Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The doctrine of unlimited atonement teaches that Christ died for all mankind, but only paid for the sins of those who believe in Him. If this is the case then either Jesus already knew who would believe and paid only for their sins (which sounds like limited atonement), or he paid for everyone's sins, but those people who do not believe are still viewed as guilty before God and are still punished. Hence, their sin receives a double payment. This though would seem to make God unjust (which I know He's not.)

Let me give an example why I say this. Let's say there was a man who got a speeding ticket and stood before the judge. The judge tells the man that the fine is $200.00 or one week in jail. The man says he doesn't have the money, but before the man is escorted to his cell, another man comes forward and pays the $200 instead. The fine is paid. Now what if the judge, having accepted the $200, still sent the man to jail. Wouldn't that make the judge unjust and wouldn't it make the person who paid the $200 feel used? In short it would mean the judge was demanding double payment for the penalty.

Because unlimited atonement is an Arminian teaching, I would like answers from Arminians.

share|improve this question
Thanks. I hold to the limited atonement view, but am reading Lewis Sperry Chafer's book, Grace. Lewis teaches Universal Atonement - the view that Jesus died for all people. From what I understand of his position is that Jesus paid for the sins of all mankind in His death on the cross, and that what saves or damns someone now is whether they believe in Jesus or not -not their sins. This doesn't make sense to me since unbelief would be a sin included in the atonement. This sounds as if people are damned for sins already paid for. I know God is not unjust, so i'm looking for clarification. –  user1649568 Dec 24 '13 at 1:41
I think this source can be used to tackle this question. Shultz Jr., G. L. (2010). Why a genuine universal gospel call requires an atonement that paid for the sins of all people. Evangelical Quarterly, 82(2), 111-123. –  Anonymous Dec 24 '13 at 23:38
"The doctrine of unlimited atonement teaches that Christ died for all mankind, but only paid for the sins of those who believe in Him." This wording is curious: If Christ died for all mankind, was He not paying for the sins of all? –  Steve Feb 1 at 14:33
Your analogy is faulty. Jesus' death paid the price for all sins ("the whole world," not for Christians only, 1 John 2:2). That means a guilty person approached the judge and a fine is levied on him. Before he is taken to jail, the man confesses that he is guilty of the crime and wants to do better. Smiling, the judge dismisses his case, telling him that payment has already been made and it's applied to all who acknowledge their wrong. This analogy is more accurate, since the payment has already been made and only awaits the condition of faith to be applied. –  Steve Feb 1 at 14:37
@Steve: I like your analogy. My answer, once posted, will, in part, develop your analogy a bit further. Don –  rhetorician Feb 2 at 2:16
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.