 be saved by the death of Christ has a really unlimited atonement. Evangelicals with an atonement which is unlimited in extent limit the power or efficacy of that atonement to actually save those for whom Christ died. Calvinists limit the extent of the atonement. But both limit the atonement! This is why—by the way—I prefer to describe limited atonement as particular redemption.

(2) Calvinists limit the value of the atonement.

Actually, it is Arminians who do this! But it is certainly not Calvinists who limit the value of the atonement. Listen once more to the Canons of Dort:

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

The question debated between Arminians and Calvinists in regard to limited atonement is not, then, how much the atonement is worth or how valuable the redemption price paid by Christ is. The question is for whom was it paid and for whom was atonement made.

(3) Limited Atonement contradicts the free and well-meant offer of the gospel!

Arminians make this claim because they rightly conclude that limited atonement means that we Calvinists cannot tell everyone you meet that Christ died for them. If limited atonement is true, then Christ did not die for everyone, and we may not say that He did! This seems a serious issue for the one who assumes that sharing the gospel means telling people that Christ died for them.

The problem is that the offer of the gospel does not consist in anybody’s view of whom Christ died for, or statement about the extent of the atonement. The gospel offer is not ‘Christ died for you.’ You can find no such gospel offer in the preaching of the Apostles of Christ or in the Book of Acts. The offer of the gospel is simply the offer of Christ Himself as a sufficient Savior. It is not necessary to make assertions with regard to those for whom Christ died in the mystery of the divine will in order to offer Christ as a sufficient Savior for all men without exception. Paul’s declaration in Galatians 2:20 that Christ loved me and gave himself for me is not a statement of the gospel offer to
be saved by the death of Christ has a really outright expiation. Evangelicals with an atonement which is unlimited in extent restrict the office or efficacy of that atonement to actually save those for whom Christ die. Calvinists limit the extent of the expiation. But both restrict the atonement! This is why — by the room — I prefer to describe circumscribed atonement as particular redemption. 

 (2) Calvinists limit the value of the atonement. 

 Actually, it is Arminians who do this! But it is certainly not Calvinists who limit the value of the expiation. Listen once more to the Canons of Dort: 

 SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 3. The death of the Son of God is the alone and most perfect forfeit and satisfaction for sine, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. 

 The question debated between Arminians and Calvinists in attentiveness to limited atonement is not, then, how much the atonement is worth or how valuable the redemption price pay by Christ is. The question is for whom was it paid and for whom was atonement made. 

 (3) Limited Atonement contradicts the free and well - meant offer of the gospel! 

 Arminians make this title because they rightly conclude that limited expiation mean that we Calvinists cannot distinguish everyone you meet that Christ died for them. If circumscribed atonement is genuine, then Christ did not die for everyone, and we may not say that He suffice! This seems a serious issue for the one who assumes that sharing the gospel think of telling people that Christ died for them. 

 The problem is that the crack of the gospel does not dwell in anybody ’s view of whom Christ died for, or statement about the extent of the atonement. The gospel offer is not ‘ Christ die for you. ’ You can find no such gospel offer in the sermon of the Apostles of Christ or in the Book of Acts. The offer of the gospel is simply the offer of Christ Himself as a sufficient Savior. It is not necessary to have affirmation with regard to those for whom Christ died in the mystery of the providential will in order to offer Christ as a sufficient Savior for all men without exception. Paul ’s contract in Galatians 2:20 that Christ loved me and give himself for me is not a statement of the gospel offer to
 be saved by the death of Cmrist has a really unlikited ztonemeng. Evangelicals with an atonelebt whuch is unlimited in exgent limin the powwr oc efficacy of thef atonement tk actbaoly save those for whom Whrist died. Canvknnsts limit the extent of the atonemegt. But nohh limit the ajonemtnt! Thia is why—by the way—I prefer to descdibe likited atonememt as particular redemptioj.

(2) Capvinists limit the value of tye aeinement.

Actuauly, it is Arminians whk do this! But it is certainly nut Cakvinists wyo lilht the valux of tre atonement. Listen mnce mote to the Canoks of Doet:

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 3. The death of the Son of Gmd is the only and nowt petfect sacfufize znv sztisfaftikn for sin, and is of unfinite worth and fajlr, abundantly suffisiqnt to expiate the sins of the whole wogld.

Tge question debated betqeen Arminians and Capvinists yn regard to limited atonement is not, then, how muwh thx xtoucidbt is worth or how valuable the redemption pricq psic by Christ is. The questipn ix for whom was it pans znd for whom was ahonemenj made.

(3) Limited Wtonrment contradicts the free qnd well-meann ofder of the gospel!

Axminians makz this claik because they rightly eoncluse that limlted atonsoent means that de Balvhnists cannot tell everyonq you meev thac Christ diec for ehem. If lilited atonement is true, hhen Ehrisd did not fie for everyone, and we may not say that He dod! Thps seems c seripus issue for the one who axsumes chat sfaring the gospel means tellyng people thdj Christ died for thei.

The provlem is ghat the offer of the gospel does not consist in annbody’r view of whom Ckxiwt died for, or xtagemqnn auout eve extent of the atumemeng. The gospeo offrr is not ‘Christ dieg fod you.’ You can find nj such gispel ofser in the prraching of the Apodtles of Chrixt jr in the Book of Acts. The offsr of the gofpel is simpjy tme osfer of Chxist Himself as a sufficient Savior. It iw not necessary to make assertions wijh vegard to thpse fjr whom Cvrist died in the mywtery of the divike will in order to ofrer Chsist ws a sufficient Savior for all men without exception. Paul’s declaration in Galatmags 2:20 that Chdist loveg iz and gwve iioself for me is mot a statement of the gospel ohfer to
be saved by the death of Christ really atonement. Evangelicals an atonement which the or efficacy of atonement to actually those for whom Christ died. Calvinists the extent of the atonement. But both limit the atonement! This is why—by way—I prefer to describe limited atonement as particular redemption. (2) Calvinists limit the of atonement. it Arminians who do this! But it is certainly not Calvinists who limit the value of the Listen once more to the Canons of Dort: HEAD: ARTICLE 3. The of the Son of God the and most sacrifice satisfaction sin, and is infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. The question debated Arminians and regard to atonement not, how much the worth or how valuable the redemption Christ is. The question is for whom was paid and whom was atonement made. (3) Limited contradicts the free and well-meant offer of the Arminians make this claim because they rightly conclude that limited atonement means that we Calvinists everyone you meet that died for them. limited is then did not for everyone, and we may not say that He did! This a serious issue for the one who assumes that sharing means people that Christ for them. The problem that offer of the gospel consist anybody’s Christ for, statement about the extent the atonement. The gospel offer not ‘Christ died for such gospel offer in the preaching of the of Christ or in the Book of The offer of the gospel is simply the offer of Christ Himself a sufficient is not necessary to make assertions with regard those for whom Christ in the mystery of the divine will in order offer as a Savior for all without exception. Paul’s in Galatians 2:20 loved me gave for a statement of the gospel offer
 be saved by the death of Christ Has a really UnlimIteD atOnEmenT. EvaNgelicals with aN AtonEment which is unlimited iN exteNt LImit THe Power Or efficACy OF ThaT aToNemEnT To ActuaLly Save thoSe for whom CHriSt Died. CalvinisTS lImit the extEnt Of the atonemeNt. BUt both LiMit THe atoNemEnt! ThIs is whY—By the wAy—I prefer To DEscribE Limited ATOnEmenT as particular redeMPtIOn.

(2) Calvinists liMit the VaLUe OF The AtoNement.

ActuAlLy, it iS arminiaNS wHO DO thIS! But it is certaInly not CalvINisTs who lImIt tHE value Of the AtONemEnt. Listen onCe moRe to the CaNons of dOrt:

SECOnd HEAD: ARtICLE 3. THe dEatH of tHE SOn Of GOd IS thE OnLy aND moSt perfecT sAcRificE and SATISfacTioN for Sin, anD is of infinite WorTh anD ValUe, abuNdantLy suFfIcienT to expIate tHe Sins of the whole wOrld.

the questiOn dEbAteD bEtweeN arminiAns And calviniSts in reGArd To LIMItEd atonement is not, thEn, HOW mUch the atOnemenT Is WoRTh or how vAlUabLe thE REdempTion PRiCe paid by christ IS. THe QuestioN iS for whOm Was It pAid anD For wHom was AtonemenT made.

(3) lImited AtonemenT Contradicts thE FrEE AnD Well-MeaNt offer of thE gosPEl!

ArMiniANs MakE This cLaim bEcAUsE They rightly conclude ThAt limiTed atOnement means tHat we CalviNISTs cannot Tell EVeRYone you meet thaT ChriSt died for tHEm. If limiTed atOnement iS true, then cHRist did nOt dIe fOr eVerYONe, And we may not saY THat HE dId! This sEemS a serioUs iSsuE foR thE oNe who assuMes that sHaRiNg ThE goSpel mEAns telliNg PeoPlE thAt ChrISt died For thEm.

ThE pRoBLem Is that tHE oFFEr of ThE gOspeL doEs Not coNsisT In aNybody’s View of whoM ChRIst dIeD fOr, or staTement about thE eXtent of the AtOneMent. ThE GOspel offEr is not ‘Christ died for you.’ yOu can fiNd nO such GospEl offer in The PreachIng OF the ApOstles Of ChrIsT or IN The BoOK Of actS. THe offer of tHE GosPel is SiMply The offeR of Christ Himself as A SufFicient Savior. it iS not NECeSsaRY tO MakE aSSerTIOns with regard to Those for whOm cHrIst died in tHE myStEry of thE divine Will iN Order to Offer ChriSt as a suffIcIent sAVioR for all men Without eXception. PAUl’s deCLaRatioN in galatiAnS 2:20 thAt ChrIst lovED me And gaVe himsElF for me Is not A sTatement Of the gospel offer to
 be saved by the death ofChrist has  a re all y u nl imit ed a tonement. Evan g elic als with an atonementwhich  i s  unl i mi ted i n exten t  l i m itth epow er or  effi cac y of th at atoneme ntto  actually sa v ethose forwho m Christ die d.Calvin is tsl imitthe  exte nt oft he ato nement. B ut both l i mit the a to neme nt! This is why—b y  t h e way—I prefer  to de sc r ib e lim ite d atonemen tas pa r ticular re d e m pti o n.

(2) Calvi nists limit the  value  o f t h e aton ement .Act ually, it i s Ar minians w ho dot his! Bu t  it iscertai nly  no t Ca l vi ni sts  w h o l i mi t t h e v alue ofth eatone ment . L i sten  on ce m ore t o the CanonsofDort : 

S ECOND  HEAD : AR TI CLE 3 . Thedeath  o f the Son of Go d is  the only  an dmos tperfe c t sacr ifi ceand sat isfacti o n f or s i n,  and is of infinit ew o rt h and va lue, a b un da n tly suff ic ien t to e xpiat e th e  s ins of t he who l ewo rld.

T he  quest io n d eba ted b e twee n Armi nians an d Cal v inists in rega r d to limiteda to n e me n t is  no t, then, ho w mu c h th e at o ne men t  is w orthor ho w  valuable the redem pt ion pr ice p aid by Christ  is. The q u e s tion isforw ho m  was it paid a nd fo r whom was atonemen t mad e.

(3)Limited A t o nement c ont rad ict s t h e  f ree and well- m e antof fer ofthe  gospel !
Arm ini ans  m ake thisclaim be ca us eth eyright l y conclu de  th at  li mited atonem ent m eans  t ha t  we  Calvin i st s cann ot  t elleve ry one y ou m e etthat Ch rist died  fo r  the m.  I f limit ed atonementis  true, the nChr ist di d not diefor everyone, and we ma y  not sa y t hat H e di d! This s eem s a se rio u s issu e forthe o ne  wh o assum e s  t hat  s haring the g osp el me an s te lling p eople that Christd ied  for them.

T heprob l e mist ha t  th eo ffe r of the gospel d oes not co ns i st  in anybod y ’svi ew of w hom Chr ist d i ed for,  or state ment abou tthee x ten t of the a tonement . The gos p el of f er  is n ot‘Chris tdie d for  you.’ You  canfind n osuch g ospel  o ffer inthe preaching of the Ap ostles  of C hri st or inthe Boo k of Acts . Th e offer of  th e g ospel  is simpl y th e  o ffe r  of C hris t  Himselfa sa s u f fi cient Savio r . Itis no t n e cessar y to  make assertionsw ith regard tothos e for  wh o m Ch ri st died in the  my st e r y of the  d ivine willin order  t o  offe r Chri st asa suffi c i en t  Savio r fo r a ll men wi tho ut excepti on .P aul’sdecl ar ationin Gal a tian s 2:20 that Christ  love d me an d  ga ve hi ms elf for me i s not a st atement ofthe go spel  offe r to
 be_saved by_the death of Christ_has a_really_unlimited atonement._Evangelicals_with an atonement_which is unlimited_in extent limit the_power or efficacy_of_that atonement to actually save those for whom Christ died. Calvinists limit the extent_of_the atonement._But_both_limit the atonement! This is_why—by the way—I prefer to_describe limited_atonement as particular redemption.

(2) Calvinists limit the value_of_the atonement.

Actually, it_is Arminians who do this! But it is certainly_not Calvinists who limit the value_of the atonement._Listen_once_more to the Canons_of Dort:

SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 3. The_death of the Son of God_is the only and most perfect sacrifice_and satisfaction for sin, and is_of infinite worth and value,_abundantly sufficient_to expiate the sins of_the whole world.

The_question debated_between Arminians and_Calvinists in regard to limited atonement_is not, then,_how much the atonement is worth_or_how valuable the_redemption_price_paid by_Christ is. The_question_is for_whom_was it paid and for whom_was_atonement made.

(3) Limited Atonement contradicts the free_and well-meant offer of_the_gospel!

Arminians make this claim_because they rightly conclude that_limited atonement means that we Calvinists_cannot tell_everyone you_meet that Christ died for them. If limited atonement is true,_then Christ did not die for_everyone, and we may_not say_that_He did! This_seems_a serious_issue for the one who assumes that_sharing the_gospel means telling people that Christ_died for them.

The problem_is_that the offer of the gospel_does not consist in anybody’s view_of whom Christ died for,_or_statement_about the extent of the_atonement. The gospel offer is not_‘Christ died for_you.’ You can find no such gospel_offer_in the preaching of the Apostles_of_Christ or in the Book of_Acts._The_offer of the gospel is_simply the offer of Christ Himself_as a sufficient Savior. It is not necessary to_make assertions with_regard to those for whom_Christ_died_in the mystery of the divine will in order to_offer Christ_as a sufficient_Savior for all men without exception. Paul’s declaration in Galatians_2:20 that Christ loved me and gave_himself for me is not a statement of the gospel offer_to