Is the doctrine of Limited/Particular/Definite Atonement, in our view, retained by those who teach that the Atonement was sufficient for the sins of the whole world but efficient for the sins of the elect only? Or does their qualification (that the Atonement had a 'universal' element) move them away from the Dortian doctrine proper?

I ask, because the qualified position above appears to have been the position of many historic theologians (Aquinas and Ryle, to name two) who have had reputations for not teaching 'Limited Atonement' on that basis. The qualified position also seems to be what is on the mind of many when they ascribe the label of 'moderate Calvinism' to the Thirty-Nine Articles (implying, perhaps, that a more robust or 'full' Calvinism would make no such qualification; and/or that the qualified position is basically an Amyraldian stance)...

__________________
Nathan Tyler
Reformed Baptist
University of Toronto (Student: Hons. B.A. in Philosophy)
Ontario, Canada

1689'er

http://nathantyler.wordpress.com

I don't think that such a qualification alone makes one Amyraldian or Amyraldianesque; on the other hand, I don't believe it's a necessary or helpful qualification, because we should understand the atonement in terms of God's intent, scope, and design, not what the atonement could do given any number of circumstances. The atonement did accomplish, is accomplishing, and will accomplish exactly that for which it was designed, decreed, and executed... namely, to save God's people from their sins. If God had wanted it to save all men without exception, it certainly could, but what's the point of even bringing that up?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

My husband and I have found that this argument (apologetic?) is sourced amongst 4-point Calvinists (Amyraldians) at best, and at worst, by free-willer Arminians.

Which has historically led to the fairly recent notion that God has developed a "well-meant offer of salvation" to all men. Such teachings I reject.



Indeed. You are correct in your observations.





Yes, and nowadays, anyone who fails to "moderate" accordingly, are quickly labelled "hyper-Calvinists."

Which distinction and name-calling, I and my husband, deny.

__________________
Ronda Rush
Church of the Redeemer
Independent Reformed
California


" . . .It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.'" Matthew 4:4

Nailed it. (We should get an emoticon for this.)

__________________
Ewen
1689 LBCF
Assemblies of God Bible College
Singapore

Nathan

The formula "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect" is standardized terminology as it was found used by Lombard in his Sentences, which served as the basis (together with the Vulgate and its glosses) for all theology in the Middle Ages, and in turn, had a permanent effect on the theology of the Reformed churches. The terminology *itself* is certainly orthodox; see, for example, this section from Dort itself:

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.

The problems enter when one attempts to apply such language to the intention behind Christ's satisfaction. If one speaks of Christ's death as being an infinite sacrifice intentionally *so that* there is a sufficient sacrifice for all (for whatever reason they want to speak), then they begin to tread on ice. Any position which argues that Christ died so that he might offer satisfaction sufficient for all, or so that he might purchase redemption for all if they should only but take it; any such position is over the line. If, however, one argues that the intention or impelling cause behind Christ's satisfaction pertains only to the elect (however sufficient that satisfaction might be on account of the dignity of Christ), then we are firmly within orthodoxy.

As Owen keenly notes in ch. 2 of is Of the Death of Christ, the Price He Paid and the Purchase He Made:

The value of any satisfaction in this business ariseth not from the innate worth of the things whereby it is made, but purely from God’s free constitution of them to such an end. A distinction cannot be allowed of more or less value in the things appointed of God for the same end; all their value ariseth merely from that appointment; they have so much as he ascribeth to them, and no more.

Thus, the intrinsic or infinite value of Christ's offering has no practical bearing on the issue, since it was appointed for a certain and fixed end, no more no less. The fact that it could have been sufficient for more does not impact us, apart from our maintaining the dignity of Christ.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

God could have created everything differently or saved everyone if that is what he would have chose to do so Aquinas and others are correct to acknowledge that God has the power to do that. However, he chose to only save those he chose to save, the elect, for the purpose of his good will.

Ephesians 1:11 KJV
[11] In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

So, his sacrifice covered exactly the number of people he intended it to cover. He died in the place of his people and bore their transgressions.

Isaiah 53:10-12 KJV
[10] Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
[11] He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
[12] Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

We know that God alone is truely good, so his decision in this regard is the best decision that could have been made.

Mark 10:18 KJV
[18] And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

So it is good that the elect are elected and it is good that the reprobate are damned because that is the will of God.

__________________
David
PCA
Richardson, Texas

Saving faith is an immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, resting upon Him alone, for justification, sanctification, and eternal life by virtue of God's grace.
--C.H. Spurgeon

My understanding is that Ryle taught unlimited atonement.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Limited atonement does not negate an indefinite offer of the atonement to sinners of mankind. The salvation offered in the gospel is salvation by the atoning death of Jesus Christ. 1 John 2:2. I think alot of confusion would be avoided if this essential of the gospel were more consistently applied.

In his De aeterna Dei praedestinatione tract, Calvin writes

I think P. L. Rouwendal is right when he says that

For Rouwendal's treatment of Calvin on the atonement, see The Westminster Theological Journal, "Calvin's Forgotten Classical Position on the Extent of the Atonement: About Sufficiency, Efficiency, and Anachronism," Vol. 70, No. 2, Fall 2008, Westminster Theological Seminary: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 317-336.

That's why I think Joshua is right. Why bring it up?

(Underlined emphasis, mine.)

Indeed; the "all men" being those elect represented by a remnant chosen and saved out of all the nations. (Revelation 5:9; 7:9)

This is one the reasons I stick with the terminology of "Limited Atonement" versus the language of "Definite" or "Particular" Atonement. It leaves less ambiguity.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, Licentiate, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Member Fairmount ARP Church
Pittsburgh, PA

Deo Vindice

I feel I have to qualify my previous post. To answer your question, the formula was widely accepted. I don't think it qualifies one as Amyraldian.

However, Beza criticized this formula, specifically its language. The for in Sufficient for by it's sematic definition in latin would fix intent and application more so than in English. Anyone skilled in latin can confirm or refute this? Beza's the only one I know who really objected to this formula. I'm not that widely read though.

We always understand the atonement in terms of God's design, intent, and scope.

Yes; the "pro" in "pro omnibus" carries the idea of "in behalf of," which is more easily associated with substitution. "For" in English is influenced by moral and governmental theories and conveys something less than a substitutionary idea.

A brief comment on Calvin -- I don't believe he simply accepted the traditional sufficient and efficient understanding, but modifies it in a specific reformed direction. When all the data is examined, and Calvin's own views of election, salvation, church, and Christian life are accounted for, it is clear that Calvin limits atonement itself to the elect, but speaks more universally so far as the offer of the atonement in the gospel is concerned. His language reflects a process of development which culminates in the Dortian formula, creating ambiguity at times, but he generally taught what would later take a more systemic form in Calvinist theology.

I love the fact of the Limited Atonement. It is a precious truth to me.

__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA

A couple of quotes from Ryle, for what it's worth (by way of the blog of our own Charlie Ray, Reasonable Christian):

"Christ is an ALMIGHTY Savior, and a Savior for all mankind. He 'takes away the sin of the world'. He did not die for the Jews only, but for the Gentile as well as the Jew. He did not suffer for a few people only, but for all mankind. The payment that He made on the cross was more than enough to make satisfaction for the debts of all. The blood that He shed was precious enough to wash away the sins of all. His atonement on the cross was sufficient for all mankind, though efficient only to those who believe. The sin that He took up and bore on the cross was the sin of the whole world." (Comment on John 1:29)

"Those men and women whom God has been pleased to choose from all eternity, He calls in time, by His Spirit working in due season. He convinces them of sin. He leads them to Christ. He works in them repentance and faith. He converts, renews, and sanctifies them. He keeps them by His grace from falling away entirely, and finally brings them safe to glory. In short, God’s eternal Election is the first link in that chain of a sinner’s salvation of which heavenly glory is the end. None ever repent, believe, and are born again, except the Elect. The primary and original cause of a saint’s being what he is, is eternal God’s election." (From Ryle's Election)

A quick question:

Do the facts that the object offered, and the priest presiding over the atonement were God in flesh mean that the atonement must therefore have an infinite value attached to it? For example, it appears that not all of God's acts are infinite, such as creation of the heavens and the earth.

Or, does the difference between creation and redemption hinge on Christ's Person being offered, His person is infinite, therefore infinity was offered?

I realize that this may be off of topic, but what is the relationship between Christ as a Divine Person, and Christ's death? In other words, I know that it is appropriate to speak of one Person dying on the cross, but is this properly attributed to the immortality of the God-Man?

Cheers,

__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA

"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."

From Ryle's sermon on John 3:16, entitled, Do you Believe?

This is unlimited atonement.

Side question for Rev. Winzer,

How would you explain John 3:16?

As it comes to bear on the issue of the atonement, where the word "world" is operative, I would understand it in the same way as John 1:29; "the world" is a redemptive-historical term which indicates God's salvific purpose for all peoples in contrast to Jewish particularity.

For Christ to have saved even one individual, His atonement would have required infinite worth, as the penalty even for one individual's sin (even if that one individual had sinned but once) is infinite. The worth of His atonement has nothing to do with how many individuals it is given for or are saved by it.

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://inprincipiodeus.solideogloria.com
http://puritanwisdom.blogspot.com

"As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
John Flavel in Keeping the Heart



Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Ryle appears to be in line with fuller on the atonement. A theory I disagree with wholeheartedly. They deny the actual vicarious death of Christ in and of itself to redeem, instead speak of a provision for all, dependent solely of whom the Father elects. I may be splitting hairs, but this is Sovereign election, not limited atonement. They are two connected but distinct truths. It is basically a form of arminianism couched in reformed speak. The death of Christ is not a potential provision only to be enjoyed by whom are elected in eternity. It is a vicarious substitution.

__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI

"Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

Well, I think I agree you Amazing Grace with that Ryle´s comment.

__________________
KaphLamedh (KL)
The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Vaasa
Finland

Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Sola Deo Gloria!

Sounds like governmental atonement..

The governmental construct is not the problem. There are governmental and judicial dynamics involved in Christ's substitutionary atonement.

The value of Christ's blood and of Christ's righteousness are no more in question than is Christ's Person. But this is how the waters always get muddied. We are not truly seeking to assess the value of Christ, we are seeking to rightly assess the measure of His suffering.

J.L. Dagg, wrote in the early 19th century saying:

The advocates of the hypothesis urge, that the atonement is moral, and not commercial; and they object, that the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, degrades it into a mere commercial transaction. … The argument is not conclusive. It is not true, that the principle of distributive justice repels the notion of so much suffering for so much sin. Justice has its scales in government, as well as in commerce; and an essential part of its administration consists in the apportionment of penalties to crimes. It does not account the stealing of herbs from a neighbor’s garden, and the murder of a father, crimes of equal magnitude; and it does not weigh out to them equal penalties.

The justice of God has a heavier penalty for Chorazin and Bethsaida, than for Sodom and Gomorrah. Everything of which we have knowledge in the divine administration, instead of exploding the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, tends rather to establish it. The objection that it is commercial, is not well founded.

Though justice in government, and justice in commerce, may be distinguished from each other, it does not follow, that whatever may be affirmed of the one, must necessarily be denied of the other. Distributive justice is not that which determines the equality of value, in commodities which are exchanged for each other: but it does not therefore exclude all regard to magnitudes and proportions.
In the language of Scripture, sins are debts, the blood of Christ is a price, and his people are bought. This language is doubtless figurative: but the figures would not be appropriate, if commercial justice, to which the terms debt, price, bought, appertain, did not bear an analogy to the distributive justice which required the sacrifice of Christ. …

The wisdom and justice of God have decided this single case, and have decided it right. Christ did endure just so much suffering, as would expiate the sins that were laid on him.
The "Sufficient for all, Efficient for the elect" model has been IMO a weakness in some Calvinistic writers for many years.

Some Calvinists, myself included, find more consistency in saying that it was only the sins of the elect that Christ bore. You shall call His name Jesus and He shall save HIS PEOPLE from their sins

Several writers have articulated this view:

“To say that his death is sufficient for everyone, but not that everyone receives forgiveness, is to say that God accomplishes the greater but not the lesser. He sets in motion a cause__the most powerful and compelling spiritual and moral cause conceivable__that does not consummate in an effect.
As can be well seen, both streams of thought have a healthy and biblical concept of the relation of atonement to law. This understanding, that all legal obstacles to salvation have been removed, is right and cannot be surrendered. … To remove the necessary connection between atonement and satisfaction of the divine law denudes Christ’s death of all its moral sublimity and reduces it to an amazing piece of whimsical and romantic extravagance.” __Dr. Tom Nettles

"While cheerfully admitting the sufficiency of Immanuel’s death to have redeemed all mankind, had all the sins of the whole human species been equally imputed to him; and had he, as the Universal Representative, sustained that curse of the law which was due to all mankind; yet we cannot perceive any solid reason to conclude, that his propitiatory sufferings are sufficient for the expiation of sins which he did not bear, or for the redemption of sinners whom he did not represent, as a sponsor, when he died on the cross. For the substitution of Christ, and the imputation of sin to him, are essential to the scriptural doctrtine of redemption by our adorable Jesus.--We may therefore, safely conclude that our Lord’s voluntary substitution, and redemption by his vicarious death, are both of them limited to those, for whom he was made SIN--for those whom he was made a CURSE--and for whose deliverance from final ruin, he actually paid the price of his OWN BLOOD. Consequently, that redemption is particular, and peculiar to the chosen of God."__Abraham Booth

__________________
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

I wholly agree! Christ's death on the Cross was sufficient for all it was meant to be for. It is not a means, but part of the glorious end which is Christ. Limited atonement proves Christ to be the full and fulfilled Messiah of the Bible.

__________________
William Price
Attending Mills Road Baptist Church, Houston, Texas

http://www.commandmentsandjudgment.com

The Reformed Voice Radio Broadcast

LBCF 1689

Do you think the interpretation of "world" as referring to the sinfulness of mankind (e.g. Romans 12:1) would also be tenable? I think it was Warfield that said something along these lines: John 3:16 refers to God's love not extensively, in terms of how "big" His love is to save so many people, but intensively, in terms of how "deep" His love is to save sinners.

-----Added 11/15/2009 at 03:57:24 EST-----

I want to make sure I understand what you are arguing for. Please correct me if this is a straw man:

-Although all sins deserve infinite punishment, there are still degrees of punishment in hell.
-Therefore, Christ would suffer different degrees of punishment depending on which sins He was covering (i.e., which sins the elect committed).
-Therefore, since Christ's sacrifice was peculiar to the exact punishment afforded for the elect's sins, His sacrifice or passive obedience was not in fact sufficient for all. If God decreed ten sinners to be saved by Christ, and if He decreed those same ten plus one more, Christ's punishment would have been quantitatively different.
-Therefore, as regards this actual world, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient and efficient only for the elect.

(It could be argued that His active obedience would still be sufficient for all, but that's another topic.)

Is that an accurate summary, Bob?

__________________
Ben Maas. . . . .Facebook
In college, attending First Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), Ada, OH, and
Belle Center Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA), Belle Center, OH
When at home, attending Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC), Mansfield, OH

“Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life.”
-Jonathan Edwards-

Ben, I would edit that as follows:

-Each and every sin against God deserves an ETERNAL, yet MEASURED punishment fitted particularly to that transgression.

-Therefore, since Christ's sacrifice was peculiar to the exact punishment afforded for the elect's sins, His sacrifice or passive obedience was not in fact sufficient for sinners He did not represent and/or sins that were not laid on Him. If God decreed ten sinners to be saved by Christ, and if He decreed those same ten plus one more, Christ's punishment would have been quantitatively different.

-Therefore, as regards this actual world, Christ's sacrifice is sufficient and efficient only for the elect.

(It could be argued that His active obedience would still be sufficient for all, but that's another topic.)

Christ was never more active than when He was taking the place of His people on the cross. John 10:18 "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. [εγω τιθημι αυτην] I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."

Hi I am new here and a new Presbyterian, but I must ask...HOW do we know the elect? I don't think we are privvy to this...so I must in turn ask, HOW can we discuss this issue honestly.

I know Limited Atonement, but it is a Truth in a system that applies to the elect alone, but who are the elect? Not our intention nor God's purpose for us to know.
The atonement was certainly propitiation for all, yet isn't biblically applied to the entire human race. It can't be, for God wouldn't be Sovereign if it were for all until the end of time when there is sufficient proof of a human being on their death bed denying God in His entirety...had an uncle do that.

Herein lies the confusion for those 4 pointers...and I was one before.



Anywho it's late and that's my 2 cents..or perhaps just 1 cent.

__________________
John
Presbyterian Church in America
1st Presbyterian Church of Dothan, Alabama

Jim Ellis wrote a really good article on this subject "Sufficient for All"- by Jim Ellis I don't know the language of efficient for the Elect only but sufficient for all is clumsy at best in my opinion and it can lead to pseudo Amraldyanism (Curt Daniel and David Ponter) or full blown Amradylanism (Richard Baxter) so when explained correctly "Sufficient for all" is not wrong but it leaves the door open to theological error so it would in my opinion be better to stick to the old Limited Atonement terminology if only for procession

__________________
Aaron
Independent Baptist
Holland MI

I myself am more fond of "Particular Redemption".

But then it would be T U P I P...

Hi John,

It is not necessary to the core issue of this discussion to know WHO the elect are, merely THAT they are.

The discussion is over the merits of Christ’s substitutionary death relative to the elect as compared with the non-elect.
These words typify the need for this discussion. If Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice for sin was proptitious for all, then God’s wrath against all has been propitiated, assuaged.

Aaron provided an excellent link in his post #30.

Okay, so I am a bit confused now. This view makes sense, but is it confessional (perhaps it's in the 1689 LBC)? While I very well may be misunderstanding your stance (as it was so recently explained to me), this seems to conflict with Paul's citation from Dordt above:

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.

According to you, Bob, I believe you are arguing that Christ's sacrifice did not have infinite merit, but was meted out specifically so that it covered each sin of the elect, and no more. The arguments you presented look solid. Why, then, does there seem to be historical disagreement with this view? How might those at Dordt have responded?

(This question is open to anyone.)

Dort probably could have worded it more exact. That said, the intrinsic value of Christs death is infinite. He would not have had to hang on the cross any longer or perform anything else to atone for the whole world.

It seems that such an opinion as this is hasty and superficial. It glosses over the meted out punishments due unto every one chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. What the precise magnitude of the wrath due unto the cumulative sins of that company is something that the mind of man cannot fathom. But God has calculated it and He placed it on His Son.

Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

But the intrinsic value of Christ's death is not fully indexed to the finite number of the elect, nor merely the cummulative total of the "bounded" infinitude of all the elect's eternal punishment.

It is also indexed to the value of the Sacrifice, which is worth intrinsically MORE than the entire "use" of it.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

SUFFICIENT SUBSTITUTION, THE VALUE OF VICARIOUS ATONEMENT

5 But He was wounded for OUR TRANSGRESSIONS, He was bruised for OUR INIQUITIES; The chastisement for OUR PEACE was upon Him, And by His stripes WE ARE HEALED. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of US ALL. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; FOR THE TRANSGRESSIONS OF MY PEOPLE He was stricken.

Who are the US and the WE in this substitution?

The US and the WE are the MY PEOPLE of verse eight.

Note that by His stripes it is not the hypothetical or potential WE CAN BE HEALED, OR MIGHT BE HEALED, but we are told that by His stripes WE ARE HEALED!

I have no doubt that the “sufficient for all” formula was constructed with a desire to exalt Christ and glory in the salvation that He accomplished. This is understandable. Our Lord is worthy of the highest praise, glory and honor and we delight in giving that to Him.

However if in that worthy pursuit we unwittingly detract from some vital element of His vicarious sufferings for His people we have undercut the very thing we set out to do.

When Cunningham says “the value or worth of His sacrifice of Himself depends upon, and is measured by, the dignity of His person, and is therefore infinite” he is simply mistaken. He asserts what he has not proved.

We do well to remember that the infinite worthiness of Christ the suffering Servant of Jehovah is not in question. He could have had the sins of innumerable worlds of people laid upon Him and would have been entirely able to bear those too. But the fact remains that the Father of our Lord and Savior chose to lay on Him the particular sins of a particular people. This is what He bore. This provides the parameters for speaking about the sufficiency of that awesome work done on Calvary.

Bob, what is important in the confessional formula is, as Rev. Buchanan stated very well above, that Christ's death was of infinite worth so that it could be efficient for the elect and none other. I could bring $2,000,000 to my friend to buy a candy bar: now, the value of that $2,000,000 is only accepted for the Snickers if my friend will accept; but the amount is such that it is certainly meet payment for a fun-size chocolate. Likewise, Christ brings forth an infinite payment, such that it is meet for the Father to accept it for the payment of the sins of the elect. His death "could have" purchased more, *had that been the covenant* between the Father and Son, without adding any more "punishment" to Christ.

[If someone else has previously used a "candy bar for lots of money" metaphor, I apologize for not citing you. I can't figure out whether I've heard that from another's mouth or from my own...]

Paul, You are still arguing from the wealth/ability of the Purchaser. I humbly suggest that you are still missing the Specifics of the Work assigned, accepted, and accomplished. Suppose that at age 12 Christ made a wooden table. Would that table be able to hold all the books of the world just because it was Christ who made it?

If He wanted it to.