# Limited Atonement



## Reformed Thomist (Oct 20, 2009)

Is the doctrine of Limited/Particular/Definite Atonement, in our view, retained by those who teach that the Atonement was _sufficient_ for the sins of the whole world but _efficient_ for the sins of the elect only? Or does their qualification (that the Atonement had a 'universal' element) move them _away_ from the Dortian doctrine proper?

I ask, because the qualified position above appears to have been the position of many historic theologians (Aquinas and Ryle, to name two) who have had reputations for _not_ teaching 'Limited Atonement' _on that basis_. The qualified position also seems to be what is on the mind of many when they ascribe the label of 'moderate Calvinism' to the _Thirty-Nine Articles_ (implying, perhaps, that a more robust or 'full' Calvinism would make no such qualification; and/or that the qualified position is basically an Amyraldian stance)...


----------



## TeachingTulip (Oct 20, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> Is the doctrine of Limited/Particular/Definite Atonement, in our view, retained by those who teach that the Atonement was _sufficient_ for the sins of the whole world but _efficient_ for the sins of the elect only? Or does their qualification (that the Atonement had a 'universal' element) move them _away_ from the Dortian doctrine proper?




My husband and I have found that this argument (apologetic?) is sourced amongst 4-point Calvinists (Amyraldians) at best, and at worst, by free-willer Arminians.

Which has historically led to the fairly recent notion that God has developed a "well-meant offer of salvation" to all men. Such teachings I reject.





> I ask, because the qualified position above appears to have been the position of many historic theologians (Aquinas and Ryle, to name two) who have had reputations for _not_ teaching 'Limited Atonement' _on that basis_.



Indeed. You are correct in your observations.







> The qualified position also seems to be what is on the mind of many when they ascribe the label of 'moderate Calvinism' to the _Thirty-Nine Articles_ (implying, perhaps, that a more robust or 'full' Calvinism would make no such qualification; and/or that the qualified position is basically an Amyraldian stance)...



Yes, and nowadays, anyone who fails to "moderate" accordingly, are quickly labelled "hyper-Calvinists."

Which distinction and name-calling, I and my husband, deny.


----------



## ewenlin (Oct 20, 2009)

Joshua said:


> I don't think that such a qualification _alone_ makes one Amyraldian or Amyraldianesque; on the other hand, I don't believe it's a _necessary_ or _helpful_ qualification, because we should understand the atonement in terms of God's _intent, scope_, and _design_, not what the atonement _could_ do given any number of circumstances. The atonement did accomplish, is accomplishing, and will accomplish exactly that for which it was designed, decreed, and executed... namely, to save God's people from their sins. If God had wanted it to save all men without exception, it certainly _could_, but what's the point of even bringing that up?



Nailed it. (We should get an emoticon for this.)


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 20, 2009)

Nathan

The formula "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" is standardized terminology as it was found used by Lombard in his _Sentences_, which served as the basis (together with the Vulgate and its glosses) for all theology in the Middle Ages, and in turn, had a permanent effect on the theology of the Reformed churches. The terminology *itself* is certainly orthodox; see, for example, this section from Dort itself:
Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.​The problems enter when one attempts to apply such language to the intention behind Christ's satisfaction. If one speaks of Christ's death as being an infinite sacrifice intentionally *so that* there is a sufficient sacrifice for all (for whatever reason they want to speak), then they begin to tread on ice. Any position which argues that Christ died so that he might offer satisfaction sufficient for all, or so that he might purchase redemption for all if they should only but take it; any such position is over the line. If, however, one argues that the intention or impelling cause behind Christ's satisfaction pertains only to the elect (however sufficient that satisfaction might be on account of the dignity of Christ), then we are firmly within orthodoxy.

As Owen keenly notes in ch. 2 of is _Of the Death of Christ, the Price He Paid and the Purchase He Made_:
The value of any satisfaction in this business ariseth not from the innate worth of the things whereby it is made, but purely from God’s free constitution of them to such an end. A distinction cannot be allowed of more or less value in the things appointed of God for the same end; all their value ariseth merely from that appointment; they have so much as he ascribeth to them, and no more.​Thus, the intrinsic or infinite value of Christ's offering has no practical bearing on the issue, since it was appointed for a certain and fixed end, no more no less. The fact that it _could_ have been sufficient for more does not impact us, apart from our maintaining the dignity of Christ.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Oct 20, 2009)

God could have created everything differently or saved everyone if that is what he would have chose to do so Aquinas and others are correct to acknowledge that God has the power to do that. However, he chose to only save those he chose to save, the elect, for the purpose of his good will.

Ephesians 1:11 KJV
[11] In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

So, his sacrifice covered exactly the number of people he intended it to cover. He died in the place of his people and bore their transgressions.

Isaiah 53:10-12 KJV
[10] Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
[11] He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
[12] Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

We know that God alone is truely good, so his decision in this regard is the best decision that could have been made.

Mark 10:18 KJV
[18] And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

So it is good that the elect are elected and it is good that the reprobate are damned because that is the will of God.


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2009)

My understanding is that Ryle taught unlimited atonement.


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2009)

Limited atonement does not negate an indefinite offer of the atonement to sinners of mankind. The salvation offered in the gospel is salvation by the atoning death of Jesus Christ. 1 John 2:2. I think alot of confusion would be avoided if this essential of the gospel were more consistently applied.


----------



## ewenlin (Oct 20, 2009)

> Here a question may be raised: how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretence extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. *They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true*, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage...
> 
> Calvin's commentary on 1 John (1 Jn. 2:2)



In his _De aeterna Dei praedestinatione_ tract, Calvin writes



> Some make a distinction here, holding that the Gospel is saving to all regarding its power, but not in effect. But this way they untie the knot by no means. *We are still rolled back to the same point, whether the same power to believe is conferred upon all men.*



I think P. L. Rouwendal is right when he says that



> Since these two elements (sufficiency and efficiency) were universally accepted in Calvin's day, we need not expect that Calvin thoroughly treated them or used very exact formulas to avoid misunderstanding. All who has some theological knowledge in his day knew that Calvin referred to the sufficiency of Christ's death when he said that Christ died for all men, and that he pointed to the efficiency of his deah when he restricted the death of Christ to the elect only. The classical formula was neither a point of difference between Catholics, Lutherans, and the Reformed in Calvin's day, nor a disputed subject among the Reformed. *Attention was given to other subjects*.



For Rouwendal's treatment of Calvin on the atonement, see _The Westminster Theological Journal,_ "Calvin's Forgotten Classical Position on the Extent of the Atonement: About Sufficiency, Efficiency, and Anachronism," Vol. 70, No. 2, Fall 2008, Westminster Theological Seminary: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 317-336.

That's why I think Joshua is right. Why bring it up?


----------



## TeachingTulip (Oct 20, 2009)

ewenlin said:


> I think P. L. Rouwendal is right when he says that
> 
> Since these two elements (sufficiency and efficiency) were universally accepted in Calvin's day, we need not expect that Calvin thoroughly treated them or used very exact formulas to avoid misunderstanding. All who has some theological knowledge in his day knew that Calvin referred to the sufficiency of Christ's death when he said that Christ died for all men, and that he pointed to the efficiency of his deah when he restricted the death of Christ to the elect only.



(Underlined emphasis, mine.)

Indeed; the "all men" being those elect represented by a remnant chosen and saved out of all the nations. (Revelation 5:9; 7:9)


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 20, 2009)

This is one the reasons I stick with the terminology of "Limited Atonement" versus the language of "Definite" or "Particular" Atonement. It leaves less ambiguity.


----------



## ewenlin (Oct 20, 2009)

I feel I have to qualify my previous post. To answer your question, the formula was widely accepted. I don't think it qualifies one as Amyraldian.

However, Beza criticized this formula, specifically its language. The _for_ in Sufficient _for_ by it's sematic definition in latin would fix intent and application more so than in English. Anyone skilled in latin can confirm or refute this? Beza's the only one I know who really objected to this formula. I'm not that widely read though.

We always understand the atonement in terms of God's design, intent, and scope.


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2009)

ewenlin said:


> The _for_ in Sufficient _for_ by it's sematic definition in latin would fix intent and application more so than in English.



Yes; the "pro" in "pro omnibus" carries the idea of "in behalf of," which is more easily associated with substitution. "For" in English is influenced by moral and governmental theories and conveys something less than a substitutionary idea.

A brief comment on Calvin -- I don't believe he simply accepted the traditional sufficient and efficient understanding, but modifies it in a specific reformed direction. When all the data is examined, and Calvin's own views of election, salvation, church, and Christian life are accounted for, it is clear that Calvin limits atonement itself to the elect, but speaks more universally so far as the offer of the atonement in the gospel is concerned. His language reflects a process of development which culminates in the Dortian formula, creating ambiguity at times, but he generally taught what would later take a more systemic form in Calvinist theology.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 20, 2009)

I love the fact of the Limited Atonement. It is a precious truth to me.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Oct 20, 2009)

A couple of quotes from Ryle, for what it's worth (by way of the blog of our own Charlie Ray, Reasonable Christian):

"Christ is an ALMIGHTY Savior, and a Savior for all mankind. He 'takes away the sin of the world'. He did not die for the Jews only, but for the Gentile as well as the Jew. He did not suffer for a few people only, but for all mankind. The payment that He made on the cross was more than enough to make satisfaction for the debts of all. *The blood that He shed was precious enough to wash away the sins of all. His atonement on the cross was sufficient for all mankind, though efficient only to those who believe.* The sin that He took up and bore on the cross was the sin of the whole world." (Comment on John 1:29)

"Those men and women whom God has been pleased to choose from all eternity, He calls in time, by His Spirit working in due season. He convinces them of sin. He leads them to Christ. He works in them repentance and faith. He converts, renews, and sanctifies them. He keeps them by His grace from falling away entirely, and finally brings them safe to glory. *In short, God’s eternal Election is the first link in that chain of a sinner’s salvation of which heavenly glory is the end. None ever repent, believe, and are born again, except the Elect. The primary and original cause of a saint’s being what he is, is eternal God’s election."* (From Ryle's _Election_)


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 20, 2009)

A quick question:

Do the facts that the object offered, and the priest presiding over the atonement were God in flesh mean that the atonement must therefore have an infinite value attached to it? For example, it appears that not all of God's acts are infinite, such as creation of the heavens and the earth.

Or, does the difference between creation and redemption hinge on Christ's Person being offered, His person is infinite, therefore infinity was offered?

I realize that this may be off of topic, but what is the relationship between Christ as a Divine Person, and Christ's death? In other words, I know that it is appropriate to speak of one Person dying on the cross, but is this properly attributed to the immortality of the God-Man?

Cheers,


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2009)

From Ryle's sermon on John 3:16, entitled, Do you Believe?



> He gave Him to be a ransom for all, and to make satisfaction for our heavy debt to God by His own precious blood. *He gave Him to be the Almighty Friend of all sinners of mankind*,-*to be their Surety and Substitute*,-to do for them what they never could have done for themselves,-suffer what they could never have suffered,-and pay what they could never have paid. All that Jesus did and suffered on earth was according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. The chief end for which He lived and died was *to provide eternal redemption for mankind*.



This is unlimited atonement.


----------



## ewenlin (Oct 20, 2009)

Side question for Rev. Winzer,

How would you explain John 3:16?


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2009)

ewenlin said:


> How would you explain John 3:16?



As it comes to bear on the issue of the atonement, where the word "world" is operative, I would understand it in the same way as John 1:29; "the world" is a redemptive-historical term which indicates God's salvific purpose for all peoples in contrast to Jewish particularity.


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 21, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> A quick question:
> 
> Do the facts that the object offered, and the priest presiding over the atonement were God in flesh mean that the atonement must therefore have an infinite value attached to it? For example, it appears that not all of God's acts are infinite, such as creation of the heavens and the earth.
> 
> ...



For Christ to have saved even one individual, His atonement would have required infinite worth, as the penalty even for one individual's sin (even if that one individual had sinned but once) is infinite. The worth of His atonement has nothing to do with how many individuals it is given for or are saved by it.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Oct 21, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> A couple of quotes from Ryle, for what it's worth (by way of the blog of our own Charlie Ray, Reasonable Christian):
> 
> "Christ is an ALMIGHTY Savior, and a Savior for all mankind. He 'takes away the sin of the world'. He did not die for the Jews only, but for the Gentile as well as the Jew. He did not suffer for a few people only, but for all mankind. The payment that He made on the cross was more than enough to make satisfaction for the debts of all. *The blood that He shed was precious enough to wash away the sins of all. His atonement on the cross was sufficient for all mankind, though efficient only to those who believe.* The sin that He took up and bore on the cross was the sin of the whole world." (Comment on John 1:29)
> 
> "Those men and women whom God has been pleased to choose from all eternity, He calls in time, by His Spirit working in due season. He convinces them of sin. He leads them to Christ. He works in them repentance and faith. He converts, renews, and sanctifies them. He keeps them by His grace from falling away entirely, and finally brings them safe to glory. *In short, God’s eternal Election is the first link in that chain of a sinner’s salvation of which heavenly glory is the end. None ever repent, believe, and are born again, except the Elect. The primary and original cause of a saint’s being what he is, is eternal God’s election."* (From Ryle's _Election_)



Ryle appears to be in line with fuller on the atonement. A theory I disagree with wholeheartedly. They deny the actual vicarious death of Christ in and of itself to redeem, instead speak of a provision for all, dependent solely of whom the Father elects. I may be splitting hairs, but this is Sovereign election, not limited atonement. They are two connected but distinct truths. It is basically a form of arminianism couched in reformed speak. The death of Christ is not a potential provision only to be enjoyed by whom are elected in eternity. It is a vicarious substitution.


----------



## KaphLamedh (Nov 15, 2009)

Amazing Grace said:


> I may be splitting hairs, but this is Sovereign election, not limited atonement.



Well, I think I agree you Amazing Grace with that Ryle´s comment.


----------



## ewenlin (Nov 15, 2009)

Amazing Grace said:


> Reformed Thomist said:
> 
> 
> > A couple of quotes from Ryle, for what it's worth (by way of the blog of our own Charlie Ray, Reasonable Christian):
> ...



Sounds like governmental atonement..


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 15, 2009)

The governmental construct is not the problem. There are governmental and judicial dynamics involved in Christ's substitutionary atonement.

The value of Christ's blood and of Christ's righteousness are no more in question than is Christ's Person. But this is how the waters always get muddied. We are not truly seeking to assess the value of Christ, we are seeking to rightly assess the measure of His suffering.

J.L. Dagg, wrote in the early 19th century saying:

The advocates of the hypothesis urge, that the atonement is moral, and not commercial; and they object, that the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, degrades it into a mere commercial transaction. … The argument is not conclusive. It is not true, that the principle of distributive justice repels the notion of so much suffering for so much sin. Justice has its scales in government, as well as in commerce; and an essential part of its administration consists in the apportionment of penalties to crimes. It does not account the stealing of herbs from a neighbor’s garden, and the murder of a father, crimes of equal magnitude; and it does not weigh out to them equal penalties.

The justice of God has a heavier penalty for Chorazin and Bethsaida, than for Sodom and Gomorrah. Everything of which we have knowledge in the divine administration, instead of exploding the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, tends rather to establish it. The objection that it is commercial, is not well founded.

Though justice in government, and justice in commerce, may be distinguished from each other, it does not follow, that whatever may be affirmed of the one, must necessarily be denied of the other. Distributive justice is not that which determines the equality of value, in commodities which are exchanged for each other: but it does not therefore exclude all regard to magnitudes and proportions.
In the language of Scripture, sins are debts, the blood of Christ is a price, and his people are bought. This language is doubtless figurative: but the figures would not be appropriate, if commercial justice, to which the terms debt, price, bought, appertain, did not bear an analogy to the distributive justice which required the sacrifice of Christ. …

The wisdom and justice of God have decided this single case, and have decided it right. Christ did endure just so much suffering, as would expiate the sins that were laid on him.
The "Sufficient for all, Efficient for the elect" model has been in my opinion a weakness in some Calvinistic writers for many years.

Some Calvinists, myself included, find more consistency in saying that it was only the sins of the elect that Christ bore. You shall call His name Jesus and He shall save HIS PEOPLE from their sins

Several writers have articulated this view:

“To say that his death is sufficient for everyone, but not that everyone receives forgiveness, is to say that God accomplishes the greater but not the lesser. He sets in motion a cause__the most powerful and compelling spiritual and moral cause conceivable__that does not consummate in an effect.
As can be well seen, both streams of thought have a healthy and biblical concept of the relation of atonement to law. This understanding, that all legal obstacles to salvation have been removed, is right and cannot be surrendered. … To remove the necessary connection between atonement and satisfaction of the divine law denudes Christ’s death of all its moral sublimity and reduces it to an amazing piece of whimsical and romantic extravagance.” __Dr. Tom Nettles

"While cheerfully admitting the sufficiency of Immanuel’s death to have redeemed all mankind, had all the sins of the whole human species been equally imputed to him; and had he, as the Universal Representative, sustained that curse of the law which was due to all mankind; yet we cannot perceive any solid reason to conclude, that his propitiatory sufferings are sufficient for the expiation of sins which he did not bear, or for the redemption of sinners whom he did not represent, as a sponsor, when he died on the cross. For the substitution of Christ, and the imputation of sin to him, are essential to the scriptural doctrtine of redemption by our adorable Jesus.--We may therefore, safely conclude that our Lord’s voluntary substitution, and redemption by his vicarious death, are both of them limited to those, for whom he was made SIN--for those whom he was made a CURSE--and for whose deliverance from final ruin, he actually paid the price of his OWN BLOOD. Consequently, that redemption is particular, and peculiar to the chosen of God."__Abraham Booth


----------



## William Price (Nov 15, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> I love the fact of the Limited Atonement. It is a precious truth to me.



I wholly agree!  Christ's death on the Cross was sufficient for all it was meant to be for. It is not a means, but part of the glorious end which is Christ. Limited atonement proves Christ to be the full and fulfilled Messiah of the Bible.


----------



## Confessor (Nov 15, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> ewenlin said:
> 
> 
> > How would you explain John 3:16?
> ...



Do you think the interpretation of "world" as referring to the sinfulness of mankind (e.g. Romans 12:1) would also be tenable? I think it was Warfield that said something along these lines: John 3:16 refers to God's love not _extensively_, in terms of how "big" His love is to save so many people, but _intensively_, in terms of how "deep" His love is to save sinners.

-----Added 11/15/2009 at 03:57:24 EST-----



rbcbob said:


> The justice of God has a heavier penalty for Chorazin and Bethsaida, than for Sodom and Gomorrah. Everything of which we have knowledge in the divine administration, instead of exploding the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, tends rather to establish it. The objection that it is commercial, is not well founded.
> 
> [...]
> 
> The "Sufficient for all, Efficient for the elect" model has been in my opinion a weakness in some Calvinistic writers for many years.



I want to make sure I understand what you are arguing for. Please correct me if this is a straw man:

-Although all sins deserve infinite punishment, there are still degrees of punishment in hell.
-Therefore, Christ would suffer different degrees of punishment depending on which sins He was covering (i.e., which sins the elect committed).
-Therefore, since Christ's sacrifice was peculiar to the exact punishment afforded for the elect's sins, His sacrifice or passive obedience was not in fact sufficient for all. If God decreed ten sinners to be saved by Christ, and if He decreed those same ten plus one more, Christ's punishment would have been quantitatively different.
-Therefore, as regards this actual world, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient and efficient only for the elect.

(It could be argued that His active obedience would still be sufficient for all, but that's another topic.)

Is that an accurate summary, Bob?


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 16, 2009)

Confessor said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > ewenlin said:
> ...



Ben, I would edit that as follows:

-*Each and every sin against God deserves an ETERNAL, yet MEASURED punishment fitted particularly to that transgression.*

-Therefore, since Christ's sacrifice was peculiar to the exact punishment afforded for the elect's sins, His sacrifice or passive obedience was not in fact sufficient for *sinners He did not represent and/or sins that were not laid on Him*. If God decreed ten sinners to be saved by Christ, and if He decreed those same ten plus one more, Christ's punishment would have been quantitatively different.

-Therefore, as regards this actual world, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient and efficient only for the elect.

(It could be argued that His active obedience would still be sufficient for all, but that's another topic.) 

*Christ was never more active than when He was taking the place of His people on the cross. John 10:18 "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. [εγω τιθημι αυτην] I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."*


----------



## NRB (Nov 17, 2009)

Hi I am new here and a new Presbyterian, but I must ask...HOW do we know the elect? I don't think we are privvy to this...so I must in turn ask, HOW can we discuss this issue honestly.

I know Limited Atonement, but it is a Truth in a system that applies to the elect alone, but who are the elect? Not our intention nor God's purpose for us to know.
The atonement was certainly propitiation for all, yet isn't biblically applied to the entire human race. It can't be, for God wouldn't be Sovereign if it were for all until the end of time when there is sufficient proof of a human being on their death bed denying God in His entirety...had an uncle do that.

Herein lies the confusion for those 4 pointers...and I was one before. 



Anywho it's late and that's my 2 cents..or perhaps just 1 cent.


----------



## Parsifal23 (Nov 17, 2009)

Jim Ellis wrote a really good article on this subject "Sufficient for All"- by Jim Ellis I don't know the language of efficient for the Elect only but sufficient for all is clumsy at best in my opinion and it can lead to pseudo Amraldyanism (Curt Daniel and David Ponter) or full blown Amradylanism (Richard Baxter) so when explained correctly "Sufficient for all" is not wrong but it leaves the door open to theological error so it would in my opinion be better to stick to the old Limited Atonement terminology if only for procession


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 17, 2009)

I myself am more fond of "Particular Redemption". 

But then it would be T U P I P...


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 17, 2009)

NRB said:


> Hi I am new here and a new Presbyterian, but I must ask...HOW do we know the elect? I don't think we are privvy to this...so I must in turn ask, HOW can we discuss this issue honestly.
> 
> I know Limited Atonement, but it is a Truth in a system that applies to the elect alone, but who are the elect? Not our intention nor God's purpose for us to know.
> The atonement was certainly propitiation for all, yet isn't biblically applied to the entire human race. It can't be, for God wouldn't be Sovereign if it were for all until the end of time when there is sufficient proof of a human being on their death bed denying God in His entirety...had an uncle do that.
> ...



Hi John,



> “HOW do we know the elect? I don't think we are privvy to this...so I must in turn ask, HOW can we discuss this issue honestly.”



It is not necessary to the core issue of this discussion to know WHO the elect are, merely THAT they are.

The discussion is over the merits of Christ’s substitutionary death relative to the elect as compared with the non-elect.


> “The atonement was certainly propitiation for all, yet isn't biblically applied to the entire human race.”



These words typify the need for this discussion. If Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice for sin was proptitious for all, then God’s wrath against all has been propitiated, assuaged.

Aaron provided an excellent link in his post #30.


----------



## Confessor (Nov 17, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> -*Each and every sin against God deserves an ETERNAL, yet MEASURED punishment fitted particularly to that transgression.*
> 
> -Therefore, since Christ's sacrifice was peculiar to the exact punishment afforded for the elect's sins, His sacrifice or passive obedience was not in fact sufficient for *sinners He did not represent and/or sins that were not laid on Him*. If God decreed ten sinners to be saved by Christ, and if He decreed those same ten plus one more, Christ's punishment would have been quantitatively different.
> 
> ...



Okay, so I am a bit confused now. This view makes sense, but is it confessional (perhaps it's in the 1689 LBC)? While I very well may be misunderstanding your stance (as it was so recently explained to me), this seems to conflict with Paul's citation from Dordt above: Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.​
According to you, Bob, I believe you are arguing that Christ's sacrifice did not have infinite merit, but was meted out specifically so that it covered each sin of the elect, and no more. The arguments you presented look solid. Why, then, does there seem to be historical disagreement with this view? How might those at Dordt have responded?

(This question is open to anyone.)


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 17, 2009)

Confessor said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > -*Each and every sin against God deserves an ETERNAL, yet MEASURED punishment fitted particularly to that transgression.*
> ...



Dort probably could have worded it more exact. That said, the intrinsic value of Christs death is infinite. He would not have had to hang on the cross any longer or perform anything else to atone for the whole world.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 17, 2009)

> Dort probably could have worded it more exact. That said, *the intrinsic value of Christs death is infinite*. He would not have had to hang on the cross any longer or perform anything else to atone for the whole world.




It seems that such an opinion as this is hasty and superficial. It glosses over the meted out punishments due unto every one chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. What the precise magnitude of the wrath due unto the cumulative sins of that company is something that the mind of man cannot fathom. But God has calculated it and He placed it on His Son.

Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 17, 2009)

But the intrinsic value of Christ's death is not fully indexed to the finite number of the elect, nor merely the cummulative total of the "bounded" infinitude of all the elect's eternal punishment.

It is also indexed to the value of the Sacrifice, which is worth intrinsically MORE than the entire "use" of it.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 17, 2009)

*SUFFICIENT SUBSTITUTION, THE VALUE OF VICARIOUS ATONEMENT
*
5 But *He was wounded* for OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, *He was bruised* for OUR INIQUITIES; *The chastisemen*t for OUR PEACE *was upon Him*, And *by His stripes* WE ARE HEALED. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of US ALL. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; FOR THE TRANSGRESSIONS OF MY PEOPLE *He was stricken*.

Who are the US and the WE in this substitution?

The US and the WE are the MY PEOPLE of verse eight.

Note that by His stripes it is not the hypothetical or potential WE CAN BE HEALED, OR MIGHT BE HEALED, but we are told that by His stripes WE ARE HEALED!

I have no doubt that the “sufficient for all” formula was constructed with a desire to exalt Christ and glory in the salvation that He accomplished. This is understandable. Our Lord is worthy of the highest praise, glory and honor and we delight in giving that to Him.

*However if in that worthy pursuit we unwittingly detract from some vital element of His vicarious sufferings for His people we have undercut the very thing we set out to do.*

When Cunningham says “the value or worth of His sacrifice of Himself depends upon, and is measured by, the dignity of His person, and is therefore infinite” he is simply mistaken. He asserts what he has not proved.

We do well to remember that the infinite worthiness of Christ the suffering Servant of Jehovah is not in question. He could have had the sins of innumerable worlds of people laid upon Him and would have been entirely able to bear those too. *But the fact remains that the Father of our Lord and Savior chose to lay on Him the particular sins of a particular people. This is what He bore. This provides the parameters for speaking about the sufficiency of that awesome work done on Calvary.*


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 17, 2009)

Bob, what is important in the confessional formula is, as Rev. Buchanan stated very well above, that Christ's death was of infinite worth _so that_ it could be efficient for the elect and none other. I could bring $2,000,000 to my friend to buy a candy bar: now, the value of that $2,000,000 is only accepted for the Snickers if my friend will accept; but the amount is such that it is certainly meet payment for a fun-size chocolate. Likewise, Christ brings forth an infinite payment, such that it is meet for the Father to accept it for the payment of the sins of the elect. His death "could have" purchased more, *had that been the covenant* between the Father and Son, without adding any more "punishment" to Christ.

[If someone else has previously used a "candy bar for lots of money" metaphor, I apologize for not citing you. I can't figure out whether I've heard that from another's mouth or from my own...]


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 17, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Bob, what you seem to be missing about the confessional formula is, as Rev. Buchanan stated very well above, that Christ's death was of infinite worth _so that_ it could be efficient for the elect and none other. I could bring $2,000,000 to my friend to buy a candy-bar: now, the value of that $2,000,000 is only accepted for the Snickers if my friend will accept; but the amount is such that it is certainly meet payment for a fun-size chocolate. Likewise, Christ brings forth an infinite payment, such that it is meet for the Father to accept it for the payment of the sins of the elect. His death "could have" purchased more, *had that been the covenant* between the Father and Son, without adding any more "punishment" to Christ.



Paul, You are still arguing from the wealth/ability of the Purchaser. I humbly suggest that you are still missing the Specifics of the Work assigned, accepted, and accomplished. Suppose that at age 12 Christ made a wooden table. Would that table be able to hold all the books of the world just because it was Christ who made it?


----------



## Prufrock (Nov 17, 2009)

I point you again to Dort, as above: Christ's _sacrifice_ (the one which he _actually offered_) is of "infinite value and worth, more than sufficient...." Christ's hypothetical table would not be an infinite table. It's just a table.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 17, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> > Dort probably could have worded it more exact. That said, *the intrinsic value of Christs death is infinite*. He would not have had to hang on the cross any longer or perform anything else to atone for the whole world.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First off it is not hasty nor is is just an opinion. I do not make comments on such a grand subject as the atonement flippantly nor deserving of such a response as what you just gave. Do not be so fast to rush to judgment without giving me the benefit of the doubt since we do not know each other.

I am not one who likes to spend much time on hypothetical's regarding God's word. My point is that if, and I mean IF, the triune Godhead had so eternally determined to save every soul head for head, the exact active and passive of obedience of Christ would have not changed one iota. He would not have had to lived one extra minute or receive one more whipping.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 17, 2009)

> First off it is not hasty nor is is just an opinion. I do not make comments on such a grand subject as the atonement flippantly nor deserving of such a response as what you just gave. Do not be so fast to rush to judgment without giving me the benefit of the doubt since we do not know each other.



Brother I meant no offense to you and did not at all regard your comments as being flippant. Please be assured that my criticisms of your expressed viewpoint are not indictments of your character.



> I am not one who likes to spend much time on hypothetical's regarding God's word. My point is that if, and I mean IF, the triune Godhead had so eternally determined to save every soul head for head, the exact active and passive of obedience of Christ would have not changed one iota. He would not have had to lived one extra minute or receive one more whipping.



Might not our Lord's words below have some part in informing our understanding of measured punishment? 

Luke 12:47 "And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with *many* stripes.

Might we not then consider this when contemplating what *by His stripes we are healed* means relative to the measured punishment the Father placed on Him for us?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 17, 2009)

One of the Best writings I have read on the subject is 

"A Defense of Particular Redemption" By William Rushton. 

Defence of Particular Redemption

-----Added 11/17/2009 at 04:23:36 EST-----



rbcbob said:


> > First off it is not hasty nor is is just an opinion. I do not make comments on such a grand subject as the atonement flippantly nor deserving of such a response as what you just gave. Do not be so fast to rush to judgment without giving me the benefit of the doubt since we do not know each other.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you then give me an example of what Christ would have had to endure if one more sinner was chosen to be saved? I am confused by your sentiment of the a/p obedience of Christ and how it would have differed for one more soul. How could He have merited more righteousness for one more person? 

Rob, I again do not separate the sufficiency from the design. Christ did not just die for sin, He died a vicarious death for this Sheep. Yet I am still confused on what more He could have done if one more sinner was chosen before the foundation of the world.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 17, 2009)

Amazing Grace said:


> One of the Best writings I have read on the subject is
> 
> "A Defense of Particular Redemption" By William Rushton.
> 
> ...



We are not privy to the quantity of pain, agony, suffering and torment that God assigns to, let’s say, stealing a horse. In light of the analogy of faith we would be right to assume the measure would be increased in proportion to the light possessed by the particular sinner. “And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes”. Luke 12:47

Neither are we privy to how much is the measure of suffering and agony of soul that our blessed Lord endured for each of His people considered either separately or collectively.

Knowing that our God, as Judge of all the earth who always does right, measures out each penalty perfectly we should conclude that if (hypothetically) the Father had chosen one additional sinner in Christ, then the precise measure of that sinners suffering would have been felt in the holy soul of Jesus as he suffered vicariously for His people.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 17, 2009)

It seems that the shortest way to make the point clear is to point out that it is the altar that sanctifies the gift and gives it its value as a sacrifice. Now the altar in the sacrifice of Christ was His divine nature. Is there any way for the divine nature not to be of infinite value? To say there is, seems quite absurd.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 17, 2009)

py3ak said:


> It seems that the shortest way to make the point clear is to point out that it is the altar that sanctifies the gift and gives it its value as a sacrifice. Now the altar in the sacrifice of Christ was His divine nature. Is there any way for the divine nature not to be of infinite value? To say there is, seems quite absurd.



Ruben, I continue to endeavor to keep the focus of the issue on the measure of suffering Christ endured in His substitutionary death.

Again, His Person is not relevant to measuring the punishment. His deity did not condition the amount of suffering dished out, only His abilty to endure it. 

1 Peter 2:24 who Himself *bore our sins in His own body* on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness -- *by whose stripes you were healed*.


----------



## MW (Nov 17, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> Again, His Person is not relevant to measuring the punishment. His deity did not condition the amount of suffering dished out, only His abilty to endure it.



Larger Catechism, answer 38, "It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that He might ... give worth and efficacy to His sufferings, obedience, and intercession; and to satisfy God's justice, procure His favour..."


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 17, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > Again, His Person is *not relevant to measuring the punishment*. His *deity did not condition the amount of suffering dished out*, only His abilty to endure it.
> ...




Matthew,

Seeking to understand the intent of the LC I offer these definitions:

“*worth* 1. Value; that quality of a thing which renders it useful, or which will produce an equivalent good in some other thing.” Noah Webster 1828 edition

“*suffice* to be enough; to be enough for. New Webster’s Dictionary 1992

“*sufficient* enough; as much as is needed.” New Webster’s Dictionary 1992

“*sufficiency*, an adequate amount; the state or quality of being sufficient.” New Webster’s Dictionary 1992

“*sufficiency*, n. The state of being adequate to the end proposed.” Noah Webster 1828 edition

“*sufficient*, a. Enough; equal to the end proposed; adequate to wants.” Noah Webster 1828 edition

“*efficacy* the power to bring about a desired result” New Webster’s Dictionary 1992

Christ’s deity then did give WORTH (rendering it suited to produce an equivalent good in His people) and EFFICACY (the power to bring about desired result of saving His people from their sins). But none of this warrants the conclusion that because the Person of Christ is of infinite worth requires that His obedient vicarious suffering for His people is infinite and therefore sufficient for *sins not borne* and *sinners not represented*.

As pointed out previously, the infinity of the Substitutionary Curse-Bearer in no way qualifies or quantifies the measure of punishment which His Father laid upon Him.

.


----------



## MW (Nov 17, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> As pointed out previously, the infinity of the Substitutionary Curse-Bearer in no way qualifies or quantifies the measure of punishment which His Father laid upon Him.



Of course it does. Sin deserves death. The sin bearer died once for all. The sin bearer did not die repeatedly for each individual sinner. He did not need to. The sin bearer is God, and therefore His death is of infinite value.


----------



## rbcbob (Nov 17, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > As pointed out previously, the infinity of the Substitutionary Curse-Bearer in no way qualifies or quantifies the measure of punishment which His Father laid upon Him.
> ...




sigh ...


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 18, 2009)

rbcbob said:


> We are not privy to the quantity of pain, agony, suffering and torment that God assigns to, let’s say, stealing a horse. In light of the analogy of faith we would be right to assume the measure would be increased in proportion to the light possessed by the particular sinner. “And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes”. Luke 12:47
> 
> Neither are we privy to how much is the measure of suffering and agony of soul that our blessed Lord endured for each of His people considered either separately or collectively.
> 
> Knowing that our God, as Judge of all the earth who always does right, measures out each penalty perfectly we should conclude that if (hypothetically) the Father had chosen one additional sinner in Christ, then the precise measure of that sinners suffering would have been felt in the holy soul of Jesus as he suffered vicariously for His people.



You cannot draw an exact parallel of Deut 25:2, with the death of Christ. It makes it say too much. Therefore neither can Luke 12:47 be used in direct relationship with the death of Christ. This is a very rcc thought process you have here. That Christ did some sort of penance in the amount of each sin that was laid upon Him. If one more sinner was elect and to be substituted for, then He would have to say one more "Glory Be". As I mentioned earlier, according to your 'logic', then some how Christ would have had to do something more to procure more righteousness to be imputed to the sinner for Justification.


----------

