The next thoughts from Andrew Fuller (namely that the atonement was suffient for everyone or the whole world, but it only saves to the elected) iam hearing these last day from many christian from reformed churches in the Netherlands, whom are not really in favour of limited atonement:
Andrew Fuller
"He died for the human race; while He made an atonement for the elect only, the atonement was sufficient to save the non-elect if they would only believe. The atonement was sufficient to save and would save the elect, regardless of whether they ever heard the gospel or believed in Jesus or the atonement; but the non-elect must believe in the atonement in order for it to be able to save them."
-Why do they uses the term "sufficient", and were do we find it in scripture ?
- Iam right to concluded, that if it is only sufficient, than it means that partly the blood was shed in vain (for the reprobated), because it was only sufficient, but it did not actually save and did not fullfill it's purpose ?
- Why would the Father poured His wrath, and let His Son to suffer such horrible death, if it is only "sufficient ?
Andrew Fuller
"He died for the human race; while He made an atonement for the elect only, the atonement was sufficient to save the non-elect if they would only believe. The atonement was sufficient to save and would save the elect, regardless of whether they ever heard the gospel or believed in Jesus or the atonement; but the non-elect must believe in the atonement in order for it to be able to save them."
-Why do they uses the term "sufficient", and were do we find it in scripture ?
- Iam right to concluded, that if it is only sufficient, than it means that partly the blood was shed in vain (for the reprobated), because it was only sufficient, but it did not actually save and did not fullfill it's purpose ?
- Why would the Father poured His wrath, and let His Son to suffer such horrible death, if it is only "sufficient ?