Limited atonement (also called definite atonement or particular redemption) is a doctrine accepted in some Christian theological traditions. It is particularly associated with the Reformed tradition and is one of the five points of Calvinism. The doctrine states that though the death of Jesus Christ is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, it was the intention of God the Father that the atonement of Christ's death would work itself out in only the elect, thereby leading them without fail to salvation. According to Limited Atonement, Christ died for the sins of the elect alone, and no atonement was provided for the reprobate. This is in contrast to a belief that God's prevenient grace (or "enabling grace") enables all to respond to the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ so that it is each person's decision and response to God's grace that determines whether Christ's atonement will be effective to that individual. A modified form of the doctrine also exists in Molinism. History The second century document Martydom of Polycarp said that Christ "suffered for the world of the saved", which can be interpreted to support an idea like limited atonoment, however it is not certain to teach a form of particular redemption and the book can also be understood in other ways, which do not necessate the view of limited atonoment. The elements of the doctrine to be known as limited atonement were held by Gottschalk of Orbais (c. 808 – c. 867), Thomas Bradwardine (c. 1290 – 1349), and Gregory of Rimini (c. 1300 – 1358), though there was less precision regarding the extent of the atonement before the Reformation period. The Synod of Dort was convened in 1618 in order to decide a controversy between the followers of Jacobus Arminius (Arminians), and other Calvinists. One of the issues involved had to do with the reason for the limitation of the efficacy of Christ's satisfaction for sin (roughly, atonement). Both sides of the controversy agreed that this efficacy was limited to the elect. The disagreement had to do with the grounds for this limitation. For Arminius, the ground was the free choice of people to believe, foreknown by God, with God predestining people based on this foreseen faith. For the opponents of Arminius, whose views are represented in the Canons of Dort, this efficacy was limited based on God's predestination, without any foreknowledge of