# What Ye think of this message



## The Lamb (Apr 1, 2005)

Among those who generally accept the doctrine of a definite or limited atonement, it is often heard by way of explanation that "the atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect." In fact this terminology may be found in some of the most respected Reformed theologians such as Hodge, Shedd, Buswell and others. While no Calvinist would deny the intrinsic sufficiency of Christ's death for the redemption of all men had God so designed and intended it, I find the use of such phraseology dubious. 

read the rest below and comment please




http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/sufficie.htm





In His Grace


Joseph


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 1, 2005)

The language is not dubious. It gets at the Biblical distinction between purpose and worth.

To say that Christ's death was not sufficient for all is to say that it was finite in value. We must not do that, for Christ himself is God.

Yet at the same time, we cannot affirm that all are saved. So we must say that the atonement is limited _in design_. The fact that the author of the most significant and irrefutable work on limited atonement (John Owen) says this same thing should give some pause. 

The author of this article fundamentally misunderstands the notion between value and intent. Just because I have enough money to buy 3 cars does not mean that I HAVE to buy three cars. Just so, this is a complete fallacy:



> To say that Christ's death on the cross provided an atonement sufficient for all is to specifically suggest that He has atoned for the sins of all men, which is essentially a universal atonement. This is a false conception and makes us, along with those who hold to a universal atonement, say the opposite of what we mean.



He is completely wrong.


----------



## pastorway (Apr 2, 2005)




----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Just because I have enough money to buy 3 cars does not mean that I HAVE to buy three cars.



Wow! Do you really have that much money? If so, please send some my way, because I can't rub two nickels together!


----------



## BobVigneault (Apr 2, 2005)

Ditto to Fred, well put! 

Ben, my heart goes out to you, I have heard your cry. I'm sending you two nickels. (Do you accept paypal?)


----------



## Robin (Apr 2, 2005)

Though I'm 100%  to Fred's post....I add, perhaps it could be said that the atonement is a "particular grace"? 

Here is an article with a defense from Scripture:

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/sratonement.htm


Keep struggling, Joseph....

 R.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Did I mention that they were Matchbox cars? .....


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The language is not dubious. It gets at the Biblical distinction between purpose and worth.
> 
> To say that Christ's death was not sufficient for all is to say that it was finite in value. We must not do that, for Christ himself is God.
> ...






Is not your answer the same as proposed by Moise Amyraut? If there is a distinction could you please explain further.

Amyraut taught what may be know as "hypothetical universalism." According to him, there exists a twofold will of God in predestination: a universal conditional will"”in which God wills (or desires) the salvation of all without exception on condition that they believe; and a particular, unconditional will to save only the elect. In other words, Christ´s death is sufficient for all or hypothetically universal, but efficacious for the elect alone.


I personally do not see where Eliis said anythign contrary to Scripture. In fact he mentions the intrisic value is unlimited.

This hypothetical universalism is easily transformed into arminianism. I believe this is what Ellis is arguing about.



In His Grace


Joseph


----------



## Scot (Apr 3, 2005)

I agree with Ellis. I believe Christ paid the exact penalty due to the elect. No less, no more. In order for the atonement to be sufficient for all men, Christ would have had to pay for every sin ever committed. Could he have made a sufficient atonement for all men? Yes. Did he make a sufficient atonement for all? I don't believe so or else all men everywhere would have their sins paid for. 

I believe that God chose not to make a sufficient atonement for all men.


----------



## pastorway (Apr 3, 2005)

is that not limiting the value of Christ's life??? Is His life only worth the sins of the elect and no more?

Phillip


----------



## Ravens (Apr 3, 2005)

It seems like a semantic argument over the word "sufficient" and its implications. Dan, when you say that Christ *could* have made an atonement sufficient for all men, I think maybe you're agreeing with Fred. In other words, Christ's life and death are infinitely worthy and precious, and thus able to redeem, by its own intrinsic worth, any and all for whom it was designed. However, it is not "sufficient" in the sense that it was designed for certain people, the elect, and not for the reprobate, and in that sense, they have no part in it, and couldn't. But the limitation of "sufficiency" is in its design and purpose, not in its intrinsic worth. But perhaps I'm not making sense.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> is that not limiting the value of Christ's life??? Is His life only worth the sins of the elect and no more?
> 
> Phillip




Absolutely not Phillip. This is not the necessary conclusion. 

He would not have had to shed one more drop of blood or receive one more lashing, or be on the cross one more second to atone for all the sins of all men. 

There should be no distinction made between sufficiency and intent. Scripture does not allow it. Now if you confess this post redemptionism or hypothetical universalism, you are free to do so. The only reason moise concluded this was to "attempt" to reconcile certain scriptures that appear to contradict limited atonement.

And if you are not confessing this belief, please explain the difference to what you are saying with what Amyrault said. I personally see no difference.

It does not matter which respected teachers of the past supported such a perversion. If the New Testament doctrine of definaite-particular atonement is ever to shine forth with clarity, the doctrine of Amyraldism, sufficient for all, efficacious for the elect, must be condemned and renounced. Until it is, teachers believing it will inevitably return to "˜4- point Calvinism´ as their cherished belief. And further will end up confessing the Justinian doctrine of free will.


The motive behind Calvinistic hypothetical universalism has always been ecumenical. Roger Nicole admitted this in a Ph.D. dissertation on Amyraut written at Harvard in 1966. If the perceived "˜harshness´ of Calvinism could be tempered with a sense of God´s universal love and grace, Amyraut reasoned, then a basis for ecumenical worship and mutual acceptance would exist between Calvinists, Arminians, Lutherans, and Catholics.


If God purposed to save a specific people through Christ´s atoning sacrifice, why are we posing "˜what if´ questions to try and potentially extend the atonement to others.


if Christ´s atonement is sufficient to save every person, then God in the end sends billions of redeemable people to hell. Such a paradox does not bid well for perceiving Christ as the wisdom of God in his eternal and glorious purposes. 


Schaff-Herzog encylopedia declares that Amyraut came to see the folly and irrationality of his entire position and renounced it. But those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it--OVER AND OVER AND OVER. Why not learn from the example of Amyraut himself and avoid going down that road ever again?

In His Grace



Joseph


----------



## Scot (Apr 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> is that not limiting the value of Christ's life??? Is His life only worth the sins of the elect and no more?
> 
> Phillip



The way I understand the atonement is that God would have had to deal out the EXACT punishment that was due to the elect for their sins. In other words, say that the total sum of sins committed by all of the elect are one billion (I realize that is a small number). Christ would have been given the exact punishment for those sins and no more. He would not have been punished more than what was due to the elect, so the atonement could not have been sufficient for each and every man. The only way that the atonement could be sufficient for "all" is if the punishment was paid for "all."

I'm in no way trying to limit the value of Christ's life. I hope I'm being clear in my explanation. Am I making sense?


----------



## Scot (Apr 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> if Christ´s atonement is sufficient to save every person, then God in the end sends billions of redeemable people to hell. Such a paradox does not bid well for perceiving Christ as the wisdom of God in his eternal and glorious purposes.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 3, 2005)

You guys are missing the big picture, how big your sin is, and how big God's wrath is. Our sin is eternally damning to us, and God's wrath against sin as infinite and eternal as His own being, and thus the atoning death of Christ has infinite value because only He could propitiate the wrath of God. That is what is meant by "sufficient" for all, but intended to the elect, and of infinite value to them.

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## pastorway (Apr 3, 2005)

right.

If we pay for our sin it takes forever. 

He died because we are a world of sinners. He atoned for the elect, but that does not in any way limit the sufficiency of His sacrifice. And it does not make me a 4 pointer or any other such nonsense. Believing that His death was sufficient for all doe snot force God to send redeemable people to hell, nor does it endanger my faith, or THE faith for that matter.



> If the New Testament doctrine of definaite-particular atonement is ever to shine forth with clarity, the doctrine of Amyraldism, *sufficient for all, efficacious for the elect, must be condemned and renounced.* Until it is, *teachers believing it will inevitably return to "˜4- point Calvinism´* as their cherished belief. And further will *end up confessing the Justinian doctrine of free will*.



This line of argumentation is really reactionary and to be blunt, quite ridiculous. You might as well argue that to say that we are to preach a free offer of the gospel to all men makes God liable for sending people to hell that He has invited to heaven.

I am a five pointer. And saying that the death of Christ is sufficient for all in no way makes me Amyraldian. 

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. 

Phillip


----------



## Scot (Apr 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
> 
> Phillip



Phillip,

Just to clarify things, by quoting 1 John 2:2, are you saying that Christ is the propitiation for every man in the world?


----------



## pastorway (Apr 4, 2005)

Christ did not secure atonement for every individual in the world, but this is a _world_ of sin and the _whole creation_ waits for redemption.

I am not denying Limited Atonement, but I am denying limiting the sufficiency and intrisic worth of the atonement.

Phillip


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 4, 2005)

I personally am not saying it makes your faith any less Phillip.

Was not Amyrault condemned as teaching something contrary to Scripture and Calvinism? 

If what you believe is different than that, please explain the differences


If everyone believed, all woul dbe saved. But they dont, so why even mention this idea?


----------

