Timeline
Did Christ die for all?
A history of the question
This page follows one question through church history: for whom did Christ die? It has four parts: Scripture, the early Church, the Reformers, and the Reformed debate after 1550. Each quotation names its author, its work and the place in the work, and links to the text it was checked against.
What this page claims, and what it does not
It claims that many respected Christian teachers, including many Reformed theologians, taught that Christ died for all people in some real sense. They said this while holding that only some are finally saved. Their wording differs, and some of it is careful and technical.
It does not claim:
- that every Reformed theologian rejected strict limited atonement. Many held it, and it became the main Reformed view;
- that the Synod of Dort (1618 to 1619) or the Westminster Assembly (1643 to 1649) rejected unconditional election or any other of the five points. They kept election, and the Canons of Dort say plainly that Christ’s saving work was for the elect “and those only” (Canons II.8, quoted in Part 4);
- that the writers quoted here were Arminians. Most were not. Several wrote against Arminius.
The question traced here is narrow. It is about how far Christ’s death reaches and what God meant by it. It is not about whether election is unconditional.
Scripture is quoted from the King James Version. Chapter and section numbers follow the online public-domain texts named under each quotation. Quotations still being checked are left out and marked “Under review.”
Short timeline
- Late 1st centuryClement of Rome writes to the church at Corinth
- 2nd centuryJustin Martyr writes his Dialogue with Trypho
- 300s and early 400sAthanasius, Ambrose and John Chrysostom write
- 354 to 430Augustine of Hippo
- 428 or 429Augustine writes On the Predestination of the Saints
- 1225 to 1274Thomas Aquinas, author of the Summa Theologiae
- 1509 to 1564John Calvin
- 1563The Heidelberg Catechism
- 1566The Second Helvetic Confession
- 1592The Saxon Visitation Articles (Lutheran)
- 1610The Remonstrance, the five points of Arminius's followers
- 1618 to 1619The Synod of Dort answers them
- 1643 to 1649The Westminster Assembly; the Confession is completed in 1646
- 1647John Owen publishes The Death of Death in the Death of Christ
- 1650John Davenant's Two Dissertations are printed at Cambridge
Part 1 Scripture
Two questions that are easy to confuse
- Reach. Did Christ die in some real sense for every person, so that forgiveness is truly offered to every person on the ground of his death?
- Purpose. Did Christ die with the aim of actually saving every person, or only those whom God has chosen?
Almost no one in this history says that Christ’s death saves every person automatically. Nearly everyone agrees that his death has great worth, enough for the whole world. The disagreement is mostly about purpose: what God and Christ meant to accomplish by the cross.
Passages that speak of the whole world or all people
These are the passages most often cited by those who say Christ died for all.
- John 3:16. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
- 1 John 2:1-2. “And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
- 2 Corinthians 5:14-15. “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.”
- 1 Timothy 2:3-6. “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”
- 1 Timothy 4:10. “...we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.”
- Hebrews 2:9. “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”
- 2 Peter 2:1. “...false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”
Also often cited: John 1:29 (“the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world”), Romans 5:18, Titus 2:11 and 2 Peter 3:9.
Passages that speak of a particular people
These are the passages most often cited by those who say Christ died with the purpose of saving a chosen people.
- John 10:11 and 10:26-28. “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” ... “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep... And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish.”
- Ephesians 5:25. “...Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.”
- Matthew 1:21. “...thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.”
- Matthew 20:28. “...to give his life a ransom for many.”
- John 17:9. “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.”
- Acts 20:28 and Romans 8:32-34. The church “which he hath purchased with his own blood”; “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all... Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?”
- Isaiah 53:12 and Hebrews 9:28. “he bare the sin of many”; “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”
How each side reads the other’s passages
Christ died for all
Those who say this point out that “world” and “all” appear often, that 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 reasons from “one died for all,” and that the offer of the gospel to everyone seems to need something real to offer. They answer the particular passages by saying that Christ may die for the whole world and also love his church in a special way. Scripture says the shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, but it does not say he laid it down for the sheep only. Davenant’s argument in Part 4 is of this kind: the special benefit for the elect is added to the universal remedy.
Christ died for the elect
Those who say this point out that the same death is said to secure salvation, to justify and to reconcile, and that it would be strange for Christ to die for people who are in the end lost. They answer the universal passages by saying that “world” can mean people from every nation, and “all” can mean all kinds of people. Augustine reads 1 Timothy 2:4 this way, and Calvin does too (Parts 2 and 3). John Owen takes up the main texts one by one in The Death of Death.
Both sides agree on this: the gospel is to be preached to everyone, and no one who comes in faith will be turned away.
Part 2 The early Church
In the samples below, the earliest writers use wide language: Christ died “for all,” for “the whole world,” for “every man.” They do not stop to ask whether this includes people who will be lost. The question becomes sharp in the fifth century, because of Augustine’s teaching on predestination. Augustine is not easy to place. He wrote some of the widest statements and some of the narrowest. Both are given below.
Before Augustine
Let us look stedfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world.
If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father's will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?
... because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father ...
"That by the grace of God He should taste death for every man," not for the faithful only, but even for the whole world: for He indeed died for all; But what if all have not believed? He hath fulfilled His own [part].
Christ the Lord, also, Who died for all, will grieve that the price of His blood was paid in vain.
Ambrose has another line, in a different work, that is often used for the opposite view:
Ignorance thou mayest not plead, for to this end He came down, that thou mayest believe; if thou believest not, He has not come down for thee, has not suffered for thee.
Both lines are Ambrose’s. In context the second is spoken to a person who hears the gospel and will not believe it. How to fit the two together is part of the long debate.
These are samples, not a full survey of the second to fourth centuries. Irenaeus, Origen and others are still to be added. For what the early writers taught about Christ’s work, see the related pages at the end.
Augustine
Augustine matters most here, because later writers on both sides appeal to him.
Augustine’s wide statements
... in order that he that liveth, no longer for himself may live, but for Him that for all men hath died.
This thy Bridegroom possesses the whole, because He purchased the whole. See at what price He purchased it, that thou mayest understand what He has purchased. What price has He given? He gave His blood.
God no doubt wishes all men to be saved and to come into the knowledge of the truth; but yet not so as to take away from them free will, for the good or the evil use of which they may be most righteously judged.
Augustine’s narrow statements
In his writings against the Pelagians, Augustine reads the universal texts in a limited way. The clearest example is his reading of 1 Timothy 2:4:
Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He "will have all men to be saved," although we know well that all men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict the omnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture, "Who will have all men to be saved," as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apart from His will ...
He goes on to give another sense:
... but that we are to understand by "all men," the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances ...
He gives the same reading again in On Rebuke and Grace:
"He wills all men to be saved," is so said that all the predestinated may be understood by it, because every kind of men is among them.
In his commentary on John 17 he separates two meanings of “the world”:
For there is a world whereof it is written, "That we might not be condemned with this world." For that world He prayeth not, for He is fully aware to what it is predestinated. And there is a world whereof it is written, "For the Son of man came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved;" and hence the apostle also says, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself."
What can be said fairly
In On the Spirit and the Letter Augustine says that God truly wishes all men to be saved. In the Enchiridion and On Rebuke and Grace he says the same words in 1 Timothy 2:4 mean that all the predestined are saved, from every kind of person. Readers differ on how these fit together. What the sources do show is that Augustine does not state the later doctrine of “limited atonement” in those words. He is speaking mainly about predestination, the gift of grace, and what 1 Timothy 2:4 means.
Part 3 The Middle Ages and the Reformers
“Sufficient for all, effective for the elect”
Teachers in the Middle Ages summed up the matter in a short saying: Christ’s death is enough for all, and it actually saves the elect. Calvin knew the saying (see his comment on 1 John 2:2 below) and so did Ursinus. Davenant describes how it spread:
At length theological questions came into the hands of the Schoolmen, who, although they were fruitful artificers of disputes, yet were unwilling to renew this subject. To them it seemed sufficient to teach that Christ died for all sufficiently, for the predestinated effectually ...
Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas is a good example of how medieval writers hold the two sides together.
Since, then, Christ's Passion was a sufficient and a superabundant atonement for the sin and the debt of the human race, it was as a price at the cost of which we were freed from both obligations.
As stated above, since Christ's Passion preceded, as a kind of universal cause of the forgiveness of sins, it needs to be applied to each individual for the cleansing of personal sins.
As Christ's Passion benefits all, for the forgiveness of sin and the attaining of grace and glory, whereas it produces no effect except in those who are united with Christ's Passion through faith and charity ...
On the saying that God “wills all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), Aquinas gives three readings. One is Augustine’s, one is “all kinds,” and the third is that God wills it by an antecedent will, a conditional way of willing that is not the last word:
Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts.
Luther and other early Reformers
The Second Helvetic Confession
The Second Helvetic Confession is Reformed and very firm on election. It also asks us not to judge anyone:
And although God knows who are his, and now and then mention is made of the small number of the elect, yet we must hope well of all, and not rashly judge any man to be a reprobate ...
The Heidelberg Catechism and Ursinus
The Heidelberg Catechism says of Christ’s suffering:
... That all the time he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, he bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race, in order that by his passion, as the only atoning sacrifice, he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.
Zacharias Ursinus, traditionally credited as one of its two writers, explained in his commentary how he read it. He uses the same saying, and he is clear that he believes in particular redemption in the matter of effectiveness:
... Therefore, as he died for all, in respect to the sufficiency of his ransom ; -and for the faithful alone in respect to the efficacy of the same, so also he willed to die for all in general, as touching the sufficiency of his merit ...
But he willed to die for the elect alone as touching the efficacy of his death, that is, he would not only sufficiently merit grace and life for them alone, but also effectually confers these upon them, grants faith, and the holy Spirit ...
So Ursinus holds both parts together. Christ’s death is enough for all and is truly offered to all. Its saving effect belongs to the elect. This is the pattern at the heart of Reformed teaching before Dort: sufficient for all, effective for the elect. The disagreements after Dort are about how to read the word “sufficient.”
Calvin: a disputed case
Scholars still disagree about what Calvin believed on the extent of the atonement. This page does not try to settle it. Here is the evidence on both sides, in Calvin’s own words.
Passages used to show that Calvin spoke of Christ dying for all
... he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers.
He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.
By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse.
Passages used to show that Calvin held Christ’s work was for the elect
He openly declares that he does not pray for the world, because he has no solicitude but about his own flock, which he received from the hand of the Father.
... the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception.
They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church.
In the 1 John 2:2 passage Calvin says the old saying is true, but he does not think it fits John’s words. He reads “the whole world” there as the whole church, believers scattered across the earth. In 1 Timothy 2:4 he reads “all” as all ranks and kinds, not each individual. These are choices about how to read a text. The sentences on the other side (John 3:16, Romans 5:18, Mark 14:24) stand in his commentaries too.
A fair summary is this. Calvin often speaks as if Christ’s death is offered to and for the world, and he also teaches a strong, particular election. After him, the question had to be settled by others.
The Lutherans, for comparison
The Lutheran churches said plainly that Christ died for all. The Saxon Visitation Articles put it first among the points of the “pure and true doctrine” on predestination:
That Christ died for all men, and, as the Lamb of God, took away the sins of the whole world.
Part 4 The Reformed debate
The Arminian challenge, and Dort
In 1610 the Remonstrants, followers of Arminius, put their views in five articles. The second said:
Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins ...
The Synod of Dort (1618 to 1619) answered with the Canons. The Second Head of Doctrine deals with the death of Christ. It holds two things together:
The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
Moreover the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel.
... this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.
And on God’s purpose, the Canons are firm that it is particular:
... it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to him by the Father ...
This is the fact to keep in view: the Canons of Dort teach both a death of infinite worth, enough for the whole world, and a saving purpose that is for the elect “and those only.” They do not say the first is false.
John Davenant
The Church of England sent delegates to Dort. One was John Davenant (1572 to 1641), a Cambridge theologian and later Bishop of Salisbury. Davenant held that Christ died for all in a sense, and he argued that the Canons allowed this. He explained his view in his Dissertation on the Death of Christ:
The death of Christ is the universal cause of the salvation of mankind, and Christ himself is acknowledged to have died for all men sufficiently, not by reason of the mere sufficiency or of the intrinsic value, according to which the death of God is a price more than sufficient for redeeming a thousand worlds ...
And on this account we hesitate not to assert that Christ died for all men, inasmuch as he endured death, by the merit and virtue of which all men individually who obey the Gospel may be delivered from death and obtain eternal salvation.
Davenant did not deny that Christ had a special purpose for the elect. His point was that this is in addition to the universal remedy, not in place of it. The library holds the opening chapters of his later Two Dissertations in fresh English. Read Davenant’s Two Dissertations (1650).
The point to be fair about. Whether the Canons allow Davenant’s view is itself disputed. Davenant said they did. Others said they did not. This page leaves the Canons’ intent open. It reports that Dort kept unconditional election, and also taught that Christ’s death is enough for the whole world.
Saumur in France
The Westminster Assembly
At the Westminster Assembly (1643 to 1649), English and Scottish ministers drew up the Confession of Faith. It says:
Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same ...
On the Assembly floor the question was argued. Edmund Calamy, a leading member, said he held the same view as the British at Dort. As recorded by the editor of the Minutes:
... that Christ by his death did pay a price for all, with absolute intention for the elect, with conditional intention for the reprobate in case they do believe ...
The editor, Alexander Mitchell, asks whether the ministers left room in the Confession’s wording for this view. His answer is careful:
After repeated perusal of their debates, I cannot take upon myself certainly to affirm that they did, though I admit that this matter is not so clear as the others above referred to. No notes of the debate in its latest stage are given, nor is any vote or dissent respecting it found in these Minutes.
John Owen, 1647
In 1647 John Owen published The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, the fullest defence of strict particular redemption. His best-known argument is a three-way choice:
God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men.
If Christ died for all the sins of all men, Owen says, no one would be lost. If for some sins of all men, everyone would still have sins to answer for. So he concludes that Christ bore all the sins of some. Many have used this argument since.
Owen also says plainly that Christ’s death is enough for all:
... such and so great was the dignity and worth of his death and blood-shedding, of so precious a value, of such an infinite fulness and sufficiency was this oblation of himself, that it was every way able and perfectly sufficient to redeem, justify, and reconcile and save all the sinners in the world ...
At the same time, he rejects the old saying as it is commonly used:
... it is denied that the blood of Christ was a sufficient price and ransom for all and every one, not because it was not sufficient, but because it was not a ransom.
Owen is fair about what he denies. He says the blood of Christ was worth enough, but was not a ransom for those who are lost, since a ransom means a price paid for particular people. This is a main point of difference with Davenant, who held that the price was paid for all on the condition of faith.
Later Reformed statements
What this history shows
It supports these statements:
- Many respected Christian teachers, from Clement and Ambrose to Aquinas, Ursinus, Davenant, Calamy and others, said that Christ died for all in a sense, or that his death is enough for all, or that the gospel is a real offer to all. Calvin’s view is disputed, and both sides are shown above.
- Many of those same writers also taught that Christ’s saving work, in what it actually accomplishes, is for the elect. This was the usual shape of the teaching, not an exception.
- In the early seventeenth century, Reformed teachers disagreed in good faith about whether Dort and the Westminster Confession allowed a universal intention. Some believed they did, and some believed they did not.
- The strict form of limited atonement, as Owen defended it, was one of several Reformed views, and became the main one in many churches.
- Rejecting strict limited atonement was not only an Arminian view. Davenant, for one, defended Christ’s death for all within a Calvinist frame.
It does not support these statements:
- that all Reformed theologians rejected limited atonement;
- that Dort or Westminster rejected unconditional election, or any other of the five points;
- that Calvin plainly taught a universal atonement. His views are disputed.