✠ God & Decree · Extent of Atonement

Hypothetical-Universal

Christ's death is sufficient for all and intended conditionally for all who believe, while efficacious only for the elect — the Calamy-Davenant-Vines reading the Standards' language does not exclude.

This is a contested or rejected alternative.

The Westminster baseline on Extent of Atonement is Particular. Personas and schools listed below hold this alternative position instead — either because they argued for it at the Assembly (like the Erastians on polity) or because they represent a receiving tradition that departed from the Standards on this point.

Who holds this position

Schools (2)

The Hypothetical Universalists (Davenant-Calamy Line) Cumberland Presbyterians (1810)

Personas (8)

Edmund Calamy the Elder 1600–1666 Stephen Marshall c. 1594–1655 Richard Vines 1600–1656 Lazarus Seaman 1607–1675 John Arrowsmith 1602–1659 Thomas Young 1587–1655 Matthew Newcomen c. 1610–1669 William Spurstowe c. 1605–1666

Cruxes on this attribute

The Assembly navigated 1 crux that bear directly on Extent of Atonement.

The Extent of the Atonement January 1646 One of the Assembly's bruising sessions: Christ died for whom?

Other positions on Extent of Atonement

Particular WCF Christ purchased redemption only for the elect; the atonement is intended, designed, and applied for the elect alone (WCF III.6, VIII.5, VIII.8). General-Arminian Christ died indifferently for all, the application conditioned on foreseen faith — the Arminian position rejected by III.6.