Yes, Really....you were not quoting the link as you claim: but to answer your questions:
so when "God then elects for salvation those whom he foresees will believe in Christ" this is not limiting atonement?
No, it isn't...At least not in Arminian theology. A Calvinistic understanding of the Atonement would imply this: But Arminian Theology does not require the same type of Penal Substitutionary and definite view of the Atonement generally believed by Calvinists.
What happened to the atonement for those whom God didn't "elect for salvation whom he foresees will believe in Christ" - are they also atoned or not?
Yes, they are Atoned for: Arminians don't necessarily take the same Penal Substitutionary and definite view of the Atonement that Cals usually do.
It seems (as Winman showed in a thread) that BOTH Calvinist and Arminianist practice some form of LIMITED atonement - but some are maybe more honest? I don't know, yet.
I have heard some Arminians will
also say that (in a different sense than you would probably normally use it) Atonement is "limited" in a certain kind of way....Just not in the same sense that it is understood by most Calvinists....I have only run into it once or twice....and I barely remember what they were driving at. perhaps someone who has stated that before could shed more light on it.
About the topic: I ran across this rather interesting and well written essay about Atonement: just for anyone interested:
http://www.xenos.org/essays/ForWhomdidJesusDie.htm
Honesty would dictate that the extrapolation of the Arminian "unlimited atonement" considers there is ultimately no Hell. Example: R. Bell, the late F. Church, universalism, Mormons ...
Read this:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=thibodaux.The-Fallacies-of-Calvinist-Apologetics.Fallacy-7.Arminianism-Leads-to-Universalism
Generally, this is an unfruitfull kind of statement to make as it is merely viewed as a cheap-shot and a straw-man since naturally: Arminians are not universalitsts...but for anyone who thinks that it is a legitimate concern: the above might be a good starting point. It conveys the simple idea that only ASSUMING a Calvinist interpretation of Atonement as a definite and unconditional act is that the case. It is hard to do...but we have to
divorce ourselves of our own pre-concieved ideas in order to properly evaluate an alternative point of view: I am sure you have heard non-Cals say that according to Calvinism God must be the author of sin. You will, of course, deny this: I think (not all forms of Calvinism do) but we do have to at least fairly evaluate their reasoning
from their perspective and not ours before we come to these conclusions.
Then try this:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/provisional-atonement-part-1-dealing-with-john-owens-arminian-dilemma/
