J.C. Ryle once commented that “the absence of accurate definitions is the very life of religious controversy.” This is especially so when it comes to the doctrine of limited atonement. The adjective limited by its very name creates a problem. In redemptive history, Christ’s atonement is the climax of God’s long-anticipated salvation, so why would anyone want to limit it?

Of course, at one level, everyone limits Christ’s atonement: some limit its scope (it is for God’s elect only); others limit its efficacy (it does not save everyone for whom it was intended). Thus, it’s not whether one will limit Christ’s atonement; it’s just how. For this reason, I propose a more positive and less ambiguous term: definite atonement.

The doctrine of definite atonement states that in the death of Jesus Christ, the triune God intended to achieve the redemption of every person given to the Son by the Father in eternity past and to apply the accomplishments of His sacrifice to each of them by the Holy Spirit. In a nutshell: the death of Christ was intended to win the salvation of God’s people alone, and not only was it intended to do so, but it will actually achieve it as well. In this respect, the adjective definite does double duty: it denotes the intent of Christ’s death (for His elect only) and it denotes the efficacy of Christ’s death (He really will save His elect, guaranteeing their faith in the gospel). Jesus will be true to His name: “He will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21).

Since the mature articulation of the doctrine at the Synod of Dort (1618–19), the doctrine of definite atonement has received its fair share of criticism. In the eighteenth century, John Wesley preached that the doctrine was contrary to “the whole tenor of the New Testament.” In the nineteenth century, John McLeod Campbell, a Church of Scotland minister, argued that the doctrine robbed the believer of the personal assurance that Christ “loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). In the twentieth century, Karl Barth complained that the “grim doctrine” was a logical deduction from John Calvin’s misguided view of double predestination. Others have raised concerns that definite atonement serves as the Achilles’ heel of Reformed theology, a weakness that destroys evangelism and mission.

However, despite these criticisms, I want to propose that we ought to (re)affirm the doctrine of definite atonement for at least three reasons.