Sufficient but not efficient?

[Sovereign Grace]

I have heard, and this coming from reformed/particular Baptists, that Christ's death was for all(sufficient), but only applicable to the elect(efficient). Now, what do ye blokes say?

 

[Ed Walsh]

I have heard, and this coming from reformed/particular Baptists, that Christ's death was for all(sufficient), but only applicable to the elect(efficient). Now, what do ye blokes say?

Below are several quotes that I think are representative of the majority Reformed view. In short, Christ’s atonement is “sufficient” for all men in that His work on the cross was of infinite value, but it’s “extent” was limited to all the elect.

One application: The promiscuous preaching of the gospel would fail to be sincere if the preacher knew that the value of the atonement was only applicable to “some” men. Christ bids all to come because anyone who does come to Christ can be assured that the atonement is sufficient for him too. Thus the free offer of the gospel is truly sincere for all men.

I think this first quote is the best, but I added two more just to show that many are of the view I summarized above.

=============================​

Dogmatic Theology, William G. T. Shedd

The distinction between the “sufficiency” of the atonement and its “extent” in the sense of “intent” or effectual application is an old and well-established one. It is concisely expressed in the dictum that Christ died “sufficiently for all, but efficiently only for the elect.”136 The following extracts from Owen (Against Universal Redemption 4.1) illustrate it:

It was the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it for that purpose; yea, and of other worlds, also, if the Lord should freely make them and would redeem them. Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world. This is its own true internal perfection and sufficiency; that it should be applied unto any, made a price for them, and become beneficial to them, according to the worth that is in it, is external to it, does not arise from it, but merely depends upon the intention and will of God. It was in itself of infinite value and sufficiency to have been made a price to have bought and purchased all and every man in the world. That it did formally become a price for any is solely to be ascribed to the purpose of God intending their purchase and redemption by it. The intention of the offerer and acceptor [of the sacrifice] that it should be for such, some, or any is that which gives the formality of a price unto it; this is external [to the sacrifice]. But the value and fitness of it to be made a price arises from its own internal sufficiency.​

In respect to the phrase ransom price for all (1 Tim. 2:6), Owen remarks that it must be understood to mean that Christ’s blood was sufficient to be made a ransom for all, to be made a price for all; but that the terms ransom and ransom price more properly denote the application than the value of Christ’s sacrifice. He adds that “the expression to die for any person holds out the intention of our Savior in the laying down of the price, to be their Redeemer.”

Shedd, W. G. T. (2003). Dogmatic theology. (A. W. Gomes, Ed.) (3rd ed., p. 742). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.​

That the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ is the perfect warranty of eternal salvation for all whom the Father has given to Him does not diminish the all-sufficiency of the atonement. The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is abundantly sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire world. It is therefore not without significance that the Lord Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world and the Bread that gives life to the world (cf. John 1:29; 6:33). Whoever hears the gospel does not need to wonder whether there is sufficient latitude in the invitation of the gospel for him to return to the Lord and be reconciled with Him. The Canons of Dort emphasize both the particular nature as well as the all-sufficiency of the atonement. We shortchange the witness of the Bible if we neglect one of these aspects.

DeVries, P. (2011). The Glory of the Cross (2). Puritan Reformed Journal Volume 3, 3(2), 28.​

The value of Christ’s atoning death
The question has to do, first of all, with the value of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Classical Augustinianism teaches that the atonement of Jesus Christ is sufficient for all men. The value of the sacrifice that Christ offered to the Father is of infinite value. There is enough merit in the work of Jesus Christ to cover the sins of every human being who has ever lived. So there is no limit to the value of the sacrifice that is made. In that sense, what Christ did on the cross is sufficient, objectively considered, to cover the sins of every individual in the world. There is no debate about the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.

But there is a distinction between the sufficiency of the atonement and the efficiency of the atonement. The question really is, Was Jesus’ death efficient for everybody? This is where we find all kinds of subtle differences of opinion.

Does the atonement result in saving everybody automatically? Does Christ’s death on the cross have the effect of saving the whole world? There are people who believe that Jesus died for the whole world in the sense that his death on the cross brought about that result. Such people are Universalists. Now Arminians do not believe in limited atonement, but neither are they Universalists. Calvinists and Arminians agree that not everybody is saved through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. So there is, in some sense, a limit to the efficiency of the cross.

Sproul, R. C. (2005). The Unexpected Jesus: The Truth Behind His Biblical Names (pp. 127–128). Fearn, UK: Christian Focus Publications.​

 

[JTB.SDG]

Yes, sufficient for a thousand worlds of people, efficient only for the elect.

 

[Gforce9]

The elder Dr. Sproul made a great point in this discussion: the sufficient/efficient discussion, while important, doesn't answer the question of intent......what did God intend in the whole matter of Christ as mediator? The intent of the atonement must be asked and answered to effectively speak of it.....

 

[timfost]

In my opinion, Charles Hodge has the best treatment of the subject. The link below is a little bit lengthy, but well worth the read (and reread!).

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/refor...ent/for-whom-did-Christ-die-by-charles-hodge/

 

[timfost]

...only applicable to the elect(efficient).

"Applicable" is a bit of a dirty word in the reformed community in relation to mankind. "Applicable" was a favorite word of hypothetical universalists, but other reformed views of the atonement tended to shy away from the word in the context of the non-elect. Hodge used the word "suitable." The Hypothetical Universalist Davenant made a distinction between men and angels in his Dissertation in relation to "applicable." He argued that while the death of Christ was by design applicable to all men, it would not actually be applied to any but the elect by the means of God-given faith. In his Dissertation, he argues that Christ was never a suitable substitute for an angel because of difference in the nature of men and angels, so sufficient could not only refer to value, but design.

In short, most of the reformed use some version of the sufficient/efficient formula, but they will apply it differently depending on what view of the atonement they promote.

 

[Guido's Brother]

It's pretty standard confessionally Reformed theology. See article 3 and article 8 of chapter 2 of the Canons of Dort.

 

[Ed Walsh]

the sufficient/efficient discussion, while important, doesn't answer the question of intent......what did God intend in the whole matter of Christ as mediator?

His intent was to atone for the sins of the elect. I think [careful, this is my idea] a corollary or "accidental" purpose [affect] is to further remove all excuses from those who reject such a wonderful gospel.

I don't know if this helps, partly because I didn't thoroughly understand your question. Forgive me for that.

Election

The scope of the atonement and the subsequent giving of eternal life to human beings is ‘as many as’ the Father has given the Son. The intent of the atonement determines its extent. Election, human and divine, is a choice in the gift of the elector. In political elections we choose from candidates and need give no reason for our choice of one and rejection of others. Electors are sovereign in their electing. Sovereignty is what makes an elector. So with divine election, it is the sovereignty of God that determines who will be covered by the blood of Christ and who will be passed by. The lost might all justifiably be left to be lost for ever. But God in his mercy saves as many as he gives to Jesus. They are a reward to Jesus for his faithfulness (Isa. 53:10). They all come willingly to him (John 6:37–40). He knows them all, one by one (Isa. 49:12; 2 Tim. 2:19). Jesus cares for them and keeps them safely all their days (John 10:3; cf. Ps. 34:6). He will present them to his Father on the last day with joy (Luke 12:8; Jude 24). Gospel salvation is alike the glory of the Son and of the Father.

Keddie, G. J. (2001). A Study Commentary on John: John 13–21 (Vol. 2, pp. 237–238). Darlington, England; Auburn, MA: Evangelical Press.
​

LIVING for GOD’S GLORY
AN INTRODUCTION TO CALVINISM
JOEL R. BEEKE
A Discussion on Amyraldianism

George Smeaton says Amyraldianism presents an incoherent system, for it supposes “a double and a conflicting decree; that is, a general decree, in which God was said to will the salvation of all, and a special decree, in which He was said to will the salvation of the elect. To Christ also it ascribed a twofold and discordant aim, viz. to satisfy for all men, and to satisfy merely for the elect.”

Both Amyraldianism and Arminianism maintain that Christ suffered for mankind, not that He paid the penalty for sins. And they both teach, as Robert Letham says, “that this suffering does not intrinsically achieve what it was intended to do since it is dependent on a response on the part of human beings which, in very many cases, fails to materialize.” The difference between Amyraldianism and Arminianism is that in the former, the limitation is the choice of God, while in the latter, the limitation is the choice of the one who believes. Iain Murray says, “Traditional Reformed theology rejected this Amyraldian combination of the universal with the particular, holding that God had only one intent and purpose in the death of his Son, the actual salvation of those for whom he suffered.”

Beeke, J. R. (2008). Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism (p. 78). Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing.

​

 

[Gforce9]

His intent was to atone for the sins of the elect. I think [careful, this is my idea] a corollary or "accidental" purpose [affect] is to further remove all excuses from those who reject such a wonderful gospel.

I don't know if this helps, partly because I didn't thoroughly understand your question. Forgive me for that.

Election

The scope of the atonement and the subsequent giving of eternal life to human beings is ‘as many as’ the Father has given the Son. The intent of the atonement determines its extent. Election, human and divine, is a choice in the gift of the elector. In political elections we choose from candidates and need give no reason for our choice of one and rejection of others. Electors are sovereign in their electing. Sovereignty is what makes an elector. So with divine election, it is the sovereignty of God that determines who will be covered by the blood of Christ and who will be passed by. The lost might all justifiably be left to be lost for ever. But God in his mercy saves as many as he gives to Jesus. They are a reward to Jesus for his faithfulness (Isa. 53:10). They all come willingly to him (John 6:37–40). He knows them all, one by one (Isa. 49:12; 2 Tim. 2:19). Jesus cares for them and keeps them safely all their days (John 10:3; cf. Ps. 34:6). He will present them to his Father on the last day with joy (Luke 12:8; Jude 24). Gospel salvation is alike the glory of the Son and of the Father.

Keddie, G. J. (2001). A Study Commentary on John: John 13–21 (Vol. 2, pp. 237–238). Darlington, England; Auburn, MA: Evangelical Press.
​

LIVING for GOD’S GLORY
AN INTRODUCTION TO CALVINISM
JOEL R. BEEKE
A Discussion on Amyraldianism

George Smeaton says Amyraldianism presents an incoherent system, for it supposes “a double and a conflicting decree; that is, a general decree, in which God was said to will the salvation of all, and a special decree, in which He was said to will the salvation of the elect. To Christ also it ascribed a twofold and discordant aim, viz. to satisfy for all men, and to satisfy merely for the elect.”

Both Amyraldianism and Arminianism maintain that Christ suffered for mankind, not that He paid the penalty for sins. And they both teach, as Robert Letham says, “that this suffering does not intrinsically achieve what it was intended to do since it is dependent on a response on the part of human beings which, in very many cases, fails to materialize.” The difference between Amyraldianism and Arminianism is that in the former, the limitation is the choice of God, while in the latter, the limitation is the choice of the one who believes. Iain Murray says, “Traditional Reformed theology rejected this Amyraldian combination of the universal with the particular, holding that God had only one intent and purpose in the death of his Son, the actual salvation of those for whom he suffered.”

Beeke, J. R. (2008). Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism (p. 78). Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing.

​

Ed,
It wasn't a question on my part, but stating the question that must be asked and answered, according to Dr. Sproul. To state his concern another way: the sufficient/efficient question(s) does/do not ask nor answer enough. One has to go a step further and ask/answer the question of God's intent.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Thanks Greg.

Below are some Scriptures on the Atonement I copied and pasted. Most will be familiar, but several might be helpful as to God's intent.


A. The Scriptures describe the end intended and accomplished by Christ’s work as the full salvation (actual reconciliation, justification, and sanctification) of His people.

1. The Scriptures state that Christ came, not to enable men to save themselves, but to save sinners.

Matthew 1:21: “… she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Luke 19:10: “For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.”

2 Corinthians 5:21: For our sake he [God] made him [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Galatians 1:3, 4: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.

1 Timothy 1:15: The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of sinners.

Titus 2:14: … who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

1 Peter 3:18: For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.

2. The Scriptures declare that, as the result of what Christ did and suffered, His people are reconciled to God, justified, and given the Holy Spirit who regenerates and sanctifies them. All these blessings were secured by Christ Himself for His people.

a. Christ, by His redeeming work, secured reconciliation for His people.

Romans 5:10: For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

2 Corinthians 5:18, 19: All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Ephesians 2:15, 16: … by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end.

Colossians 1:21, 22: And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him.

b. Christ secured the righteousness and pardon needed by His people for their justification.

Romans 3:24, 25: … they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Romans 5:8, 9: But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

1 Corinthians 1:30: He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

Galatians 3:13: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us …

Colossians 1:13, 14: He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 9:12: … he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

1 Peter 2:24: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

c. Christ secured the gift of the Spirit which includes regeneration and sanctification and all that is involved in them.

Ephesians 1:3, 4: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

Philippians 1:29: For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.

Acts 5:31: “God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.”

Titus 2:14: … who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Titus 3:5, 6: … he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.

Ephesians 5:25, 26: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.

1 Corinthians 1:30: He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

Hebrews 9:14: … how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Hebrews 13:12: So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

1 John 1:7: … but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

Steele, D. N., Thomas, C. C., & Nicole, R. (1963). The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended and Documented (pp. 40–43). Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co.​

 

[TheThirdandReformedAdam]

Could I interject a question, here? I have frequently struggled with the idea that the atonement is "sufficient for all." I pray that this is not owing to a personal under-appreciation of the weightiness of the act of redemption, but I find it difficult to reconcile with the perfect holiness of God. Namely, how does one claim that redemption is "sufficient for all and efficient for few" and yet not also conclude that Christ was punished beyond what sin deserved? (I'm not on the offensive; I don't know where I come down on this issue, myself).

Also, good to see a fellow West Virginian on the PB.

 

[Jack K]

If I understand it rightly, the sufficiency is found not so much in the extent of the punishment but in the infinite value of the one being punished.

When I discuss this with children, I generally don't use the words "efficient" and "sufficient" even though it is the concept I teach. Instead we will discuss what sort of punishment might be "enough" for one who sins against eternal God. We conclude that it must be not just death, but an eternal death and punishment. So the amount of punishment is the same whether we sin once or a billion times. If I sin right now, it won't mean Jesus' punishment ended up being harsher than it would have been if I don't sin. It's a full-as-can-be punishment either way.

Then we discuss how many deaths would be enough to save all believers. We figure that even if God were willing to punish one ordinary sinless man (assuming such a person existed) for the sins of another man, fairness would demand one man punished for every one man who sins and is saved. How then can Jesus, who is just one man, save all who believe in him? It is because Jesus is not an ordinary man. He is not worth one man, or five men, or even a million men. Jesus is worth infinite men, because he is infinite God.

So it turns out that punishing Jesus could be enough to save everybody, not because the punishment was steeper than it needed to be, but because it's impossible to put a cap on the worth of Jesus. But God has to be willing. One man can't die for another unless God approves. And God is only willing to let the punishment count for those who believe in Jesus. He will not allow for Jesus to have been punished for nothing, for people who reject him. So it only counts for you if you believe.

That's roughly the language I use. Perhaps it's helpful. And as always, if some of you who are wiser know how I could be more precise and correct in my kid-friendly language, I'm all ears.

 

[MW]

Let's try to move beyond the surface of words and their shifting significance to something deeper and more certain. Is the atonement sufficient to save the elect in a sense it is not sufficient to save all men? If one answers affirmatively then it is clear that the phrase, "sufficient for all," cannot be used in the same latitude as the phrase, "efficient for the elect." The word "for" requires an equivocation, thus demonstrating that the parallel is not really parallel, and is rather redundant. On the other hand, if one answers negatively it is clear that person really holds the Arminian position that the salvation of the elect depends on something other than Christ's sufficiency for them.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If the design of the atonement was for the procurement of the faith of those for whom Our Lord died, how can we even hint that there is some sufficiency for those not having faith so procured? In what sense does that word even apply in this case?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

What I meant, and poorly expressed it, is that what I am really driving at is did the Christ die for everybody w/o exception. That particular Baptist mentioned And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.[2Corinthians 5:15] And also That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.[1Timothy 4:10]

Seeing that Jesus said He laid His life down for His sheep and Paul wrote Christ died for the church, how can we(I) reconcile that with Him dying for everybody, even if not salvifically?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

If the design of the atonement was for the procurement of the faith of those for whom Our Lord died, how can we even hint that there is some sufficiency for those not having faith so procured? In what sense does that word even apply in this case?

This is my concern with that notion, too. If Christ died for everybody, then everybody eventually gets saved. Even those who never heard the gospel will be saved. And that leads into mysticism. This is the slippery slope that the non-Calvinists will not admit in their theology. They believe that the Christ died for everybody, everybody will be given at least one 'shot' at being saved, yet not everyone will have heard the gospel.

This is just a shinier version of Universal Atonement.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Could I interject a question, here? I have frequently struggled with the idea that the atonement is "sufficient for all." I pray that this is not owing to a personal under-appreciation of the weightiness of the act of redemption, but I find it difficult to reconcile with the perfect holiness of God. Namely, how does one claim that redemption is "sufficient for all and efficient for few" and yet not also conclude that Christ was punished beyond what sin deserved? (I'm not on the offensive; I don't know where I come down on this issue, myself).

Also, good to see a fellow West Virginian on the PB.

To me, this 'sufficient for all' is just a cop out. No one denies that Jesus' death could have saved 100 worlds this size, if it was intended to do so. Yet, the death, burial & resurrection of the Christ was for His ppl.

If it is sufficient, then it is sufficient. No need for ppl to try to re-invent the wheel, but sure try to.

 

[timfost]

This is my concern with that notion, too. If Christ died for everybody, then everybody eventually gets saved. Even those who never heard the gospel will be saved. And that leads into mysticism. This is the slippery slope that the non-Calvinists will not admit in their theology. They believe that the Christ died for everybody, everybody will be given at least one 'shot' at being saved, yet not everyone will have heard the gospel.

This is just a shinier version of Universal Atonement.

Here is some wisdom from Thomas Watson on the matter:

"We must qualify also Christ's dying for the world. Christ died sufficiently for all, not effectually. There is the value of Christ's blood, and the virtue of Christ's blood. Christ's blood has value enough to redeem the whole world—but the virtue of it is applied only to such as believe. Christ's blood has the value to save all, but it is not efficacious for all. All are not saved, because some put away salvation from them, "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles." Acts 13:46. Others vilify Christ's blood, counting it an unholy thing."

And:

"I grant there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ's blood to save all; but there is a difference between sufficiency and efficiency. Christ's blood is a sufficient price for all—but it is effectual only to those who believe. A plaster may have a sovereign virtue in it to heal any wound—but it does not heal any, unless applied to the wound. And if it is so, that all have not the benefit of Christ's redemption—but only some..."

And:

"(3: Appropriation, or applying Christ to ourselves. A medicine, though it be ever so sovereign, if not applied, will do no good. Though the plaster is made of Christ's own blood, it will not heal, unless applied by faith; the blood of God, without faith in God, will not save. This applying of Christ is called receiving him. John 1:12. The hand receiving gold, enriches. Just so, the hand of faith, receiving Christ's golden merits with salvation, enriches us."

 

[timfost]

And Charles Hodge:

"By this dispensation it is rendered manifest to every intelligent mind in heaven and upon earth, and to the finally impenitent themselves, that the perdition of those that perish is their own fault. They will not come to Christ that they may have life. They refuse to have Him to reign over them. He calls but they will not answer. He says, ‘Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.’ Every human being who does come is saved. This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches."

Hope this helps!

 

[Dachaser]

I have heard, and this coming from reformed/particular Baptists, that Christ's death was for all(sufficient), but only applicable to the elect(efficient). Now, what do ye blokes say?

Did Jesus actually then died for the sins of all sinners, but was effectual towards on the elect of God?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Did Jesus actually then died for the sins of all sinners, but was effectual towards on the elect of God?

If Our Lord actually died for the sins of all sinners, then the wrath of God the Father is propitiated for all sinners. This is contrary to the perspicuity of Scripture on the mattter.

 

[Dachaser]

If Our Lord actually died for the sins of all sinners, then the wrath of God the Father is propitiated for all sinners. This is contrary to the perspicuity of Scripture on the mattter.

How would you take then the statements of Him put to death for the sins of the whole world? Didn't John say that his death was the propiation not just for us, but for the whole world?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

How would you take then the statements of Him put to death for the sins of the whole world? Didn't John say that his death was the propiation not just for us, but for the whole world?

Study 'propitiation' and get back with us. Also, God was propitiated, not fallen man

 

[Dachaser]

Study 'propitiation' and get back with us. Also, God was propitiated, not fallen man

Yes, as the death of Jesus was the payment to God the Father required to appease His divine wrath, but how does that figure into his death averted the wrath of God towards the whole world?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Yes, as the death of Jesus was the payment to God the Father required to appease His divine wrath, but how does that figure into his death averted the wrath of God towards the whole world?

His wrath is still over the disobedient.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How would you take then the statements of Him put to death for the sins of the whole world? Didn't John say that his death was the propiation not just for us, but for the whole world?

1 John 2:2 points to those who should believe and those dispersed throughout the world.

Calvin on the matter:

2. And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ 1 suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.​

See also Rev. 5:9-10 as a nice explanation of what John means in 1 John 2:2.

For further reading: http://rscottclark.org/2006/08/limited-atonement/

 

[MW]

Here is some wisdom from Thomas Watson on the matter:

"We must qualify also Christ's dying for the world. Christ died sufficiently for all, not effectually. There is the value of Christ's blood, and the virtue of Christ's blood. Christ's blood has value enough to redeem the whole world—but the virtue of it is applied only to such as believe.

Indeed, there is much wisdom in this distinction. Do you yourself hold to it? Do you limit the sufficiency for all to the value of Christ's blood in itself? I thought you held with John Davenant that this type of sufficiency does not go far enough.

 

[Dachaser]

1 John 2:2 points to those who should believe and those dispersed throughout the world.

Calvin on the matter:

2. And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ 1 suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.​

See also Rev. 5:9-10 as a nice explanation of what John means in 1 John 2:2.

For further reading: http://rscottclark.org/2006/08/limited-atonement/

So Calvin would have seen it as being that Jesus died just for the sins of the elect, correct?
But is there not also the position also posted here that Jesus death was for all sinners, and yet God intended it to be effectual and applied saving grace towards just the elect in Christ?
And so there are those 2 options, and also the one that Jesus died to offer a hypocritical salvation to all sinners, and yet God knowing that none can freely receive that, enabled his elect to be granted saving faith?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

But is there not also the position also posted here that Jesus death was for all sinners, and yet God intended it to be effectual and applied saving grace towards just the elect in Christ?

Christ dying for all yet only the elect receive it, implies that part of His sacrifice was meaningless.

And so there are those 2 options, and also the one that Jesus died to offer a hypocritical salvation to all sinners, and yet God knowing that none can freely receive that, enabled his elect to be granted saving faith?

Hypothetical universalism has been posited by some, but it's a doctrine that is not commonly shared. It cannot be stated biblically.

 

[timfost]

Indeed, there is much wisdom in this distinction. Do you yourself hold to it? Do you limit the sufficiency for all to the value of Christ's blood in itself? I thought you held with John Davenant that this type of sufficiency does not go far enough.

I agree with Davenant in some of his assertions but deny his belief in a conditional decree which is one facet or application of his sufficiency formula.

I'm not persuaded that you can affirm with Watson that Christ died sufficiently for all men. If I understand you, you would say that the price was of sufficient value, but would not say that he died in any way for the non-elect. Is this correct?

Dabney does a good job summarizing my understanding of the matter:

"Hence, we know that He did not purposely design Christ’s sacrifice to effect the redemption of any others than the elect. But we hold it perfectly consistent with this truth, that the expiation of Christ for sin expiation of infinite value and universal fitness should be held forth to the whole world, elect and non elect, as a manifestation of the benevolence of God’s nature. God here exhibits a provision which is so related to the sin of the race, that by it, all those obstacles to every sinner’sreturn to his love, which his guilt and the law presents, are ready to be taken out of the way. But in every sinner, another class of obstacles exists; those, namely, arising out of the sinner’s own depraved will. As to the elect, God takes these obstacles also out of the way, by His omnipotent calling, in pursuance of the covenant of redemption made with, and fulfilled for them by their Mediator. As to the non elect, God has judged it best not to take this class of obstacles out of the way, the men therefore go on to indulge their own will in neglecting or rejecting Christ."

I know you would disagree with him, but your understanding is not historically the only position as you well know.

Hope this helps.