Sufficient for All...
- Thread starter natewood3
- Start date
- Status
Joshua,
THAT is my question! I am extremely hesitant to use such language. Actually, I probably would NOT use that language and would discourage others from using it as well. The question I struggle with is this: If there is not some aspect of the atonement that benefited all mankind, from where does the blessings of common grace flow, simply God's goodness? How can God bless sinners except through the work of Christ? Can God bless a sinner apart from the work of Christ and still remain righteous and just?
THAT is my question! I am extremely hesitant to use such language. Actually, I probably would NOT use that language and would discourage others from using it as well. The question I struggle with is this: If there is not some aspect of the atonement that benefited all mankind, from where does the blessings of common grace flow, simply God's goodness? How can God bless sinners except through the work of Christ? Can God bless a sinner apart from the work of Christ and still remain righteous and just?
Tirian
Puritan Board Sophomore
I think that can be simplified to "All sufficient" in terms of the work of Christ. Ie, in line with comments from Josh and Mark, Christ's work is absolutely sufficient to achieve all that was set out by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Eternity.
To continue down the other path is to head toward a discussion on "common grace" - there are some other really useful threads that might be a good starting place for this.
Matt
fivepointcalvinist
Puritan Board Sophomore
lets let scripture speak for itself:1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Christs atonement is the ONLY way men can come to God, and His atonement is sufficient to remove the transgressions of all men without exception, but the intent of the propitiation if efficient for the elect because it saves perfectly only those for who it is intended.
God "blessed" sinners prior to the atonement and will continue after. Gods benevolence is extended to all creatures, that is why Christ says "For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust."
just my
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Your question is a good one. Common grace is not based upon the atonement. It is based solely upon the benevolent nature of God. God loves to do good to his creatures. This is not in contradiction to his justice or His decree which He executes perfectly in His good time. But He is good to all. He is kind to those who hate Him. And he calls us to do the same as His image. In commmanding us to love our enemies, we are called to be like our Father. And we must also keep in mind the overall purpose of common grace, to provide a stable environment in this world for the gospel to go forth and save sinners, and teach us about the nature of God.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
SIDE NOTE:
Psalm 91:4 He shall cover you with His feathers.
I guess we worship a chicken!
The bogus hermeneutical tool, "lets let scripture speak for itself", is utterly devasting to most theological ideas. No one can "do" theology this way. One MUST use hermeneutically sound principles to interpret rightly. I know that no one on this board thinks that God is a chicken even though the Psalmist tells us he has feathers. If we let one text speak for itself, then you must let all and "every" text speak for itself.
You can see it is reduced to the absurd.
One must be more careful in exegeting than that.
But I agree that the phrase "sufficient for all" is an incoherent and non-exegetical phrase theologically extracted from speculation about the atonement. It gets people into trouble (can we all say together "Amyraut"?) Dordt included this idea in speaking about the sufficiency of the atonement in speculation. That, In my humble opinion, was their only mistake in the document. The Bible, at no point, speculates about the atonement in any way.
[Edited on 3-26-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]
Psalm 91:4 He shall cover you with His feathers.
I guess we worship a chicken!
The bogus hermeneutical tool, "lets let scripture speak for itself", is utterly devasting to most theological ideas. No one can "do" theology this way. One MUST use hermeneutically sound principles to interpret rightly. I know that no one on this board thinks that God is a chicken even though the Psalmist tells us he has feathers. If we let one text speak for itself, then you must let all and "every" text speak for itself.
You can see it is reduced to the absurd.
One must be more careful in exegeting than that.
But I agree that the phrase "sufficient for all" is an incoherent and non-exegetical phrase theologically extracted from speculation about the atonement. It gets people into trouble (can we all say together "Amyraut"?) Dordt included this idea in speaking about the sufficiency of the atonement in speculation. That, In my humble opinion, was their only mistake in the document. The Bible, at no point, speculates about the atonement in any way.
[Edited on 3-26-2006 by C. Matthew McMahon]
fivepointcalvinist
Puritan Board Sophomore
i certainly was not implying that we should interpret the Scripture literally in all cases, but that when discussing Scripture i think the most effective witness is scripture itself. I am also not implying that every passage stand on its own; Scripture interprets Scripture.
"If we let one text speak for itself, then you must let all and "every" text speak for itself"
are you positing that when Scripture is hyperbolic, we should treat all Scripture as being hyperbolic? or what about when its being symbolic? i dont think you are implying that, but i think it is unreasonable to make the assertion that i was implying we should somehow interpret Scripture literally all the time. certainly you wouldnt agree that the same literary style is used consistently throughout scripture? we do not dismiss a passage simply because it needs exposition do we? we let some passages speak for themselves and others take more thoughtful interpretation. again the statement was not meant to infer anything other than my appeal to the Word. forgive me if others thought i implied something different.
[Edited on 3-26-2006 by fivepointcalvinist]
fivepointcalvinist
Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by joshua
Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist
1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Christs atonement is the ONLY way men can come to God, and His atonement is sufficient to remove the transgressions of all men without exception, but the intent of the propitiation if efficient for the elect because it saves perfectly only those for who it is intended.
Respectfully, I dissent from the above sentiment. The text does not say "He is able to be the atoning...."; rather, it says "He is the atoning sacrifice..." I believe "not only for ours" is speaking to one of two things: Either John is saying, "not only for we Christians here in this part of the world, but for those who are spread abroad", or he's saying, "not only for we the Jews, but for the Gentiles also" If the "whole world" mens all men without exception, and the text says that he IS the atoning sacrifice, then the implication is that the atonement was ineffective for some (though I know that's not what you believe).
perhaps i should rephrase; my comment was to demonstrate the adequacy of the phrase "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" and how that relates to 1 john 2:2. im aware of 3 possible interpretations for this (you giving 2) and i agree with both possible interpretations you have given, but it could also be implied that the atonement has held back the curtain of Gods wrath against non believers, not saying their sins are nullified, but that the atonement has appeased God (check mcarthurs study bible). i certainly dont believe His death removed all mens sins, although His death COULD have been efficacious for all, it was intended for His elect. sorry for lack of clarity in the previous post.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Matthew - good qualification on hermeneutics. We should consider those things.
I would be in this camp on the discussion thus far: I do think the atonement has a direct result on non-believers. It renders them more accountable. I do not think that the atonement has a positive affect for non-believers. As a matter of fact, Christ Himself renders this verdict: John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Paul says such people exist, "as always to fill up the measure of their sins" (1 Thessalonians 2:16).
The disparity of their non-election demonstrates the intention and desire of God for them.
To place, then, the atonement into the realm of possibility "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" is to say the same thing as "sufficient to save aliens on planet Zeno, efficient for the elect" or any construction you would like to place in the beginning of the statement. It remains completely and utterly hypothetical, which is, in fact, meaningless.
If one wants to say "I mean that the atonement is infinite". OK. I'm with that because the atonement for my sin must be of infinite worth for that sin against an infinite God. It is, by its very nature, infinite for my sin, even if it were simply for me alone. In other words, if Jesus only died for Matthew McMahon, and no one, it would still have to be of infinite worth, not hypothetically, but actually, - why? Because the sin I commit is against God who is infinite and must be infinitely appeased.
(I need a short paper on this - I've written this same thing many times. Off to work!)
I would be in this camp on the discussion thus far: I do think the atonement has a direct result on non-believers. It renders them more accountable. I do not think that the atonement has a positive affect for non-believers. As a matter of fact, Christ Himself renders this verdict: John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
Paul says such people exist, "as always to fill up the measure of their sins" (1 Thessalonians 2:16).
The disparity of their non-election demonstrates the intention and desire of God for them.
To place, then, the atonement into the realm of possibility "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" is to say the same thing as "sufficient to save aliens on planet Zeno, efficient for the elect" or any construction you would like to place in the beginning of the statement. It remains completely and utterly hypothetical, which is, in fact, meaningless.
If one wants to say "I mean that the atonement is infinite". OK. I'm with that because the atonement for my sin must be of infinite worth for that sin against an infinite God. It is, by its very nature, infinite for my sin, even if it were simply for me alone. In other words, if Jesus only died for Matthew McMahon, and no one, it would still have to be of infinite worth, not hypothetically, but actually, - why? Because the sin I commit is against God who is infinite and must be infinitely appeased.
(I need a short paper on this - I've written this same thing many times. Off to work!)
If the question arises, "How do you preach to the world, indiscriminately, if you believe in "particular redemption," I would just point at the Scriptures. Look how the preachers there spoke: Moses, Isaiah, Jonah, Jesus, Peter & Paul (in Acts), the writer of Hebrews (have you ever considered how sermonic Hebrews is? declaration--Scripture support--exposition--conclusion/warnings, repeated chapter after chapter).
The biblical writers (we certainly must conclude) believed in the sovereignty of God in salvation. Therefore they are the great models of both evangelistic preaching as well as "ordinary" preaching. You find earnest exhortations, commands to believe, pleadings, promises, warnings--all on behalf of God (2 Cor. 5:20).
As has been pointed out, it is artificial to set the extent of the atonement over against the offer of the atonement. The issue is diverted from from "What must I do to be saved?", to "How serious is God really about an offer he may not follow through on--only in the case of someone who rejects it, of course, but since omniscient God knew he wasn't going to get it...."
Blah, blah, blah. Anyone who calls God's integrity into question over either his sincerity of sovereignty is affronting God Almighty. And too much speculation on our part to "defend" God by speculations on his hidden mind, is straying from the sure footing of revelation.
The biblical writers (we certainly must conclude) believed in the sovereignty of God in salvation. Therefore they are the great models of both evangelistic preaching as well as "ordinary" preaching. You find earnest exhortations, commands to believe, pleadings, promises, warnings--all on behalf of God (2 Cor. 5:20).
As has been pointed out, it is artificial to set the extent of the atonement over against the offer of the atonement. The issue is diverted from from "What must I do to be saved?", to "How serious is God really about an offer he may not follow through on--only in the case of someone who rejects it, of course, but since omniscient God knew he wasn't going to get it...."
Blah, blah, blah. Anyone who calls God's integrity into question over either his sincerity of sovereignty is affronting God Almighty. And too much speculation on our part to "defend" God by speculations on his hidden mind, is straying from the sure footing of revelation.
fivepointcalvinist
Puritan Board Sophomore
I agree
Dr. McMahon, i disagree with this assertion only on the grounds that the benevolence of God (not salvific redemption) is extended to all of creation. i do however affirm that the atonement had no bearing on the reprobates non-elective status (i think this is what you were implying). so in that sense the only "positive" effect for the non-pardoned would be that God has allowed them to live and function.
[Edited on 3-26-2006 by fivepointcalvinist]
It was (is.)
What it means is that the obedience and blood of Christ save only some not because they are of too little value to save all, but because of some other factor, namely the selective intent and application of His blood to a people who God set His love on from before our universe was made.
I tend to believe that the atonement is sufficient for the elect because of the intention of the atonement. "Sufficient for all" is meaningless because it is simply hypothetical. It would have been sufficient for all, but because of God's sovereign intentions and purposes, it is sufficient for the elect only. A hypothetical atonement is no atonement at all. Jesus actually saved sinners on the cross, not just made it possible, as we all know...
I am still struggling, however, with the fact that God simply blesses sinners on the basis of His nature alone. Why could God not then bless sinners savingly without the atonement if that is the case? Have unbeliever benefited from the atonement in a non-soteriological way? Again, common grace is designed partially to lead people to repentance, so I still believe common grace is mainly for the elect...
I am still struggling, however, with the fact that God simply blesses sinners on the basis of His nature alone. Why could God not then bless sinners savingly without the atonement if that is the case? Have unbeliever benefited from the atonement in a non-soteriological way? Again, common grace is designed partially to lead people to repentance, so I still believe common grace is mainly for the elect...
fivepointcalvinist
Puritan Board Sophomore
i think it is wise to use the phrase "common grace" cautiously largely due to the fact Arminians repeatedly coin this phrase to describe their theology of faith before regeneration (your use of the term sounds similar i think). Common grace does not lead sinners to repentance, but men are drawn by the Father, and a man must first be regenerated before he will even become receptive to the drawing of God. Common grace is that curtain by which God has held back His divine wrath against sinners (kind of like the covenant God made with Noah). prior to regeneration we are all God-haters. also i dont think that the term sufficient is being applied correctly in this discussion for the most part. Sufficiency as far as i understand does not relegate possiblity so much as it does power. i think the phrase is meant to infer that the atonement has the ONLY power to save men, and that no others may come to God apart from it. Christ came in sinful flesh to destroy the sinful nature and make salvation not a possibility, but a certainty for the elect.
fivepointcalvinist,
I am in no way asserting that regeneration comes after faith, and I am definitely not using common grace in an Arminian sense. I was referring to Romans 2:
Rom 2:3 Do you suppose, O man--you who judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself--that you will escape the judgment of God?
Rom 2:4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
Rom 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
Where does this "kindness" and "forebearnance" and "patience" come from? I have no problem saying it does not come from the atonement, but at this point I would have to say I do not understand how it can come to sinners who deserve hell, especially those for whom their sins have not been atoned...Why does God hold back His wrath? When I said that common grace is mainly for the elect, what I meant was that God's forebearance allows the elect to be born and effectually called and saved by God. If God simply destroyed non-elect sinners, the elect would never have been born.
As far as your definition of "sufficient," I am not sure I agree. The atonement HAS the power to save all, but does not? I do not believe that is what Calvinists throughout history meant by the term "sufficient." When I think of sufficient, I think of adequate. If something is sufficient, it is adequate or enough. I do not think of power. When I think of efficient I think of power, which is what Calvinists normally criticize Arminians for limiting, namely, the power or efficacy of the atonement. I do not limit its efficacy and power, but its intention and purpose.
I am honestly not sure if you are arguing for or against the idea of "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect."
I am in no way asserting that regeneration comes after faith, and I am definitely not using common grace in an Arminian sense. I was referring to Romans 2:
Rom 2:3 Do you suppose, O man--you who judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself--that you will escape the judgment of God?
Rom 2:4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
Rom 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
Where does this "kindness" and "forebearnance" and "patience" come from? I have no problem saying it does not come from the atonement, but at this point I would have to say I do not understand how it can come to sinners who deserve hell, especially those for whom their sins have not been atoned...Why does God hold back His wrath? When I said that common grace is mainly for the elect, what I meant was that God's forebearance allows the elect to be born and effectually called and saved by God. If God simply destroyed non-elect sinners, the elect would never have been born.
As far as your definition of "sufficient," I am not sure I agree. The atonement HAS the power to save all, but does not? I do not believe that is what Calvinists throughout history meant by the term "sufficient." When I think of sufficient, I think of adequate. If something is sufficient, it is adequate or enough. I do not think of power. When I think of efficient I think of power, which is what Calvinists normally criticize Arminians for limiting, namely, the power or efficacy of the atonement. I do not limit its efficacy and power, but its intention and purpose.
I am honestly not sure if you are arguing for or against the idea of "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect."
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Ok - my take:
Jesus Died for Aliens on Planet Zeno
By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
http://www.apuritansmind.com/TULIP/McMahonJesusDeathSufficientEfficient.htm
Jesus Died for Aliens on Planet Zeno
By Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
http://www.apuritansmind.com/TULIP/McMahonJesusDeathSufficientEfficient.htm
fivepointcalvinist
Puritan Board Sophomore
forgive me if i misunderstood your assertion. let me quote Dr. McMahons commentary (if i may - Dr. McMahon please delete this post if needed) (at the above url) to define what i meant when i stated that sufficiency implies power:
"Jesus Christ´s atonement for sin was of infinite worth. If God desired, He could have saved everyone, and the same atonement that saved His elect, could have saved a million billion worlds "“ hypothetically speaking of course."
On a side note - Did you know Bruce Ware was a 4 pointer? (if there was such a thing)
fivepointcalvinist
Puritan Board Sophomore
btw, i appreciate being sharpened by my brothers in Christ!!
:bigsmile:
:bigsmile:
fivepointcalvinist
Puritan Board Sophomore
i bought this dvd a while back
Calvinism Debate- DVD
and on it ware says "did you know there was such thing as a 4 point calvinist?"
(although, he essentially argued against schreiner about limited atonement!)
Calvinism Debate- DVD
and on it ware says "did you know there was such thing as a 4 point calvinist?"
(although, he essentially argued against schreiner about limited atonement!
)
jfschultz
Puritan Board Junior
To take this on a different tack...perhaps "the work fo Christ sufficient for all" shows a understanding of infinity. The guilt of our sin is infinite because God is infinite. As it was expressed in a puritan prayer (Valley of Vision: Penitence), "that if I fail to glorify thee, I am guilty of infinite evil that merits infinite punishment."
So if Christ died only for me and I had committed only one sin, the wrath of God that needed to be satisfied would be just as much as for all men and all their sins.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
The atonement is not necessary for God to be good to someone. But it is necessary for God to save someone. There is a difference. Common grace is an expression of God's goodness to His creation, without any work or merit in view. The atonement is based upon the perfect merit and work of Christ on behalf of sinners who deserve wrath. The only "benefit" a reprobate would obtain from the atonment would be the fact that God has not finished gathering the elect yet, and thus the world continues and the life of the reprobate is spared temporarily.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
I've been considering a missionary calling. But I haven't been able to pinpoint anything until now....
fivepointcalvinist,
I think there was just a misunderstanding on both of our parts...no biggie.
What you are saying is that the atonement could have saved all people. In other words, it could have been efficient for all people had God intended it to be, but He didn't. Hence, the atonement is sufficient for all whom it was purposed, namely, the elect. It could have been sufficient for all, but it is not because that was not God's design.
So, what is meant then by "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect"? What difference is there in efficient and sufficient? Is the "sufficient" for all just something meaningless to make Arminians and other non-Calvinists feel better?
Have you read God's Greater Glory by Ware? He makes quite a few statements that makes me believe he accepted limited atonement.
I think there was just a misunderstanding on both of our parts...no biggie.
What you are saying is that the atonement could have saved all people. In other words, it could have been efficient for all people had God intended it to be, but He didn't. Hence, the atonement is sufficient for all whom it was purposed, namely, the elect. It could have been sufficient for all, but it is not because that was not God's design.
So, what is meant then by "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect"? What difference is there in efficient and sufficient? Is the "sufficient" for all just something meaningless to make Arminians and other non-Calvinists feel better?
Have you read God's Greater Glory by Ware? He makes quite a few statements that makes me believe he accepted limited atonement.
fivepointcalvinist
Puritan Board Sophomore
more or less, yeah. i think there may have been some ambiguity when i used the word "power" to describe sufficiency. what i was thinking is that the ability (power) to ascertain adequacy provides sufficiency, and that power is infinite and greater than the work any man could do. when i think of effeciency, i think of that same power being applied to the elect for salvation. so in short, the atonement has the ability to save all men (because of its infinte power and by the fact that no man can be saved apart from it), but by design does not, and saves only the elect. that is how i understand "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect"
nope, havent read it but i do have "still sovereign". if you get the dvd i posted the link for, he says hes a 4 pointer in the q&a after the debate. shocking!
fivepointcalvinist
Puritan Board Sophomore
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
