I've been reading a number of discussions on The Highway about atonement, especially in regards to some of Piper's statements. I am in agreement with the sufficiency/efficiency qualification made by many reformed writers. I have no problem saying that Christ died for everyone sufficiently. This in no way denies vicarious substitutionary atonement. I'd like to attempt to briefly reconcile Christ's death being for all with the doctrine of limited atonement. I only desire this to be helpful so that there is greater understanding among the reformed who uphold the doctrine of limited atonement, regardless of the exact terminology used.

1. To my knowledge, the scriptures never state anywhere that Christ did not die for anyone.

Oftentimes, Isaiah 53:11 and John 17:9 are listed as proofs that there are people for whom Christ did not die. However, to come to that conclusion from these texts seems erroneous since these passages do not deal with the negative but the positive. Proving that Christ did not die for some from these passages is only a deduction from the positive. Of course, Christ only purposed to save the elect by His sufferings, but the text only gives us that much. For example, if I said that I traveled for the purpose of visiting my uncle in Maine, can we conclude from the statement that I visited with no one else? Of course not! All we can conclude is that the primary objective was to visit my uncle.

2. I think that the word "atonement" is often used as a synonym with Christ's sufferings, particularly His death. However, when we consider that "atonement" means "covering" or "at-one-ment," the word has more to do with the application of Christ's merits than the death itself. In other words, it has more to do with justification than the sacrifice. Stated another way, we are covered in Christ's shed blood not at the point of sacrifice but at the point of faith, hence the reformed doctrine of "justification by faith alone." Before this point we were children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) i.e. those who are not covered by the atoning blood of Christ and therefore subject to wrath. In stating that Christ's sacrifice is the atonement and arguing the extent of the atonement based on the extent of the sacrifice seems to logically run into the doctrine of eternal justification when we consider the definition of the word.

3. The promise of the gospel (whoever believes will be saved) is true because of the sufficiency of Christ's sufferings. For the reprobate to believe is certainly an impossibility because of total depravity, but the promise is just as good to them as it is to the elect. See Ezekiel 18:21-32, John 12:40, 2 Thes. 2:10. For the promise to be good for the reprobate, even though they will never exercise faith and repentance, Christ's death would seem to be sufficient for them (and His death "for" them in this sense). Otherwise, their hypothetical faith could not save them because there is no satisfaction of Christ as its foundation. In 2 Thes. 2:10, for example, how could it be true that those who reject Christ would have been saved if there was no sacrifice for them? Unless faith has intrinsic merit and expiatory power, how could the statement be true if Christ did not die for them?

Calvin on Rom. 5:

"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."

Heidelberg Catechism:
"37.   What do you understand by the word “suffered”?
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 suffering, 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."

Canons of Dort, 2nd head, article 6:

"And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, 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."

My purpose in writing this is not to start a debate, but rather to briefly describe what is a prominent position in reformed theology so that those who believe that Christ in a very real sense died for all indiscriminately are not classified as Arminians or Amyraldians. Shedd does a good job summarizing both positions:

“Again, the preposition ‘for’ is sometimes understood to denote not intention, but value or sufficiency. To say that Christ died ‘for’ all men then means, that his death is sufficient to expiate the guilt of all men. The one who denies that Christ died ‘for’ all men, takes ‘for’ in the sense of intention to effectually apply. The other who affirms that Christ died ‘for’ all men, takes ‘for’ in the sense of value.”

I hope this is helpful...