F. W. Grant on the atonement

"We now come to look at the efficacy of atonement - that is to say, its connection with redemption. For redemption is not, in Scripture, what it is for many, a thing accomplished for the whole world. No passage which hints at this even can be produced from the Word. Redemption was, for Israel, the breaking of Pharaoh’s yoke. The redemption of our body is accomplished in resurrection (Rom. viii. 23). "We have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. i. 7). Such statements sufficiently show us that redemption is an accomplished deliverance, - that it involves, not a salvable state, but a salvation, which the world as a whole never knows." 

"A difficulty which has divided Christians comes in here. If redemption is by atonement, and atonement - the "propitiation" of 1 John ii. 2, - is for the whole world, how is it that in fact all are not redeemed? The answer to which is given by some that atonement is only conditionally efficacious, and this is plainly the only possible one if such texts as that just cited are accepted in their natural sense. The alternative is only to explain, as all strict Calvinists do, the "world," as simply the elect among Jews and Gentiles. But this is not what "the whole world" means. What would the very persons who urge this think, if when the same apostle in the same epistle says, "We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness," a similar limitation were maintained?"

"So the gospel which Paul preached to the Corinthians was that "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. xv. 3), as the doctrine of his second epistle is that "He died for all" (v 14). Only on this ground, indeed, could the gospel be sent out, as it confessedly is, to "every creature," or could it be spoken of as "the grace of God which bringeth salvation to all" (Ti. ii. 11). Only a provision actually made for all could fulfill the fair meaning of such texts as these, and we may not bring into them any doctrine of election, to limit them. They are the testimony of the desire of God’s heart for all. They are the assurance that if men die unsaved, the responsibility of their ruin is with themselves alone."

"The same question might be asked, perhaps even more pointedly, with regard to i Pet. ii. 24: "Who Himself bare our sins in His own body on the tree." For this "bearing" surely speaks of the removal of them from before God’s sight. Would it be possible, then, to say of the world that He bare their sins in His body on the tree? Surely not, or they would most certainly be saved. He could not have borne their sins and they yet have to bear them. A strict and proper substitution assuredly necessitates the removal of responsibility from the one for whom the substitute assumes it. It results, therefore, that a substitute for the world the Lord was not." 

"And the language of Scripture is everywhere in accord with this. It does speak of propitiation for the sins of the whole world: it does not speak of their sins being "laid on" or "borne" by Christ. These two things have been confounded on the one hand, and made into a doctrine of limited atonement, or of substitution for all. On the other, where the distinction has been noticed, it has been taken to imply that on the cross there was a work for all and a special work for the elect beside - a double atonement, as it were; that it was a propitiation for all, a substitution for the elect. In other words, the Arminian atonement and the Calvinistic atonement are both considered true, and to be found together in the work of Christ. But this leads to much confusion and misreading of Scripture, much manifest opposition to it."

"The Lord Jesus, then, was the Substitute for believers, and thus made propitiation for the sins of the world, its efficacy being conditioned upon faith. He stood as the Representative of a class, not a fixed number of individuals, - of a people to whom men are invited and besought to join themselves, the value of the atonement being more than sufficient and available for all who come. The responsibility of coming really rests, where Scripture always places it, upon men themselves."

"Men are born again to be children of God; and the new birth is not of man’s will: the moment we speak of it, we speak of that which assures us that man’s will is wholly adverse. For to be born again is never a thing put upon man as what he is responsible for: it is, in its very nature, outside of this. And "Ye must be born again" is the distinct affirmation that on the ground of responsibility all is over. "How often would I . . . ! and ye would not," is the Lord’s lament over Israel; and it is true of man in nature every where. Terrible it is to realize it, but it is true."

"Man is bidden to repent and believe the gospel. There is no lack of abundant evidence. It is the condemnation, that "light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." They refuse the evidence that convicts them, and refuse the grace that would save them. "As in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man." That he needs to be born again shows that God must work sovereignly, or the whole world perish."

"It is here that election does come in; not to limit the provision, nor to restrict in any wise the grace that bids and welcomes all, but to secure the blessing of those who otherwise would refuse and forfeit it as the rest do."

"The salvation of men is from God; the damnation of men is from themselves."

Read more here.