(Disclaimer: the following is an attempt at satire on the issue of the universality of the atonement)

In this post we will take look at the extent of the atonement. By using proper exegesis of scripture it can be proven with certainty that Jesus died to effectually secure salvation for Paul of Tarsus. And for Paul alone.

First, let's take a look at Galatians 2:20. This is the most important verse in the Bible, because it explicitly states the extent of the atonement (bold mine): "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

This post is an excerpt from the book review of Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

Owen's Argument 13:

P1: Christ death satisfied the debt for all those He died for
P2: God cannot justly require satisfaction of one debt from two parties (i.e. us and Christ)
C1: Therefore, God cannot require satisfaction of the sin debt for anyone Christ died for
P3: God requires satisfaction of the sin debt of some people in Hell
C2: therefore, Christ did not die for everyone

(link)

Scripture Cited by Owen

“he oweth the ten thousand talents” Matthew 18:24
“Forgive us our debts” Matthew 6:12

Toward a Definition of "All People"
James M. Leonard
Arminian Baptist

http://jmleonardfamily.googlepages.com/towardsadefinitionofallmen

A Wesleyan Interpretation of Romans 5-8

From the Wesleyan Theological Journal
Jerry McCant

Any assignment whose parameters are set by others can be threatening. After accepting this assignment, I found this one to be so. First, it was to be a Wesleyan interpretation. Given the many "Wesleyanisms"' and the problem Isbell2 had in defining a "Wesleyan position" on the "old man," I was not too hopeful. I was asked to interpret Romans 6-8 from this Wesleyan perspective. For reasons that I shall discuss below, I was not able to be that restrictive, but found myself forced to consider Romans 5-8 as a unit.

Taken from http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atonement.html

This article is not written by an Arminian, but from a "moderate Calvinist" perspective. We include it because it argues for unlimited atonement, a doctrine that is so obviously biblical that many who consider themselves Calvinists embrace it.

The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement
by Ron Rhodes

Taken from http://www.biblebelievers.net/Calvinism/kjcalvn2.htm

This article is not written by an Arminian, but from a "moderate Calvinist" perspective. We include it because it argues for unlimited atonement, a doctrine that is so obviously biblical that many who consider themselves Calvinists embrace it.

Did Christ Die For All?
by Samual Telloyan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copies available from:
Bible for Today, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, NJ 609-854-4452
Ask for #586

Introduction
The question considered in this study of the Bible is, "For whom did Christ die?" Some answer, "For all." Others answer, "Only for the elect." What sayeth the Scriptures?

D.A. Waite, "Calvin's Error of Limited Atonement"

This article was written by Rev. D.A. Waite, Th.D, Ph. D. of the Bible for Today, Incorporated

Robert Lightner, "Problems with a Limited View of the Atonement"

This article is chapter 5 from the book, The Death Christ Died, A Case for the Unlimited Atonement by Robert Lightner.

It has been contested that John 3.16 fits well within a Calvinistic framework. After all, as Calvinist R. C. Sproul has noted, whosoever will may come to Jesus. But, he continued, no one will ever will or want to come to Jesus. Thus God effectually draws unto Himself, through the granting of faith in Christ Jesus via regeneration, those whom He has elected for salvation. Moreover, God only loves the elect, and not "the world," as John 3.16 unequivocally states.

Why must the Calvinist insist that God is 1) not obligated to love everyone (no one ever said that God was obligated to love anyone), and 2) that He does not love everyone in the same way? When it comes to John 3.16, these are the first two statements a Calvinist will make. Why? Is it because proper exegesis drove them to these conclusions, or is it because they have a theological system to defend? I believe it is the latter.

Please click on the attachment to view Marshall, I. Howard. "For All, for All My Saviour Died," published in Semper Reformanda: Studies in Honour of Clark H. Pinnock (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross; Carlisle, Uk: Paternoster, 2003) 322-46.

This article is used by permission of Paternoster (the publisher).

Please click on the attachment to view Marshall, I. Howard. "The Theology of the Atonement." This paper was given at a joint Evangelical Alliance/London School of Theology Symposium on the Atonement held at the London School of Theology from 6-8 July 2005. It does not focus on the extent of the atonement (though there is a helpful affirmation of unlimited atonement in a substantial footnote, # 68), but on giving a powerful argument for the penal substitution view of the atonement by an advocate of unlimited atonement. This is significant in the context of the Arminian/Calvinist debate because some have argued that unlimited atonement is inconsistent with penal substitution, despite the fact that Arminius and most Arminians have held to penal substitution as at least part of the meaning of the atonement.

Ware is a 4 point Calvinist who affirms unlimited atonement. This overview of the issue of the extent of the atonement is useful for its arguments against limited atonement (see the attachment). But beware of Ware! He tries to separate his view from the Arminian view by setting up some straw men, as if Arminian theology denies that there are multiple divine intentions behind the atonement or that God does not have a special love for his own people. On another note of caution, we disagree with Calvinistic statements made by Ware as when he speaks of the elect being efficaciously called and irresistibly drawn to place their faith in Christ. With those caveats, Ware's arguments can be useful against limited atonement and in favor of unlimited atonement, and they carry special weight in coming from a Calvinist who recognizes that Scripture's affirmation that Jesus died for all is so strong and clear as to be virtually impossible to deny.

This is an excerpt from Basic Theology by Charles Ryrie, and has been taken from http://www.bible-reading.com/atone.html#extent

Please note that Ryrie is not really an Arminian, but we make the article available because it argues for an unlimited atonement.

THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT
From Basic Theology by Charles Ryrie
I. THE QUESTION

Atonement

Picirilli, Robert. "The Extent of the Atonement"

Picirilli, Robert. "The Extent of the Atonement"

Once again, Arminius' accusers charged him as teaching something which they considered heresy, that Christ has died for all men and for every individual. To which he replied:

"This assertion was never made by me, either in public or private, except when it was accompanied by such an explanation as the controversies which are excited on this subject have rendered necessary.

"For the phrase here used possesses much ambiguity: Thus it may mean either that 'the price of the death of Christ was given for all and for every one,' or that 'the redemption, which was obtained by means of that price is applied and communicated to all men and to every one.'

"(1) Of this latter sentiment I entirely disapprove, because God has by a peremptory decree resolved that believers alone should be made partakers of this redemption.