Sufficient for all, efficient for some?
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
Pergy,
It depends on the premise and conclusion drawn from that phrase. If the Amyraldian is using it to articulate universal atonement then no, I don't favor it. If, however, it's describing the fact that only the elect will benefit from the atonement then it passes muster. I would prefer wording it differently. The atonement is sufficient for all those to whom it is intended.
J. Dean
Puritan Board Junior
This. An Arminian would have no problem with the initial wording used, because in the way it's phrased it carries no immediate distinction from Calvinism.
Again, it goes back to premise and conclusion. Perhaps it's foolhardy to try and reduce Calvinism to a short quip.
J. Dean
Puritan Board Junior
Agreed. To take any doctrine and attempt to oversimplify it runs the risk of needless misunderstanding ("once saved, always saved"). As God created us to be intellectual creatures, we need that extra effort in expounding upon theology so that we may gain a better understanding of that which is taught in the Scriptures.
Of course, having a cup of coffee doesn't hurt the brain either...
I like this. When Luther said, "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason" he appealed to the ability to employ his God-given intellect to understand the precepts of Scripture.
Preach it, brother!
JP Wallace
Puritan Board Sophomore
Synod of Dort Second Point Article 3
"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."
however....
"Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death
For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.
So in the sense of the 'quality' of sufficiency the statement is true, in the sense of design care is needed. It would be more accurate to say sufficient for all, but applied or designed for some.
"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."
however....
"Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death
For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.
So in the sense of the 'quality' of sufficiency the statement is true, in the sense of design care is needed. It would be more accurate to say sufficient for all, but applied or designed for some.
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
deleted
---------- Post added at 07:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 AM ----------
"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."
Why would they use "more than"? I understand they qualified this later but even so this implies that the atonment did more than it was intended. Sort of like wasted "energy" or excessive suffering of Jesus.
---------- Post added at 07:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 AM ----------
"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."
Why would they use "more than"? I understand they qualified this later but even so this implies that the atonment did more than it was intended. Sort of like wasted "energy" or excessive suffering of Jesus.
It's not that the phrase is inaccurate but can be interpreted so many ways . As Dort notes, if it was God's intention to save all mankind through Christ, the atonement was of infinite worth and there would not have needed to be something more. It's not as if the value of Christ's sacrifice has some quantitative value that runs out after satisfying the wrath of God for a specific value.
That said, the Atonement is not just for "some" theoretical people and to speak about the atonement in a way that talks about potentially saved people is speculative and not the way of the Scriptures. Christ's intent was not to go to the Cross to be "sufficient for all but efficient for some". He died to secure the salvation of His sheep and He ever intercedes to bring His own to Him by the Spirit and to conquer all their enemies and ensure their salvation to the very end.
That said, the Atonement is not just for "some" theoretical people and to speak about the atonement in a way that talks about potentially saved people is speculative and not the way of the Scriptures. Christ's intent was not to go to the Cross to be "sufficient for all but efficient for some". He died to secure the salvation of His sheep and He ever intercedes to bring His own to Him by the Spirit and to conquer all their enemies and ensure their salvation to the very end.
InSlaveryToChrist
Puritan Board Junior
Something that people often overlook in Universal Atonement is the fact that it totally denies the substitutionary nature of Christ's atoning work. In Particular/Definite Atonement we have Christ bearing the sins (and their consequences) of His elect people, and imputing His own righteousness to their account. In Universal Atonement, however (and this is what is implied, not what is affirmed by the proponents of this doctrine!), Christ bears not the sins of anyone, but instead God somehow makes a copy of the sins of all men who have ever lived, imputes it to Christ, and punishes Christ accordingly. And if, then, any sinner wants to be saved through Christ, he has to somehow wash his own sins off by having faith in this Atonement in which Christ beared more sin than any individual, and so the Atonement is sufficient to pay for the sins of any individual. To put it plainly, Christ died for all men, but not on their behalf / in their place.
Last edited:
Zach
Puritan Board Senior
As has been pointed out, it depends on to where you run with the phrase. It certainly isn't the best way to summarize the doctrine of Limited Atonement. When I have heard it used properly it generally means, "Christ's death can cover the sin of anyone who turns from sin and trusts in Jesus, but it was only for those who actually will turn and trust in Jesus." Rich is absolutely right, the best way to describe and defend limited atonement is to remember that Christ died to secure the salvation of his church. He paid for a bride on the cross.
Constantlyreforming
Puritan Board Sophomore
What we must differentiate between is who's sins Christ took on at the Christ, and what Christ was capable of taking on at the cross. Those are two separate issues. Christ, as the Son of God, Perfection, was capable of taking on the entire world's sins at the cross; yet, if He had, surely those sins would have been forgiven and wiped clear of God's judgment.
The atonement implies that things were made right. Man was put at peace with God rather than at enmity. Thus, the atonement cannot be said to be infinite in value; only efficient to those who are the elect.
The atonement has infinite value to those who believe and trust in Christ as savior. That is a biblical truth.
The atonement implies that things were made right. Man was put at peace with God rather than at enmity. Thus, the atonement cannot be said to be infinite in value; only efficient to those who are the elect.
The atonement has infinite value to those who believe and trust in Christ as savior. That is a biblical truth.
It doesn't imply that at all. It speaks to the infinite worth of the death of God's Son. If there were more worlds, populated with more sinners, nothing would need to be added to the atonement. The limitation of the atonement is in the intention of God, not in its intrinsic worth.
Is it fair to despise this phrase and think that people use it to soft-peddle limited atonement even if there is nothing technically wrong with the phrasing. I sort of get cranky when folks use this phrasing, as if it fully explains things and appeases Arminians rather than obfuscates and hides a doctrine we ought to rejoice in.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
Ethan I believe you are getting to the heart of the language/vocabulary problem with the use of the phrase "sufficient .... efficient". If we are discussing the punitive issue of substitutionary atonement, imputation, and the transfer of sin then we must keep in mind that there is a measured, a meted out infliction proportional to the aggregate of the debt of the elect.
The issue is NOT the intrinsic sufficiency of Christ. Nor is it the intrinsic worth of His Person. The language, to be meaningful, addresses the measurement of the Sacrifice itself, which Sacrifice is perfectly measured out, i.e. the measure of the total sins of the elect. This is the measure of the substitutionary punishment laid upon the Lord Jesus, as Nettles, Dagg, and Booth have pointed out.
Christ did not suffer for sin in the abstract. He suffered for the particular sins of a particular people.
Zach
Puritan Board Senior
I think Pergamum and Joshua hit the nail on the head; it is unnecessary because the doctrine of limited atonement is a beautiful one. Instead of criticizing the phrase I would simply fully explain limited atonement to the person using it showing how the reality that Christ paid for his bride on the cross is something to be rejoiced in. Limited atonement is something some Calvinists, especially in the YRR crowd, are "embarrassed" about because it perpetuates the myth of the arrogant Calvinist.
This has been discussed before, many times.
Note that this is language that reaches back to the middle ages. There is clearly a sense in which it can be used appropriately, misunderstandings or misappropriations notwithstanding. But when anyone uses it you have to understand what they mean by sufficient. I suspect that some criticisms of the phrase, as well as some deployments of it, founder on taking "sufficient" in a sense in which it was not intended.
Note that this is language that reaches back to the middle ages. There is clearly a sense in which it can be used appropriately, misunderstandings or misappropriations notwithstanding. But when anyone uses it you have to understand what they mean by sufficient. I suspect that some criticisms of the phrase, as well as some deployments of it, founder on taking "sufficient" in a sense in which it was not intended.
Alan D. Strange
Puritan Board Senior
I think that Ruben is pointing in the right direction.
We need to be careful in the way that we speak of the extent of the atonement. That is to say, we must not speak in a way that limits the atonement more than Scripture does, particularly as that is expressed in the Canons of Dort.
Those Canons of Dort gave definition to the doctrine in response to the Arminian Remonstration. To take issue with them is fatuous because this would mean that we have no confessional expression of the doctrine of the extent of the atonement (in either the TFU or the Westminster Standards). There is a mystery here too (like we've seen in recent PB discussions of the Incarnation): Christ's death does have an infinite value and is "more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world." Yet, there is a perfect Trinitarian union so that the same group chosen by the Father and to whom the Spirit gives irresistible grace is the group for whom Christ's death effectively redeems.
If you wish to demur and say that Dort is not your confession and that it is said surely better in Westminster, not so. You might think that this is more clearly expressed in Westminster. It is not. The doctrine of the particular atonement is nowhere clearly stated there, though it is implied in various places (Warfield has a good discussion of this). Westminster decided not to take Amyraut's error head on (though Turretin did, thankfully, in the Helvetic Consensus).
All this is to say, that the only place that we have the doctrine of particular redemption clearly set forth confessionally is at Dort, as has been cited above. This is the Reformed statement of the doctrine. One might argue that Westminster subscribers are not bound by it but that argument runs one in the opposite direction, giving even less confessional definition to the doctrine (and some would say flatly, and have historically said, that Westminster does not teach or require particular redemption as such).
Much of the popular statement of this doctrine in the churches (in Reformed and Presbyterian churches) overshoots the mark and brings forth a doctrine of "limited atonement" that is not that which is found in our confessional statements or is biblically balanced. We must be very careful in this respect: we can formulate a doctrine of limited atonement that makes God look and sound less loving than He is. This is why when we go to any of these subjects (Trinity, Incarnation, God's sovereignty, extent of the atonement, etc.) we must do so in a way that gives very careful heed to biblical teaching, which is precisely what the confessions are doing.
We must not draw first principles and make deductions from them: if God is sovereign, then man can't really be responsible (or Christ can't really be God and man in one person). We can easily do the same thing with the atonement: if Christ's death effectively redeems the elect, then it is, in every sense, limited to them. We can run from here to deny the free offer of the gospel and also deny that there is a properly cosmic aspect to the atonement. The reason we don't do this is because our guide is not logic or reason used magisterially, but ministerially, all of our reasoning been done not above the Word but under the Word. Remember the genius of the ecumenical Creeds and the Reformed Confessions: they seek to express the biblical witness, the whole counsel of God, not some reasoned-out abstractions proceeding from supposed first principles.
Whether the statement of the OP best gets at it, Dort certainly does and I really don't think that anyone on this board properly departs from that. I think criticism of Dort does not come from the Bible but from those who think that Dort was "inconsistent" or does not follow from the way that they reason. I have heard no biblical criticism of Dort only rationalistic criticism (which might as well apply to the Trinity or the Incarnation). Dort is biblically correct and it is best to seek to bring our thinking about the extent of the atonement into confomity with it rather than criticizing Dort from a rationalistic viewpoint.
Peace,
Alan
We need to be careful in the way that we speak of the extent of the atonement. That is to say, we must not speak in a way that limits the atonement more than Scripture does, particularly as that is expressed in the Canons of Dort.
Those Canons of Dort gave definition to the doctrine in response to the Arminian Remonstration. To take issue with them is fatuous because this would mean that we have no confessional expression of the doctrine of the extent of the atonement (in either the TFU or the Westminster Standards). There is a mystery here too (like we've seen in recent PB discussions of the Incarnation): Christ's death does have an infinite value and is "more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world." Yet, there is a perfect Trinitarian union so that the same group chosen by the Father and to whom the Spirit gives irresistible grace is the group for whom Christ's death effectively redeems.
If you wish to demur and say that Dort is not your confession and that it is said surely better in Westminster, not so. You might think that this is more clearly expressed in Westminster. It is not. The doctrine of the particular atonement is nowhere clearly stated there, though it is implied in various places (Warfield has a good discussion of this). Westminster decided not to take Amyraut's error head on (though Turretin did, thankfully, in the Helvetic Consensus).
All this is to say, that the only place that we have the doctrine of particular redemption clearly set forth confessionally is at Dort, as has been cited above. This is the Reformed statement of the doctrine. One might argue that Westminster subscribers are not bound by it but that argument runs one in the opposite direction, giving even less confessional definition to the doctrine (and some would say flatly, and have historically said, that Westminster does not teach or require particular redemption as such).
Much of the popular statement of this doctrine in the churches (in Reformed and Presbyterian churches) overshoots the mark and brings forth a doctrine of "limited atonement" that is not that which is found in our confessional statements or is biblically balanced. We must be very careful in this respect: we can formulate a doctrine of limited atonement that makes God look and sound less loving than He is. This is why when we go to any of these subjects (Trinity, Incarnation, God's sovereignty, extent of the atonement, etc.) we must do so in a way that gives very careful heed to biblical teaching, which is precisely what the confessions are doing.
We must not draw first principles and make deductions from them: if God is sovereign, then man can't really be responsible (or Christ can't really be God and man in one person). We can easily do the same thing with the atonement: if Christ's death effectively redeems the elect, then it is, in every sense, limited to them. We can run from here to deny the free offer of the gospel and also deny that there is a properly cosmic aspect to the atonement. The reason we don't do this is because our guide is not logic or reason used magisterially, but ministerially, all of our reasoning been done not above the Word but under the Word. Remember the genius of the ecumenical Creeds and the Reformed Confessions: they seek to express the biblical witness, the whole counsel of God, not some reasoned-out abstractions proceeding from supposed first principles.
Whether the statement of the OP best gets at it, Dort certainly does and I really don't think that anyone on this board properly departs from that. I think criticism of Dort does not come from the Bible but from those who think that Dort was "inconsistent" or does not follow from the way that they reason. I have heard no biblical criticism of Dort only rationalistic criticism (which might as well apply to the Trinity or the Incarnation). Dort is biblically correct and it is best to seek to bring our thinking about the extent of the atonement into confomity with it rather than criticizing Dort from a rationalistic viewpoint.
Peace,
Alan
Joshua, you may think you find it unnecessary, but I am sure you necessarily depend upon it whenever you come to explain where the fault lies when persons who have heard the gospel still perish in their sins. You must then assert that it is through no lack in what was offered them in the gospel, but the fault is to be found in their own unbelief.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
I like what McMahon has to say on the matter:
A Puritan's Mind » Jesus Died for Aliens on Planet Zeno – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
AMR
A Puritan's Mind » Jesus Died for Aliens on Planet Zeno – by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
AMR
Last edited:
earl40
Puritan Board Professor
As Jesus said the debt has been paid and in my mind this implies a limitation in the intrinsic worth from an atonement standpoint. For example lets just say all the sins of the elect were numbered and we saw it equaled 100 sins. (granted I am off by a few gazillion) Well we have The Father exacting His wrath for those 100 sins while Jesus is on the cross. Is the intrinsic worth or payment exactly worth 100, or an infinite payment amount?
Now of course if we look at sin as being against a holy God then the payment may be indeed be infinite in value because the sin against The Lord is infinitely heinous. Ruben you are of course correct which I realized after I wrote the previous sentence.
J. Dean
Puritan Board Junior
That was a very good article!
Jonathan B.
Puritan Board Freshman
Maybe it has already been discussed, but I'm a little bit confused by the following statements :
And again :
Should I understand that Calvin was wrong on this?
It sure sounds like unlimited/indefinite atonement (but limited in scope and design).
Have I missed something?
And again :
Should I understand that Calvin was wrong on this?
It sure sounds like unlimited/indefinite atonement (but limited in scope and design).
Have I missed something?
- Status
