By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
Calvinist, James White, comments: “If the offering of Christ perfects those for whom it is made, where is there room for an atonement that is universal in scope but ineffectual in result? Where is the hypothetical atonement of evangelical tradition?” (Debating Calvinism, p.175, emphasis mine)
In terms of Hebrews 10:10, White adds: “According to this verse, the death of Christ sanctifies all those for whom it is made....” (Debating Calvinism, p.190, emphasis mine)
The “for whom it is made” is a leap in logic, but here is how the logic works: We have been “sanctified” through the atonement. Is sanctification universal? No? Then neither can the atonement be universal, and hence Limited Atonement rather than Unlimited Atonement. However, sanctification is made “through” the atonement. Just because Jesus died for you, doesn’t automatically mean that you’e saved. Something else must happen. A person must “believe in Him” in order to receive eternal life. The atonement itself does’t automatically confer eternal life. So, yes, you have been sanctified and perfected through the atonement if you take part in it. The whole “for whom it is made” is derived from White’s circular logic involving the presumption that Christ’s blood covers people apart from their choice to receive it. In other words, if you are sanctified by the atonement, and it chooses you, rather than you choosing it, and not all are sanctified, then not all are its subjects, and hence, it sanctifies those for whom it is its subject, i.e. “for whom it is made.”
White states: “Christ’s substitutionary death in behalf of His people is a real and finished work: It is not dependent upon the human act of faith for success or failure.” (Debating Calvinism, p.191, emphasis mine)
So that was what was driving his “for whom it is made” argument.
The perfection and sanctification don’t come until it is received. Although it’s a finished work, it remains unclaimed until a person receives the provision by faith, and that’s where White gets into trouble, by trying to say that it is not effectuated through faith. It’s effectuation very much does depend upon faith.
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer, writes: “If it is true that Christ died to redeem a specific number of people, namely those whom the Father had given him, it follows that all believers were redeemed at the cross two thousand years ago. They were cleared of all charges then, for God accepted the ransom payment.” (The Doctrine That Divide, p.185, emphasis mine)
Dave Hunt explains: “White asks, ‘Did Christ actually save anyone at the cross, or did He simply make people saveable?’ God provides salvation; man must believe to be saved. Calvinism rejects faith as a human ‘effort,’ so the elect must be saved the moment Christ paid the penalty for their sins. Yet if Christ actually saved all of the elect at Calvary, they could never have been lost and would not need to be saved later. Scripture doesn’t say that a man is ‘saved already.’ It says that he is ‘condemned already,’ and not because Christ didn’t die for him but ‘because he hath not believed’ (John 3:18). Repeatedly we read that those who believe are saved and those who believe not ‘shall not see life’ (John 3:36). If Christ’s death in itself saved, the elect wouldn’t need to believe.” (Debating Calvinism, pp.182-183, emphasis mine)
As evident from the example of the atonement that Jesus provided at John 3:14, in pointing to Numbers 21:6-9, the healing properties of God’s provision of the serpent on a standard, did not transmit any healing properties unless a person looked upon it. Therefore, for Calvinists to suggest that the Cross of Calvary automatically saves, and is not dependent upon the human act of faith, is also to suggest that the serpent on a standard was not dependent upon the human act of looking upon it either, which is clearly the opposite of what the text actually states.
One thing that really un-complicates the matter of the extent of the atonement is Hebrews 10:1: “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.” So if the Old Covenant offerings is a shadow of the New Covenant offering of Christ, and you want to know the extent of the New Covenant offering, then back to the shadow. What was the extent of the Old Covenant offerings? Was it indiscriminately made for all the people? Well then guess what? So was the New Covenant offering. Simple enough?
Dave Hunt explains: “Not one of the Old Testament sacrifies fits ‘particular redemption.’ All were for all Israel.” (Debating Calvinism, p.186, emphasis mine)