His death is certainly illustrative and perhaps spiritually powerful, but it’s his resurrection that makes Christianity about life and not about death.

Never mind the fact that we spend a lot more time talking about ‘Jesus dying on the cross,’ as Jonah puts it, and not so much about Jesus being more powerful than even death (to boil the resurrection down to one aspect).

I don’t think it is an oxymoron unless you assume that atonement just is salvation. I would say the atonement is meaningless to you apart from union with Christ, which seems to be the issue for Paul rather than “did Jesus die for me” it is “am I in Christ” through faith. So the death of Christ provides atonement for all sinners but unless you are united with Christ through faith you are damned. For the damned, the fact that Christ took their place on the cross becomes further condemnation for Christ to judge the lost world by virtue of his having suffured for that same lost world.

In reponse to Euphranor…I think this is a great example of the type of distinction the doctrine of limited atonement is trying to make. I do not mean this rudely, but to say that Christ died for those in hell, or atoned for the sins of those in hell, seems to be an oxymoron. If your sins are (graciously) atoned for, you are not in hell (praise God). If they are not atoned for, hell is the just punishment for sin. Limited atonement does not mean limited Godness, or limited Kingness (is it okay to make up words here?). It just defines the specific purpose of Christ’s death. Maybe we could even call it “specific atonement”? I’d like to hear others thoughts. Brent?