Question nine deals limited atonement
The views of the Arminians set forth in the Remonstrance of 1610 were examined and rejected as heretical at a national Synod in Dort, meeting from 1618 to November 13, 1619. Not only did the Synod reject the Remonstrance position but it also set out to present the Calvinistic teaching in regard to the five matters called into question.
This they accomplished by stating what we know today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The term Calvinism was derived from the reformer John Calvin (1509-1564), who along with many others expounded these views.
The “five points of Calvinism” presented at the Synod are as follows: (1) total depravity; (2) unconditional election; (3) limited atonement, or particular redemption; (4) irresistible grace, or the efficacious call of the Spirit; and (5) perseverance of the saints (Robert Lightner. The Death Christ Died, Des Plaines: Regular Baptist Press, 1967, 40).
Concerning the limited atonement view that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect, Dr. Bowman comments: This is most certainly correct but this writer feels that such is too narrow to encompass the obvious Scriptural data concerning the provision that has been made for all men. Assuming this to be correct for sake of argument then the provisionary nature of Christ’s death is also an aspect of the divine decree (Bowman, A Case for Unlimited Atonement, p.5).
Often the phrase, the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect, is used by unlimited redemptionists, but incorrectly used as Robert Lightner states:
Though those among Calvinists who accept limited atonement thus confine the extent of the atonement to the elect, it should not be thought that they limit the sufficiency or value of Christ’s death. This they do not do. The usual statement coming from them is to the effect that the death of Christ was sufficient for all men but efficient only for the elect. This statement is intended by limited redemptionists to satisfy those who object to their limited view. But does it really answer the difficulties raised by the scriptural passages which teach the universality of the atonement? What they really mean when they say Christ’s death was sufficient for all is that His blood was of such infinite value that no more could have been required of the Father had He intended the Son’s death to extend to all men (Robert Lightner. The Death Christ Died, 43).