Chapter 3: Two further arguments based on the representative role Christ took upon Himself
redeemed are from "every tribe and language and people and nation," but not every individual from all nations.
Therefore, if someone insists that Christ died for all men without exception, they must prove from Scripture that such universal language (like "all") cannot be limited to "all the elect," "all believers," "all of His church," or "all sorts of people" (which is how the term is often used). Until they do, the claim of universal atonement cannot be maintained.
If people would carefully examine the texts and prove that "all" must mean every individual without exception—and not simply all kinds of people or all the elect—then the debate would be easier to resolve.
But as it stands, Scripture does not support the claim that Christ died for every single person.
Book III, Chapter 3 Two further arguments based on the representative role Christ took upon Himself Argument VI: Christ Died as a Substitute
—But Not for All For everyone Christ died for, He died as a substitute, in their place
—as Scripture clearly teaches:
Romans 5:6–8: "While we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly... God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
Galatians 3:13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us."
2 Corinthians 5:21: "He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."
These passages show a clear exchange—Christ took the place of others so that they might be freed from the penalty He bore. If He stood in their place, then two things follow:
1. They must be freed from the punishment He bore in their place. That is the entire point of substitution: the substitute suffers so the one represented does not. This is the very nature of Christ being our surety (Heb. 7:22), bearing our chastisement and iniquities (Isa. 53:5–6), and being made sin for us that we might be made righteous (2 Cor. 5:21).
2. But not all are freed from wrath or reconciled to God.
Scripture says that those who do not believe are still under wrath (John 3:36); God's anger remains on them, not that it comes upon them anew. That means it was never removed by Christ's death. The gospel for such people is "a fragrance from death to death" (2 Cor. 2:16), bringing only greater condemnation because of their rejection.
Some have argued that Christ redeemed and justified all, even making them righteous in Him. But such claims don't just misinterpret Scripture—they directly contradict it. Scripture never says this.
Furthermore, if Christ died for all, then He must have made satisfaction to God's justice for all sins—because that's why He died. But this can't be true, for two reasons:
First, if He satisfied God's justice for someone's sins, then God's justice is satisfied—there is no more punishment to be given. If anyone still suffers eternal punishment, then either:
Christ's satisfaction was insufficient, which is blasphemy; or God requires double satisfaction—from Christ and the sinner—which contradicts justice.
But many are punished eternally. Therefore, Christ did not satisfy God's justice for their sins.
Jesus' satisfaction cannot fail in its goal. To say He made atonement for someone, but they still perish, is to say His work failed to save them. That is unthinkable.
Second, Christ did not suffer for anyone unintentionally.
He didn't accidentally die for sins He didn't mean to bear.
Satisfaction was a deliberate act, rooted in His intention and the Father's purpose. And He did not intend to make atonement for those who were already in hell at the time of His death. It would
make no sense for Christ to offer Himself for those whom He knew had already perished and could never benefit from His death.
Would Christ die for Pharaoh or Cain, centuries after they had been condemned? Would He shed His blood for those He knew would never be redeemed? That would make His blood purposeless for them—a vain offering.
Some object: "Yes, but if they had believed, Christ's death would have saved them." But:
Most of them never heard of Christ or any such condition.
Christ knew they never would believe, and that they were beyond any hope.
Therefore, it would be meaningless to say He died for them knowing they would never be saved.
Others say: "Well, Christ died for those already saved—it wasn't necessary for them. So why not for the already damned?" But this misses the point. Those already saved were saved on the basis of the coming death of Christ. God counted it done, and their salvation was built on that sure foundation. The condemned had no such foundation.
A simple example: Suppose a man sends word to a prison, promising to pay a ransom for the release of the captives. Some respond and go free; others ignore the message or never hear it. When the man finally pays the price, did he intend it for those who never heard—or who already died in their cells? Obviously not. His ransom was for those whom he intended to set free.
Third, if Christ died for all, did He die for all their sins, or only some?
If only some, then none can be saved, because some sins remain.
If for all their sins, then why are they not saved?
The answer is usually: "Because of their unbelief." But is unbelief a sin, or not?
If unbelief is not a sin, then how can it condemn?
If it is a sin, did Christ die for it, or not?
If He did not die for their unbelief, then He didn't die for all their sins. If He did die for their unbelief, then how can unbelief prevent salvation?
This is the great contradiction of universal atonement: Christ died for all, including their unbelief—but they are lost because of their unbelief? How can that sin, already atoned for, still damn them?
The only way around this is to say Christ died for their unbelief on the condition that they are not unbelievers. That's nonsense.
If Christ died in the place of sinners, as Scripture teaches, then all for whom He died must be saved. Otherwise, He failed as their substitute. But not all are saved. Therefore, He did not die for all.
The idea that Christ would make atonement for those He knew would never believe, whom the Father never intended to save, whose hearts would remain hardened—is completely inconsistent with His wisdom, power, and purpose.
Argument VII: Christ Is Mediator Only for Those for Whom He Died Whoever Christ died for, He also acts as mediator for them. This is clear because one of the central acts of Christ's mediation is His offering of Himself to God—His sacrificial death. But Scripture and experience both show that Christ is not the mediator for all people without exception.
Here's the reasoning:
As mediator, Christ is also a priest. And what does a priest do?
As shown earlier, a priest both offers sacrifice and intercedes—he obtains blessings for others and applies those blessings to the ones for whom the sacrifice was made (see
Hebrews 9).
But Christ does not intercede or apply blessings to everyone. He does not act as priest for all. Therefore, He is not mediator for all, and consequently, He did not die for all—since His death was a priestly, mediatorial act.
This isn't a point needing much debate: we see it plainly in the Bible and in experience. Not all are reconciled, saved, or blessed through Christ's priestly work. Scripture is full of testimonies to this.
Some try to dodge this truth by saying Christ is a mediator for all in some respects, but only a mediator for the elect in other respects. But this is no solid defense—it's just an evasive tactic. To suggest that Christ is a partial mediator, or a half-mediator, is both unbiblical and dishonoring to His office. Scripture never teaches that Christ performs some mediatorial acts for everyone and