Intrinsic Sufficiency Doubt

[Afterthought]

If Christ did not purchase faith for the reprobate, then how is it correct to say that Christ's sacrifice was such that he did not need to suffer any more than he did if God had intended to save more sinners? It would seem that intrinsic sufficiency does not allow one to say that Christ has done all that is needed for sinners to come to him? Perhaps the correct answer is simply that Christ's death accomplished nothing for the reprobate, but if God had intended to apply Christ's death to more sinners, then Christ's death would have purchased faith for those sinners too?

This is probably a basic question, and I'm missing something simple.

 

[MW]

Perhaps the correct answer is simply that Christ's death accomplished nothing for the reprobate, but if God had intended to apply Christ's death to more sinners, then Christ's death would have purchased faith for those sinners too?

I would consider that to be the correct answer. "Sufficiency" only applies to what justice required and Christ gave. The persons "for whom" He satisfied are not really being considered at that point.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

If Jesus' death could have saved a million billion worlds, then he could have died for aliens on planet Xeno.

 

[timfost]

If Jesus' death could have saved a million billion worlds, then he could have died for aliens on planet Xeno.

That is if a human nature was irrelevant to the equation.

Heidelberg:

"16. Why must He be a true and righteous man? Because the justice of God requires 1 that the same human nature which has sinned should make satisfaction for sin; but one who is himself a sinner cannot satisfy for others. 2"

[1] Rom: 5: 15. [2] Isa. 53: 3–5.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

That is if a human nature was irrelevant to the equation.

Heidelberg:

"16. Why must He be a true and righteous man? Because the justice of God requires 1 that the same human nature which has sinned should make satisfaction for sin; but one who is himself a sinner cannot satisfy for others. 2"

[1] Rom: 5: 15. [2] Isa. 53: 3–5.

You've proved my point. In hypotheticals everything is game.

 

[timfost]

You've proved my point. In hypotheticals everything is game.

Not sure. Something can be hypothetically true or false.

 

[earl40]

Not sure. Something can be hypothetically true or false.

Not in the eyes of God.

 

[Taylor]

Not in the eyes of God.

I know this is off-topic (I think), but this is an interesting thing to think about (i.e., hypotheticals for God), at least for me. I wonder how Matthew 11:21 (cf., Luke 10:13) would interact with this question about hypotheticals.

 

[Afterthought]

I would consider that to be the correct answer. "Sufficiency" only applies to what justice required and Christ gave. The persons "for whom" He satisfied are not really being considered at that point.

I had a thought recently in clarifying sufficiency/efficiency. I was wondering if I was simplifying the matter too much, especially since Thomas Watson on the other thread seems to contradict the following scheme?

First, we have the intrinsic value of Christ's sacrifice. This is concerned with justice and the worth of Christ's sacrifice with no regard to any redemption. Second, there is the application of this sacrifice to purchasing the redemption of the elect. It is not that this should be seen as separate from the value of Christ's sacrifice, but rather, this is where the sufficiency/efficiency distinction properly belongs. That is, Christ's death was sufficient to save as many as God intended, but Christ applied that value or purchased redemption with that value of the elect alone, and Christ did this by standing as a substitute for the elect alone. This then brings, thirdly, the distinction between redemption accomplished and redemption applied. Sufficiency/efficiency is related to redemption accomplished, despite the use of "application" being used when speaking of the distinction. The benefits of this purchased redemption are applied to the elect according to God's time, but the redemption has already been puchased, i.e., Christ's sacrifice has already been applied to the elect to purchase their redemption.

If Jesus' death could have saved a million billion worlds, then he could have died for aliens on planet Xeno.

Yes, I remember reading that some years ago. It is useful. However, doesn't the hypothetical in the case of intrinsic sufficiency merely help in understanding the real worth of Christ's sacrifice, since it helps clarify what we mean by "infinite" value? In that regard, the hypothetical could be useful, since the hypothetical element is locked into the real world by the value of Christ's atonement?

 

[MW]

Raymond, I do not consider the quotation from Thomas Watson to be contradicting what you are saying. He limited sufficiency to the value of Christ's blood in itself. Those who make use of quotations like this to support their idea that Christ died for all men generally reject the limitation to intrinsic worth. They leave undefined the meaning of "for," so as to be able to equivocate on it; and they do this because they know they are contradicting themselves and clear definition would bring the contradiction out into the open. Of course once it is brought out into the open they then appeal to the concept of "paradox" and "mystery." But it is not difficult to show that the paradox and mystery is the product of fallible men. The formula itself derives from scholasticism. Fallible men were attempting to systematise two things which were at variance in their own formulation of truth.

 

[MW]

I know this is off-topic (I think), but this is an interesting thing to think about (i.e., hypotheticals for God), at least for me. I wonder how Matthew 11:21 (cf., Luke 10:13) would interact with this question about hypotheticals.

These texts put their finger on the fact of moral contingency in human choices and consequences, and that the revelation of grace deals with men according to their moral and reasonable nature. But a moral contingency for man does not translate to a moral contingency for God. Human contingency results because man is limited in himself and dependent on other causes. No such limitation or dependence is in God. This is clarified by the thanksgiving of our Lord which follows. Whatever contingency exists from man's perspective it is certain that the Lord of heaven and earth has higher purposes which are necessarily accomplished.

 

[MW]

That is, Christ's death was sufficient to save as many as God intended, but Christ applied that value or purchased redemption with that value of the elect alone, and Christ did this by standing as a substitute for the elect alone.

Giving more consideration to this, I thought it might be helpful to quote from Francis Turretin because of the precision of his language, and owing to the fact that Charles Hodge also quoted him approvingly. This quotation is from "The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated" (1846), p. 55. The book was recommended by Drs. Cunningham, M'Crie, Candlish, and Symington.

"Turrettin, for example, in the statement of this question, says, 'It is not a question concerning the value and sufficiency of Christ's death, whether it is not, in itself, sufficient for the salvation of all men. That is on both sides admitted. His death being of infinite value, would have been most amply sufficient for the redemption of all men, if God had seen fit to extend it to all. Hence the common distinction made by the fathers, and retained by many theologians, Christ died sufficiently for all, efficaciously for the elect, is perfectly true if understood of the worth of Christ's death, but not so accurate if understood of his purpose and design in dying...'"