I have found it difficult to understand precisely what Reformed circles mean in the "doctrine of Limited/Definite Atonement / Particular Redemption". Descriptions or statements of the doctrine are often a bit vague, and can vary to some extent among those who identify as proponents of the doctrine; and I think the lack of clarity is not helped when theologians seemingly employ the Fallacy of Equivocation when attempting to logically justify their positions. The "doctrine of Limited Atonement" is typically expressed/summarised something like as follows: "Christ **did not die for everyone**, but only for the elect; and this death for His elect purchased for them actual redemption as opposed to the mere potential for redemption." My main question is how this vague preposition "*for*" is meant to be interpreted in the sentence "Christ did not die **for** everyone". I can think of several senses in which this could reasonably be intended, and I am wondering if it is intended to be interpreted in all of these senses. If not, then surely those who use this phrasing need to add caveats that preclude reasonable but unintended interpretations. In other words, they surely have to be willing to say that, *in some senses*, Christ *did* die for everyone. **Question:** Is the statement that "Christ did not die *for* everyone" in the typical Reformed doctrine of Particular Redemption intended to include all of the following aspects of how His death could be regarded as not being "dying *for* everyone"? In other words: How many of the following five statements would a typical self-identifying adherent of Particular Redemption be willing to affirm? **Regarding the pre-eternal plan of atonement:** 1. [Particularity in underlying motivation] The motivation behind God giving Christ as an atonement for sin (as in, e.g., John 3:16) did not include: (a) salvation-desiring love *directed to humanity as a whole*, i.e. a corporate love upon the race of descendants of Adam leading to a general desire for salvation of its members; nor (b) salvation-desiring love *directed personally to each and every sinner* that would ever live. Rather, the salvation-desiring love that motivated God's plan of atonement was exclusively in connection with His elect people throughout the world (both corporately and individually). 2. [Particularity in intended purpose] The aims that were in view in the plan of atonement did not include opening any kind of *potential* to every person to have their sins propitiated in the atonement. The aim did, however, include ensuring that all the elect would have their sins propitiated in the atonement. **Regarding the substance of the atonement:** 3. [Particularity in the actual exchange] Christ's sacrifice was of infinite value, sufficiently great to be able to pay for all the sins ever committed. Nonetheless, the wrath under which Christ suffered was not wrath against the collective sin of the human race, nor did it include God's wrath against all sin ever committed by humans. It consisted exclusively of God's wrath against all sin that was against the account of elect people. 4. [Particularity in those to whom a channel of redemption was opened] Just as Christ's atoning sacrifice did not create any means of redemption open to angels that have sinned, so likewise Christ's atoning sacrifice did not create any means of redemption open to unelected people. The only *legal possibility of justification* that was created by the atoning work is that which was also *guaranteed* by the atoning work to be realised. **Regarding the command to trust Christ for salvation:** 5. God has placed a moral obligation on all people, elect and unelect alike, to trust in Christ for forgiveness and redemption from their sins through His death. This moral obligation does not contradict the unavailability in actual substance of a channel of redemption to unelect people, since in God's design only elect people will be brought to obedience to this moral obligation. Of course, I recognise that the answer to my question will not necessarily be uniform among all those who profess to hold to Particular Redemption, or even among all those who are willing to use the phrasing "Christ did not die for everyone but only for the elect". But perhaps there is a general trend/most common position among self-identifying adherents of the doctrine? Or not? **Some additional context:** Another possible view, which I suspect that some self-identifying "five-point Calvinists" hold to, would be something like as follows. - *One major and central facet* of the atonement is that, by God's design arising from His love for the race of descendants of Adam, **Christ, in His death as a Man, died sacrificially as a Representative of mankind before God, thereby legally purchasing the availability to all men and women of having their sins exchanged for Christ's righteousness**, if they will only repent and trust in Christ. - *Another important facet* of the atonement is that **when God in eternity past set affection on all those whom He would in due course call to Himself, He designed that Christ would die as a propitiation to "buy their forgiveness" in the sense of buying for them the actuality that their sins are no longer held against them**—this forgiveness coming into effect through the repentance and faith in Christ that God in due course grants them. I suspect (but am not sure) that John Piper holds to a view approximating the above pair of points, and that he regards the earliest 'Calvinists' of the Reformation as also having held to something approximating the above pair of points. But in opposition to this, it seems that many Reformed theologians find objectional *any* concept of "payment for sin" whereby the availability of forgiveness can be purchased for people who will not ultimately be forgiven.

John 6:44 (KJB): > “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” The Bible makes it clear in John 12:32 that Jesus Christ will draw all men to Himself. John 12:32 (KJB): > “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” Can we say that all those who the Father draws are those who Jesus draws unto himself by his death?

In 1648 John Owen (1616-1683) published his definitive work The Death of Death in the Death of Christ which produced an almost immediate response, in the next year, from Richard Baxter (1615-1691) and an ongoing, controversial, public debate between the two. In a summary, in 1846, of Baxter's theology, Thomas W Jenkyn states part of Baxter's views as follows : >The atonement of Christ did not consist in his suffering the identical but the equivalent punishment (i.e., one which would have the same effect in moral government) as that deserved by mankind because of offended law. **Christ died for sins, not persons**. *The benefits of substitutionary atonement are accessible and available to all men for their salvation.* I have highlighted two parts with bold and italics. Paul specifically says that 'the Son of God loved me and gave himself for me', Galatians 2:20, and Peter says of Christ, that 'he bore our sins (not just 'sins' - 'our sins') in his own body on the tree', 1 Peter 2:24. This appears to be personal, to me. I cannot see how it could be more 'personal'. But I can see in Richard Baxter's theology the beginnings (or the first strong public expression) of what would later become a very widely accepted 'gospel' - that of a 'universally available' 'salvation' which, actually, applies to none, and has to be 'accessed' to 'activate' its efficacy. I am interested in how Richard Baxter supported his view, particularly regarding such texts as the ones I have quoted, where it would seem that scripture is not on his side in saying 'Christ died for sins, not persons' and 'the benefits are accessible and available to all' (when we are told that 'a sword turns every way to keep the way to the tree of life', Genesis 3:24.). This view is certainly the antithesis of what John Owen published and I am interested in what arguments Baxter relied upon to counteract Owen's theology. ------------------------- Personal Note : I have never agreed with the term 'limited atonement' since Jesus says, Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45, that the Son of man 'gave his life a ransom for many' (though 'strait is the gate that leads to life and and few find it' Matthew 7:14) and since John saw in vision, Revelation 7:9, 'a great multitude whom no man can number'. 'Many' and 'no man can number' does not sound 'limited' to my own ear. My own understanding is that some limit themselves, through unbelief, and exclude themselves from benefit and have only themselves to blame. That some are chosen 'before the foundation of the world', Ephesians 1:4, is irrelevant to the culpability of those who spend their life in activity contrary to their own humanity and detrimental to their own, ultimate, destiny. Perhaps Richard Baxter has arguments against what I have just written in which case I am interested in hearing about them.

Calvin, among his other points, includes the point that Atonement is Limited; i.e., that Christ's death was sufficient for all but only effective for the elect. What is the Biblical basis for this doctrine?

Im not asking for an overview of different denominations' views, but rather scriptural evidence for the view held by Calvinists that Christ's death was not for everyone. I'm very familiar with alleged 5 points of Calvinism, - which were not written by Calvin. I've searched the scriptures, using online concordances, dictionaries and multiple webforums, but I'm not able to find a single verse anywhere that says "Christ only died for some, but not all", or a verse that says "His death was not for everyone." While I'm happy for anyone to give a verse or Biblical support, I am especially interested to hear from people who actually believes this- or can help me understand what special term I should be looking for?

The "L" in the TULIP acronym of Reformed Theology stands for Limited Atonement, which the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms defines as : > Sometimes called 'particular redemption,' the view that Jesus' death > secured salvation for only a limited number of persons (the elect), > in contrast to the idea that the work of the cross is intended for all > humankind (as in “unlimited atonement”). This view resulted from the > post-Reformation development of the doctrine of election in Calvinist > circles. Proponents claim that because not everyone is saved, God > could not have intended that Christ die for everyone. We already have a question asking for the Biblical basis **for** Limited Atonement , so my question is what is the Biblical argument **against** Limited Atonement?

John Owen's "trilemma" argument is often used as a defense for Limited Atonement, but it appears to have an underlying difficulty: > To which I may add this dilemma to our universalists: God imposed his > wrath, and Christ underwent the pains of hell, either for all the sins > of all men, or for all the sins of some men, or for some of the sins > of all men. ... If it was the first, then why are not all freed from > the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their > unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or > not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it is, then Christ > either underwent the punishment for it, or he did not. If he did, then > why should that sin keep them from partaking of the fruit of his death > more than their other sins for which he died? If he did not undergo > the punishment for it, then he did not die for all their sins. (The > Death of Death in the Death of Christ [modernized edition by William > H. Gross ], Book I, ch III) He argues that Christ dying for sins means that unbelief (itself being a sin) should not prevent unbelievers from being saved. But if the atonement would save even those who never believe, then that seems to imply that faith is immaterial to salvation. Is it possible to reconcile this line of reasoning with salvation by faith? ### Clarification To summarize the problem and the question: * Owen argues that Christ dying for a person means that unbelief would not stop that person from being saved, viz, *"...why should that sin keep them from partaking of the fruit of his death more than their other sins for which he died?"* * If, as Owen argues, the atonement means that unbelief doesn't disqualify someone from salvation, that seems to imply that faith makes no difference in whether one is saved. * The question then is **how can faith making no difference in whether one is saved be reconciled with salvation by faith**?

All Biblical proof-texts that Calvinists use to provide evidence for the doctrine of limited atonement suffer from an objective logical fallacy informally known as the 'negative inference fallacy.' A simple example of such a fallacious argument is: John loves his friends. Therefore, John does not love his enemies. Calvinists use limited atonement proof-text verses (John 10:11, Ephesians 5:25, Acts 20:28) to make the following argument: The Bible states that Jesus died for believers (the sheep, the church, the elect, etc.) Therefore, Jesus did not die for unbelievers (the goats, the reprobate, etc.) But this argument has the exact same logical form as the objectively fallacious argument that I provided as an example. Furthermore, the Bible contains a plethora of verses stating plainly that Jesus died for all men, casting further doubt on the Calvinist position. My question: How do Calvinists respond to the criticism that many proof-texts they use to support the doctrine of limited atonement suffer from a basic logical fallacy? Edited to add quotes from Calvinists: [Matt Slick, carm.org](https://carm.org/what-is-limited-atonement) >Jesus said in John 10:15 that he laid his life down for the sheep. Furthermore in John 10:26 Jesus said that people did not believe because they are not his sheep. The argument goes that if Jesus lays his life down for the sheep and there are people who were not his sheep, then he did not lay his life down for those who are not his sheep. [R.C. Sproul or someone from his website, ligonier.org](https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/particular-atonement-2/) >God did not send His Son to make it possible or even probable that some would be saved. Instead, His plan guaranteed the salvation of His elect. Christ died for the sins of His people alone. He gave His life only for His sheep (John 10:11). [James White, aomin.org](http://vintage.aomin.org/Was%20Anyone%20Saved.html) >There are a number of Scriptures that teach us that the scope of Christ's death was limited to the elect. Here are a few of them: > >Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28). > >The "many" for whom Christ died are the elect of God, just as Isaiah had said long before, > >By his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53:11) > >The Lord Jesus made it clear that His death was for His people when He spoke of the Shepherd and the sheep: > >I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep....just as the Father knows me and I know the Father---and I lay down my life for the sheep (John 10:11, 15). > >The good Shepherd lays down His life in behalf of the sheep. Are all men the sheep of Christ? Certainly not, for most men do not know Christ, and Christ says that His sheep know Him (John 10:14). Further, Jesus specifically told the Jews who did not believe in Him, "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep" (John 10:26). Note that in contrast with the idea that we believe and therefore make ourselves Christ's sheep, Jesus says that they do not believe because they are not His sheep! Whether one is of Christ's sheep is the Father's decision (John 6:37, 8:47), not the sheep's!

The acronym T.U.L.I.P summarizes five core doctrines of Calvinism concerning salvation. I hope I've summarized them accurately enough for the question's purpose. >T. **Total Depravity** — The doctrine that fallen man is 'dead in trespasses and sins' to the point of not even being able to accept salvation where such an offer thereof to be said to be possible or made possible in Calvinism. > >U. **Unconditional Election** — The doctrine that God's election is, for lack of a better word, arbitrary, or not based on a condition on the creature—everyone saved is just as worthy of it: that is to say, not worthy at all. > >L. **Limited Atonement** — The doctrine that since the grace of God is irresistible and is beneficial without exception to its recipients, this necessitates that Christ died only for such recipients, whose technical term are the elect. > >I. **Irresistible Grace** — The doctrine that those whom God has elected to receive His grace, cannot resist it—according to Calvinism, any notion of 'resist' it would imply that His grace wasn't powerful enough in the first place, since grace means an action God does to someone, and not a spiritual help (which would naturally be able to be refused). > >P. **Perseverance of the Saints** — The doctrine that if God has elected you, you are not among those that are damned, but of the infallibly saved: therefore it is impossible that you will be lost. --- In light of these, how do Calvinists answer the objection that 1 Corinthians 8:11 (among other verses, of course) disproves in a marked way the Limited Atonement and Perseverance of the Saints (but also all of T.U.L.I.P since each point can be said to rely on the truth of the others)? Here is 1 Corinthians 8:10-11 (NA28; my translation): >ἐὰν γάρ τις ἴδῃ σὲ τὸν ἔχοντα γνῶσιν ἐν εἰδωλείῳ κατακείμενον, οὐχὶ ἡ συνείδησις αὐτοῦ ἀσθενοῦς ὄντος οἰκοδομηθήσεται εἰς τὸ τὰ εἰδωλόθυτα ἐσθίειν; ἀπόλλυται γὰρ ὁ ἀσθενῶν ἐν τῇ σῇ γνώσει, ὁ ἀδελφὸς δι’ ὃν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν > >For if someone sees you, who know better, sat eating in the temples of idols, will not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrifices to idols? For by your knowledge he that is weak **has been destroyed: a brother for whom Christ died.** This appears to me to invalidate both Limited Atonement and Perseverence of the Saints, since scandal is described as destroying one for whom Christ died. In the same context, St. Paul writes the following to the church at Rome (Romans 14:14-15, 20: NA28; my translation): >οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι’ ἑαυτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι, ἐκείνῳ κοινόν· εἰ γὰρ διὰ βρῶμα ὁ ἀδελφός σου λυπεῖται, οὐκέτι κατὰ ἀγάπην περιπατεῖς· μὴ τῷ βρώματί σου ἐκεῖνον ἀπόλλυε ὑπὲρ οὗ Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν. ... μὴ ἕνεκεν βρώματος κατάλυε τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ. ... > >I know and am fully convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself, but that to him who considers anything to be unclean, for him it is unclean. For if by food your brother is offended, you are no longer walking according to love: **do not destroy for the sake of food him for whom Christ died.** ... Do not **destroy the work of God** for the sake of food. ... Thanks in advance.

In a video entitled "John MacArthur: Calvinism vs. Arminianism", Todd Friel of Wretched gives a short introduction before showing a clip of John MacArthur at some event several years ago, allegedly attempting to bring a little harmony to the Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Long story short, MacArthur asks the crowd some leading questions in an attempt to convince them that deep Biblical truths are often paradoxical and above human reasoning. He provides the following examples: - Individual election to salvation contrasted with the universal gospel offer to all mankind - Scriptures written fully by man but also fully by God - Guarantee of eternal security contrasted with the responsibility of every believer to persevere MacArthur states that "in every major doctrine of the Bible you have an apparent paradox that you cannot resolve." I assume that most mainstream Calvinists would agree with MacArthur on this issue. Extreme Calvinists, not content with mystery or paradox, unashamedly push Calvinist theology to the limits of its logical implications (double-predestination, God the author of sin, no sincere gospel offer to the reprobate, etc.) This is radically unorthodox doctrinal territory where most mainstream Calvinists don't dare to tread. So, I believe I have established the fact that appealing to paradox or mystery when asked to explain the inexplicable is not foreign to the Calvinist tradition. However, when it comes to advancing their doctrine of limited atonement, Calvinists apparently have no tolerance for paradox or mystery. Because there is not a single verse in the Bible that plainly and clearly states that Jesus died **only** for the elect, the Calvinist typically frames his defense of limited atonement based on a logical argument, John Owen's 'double-jeopardy' argument arguably being the most popular. Owen argued that only one of the following can be true: Christ made atonement for: a) Some of the sins of all men b) All of the sins of all men c) All of the sins of some men Since nobody believes a) and b) implies universalism, c) is the only logical conclusion. If one argues that Christ died for all the sins of all men, but not all are saved due to unbelief, then Owen would counter with the fact that their unbelief was itself a sin that would have been atoned for, so God would have no grounds to damn the unbeliever to Hell. Calvinists claim that limited atonement is the only logical and rational view of the atonement, lest God be considered unjust for punishing the same sins twice, once on Christ and a second time on the unbeliever. Based on their understanding of certain Biblical passages, Calvinists typically advocate for the 'penal substitution' or 'vicarious substitutionary atonement' view of Christ's cross-work. Within this theological structure, it would be irrational and paradoxical to conclude that, on one hand, Christ made atonement for the sins of all men, but on the other hand, only those who believe (a minority of men) will be saved. However, the Bible contains an abundance of verses which, taken at face value, strongly seem to suggest that Christ did in fact make a sin-offering for the sins of all mankind. At this point, the Calvinist has two options: 1) Accept the paradox and believe both 'penal substition' and 'universal atonement'. 2) Deny the paradox and invent creative ways to interpret the 'universal atonement' verses according to their theology. While 4-point Calvinists accept option 1), 5-point Calvinists unanimously accept option 2). Why are Calvinists willing to accept paradox or mystery when explaining the origin of evil, predestination contrasted with genuine human responsibility, etc. but on the subject of atonement, they adopt an excluively rationalist view of Biblical interpretation? Given the plethora of Bible verses clearly stating that Christ's sacrifice was for 'all men', 'every man', 'whole world', why have Calvinist's rejected a paradoxical understanding of the atonement in favour of a purely rationalistic understanding even when they are perfectly willing to appeal to paradox or mystery concerning other major Biblical doctrines? How do Calvinists answer these charges of inconsistency?

I am finding it difficult to understand the Calvinistic ideas of limited atonement and predestination. Does limited atonement mean that only a chosen people called the elect will attain salvation? If yes, will they all be Christians and/or non-Christians as well? How do I know that I am among the elect or not? If everything is predestined, then why preaching the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is necessary? All these ideas just confuses me, please help, but from the Calvinistic Presbyterian point of view and a Biblical basis as well.

I'm having trouble understanding how Calvinists avoid the doctrine of justification from eternity, which roughly states that the elect are justified either before the creation of the world or at the moment of the crucifixion rather than at the moment of personal belief. Because there is not a single Bible verse which clearly and unambiguously states that Christ died **only** for the elect, Calvinists typically attempt to prove their doctrine of limited atonement based on the double payment argument, basically that it would be unjust of God to punish the same sins twice. I don't understand how this argument doesn't backfire on the Calvinist *unless* he believes in the aforementioned 'justification from eternity', which most Calvinists thoroughly reject. If Calvinists believe in effectual atonement (which includes the legally-binding expiation of sins in Calvinist theology), and the atonement was inarguably made at a specific point in time many years ago for all elect souls, then on what basis does the wrath of God fall upon the yet unsaved elect? How is God justified in expressing wrath and condemnation towards elect men who have already had their sins propitiated by Christ many years prior? What is their crime if their sins have already been effectually expiated in a strict legal sense? If I put my Calvinist hat on, there's only two solutions I can come up with: 1) There is no wrath of God against the elect and forgiveness and reconciliation occur *at the cross* and not at the moment of personal belief (justification from eternity). This view would require some serious contortion of many clear Biblical passages not unlike what Calvinists do with the plethora of Bible verses that clearly state that Christ died for all men. 2) Even though the atonement was made at the cross, forgiveness and reconciliation don't become effectual until one believes. But then, this is the exact view of the atonement held by non-Calvinists. So, why do Calvinists argue that a universal atonement would necessarily imply a universal salvation (universalism) if they themselves believe that the application of the atonement is contingent on personal faith and does not follow immediately from the act of atonement itself? Neither option looks good to me if I'm a 5-point Calvinist. Is there a solution that I'm missing? How have Calvinists traditionally avoided this predicament?

Because there is not a single verse in the Bible that explicitly states that Christ laid down his life **only** for believers (the elect), Calvinists typically defend their doctrine of limited atonement by claiming the following argument: 1) The atonement is sufficient for salvation. 2) If Christ shed his blood (made atonement) for all men, then all men would be saved. 3) It is not the case that all men are saved. Therefore, Christ did not shed his blood for the sins of all men but for the elect only. In light of many clear and explicit Bible verses which state that Christ did, in fact, taste death for every man, all men, whole world, etc, Arminians typically state that the atonement was made *provisionally* for all men at the cross, but it only becomes *effective* if/when one believes. It seems like the Arminian agrees with the first premise of the limited atonement argument -- that the atonement is sufficient for salvation. In order to avoid universalism, the Arminian is forced to conclude the the blood-atonement is merely provisional rather than actual. But what if both Calvinists and Arminians are wrong on this point? Is it possible that Christ made actual atonement for all men, but not all men are saved? This leads to my question: What is the basis for arguing that the atonement is sufficient for salvation? Do Calvinists use biblical arguments, and, if so, how do they deal with all the Bible verses which clearly state that faith is necessary for salvation? If not, then what argument can a Calvinist use to support the doctrine of limited atonement?

The term 'limited atonement' has been used, and I wonder how the Reformed is differing by definition from the Evangelical view of atonement. Further, what Scriptures do the Reformed base this view upon? (I have attempted to answer some questions Biblically, having been brought up mainly in the Evangelical tradition, to find that my answers are dissatisfying for someone seeking the particular view of the Reformed or Calvinist. I am interested in learning what some specific differences are between the two traditions, having only a general understanding at present. This question is in that vein.)

When reading about the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement I can follow the logical flow as follows: - Hell is punishment for sin, the outpouring of the wrath of God - Heaven is being with God in the afterlife, which is only possible if our sins are paid for due to divine justice. - Christ came to offer forgiveness of sins - All those who have their sins forgiven therefore will be in Heaven - Not all end up in heaven - Therefore the atonment is limited to those God has selected to forgive One of my arguments against this logical construct is to point out that the actual punishment for sin outlined in Genesis is death; and Christ's work obviously does universally redeem all men from death by the resurrection in an unlimited/universal way. How do reformed theologians answer the fact that Christ's atoning work does actually remove the fundamental consequence of sin for everyone? Is it simply to punish those who end up in Hell? All of the discussions of limited atonement to this point have completely left out the universal resurrection. Is it irrelevant to the point? If so why?

I have been studying the 5 Points of Calvinism (TULIP) for some time and I can say that I accept 4 out of 5. My biggest problem with Calvinism is the doctrine of Limited Atonement that says Jesus died only for the elect. I find this view highly opposed to the Scriptures. I tried pretty hard to reconcile this doctrine with Scripture but it was too hard, there are too many places where it says that Jesus died for the whole world/all/everyone and those can be explained. What really made me lose faith in this doctrine is Paul telling to the Corinthians what the GOSPEL is: > [1 Corinthians 15:1–4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+15%3A1%E2%80%934&version=NIV) (NIV) > Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for **our sins** according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, It is clear that the gospel contains "Christ died for our sins". "OUR" in this context can refer to the elect but this preaching of the gospel was made before they accepted it so Paul told them (before they accepted it) that Jesus died for their sins. So when we preach the gospel it is clear that we should say "Jesus died for your sins". Some will say that Calvinists that believe the doctrine of Limited Atonement believe in a false gospel. I won't dare to say this for I know there are a lot of godly people who are Reformed (James White, Jeff Durbin, Paul Washer, etc) Is there any way to reconcile 1 Corinthians 15:3 with Reformed Theology? Thank you very much for taking the time to read this. :)

1 John 2:2 (ESV) > He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. Understanding the "ours" as referring to the universal church of believers, it would seem that John is saying that Christ "propitiated" for everyone's sins. Calvinism, through the doctrine of limited, or definite, or particular, atonement, says that Christ died only for the elect. How would a five-point Calvinist understand this passage?

It seems to me that the limited atonement of Calvinism makes the Gospel offer seem empty. Let's say that I hear someone saying that he is in need of $100 and I tell him "I have $100, I can give it to you if you want", and he replies "That's ok, one of my friends already told me that he'd help me out", and when he leaves the room I tell the other guys that were present there "I told him I'd give him the money, but I don't actually have $100" ... what would you think of my character? Would that show that I'm a man of integrity? Not at all. That's how I think God would be if the limited atonement point of Calvinism is true. The Gospel is offered to everyone, right? God commands all people from everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel, correct (Mark 1:15, Acts 17:30)? Why would God extend His gift of salvation to everyone who believes (John 3:16) if that offer is empty for some? **How do Calvinists explain this?**

John Piper is the well known and highly regarded (and recently retired) Pastor for Preaching and Teaching at Bethlehem Church in Minnesota, and the leader of Desiring God Ministries . Piper is widely recognized for his ability to teach, and he has contributed significantly to the revitalization of the Reformed faith that has taken place in the American church in recent decades. I recently heard it said that he does not subscribe to all five of the "Main Points of Doctrine" in the Canons of Dordt , popularly known as the five points of Calvinism, or "T.U.L.I.P." -- specifically, that he does not agree with limited atonement. Is this true? If so, where has he said so online?