In this brief clip from Ligonier’s 2012 Theology Night, R.C. Sproul explains that God’s purpose in the atonement was limited and definite.

Transcript

What is in view here is God’s purpose, His design. Did God intend, when He sent into the world His Son to die, did He intend that that death would actually save people, or did He just hope it would? I mean, to ask a question like that is to answer it. You know very well that God knew from all eternity who was going to come to His Son and who wouldn’t. He knew that the death of Christ had a definite purpose, that would definitely be accomplished, and definitely was accomplished.

If you look at it like that, how can you speak of anything but a definite atonement? So first of all, the atonement is limited in its efficacy to all who believe. I think we can agree on that. But it’s also limited in its eternal design for God’s elect—that Christ laid down His life for His sheep and all for whom Christ died come to Christ, experience His redemption, and are redeemed forever.

Dr. Robert L. Reymond in his “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith” wrote:

“If Christ by his death actually propitiated God’s wrath, reconciled God, and paid the penalty for sin (which is what I mean by an atonement of infinite intrinsic value), and if he sacrificially substituted himself for (peri), on behalf of (hyper), for the sake of (dia), and in the stead and place of (anti) sinners, then it follows that for all those for whom he substitutionally did his cross work he did all that was necessary to procure their salvation and thus guarantee that they will be saved. But since neither Scripture, history, nor Christian experience will tolerate the conclusion that all men have become, are becoming, or shall become Christians, we must conclude that Christ did not savingly die for all men but for some men only—even God’s elect. If, on the other hand, Christ did his work for all men without exception, and if he did not intend its benefits for any one man in any sense that he did not intend it for any and every other man distributively, since again neither Scripture, history, nor Christian experience will allow the conclusion that all men are saved, it necessarily follows that Christ actually died neither savingly nor substitutionally for any man since he did not do for those who are saved anything that he did not do for those who are lost, and the one thing that he did not do for the lost was save them. It also follows necessarily, since Christ by his death actually procured nothing that guarantees the salvation of any man, and yet some men are saved, that the most one can claim for his work is that he in some way made all men salvable. But the highest view of the atonement that one can reach by this path is the governmental view. This view holds that Christ by his death actually paid the penalty for no man’s sin. What his death did was to demonstrate what their sin deserves at the hand of the just Governor and Judge of the universe, and permits God justly to forgive men if on other grounds, such as their faith, their repentance, their works, and their perseverance, they meet his demands. This means, of course, that the actual salvation of those who are saved is ultimately rooted in and hangs decisively upon something other than the work of him who alone is able to save men, namely, in something that those who are saved do themselves in their own behalf. But this is just to eviscerate the Savior’s cross work of all of its intrinsic saving worth and to replace the Christosoteric vision of Scripture with the autosoteric vision of Pelagianism.”

HT: Patrick Hines