Of late, there have been any number of questions for the Calvinists on the board, so I figured it was time to return the favor. This is not out of spite or an angry heart, but the question I will pose below I believe will prove difficult for those with an Arminian (or other non-named free will perspective). So, here goes... The question concerns the limits or unlimited atonement. I believe it is safe to say that Arminians and others holding some form of free will as a part of their doctrine area also in the camp of unlimited atonement. Christ died for all men (all people) in all ages, and all may freely come to Him in belief seeking salvation. The proposition below is based on the doctrinal statement above. (I will allow the statement above to be amended so that it is satisfactory to the camps described directly above. I wish to very accurately portray whom it is that I speak.) Proposition: A. Christ died for all people -- and His death was for all sin (all means all) B. Unbelief is a sin against God -- according to the "all men/all sin" aspect of Christ's atonement, unbelief should be one of the sins Christ died for D. Yet, Unbelievers are not saved and believers are saved -- Therefore -- E-1. Either Christ did not die for all people and cover all sinsE-2. Or Christ did die for all people but not for all sinsE-3. Or Christ did die for all people and all sins E-1 is the position of the Reformed (Calvinistic) theology, and holds that the atonement is limited and effectually applied only for the elect. E-2 is the Amyraldian perspective which states that Christ died for all, but the "effects" of the atonement are for the elect only. E-3 is the Arminian perspective, which states that Christ did indeed die for all men and all sins. Starting with E-3, the problem is that unbelief is a sin, so how is it, that Christ died for all sin in all people, yet unbelief remains? It would seem that some form of special pleading is required to satisfy this solution to the proposition above. The alternative is universalism (per Rob Bell and others) in that a loving God who died for all people would never leave those people to eventually be damned in their sin. This position seems untenable. E-2 is plausible, save that there is no biblical context to prove it, and also that no true free-will or Arminian individual will generally claim any form of limited atonement. That leaves E-3, which states simply, that Christ died for the elect. which takes into account the scriptures and the fact that not all people are believers. Note that in a discussion of this nature no ONE verse of Scripture will be adequate to explain the concept of the atonement, election, and the effects or results of either. This discussion must take into account the entire text of the Word of God, beginning to end, as I laid out in another discussion as being the only standard for a true theology of God.