The following excerpt is taken from R.C. Sproul’s commentary on John.

The doctrine of limited atonement (also known as “definite atonement” or “particular redemption”) says that the atonement of Christ was limited (in its scope and aim) to the elect; Jesus did not atone for the sins of everybody in the world. In my denomination, we examine young men going into the ministry, and invariably somebody will ask a student, “Do you believe in limited atonement?” The student will respond by saying, “Yes, I believe that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all and efficient for some,” meaning the value of Christ’s death on the cross was great enough to cover all of the sins of every person that ever lived, but that it applies only to those who put their faith in Christ. However, that statement doesn’t get at the real heart of the controversy, which has to do with God’s purpose in the cross.

There are basically two ways in which to understand God’s eternal plan. One understanding is that, from all eternity, God had a desire to save as many people as possible out of the fallen human race, so He conceived a plan of redemption by which He would send His Son into the world as the sin-bearer for fallen people. Jesus would go to the cross and die for all who would at some point put their trust in him. So the plan was provisional—God provided atonement for all who take advantage of it, for all who believe. The idea is that Jesus died potentially for everybody, but that it is theoretically possible that the whole thing was in vain because every last person in the world might reject the work of Jesus and choose to remain dead in their trespasses and sins. Thus, God’s plan could be frustrated because nobody might take advantage of it. This is the prevailing view in the church today—that Jesus died for everybody provisionally. In the final analysis, whether salvation happens depends on each individual person.

The Reformed view understands God’s plan differently. It says that God, from all eternity, devised a plan that was not provisional. It was a plan “A” with no plan “B” to follow if it didn’t work. Under this plan, God decreed that He would save a certain number of people out of fallen humanity, people whom the Bible calls the elect. In order for that plan of election to work out in history, He sent His Son into the world with the specific aim and design to accomplish redemption for the elect. This was accomplished perfectly, without a drop of the blood of Christ being wasted. Everyone whom the Father chose for salvation will be saved through the atonement.

The implication of the non-Reformed view is that God doesn’t know in advance who is going to be saved. For this reason, there are theologians today saying, “God saves as many people as He possibly can.” How many people can God save? How many people does He have the power to save? If He is really God, He has the power to save all of them. How many people does He have the authority to save? Cannot God intervene in anyone’s life, just as He did in Moses’ life, Abraham’s life, or the apostle Paul’s life, to bring them into a saving relationship with Him? He certainly has the right to do that.

We cannot deny that the Bible speaks about Jesus dying for “the world.” John 3:16 is the premier example of a verse that uses this language. But there is a counterbalancing perspective in the New Testament, including John’s Gospel, that tells us Jesus laid down His life not for everyone but for His sheep. Here in John’s Gospel, Jesus speaks about His sheep as those whom the Father has given Him.

In John 6, we see that Jesus said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (v. 44a), and the word translated as “draws” properly means “compels.” Jesus also said in that chapter, “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me” (v. 37a). His point was that everyone whom the Father designed to come to His Son would come, and no one else. Thus, your salvation, from start to finish, rests on the sovereign decree of God, who decided, in His grace, to have mercy on you, not because of anything He saw in you that demanded it, but for the love of the Son. The only reason I can give under heaven why I’m a Christian is because I’m a gift of the Father to the Son, not because of anything I’ve ever done or could do.

Dr. John Piper:

John Piper on Definite Atonement in Pastoral Practice from Crossway on Vimeo.

Mike Riccardi, in an article entitled “Romans 8 and the Extent of the Atonement: Help from John Murray” writes:

The extent of the atonement continues to be one of those doctrinal discussions that tends to evoke more heat than light. I’ve always found it to be a shame that there is such widespread disagreement in the body of Christ concerning an aspect of theology that is so central to the Gospel itself: the atonement. While differences on the extent of the atonement may be less central than differences on the nature of the atonement, the question, “For whom did Christ atone?” is nevertheless a question that needs to be answered with biblical conviction.

Among the many texts that do get mentioned in these discussions, one text that I’ve very rarely seen discussed in personal conversation is Romans 8:28–39. And yet this text has very significant implications with respect to the particularity or universality of Christ’s redemption. Because, it seems, Romans 8 tends to get lost in the shuffle of exegetical and theological debate related to the L of TULIP, I thought I would reproduce a selection from John Murray’s classic, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, in which he demonstrates the role that Romans 8 plays in this discussion.

He asks the question, “Is there not also more direct evidence provided by the Scripture to show the definite or limited extent of the atonement?” and answers, “There are indeed many biblical arguments.” The first he addresses is Romans 8:31–39.

* * * * *

There is no question but that on two occasions in this passage, explicit reference is made to the death of Christ—“he that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all” (ver. 32) and “Christ Jesus is the one who died, yea rather is raised up” (ver. 34). Hence, any indication given in this passage respecting extent would be pertinent to the question of the extent of the atonement.

Verses 31–32: The “us” is conditioned by vv. 28–30

In verse 31 Paul asks the question: “What shall we then say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?” We are compelled to ask the question: of whom is Paul speaking? In other words, what is the denotation of the expressions “for us” and “against us”?

The answer is that the denotation cannot be other than that provided by the preceding context, namely, those spoken of in verses 28–30. It would be impossible to universalize the denotation of verse 31 if we are to think biblically, and it would be exegetically monstrous to break the continuity of Paul’s thought and extend the reference of verse 31 beyond the scope of those spoken of in verse 30. This means therefore that the denotation in view in the words “for us” and “against us” in verse 31 is restricted, and restricted in terms of verse 30.

When we proceed to verse 32 we find that Paul again uses this expression “for us” and adds the word “all”—“he that spared not his own Son but delivered Him up for us all.” Here he is dealing expressly with those on whose behalf the Father delivered up the Son. And the question is: what is the scope of the expression, “for us all”?

It would be absurd to insist that the presence of the word “all” has the effect of universalizing the scope. The “all” is not broader than the “us.” Paul is saying that the action of the Father in view was on behalf of “all of us” and the question is simply the scope of the “us.”

The only proper answer to this question is that the “us” in view in verse 32 is the “us” in view in verse 31. It would be doing violence to the most elementary rules of interpretation to suppose that at verse 32 Paul had broadened the scope of those to whom he is speaking and included many more than he included in the protestation of verse 31. In fact Paul is continuing his protestation and saying that not only is God for us but will also freely give us all things. And the guarantee of this resides in the fact that the Father gave up his Son on our behalf.

Verse 32: Christ died for those who receive all things from the Father

Lest there should be any doubt as to the restricted denotation of the words, “for us all”’ in verse 32, it is well to be reminded that the giving up of the Son is correlative with the free bestowal of all good gifts. We may not extend the scope of the sacrifice of the Son beyond the scope of all the other free gifts—every one on whose behalf the Father delivered up the Son becomes the beneficiary of all other gifts of grace. To put it briefly, those contemplated in the sacrifice of Christ are also the partakers of the other gifts of saving grace— “how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?”

Verse 33: The “us” is “God’s elect”

When we proceed to verse 33 the restrictive scope becomes unquestionably patent. For Paul says: “who will bring a charge against the elect of God? God is the one who justifies: who is he who condemns?” The thought moves strictly within the orbit defined by election and justification, and the reference to election and justification harks back to verses 28–30 where predestination and justification are shown to be coextensive.

Verse 34: Christ intercedes for all whom He died for

At verse 34 Paul again refers to the death of Christ. He does so in a way that is significant for our present interest in two respects.

His appeal to the death of Christ is coordinated with the fact that it is God who justifies. And he does this for the purpose of vindicating the elect of God against any charge that might be brought against them and to support his challenge, “who shall lay a charge against the elect of God?” It is the elect and the justified that Paul has in mind here in his appeal to the death of Christ, and there is no reason for going outside the denotation provided by election and justification when we seek to discover the extent of Christ’s sacrificial death.

The second respect in which his reference here to the death of Christ is significant is that he appeals to the death of Christ in the context of its sequel in the resurrection, the session at the right hand of God, and the intercession on our behalf. Again Paul uses this expression “for us” and he uses it now in connection with intercession—“who also makes intercession for us.”

Rom 8;34 Two observations bear directly upon our question. First, the expression “for us” in this case must be given the restricted denotation which we found already in verse 31. It is impossible to universalize it not only because of the restrictive scope of the whole context but also because of the very nature of intercession as availing and efficacious.

Second, because of the way in which the death, resurrection, and intercession of Christ are coordinated in this passage, it would be quite unwarranted to give to the death of Christ a more inclusive reference than is given to his intercession. When Paul says here, “it is Christ that died,” he of course means that “Christ died for us,” just as in verse 32 he says that the Father “delivered him up for us all.” We cannot give wider scope to the “for us” implied in the clause, “it is Christ that died” than we can give to the “for us” expressly stated in the clause, “who also makes intercession for us.” Hence we see that we are led into impossible suppositions if we try to universalize the denotation of those referred to in these passages.

Verses 35–39: Atoning love ensures eternal security

Finally, we have the most cogent consideration of all. “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? . . . For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom 8:35–39). Paul is here affirming in the most emphatic way, in one of the most rhetorical conclusions of his epistles, the security of those of whom he has been speaking. The guarantee of this security is the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. And the love of God here spoken of is undoubtedly the love of God towards those who are embraced in it.

Now the inevitable inference is that this love from which it is impossible to be separated and which guarantees the bliss of those who are embraced in it is the same love that must be alluded to earlier in the passage when Paul says, “He that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (ver. 32). It is surely the same love, called in verse 39 “the love of God which is in Christ Jesus,” that constrained the Father to deliver up his own Son. This means that the love implied in verse 32, the love of giving the Son, cannot be given a wider reference than the love which, according to verses 35–39, insures the eternal security of those who are its objects. If not all men enjoy this security, how can that which is the source of this security and the guarantee of its possession embrace those who enjoy no such security?

We see, therefore, that the security of which Paul here speaks is a security restricted to those who are the objects of the love which was exhibited on Calvary’s accursed tree, and therefore the love exhibited on Calvary is itself a distinguishing love and not a love that is indiscriminately universal. It is a love that insures the eternal security of those who are its objects and Calvary itself is that which secures for them the justifying righteousness through which eternal life reigns. And this is just saying that the atonement which Calvary accomplished is [particular, and] not universal.

* * * * *

Update: For the sake of capturing Murray’s argument, here’s my attempt at a summary:

(1) Based on Romans 8:32, Murray argues that all for whom Christ was delivered over will, along with Christ, be given “all things” by the Father. “All things” is understood as all the saving benefits of God’s grace. I think all sides would agree on this. Since the non-elect do not receive all the saving benefits of God’s grace (e.g., rescue from eternal punishment indeed), they are not included in the “us all” for whom Christ was delivered over.

(2) Based on the fact that, in Romans 8:33, Paul identifies the “us all” for whom Christ was delivered over to be “God’s elect,” Murray argues that Christ was not delivered over for those who are non-elect.

(3) Based on Romans 8:34, Murray argues that all for whom Christ was delivered over will also be the beneficiaries of His present intercessory ministry at the Father’s right hand. Since Christ is not presently interceding before the Father on behalf of the non-elect, they are not included in the “us all” for whom Christ was delivered over.

(4) Based on Romans 8:35–39, Murray argues that all for whom Christ was delivered over enjoy the blessedness of eternal security; they cannot be separated from the love of Christ. Since the non-elect will in fact be separated from the love of Christ as they perish for their sins in hell, they are not included in the “us all” for whom Christ was delivered over.

Some have responded by arguing to this effect: “Yes, Paul is speaking of those for whom Christ died in Romans 8, but he’s not speaking of all for whom Christ died. Christ died for others (namely, the non-elect) as well; but he’s just not speaking about them here. However, Paul’s universalistic language in this text rules that out. It is almost tautological to say that, when Paul speaks of the “us all” for whom Christ was delivered over, He is speaking of all for whom Christ was delivered over. If Paul meant to be referring only to a subset of those for whom Christ died, why would he use the universalistic language, “us all”? Why wouldn’t he just say, “for us,” or something equivalent?

Indeed, it would undermine the express purpose of Paul’s entire argument in Romans 8:31–39 to suggest that the “us all” could be referring only to a subset of those for whom Christ died. His argument is to give encouragement and assurance to those who are beneficiaries of the atoning sacrifice of Christ by speaking of the benefits that accrue to them from His death. If not everyone for whom He died is guaranteed those benefits, why make His death the basis for his encouragement and their assurance? It would be no comfort, since the troubled saints could simply respond, “What does Christ’s death have to do with my security? He died for everyone without exception, and millions are separated from Christ’s love!” This means that the “us all” in this passage refers to everyone for whom Christ was delivered over.

So the argument can be represented this way:

(a) the “us all” refers to everyone for whom Christ was delivered over;
(b) everyone for whom Christ was delivered over receives all the Father’s saving blessings;
(c) everyone for whom Christ was delivered over benefit from Christ’s present intercession in heaven;
(d) no one for whom Christ was delivered over can ever be separated from Christ’s love;
(e) (b) through (d) cannot be said of the non-elect;
therefore
(f): Christ was delivered over for the elect alone.

Dr. John MacArthur:

Transcript:

We come tonight to a wonderful theme in the Scripture, again the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. And for those of you, most of you, who are with us in our study of the gospel of Luke, we have been looking closely at the record of Luke, the historical record, as well as comparing the account of Matthew and Mark and John on the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. We have looked at the details of His dying.

Tonight we want to talk a little about the theology of His death and ask the question and answer it from Scripture, “For whom did Christ die?” This is a very, very important question.

Now I know you people very well and you are noble Bereans. You search the Scriptures to see if these things that I say are so. And I also know that if I don’t cover every verse that weighs on this subject, you will line up afterwards to ask me about that verse. So in dealing with a subject like this, if I can borrow a French phrase, this needs to be somewhat of a tour de force(?), I need to cover the ground extensively so I can put your mind at rest because you are so incurably biblical. That, in case you didn’t know, is a great commendation. I expect that, I rejoice in that.

To begin with, what I want to say is what I am going to teach you tonight about this application of the atonement, answering the question, “For whom did Christ die?” is the view that has reigned supreme in the true church since the New Testament. It, along with the other essential doctrines of Reformed Theology, or Augustinian, or Lutheran or Calvinistic theology, has been affirmed by the church since its inception. What I am going to show you tonight is essentially what the early church believed, of course, because you’ll see it coming out of the New Testament. It is what was affirmed in the fifth century as being a true representation of New Testament teaching under Augustine against Palagius. It was again affirmed during the time of the Reformation by Luther in his conflict with Erasmus and further affirmed by Calvin in his conflict with Arminius. It has come down to us in our heritage which is Baptistic through the London Confession of 1689 and the Philadelphia Confession of 1743, being the substantial foundations for Baptists in America. And that is our tradition, our ecclesiology is baptistic rather than sacramental and Reformed. That’s why we baptize adults who believe and not infants.

And so, what I’m going to say to you is not anything new, it is something that the church has affirmed. In fact, the view that opposes what I will show you tonight has been labeled as heresy. It was so labeled at three councils early on in history, it was reiterated again during the time of the Reformation that the view contrary to this view is in fact unbiblical.

Now the question might at first seem an easy one, For whom did Christ die? Most people, I’m confident, in churches would quickly answer, “Well He died for everyone.” Most people in the church believed that on the cross Jesus paid the debt for the sins of everyone because He loves everyone unconditionally and wants everyone to be saved. That is not what the church has historically believed, but that is what the present version of the superficial church believes. Sinners, all of them, have had all their sins atoned for potentially. And that’s the key word. If they will acknowledge Christ and accept the gift. So we have then only to convince sinners to receive the salvation which has already been fully purchased for them at the cross. Since Christ died for everyone, everyone can believe and should believe and must believe if they’ll only will to believe. And in a contemporary concept, we work on the sinner’s will believing that the sinner has both the responsibility and the ability to activate a saving faith on his own and believe. If nowhere else, this is certainly indicated in the most popular of Christian books, The Purpose-Driven Life and The Purpose-Driven Church where Rick Warren says I can lead anyone to Christ if I can find the key to that person’s heart. It’s just a matter of moving their will.

That is the popular idea and that means that hell is full of people whose salvation was purchased by the death and resurrection of Christ. It means then that everybody in hell and everybody in heaven had the same thing done for them on the cross. The Lake of Fire will be filled with eternally damned people whose sins were actually atoned for on the cross, so the people in hell had the same atonement as the people in heaven. The difference was the people in heaven activated their will to accept that atonement. The people in hell did not.

Now if that sounds strange to you, it is…it is, that Jesus died for, paid for in full the sins of the damned, paid the penalty of divine justice for them just as He did for the redeemed is a very strange notion. And the sinner then determines whether that universally potential death is applied to him or not. This view would say Christ died to make salvation possible, not actual. He died to make it possible, the sinner then makes the choice. He didn’t really purchase salvation for anyone, He actually died on the cross and in some way removed a barrier to make salvation a potential. You will not find such language anywhere in the New Testament or the Old. The message that this would send to sinners goes like this…God loves you so much that Christ died for you, won’t you let Him save you? The final decision is up to you. In fact, God loves you so much that He gave His Son and hopefully when you see the sacrifice that Christ made, you will be moved emotionally to love Him back by accepting Him.

Now the problem with this is glaring. Here’s the problem. According to Scripture, sinners are dead…dead in trespasses and sin, separated from the life of God. They are blind. They are perishing. They’re in a state of perishing eternally. They are double blind because the god of this world has blinded their minds. In their natural state, they cannot understand the things of God, they are foolishness to them. Or to borrow the language of Romans 3, there is none who seeks after God, there is no fear of God before their eyes. This then affirms another doctrine that the church has always established as true and that is the sinner’s total inability. Luther’s great classic, The Bondage of the Will is still preeminent reading for anyone who wants to understand how bound the fallen human will is and how impossible it is for the dead double-blind sinner cut off from the life of God with no desire for God and no ability to seek after God and no fear of God before his eyes to all of a sudden pull himself up by his own bootstraps and take hold of a potential salvation that is hanging out there for him. Continue reading →

R. C. Sproul, Jr. answers this question in the following way (from an article entitled “Did Jesus Suffer the Wrath of the Father for All Sinners?” at ligonier.org)

Did Jesus Suffer the Wrath of the Father for All Sinners?

Just for the elect. This truth is hard for some people for what seems like a good reason—it shows God treating people unequally. If Christ’s atoning work covers only some people, doesn’t this somehow make God unfair, treating one group of people one way, and another group of people another way? If people end up in different places, some in heaven and some in hell, then we can either attribute the difference to how God acts in our lives, or in how we act in ourselves. The latter choice has a great deal going for it. It absolves God of the charge of treating people differently. And no one in hell, of course, can complain about being there. They are there by their own doing.

The first choice, however, has three things going better for it. First, it means some people will actually go to heaven. Given the scope of our sinfulness, were God merely to make our salvation possible (which is itself a limitation of the atonement) and then dependent upon our natural obedience to His call, none would come. Dead people do not respond to the call to repentance, unless they are first made alive.

The second advantage is that this is what the Bible teaches. Consider, for instance, Jesus’ High Priestly prayer. If it is incumbent upon God to treat all men the same, would it not be incumbent on Jesus to pray for all men the same way? What, then, are we to make of this—“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours” (John 17:9). Here Jesus explicitly denies praying for those who are not His, while affirming that He prays for those who are His. Now if Jesus is unwilling to pray for those who were not chosen, on what grounds can we claim that He suffered the wrath of the Father for the sins of those for whom He would not pray? Remember that God explicitly affirms His liberty to treat some people differently than others—“For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion’” (Romans 9:15). What we try to free God from, the accusation that He treats some people one way and others another, God proudly affirms.

There is a third serious problem with the notion that Jesus died for all sins of all people. Hell. If Jesus atoned for all sins, just for what are the sinners in hell suffering? Those who seek to “protect” God’s integrity by arguing He must treat us all the same end up, accidentally, affirming that God punishes the same sins twice, once on Calvary and again in hell. Some might object in turn that the sinners in hell are being punished for their unbelief. But that too is a sin, and thus would have already been punished. If all sins have been atoned for, they can’t be punished.

God owes man nothing save damnation. What He chooses to give, outside of damnation, is all of grace. Which means in turn that He treats His elect one way, and the reprobate another. All to the everlasting praise of His glory.

R.C. Sproul Jr. is rector and chair of philosophy and theology at Reformation Bible College. Originally published at RCSproulJr.com.