The Atonement - Limited ? Unlimited? or both ? somewhere in between? neither?

Of late there has been a lot of discussion generated on the doctrines of the Limited Atonement and the Unlimited Atonement. Much of this discussion centers around the atonement being limited in some sense, and unlimited in some other sense. In other words, the atonement is not one or the other, but both limited and unlimited. In fact it is even claimed (seemingly with good support) that historically, this is how the atonement was understood.

Since, I do not know of any website that has all these articles and discussions linked together in one place, so I have decided to put them together here.

Again - *Pls note - this is not about the Limited Atonement vs. the Unlimited (or General) Atonement.
~ This is about the Limited Atonement vs. the Limited Atonement.
~ It is about the Un/Limited Atonement.

---

1) Calvin and Calvinism ~ This site is worth looking at overall. Lots of history here. This is a link to their main index.

1.1) Also, click here is some interesting stuff on the double-payment dilemma.

A couple of other articles worth looking at here are:
1.2) Revisiting the phrases: “All without distinction,” and “All without exception.”
1.3) The Atonement and Intercession of Christ: An Argument for Limited Atonement

2) Theological Meditations - lots of stuff here to read up on. Tons of historical research going on here.

Here is a post on R.L. Dabney on John 3:16

3) Articles at the Heidelblog - Recovering the reformed confession - Dr. R. Scott Clark

See:
(3.1) Limited Atonement (1)
(3.2) Limited Atonement (2)
(3.3) Limited Atonement (3)
(3.4) Limited Atonement (4)
(3.5) Limited Atonement (5) ???
(3.6) Limited Atonement (6)
(3.7) Limited Atonement (7)
(3.8) Limited Atonement (8)
(3.9) Limited Atonement - Conclusion & Bibliography (9)

What is also interesting in the discussions in the comments section is a list of a number of men who apparently argued for some form of Hypothetical Universalism. You may be surprised at some of these names.

4) Another series that discusses the Limited Atonement is at Developing the Mind of Christ. This is coming from New Zealand. The blurb preceding the links is the description that goes along with all the articles.

Description: IN THIS SERIES, I FORWARD A CONSIDERED CASE FOR A UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT, PRESENTING WHAT I FIND TO BE THE MOST COMPELLING ARGUMENTS FOR IT, DEFINING WHAT EXACTLY IT ENTAILS, AND INTERACTING WITH THE MOST COMMON AND PERSUASIVE OBJECTIONS AGAINST IT.

4.0) On the atonement: introduction This is the introduction to the series, in which I define the views under discussion, itemize my four arguments, and list the objections I'll consider....
4.1) On the atonement, part 1: federal headship and forensic imputation This is part 1 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement is inconsistent with what is revealed in Scripture about federal headship and forensic imputation: two doctrines central to Christ's penal substitution....
4.2) On the atonement, part 2: the grounds for the universal gospel call This is part 2 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement is inconsistent with the universal gospel call, whether it is conceived of as an invitation, or as a command only....
4.3) On the atonement, part 3: the objective grounds for faith This is part 3 of 6, in which I forward the argument that particular atonement provides no grounds for faith, and makes the assurance of salvation impossible....
4.4) On the atonement, part 4: God’s desires frustrated? his is part 4 of 6, in which I interact with the objection that universal atonement requires that God be at cross-purposes with himself, entertaining frustrated desires which he cannot fulfill....
4.5) On the atonement, part 5: universal salvation, or double payment This is part 5 of 6, in which I refute the objection that universal atonement entails either universal salvation, or a double payment for sins....
4.6) On the atonement, part 6: universal atonement fails to actually accomplish redemption for anyoneThis is part 6 of 6, in which I consider and confute the objection that a universal atonement would not actually secure or guarantee salvation for anyone....

One of the chaps that he interacts with is Darryl at http://bible.geek.nz/
4.7) Four and a half point Calvinism and the Gospel


5) Moving on - We find at BiblicalThought.com, a series of posts titled, For Whom Did Christ Die? by Danny Pelichowski. Although, I have not read the whole thing, in skimming through, I see here that Bruce Ware's Multiple Intentions view is discussed.

(5.1) For Whom Did Christ Die?(1)
(5.2) For Whom Did Christ Die?(2)
(5.3) For Whom Did Christ Die?(3)
(5.4) For Whom Did Christ Die?(4)
(5.5) For Whom Did Christ Die?(5)
(5.6) For Whom Did Christ Die?(6)


6) Here is a series from Reid Ferguson, who is affiliated with New Covenant Theology.

6.0) The Atonement Papers - READ THIS FIRST!
6.1) Atonement 1: Confession of an ex-”Highper” Calvinist
6.2) Atonement 2: Re-visiting my thoughts on the Substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ
6.3) Atonement 3: Discussing the Atonement – a lot!
6.4) Atonement 4: Lecture Notes on The Atonement

*Make sure you read them in order!

7) Bruce Ware - Extent of the Atonement: Outline of The Issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments @ The Society of Evangelical Arminians (* Note - Ware is not an Arminian. I just found a copy of the article there via google.)

8) Mark Driscoll’s “Unlimited Limited Atonement” at Relentless Grace

9) The Atonement is Not Limited (but it is Particular) by Dr. James Galyon

10) Considering the “Multiple Intentions View” of the Atonement @ Fundamentally Reformed - Great set of links... some of which cross over with the list up above.

11) Dr. Eric Svendsen of the Real Clear Theology Blog

(11.0) Time to Stop Making the "L" a Litmus Test for Reformed
(11.1) We Interrupt This Broadcast For lack of better terms, Svendsen describes himself as a 4.5 Calvinist.
(11.2) Christmas Calvinist: A Surrejoinder
(11.2.1) Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministry responds with Christmas Calvinists: A Brotherly Rejoinder (AOMIN)
(11.3) Limited Atonement or Intentional Atonement? The Ongoing Dialogue (with Dr. James White of aomin.org)
(11.3.1) The Extent of the Atonement: the .5th Point of Calvinism (AOMIN)
(11.3.2) Christ's Atoning Work: Intent, Extent, Union, Substitution, Ordo Salutis (Part I) (AOMIN)
(11.4) A brief aside on the limited atonement debate
(11.5) When Does Our Union With Christ’s Death Occur? The Ongoing Dialogue on Limited Atonement (Part 1)
(11.5.1) Christ's Atoning Work: Intent, Extent, Union, Substitution, Ordo Salutis (Part II) (AOMIN)
(11.6) When Does Our Union With Christ’s Death Occur? The Ongoing Dialogue on Limited Atonement (Part 2)
(11.6.1) Christ's Atoning Work: Intent, Extent, Union, Substitution, Ordo Salutis (Part III) (AOMIN)
(11.7) When Does Our Union With Christ’s Death Occur? The Ongoing Dialogue on Limited Atonement (Part 3)
(11.8) The Limited Atonement Debate in Historical Perspective

(11.9) He Starts Out Well . . . Svendsen comments on Doug Wilson on the Limited Atonement.

(12) Yet another post @ Theology Online, titled, Universal Ineffectual Atonement vs Limited Effectual Atonement: An Argument for Limited Atonement

Excerpt: "Stated in conversational English, the argument works like this. Either Christ died for all merely and only to make it possible for God to save all, or he died with an effectual intention to save some only. The argument assumes that both cannot be true. ... However..."

At the same site is also
(12.1) Augustine, Prosper, Gottschalk and Aquinas This is a very short article. You could read it in 2 minutes.
(12.2) Hypothetical Sufficiency vs Hypothetical Efficiency Even shorter - 1 minute...

(13) Another article on the atonement that apparently defends the above view via some recourse to John Owen is Parableman's Limited Atonement Post.

I think that John Owen has issues w.r.t this doctrine, and I think that it is possible that Parableman is not saying what a lot of the people above are saying... and will comment on this later.

(14) And speaking of John Owen, here is an article on some of his theology, titled John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 at Calvin and Calvinism blog

(15) Another blog worth perusing is Controversial Calvinism. Here are a couple of articles at the site:

(15.1) The Incongruity of Unlimited Atonement
(15.2) The Incongruity of Unlimited Atonement - Part II

There is also an ongoing critique of Roger Nicole view that Calvin held to the limited atonement.

*Note: The Agenda of the author of Controversial Calvinism is worth noting. Here is an excerpt:

Yes, I have an agenda, and I want you to know it before we go any farther. Here, in bold print, is my agenda. I want my readers to accept that a 5-point Calvinist can say the following things:

God loves all men.
God desires the salvation of all men and offers salvation to all by faith in Christ.
Christ died for all men; he died for you.

The last item on the agenda is particularly important to me as it affects the way I describe Christ’s work to others. Though I am not and have never been the pastor of a church, I have had many opportunities to preach in churches over the past 20 years. Until a couple of years ago, I was perplexed about what to say when preaching the gospel. What do I say about the death of Christ? ...

(16) Another series that I just found at Strange Baptist Fire critiques Mark Driscoll. Here are the articles:

(16.1) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: Introduction
(16.2) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: Why Did Jesus Die?
(16.3) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: The Chart
(16.4) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: The Proof-Texts
(16.5) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: Calvin Quotes
(16.6) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/limited Atonement: An Unaddressed Question
(16.7) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: “Reconciliation”
(16.8) Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: The Day of Atonement

* I take it Mark Driscoll is a Southern Baptist.

(17) Unlimited/Limited Atonement @ the Christian Skepticism blog
(17.1) Atonement Category Error - Some comments on (17) @ Thoughts of Francis Turretin & Reformed Apologetics

(18) Karate exegesis [requested classic re-post] by Dan Phillips @ the world famous Pyromaniac

*Note - In the comment section, I strongly recommend following YNOTTONLY, i.e. Tony's comments.

(18.1) Dan's Karate, or Kah-rrah-tay? is Tony's blog, Theological Meditations. If you want a more comprehensive response to Dan Phillips post, please go here. There is also a wealth of historical research on the nature of the extent of the Atonement here.

(19) The 'Dual Reference' View of the Atonement by Scottish Preacher John Kennedy, written in 1869

(20) I just found these set of posts from a local Upstate New Yorker at Zao Thanatoo. They are quite readable.

(20.1) Responding to ResponsiveReiding 1 - Introduction
(20.2) Responding to ResponsiveReiding 2 - Historical Theology
(20.3) Responding to ResponsiveReiding 3 - Systematic Theology
(20.4) Responding to ResponsiveReiding 4 - Biblical Theology
(20.5) On the Atonement - Introduction
(20.6) On the Atonement, Part 1: Federal Headship and Forensic Imputatio
(20.7) On The Atonement, Part 2: The Grounds for The Universal Gospel Call
(20.8) On The Atonement, Part 3: The Objective Grounds for Faith
(20.9) On The Atonement, Part 4: God's Desires Frustrated?
(20.10) On the Atonement 5: Universal Salvation or Double Payment
(20.11) On The Atonement, Part 6: Universal Atonement Fails to Actually Accomplish Redemption For Anyone
(20.12) The Atonement Now Redux: "I Love The Smell of Napalm In The Morning"
(20.13) Problem With John Owen's "Triple Choice" Argument
(20.14) Multiple Intentions In The Atonement

The following posts at Crux Christi Salus Mea by Dr. Aaron O'Kelley are a good starting point for newcomers to the debate. They are very clear. I would only recommend that if you do not know what propitiation and expiation mean, that you look those words up.

(21)    Series on Particular Redemption
(21.1) The Perfection of the Cross
(21.2) The Atonement Question: Extent or Intent?
(21.3) The Intent of the Atonement: Clarifying the Question
(21.4) The Intent of the Atonement: My View
(21.5) Particular Redemption: A Biblical Case
(21.6) Particular Redemption: A Biblical Case, Part 2
(21.7) Particular Redemption: Answering Objections
(21.8) Particular Redemption: Answering Objections, Part 2
(21.9) Particular Redemption: Answering Objections, Part 3
(21.10) Particular Redemption: Why It Matters

Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds blogged a ...
 
(22) A Primer on Limited (or Definite) Atonement

~ What surprises me is that he gives credence to John Owens Trilemma, which I thought had been demonstrated to be false by a good number of people. The articles that he links to by Randy Alcorn and Douglas Wilson are strongly recommended and recommended.

(23) TurretinFan points out some problems in Wayne Grudem's treatment of Particular Redemption in his Systematic Theology book.
~ *Note: Both Grudem and TurretinFan hold to Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement.

(24) THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT: Why And For Whom Did Christ Die? by Philip Johnson
~ In this article Philip Johnson, a 5-point Calvinist points out his disagreements with Tom Nettles' view of the Limited Atonement which is also known as Equivalentism.

I want to add one more thing ... to those who stumble upon this link. This post concerns the 3rd point of the 6 theological points that make up what is known as Calvinism. These 6 points are described with the acronym, TULIPE. TULIPE stands for the following:

T - Total Depravity
U - Unconditional Election
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible Grace
P - Perseverance of the Saints
E - Evangelism

~ All 6 points stand together or fall together. The 6th point can be considered to be the fruit resulting in the life of a person on whom the first 5 points have done some serious soul-work.