The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Atonement insufficient?

speratus,

As averagefellar said rightly, one must consider the "purpose" (design) of the atonement; i.e., whether it was to atone for all the sins of all men, or it was to atone for all the sins of the elect. As to the "sufficiency" of the atonement, we must distinguish between the inherent sufficiency (quality) of it, in that IF it had been designed to atone for all men, then it would have. In other words, the atonement was infinitely sufficient in and of itself. However, its design/purpose was to atone only for the elect. So, it was sufficient to accomplish its intended purpose. However, it was not sufficient in that it actually atoned for all the sins of all men indiscriminately.

The key here is in the nature of the atonement; i.e., it was vicarious and substitutionary. Thus whoever's sins it was intended to atone for, it succeeded in doing so. In other words, the atonement accomplished exactly what it was intended to do; to reconcile, propitiate, pay the ransom and to be a perfect sacrifice. Therefore it is limited only in its efficiency; to secure the redemption of the elect. Otherwise, it would be limited in its sufficiency; i.e., it would not have accomplished redemption but rather it would have only made redemption possible . . . when something else was added to it.

Were you referring to Jim Ellis' article here: Sufficient for All?

In His Grace,