LIMITED ATONEMENT EXPLAINED
Accordingto Reformed Theology, for those unconditionally elected to salvation, like the old gospel song says, it is “nothing but the blood of Jesus” that provides atonement, propitiation, or satisfaction for sin. The dark side of Reformed doctrine says that for the reprobate, there is nothing in the blood of Jesus to atone for sin. Ironically, the most widely understood and yet the most disputed distinctive in the Calvinist doctrines of redemption and reprobation is the third point of Calvinism. Commonly it is referred to as limited atonement. It may also be called particular redemption or definite atonement. Perhaps so many question or even reject the third point precisely because they understand it.
Certainly one of the reasons that so many understand this point is that no matter how one states it, it is difficult to miss the bottom line. That is. if Christ died for anyone, He either died for all or He only died for some. Reformed Theology denies the scriptural teaching that Jesus died for all and affirms the very unscriptural teaching that says He only died for some. To the question, “Did Jesus die for everyone?” Sproul says:
One of the most controversial points of Reformed theology concerns the L in TULIP. L stands for Limited Atonement.228 Sproul goes on to say:
It has been such a problem doctrine that there are multitudes of Christians who say they embrace most of the doctrines of Calvinism but get off the boat here. They refer to themselves as “four-point” Calvinists.229 Sproul also says:
I prefer to use the term definite atonement to the term limited atonement. The doctrine of definite atonement focuses on the question of the design of Christ’s atonement. It is concerned with God’s intent in sending Jesus to the cross.230 Sproul is correct when he reasons:
Anyone who is not a Universalist is willing to agree that the effect of Christ’s work on the cross is limited to those who believe. That is, Christ’s atonement does not avail for unbelievers. Not everyone is saved through His death. Everyone also agrees that the merit of Christ’s death is sufficient to pay for the sins of all human beings.
Some put it this way: Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but efficient for only some. This however, does not get at the heart of definite atonement.231 The question that must be asked is this: who did Christ die for? Despite what Scripture so often says about Christ dying for the whole world, Calvinists constantly tell us that these many verses cannot mean that Christ died for everyone in the whole world. For example, Sproul speaks for most Calvinists when he says in reference to the word world in John 3:16 : The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (people from every tribe and nation).232
Sproul should have said that “The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family, if Calvinism is true.” Palmer explains what he believes John 3:16 must mean, despite what it actually says. That is:
Because God has so loved certain ones ... these particular ones will be saved, He sent His Son to die for them, to save them, and not all of the world.233
Every unbiased person will concede that it is a major and daring (perhaps reckless) leap from God so loved the world to God so loved certain ones. Every Christian who becomes a consistent Calvinist must make this leap. Many, if not most Calvinists, have to make this leap every time they read passages like John 3:16. Of course, if Calvinists are right about unconditional election, Christ could, by definition only have savingly died for the elect. If every individual Christ died for necessarily becomes a believer, and yet not every individual who lives becomes a believer, then logically, Christ must not have died for those who do not become believers. Given the Calvinist premise of unconditional election, logic forces the Calvinist conclusion. (In fact, non-Calvinists disagree with the part of the equation that says those for whom Christ died necessarily become believers.) Many say that the doctrine of limited atonement did not gain widespread acceptance among the greater Reformed community until the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) affirmed it half a century after Calvin’s death. Regardless of whether or not this is so, the framers of the response to the Arminian Remonstrance left no doubt as to what their convictions on this point were. That is: This was the Sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation .. ,234 The dark side of this view says: This was the Sovereign counsel and most incomprehensible but just will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should not extend to all people, thereby to withhold from all but the elect the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to damnation .
Some have accused the Synod of paying too much attention to what they believe was implicit in the teachings of Calvin as opposed to what Calvin explicitly taught. It is difficult to deny that some of what Calvin said makes it seem as though he believed that the atonement was potentially or provisionally unlimited. It is equally clear that his overall theological system in general and his unswerving commitment to unconditional election in particular, led his followers to believe in an atonement which was potentially, provisionally, and actually for the elect alone. Despite a great deal of scriptural evidence to the contrary, John Owen says: The Scripture nowhere says Christ died for all men.235
Sometimes I cannot help but wonder if men like John Owen had a special Calvinist version of the Bible that left out many of the passages I find in all of the translations of the Bible that I use. A little later, we will consider a number of passages of Scripture and even a few admissions from well known Calvinists that contradict Owen. Berkhof, however, is exactly right when he says: The Reformed position is that Christ died for the purpose of actually and certainly saving the elect, and the elect only. This is the equivalent to saying that He died for the purpose of saving only those to whom He actually applies the benefits of His redemptive work.236 Berkhof is exactly wrong when he claims:
Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid down his life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation.237 Concerning those that the atonement was designed for, Boettner says:
Calvinists hold that in the intention and secret plan of God Christ died for the elect only .”238
It would appear to all but the “initiated” that the Calvinist “secret plan” and God’s revealed Word are often at odds. An example of one of the passages most often used by Calvinists to defend limited atonement is Mark 14:24. There we read that Jesus says to His disciples:
“This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. ”
It is argued that if the blood of Christ were shed for all, Scripture would not have used the word “many.” Ironically, some Calvinists insist that the word “all,” when referring to the saving interest and saving work of God, must always mean or imply less than everyone, but then say that the word “many,” when referring to the saving interest and work of God, can never mean all. With this verse in mind, Tom Ross says:
Jesus plainly tells His disciples that His blood was not shed for all, but for many.239 Does Jesus plainly tell His disciples that “His blood was not shed for all but for many”? Just because His blood was shed for many, it does not mean it was not shed for all. All, with regard to the human population is always many even if many is not always all. Thus, while it is true that the word “many” can, and at times does, refer to less than all, it is not true that the word “many” cannot refer to all. The context, in which a word like many is used, is the key to understanding how it should be understood. Seemingly in support of those that believe Calvin held to a potentially and provisionally unlimited atonement in the death that Christ died, Calvin explained that in this text: The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race.240 For Calvin, however, as well as most Calvinists, the words, “whole human race” do not necessarily refer to every individual in the whole human race.
Commenting on the meaning or implication of Colossians 1:14, where we read “in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins,” Calvin interpreted what the apostle Paul says as follows:
... Redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated. Let us, therefore, bear in mind, that this is the sole price of reconciliation ,..241 To Calvinists, the fact that Christ may have died for “all the sins of the world” cannot mean that He died for all or even any of the sins of some in the world. Calvinism will allow that Christ died for every kind of sin in the world because it allows that Christ died for every kind of sinner in the world. Calvinism cannot, and therefore does not, allow that Christ died for every sin in the world because it does not allow for what Scripture actually says. That is, Calvinism cannot say with Scripture that Christ died for every sinner in the world. While some Calvinists believe Christ died in a non-redemptive sense for everyone, all Calvinists agree that He died redemptively only for the elect. Garner Smith admits:
There is a ... class of passages, which seem to belong together and which may indeed be interpreted to signify a certain universalistic aspect of the Lord’s death, which cannot be denied, but which in no way conflicts with the doctrine of Limited Atonement as formulated by the Reformers.242
Non-Calvinist Evangelicals can and do believe that Christ redemptively died for all those that the Calvinist says He redemptively died for. We can and do believe that Christ died redemptively for us as truly as Calvinists say Christ died redemptively for us. We believe Christ died for us, because in fact Scripture says He died for us. The system of Calvinism, however, does not allow Calvinists to accept the plain teaching of Scripture when and where it says that Christ died redemptively for all or for them. The Calvinist doctrines of redemption and reprobation put an eternal and impenetrable wall between them and us. There is no crossing over from the caste of the reprobate into the caste of the redeemed. In the most important sense, where you begin is where you end. Nothing ever really changes from what it has always been determined to be. For as Calvinism teaches that God only elected to save some, so it teaches the corresponding doctrine that God only sent Christ to die as a sin-substitute for the elect. Conversely, Calvinism teaches that God did not send Christ to die as a sin-substitute for the reprobate. Jesus says:
“The Son of Man ... [came] ... to give His life a ransom for many. ” (Mark 10:45) Boettner says that we should:
Notice, this verse does not say that He gave His life a ransom for all, but for many.243 Does this mean, as Calvinists insist, that the “many” Christ died for cannot equal the world and everyone that has ever lived in the world? The apostle Paul tells us: For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:19, emphasis added)
Every Calvinist would agree that all of Adam’s posterity (with the exception of our Savior) is included in and among the “many” that were made sinners. Every Calvinist would also agree that all those who believe in Christ are included in and among the many that were made righteous through Christ. In fact, Calvinists would agree that the many in both of these instances could have been referred to as “all” without changing the meaning of the verse. Thus, the Calvinist has to agree that “many” can and sometimes does refer to “all.” If I were to refer to the total number of stars in the heavens, I could use the word “many.” For example, I could say that the many stars God created serve a celestial and terrestrial purpose. Using the logic of some Calvinists, someone could then say that I said that only some and not all of the stars serve a celestial and terrestrial purpose.
Godfrey correctly represents the Reformed view when he says:
Those that hold that the atonement is limited or definite in extent teach that Christ died to save only those whom the Father had predestined to eternal life. Therefore the atoning work of Christ is applied in due time to all for whom it was accomplished.244 I agree with Godfrey’s reasoning when he says:
If the Father has elected [in the Calvinist sense] some sinners to eternal life and if the Holy Spirit applies the saving work of Christ only to the elect, then Christ, in harmony with the purpose of the Father and the Spirit, died on the cross for the elect alone.245 I agree with the logic of Boettner when he says:
... that this doctrine necessarily follows from the doctrine of election. If from eternity God has planned to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that ... He sent His Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as ... those whom He had chosen for salvation. These two doctrines must stand or fall together. We cannot logically accept one and reject the other. If God has elected some and not others to eternal life, then plainly the primary purpose of Christ’s work was to redeem the elect.246 I also fully agree with Sproul when he says:
I have often thought that to be a four-point Calvinist one must misunderstand at least one of the five points. It is hard for me to imagine that anyone could understand the other four points of Calvinism and deny limited atonement. There always is the possibility, however, of the happy inconsistency by which people hold incompatible views at the same time.247
I would add that if you really understand the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election, you should easily be able to see how the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement logically and necessarily follows. Sproul goes on to say: The question is, “For whom was the atonement designed?” ...
Some argue that all limited atonement means is that the benefits of the atonement are limited to believers who meet the necessary condition of faith. That is, though Christ’s atonement was sufficient to cover the sins of all men and to satisfy God’s justice against all sin, it only effects salvation for believers. The formula reads: Sufficient for all; efficient for the elect only. ... The doctrine of limited atonement goes further than that. It is concerned with the deeper question of the Father’s and the Son’s intention in the cross.
It declares that the mission and death of Christ was restricted to a limited number.248 In lockstep, White says: A common, but not fully Reformed, assertion is that Christ’s death was sufficient to save every single human being, but efficient to save only the elect. While the statement carries truth, it misses the most important issue: whether it was Christ’s intention to make full and complete atonement for every single individual ...249
White argues, as do all five-point Calvinists, that it was Christ’s intention to make a full and complete atonement for the elect and the elect alone. He also believes that Christ made no redemptive atonement, complete or otherwise, for many or most of the individuals in the world. John Murray asks: Did Christ come to make the salvation of all men possible, to remove obstacles that stood in the way of salvation, merely to make provision for salvation? ... Did He come to put all men in a savable state? Or did He come to secure the salvation of all those who are ordained to eternal life? Did He come to make men redeemable? Or did He come effectually and infallibly to redeem? . The doctrine of “limited atonement” . we maintain is the doctrine which limits the atonement to those who are heirs of eternal life, [that is] to the elect.250
John Owen says:
... Jesus Christ, according to the counsel and will of his Father, did offer himself upon the cross ... with this intent and purpose; that all the things so procured by his death, might be actually and infallibly bestowed on, and applied to, all and every one for whom he died according to the will and purpose of God.251 The dark side of Calvinism is:
... Jesus Christ, according to the counsel and will of His Father, did not offer Himself upon the cross for all men. ... He had no saving intention or purpose for all men; nothing of a saving nature was procured by His death for many if not most men.
Boettner explains:
Calvinists do not deny that mankind in general receive some important benefits from Christ’s atonement. ... Many temporal blessings are thus secured for all men, although these fall short of being sufficient to insure salvation.252 Redemptively, however, Boettner says:
Christ died not for an unorderly mass, but for His people, His Bride, His Church.253
There are some Calvinists, especially among the hyper-variety and the supralapsarians, who deny any benefits from the death of Christ to those for whom He did not die redemptively. Hyper-Calvinist Herman Hoeksema reasons:
If Christ died for the elect only, then there are no possible benefits in that death of Christ for anyone else but those for whom He died.254
Regardless, the Calvinist doctrines of election and reprobation more than imply the Calvinist doctrine of a limited atonement. In one very real and necessary sense, the Calvinist version of election and reprobation includes the Reformed doctrine that says Christ did not die redemptively for millions upon millions of people on this planet. For if God includes only some and excludes all others (i.e., the reprobate) by an unconditional election and reprobation, then no matter what Christ did on the cross, it could not lead to, or result in, the salvation of the reprobate. Hence, His atonement relative to the reprobate would be no atonement at all. If we allow for the Calvinist definition of “sovereign election,” Herman Hoeksema is right on target when he says:
It is in this truth of limited atonement that the doctrine of sovereign election ... comes into focus.255 Spencer also reasons as does Boettner when he says:
If you believe the Bible teaches that God is sovereign, His plan is immutable, His election unconditional, you must conclude that the atonement is limited to those whom He freely willed to make the objects of His grace.256 Walter A. Ewell, in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, correctly says: The doctrine that Jesus died for the elect in particular; securing their redemption, but not for the world, arose as the implications of the election . theory of the atonement developed immediately following the Reformation.257
Boettner says:
Concerning this doctrine The Westminster Confession says: Wherefore they who are elected ... are redeemed in Christ. ... Neither are any other redeemed by Christ but the elect only.”258
Sproul is not the only Calvinist who does not like to use the word limited in connection with the atonement. To many Calvinists it seems as though the word is used by its detractors to undermine or distort the true meaning of the Reformed view of the atonement. Spurgeon says:
We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death. ...
We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved.259 The very thought of a universal or unlimited atonement or an atonement in which the saving benefits were conditioned upon faith in Christ is anathema to Spurgeon, who says: That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins of which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity.260 But where is the good in the news proclaimed to the reprobate caste for whom Christ did not die? How can it be good for the person for whom Christ did not shed His precious blood? For them, can it be said that His blood is precious or that it has redemptive value? If it is the gospel we are to preach to everyone (and by definition the gospel is a proclamation of news that is good), how can this be squared with a limited atonement? Unwittingly, Spurgeon points out the impossible predicament placed on the evangelist by a limited view of the atonement: The chief aim of the enemy’s assaults is to get rid of Christ, to get rid of the atonement, to get rid of his suffering in the place of men.
Some say they can embrace the rest of the gospel. But what “rest” is there? What is there left? A bloodless, Christless gospel is neither fit for the land nor for the dunghill. It neither honors God nor converts men.261 Spurgeon went so far as to say: A bloodless gospel, a gospel without the atonement, is a gospel of devils.262
If the gospel preached to the reprobate has no Christ sent for them or to die and shed His precious and redeeming blood for them, then that gospel, if we dare call it a gospel, cannot be the power of God to salvation for them. When Spurgeon proclaimed the gospel to the reprobate, according to his Calvinist logic, he was preaching a “monstrous iniquity,” a “Christless gospel,” and “bloodless gospel,” “neither fit for the land nor for the dunghill,” “a gospel of devils.” J. I. Packer unwittingly challenges the very notion that Calvinism even can preach the true gospel to the reprobate. After spending considerable time and effort rightly pointing out the centrality of the atonement in the true gospel, Packer says: A gospel without propitiation at its heart is another gospel.263
Whatever it is that Packer preaches to the reprobate, by definition, it excludes propitiation. By his own definition, then, Packer and all those who believe in limited atonement must be preaching another gospel when preaching to the reprobate. I am not accusing Packer of preaching another gospel. I am only pointing out a problem that Packer and other Calvinists seem to ignore. For Packer, and all five-point Calvinists, when Jesus says, “It is finished,” He had accomplished nothing of a saving nature for the reprobate. He did nothing of redemptive value for millions upon millions of lost people and never intended to do so. There is nothing good in the gospel for the reprobate, and therefore, no true gospel can be truly preached to the reprobate. A limited atonement, at the very least, limits and distorts a gospel proclamation. Steele and Thomas state this doctrine accordingly:
Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, thereby guaranteeing their salvation.264 Steele and Thomas explain:
All Calvinists agree that Christ’s obedience and suffering were of infinite value, and that if God had so willed, the satisfaction rendered by Christ would have saved every member of the human race.
It would have required no more obedience, nor any greater suffering for Christ to have secured salvation for every man, woman, and child who ever lived than it did for Him to secure salvation for the elect only. But He came into the world to represent and save only those given to Him by the Father. Thus Christ’s saving work was limited in that it was designed to save some and not others, but it was not limited in value for it was of infinite worth and would have secured salvation for everyone if this had been God’s intention.265 For those doomed from and to all eternity, the blood of Christ is of no value to redeem and it has no power to save. Steele and Thomas are correct in saying:
Historical or main line Calvinism has consistently maintained that Christ’s redeeming work was definite in design and accomplishment—that it was intended to render complete satisfaction for certain specified sinners and that it actually secured salvation for those individuals and for no one else.266 A. A. Hodge says:
Christ died with the intention of saving all [and only] those whom he actually does save.267
Hodge, as well as most hypo-Calvinists, cannot, however, seem to admit that a limited atonement nullifies a valid offer of eternal life for the reprobate. Speaking for most (if not all) hypo-Calvinists, Hodge illogically reasons: The question [of a limited atonement] does not relate to the UNIVERSAL OFFER in perfect good faith of a saving interest in Christ’s work on the condition of faith.268 At best, unconditional election and reprobation makes the “universal,” “good faith” offer seem just a little disingenuous. Could you imagine, for example, “universal” health care that only covers politicians and their families? Or a “good faith” offer to pay off a loan that cannot be paid on behalf of the one for whom it is promised? Hoeksema speaks for all Calvinists when he explains the meaning of a limited atonement as follows:
... It means this, that Christ died and atoned for the elect, and for them only.269 Hoeksema is also exactly right when he says: The doctrine of limited atonement is the Reformed doctrine concerning the death of Christ .270
One of the more common arguments against an unlimited atonement by many if not most Calvinists involves what is called double jeopardy. Custance explains: No man can be held accountable for a debt that has already been paid for on his behalf to the satisfaction of the offended party. But a double jeopardy, a duplication of indebtedness, is indeed involved if the non-elect are to be punished for sins which the Lord Jesus Christ has already endured punishment.271 Likewise Boettner reasons: For God to have laid the sins of all men on Christ would mean that as regards the lost He would be punishing their sins twice, once in Christ, and then again in them.272 Wayne Grudem says:
Reformed people argue that if Christ’s death actually paid for the sins of every person who ever lived, then there is no penalty left for anyone to pay, and it necessarily follows that all people will be saved, without exception. For God could not condemn to eternal punishment anyone whose sins are already paid for: that would be demanding double payment, and it would therefore be unjust.273
Besides the clear statements of Scripture, many of which we will consider momentarily, this reasoning fails to distinguish between an atonement provided and an atonement appropriated. By way of analogy, most Calvinists recognize that it is possible that a person be perfectly righteous in a positional sense and less than perfectly righteous in a practical sense. As God views Christians regarding salvation, we are “positionally” righteous in Christ. Nevertheless, Christians still sin and God still allows us “practical” consequences for our sinning (such as excluding the brother from the Corinthian congregation until he repents and stops sleeping with his stepmother—1 Corinthians 5:1-13). No biblically literate Christian grounded in Scripture and reality would deny these two propositions. Even so, the atonement provides for the forgiveness of all of our sins, although some do not appropriate that provision. The atonement that is rejected is as real as the atonement that is accepted. In fact, it is the same exact atonement. As certain conditions must be met by the seller of a home before he can get his money out of escrow, so there is a condition a lost person must meet in order to receive what has been provided in the atonement and offered in the gospel.
Atonement in the Calvinist sense “inherently saves.” In this view, the elect are actually saved at the time Christ died to save them. The rest is just a formality, adding nothing necessary to the salvation process. Faith, and everything else that appears to be required of the elect, are already provided for the elect by the very fact of Christ’s atoning work on their behalf. The Calvinist dismisses even the possibility that God could, much less would, provide forgiveness of sins on the condition that the sinner trusts the sin bearer for the salvation offered through His sacrifice for sin on the cross. In doing so, the Calvinist must dismiss the very language in which God communicates the meaning of the cross and how it is we can receive what He offers us, by virtue of Christ and His death on our behalf.
If we accept the Calvinist premise that Christ’s death must actually save those whom He dies to save, we must also accept the premise that if God elects to save us, we are saved when He elects us. This would, of course, make the cross of Christ itself just a formality, adding nothing that makes a difference. In effect, the Calvinist cross is not so much a saving instrument as it is a reflection of unconditional election, the real saving work of God. The view that says that Christ’s death inherently or automatically saves those Christ died for can also be expressed as the efficacy factor. According to Erickson: The underlying issue here is the question of the efficacy of the atonement. Those who hold to limited atonement assume that if Christ died for someone, that person will be saved. By extension they reason that if Christ in fact died for all persons, all persons would come to salvation; hence the concept of a universal atonement is viewed as leading to the universal-salvation trap. The basic assumption here, however, ignores the fact that our inheriting eternal life involves two separate factors: an objective factor (Christ’s provision for salvation) and a subjective factor (our acceptance of that salvation). In the view of those who hold to an unlimited atonement, there is the possibility that someone for whom salvation is available may fail to accept it.274 Crenshaw admits:
Some have said . nowhere does scripture say that Christ did not die for the reprobate or that He died only for the elect. This is true .275 Despite this admission, he immediately goes on to say:
... As we survey, consider the following logic:
Christ’s death inherently saves.
If Christ died for all, then all are saved. Not all are saved.
Therefore, Christ did not die for all.276 Crenshaw then says:
If one is going to deny the logic of these statements, he must object to the first premise, for the two middle premises no one would deny, and the conclusion is forced by the premises.277
Crenshaw is, of course, exactly right in zeroing in on the first premise as the problem. Where in Scripture do we find the first premise? Where do we find that “Christ’s death inherently saves”? That is, where do we find in Scripture that the price paid by Christ on the cross for the salvation of the lost is effective or efficacious without regard to faith, or that its effectiveness is unconditional? For that is exactly what the Calvinist is claiming when he says Christ’s death inherently saves. I would suggest a different kind of reasoning and one that is in keeping with what Scripture actually does say:
Christ died provisionally for all (1 John 2:2).
Only those who trust Christ for salvation redemptively profit from God’s saving work (John 3:16).
Everyone is invited to trust Christ for salvation (John 20:30-31 and 1 Timothy 2:3-6).
Those who end up lost forever will not be lost forever because Christ did not die for them, but because they refused to trust Christ for salvation (John 3:18).
Using the same logic as Crenshaw, while relying on what Scripture says, versus what it does not say, we can safely conclude that Christ died for all sinners and not just for some sinners.