Unlimited atonement

Unlimited atonement (sometimes called general atonement or universal atonement) is a doctrine in Protestant Christianity that is normally associated with Amyraldism (four-point Calvinism), as well as Arminianism and other non-Calvinist traditions. The doctrine states that Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of all humans without exception. It is a doctrine distinct from other elements of the Calvinist acronym TULIP and is contrary to the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement. A doctrinal issue that divides Christians is the question of the extent of the atonement. This question typically goes as follows: "Did Christ bear the sins of the elect alone on the cross, or did his death expiate the sins of all human beings?" Those who take this view read scriptures such as John 3:16; ; ; ; to say that the Bible teaches unlimited atonement. In response to the Remonstrants' Five articles of Remonstrance, the Synod of Dort published the Canons of Dort which included limited atonement. One of the stronger, more vocal proponents of unlimited atonement was Methodist leader John Wesley. George Whitefield opposed the view. The namesake of the Calvinist systematic theological viewpoint, John Calvin, seemingly expressed an unlimited atonement position in several passages from his published Commentaries. The terms unlimited, universal, and general are somewhat of a misnomer and have been adopted primarily to distinguish this doctrine from a Calvinist understanding of limited atonement. More accurately, the call of the Gospel is universal and there are no limits on who can believe through faith, but the legal payment is still regarded as limited only to those that respond through faith in Jesus. Thus, it is not the same as the doctrine of universal salvation, which holds that all souls will ultimately be reconciled to God, irrespective of faith. The following statements regarding what it states and what it does not state are subject to close scrutiny of which many distinguished theologians on both sides of this issue disagree.