God takes great pleasure in the salvation of men (Luke 15: 4-7). It is His passion, and the sacrifice of His Son is the measure of it (Jo. 3:16; 1 Jo. 4:10). That He would offer His Son for some and not for all ignores God's concern for the lost (Mt. 23:37; Luke 5:31,32; 15:1-7; 19:10). Scripture affirms that God has done and is doing all that He can do in wisdom and righteousness to save men (Isa. 5:1-7; 53; Jo. 3:14-17; Rom. 3:24 -26). It simply will not accept the insidious idea that fewer saved is better, which is an inevitable implication of Calvinist theology. Limiting God's saving interest to just a few men is a troubling feature of Calvinism and should be of concern to all who share God's passion for the lost. . Therefore, the debate between limited and unlimited atonement is no small matter, as past atonement controversies have shown. That God unconditionally assigned some to salvation and others to damnation, whether before or after the fall, finds no sanction in Scripture. Yet Calvinists say that God either limited the work of Christ to a select few or limited the Spirit's application of Christ's work to a select few. In both cases they limit the atonement unconditionally. Scripture says that God desires the salvation of all men (1 Tim. 2:4-6; 2 Peter. 3:9) and that He has provided for all. “Everything is ready” (Mt 22:4). When it comes to salvation, He stands in the same relationship with all men. He is the Creator of all (Jo. 1:1-3; Col. 1:16) and the Savior of all (Jo. 4:42). To say that He undertook for some and not for all is the voice of limiting theology and not of Scripture. By taking on our nature (Hebrews 2:14-18), Christ has provided atonement for all who bear it. He died for each man individually (Hebrews 2:9; 1 Jo...... middle of paper ...... more on that later). They cannot conceive that God operates with a generous margin, that he makes provision for more than to actually enjoy. Over the years, Calvinists have struggled to give their system a friendlier face, a more friendly and universal look. One plan has been to say that the atonement is sufficient for all but only effective for the elect. However, such “universality” is purely theoretical and does not make the non-elect more likely to be saved. In this scheme, the atonement is sufficient for all in the sense that, if God had intended to save all men, the death of Christ would have been sufficient to do so. However, because He never intended to save everyone, He never included everyone's sins on the cross. Thus, the atonement is sufficient (theoretically capable) to save all, but it is effective (i.e. actually saving) for the elect only because only the sins of the elect have been atoned for...