Is there a problem with the use of "sufficient" in Limited atonement discussions?

[austinbrown2]

Preface: It is often remarked by those who hold to limited atonement (5-pointer sense) that Christ´s death is sufficient for all, because of its infinite value, but is efficient only for the elect. In conjunction, the sins of the elect are atoned for, but the non-elect´s sins are not atoned for. This is the crucial distinction in the 5-point scheme.

Question: If the sins of the non-elect are not placed upon Jesus, then in what sense is His death sufficient for them?

Reflection on the question: The term "œsufficient" means "œas much as is needed, equal to what is specified or required; enough"¦ satisfies a requirement exactly"¦"

What does the infinite value of Christ´s death have to do with the non-elect if it doesn´t have any reference to atonement? If we say that His death is sufficient for all, but sufficiency doesn´t include atonement for their sin, then we are merely talking about the perfection of Christ´s atonement with respect to the actual design, which is only for the elect´s sins. We could say that Christ´s death would have been perfectly sufficient for all had God chosen to include their sins, but as it stands, the non-elect´s sins are not included in the design, and therefore the death of Christ is certainly not sufficient for them. It would only be sufficient if and only if the sins of the non-elect were imputed to Him. But they are not.

So why use language that is terribly confusing- maybe even contradictory? This language of sufficient suggests (to me at least) that Christ´s atonement is some kind of right of pardon obtained that can be applied to anyone who believes; a kind of spring of perfect water that can be dished out to those who believe, but doesn´t actually have reference to the actual sins of the people in its original act. But this isn´t the 5-point Reformed contention.

Conclusion: So, again, shouldn´t we say that Christ´s death is not sufficient for the non-elect, but this insufficiency isn´t a reflection of some kind of inherent deficiency in Christ´s work, rather the insufficiency for the non-elect is one of design and intention precisely because God did not impute their sins to Christ on the cross?

Austin

 

[DTK]

Historically, Muller has pointed out what the formula meant for those who used it in addressing the atonement. Although I appreciate Dr. Tom Nettles' desire to address this, as he did in his book on Baptist history, By His Grace and For His Glory; nonetheless, I think the formula "sufficient for all" does have a valid place in the history of Reformed theology in seeking to explain the issue...

Richard A. Muller: Reformed theology also presented, both in the Reformation and the era of orthodoxy, a doctrine of the mediatorial work of Christ that paralleled the Reformed emphases on salvation by grace alone and divine election. Whereas Calvin, Bullinger, and others of their generation did not make a major issue of the limitation of Christ´s atoning work to the elect alone, later Reformed thinkers elaborated the point, particularly because of the controversies in which they became involved. There has been some scholarly disagreement on this issue"”and sometimes a doctrinal wedge is driven between "œCalvin" and the "œCalvinists," as if Calvin taught a "œuniversal atonement" and later Reformed writers taught a "œlimited atonement." Yet, when the terms and definitions are rightly sorted out, there is significant continuity in the Reformed tradition on this point.

The terms "œuniversal" and "œlimited atonement" do not represent the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed view"”or, for that matter, the view of its opponents. The issue was not over "œatonement," broadly understood, but over the "œsatisfaction" made by Christ for sin"”and the debate was never over whether or not Christ´s satisfaction was limited: all held it to be utterly sufficient to pay the price for all sin and all held it to be effective only for those who were saved. The question concerned the identity of those saved and, therefore, the ground of the limitation"”God´s will or human choice. Thus, both Calvin and Bullinger taught that Christ´s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all, both commended the universal preaching of the Gospel, both taught the efficacy of Christ´s work for the faithful alone"”and both taught that faith is the gift of God, made available to the elect only. In other words, the inference of a limitation of the efficacy of Christ´s satisfaction to the elect alone is found both in Bullinger and in Calvin, despite differences between their formulations of the doctrine of predestination. The Reformed orthodox did teach the doctrine more precisely. In response to Arminius, they brought the traditional formula of sufficiency for all sin and efficiency for the elect alone to the forefront of their definition, where Calvin and Bullinger hardly mentioned it at all. The orthodox also more clearly connected the doctrine of election to the language of the limitation of the efficacy of Christ´s death, arguing that the divine intention in decreeing the death of Christ was to save only the elect. This solution is presented in the Canons of Dort in concise formulae.

It is well documented that some of the delegates at Dort held that the sufficiency of Christ´s death reflected the divine will to save all people, if all would come to believe and therefore found the formulae restrictive. As the seventeenth century progressed, Reformed theologians such as John Davenant in England or John Cameron and Moyses Amyraut in France offered various conceptions of a hypothetical universalism," according to which the sufficiency of Christ´s death was willed hypothetically or conditionally for all human beings"”on condition of belief"”prior to the divine decree to save the elect by grace. This view was considered problematic by the majority of the Reformed orthodox, given that it conceived of a unrealized (indeed, an intentionally unrealized) will in God. Still, inasmuch as the doctrine never claimed to broaden the efficacy of Christ´s death on the assumption that nonelect individuals might actually believe, it can hardly be identified as an actual alternative to the more typical Reformed teaching of the limitation, by the will of God, of the efficacy of Christ´s death to the elect. If there is a difference between Calvin and the "œCalvinists" (or between Bullinger or Musculus and the Reformed orthodox) on this point, it is simply that, in the case of the Reformers, one must make a little effort to "œconnect the dots," whereas the Reformed orthodox made sure, against various doctrinal adversaries, that the picture was presented in full. Arguably, in the confessional context of seventeenth-century orthodoxy, this full presentation included both the hypothetical universalism of Davenant, Cameron, and Amyraut and the more strictly divided sufficiency/efficiency formula of Turretin, Heidegger, and the other signatories of the Formula Consensus Helvetica; although, equally so, it may be argued that some of the forms of hypothetical universalism included speculative elements that fell outside of the main trajectory of Reformed theology. Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 14-15.

DTK

 

[Answerman]

This is what is called a heretical hypothetical, which in this case you make the following If/Then statement, "If God had intended to save all of the human race with Christ's substitutionary atonement, then Christ's sacrifice would have been sufficient for all." The problem with this is that this is not what God intended, so I think that saying it this way is not very helpful.

Also this is more of a reactionary statement when Arminians give Calvinists a hard time on limited atonement. I see this as a baiting tactic that Arminians use to take the focus off of the substitutionary nature of Christ's sacrifice and when Calvinists respond with this hypothetical, then I think that it shows that he has fallen for the bait. I would think that a better response would be to not fall for this trick and keep the focus on the substitutionary nature of Christ's sacrifice, since if you stick to your guns on this point the Arminian has no where to run.

 

[fredtgreco]

The use of the phrase "sufficient for all" has to do with the nature of Christ and His sacrifice, not people. The phrase is a useful and Biblical one in that it describes the inifinite worth of the sacrifice of Christ. If the sacrifice were only sufficient for the elect, it would say that the value of Christ's death was finite, not infinite, and would militate against the Biblical teaching that Christ is God.

No less a theologian than John Owen (champion of limited atonement/particular redemption in his matchless Death of Death in the Death of Christ) used the phrase.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
The use of the phrase "sufficient for all" has to do with the nature of Christ and His sacrifice, not people. The phrase is a useful and Biblical one in that it describes the inifinite worth of the sacrifice of Christ. If the sacrifice were only sufficient for the elect, it would say that the value of Christ's death was finite, not infinite, and would militate against the Biblical teaching that Christ is God.

No less a theologian than John Owen (champion of limited atonement/particular redemption in his matchless Death of Death in the Death of Christ) used the phrase.

Good points, Fred.

 

[Flynn]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
The use of the phrase "sufficient for all" has to do with the nature of Christ and His sacrifice, not people. The phrase is a useful and Biblical one in that it describes the inifinite worth of the sacrifice of Christ. If the sacrifice were only sufficient for the elect, it would say that the value of Christ's death was finite, not infinite, and would militate against the Biblical teaching that Christ is God.

No less a theologian than John Owen (champion of limited atonement/particular redemption in his matchless Death of Death in the Death of Christ) used the phrase.

G'day Fred,

Are you familiar with Owens distinction between internal and external sufficiency? The atonement is only internally sufficient for all, not externally. The atonement is not sufficient for all men for it was not made for all men. Owen says its not sufficient for the non-elect, its only that 'it could have been sufficient for all, had God chosen otherwise.' Dort maintains that it actually is sufficient for all men.

Possible worlds logic helps to explain Owen's point. Had God elected all men (in another possible world) then the atonement would have been sufficient for all them too.

But in this world (this actual world) it is not sufficient for all, for it was not made for all men of this actual world.

This construction is different to Calvins', and then J Edwards, C Hodge, Shedd and Dabney's.
Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-17-2006 by Flynn]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

My take:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/TULIP/McMahonJesusDeathSufficientEfficient.htm

...with a bit of satire.

 

[austinbrown2]

To C Matthew McMahon and DTK and others (in that order)

Thank you McMahon! That was very helpful and directly addressed a weakness in the seemingly universal nomenclature utilized these days. When people say "sufficient for all" they sure don't sound like they are talking about something that COULD have happened. It is said in the present tense, and I must say that it is highly misleading... at least it really confused me as I have been wrestling with this issue.

DTK: Thanks for the post. It was helpful.

For the others who have responsed: Consider a response from someone to me on this very question, "No it is not...... because the life and work of the Son of God is of unlimited value. Therefore, any sin ever committed or that will be committed or that could be imagine this one sacrifice was good enough to cover them. Therefore, it is sufficient in that sense. "

I responded: "Riight, it WOULD be good enough to cover them if it falls within the scope of the imputation, but the sins of the non-elect are not imputed to Christ, right? If so, then the death of Christ is presently not sufficient for them. Is my logic off here?

I grant that it could certainly be sufficient in the way you are defining things, but the terminology is confusing to me. When someone says that Christ's death is sufficient (present tense) for everyone, this causes me to reflect upon the cross and what was accomplished there. But if I know that the sins of the non-elect were not imputed to Christ and if propitiation was not made for them at the cross, then how can I talk about a present tense sufficiency for those who were not atoned for? It isn't sufficient for THEM, precisely because atonement was not made for them. The unlimited value of Christ's work has no bearing upon them (atonement anyway) unless something was accomplished in space time history at the cross, namely, his bearing their sins. But this didn't happen.

So my beef is with the misleading (to me anyway) terminology. Why not say that Christ's death is so wonderfully unlimited in its perfections that it COULD have atoned for every sin every committed, but as it is, God's design was for a smaller segment of humanity. The death of Christ is sufficient and effective for them only."

Now read C Matthew McMahon's article.

Peace,
Austin

 

[fredtgreco]

From Owen, the master:

1. The first thing that we shall lay down is concerning the dignity, worth,
preciousness, and infinite value of the blood and death of Jesus Christ.
The maintaining and declaring of this is doubtless especially to be
considered; and every opinion that doth but seemingly clash against it is
exceedingly prejudiced, at least deservedly suspected, yea, presently to be
rejected by Christians, if upon search it be found to do so really and
indeed, as that which is injurious and derogatory to the merit and honor of
Jesus Christ. The Scripture, also, to this purpose is exceeding full and
frequent in setting forth the excellency and dignity of his death and
sacrifice, calling his blood, by reason of the unity of his person, "œGod´s
own blood," Acts 20:28; exalting it infinitely above all other sacrifices,
as having for its principle "œthe eternal Spirit," and being itself "œwithout
spot," Hebrews 9:14; transcendently more precious than silver, or gold,
or corruptible things, 1 Peter 1:18; able to give justification from all
things, from which by the law men could not be justified, Acts 13:28.
Now, such as was the sacrifice and offering of Christ in itself, such was it
intended by his Father it should be. It was, then, 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 to 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 sufficiency of his sacrifice hath a
twofold rise: "” First, The dignity of the person that did offer and was
offered. Secondly, The greatness of the pain he endured, by which he was
able to bear, and did undergo, the whole curse of the law and wrath of God
due to sin. And this sets out the innate, real, true worth and value of the
blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. 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, doth 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 accepter that it should be for such, some, or
any, is that which gives the formality of a price unto it; this is external.
But the value and fitness of it to be made a price ariseth from its own
internal sufficiency. Hence may appear what is to be thought of that old
distinction of the schoolmen, embraced and used by divers protestant
divines, though by others again rejected, "” namely, "œThat Christ died for
all in respect of the sufficiency of the ransom he paid, but not in respect of
the efficacy of its application;" or, "œThe blood of Christ was a sufficient
price for the sins of all the world;" "” which last expression is corrected
by some, and thus asserted, "œThat the blood of Christ was sufficient to
have been made a price for all;" which is most true, as was before declared:
for its being a price for all or some doth not arise from its own sufficiency,
worth, or dignity, but from the intention of God and Christ using it to that
purpose, as was declared; and, therefore, it is denied that the blood of
Christ was a sufficient price and ransom for all and everyone, not because
it was not sufficient, but because it was not a ransom. And so it easily
appears what is to be owned in the distinction itself before expressed. If it
intend no more but that the blood of our Savior was of sufficient value for
the redemption of all and everyone, and that Christ intended to lay down a
price which should be sufficient for their redemption, it is acknowledged
as most true. But the truth is, that expression, "œTo die for them," holds
out the intention of our Savior, in the laying down of the price, to have
been their redemption; which we deny, and affirm that then it could not be
but that they must be made actual partakers of the eternal redemption
purchased for them, unless God failed in his design, through the defect of
the ransom paid by Christ, his justice refusing to give a dismission upon
the delivery of the ransom

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Some have found this lecture helpful.

rsc

 

[MW]

I don't believe a difference can be posited between Dordt and Owen. The following is from a small paper I wrote in reply to a person who was asking if the sufficiency of Christ's death is Calvinistic.

A Calvinist must not only be prepared to say, but is also obliged to maintain and affirm, that Christ's death was sufficient to pay for every sin of every man ever committed. The Articles of the Synod of Dort, chapter II, sections 3-6, state quite clearly the Calvinistic doctrine:

"This death of the Son of God is a single and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; of infinite value and price, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." sect. 3.

The sufficiency of Christ's death arises from a) His person: "of the same eternal and infinite essence with God the Father and the Holy Spirit; b) His passion: "because his death was conjoined with the feeling of the wrath and curse of God, which we by our sins had deserved." sect. 4.

This sufficiency results in, and is essential to, the universal promulgation of the gospel imperative, sect. 5: "Moreover, the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Which promise ought to be announced and proposed, promiscuously and indiscriminately, to all nations and men to whom God, in his good pleasure, hath sent the gospel, with the command to repent and believe."

The failure of men to respond to the gospel imperative does not in any way detract from the sufficiency of Christ's death, sect. 6: "But because many who are called by the gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief; this doth not arise from defect or insufficiency of the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but from their own fault. (John iii. 19, 20. v. 44. Heb. iii. 5.)"

In maintaining that Christ's death is sufficient to pay the price for every sin that was ever committed, the Calvinist is referring to the "intrinsic worth" of Christ's work. It is a consideration of what the death of Christ is in itself, and so, of what it could possibly have accomplished if God had so designed it.

The effect, or "extrinsic merit," of Christ's death, is considered in sections 7-9 of chapter 2 of the Articles of Dort. There the efficacy of Christ's death for the elect alone is considered with regard to what Christ's work actually did accomplish.

We call that sufficient which is "as much as is needed." When a Calvinist says that Christ's death is sufficient for all, he is simply stating that Christ's death is all that is needed to pay the price for all the sins of all people.

We call that efficacious which "produces the desired result." When a Calvinist says that Christ's death is efficacious for the elect only, he is simply stating that Christ's death actually does pay the price for all the sins of the people whom God has chosen to save.

John Owen, in his masterpiece on the subject, provides the following Biblical considerations for the sufficiency of Christ's death:

"The Scripture, also, to this purpose is exceeding full and frequent in setting forth the excellency and dignity of his death and sacrifice, calling his blood, by reason of the unity of his person, "God's own blood," Acts xx. 28; exalting it infinitely above all other sacrifices, as having for its principle "the eternal Spirit," and being itself "without spot," Heb. ix. 14; transcendently more precious than silver, or gold, or corruptible things, 1 Pet. i 18; able to give justification from all things, from which by the law men could not be justified, Acts xiii. 28. Now, such as was the sacrifice and offering of Christ in itself, such was it intended by his Father it should be. It was, then, 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 to 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." - Works, Vol. X, pp. 295, 296.

John Owen then proceeded to give the same two-fold basis for maintaining the sufficiency of Christ's death as the Articles of the Synod of Dort, namely, the person and passion of Christ. He also made the above distinction between the intrinsic worth and extrinsic merit of Christ's death, stating:

"And this sets out the innate, real, true worth and value of the blood-shedding of Jesus Christ. 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, doth 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." ibid.

Subsequently, John Owen explains, as did the Synod of Dort, that the fulness and sufficiency of Christ's death is the foundation, a) of "the general publishing of the gospel unto all nations, with the right that it hath to be preached to every creature, Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; because the way of salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in." (ibid. 297.) b) of the preachers of the gospel justifiably calling "upon every man to believe, with assurance of salvation to every one in particular upon his so doing, knowing, and being fully persuaded of this, that there is enough in the death of Christ to save every one that shall so do." (ibid. 298.)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So my beef is with the misleading (to me anyway) terminology. Why not say that Christ's death is so wonderfully unlimited in its perfections that it COULD have atoned for every sin every committed, but as it is, God's design was for a smaller segment of humanity. The death of Christ is sufficient and effective for them only."

So your haggle is that the Reformers used different terms than you would?

I prefer the historic formulation of the sufficiency of Christ's atonement.

 

[MW]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Some have found this lecture helpful.

Prof. Clark,

There is much to appreciate in this paper. Something that could be updated is the url, where you cite your writings in the footnotes. Blessings!

 

[austinbrown2]

For Paul and Semper

Semper: I wouldn't say that I am haggling over how the Reformers used the term. I take a bit of umbrage at your comments.

I spelled out very clearly my having trouble with the terminology. Good theology is speaking clearly and plainly. If I have to read 8 Puritans to see how they used the word, note how 2 disagree, three are ambiguous and 3 agree, AND i can't look up the word in a solid english dictionary and find out the intended meaning, then what is this student of theology supposed to do when he is writing a 20 page paper on the subject?

I can assure you that my raising questions doesn't stem from a heart of rebellion against creeds. It's merely thinking critically.


Paul: You make a good point about the Amyraldians of the day. How they use the exact terminology and how 5-pointers use the same terminology does differ in meaning. That is confusing.

Austin

 

[austinbrown2]

To Armourbearer and Fredtgreco

Thank you for the comments. But as you well know, Owen is very hard to understand- at least he is for me. Help me understand this one point:

Owen makes a distinction between the external and internal atonement. When he talks about the internal he seems to be focusing on the intrinsic unlimited power of Christ's death. Ok. Owen says, "It was, then, 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 to that purpose..."

Ok, this makes sense to me. The point is clearly defined.

But...

He goes on to say things that appear to suggest something else a bit more which introduces confusion in my mind. Correct me here... but he seems to be saying that if we consider the cross as it stands, what actually happened in time space in our history books, is (present tense) sufficient for all men. But how can it be sufficient for them- even if it was a death of infinite worth- if the non-elect's sins were not placed on Christ at the cross in our history?

When we say it is sufficient for all, my ears hear a present tense reality. But the present tense reality of sufficiency for the non-elect is false. Right? There sins were not dealt with by the infinite value of Christ's death, therefore it is not sufficient for all right now.

This is my problem with the terminology. I have listended to 5 lectures on the subject and all of them throw around the language of "sufficient for all" strongly implying that it is present tense potentiality. But it isn't a present tense potentiality, right?

If 5-pointers mean nothing else than infinite value by sufficiency that could have dealt with all sins, ok, great, I gladly accept the definition... but that "COULD have" is paramount. It could have been sufficient if and only if their sins were imputed to Christ. The above definition or concept is then dragged over into discussions that strongly imply a present tense sufficiency. But that isn't the case.

Austin

 

[Flynn]

G'day Fred,

You cite Owen as saying:

Now, such as was the sacrifice and offering of Christ in itself, such was it intended by his Father it should be. It was, then, 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 to 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.

David: Austin has picked it up. The English is a contrary to fact
hypothetical subjunctive. "He would have been saved, if he had only reached out."

Owen again:

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.

David: Its not actually sufficient for them because it was never a price for them.

Cunningham, Walker, Berkhof, all note that the formula underwent a revision in the late 16th and 17thCs. Owen himself notes that some Protestant Divines understood it one way, but that was incorrect. Its only correct when its stated in terms of the conditional hypothetical.

So Owen emphasised its internal sufficiency, and negated its actual external sufficiency.

Witsius says it a little better with the same intent:

We therefore conclude, 1st. That the obedience and sufferings of Christ,
considered in themselves, are, on account of the infinite dignity of the
person, of that value, as to be have been sufficient for the redeeming not only all and every man in particular, but many myriads besides, had it so pleased God and Christ, that he should have undertaken and satisfied for them. Economy of the Covenants, 2.9.2, vol 1, p., 256.

So the value of the satisfaction considered as to its mere abstracted value is infinite. But considered in terms of his extenal applicability, it is limited to the elect alone. It would have only been sufficient for all, IF Christ had undertaken to make a satisfaction for all.

Contrary to this, Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Edwards, C Hodge, Dabney, Shedd etc say that Christ actually did make a satisfaction of infinite value for all.

As to Dort, the most that can be said is that its takes a middle ground. But it does seem that 2:6 does imply a position contrary to Owen's.


Austin has it right.

Take care,
David

 

[austinbrown2]

To Flynn

You said: Contrary to this, Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Edwards, C Hodge, Dabney, Shedd etc say that Christ actually did make a satisfaction of infinite value for all.>>>>>

My knowledge of these men on this subject is pretty limited (save Dabney), but I find the statement fascinating. Do you think they are inconsistent, tend towards the Amyraldian scheme, or...?

Thanks,
Austin

 

[Flynn]

Originally posted by austinbrown2
You said: Contrary to this, Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Edwards, C Hodge, Dabney, Shedd etc say that Christ actually did make a satisfaction of infinite value for all.>>>>>

My knowledge of these men on this subject is pretty limited (save Dabney), but I find the statement fascinating. Do you think they are inconsistent, tend towards the Amyraldian scheme, or...?

Thanks,
Austin

G'day Austin,

No not at all. Generally the charge is completely without credibility or knowledge.

Ive posted Shedd, Dabney and C Hodge on this board months ago. If anyone wants to call them tending toward Amyraldianism or whatever, then to me thats just foolish. There is not a lot I can say at that point, but kindly agree to disagree.

If you ever hear the charge Amyraldianism, ask the person to define it _with_ primary source documentation. We have to be mature and wise with the shibboleths and labels (Christian swear words) we through out there. Andrew Fuller was called an Arminian. Boston was called an Arminian and and Amyraldian. Carey was called Arminian. But these have been three of the greatest advocates of evangelical Calvinism in recent history.

I would encourage you to read C Hodge Shedd and Dabney on this. In the archives of this board, in the Calvinist forum, you should find a number of quotations Ive posted from these three.

Ill add this, what strikes me as odd is the historical impact of men like Bullinger and Musculus. Both were Reformed, Predestinarians, Augustinians, etc. They were in the 1550s. Amyraut was doing his thing in the 1630-40s. But both said that Christ died to make a sufficient sacrifice for all sin, all the sin of this world. Who would intelligently say they were Amyraldians or tending to Amyraldianism? We act as if they never existed. I could say more, but I wont.

take care,
David

[Edited on 8-18-2006 by Flynn]

 

[fredtgreco]

I don't understand all the hand wringing. The words "sufficient" and "sufficiency" are the language of worth and value, not purpose. To say something is is sufficient does not imply at all that it is intended. Owen says as much in the place where I quoted.

For example, a hershey bar costs $1. I have $10,000. I have money sufficient to buy 10,000 hershey's bars. But I have no intention of doing that, and the very fact that I have $10,000 says nothing about my intention to by hershey bars.

 

[Flynn]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
I don't understand all the hand wringing. The words "sufficient" and "sufficiency" are the language of worth and value, not purpose. To say something is is sufficient does not imply at all that it is intended. Owen says as much in the place where I quoted.

For example, a hershey bar costs $1. I have $10,000. I have money sufficient to buy 10,000 hershey's bars. But I have no intention of doing that, and the very fact that I have $10,000 says nothing about my intention to by hershey bars.

G'day Fred,

It has to do with remedy. You cant offer a remedy that is insufficient for the sins of the this world.

The Owenic remedy is only sufficient for another hypothetical possible world.

You have $10000, you bought one choccy bar. You then offer that one bar to the everyone sitting on the 100,000 seat footy stadium. Umm?? That will go down well.

Cunningham tried to disconnect the sufficiency from the free offer. Dabney called him short-sighted. I think Dabney was spot on.


Take care,
David

[Edited on 8-18-2006 by Flynn]

 

[polemic_turtle]

But if you bought a candy bar for $1 you wouldn't say you paid sufficient for every candy bar in the world, would you? Even if you could have, you didn't. So you can't say you paid a price sufficient for anything more than that which you actually paid for.

That is the problem at hand: Was the atonement of equal worth to the world or the elect? If Christ died (only) for the elect, then it wouldn't be honest to say that, properly speaking, the atonement was worth anything above that amount purchased. If Christ died only for the elect, strictly speaking, then His death wasn't sufficient above that which it was efficient. He was; His death wasn't.

Of course I don't think that's the historical reformed position, but I believe that Equivalentism is pretty much the logical conclusion of the popular conception of "Limited Atonement".

 

[MW]

Austin,

Why is Christ's death able to stand in the place of what a sinful man deserves? It is the gracious purpose of God. Considered in itself the death of Christ possesses the virtue to redeem all men. In God's purpose it is only designed to redeem an elect, specific number of people.

This is not an hypothetical contrary to fact condition. Owen's statement is factual, showing the one sense in which the reformed are prepared to accept the view of hypothetical as over against actual (or definite) atonement. He is qualifying that one place of common ground which the Reformed seem to share with his Arminian opponent. Which he does for the purpose of showing that the Reformed view provides for a gospel offer, whereas the Arminian view offers nothing.

If the statements of Owen and Dordt were merely hypothetical, then they could not have based the indiscriminate offer of the gospel on the sufficiency of the death of Christ. All reformed theologians acknowledge the hypothetical death of Christ for all men in the gospel offer: what the Marrow of Modern Divinity somewhat clumsily expresses as "Christ is dead for him;" but which it more properly defined as "a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind." The Larger Catechism (answer 32), speaks of God freely providing and offering to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by Him."

Blessings!

[Edited on 8-19-2006 by armourbearer]

 

[MW]

For what it's worth, William Cunningham did not deny the sufficiency of Christ's death as something actual. His major concern was to guard against the scholastic manner of phrasing the doctrine, "sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis." The "pro" implied that Christ did something on the behalf of all men , that Christ died for all men intentionally. This, as Cunningham ably showed, is to confuse the ideas of intrinsic worth and extrinsic merit.

 

[Flynn]

G'day Matthew:

You say:
If the statemen ts of Owen and Dordt were merely hypothetical, then they could not have based the indiscriminate offer of the gospel on the sufficiency of the death of Christ. All reformed theologians acknowledge the hypothetical death of Christ for all men in the gospel offer: what the Marrow of Modern Divinity somewhat clumsily expresses as "Christ is dead for him;" but which it more properly defined as "a deed of gift and grant unto all mankind." The Larger Catechism (answer 32), speaks of God freely providing and offering to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by Him."

David: Thats the point. Owen said that with regard to its internal sufficiency, it is infinite. With regard to its external, it is not sufficient for all the men of this world. It could have been, had God elected all the men of this world. But as it stands, its not sufficient for all the men of this world for it is not a payment for them. Your acknowledgment that this annulls the grounds of the offer is exactly the problem. There is no sufficient remedy for all the men of this world.

Take care,
David

 

[Flynn]

G'day Matthew,

You say:

Originally posted by armourbearer
For what it's worth, William Cunningham did not deny the sufficiency of Christ's death as something actual. His major concern was to guard against the scholastic manner of phrasing the doctrine, "sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis." The "pro" implied that Christ did something on the behalf of all men , that Christ died for all men intentionally. This, as Cunningham ably showed, is to confuse the ideas of intrinsic worth and extrinsic merit.

Well to be clear, I didnt say he tried to deny it. I said:

"Cunningham tried to disconnect the sufficiency from the free offer. Dabney called him short-sighted. I think Dabney was spot on."

Which is exactly what he does. The sufficiency of the atonement should not be the basis of the gospel offer.

Take care,
David

 

[Flynn]

Well its Paul again.

Paul says:

The "if" does not have to imply the possible worlds schema. It can be read as you or I (rightly) read it. That is, the death of Christ was enough to save all men. The enough is the key.


David: Well he does say, if it had so pleased God. He goes on to expressly deny that the blood was a sufficient price and ransom for all, for it was not a ransom for all. Death of Death, p., 184.

What is also important is that he notes that the older formula was not only different but that it entailed that Christ's death was a sufficient for all the sins of the world. Owen expressly denies this. It only conditionally sufficient for all the sins of the world, if God had so chosen to include them in the ransom.

Paul continues: For example, oxygen may be *necessary* for human life, but it's not *sufficient* in that *more* is needed, i.e., it's not *enough.*

David: but thats really referring to the kind of thing, but never to any actual amount of oxigen.

Paul: So I read Owen as saying,

"If the Lord had so deemed to save everyman then Christ's death would have been enough to do it, Christ suffered *enough.*


David: Sure. Owen said that there was an infinitely valuable expiation, such that had God elected more, that same infinitely valuable expistion would have been sufficient for them too. For this he makes the distinction between internal and extension.

Paul:
I find it interesting that David Ponter says,

"The English is a contrary to fact hypothetical subjunctive. "He would have been saved, if he had only reached out." !!

I don't read it that way *at all.* Rather, he would be saved if God would have predestined him to that end. If God had chosen one more than He did, Christ would not have had to suffer one more; he suffered *enough.* And *that's* what sufficient means here, In my humble opinion.

David: But thats not the contention at all Paul. Owen is not saying so much suffering for so much sin. You are missing me and/or Owen. What Owen clearly does say are 4 things;

1) The older Protestants said that Christ obtained a sufficient ransom for all the sins of this world. He actually accomplished something for this world.

2) But thats wrong.

3) The ransom is not sufficient for the sins of the world for its not a ransom for the sins of he world.

4) had God intended it to be a sufficient ransom for the sins of the world, then it would have been sufficient for the sins of the world.

But the problem is, thats not this world. In this actual world, he denies that its sufficient for all the sins of the world. Its right there on p. 184. Its not sufficient for the sins of the world, not because the atonement is intrinsically insufficient, but because it is not a payment for the sins of the world.

So lets get it right about what I am saying about Owen.

Durham is crystal clear on this, representing this tradition well:

In respect to itself, and as abstractly from the covenant of redemption, wherein it is contrived as to all the circumstances of it, in which sense, as his death and sufferings are of infinite value and worth, so they are (as divines commonly speak), of value to redeem the whole world, if God in his design and decree had so ordered, and thought meet to extend it. James Durham, Christ Crucified: The Marrow of the Gospel in 72 Sermons on Isaiah 53 (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 2001), p., 343.

So sure, its able to save all and every sinner, had God so wished. But its actually not sufficient, in another sense, for those whom God did not wish to save.

The original formula, accepted by Calvin, Musculus and Bullinger, et al, was that Christ actually made an expiation, ransom and payment sufficient for all the this worlds sins. So he died _for_ all sufficiently, _for_ the elect efficiently. Or as some of them said: he redeemed all sufficiently, but he redeemed the elect efficiently. Vermigli and Musculus.

Twisse had this twist on it: He died for all in case they do believe.

And to note, even Baxter's Owen's arch-enemy noted that the formula had been revised, and so noted his objection.

If Owen himself admits that he revises the formula as understood by older protestant divines, why all the need to try and avert the implications of what he himself was honest enough to admit?

Take care,
David

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by austinbrown2
Semper: I wouldn't say that I am haggling over how the Reformers used the term. I take a bit of umbrage at your comments.

I spelled out very clearly my having trouble with the terminology. Good theology is speaking clearly and plainly. If I have to read 8 Puritans to see how they used the word, note how 2 disagree, three are ambiguous and 3 agree, AND i can't look up the word in a solid english dictionary and find out the intended meaning, then what is this student of theology supposed to do when he is writing a 20 page paper on the subject?

I can assure you that my raising questions doesn't stem from a heart of rebellion against creeds. It's merely thinking critically.

OK. I read you clearly. I think your statement amounted to tempest in a teapot. No need to take umbrage. We're men and can disagree without getting upset when someone challenges your thinking. If you're going to take on historic language then be prepared for some sharp criticism for saying "I would say it this way instead...."

 

[MW]

Originally posted by Flynn
The original formula, accepted by Calvin, Musculus and Bullinger, et al, was that Christ actually made an expiation, ransom and payment sufficient for all the this worlds sins. So he died _for_ all sufficiently, _for_ the elect efficiently. Or as some of them said: he redeemed all sufficiently, but he redeemed the elect efficiently. Vermigli and Musculus.

David, this is the double reference theory of the atonement. It posits an intention to redeem all men. This is not reformed. Calvin never subscribed such a formula. If this is what you mean by the sufficiency of the atonement, then yes, Owen and Cunningham denied it, along with all orthodox reformed divines.

[Edited on 8-21-2006 by armourbearer]

 

[Flynn]

G'day Matthew:

Ah history claims: this is exactly what I love.

The language of double-reference is loaded with some historical baggage, good and bad... well mostly bad.

David, this is the double reference theory of the atonement. It posits an intention to redeem all men. This is not reformed. Calvin never subscribed such a formula. If this is what you mean by the sufficiency of the atonement, then yes, Owen and Cunningham denied it, along with all orthodox reformed divines. [Edited on 8-21-2006 by armourbearer]

Regarding Calvin, on another thread you said this:

I think it is anachronistic to say that Calvin believed in either an unlimited or a limited atonement. His commentaries come down on both sides, and they do so without making a distinction between the atonement as made by Christ and as offered in the gospel. As a post-Dordt reader of his commentaries I can understand his unlimited sayings as referring to the offer of the gospel and his limited sayings as referring to the work of Christ itself. However, I am conscious that in doing so I am metamorphosing Calvin in order to make him comprehensible to a later age which used categories of thought he was not bothered by.

end

So here you offer two explanations:

1) in his commentaries he comes down on both sides

2) then you interpret him (without sources) that when he spoke in terms of unlimited atonement he referred to the gospel offer.

I suppose you have some harmonizing strategy to make your statements fit.

Calvin does seem to hold to the older version when he says:

They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ 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 Calvin on 1 Jn 2:2. The absurdity is not the formula but the claim that even Satan will be saved, etc.

Now before you jump, the new revision of the formula has no prior source than Beza. It would be anachronistic to read Beza revisionist interpretation back into Calvin. And I might be a case of question begging.

So the question comes to this: In Calvins theology, what did Christ suffer sufficiently for the whole world?

As to the claim that its not Reformed:

See Bullinger:

Imputed Righteousness. For Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of the world, and satisfied divine justice. Therefore, solely on account of Christ's sufferings and resurrection God is propitious with respect to our sins and does not impute them to us, but imputes Christ's righteousness to us as our own (II Cor. 5:19 ff.; Rom. 4:25), so that now we are not only cleansed and purged from sins or are holy, but also, granted the righteousness of Christ, and so absolved from sin, death and condemnation, are at last righteous and heirs of eternal life. Properly speaking, therefore, God alone justifies us, and justifies only on account of Christ, not imputing sins to us but imputing his righteousness to us. Bullinger, Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter XV Of the True Justification of the Faithful.

Now we must in redemption consider by degrees, who it is that is redeemed, from whence, by whom, how, when, and to what purpose and end. Touchyng this matter we have in hand, the very title of this place, speaketh of the redemption of mankinde. Mankinde comprehendeth not once or two nations, but the universal world, that is, all the nations of the whole world, all men from the first to the last. Israel was redeemed sundry tymes out of the power of hys enemies, out of Egypt, sometimes from the tyranny of the Cannanites out of Babylon. But here is not meant of some special redemption of any people, but of the same which is generally of all. We know that all be not partakers of this redemption, but the losse of them which be not saved, doth hinder nothing at all, why it should not be called an universal redemption, which is appointed not for one nation, for all the whole world.

...for it is not for lacke of the grace of God, that the reprobate and desparatly wicked men do not receyve it: nor is it right that it should loose his title and glory of universal redemption because of the children of perdition, seying that it is ready for all men, and all be called unto it. So he redeemed the worlde, what soever do become of the reprobate, is most iustly called the Saviour of the worlde... And this redemption is also universal for this cause, it is so appointed unto all men, that without it no man is, nor can be redeemed.
Wolfgangus Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion, trans., by Iohn Merton (London: Henry Bynneman, 1578), p., 305.

And I have discussed Shedd, Dabney and C Hodge on this before. One from Dabney should suffice:

See how manfully Christ approaches His martyrdom, and how sadly He sinks under it when it comes! Had He borne nothing more than natural evil, He would have been inferior to other merely human heroes, and instead of recognizing the exclamation of Rousseau as just. "Socrates died like a philosopher; but Jesus Christ as a God," we must give the palm of superior fortitude to the Grecian sage. Christ´s crushing agonies must be accounted for by His bearing the wrath of God for the sins of the world. Lectures, p., 511.
And in case, Dabney explicitly denies that world means elect, or is restricted to the elect, or all kinds of elect, etc etc.


Back to Calvin, Musculus and Bullinger, its clear that both were part of the older tradition of Protestant divines that Owen admits to. But in his mind, they got it wrong.

It is Reformed, its just a different Reformed than you are willing to accept existed. Indeed it existed side by side with the other tradition. If you dont like what Bullinger and Musculus said, thats not my problem. But it is undeniable that this has been part of our Reformed tradition.

Hope that helps,
David

[Edited on 8-21-2006 by Flynn]

 

[MW]

David, I don't believe you have met the burden of proof needed to establish a dichotomy in the reformed tradition. As I said in the post you quoted, after Dordt Calvin's unlimited statements can be understood in the context of the gospel offer; his limited statements in the context of the work of Christ. This is true for the whole of this so-called older reformed tradition you have postulated. Your wish is not historical theology's command.