I found in the writings of Johann von Staupitz (Luther's Augustinian superior) a reference to limited atonement:

“Nor should it escape you that the suffering of the Son of God is sufficient for all, though it was not for all but for many that His blood was poured out.” (192)

This is from his treatise Eternal Predestination and translated/reprinted in Heiko Oberman's Forerunners of the Reformation. The surrounding context reinforces this point.

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

Charlie,
It seems to me that the "sufficiency" argument was a red herring which was thrown into the debate early on (as the quote from Staupitz shows) and has sidetracked the debate ever since. I have addressed the issue before and most recently in post #5 here:

Substitutionary atonement limited in application only.

Any thoughts on this facet of the age old debate on the extent of the atonement?

__________________
Bob, elder, RBC Louisville. 1689 LBCF

"... Of such also, or of those who make a credible profession of being such, all those particular churches consist, which constitute our Lord's visible kingdom. ... Consequently, all the subjects of His government must have spiritual dispositions, , and yield spiritual obedience- obedience proceeding from an enlightened understanding, an awakened conscience, and a renewed heart."- Abraham Booth 1788

William Cunningham (1805-1861) gives insight into potential misunderstanding of the Reformed position, which serves as a call for care in using the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” terminology.

“A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which has often been adverted to in this discussion, and which it may be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect, — sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis. Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion, and Calvin himself among the rest, — admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation; not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His death for the redemption of all men, but because the statement — whether originally so intended or not — was so expressed as to suffest the idea, that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that all men should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the shedding of His blood. Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ — viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or design — was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, because this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infinite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit; whereas the original scholastic form of the statement, — namely, that He died sufficiently for all, — seems to indicate that, when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death.” Historical Theology, vol. 2, p. 332.

__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA

Is not this assessment of intrinsic sufficiency the "red herring" to which I alluded? 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.

Matthew 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins."

When the "sufficiency" of the atonement is made to imply more than the "intrinsic sufficiency" of his death, that's where the trouble comes in. Cunningham nails the issue. Today, "sufficient for all" is mistakenly taken to imply that the reprobate accrue some objective benefit of Christ's atonement as an atonement.

In the OP, it appears Staupitz used the term properly yet noted it might be taken improperly, so he clarified the sense.

Yes, Staupitz's argument for limited atonement is along the lines of union with Christ, which is obviously only true of some people. His argument, though, is shot through with medieval overtones, most noticeably justification being an ethical change in the believer's soul.