Reasons For Limited Atonement

One of the most difficult of the Reformed doctrines is the doctrine of Limited Atonement.  Most people recoil at first for decent reasons - they don't like to use the word limited to describe the work of Christ on the cross.

As noble as this may be, we may not allow our own goals to obscure the goals of our Triune God.  Even further, as much as many might attempt to "unlimit" the atonement, it is almost impossible to propose any position at all that is without some type of limits.  In other words, everyone limits the atonement whether they know it or not, either in scope or sufficiency.

Perhaps the best explanation of this truth is found in John Owen's The Death of Death.  Here is a clip that is often sited because of its logical force regarding the topic (note: I will edit and comment on the section to allow for smoother reading):

Owen writes,

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either
1. all of the sins of all men, or 
2. all the sins of some men, or 
3. some sins of all men.  

If the last, some sins of all men, then all men have some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight...

In other words, option 3 is eliminated.  If Christ does not undergo the pains and punishment of hell for all of man's sins, then there will be at least some sins that man will have to account for. This view of the atonement is not sufficient to finally save.

If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world...

This is the Reformed doctrine stated and further advocated and explained in the rest of the book.

If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?  You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe."  But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not?  If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?  If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins?  Let them choose which part they will. 

Owen's argument here makes Option 1 logically untenable.  Unless one embraces Universalism, he/she must leave Option 1 in search for another.

If you have not read this book, and are aware of the debate as well as the implications surrounding it, I would highly recommend it to you.  Owen is not easy to read, but the reward for treading the difficult pages is well worth it.