:11; Rom. 2:5; Eph. 1:4–6).

The Reconciliation of All Things to Christ

The third purpose of God the Father in sending His Son to die on the cross was the reconciling of all things to Himself. Colossians 1:19–20 states, “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.” Here the word “reconcile” “probably has an intensive force: to change completely, to change so as to remove all enmity.”[37] The reconciliation of “all things” by the blood of Christ in this passage is coextensive with the creation of “all things” by Christ mentioned earlier in verses 15–16.[38] The phrase “all things” includes “things on earth” and “things in heaven.” This means that the work of reconciliation is on the widest possible scale; all things everywhere are reconciled to God by the Atonement.[39]

However, this does not entail universalism, for that would contradict other statements in the Bible that unmistakably speak of people who will not be saved and will suffer for eternity apart from Christ (Matt. 22:14; 25:46; 2 Thess. 1:8–9).[40] “Although all things will finally unite to bow in the name of Jesus and to acknowledge him as Lord (Phil 2:10, 11), it is not to be assumed that this will be done gladly by all. . . . To assert that verse 20 [of Col. 1] points to a universal reconciliation in which every man will finally enjoy celestial bliss is an unwarranted assumption.”[41]

The reconciliation of all things is cosmic in scope and will take place when Christ delivers up His kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24–28; Eph. 1:9–10). It will include the “creation that was subjected to futility” (Rom. 8:20). And it will mean the restoration of harmony between the creation and humanity, thereby reversing the curse of Genesis 3:17–29.[42] Those in hell will be reconciled in that they will no longer be able to rebel against God and because they will acknowledge Jesus for who He is.[43] The reconciliation will also include the complete conquering of all of the enemies of the Cross, including Satan and his angels, which Colossians 2:15 explicitly states was accomplished through Christ’s death (cf. Heb. 2:14).[44] Christ died so that He might be Lord of all (Rom. 14:9).

In order for Christ to reconcile all things to the Father, He had to pay for all sin, including the sins of the nonelect. Otherwise some sin would be outside His atoning work and thus outside His cosmic triumph. “Since sin is not only a penalty that must be paid (which payment is only efficacious by faith) but also a power that rebels against God’s rightful authority and reign, sin’s penalty must be paid (for the elect to be saved) but its power must be defeated that all might be conquered and laid at the feet of the Father.”[45] The reconciliation of all things to God is possible only if the Atonement was for all sin and not just the sins of the elect. The universality of the reconciliation necessitates the universality of the Atonement.

Christ’s reconciliation of all things to the Father through the Atonement also includes the future resurrection of all people, the elect and the nonelect. Christ stated that all people would be resurrected—either to eternal life or to eternal damnation (John 5:28–29; cf. Rev. 20:5–7). John 5:19–27 states that Christ possesses power over the resurrection and the authority to judge people because the Father has given that power to Him. Commenting on John 5:28 Bruce remarks, “As the Son has claimed authority to raise the dead, so now he claims authority to execute final judgment; indeed, he states that the Father has placed this authority within the Son’s sole jurisdiction and does not exercise it himself.”[46] People can be resurrected only because of Christ.

If Christ had not been raised from the dead, there would be no resurrection for anyone (1 Cor. 15:13). Verses 21–22 describe how Christ reversed the order of death introduced by Adam when he sinned.[47] Jesus’ death and resurrection[48] guarantee the resurrection not only of believers but also of unbelievers. “As the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), Christ defeated the power of death incurred by the first Adam; and since the penalty of death extended to all men, Christ’s victory over death, proved by his own resurrection, must also be the basis for the future resurrection of all men.”[49] Since the nonelect will be raised from the dead by the power of Christ’s resurrection, Christ’s death must have intended this resurrection.

The Genuine Offer of the Gospel

Christ’s fourth purpose in dying for all people was to make possible the genuine offer of the gospel. The Bible contains many texts that emphasize the need for the proclamation of the gospel of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection to all people (Matt. 28:18–20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:46–47; Acts 1:8; 17:30; Rom. 10:13–17). The Bible also states that everyone who places his or her trust in Christ will be saved (Matt. 11:28; John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 6:35, 40; Rom. 10:13). Christians are to share the gospel with everyone indiscriminately. All supporters of unlimited atonement agree that the gospel call is universal, and generally supporters of particular redemption hold to this as well.[50]

However, “a very difficult situation arises for the limited redemptionist when he confronts the Great Commission, which enjoins the preaching of the gospel to every creature. How, it may be urged, can a universal gospel be preached if there is no universal provision? To say on the one hand that Christ died only for the elect and on the other hand that His death is the ground on which salvation is offered to all men is perilously near contradiction.”[51] This is a contradiction that even some advocates of particular redemption recognize.[52]

Supporters of particular redemption typically seek to resolve this contradiction in one of three ways. First, some hold that particular redemption undergirds the sincere offer of the gospel, and that evangelism would be impossible without it.[53] Second, some maintain that the extent of the Atonement has nothing to do with evangelism; whether Christ died for all or some does not concern the matter of a universal gospel call.[54] Third, some assert that the Bible teaches both particular redemption and a universal gospel call, and although these may seem contradictory, they both need to be held because the Bible clearly teaches both.[55]

Each of these three attempted resolutions has problems. First, the sincere offer of the gospel does not necessitate particular redemption for the simple reason that it is logical to hold that Christ died both to secure the salvation of His elect and to pay for the sins of all people. Christ did procure the offer and provision of salvation for everyone on the cross, but He also procured the definite application of salvation for the elect. This alleviates the concerns of a vacuous gospel offer. Second, contrary to some limited atonement advocates, the extent of the Atonement is related to evangelism and does take into consideration the matter of the universal gospel call, for the Atonement is at the heart of the gospel (Acts 2:36; 4:10; 1 Cor. 1:13, 23; 2:2).[56] Third, there is no need to believe that the universal gospel call and the particularity of the Atonement are contradictory. Rather, the universality of the gospel is one of God’s universal purposes in the Atonement. Christ died to make possible the genuine offer of salvation to everyone everywhere.

The crux of the issue is how the gospel can be genuinely offered to the nonelect if God made no payment for their sins. “If Christ died only for the elect, then why take that message to the nonelect? An even more sobering question would be, ‘Why does God invite all men if Christ did not provide for all?’ ”[57] If Christ died only for the elect and did not pay for the sins of the nonelect, then it is impossible to make a genuine offer of salvation to them, since it is not available to them. In a sense, when offered the gospel, the nonelect would be offered something that was never available to them. Instead there must be a genuine payment for the sins of everyone who can, if they so choose, receive it.[58]

Christians have the ministry of reconciliation and the word of reconciliation, and this ministry and word is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:18–19). Because God wrought a universal reconciliation, He issues a universal gospel call and therefore Christians are to be ambassadors for Him (v. 20). This universal gospel call has Atonement as its core (1 Cor. 15:3), meaning that ambassadors of the gospel, as they witness for Christ, need to tell the unsaved, “Christ died for you.”

An Additional Basis for Condemnation

A fifth purpose God had in the Atonement for the nonelect was to provide an additional basis of condemnation for those who hear the genuine offer of the gospel and then reject it. Second Peter 2:1 states that some of those for whom Christ died reject Him and are therefore condemned. The rest of the chapter describes the sins and judgment of those “false teachers.” Verses 20–21 express their end. “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.” These verses assert that the false teachers “who have for a time escaped from worldly corruption through knowing Christ and then turn away from the light of the Christian faith are worse off than they were before knowing Christ.”[59] The false teachers are justly condemned all the more because of their knowledge and rejection of the Christian faith, which includes the death of Christ for their sins.[60]

The rejection of Christ’s atonement is not the only basis for God’s condemnation of unbelievers, but it is part of it.[61] Those who do not believe in the only begotten Son of God are judged already for their unbelief (John 3:18). Christ’s atonement procures an additional basis of condemnation for those who reject it because they are rejecting something Christ has done specifically for them. “Christ’s death for the sins of those who reject him and are condemned (e.g. 2 Pet. 2:1) insures that their judgment for rejecting Christ . . . is just, because they reject a real gift that is really, freely, and graciously offered to them.”[62] Just as the people in Isaiah’s day and Jesus’ time heaped condemnation on themselves because of their rejection of God’s messages (Isa. 6:9–10; Matt. 13:11–16), so too the nonelect, who reject the offer of salvation, heap condemnation on themselves. As Calvin wrote, “For a heavier judgment remains upon the wicked because they reject the testimony of God’s love.”[63] Christ’s death provides an additional basis of condemnation for the nonelect when they stand before the judgment seat of God (Rev. 20:12).

Conclusion

“For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers” (1 Tim. 4:10). This statement is significant for it states that God acts as Savior toward two groups of people, “all men” and “believers.”[64] “Paul had no trouble saying that God could be the Savior of all in one sense and of those who believe in another sense.”[65] This verse supports the view of the extent of the Atonement presented in this article, because it indicates that God acts in a saving manner toward all humanity, and that He is clearly not the Savior of all people in the same sense that He is the Savior of believers.[66] In a certain way God is the Savior of all people, but He is especially the Savior of those who believe, because only they actually receive and experience the salvation that Christ provided for everyone on the cross.

Christ’s atonement has accomplished five things for the nonelect. First, Christ paid for the sins of all people. He is the propitiation and the ransom for everyone. He reconciled all people to the Father on the cross, and He even bought false teachers who would later deny Him.

Second, the Atonement provides common grace to all humanity. This common grace is demonstrated through God’s good gifts, His restraining of evil, and His gracious patience in judgment.

Third, Christ died to reconcile all things to the Father. This reconciliation is cosmic in scope, and it is possible because Christ died for all sin. It includes the resurrection of all people, the elect and the nonelect.

Fourth, the Atonement secured the genuine offer of the gospel. Without Christ’s provision for the sins of all people, the gospel could not be legitimately and sincerely offered to everyone.

Fifth, Christ died to give the nonelect an additional basis for condemnation. Those who reject Christ’s death for themselves obtain even greater condemnation for their sins.

Particular redemption is correct in what it affirms, which is that Christ died to secure the actual salvation of His people. It does not, however, encompass all the Bible’s teaching on the subject. Christ also died to accomplish the purposes that God had in the Atonement for the nonelect. The Atonement is for everyone, even though it is not for everyone in exactly the same way or for the same purposes.

Notes

1. Robert Letham, The Work of Christ, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 225–26; Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died: A Biblical Case for Unlimited Atonement, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998), 33; and Paul Wells, Cross Words: The Biblical Doctrine of the Atonement (Geanies House, UK: Christian Focus, 2006), 236–39.
2. For example J. I. Packer, “The Love of God: Universal and Particular,” in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 287.
3. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 846 (italics added).
4. Two minority positions warrant mention. Universalism holds that Christ died for all people and that His atonement secured the salvation of the elect, since these two groups are the same. See Thomas Talbott, “Towards a Better Understanding of Universalism,” in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, ed. Robin A. Parry and Christopher H. Partridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 6–11. Amyraldianism posits two wills of God in predestination and a hypothetical universalism in which Christ died for all people but secured the salvation of the elect. See Bruce Demarest, “Amyraldianism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 53–54. Amyraldianism is a variant of unlimited atonement, while universalism incorporates aspects of both views.
5. “All agree that Christ’s death in itself, because he is the infinite Son of God, has infinite merit and is in itself sufficient to pay the penalty of the sins of as many or as few as the Father and Son decreed. The question is not about the intrinsic merits of Christ’s sufferings and death, but about the number of people for whom the Father and the Son thought Christ’s death to be sufficient payment at the time Christ died” (Wayne E. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000], 597). See also Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 393–94; and Roger Nicole, “Particular Redemption,” in Our Savior God, ed. James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 166.
6. See Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965); and John R. W. Scott, The Cross of Christ, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 165–99.
7. See Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 438; John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 61–62; and Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 100–102.
8. Lightner, The Death Christ Died, 110.
9. Wells explores the importance of this doctrine and comes to similar conclusions (Cross Words, 237–39).
10. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 50. See also Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 82–86; Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 73–75; I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 117–20; and Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1984), 39–40. All these authors advocate a similar understanding of these verses.
11. John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 389 (italics his). See also Erickson, Christian Theology, 847.
12. Erickson, Christian Theology, 847 (italics his).
13. See Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 286–93; David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1999), 277–81; Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 418–24; Colin Kruse, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 121–24; and Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1986), 127–33. All these authors advocate an understanding of these verses similar to that described above.
14. I. Howard Marshall, “Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles,” in The Grace of God and the Will of Man, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1989), 63. See also Thomas D. Lea and Hayne P. Griffin Jr., 1, 2 Timothy, Titus, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 91–92; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 2000), 89–90; and Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 183–86.
15. For a defense of the term “Master” as a reference to Jesus Christ and the term “bought” as a reference to redemption see Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 240–41; Peter H. Davids, The Letters of Jude and 2 Peter, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 221–22; and Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 330–32.
16. Lightner, The Death Christ Died, 75. For a defense of the exegesis behind this view see Andrew D. Chang, “Second Peter 2:1 and the Extent of the Atonement,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (January–March 1985): 52-63.
17. For two different interpretations of 2 Peter 2:1 see Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement, 3rd ed. (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2006), 79–86; and Dan G. McCartney, “Atonement in James, Peter, and Jude,” in The Glory of the Atonement, ed. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 177–79. For five different interpretations of 1 John 2:1–2 by advocates of particular redemption see Grudem, Systematic Theology, 598–99; Letham, The Work of Christ, 242; J. Ramsey Michaels, “Atonement in John’s Gospel and Epistles,” in The Glory of the Atonement, 116–17; Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 72–75; and Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? 488.
18. See Walter A. Elwell, “Atonement, Extent of,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 115; Erickson, Christian Theology, 843–46; and Letham, The Work of Christ, 233–40.
19. “The elect may be the entire nation of Israel or the church as a body or individuals. In each case, God sets his affection on his chosen ones in a way in which he does not set his affection on others” (D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000], 18). See also Packer, “The Love of God: Universal and Particular,” 283–84.
20. Bruce Demarest, TheCross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation, Foundations of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997), 193.
21. Ibid., 191 (italics his).
22. “An overemphasis on the objective atonement or the finished work of Christ gives the impression that the atonement is automatic and that faith is relatively unimportant” (Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966], 157).
23. Bruce A. Ware, “Extent of the Atonement: Outline of the Issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments” (unpublished class handout, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, n.d.), 5 (italics his).
24. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? 100.
25. “If it be asked in what sense Christ is the Savior of all men, we reply: that the atonement of Christ secures for all men a delay in the execution of the sentence against sin, and a space for repentance, together with a continuance of the common blessings of life which have been forfeited by transgression” (Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology [Valley Forge, PA: Judson, 1907], 772).
26. John Aloisi, “The Paraclete’s Ministry of Conviction: Another Look at John 16:8–11, ” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47 (2004): 68.
27. See Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), 2:674. Common grace is never “saving” in any sense, and it is not equivalent to the Arminian notion of prevenient grace. See Thomas R. Schreiner, “Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?” in Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 235.
28. See Richard J. Mouw, He Shines in All That’s Fair: Culture and Common Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 9; and Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? 100–101.
29. Common grace is just as evident in the Old Testament as in the New. However, common grace is still possible only on the basis of the Atonement. Just as salvation (special grace) in the Old Testament is bestowed by God in anticipation of the Cross, so was common grace.
30. Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 61–62.
31. See John Calvin, Commentary on theGospel according to John, trans. William Pringle (reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 37–38; Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 83–84; and Merrill C. Tenney, “The Gospel of John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 31.
32. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 661.
33. Scholars differ on the identification of “the one who restrains.” For a defense of the view that this is the Holy Spirit see Robert L. Thomas, “1 and 2 Thessalonians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11 (1978), 324–35; John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: VanKampen, 1954), 114–16; and Thomas L. Constable, “2 Thessalonians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983); reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996), 721.
34. “To the general influence of the Spirit (or to common grace), we owe—(1) All the decorum, order, refinement, and virtue existing among men. Mere fear of future punishment, the natural sense of right, and the restraints of human laws, would prove feeble barriers to evil, were it not for the repressing power of the Spirit, which, like the pressure of the atmosphere, is universal and powerful, though unfelt. (2) To the same divine agent is due specially that general fear of God, and that religious feeling which prevail among men, and which secure for the rites and services of religion in all its forms, the decorous or more serious attention which they receive” (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 671).
35. Strong, Systematic Theology, 772.
36. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 664.
37. Curtis Vaughan, “Colossians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11 (1978), 186.
38. F. F. Bruce, “The ‘Christ Hymn’ of Colossians 1:15–20, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 141 (January–March 1984): 109.
39. “ ‘Things on earth . . . things in heaven’ ” thus denotes everything in God’s universe” (Vaughan, “Colossians,” 186). See also Bruce, “The ‘Christ Hymn,’ ” 109; and Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 56–59.
40. Thomas Talbott believes that Colossians 1:19–20 affirms universalism (“Christ Victorious,” in Universal Salvation? The Current Debate, 22–25). However, the context of Colossians 1:19–20 rules out universalism. Verses 22–23 state that those who would be presented before God as holy, blameless, and beyond reproach must not be moved away from the hope of the gospel; in other words they must put their faith in Christ through the gospel in order to be saved.
41. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, 57.
42. See Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 348.
43. Homer A. Kent Jr., “Philippians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11 (1978), 125.
44. “Having become impotent the evil forces must submit to Christ’s cosmic victory so that his peaceful purposes will be fully achieved” (Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology: Three Volumes in One [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 407).
45. Ware, “Extent of the Atonement,” 4 (italics his).
46. F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 130.
47. “The man who brought death is Adam, and the one who will bring about the resurrection of the dead is Christ” (W. Harold Mare, “1 Corinthians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10 [1976], 285).
48. According to Paul, Christ’s death and resurrection are inseparable (H. D. McDonald, The Atonement of the Death of Christ in Faith, Revelation, and History [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985], 32–41; and Richard Gaffin, “Atonement in the Pauline Corpus,” in The Glory of the Atonement, 142).
49. Lightner, The Death Christ Died, 144.
50. Some supporters of particular redemption, however, do not hold to a universal gospel call (e.g., Joseph Hussey, John Gill, John Brine, Klaas Schilder, and Herman Hoeksema). Yet most advocates of limited atonement agree that the gospel call should be universal, that is, offered to everyone (e.g., Roger Nicole, “Covenant, Universal Call, and Definite Atonement,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 [1995]: 410-11; and J. I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1961], 26–27).
51. Lewis Sperry Chafer, “For Whom Did Christ Die?” Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (July–September 1980): 315 (italics his).
52. “That there is great difficulty in the way of harmonizing the general invitations with the Gospel on the one hand with the special reference of the atonement to those who shall eventually be partakers of its benefits on the other hand—it would be altogether fruitless to disguise” (Thomas J. Crawford, The Doctrine of the Holy Scripture respecting the Atonement [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954], 510). R. B. Kuiper, who holds to particular redemption, calls the universal call and particular redemption a “paradox” (For Whom Did Christ Die? [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959], 86).
53. For example Nicole, “Covenant, Universal Call, and Definite Atonement,” 410; and Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 65.
54. “What has to be said about the cross when preaching the gospel is simply that Christ’s death is the ground on which Christ’s forgiveness is given. And this is all that has to be said. The question of the designed extent of the atonement does not come into the story at all” (Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, 68).
55. For example Letham, The Work of Christ, 246; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 597–603; and Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? 100.
56. What one believes about the nature, intent, and extent of the Atonement affects the Christian life, including the proclamation of the gospel (Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 166; and Stott, The Cross of Christ, 23–50).
57. Lightner, The Death Christ Died, 114.
58. “But, since we do not know who the elect and non-elect are, and since we do offer salvation to any and all, then there must have been a genuine payment made which they can, if they choose, receive” (Ware, “Extent of the Atonement,” 4).
59. Edwin A. Blum, “2 Peter,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 12 (1981), 282. See also Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 277–78; and Davids, Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, 250–51.
60. See note 15.
61. This negates the argument that with unlimited atonement sinners are condemned only for their unbelief. Rather, Christ paid for all sins, including unbelief, and the nonelect are judged for all their deeds (Rev. 20:12).
62. Ware, “Extent of the Atonement,” 4.
63. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 3.24.2.
64. “Some interpret this text to mean that God is the Savior of all, in the general sense that he preserves humanity in existence, provides the blessings of common grace, and delays the execution of his judgment on sinners. Whereas the OT often envisages God as Savior in the sense of temporal provider and deliverer, we should be guided by Pauline usage, which is consistently soteriological (Eph 5:23; Phil 3:20; 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 2 Tim 1:10; Tit 1:3–4; 2:10, 13; 3:4–6). . . . Thus 1 Timothy 4:10 teaches that Christ is universal Savior in that he made redemptive provision for all persons, but he is the effectual Savior of those who believe” (Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 191).
65. Elwell, “Atonement, Extent of,” 116.
66. See also Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, rev. Vernon D. Doerksen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 105; and Ralph Earle, “1 Timothy,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11 (1978), 373.