The main problem with "limited atonement" is the word "atonement"

One of the main reasons why speaking about "limited atonement" often generates confusion rather than clarity is because people fail to realise that "atonement" has two meanings. What most people mean when they use "atonement" today is not what the word originally meant.

"Atonement" originally meat "reconciliation" or as the word itself suggests "at-one-ment" (referred to as "Meaning One" in this post). I believe it was introduced into English Bible translations by William Tyndale, who used it to translate the Greek word, "katallagē" in Romans 5:11.

However, in every day speech today, "atonement" refers to the work that someone does to make up for their wrongdoing (referred to in this post as "Meaning Two"). A husband who has let down his wife may have to atone for what he has done. If he is successful in his work of atonement, reconciliation should follow. 

If the two meanings are applied to Jesus' death on the cross, Meaning Two is all about the work that Jesus did on the cross. Meaning One is all about what was achieved as a result of that work. 

Therefore, whereas "reconciliation" and "atonement" were synonymous when "atonement" was first introduced into English translations of the Bible, today they are not synonymous, but rather reconciliation is the result of atonement. In modern English Meaning One is archaic and Meaning Two is current. 

My observation of listening to people who teach on limited atonement is that they refer to the archaic meaning when they first introduce the atonement, highlighting that the word literally means at-one-ment, but when they use the word  subsequently, they nearly always intend the current meaning, i.e. Meaning Two. 

The different meanings of the word "atonement" have a determining impact on whether the three different views in one of my previous posts can properly be described as "limited atonement." If Meaning One is intended, all three views can rightly be described as limited atonement because all three teach that the number of people who are finally reconciled to God through Jesus death is limited. 

However, if Meaning Two is intended, i.e. the work done by Jesus, the situation is more complex, because one may be referring to the power of this work or the number of people for whom this work is done. In regard to the power of Jesus' work, all three views are unlimited atonement because the work done was powerful enough to save everyone who believes. In regard to the number of people for whom this work is done, only View 3 can rightly be described as limited atonement, because aside from the glory of God, the work is carried out for and motivated by God's love for the elect only, whereas with Views 1 and 2 the work is, in some sense at least, carried out for everyone and motivated by God's love for everyone. With Views 1 and 2, the work is intended for everyone, is powerful enough to save everyone, everyone should be told that it was carried out for them, but it saves only those who believe. With View 3, the work is intended for the elect only, is powerful enough to save everyone, only the elect should be told that it was carried out for them and is saves only the elect. 

Given the confusion surrounding the word "atonement" it may be better if we avoided this word altogether when talking about the cross. Instead of asking whether atonement is limited or unlimited, it may be better to ask questions like:

• Whose sin is taken away by Jesus' death?
• From whom is God's wrath turned aside as a result of Jesus death?
• Were our sins taken away from us in the hour Christ died, or do our sins remain on us until the point when we are united to Christ by faith?
• Do the elect live under both God's love and his wrath until they are born again, at which point all wrath is removed so that only love remains, or do the elect only ever live under his love and never under his wrath?
• Is reference to the belief that God is outside of time the resolution to the third and forth questions above, or is this just a cop-out?
• Do the evangelists in the Bible ever use "Jesus has died for you" to prove to unbelievers that God loves them and that they should come to him, or do the evangelists only ever call people to repentance and and assure them that if they do repent Jesus' death will cover all their sins?
• Is it the case that (a) all the elect were fully reconciled to God in the hour Jesus died and no one else is reconciled to God in any sense; (b) no-one not yet born was in any way reconciled to God in the hour Jesus died as they are only reconciled when they are born again; (c) every single person who has ever lived and will ever lived was partially reconciled to God in the hour Jesus died, but full reconciliation comes only when a person is united to Christ?