Some call it limited atonement; others call it particular redemption. But what it boils down to is the idea that Christ suffered sufficiently to atone for all the world's sins, but suffered effectively only for the elect.

Our comments here will be brief as there seems little need to develop the matter further. Arminians appeal to passages indicating God's universal desire to save, arguing that the sins of the non-elect are indeed paid for; Calvinists in turn point to passages saying that Christ died for us, the elect. Practically speaking the debate is a tempest in a teapot, once the premise of primary causality is injected: God chose this world to create instead of others, thereby essentially and primarily determining the "elect". And practically speaking, only these elect will be saved. Therefore, in practical outworking, Christ did suffer effectively only for the elect, and that is all that really matters.

So, we are able to conclude very quickly with what amounts to a "positive" finding for limited atonement, albeit by a different route than a Calvinist would take.