# Sufficiency of Atonement implies Christ suffered for sins of whole world?



## Afterthought (Oct 13, 2012)

I'm not sure I can word my question properly and getting the language down is one of the reasons why I'm posting, but in the thread title above and in this post below I'm trying to speak of the sufficiency of the atonement in its intrinsic value, not the intention of the atonement.

My questions are: (1) In Christ's death, did he pay the penalty due to all the sinners of the world? His sacrifice being of infinite intrinsic value such that it could have paid for any God intended it to pay for, it would seem that Christ paid the penalty due to all, suffering what all men's sins deserved. And hence, the elect being part of that all, their sins are sufficiently paid for too? And it is not until we look at the intent of the atonement that we see that Christ's death procured the salvation of the elect only (since it was intended for them only)?

(2) I was wondering a bit about 1 John 2:2. I had always thought that the "world" referred to something general, kind of like what we see with "all" and "world" in other places concerning this issue. However, I recently saw Charles Hodge's comments on this verse (e.g., "Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches." In his systematic theology, Hodge also mentions that Christ, in effecting salvation for the elect, did all that was necessary for the salvation of all men). It seems he states that Christ did indeed do all that was necessary for the salvation of all, which I understand to be similar to what I was asking in (1) (that in doing what was needed for the salvation of all, Christ did what was needed for the salvation of the elect too).

If he is correct, how would one arrive at this from the text? If he is incorrect or I misunderstand him, where and how does he or I err?


----------



## rbcbob (Oct 13, 2012)

You will find this subject discussed here

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/sufficient-all-efficient-some-71961/
and here
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/medieval-limited-atonement-52773/

and many other places


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 16, 2012)

Thank you. I had looked through all those threads before posting, and I've looked through many of them again. I have a clearer view of the matter thanks to a post in a recent thread. From my understanding, it appears 1) is not correct because of the way it is worded. Bringing the elect or non-elect into the intrinsic value of the atonement only confuses the matter; Christ only suffered for the elect, though his suffering was sufficient to cover the sins of all men; hence, the sentence "In doing what was necessary for the salvation of all, Christ did what was needed to save the elect too" also seems to be wrong, since it too seems to imply intent (though the sentence could be stated if one understood what was meant). As for whether it is correct to say that Christ suffered the penalty due to all the sinners of the world, I am not entirely sure of yet, since the sentence seems to imply that Christ suffered for all men, rather than having suffered enough to have saved all men.

I am also not entirely sure of 2) yet.


----------



## crimsonleaf (Oct 17, 2012)

I suppose one question is, would Christ have suffered more if the non-elect were included?


----------



## KMK (Oct 17, 2012)

crimsonleaf said:


> uppose one question is, would Christ have suffered more if the non-elect were included?



Christ is both fully man and fully God. Christ's satisfaction and merit are essentially the same work. Therefore, Christ's offering was infinite both in satisfaction and merit. Just as Christ would not have had to obey God's law 'better' in order to justify more people, He would not have had to offer a 'better' sacrifice in order to pardon more people. His humiliation was perfect and infinite.


----------



## Loopie (Oct 17, 2012)

One way that I like to think of it (and please, anyone, correct me if my analogy is wrong), is to think of the atonement sacrifice offered by the Levitical Priests:

1) For whom did the high priest offer atonement for in the Temple? Was it for every single man, woman, and child who ever lived? Or was it for the people of Israel (the covenant people)? I would argue that it is intended for the covenant people.

2) Did the high priest need to alter, or change the method and procedures for making atonement as Israel's population grew? Does the high priest's actions change based on the number of people he is intending to atone for? It seems rather that the procedures and instructions for the Levitical priests were exactly the same, regardless of how many people were included in the covenant nation of Israel. In other words, if EVERY single Gentile had decided to become Jewish and enter into the covenant, the high priest would not have had to change a single thing about what he did inside the Temple.

3) Based on the idea of Christ being the perfect high priest, who makes a perfect sacrifice, would Jesus have to do anything different if he intended to save more people than he already intends to save? I would say 'No'. Christ's sacrifice has infinite merit and value. His death would have been sufficient for everyone had it been God's intention to actually save everyone. In other words, Christ would not have had to do anything else, or endure any more suffering than he already did, if God decided that he would elect more people to salvation than he already has. With this understanding in mind, I feel comfortable saying that Christ's death would have been sufficient for everyone if God had intended to save everyone. Given that God has intended to save only the Elect, then Christ's death is efficacious only for them. I know that some have misgivings towards the words 'sufficiency' and 'efficiency', but understood in their proper context I think they are acceptable and accurate terms.

Just my two cents.


----------



## earl40 (Oct 17, 2012)

Being married to a CPA I take the view that the death of Jesus indeed paid for specific sins of a particular people and that amount, though infinite in value or worth, is not laid to the account of the unelect because he did not pay any of their debt.


----------



## MW (Oct 17, 2012)

Loopie said:


> and please, anyone, correct me if my analogy is wrong)



That is a very useful analogy and you have expressed it very well. Thankyou.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 17, 2012)

Thanks for the great comments everyone! I know my understanding has been clarified quite a bit.


----------

