DOCTRINE OF UNLIMITED ATONEMENT

I. Introduction

The momentous accomplishment of the finished work of Christ on the cross graciously provided salvation for every member of the human race, past, present, and future. This view is called unlimited atonement.

This view is often misrepresented by those contending that unlimited atonement teaches the gospel of universalism. We know of no one who supports unlimited atonement, holding this false doctrine. The Universalist state Christ died for all; therefore, all are saved. This is false, and we reject it. The true doctrine is Christ died on the cross for every member of the human race (unlimited atonement), but not everyone will repent and believe in Him. What does Scripture teach?

John 1:12

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,

It doesn’t say all will receive Christ, but that many will. For those who reject Christ, the value of Christ's death for them remains with the Lord. lt is in the bank of heaven and stays there until it is drawn out. You have to make a withdrawal. Believing in the Lord Jesus Christ occurs when we make the withdrawal. In this sense, the value applied is limited.

We also disagree with the limited redemptionst view of the death of Christ. They say that value of the death of Christ is limited to a specific number of elect persons. Dr. Erickson writes

This view is also called “particular redemption” because advocates of this view believe redemption was provided only for a particular group of people (i.e., the elect). ¹

There are two significant areas of disagreement between limited and unlimited redemptionists. We will present this lesson from an unlimited atonement position to expose their errors and establish the correct Biblical view.

II. UNIVERSAL TERMS ARE MISREPRESENTED

Jesus Died For The World, Not Just For The Elect

We say this unapologetically. Limited redemptionists distort the universal meaning of words such as “world, all, whoever.” They misinterpret certain words to match their theology instead of allowing them to speak in their natural and customary sense. So the word world becomes not the mass of unsaved humanity, but the elect.

For instance, in our passage:

What does “for the sins of the entire world” mean? Limited redemptionists regard this passage as meaning “for the sins of the elect.” In other words, they restrict the meaning of the word.

Another passage:

1 John 5:19

We know that we are of God and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.

Here again, because of their flawed approach, they are obligated to interpret this passage as indicating those under evil’s power are the elect. We believe the passage is clear, and the word world is a reference to unsaved humanity under Satan's influence and control.

Dr. Chafer says concerning the word world:

The cosmos is a vast order or system that Satan has promoted, which conforms to his ideals, aims, and methods. It is civiliza­tion now functioning apart from God-a civilization in which none of its promoters really expect God to share, who assign to God no consideration in respect to their projects; nor do they ascribe any causatively to Him. This system embraces its godless governments, conflicts, armaments, jealousies, its edu­cation, culture, religions of morality, and pride. It is that sphere in which man lives. It is what he sees, what he em­ploys. To the uncounted multitude it is all they ever know so long as they live on this earth. It is properly styled the satanic system, which phrase is in many instances a justified interpre­tation of the so-meaningful word, cosmos. It is literally a cosmos diabolicus. ²

Dr. Wuest concurs:

The word kosmos (κοσμος) is used of the world system of evil of which Satan is the head, the fallen angels and the demons are his emissaries, and all the unsaved are his servants, together with the pleasures, pursuits, practices, and purposes of the individuals involved. ³

Perhaps a few more passages:

1 John 2:2

and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world [kosmos, κοσμος]. ⁴

Not for ours only represents the believer, while the entire world represents the unbeliever.

John 1:29

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world [kosmos, κοσμος]!

Christ dies for the sins of the world and not only the sins of the elect unless you distort the word “world” to be a synonym for the elect. This is quite a feat for the noun kosmos is found 185 times in the Greek New Testament and often refers to unsaved humanity.

Reformer John Calvin says of this verse, “He uses the word sin in the singular number for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race.” Though Calvin is often cited in favor of limited atonement, here is a clear statement in which unlimited atonement is in view. ⁵

1 John 4:14

We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.

The most beloved of all the passages is John 3:16:

John 3:16

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Does God love only the elect? The limited redemptionist changes the meaning of the word world, restricting it to the elect. As John describes it, the world is “God-hating, Christ-rejecting, and Satan-dominating; yet that is the world for which Christ died.” (Cf. John 1:29; 3:16; 17; 4:42; 1 John 4:14. Of course, this is ridiculous. John Calvin comments:

He has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world which He formerly used [God so loved the world]; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception [not merely ‘without distinction’] to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.⁶

You will notice that John Calvin explains that the word “whosoever” is universal in meaning and refers to unbelievers. Whosoever, he says, is indiscriminate and means “anyone no matter who.” This is the view of unlimited redemptionists. He states the case for us.

Regarding John 3:16, A.T. Robinson says:

The world (τον κοσμον [ton kosmon]). The whole cosmos of men, including Gentiles, the whole human race. This universal aspect of God’s love also appears in 2 Cor. 5:19; Rom. 5:8^{. 7}

Dr. Chafer on “whoever” adds:

The word “Whosoever” is used more than 110 times in the New Testament and always with an unrestricted meaning as in (cf. John 3:16; Acts 2:21; 10:43; Rom. 10:13; Rev. 22:17). ⁸

In the passages cited by Chafer, the Greek idiom indicates the totality of any object. The unrestricted sense is “anyone no matter who.” For Instance:

Romans 10:13

for “Whoever [anyone no matter who] will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

A few more passages that are often disputed by limited redemptionists.

John 3:17

“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

The gospel of grace is made available to the world, not just the elect. Commenting on this verse, Calvin said that:

“God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because He has appointed His Son to be the salvation of the world.” Calvin also stated, “The word world is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keeps the road of faith.” Clearly, God has made the provision of salvation available to all human beings^{. 9}

John 4:42

and they were saying to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.”

It is quite certain that when the Samaritans called Jesus “the Savior of the world,” they were not thinking of the world of the elect. To read such a meaning into this text would be sheer eisegesis. ¹⁰

Jesus Died For Sinners, Not Just For The Elect

Romans 5:8

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet SINNERS, Christ died as a substitute for us ALL [unlimited atonement].

The word sinners nowhere in the Scripture means the church or the elect, but simply lost and ruined humanity. The verse is clear, “Christ died as a substitute for us ALL.” ¹¹

1 Timothy 1:15

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost OF ALL [unlimited atonement].

Again, the universal condition of humanity is what is in focus. Christ came into the WORLD to save SINNERS, and Paul deems himself the worst of ALL of them. The adjective PAS [all] is used in an unrestricted sense.

Jesus Died For The Ungodly, Not Just For The Elect

Romans 5:6

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died [HUPER] as a substitute for the UNGODLY. [Expanded translation]

The candidates for grace are now in focus, the ungodly. They are described as helpless, which is their condition at physical birth. We are all born spiritually dead and under condemnation, totally helpless to change our condition. Yet there is no sense in these words that Paul is talking about only the “ungodly elect.” What about the non-elect? Are they not ungodly too?

Jesus Died For All Humanity, Not Just For The Elect

Titus 2:11

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to ALL MEN [unlimited atonement].

The salvation work of Jesus Christ on the cross is a manifestation of the Grace of God. He died for everyone. This does not mean that everyone is saved automatically. It merely means that a potential exists. Everyone is savable. God’s way of salvation is that you must believe in Christ. You must choose Christ. You must express your desire for this salvation.

1 Timothy 4:10

For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of ALL MEN [unlimited atonement], especially of believers [limited application].

lt is effective only for those who believe. In an article defending unlimited atonement, Dr. Ron Rhodes writes:

Apparently, the Savior has done something for all human beings, though it is less in degree than what He has done for those who believe. In other words, Christ has made a provision of salvation for all men, though it only becomes effective for those who exercise faith in Christ. ¹²

Romans 5:18

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to ALL MEN, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to ALL MEN.

In this section of Romans, Paul continues to contrast the two men, Adam and Christ. Adam brought condemnation to all men, the entire race of humanity. So Christ made available salvation for all men. Impartial exegesis demands that the phrase must have the same interpretation in both clauses. You cannot say that only the elect are condemned, and salvation is only provided for the elect. This makes no sense, and even Calvin recognized this:

Calvin commented, “He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him.” This sounds very much like Calvin was teaching unlimited atonement in this statement. ¹³

Jesus Died For The Lost, Not Just For The Elect

Luke 19:10

“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

One of the tenets of Calvinism is the total depravity of the human race. All men are lost, not just the elect. Christ came to seek the save the lost—that means everyone. The status of all who are born in the likeness of Adam.

Jesus Died For All, Without Exception

There is a special idiom reserved for those passages where the adjective PAS [ALL] is used without the article and as a noun. This occurs many times when PAS is used as the object of a preposition. In those passages, the translation should be, “all without exception.” It is another proof of unconditional atonement. ¹⁴

Romans 8:32

He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR US ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?

We have this construction in this passage. The preposition HUPER [AS A SUBSTITUTE] is followed by a personal pronoun in the plural [AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR US ALL]. We have the adjective PAS, which is the object of the preposition. The full rendering of the phrase says, “as a substitute for us all without exception.”

For instance:

2 Corinthians 5:14

For our love for Christ motivates us, in fact we have reached this conclusion that One [Jesus Christ] died as a substitute for all WITHOUT EXCEPTION; therefore, all were dead. [Expanded Translation] ¹⁵

2 Corinthians 5:15a (First phrase)

“and He (Jesus Christ) died (on the cross) as a substitute for everyone WITHOUT EXCEPTION

1 Timothy 2:6

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for a substitute for everyone WITHOUT EXCEPTION, the testimony borne at the proper time.

Speaking of Jesus Christ, he says, “Who gave himself a ransom for all [or a substitute for everyone WITHOUT EXCEPTION.”

This idiom appears in Hebrews 2:9:

Hebrews 2:9

But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone WITHOUT EXCEPTION. ¹⁶

Jesus tasted death for us all without exception. He was our substitute. He took our place. He said the work of salvation is done; there is nothing left to do but believe. The debt is paid in full, and now the offer of salvation can be made to everyone -without exception. Jesus Christ’s death was not limited to just a few that God picked to be saved; it was an unlimited atonement.

Romans 5:8

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died [spiritually on the cross] as a substitute for us all WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

Jesus Bore All Our Sins, Not Just The Elect’s

Isaiah 53:6

All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us ALL To fall on Him.

The prophecy of the suffering servant conveys the same doctrine. Unlimited atonement is taught in both Testaments. This verse doesn’t make sense unless it is read to say That the same “all” that went astray is the “all” for whom the Lord died. “ln the first of these statements, the general apostasy of men is declared; in the second, the particular deviation of each one; in the third, the atoning suffering of the Messiah, which is said to be on behalf of all. As the first ‘all’ is true of all men (and not just of the elect), we judge that the last ‘all’ relates to the same company. ¹⁷

Theologian Millard Erickson notes that “this passage is especially powerful from a logical standpoint. lt is clear that the extent of sin is universal; it is specified that every one of us has sinned. It should also be noticed that the extent of what will be laid on the suffering servant exactly parallels the extent of sin. lt is difficult to read this passage and not conclude that just as everyone sins, everyone is also atoned for.” ¹⁸

Jesus Died For Those Who Reject Him

lt is taught in 2 Peter 2:1 indicates Christ died for the false teachers who were “denying the Master who bought them.” The context indicates these are heretics doomed to destruction, yet it is said of them, “the Master bought them.“ This militates against the limited atonement view.

2 Peter 2:1

BUT false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Jesus bought them by His death on the cross. They rejected that salvation. What does this prove? The doctrine of unlimited atonement means that Christ died for all, but His death is effective only for those who believe in the gospel. Peter writes about the scoffers who criticized the faith of the Christians that believed in the return of Christ. The lapse of time has a divine purpose. The Body of Christ has X number of believers in it. When that number is reached, our Lord will return.

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slow about His promise [His return], as some count slowness [decievers and scoffers], but is patient toward you [unbeliever] not wishing for any to perish [to be cast into the eternal lake of fire] but for ALL [unlimited atonement] to come to repentance.

II. THE MANY BUT NOT ALL

1. Matthew 26:28:

for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out FOR MANY for forgiveness of sins.

The limited redemptionist believes this proves limited atonement. Jesus said He poured out His blood FOR MANY, BUT NOT FOR ALL. Sounds conclusive. We do agree that Jesus was thinking about those many who had believed in Him—the elect. We believe they go too far in their interpretation. Jesus did not say that His blood was exclusively poured out for the many. The principle that we will appeal to throughout these passages is this: His blood is poured out for all but not effective for all, only the many who believed. These are the one’s who are in focus. Interestingly, John Calvin, the so-called father of limited atonement, said, “By the word many He means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race.” ¹⁹

2. Matthew 20:28:

just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom FOR MANY.”

You see, says the limited redemptionist, Christ gave His life a ransom for many BUT NOT ALL. We simply say that a ransom was paid for ALL by our Lord Jesus, but it is not effective for all, only the many who will believe. These are the ones in focus. Jesus did not say I give my life a ransom exclusively for the many [the elect].

3. Hebrews 9:28

so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins OF MANY, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

This is redundant, but our rejection of their interpretation is based upon the same principle. Christ bore the sins of ALL, but it is not effective for all, only the many who have and will believe.

4. Hebrews 2:10

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing MANY SONS to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

The limited redemptionist believes that Christ did not die for all, only THE MANY. Again, our answer is the same. All are not “sons of glory” because All have not believed. The narrow focus in the passage “the many” is because they are saved. They have believed. This argument is the same for all the passages the limited redemptionists declare that proves their position. For instance, Dr. Berkhof says:

Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those for whom He suffered and died are variously called “His sheep,” John 10:11, 15, “His Church,” Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25–27, “His people,” Matt. 1:21, and “the elect,” Rom. 8:32–35, ²⁰

There is no question the specific groups are mentioned rather than the whole, but introducing teaching that is not in the passage is sheer eisegesis. For instance:

John 10:11

“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

Who would argue that Jesus didn’t die for the sheep, but did He die exclusively for the sheep? Dr. Rhodes correctly says, “Certainly, if Christ died for the whole of humanity, there is no logical problem in saying that he died for a specific part of the whole.” ²¹ In other words, because a particular verse only mentions God’s salvation of one group does not mean that God’s salvation is to be restricted to only that group. This is especially egregious in light of our Lord command to go into ALL the world and proclaim the gospel to ALL, every person everywhere.

Summary

While we did not cover every verse and every argument, we hope this was sufficient to answer the question, “For whom did Christ die?”

1. The limited atonement approach to interpreting Scripture is misrepresenting certain universal, unrestrictive words-- world, all, whosoever, and limiting their meaning to the elect. In other words, all means all of the elect or all classes of men (Jew and Gentile).

2. The limited redemptionists seize upon the word “many” as establishing their view. Christ died for the many [the elect], but not for all people. The Bible, at times, addresses specific groups of people, “His church, His people, His sheep, the many.” However, because a particular verse only mentions God’s salvation of one group does not mean that God’s salvation is restricted to only that group.

3. Limited atonement is debunked by the overwhelming number of Scriptures that teach unlimited atonement when unencumbered by eisegesis.

III. The Universal Call of the Gospel

Probably the strongest Biblical evidence in support of unlimited atonement is the universal call of the gospel. There are too many verses available to present the Biblical view, but certainly, this one cannot be distorted:

Acts 1:8 [parallels in Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15]

but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

Our argument here is not complicated. First, we are commanded to share the gospel with every person everywhere. Secondly, under the concept of limited atonement, only the elect will respond. Only the elect will believe. We agree with the limited redemptionist; our responsibility is to share the gospel with everyone because we don’t know who the elect are. However, we argue that it is disingenuous on our part to offer the good news and the promise of eternal life to a person who will, in their view, never believe. We believe the Scripture says, “whosoever will may come,” Romans 10:9-13.

Acts 2:21

and it shall be, that EVERYONE [unlimited atonement based upon a universal offer] who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Psalm 96:3

Tell of His glory among the nations, His wonderful deeds among all the peoples.

IV. A Survey of the Early Church.

A question is often asked about the early Church, and it is, “ Are there any indication of what those pastors who lived closest to the Apostolic period believed?” Dr. Ron Rhodes developed this list in “The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement (Part One).” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 2, 2(2),3. I have added to and augmented his excellent research.

Quotations from the Early Church Fathers

Following is a representative sampling of quotations from the early church Fathers in support of the doctrine of unlimited atonement:

• Epistle of Diogentes [130 A.D.]

While we are not sure who wrote this letter, the doctrinal content is spot on. Its time of writing is essential as well, for it was early enough, 2nd century, for this writer to have the original autographs.

Diognetus 9.5 on The Goodness of God

Oh, the surpassing kindness and love of God! He did not hate or reject or bear a grudge against us, but he was patient and bore with us, having mercy he himself experienced our sin, he himself gave his own son, a ransom [HUPER] on our behalf, the Holy for [HUPER] the lawless, the innocent for [HUPER] the guilty, the righteous for [HUPER] the unrighteous, the incorruptible for [HUPER] the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. Brannan, R. (Trans.). (2012). The Apostolic Fathers in English. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

As he ponders this, he says, “Oh, the sweet exchange.” It is believed that Diognetus was the tutor of Emperor Marcus Aurelius. [N.B.—Interesting speculations concerning this precious work may be seen in Bunsen’s Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i. p. 188. The learned do not seem convinced by this author, but I have adopted his suggestion as to Diognetus, the tutor of M. Aurelius.] Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (Eds.). (1885). Introductory Note to the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus. In the Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1, p. 24). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

• Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150–220) said that “Christ freely brings … salvation to the whole human race.” Also,” Jesus, Saviour of the human race.” Clement of Alexandria. (1885). The Instructor. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (Vol. 2, p. 296). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

• Eusebius (A.D. 260–340) said that “it was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race.”

• Athanasius (A.D. 293–373)

He said that “Christ the Son of God, having assumed a body like ours, because we were all exposed to death [which takes in more than the elect], gave Himself up to death for us all as a sacrifice to His Father.”

“He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange [unlimited atonement] for all,”

“And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all [anti pas].” Athanasius of Alexandria. (1892). On the Incarnation of the Word. In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A. T. Robertson (Trans.), St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Vol. 4, p. 40). New York: Christian Literature Company.

• Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315–386) said, “Do not wonder if the whole world was ransomed, for He was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God.”

• Gregory of Nazianzen (A.D. 324–389) said that “the sacrifice of Christ is an imperishable expiation of the whole world.”

• Basil (A.D. 330–379) said, “But one thing was found that was equivalent to all men … the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for us all.”

• Ambrose (A.D. 340–407) said that “Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit.” Ambrose also said, “Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as He brought a remedy by which all might escape, although there are many who … are unwilling to be healed.”

• Augustine (A.D. 354–430). Though Augustine is often cited as supporting limited atonement, there are also clear statements in Augustine’s writings that are supportive of unlimited atonement. For example, Augustine once said: “The Redeemer came and gave the price, shed His blood, and bought the world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price: what is of so great worth? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations?” Augustine also stated, “The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins.”

• Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 376–444) said that “the death of one flesh is sufficient for the ransom of the whole human race, for it belonged to the Logos, begotten of God the Father.”

• Prosper (a friend and disciple of Augustine who died in A.D. 463) said that “as far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption.”

Prosper also said,

“The Savior is most rightly said to have been crucified for the redemption of the whole world.” He then said, “Although the blood of Christ be the ransom of the whole world, yet they are excluded from its benefit, who, being delighted with their captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it.” Rhodes, R. (1996). The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement (Part Two). Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 2, 2(2), 14.

__________

ENDNOTES

¹ Millard J. Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 97.

² Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), 2:77-78.

³ Wuest, K. S. (1997). Wuest’s word studies from the Greek New Testament: for the English reader (Titus 2:11). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

⁴ See Exegesis of 1 John 2:2 click here

⁵ John Calvin, Commentary on John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949), vol. 1, p. 64.

⁶ Haroutunian, J., & Smith, L. P. (1958). Calvin: Commentaries (pp. 193–194). Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

⁷ Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (Jn 3:16). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

⁸ Chafer, L. S. (1980). For Whom Did Christ Die? Bibliotheca Sacra, 137, 324.

⁹ Calvin, Commentary on John’s Gospel, vol. 1, p. 126.

¹⁰ Rhodes, R. (1996). The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement (Part One). Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 2, 2(2), 6.

¹¹ The preposition HUPER [#5228] means FOR, ON BEHALF OF, and INSTEAD OF. This last use conveys the idea of substitution. Dana and Mantey list instead of as a meaning for HUPER. They list several passages where the idea of substitution is clearly meant, “Jn. 11:50, it is expedient for you that one man should die instead of the people, and not that the whole nation perish"; Gal. 3:13, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse instead of us. In both of these passages the context clearly indicates that substitution is meant (cf. 2 Cor. 5:14, 15); Dana, H. E., and J. R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Toronto: Macmillan, 1927, p 112. “This use of huper for substitution is common in the papyri and in ancient Greek as in the N.T,” Robertson, A. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997. Notes on Galatians 3:13.

¹² op. cit, Ron Rhodes

¹³ op. cit, Ron Rhodes

¹⁴ The documentation for this is found in a special edition of Arndt and Gingrich, the

second edition revised and augmented by Gingrich and Danker from Walter Bauer’s fifth

edition of the Lexicon of 1958, Printed by the University of Chicago Press, and on

p.632. Sometimes, the adjective pas is used as a substantive, as it is when it is the object of a preposition, without the definitive article; in such instances, it is not to be given it’s ordinary translation “all or every." It means “everyone without exception.” 2 Corinthians 5:14a “He died as a substitute for everyone without exception,” 2 Corinthians 5:15a; 1 Timothy 2:6; Romans 5:8. This idiom is found in passages, not about salvation:

Philippians 1:4

always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all [without exception],

Philippians 1:7

For it is only right for me to feel this way about you all [without exception], because I have you in my heart, since both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, you all are partakers of grace with me.

1 Timothy 2:1

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men [without exception]

Ephesians 5:20

always giving thanks for all things [without exception] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father;

Galatians 3:10

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written in Deuteronomy 27:26, “Cursed is everyone [without exception] who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”

In this passage, PAS translated “everyone” is used as a predicate nominative, as a noun and has no article. This is true of Galatians 3:13, which is quoting Deuteronomy 21:23.

¹⁵ Notes on 2 Corinthians 5:14:

We are motivated by Christ’s love for us. This is not our love for Christ—objective genitive, but His unfailing, magnanimous love for us--a subjective genitive. “One” should be capitalized because it refers to Jesus Christ. He is the unique Person of the Godhead. This is the meaning of One. He is truly God and truly man. The two natures are in a union in this One Person. lt is the basis of His celebrityship as we express it in principle: Jesus Christ is truly a man, which makes Him different from the other members of the Godhead--the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is truly God, and that makes him different from every member of the human race. He is the Unique One—the One who graciously and genuinely died on the cross for our sins. On the cross, Jesus Christ’s death was not limited to just a few that God picked to be saved; it was an unlimited atonement. Salvation for all.

¹⁶ Notes on Hebrews 2:9:

But while He was made inferior to angels for a brief time. This is referring to the humanity of Christ. The period of time is 33 years while on the earth. When our Lord ascended into heaven and was in His resurrection body and seated at the right hand of the Father. Our Lord was higher than angels after the resurrection and will remain so forever. But during His life on the earth from birth to resurrection, he was inferior to the angels.

“we see Jesus who now has been crowned with glory and honor.” Please note the change in the translation.

“because of the suffering of death so that by the grace of God He (Jesus Christ) might taste death as a substitute HUPER for everyone [PAS] without exception.” We have another illustration of this idiom. The grace of God has provided salvation for everyone. Taste is a metaphor for the death of Christ. He experienced the judgment for our sins; everyone’s without exception.

¹⁷ op. cit, Rhodes, Ron

¹⁸ Erickson, M. J. (2013). Christian Theology (3rd ed., p. 757). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

¹⁹ John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949); Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 3, p. 214; quoted by Rhodes, R. (1996). The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement (Part Two). Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 2, 2(2), 14.

²⁰ Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (p. 395). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

²¹ Rhodes, R. (1996). The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement (Part One). Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 2, 2(2), 8.