Christ's death sufficient for all?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"

Romans 8:31-32

It seems to me that if God were to be consistent, and Christ died for all men without exception, that God will also give all men all things freely.

The giving of the Son is linked to those whom God chose, whom he is working all things together for good.
 
Hi there.

John 6:39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

It makes sense that Christ's death was only for those who are elect. It could have been for all, but was limited to those who God foreknew. Or else those who are reprobate would have Jesus as bearing their judgment, then they would have to bear their own judgment. If justice was satisfied, one wouldn't be re-condemned if they were already died for.
 
MyCrows said:
"What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"

Romans 8:31-32

It seems to me that if God were to be consistent, and Christ died for all men without exception, that God will also give all men all things freely.

The giving of the Son is linked to those whom God chose, whom he is working all things together for good.
Click to expand...
So you agree that Christ died only for the elect?
 
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
Hi there.

John 6:39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

It makes sense that Christ's death was only for those who are elect. It could have been for all, but was limited to those who God foreknew. Or else those who are reprobate would have Jesus as bearing their judgment, then they would have to bear their own judgment. If justice was satisfied, one wouldn't be re-condemned if they were already died for.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.
 
Ryan&Amber2013 said:
Hi there.

John 6:39
And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

It makes sense that Christ's death was only for those who are elect. It could have been for all, but was limited to those who God foreknew. Or else those who are reprobate would have Jesus as bearing their judgment, then they would have to bear their own judgment. If justice was satisfied, one wouldn't be re-condemned if they were already died for.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. What held me back from believing Limited Atonement for the longest time was the misconception that it was claiming that the death of the eternal Son of God was insufficient to save everybody, in the sense that He would have needed to suffer a bit longer to save a few more people.
 
DanSSwing said:
I agree with this. What held me back from believing Limited Atonement for the longest time was the misconception that it was claiming that the death of the eternal Son of God was insufficient to save everybody, in the sense that He would have needed to suffer a bit longer to save a few more people.
Click to expand...
Which is why Effectual Atonement is a better term.

And going to drop some Dort here: "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."
 
Ursinus commentary:

“Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof.”

“The reason of the former lies in this, that the atonement of Christ is sufficient for expiating all the sins of all men, or of the whole world, if only all men will make application thereof unto themselves by faith. For it cannot be said to be insufficient, unless we give countenance to that horrible blasphemy (which God forbid!) that some blame of the destruction of the ungodly results from a defect in the merit of the mediator. The reason of the latter is, because all the elect, or such as believe, and they alone, do apply unto themselves by faith the merit of Christ's death, together with the efficacy thereof, by which they obtain righteousness, and life according as it is said."
 
Shedd:

“The use of the term “redemption,” consequently, is attended with less ambiguity than that of “atonement,” and it is the term most commonly employed in controversial theology. Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the Scripture texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people. He who asserts unlimited atonement, and limited redemption, cannot well be misconceived. He is understood to hold that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in its value, sufficiency, and publication, but limited in its effectual application.”
 
Charles Hodge:

"By this dispensation it is rendered manifest to every intelligent mind in heaven and upon earth, and to the finally impenitent themselves, that the perdition of those that perish is their own fault. They will not come to Christ that they may have life. They refuse to have Him to reign over them. He calls but they will not answer. He says, ‘Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.’ Every human being who does come is saved. This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that 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."
 
I think it's important to divide a few issues:
1. Is the worth of Christ's sacrifice, as a Divine Person, of sufficient value to redeem all sinners? The answer would be certainly, yes.
2. A related but not identical question is whether His death actually purchased redemption for all sinners. Since all evangelical graces (including faith) flow from the Mediator's work, I think this is probably the more important question.

In other words, while it is true that his death has sufficient value, the real issue is whether His Mediatorial work under the CoG accomplishes the work for all.

I think it is imagined by some that the offer of salvation cannot be genuine unless the second issue is answered in the affirmative. That is, Christ has to have purchased salvation in some sense to make it available, on offer, to all sinners or the Gospel call cannot be genuine. That said, the "condition to interest" in the WCF deals with the notion not that the sinner fulfills some condition on his own ability that is not availed by another sinner, but that the Holy Spirit enables the sinner to lay hold of Christ. Why does the sinner reach out to Christ? Because Christ has purchased His faith and the sinner, by the Spirit, lays hold of Christ.

So, is Christ's death sufficient? In a sense, yes. In another sense, however, it is neither Biblical nor necessary for a Gospel call to sinners to insist that Christ has purchased redemption for all.
 
The practical implication and necessity to uphold the infinite worth of Christ's death is to answer the sinner's cry of "Is there room for me?"
 
Semper Fidelis said:
I think it's important to divide a few issues:
1. Is the worth of Christ's sacrifice, as a Divine Person, of sufficient value to redeem all sinners? The answer would be certainly, yes.
2. A related but not identical question is whether His death actually purchased redemption for all sinners. Since all evangelical graces (including faith) flow from the Mediator's work, I think this is probably the more important question.
Click to expand...
And, in the excerpt quoted, Calvin divides the issue himself: "For our present question is, not what the power or virtue of Christ is, nor what efficacy it has in itself, but who those are to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed." These words indicate Calvin is rather likely to affirm an infinite value to Christ and to the power of his work. But on the debated matter of application and efficacy, he is opposed to the notion that the death of Christ was for any who should not benefit ultimately from it. It is unwise to formulate an effect of the atonement which lacks intrinsic, saving power. The intention needs to match the achievement.

Without such correspondence (intent->object) the result is reduction in assurance, correlative to whatever increase was imagined with respect to divine generosity.
 
If it is sufficient it is efficient. If it is efficient it is sufficient. I don’t buy this sufficient for all efficient for the elect. That’s Fullerism, If I recall correctly.
 
Sovereign Grace said:
If it is sufficient it is efficient. If it is efficient it is sufficient. I don’t buy this sufficient for all efficient for the elect. That’s Fullerism, If I recall correctly.
Click to expand...
I think what is being said in the expression "sufficient for all, efficient for some"; is that the atoning work of Christ was of enough value to have redeemed everyone, although that wasn't the intention of it.
 
Canons of Dort, 2.3:
"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."
 
Sovereign Grace said:
Thanks. My point is that it’s only efficient for the elect and never intended for the non-elect. I guess we’re just talking past each other.
Click to expand...
I don't see how this point can be directly derived from your previous statement that includes talk about sufficiency. But I will leave it at that.
 
Polanus1561 said:
I don't see how this point can be directly derived from your previous statement that includes talk about sufficiency. But I will leave it at that.
Click to expand...
I guess I have a poor way of communicating my thoughts on here and for that I’m sorry. To me and my understanding of sufficiency, if only the elect are the intended recipients of the atonement made by Christ, then we all agree it is efficient to save them, and obviously sufficient. Now, if something is sufficient, shouldn’t it be done? I guess I’m trying to say (through mumbled up words) how can something be sufficient if it isn’t efficient. I guess it’s the scope vs intent thing, right. It’s sufficient in its scope but not in its intent? Is this right?
 
I would agree with your last statement. Scope and intent, I would say, is a good way of putting it.
 
Sovereign Grace said:
I guess I have a poor way of communicating my thoughts on here and for that I’m sorry. To me and my understanding of sufficiency, if only the elect are the intended recipients of the atonement made by Christ, then we all agree it is efficient to save them, and obviously sufficient. Now, if something is sufficient, shouldn’t it be done? I guess I’m trying to say (through mumbled up words) how can something be sufficient if it isn’t efficient. I guess it’s the scope vs intent thing, right. It’s sufficient in its scope but not in its intent? Is this right?
Click to expand...
The sufficiency is derived from the death of the God-man mediator "it is of infinite value and worth".

Intent cannot alter such sufficiency; both are 2 different categories. Sufficiency is the intrinsic value, Intent is the application. Christ dying for one believer or a million does not change this sufficiency.

Notice the Canons spend time on the sufficiency before talking about application:


ARTICLE 3
The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

ARTICLE 4
This death is of such infinite value and dignity because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and, moreover, because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.


My earlier interaction is because "sufficient for all efficient for the elect" is long-held language, so I was just doing a fyi brother.
 
Owen in Death of Death explains sufficiency in terms of value only, while others historically speak of Christ dying for the human race in terms of that sufficiency. In this way, the doctrine has similarities when it comes to value but significant differences in how we speak about Christ’s death in terms of for whom did Christ die.
 
timfost said:
Charles Hodge:

"By this dispensation it is rendered manifest to every intelligent mind in heaven and upon earth, and to the finally impenitent themselves, that the perdition of those that perish is their own fault. They will not come to Christ that they may have life. They refuse to have Him to reign over them. He calls but they will not answer. He says, ‘Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.’ Every human being who does come is saved. This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that 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."
Click to expand...
I understood "not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world" to be more in the John 3:16-type context of "it's not just for Jews (or even local proselytes) but includes every people group on the entire planet." Why emphasize the point only to backtrack and say, "Well, it wasn't really effectual for everyone"?
 
DanSSwing said:
I understood "not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world" to be more in the John 3:16-type context of "it's not just for Jews (or even local proselytes) but includes every people group on the entire planet." Why emphasize the point only to backtrack and say, "Well, it wasn't really effectual for everyone"?
Click to expand...
You are certainly in good company to interpret that way. In short, I think Hodge's understanding is correct because John's use of "whole world" in these later writings (1 Jn. 5:19, Rev. 3:10, 12:9, 16:14) exclusively and undeniably refers to the unbelieving world. 1 John 2:2 would be an anomaly and very difficult to interpret categorically from an objectively exegetical context.

And yes, I believe John 3:16 speaks to the entire human race-- no need for categories or groups. The immediate context for John 3:16 is Moses lifting up the serpent as Christ was lifted up. Only those who looked upon the bronze serpent were saved (effectual), but it was lifted for all (sufficient) and left those who perished without excuse. In my thinking, it's an important doctrine because it shows that those who reject Christ actually reject the atonement offered in the gospel. The idea that they reject Christ but not the atonement (since it was never for them in any sense) doesn't make much sense to me. It also gives believers confidence that when they offer the gospel they are actually offering something, even if it is ultimately refused. After all, can something be refused that is not actually offered?

2 Thes. 2:9-10: "The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

I'm not trying to debate, only share why I think the sufficient/efficient doctrine of the atonement is both biblical and highly practical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Sufficient for all, efficient for some?
Replies
27
Views
13K
Jonathan B.
J
OPC'n
  • Locked
Christ's Death....for what exactly?
Replies
18
Views
4K
Peairtach
Peairtach
K
  • Locked
All Christ's prayers effectual?
Replies
15
Views
3K
earl40
earl40
Puritan Sailor
  • Locked
Christ's prayer for unity
Replies
3
Views
3K
johnny_redeemed
johnny_redeemed
Sovereign Grace
  • Locked
Sufficient but not efficient?
2 3
Replies
62
Views
15K
timfost
timfost
Back
Top