Was the atonement wasted if God chooses who to save?

A response to the common intuition that, under Calvinism, Jesus’s suffering was wasted for all those who God did not choose to save.

On the atonement, part 6: unlimited satisfaction fails to actually accomplish redemption for anyone

Part 6 of 6, in which I consider and confute the objection that an unlimited satisfaction would not actually secure or guarantee salvation for anyone.

On the atonement, part 5: universal salvation, or double payment

Part 5 of 6, in which I refute the objection that unlimited satisfaction entails either universal salvation, or a double payment for sins.

On the atonement, part 4: God’s desires frustrated?

Part 4 of 6, in which I interact with the objection that unlimited satisfaction requires that God be at cross-purposes with himself, entertaining frustrated desires which he cannot fulfill.

On the atonement, part 3: the objective grounds for faith

Part 3 of 6, in which I forward the argument that limited satisfaction undermines the assurance of salvation at exactly the times we most need it, by removing the objective grounds for faith.

On the atonement, part 2: the grounds for the universal gospel call

Part 2 of 6, in which I argue that limited satisfaction is inconsistent with the universal gospel call—whether conceived of as an invitation, or as a command only.

On the atonement, part 1: headship and imputation

Part 1 of 6, in which I show that limited satisfaction is inconsistent with what is revealed in Scripture about federal headship and forensic imputation: two doctrines central to Jesus’ penal substitution.

On the atonement: introduction

In which I introduce the case I will forward for a particular redemption grounded in an unlimited satisfaction on the cross.

A simple argument against God’s universal salvific intent

A basic argument, with commentary, in favor of the Calvinist view of election, and against the view that God purposes to save all people without exception.