The following articles are especially concise and formidable arguments for unlimited atonement and against limited atonement. These articles were written by Dominic Tennant; however, since it would appear Dominic has cancelled his blog, I have provided links to the archived webpages via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.
—————————————————————-
“In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.”
Arguments forwarded
The following four reasons are, in my opinion, the strongest for believing in a universal atonement over and against a particular one:
1. Particular atonement is incongruent with federal headship and forensic imputation;
2. Particular atonement removes all grounds for the universal gospel call (either as a command or as an invitation); and
3. Particular atonement removes the objective grounds for Christian faith.
Objections considered
There are three main objections against the universal position which, in my estimation, are compelling enough to warrant discussion. These are:
4. Universal atonement implies that God’s desires are frustrated in some sense;
5. Universal atonement implies either universal salvation or double payment for sins; and
6. Universal atonement fails to actually accomplish redemption for anyone.
—————————————————————-
On the Atonement: Introduction
On the Atonement, part 1: federal headship and forensic imputation
On the Atonement, part 2: the grounds for the universal gospel call
On the Atonement, part 3: the objective grounds for faith
On the Atonement, part 4: God’s desires frustrated?
On the Atonement, part 5: universal salvation, or double payment
On the Atonement, part 6: universal atonement fails to actually accomplish redemption for anyone
