I came across an excellent article on this very subject by Rhett Kelley entitled “Limiting the Atonement”. It is well worth reading, and it isn’t even that long! Anyways, I am going to reproduce a quote from Arminian scholar Dr. J. Kenneth Grider that Rhett gave, and then discuss the main point that I believe his post makes.
“A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition.” — Dr. J. Kenneth Grider [emphasis is Rhett’s]
So while Calvinists limit the extent of the atonement (only the sins of the elect are “paid” for), Arminians limit the nature of the atonement (Christ only suffered for everyone, He did not “pay the penalty” for anyone’s sins).
So yes, this is just a matter of semantics (in a sense)! Calvinists and Arminians mean different things when they say “atonement”. More on that later.
Calvinists affirm basically all that Arminians teach on this point. Arminians believe that Christ death provides a legitimate gospel offer of salvation to every person. Calvinists affirm that Christ’s death purchases common grace for all and enables everyone the opportunity of responding to the gospel message. Both groups agree that those who respond will be saved, and both groups agree that not everyone responds.
This leads us back to the difference—Calvinists and Arminians disagree on the nature of the atonement. Calvinists see it as an actual payment of sins and a purchase of people. They see it as purchasing the very gifts of faith and repentance. So while anyone might potentially believe, all who believe are the ones for whom Christ actually died to procure their salvation.
Arminians, however, claim that faith and repentance are something that human beings add to the atonement (in a sense) to make it effective. And even on this point, they would claim that God’s grace enables the sinners to repent and believe. Calvinists see this grace as having to be purchased on the cross for specific people, and Arminian’s don’t.
So on the face of it, Calvinists and Arminians both limit the atonement. Neither are universalists. Both claim that we must preach the gospel to everyone and yet only some will be saved. Calvinists basically affirm everything Arminians do, but affirm something else. That repentance and faith were purchased on the cross, and that the sins of the elect were actually atoned for (not potentially atoned for) on the cross. They claim that Jesus came to actually save sinners, not merely to make them savable.
So the question should not be “Who is limiting the atonement?” But rather, “What is the nature of the atonement?” When you approach the “L” in TULIP from this perspective, the Calvinist doctrine of “particular redemption” or “definite atonement” will make more sense.
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
Some of you may have followed some of the