Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is the atonement really sufficient for all, but efficient for some?
Do you favor or dislike this phraseology?
The atonement is sufficient for all those to whom it is intended.
The atonement is sufficient for all those to whom it is intended.
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.
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.Again, it goes back to premise and conclusion. Perhaps it's foolhardy to try and reduce Calvinism to a short quip.
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...
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.
the Atonement is not just for "some" theoretical people
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.
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.
Christ did not suffer for sin in the abstract. He suffered for the particular sins of a particular people.
Christ did not suffer for sin in the abstract. He suffered for the particular sins of a particular people.
Another Amen!
I know there are dear and godly men who have used the phraseology, and I don't despise the statement; however, I find it unnecessary.
The limitation of the atonement is in the intention of God, not in its intrinsic worth.
That was a very good article!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
We have here the general conclusion from the preceding comparison; for, omitting the mention of the intervening explanation, he now completes the comparison, "As by the offense of one we were made (constitute) sinners; so the righteousness of Christ is efficacious to justify us. He does not say the righteousness -- dikaiosunen, but the justification -- dikaioma, of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.
Calvin's commentary on Romans (Ro 5.18)
But how can such an imprecation be reconciled with the mildness of an apostle, who ought to wish that all should be saved, and that not a single person should perish? So far as men are concerned, I admit the force of this argument; for it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.
Calvin's commentary on Galatians 5 (Ga 5.12)