The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Sufficient atonement

I've been reading a number of discussions on The Highway about atonement, especially in regards to some of Piper's statements. I am in agreement with the sufficiency/efficiency qualification made by many reformed writers. I have no problem saying that Christ died for everyone sufficiently. This in no way denies vicarious substitutionary atonement. I'd like to attempt to briefly reconcile Christ's death being for all with the doctrine of limited atonement. I only desire this to be helpful so that there is greater understanding among the reformed who uphold the doctrine of limited atonement, regardless of the exact terminology used.

1. To my knowledge, the scriptures never state anywhere that Christ did not die for anyone.

Oftentimes, Isaiah 53:11 and John 17:9 are listed as proofs that there are people for whom Christ did not die. However, to come to that conclusion from these texts seems erroneous since these passages do not deal with the negative but the positive. Proving that Christ did not die for some from these passages is only a deduction from the positive. Of course, Christ only purposed to save the elect by His sufferings, but the text only gives us that much. For example, if I said that I traveled for the purpose of visiting my uncle in Maine, can we conclude from the statement that I visited with no one else? Of course not! All we can conclude is that the primary objective was to visit my uncle.

2. I think that the word "atonement" is often used as a synonym with Christ's sufferings, particularly His death. However, when we consider that "atonement" means "covering" or "at-one-ment," the word has more to do with the application of Christ's merits than the death itself. In other words, it has more to do with justification than the sacrifice. Stated another way, we are covered in Christ's shed blood not at the point of sacrifice but at the point of faith, hence the reformed doctrine of "justification by faith alone." Before this point we were children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) i.e. those who are not covered by the atoning blood of Christ and therefore subject to wrath. In stating that Christ's sacrifice is the atonement and arguing the extent of the atonement based on the extent of the sacrifice seems to logically run into the doctrine of eternal justification when we consider the definition of the word.

3. The promise of the gospel (whoever believes will be saved) is true because of the sufficiency of Christ's sufferings. For the reprobate to believe is certainly an impossibility because of total depravity, but the promise is just as good to them as it is to the elect. See Ezekiel 18:21-32, John 12:40, 2 Thes. 2:10. For the promise to be good for the reprobate, even though they will never exercise faith and repentance, Christ's death would seem to be sufficient for them (and His death "for" them in this sense). Otherwise, their hypothetical faith could not save them because there is no satisfaction of Christ as its foundation. In 2 Thes. 2:10, for example, how could it be true that those who reject Christ would have been saved if there was no sacrifice for them? Unless faith has intrinsic merit and expiatory power, how could the statement be true if Christ did not die for them?

Calvin on Rom. 5:

"He makes this favor common to all,  because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality  extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole  world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all,  yet all do not receive him."

Heidelberg Catechism:
"37.   What do you understand by the word “suffered”?
That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life."

Canons of Dort, 2nd head, article 6:

"And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves."

My purpose in writing this is not to start a debate, but rather to briefly describe what is a prominent position in reformed theology so that those who believe that Christ in a very real sense died for all indiscriminately are not classified as Arminians or Amyraldians. Shedd does a good job summarizing both positions:

“Again, the preposition ‘for’ is sometimes understood to denote not intention, but value or sufficiency. To say that Christ died ‘for’ all men then means, that his death is sufficient to expiate the guilt of all men. The one who denies that Christ died ‘for’ all men, takes ‘for’ in the sense of intention to effectually apply. The other who affirms that Christ died ‘for’ all men, takes ‘for’ in the sense of value.”

I hope this is helpful...

Well, I was anticipating that you would bring this subject up. It is consistent with your view of a universal love of God. And on this subject I am even more adamant in my opposition of it both on biblical grounds and according to all the historic Reformed confessions and catechisms. The position you have unfortunately chosen to embrace is "inconsistent or moderate" Calvinism, which admittedly some have espoused but who have been strongly opposed and soundly refuted. Just to start things off, I am going to quote from both the Westminster Confession and the Canons of Dordt:



This is hardly a 'proof' that Christ's death was discriminate/particular only. However, without supplying a litany of proof texts, which I am more than willing to do, let me offer just the following which is indicative of what Scripture teaches concerning Christ's atonement:

John 10:11 (ASV) "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep."

John 10:15 (ASV) "even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep."

John 10:26 (ASV) "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep."

The definition of the word "atonement" cannot be ascertained simply etymologically, although this cannot be ignored. In Hebrew, there are fundamentally 2 words used; kaphar and chaTa', both of which have the following meanings, to "cover," hence expiate, condone, cancel, placate; to "offer," or "receive a sin offering," hence, make atonement, appease, propitiate; "effect reconciliation," i. e. by some conduct, or course of action. Thus it is obvious that the Old Testament usage of the term designates an action done to accomplish an end, i.e., the death of Christ is most certainly signified.

In the New Testament, the actual word "atonement" is most often translated "reconciliation". But that is, in and of itself, but one aspect of what atonement means. There are found words used throughout the NT to describe atonement; sacrifice, reconciliation, ransom/redemption and propitiation. These four words comprise the complexity of what Christ's passive obedience accomplished.

There has been sufficient proof over the years and even lately to show that Calvin held to an definite, limited, discriminatory atonement which is consistent with the doctrine upheld by the other Reformers, Puritans and Confessions which is contrary to all forms of inconsistent Universalism. I could provide sources for you if needed which are far too lengthy to include here.

Ah yes.... there is this particular Lord's Day Q&A, to which I must take exception. The 'value' of Christ's death was infinite in value, i.e., not one more drop of blood would have to been shed if the elect of God were increased by only one more person. However, that does not equate with your view that Christ laid down His life for "all" indiscriminately, i.e., He actually made atonement for "all" without exception. For indeed, if that were true then all MUST be saved, for the Father was fully satisfied with the sacrifice offered by His Son and ALL of the debt owed for whom He died was paid in full, and the wrath of God which was upon them was fully appeased via the removal of that which caused the offense (propitiation); sin, etc.

It may not have been your intent to start a debate, but surely you could not have imagined it would not have done so.

And, I would definitely challenge your statement that this modified/inconsistent Calvinist position is "a prominent position in Reformed theology". It has always been a minority and unpopular position throughout history. It was held by but 3 or 4 men at the Westminster Assembly and soundly opposed and rejected. And it is most surely a form of Amyraldianism, despite your protest(s) to the contrary.

Owen's most well known summary is most fitting to end my response which you can find here: For Whom Did Christ Die?

Well, I don't really know what to say... Everything you quoted from WCF and the Canons I agree with. None of them affirm anything about His death in the negative. The Canons without a doubt affirm the sufficiency/efficacy of Christ's death. Owen later changed the concept to simply refer to the value of Christ's sacrifice not to be understood as sufficient for all.

If Calvin didn't mean what he said, and in fact meant the total opposite, perhaps he wasn't a very good communicator? If I believe what Calvin said in Rom. 5:18 and the sufficiency/efficacy position that he agreed with in his commentary on 1 John 2:2, and I agree with Calvin that there is a love God has for all mankind, does that make me a moderate Calvinist? Was Calvin a moderate Calvinist?

Again, I was only trying to reconcile the word "for" from both points of view. I also agree in a real sense Christ only died for the elect because He meant only to redeem these people.

Ursinus:

"Obj. 4. If Christ made satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved… Ans. Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof;.. [T]he satisfaction is made ours by an application, which is… two-fold; the former of which is made by God, when he justifies us on account of the merit of his Son, and brings it to pass that we cease from sin; the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, the merit of Christ, when by a true faith, we are fully persuaded that God for the sake of the satisfaction of his Son, remits unto us our sins. Without this application, the satisfaction of Christ is of no benefit to us."

"[T]he atonement of Christ is sufficient for expiating all the sins of all men, or of the whole world, if only all men will make application thereof unto themselves by faith."

"[F]or the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made–but [condemnation] arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ."

Watson:

"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."

I would simply like to promote greater understanding among the reformed who conceptually agree with the same doctrines but use some different vocabulary. I say this respectfully, Pilgrim, but I don't think you represent a very balanced reformed perspective. Certainly you are entitled to your opinions, but I think you would do better not to come so strongly against other reformed perspectives, unless you actually think they're heretical.

Probably my favorite authors on the subject are Ursinus and Charles Hodge. Perhaps those writers will give you a better idea of where I'm coming from.

1. Owen never affirmed that Christ's atonement was for "all", but to the contrary, it was ONLY for the elect.

2. We have already discussed the "love of God for all" concept, which I made clear I reject as you have stated it. Whether Calvin held to that view or not is inconsequential to me. He was in error on a few things.

3. I am more than familiar with what Ursinus wrote on Q&A #37 in the Heidelberg and again I say without apology, he was woefully in error on this point. If Christ "made satisfaction for all" then all MUST be saved. The atonement which Christ rendered was a judicial/forensic act that satisfied all that the law demanded. IF it was rendered for "all" then "all" must receive the just judgment of God; not guilty by proxy. Owen's statement and more so his entire "Death of Death in the Death of Christ" stands firm and has never been disproven to this day. Edwards was also in total agreement with what Owen wrote as well as myriad others.

4. Let me iterate... the inherent value of Christ's atonement is infinite. But it was not rendered for "all", for it was decreed by virtue of the "Covenant of Redemption" between the Father and Son that He would die in behalf of those whom the Father predestined to salvation and them only. Any and all of the benefits merited by Christ were vicarious and substitutionary for a specific/definite number of people and them only.

5. Again, Ursinus erred when he states, "[F]or the atonement of Christ is for the sins of the whole world, as it respects the dignity and sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made–but [condemnation] arises from unbelief; because men reject the benefits of Christ offered in the gospel, and so perish by their own fault, and not because of any insufficiency in the merits of Christ." All the non-elect are destined for condemnation BY NATURE due to the punishment put upon them as progeny of Adam, aka: Original Sin. The unbelief they own is the fruit of their depravity and not the immediate cause of their condemnation. For as Owen rightly states, unbelief is a sin and if Christ died for ALL sin, then why would unbelief be a cause for their damnation?

6. I detect a bit of sophistry from you when you wrote, "I would simply like to promote greater understanding among the reformed who conceptually agree with the same doctrines but use some different vocabulary." It is most surely NOT some different vocabulary on this matter but an essential understanding of Christ's atoning work, in fact the entire manifestation of God's love and justice upon mankind which was foreordained in eternity.

But I most definitely do think this view is heretical; contrary to the Scriptural teaching on the subject and most of the Reformed Confessions.

Lastly, I am very familiar with Ursinus and Charles Hodge. And I stand against both on this issue where they err. Hodge also took the position that the word "hate" as found in Rom 9:13 meant "to love less", which is indefensible. He also held that Arminians/semi-Pelagians who profess to be Christians are to be received as "brothers in Christ", which is another odious heresy that is growing in popularity in our day... And would I not be correct in assuming that you might also hold to that position?

To iterate once again... I am NOT a 'hyper-Calvinist' by any stretching of the definition. I don't even hold to Supralapsarianism. I stand in good company with my forefathers of the faith and make no apology for my views which I have been given the able ability to defend for several decades. It is upon the "old paths" I have been placed and shall by God's grace continue until the end.

Thank you for the discussion.

Good answer!

I would commend to you, Calvin and the Calvinists by Paul Helm who argues against R.T Kendall's proposition that John Calvin held to a universal atonment of Christ, i.e., Christ made atonement/satisfaction of all men... and other misinterpretations by Kendall re: Calvin's teaching on the atonement.

I would also refer you to Dr. Gary Long's series on "A Doctrinal Study on the Extent of the Atonement", of which there are 5 parts and which can be found HERE.

From Loraine Boettner's Limited Atonement:

"It was already shown that the particularistic view of the design of the atonement is in harmony with the universalistic passages of Holy Scripture. It remains to be shown that this view’ is expressly taught by Scripture. When an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph of Nazareth and told him not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, that which was conceived in her being of the Holy Ghost, the angel added: “And she shall bring forth a son and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). In the allegory of the good shepherd Christ foretold that He would give and lay down His life for His sheep (John 10: 11, 15). Speaking to His disciples and referring to them He said: “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Paul declared to the Ephesian elders that Christ purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28), and he reminded all the believers at Ephesus that Christ “loved the church and gave himself for it” (Eph. 5:25). And when Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome that God “spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all” (Rom. 8:32), he was referring, according to both the immediately preceding and the immediately following context specifically to the elect. All of the statements just quoted are explicit in character. In another passage Christ teaches by inescapable implication that He gave His life for none other than those whom the Father had given Him. In His high-priestly prayer He said: “I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me” (John 17:9). Indisputably Christ’s sacrificial work and His intercessory work are both priestly activities and therefore simply two aspects of His atoning work. Therefore the scope of the one cannot be wider than the scope of the other. If Christ prayed exclusively for those whom the Father had given Him, He also bought only these with His blood."
~ R.B. Kuiper

There are quite a few Reformed believers who hold to the view that the atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient for only the elect.
Personally, when I hear/read that I can't help but think that their sufficiency argument is just a waste of words. They acknowledge like others in the Reformed community that only the elect will come to saving faith. Yet, they add that the atonement is sufficient to save all.
I would agree with this line of reasoning if the atonement was meant for all; yet the fact is if the atonement was meant all. All would come to saving knowledge.
This to me seems like a no brainer, yet those who argue for sufficiency/efficiency don't seem to see a contradiction in this.
Call me confused, because even CH Spurgeon believed the sufficiency/efficiency argument.

What am I missing?

Tom

Tom,

There is a significant difference between believing that Christ's sacrifice was inherently sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect and believing that Christ actually made atonement for all but it is only given to the elect.

The eternal purpose of God was to save a remnant of Adam's fallen race through the vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ, God in the flesh. Thus the Son entered into covenant with the Father to give Himself for those whom the Father gave him. And, the Spirit would bring all those whom the Father predestinated to eternal life and of which the Son atoned for to repentance and faith and sanctify them until they were taken home. Thus there is no contradiction in 'roles' within the Godhead, e.g., the Father predestined a definite number of mankind, but the Son died for all of mankind, etc.

Secondly, such a view makes God an unjust Judge. For how could He condemn anyone for whom Christ paid the full price of their sins? When Christ bore His Father's wrath, God was SATISFIED and Christ put the seal upon His work when He cried out, "It is finished!" All those the Father gave Him He said WILL COME TO ME. Thus all for whom Christ died are infallibly saved. It is logically impossible to hold that Christ atoned for ALL but only SOME will be saved... never mind the fact, that no such thing is anywhere taught in Scripture. The Remonstrants submitted this view at Dordt and it was unanimously rejected as heresy.

Over the years, having pondered on the "why" some would entertain such a view I have concluded that it is very much the same reasoning used by those who believe that all infants who die in infancy are saved..... it is based on not much more than emotionalism; man's own idea(s) as to what God must be. In short, it is a form of idolatry, to which we are all prone.

Is this what you mean Tom?

(excerpted from C. H. Spurgeon's sermon on Isaiah 53:6, entitled, "Sin Laid on Jesus")

6. We cannot close the exposition of this verse without just remarking upon the "us" here intended. "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." It is usually conceded by us who hold the doctrine of particular redemption that there was in the death of Christ very much of generality and universality. We believe that the atonement of Christ was infinite in value, and that if Christ had decreed to save every man of woman born, he need not have suffered another pang; there was sufficient in his atonement if he had so willed it to have redeemed the entire race. We believe also that by the death of Christ there is a general and honest invitation given to every creature under heaven in terms like these:-" Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." We are not prepared, however, to go an inch beyond that. We hold that from the very nature of the satisfaction of Christ it could not have been made for any but for his elect; for Christ either did pay the debts of all men or he did not; if he did pay the debts of all men they are paid, and no man can be called to account for them. If Christ was the surety of every man living, then how in the name of common justice is Christ to be punished, and man punished too? If it be replied that the man would not accept the atonement, then I ask again, Was there a satisfaction given, for if so it was given whether the man accepts it or not, or else satisfaction by itself is powerless until man puts efficacy in it, which is preposterous to suppose. If you take away from us the fact that Christ did really satisfy for those for whom he stood, we cry like Jacob, "If I am bereaved I am bereaved;" you have taken away all that is worth having, and what have you given us in its place? You have given us a redemption, which confessedly does not redeem; you have given us an atonement, which is made equally for the lost in hell and for the saved in heaven; and what is the intrinsic value of such an atonement? If you tell us that Christ made a satisfactory atonement for every one of the human race, we ask you how it was that he made an atonement for those that must have been in the flames of hell thousands of years before he came into this world? My brethren, ours has the advantage of universality in its proclamation and in its bona fide offer, for there is no man living who shall believe in Jesus who shall not be saved by Christ; but it has a greater advantage than this; namely, that those who do believe are saved by it, and they know that Christ made such an atonement for them that for them to be punished for sin would be as much a violation of justice as it would of mercy. O my soul! thou knowest this day that all thy sins were made to meet on Christ, and that he bore the punishment for them all.

"He bore that we might never bear,
His Father's righteous ire."

Just for the record, I never said that I believe in universal atonement. I simply make the sufficiency/efficiency distinction. It seems ignorant to call this Amyraldianism. I make the distinction in its traditional sense, not as Owen later redefined it.

Sufficient atonement and universal atonement are not the same thing in historic reformed theology. If one would like to make a case that logically tries to connect the two, that would be fine, but the tone of this discussion does not seem to be conducive to a give-and-take conversation.

"To this purpose a distinction is made by the Fathers and retained by many divines, “that Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect only.” This is perfectly true, if it be understood of the dignity of Christ’s death, though the phrase is not accurate if it be referred to the will and purpose of Christ. The question which we discuss concerns the purpose of the Father in sending his Son, and the intention of the Son in dying. Did the Father destine his Son for a Saviour to all men and every man, and did the Son deliver himself up to death, with a design to substitute himself in the room of all men of all nations, to make satisfaction and acquire salvation for them? Or, did he resolve to give himself for the elect only, who were given him by the Father to be redeemed, and whose Head he was to be?"

- Turretin

Yes, I believe that is one of them.

Tom

Pilgrim



Agreed, but why is the wording of the first example even made?

Tom

One common distinction between the Reformed faith and its opponents is that while universalists, Arminians, Pelagians and semi-Pelagians teach that Christ merely made salvation possible for every human, the Reformed teach that He actually accomplished the redemption of those that Father gave Him, out of Adam's fallen race, redeeming "a people for Himself," a chosen remnant from among all of rebellious humankind.

Surely the blood of Christ is sufficient to atone for every sin of every rebel. But rebels must receive the benefits of Christ's work on His terms. Since "no one comes to Me except the Father draws him," and since no puny creature can thwart the will and purpose of Almighty God, it is necessarily true that Christ's work was intended from eternity past to apply only to those that the Father draws to Christ.

The wonder is not so much that God has shown mercy to some and justice to the rest. The real wonder is that He shows mercy to anyone at all! For the elect are no less deserving of His just wrath than the non-elect. The fact that any rebel justly deserving hell is spared from it by the sacrifice of the only righteous One who ever lived is spectacular proof of God's infinite mercy in spite of the fact that such mercy is not given to all rebels.

I would like to believe that at the beginning when this subject of the sufficiency of Christ's atonement was discussed, at least some of the forefathers were intent on establishing the infinite worth of Christ's sacrifice as the incarnate Son of God vs. He being something less, e.g., a demi-god, deified man, etc. However, history shows that over time those who held to Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism or some other aberration of biblical truth wanted to posit that Christ's death was designed and purposed for ALL and that it's failure was due to man's rejection of the gospel. Their intent was to 'protect' God's character as one who is loving, kind, merciful, gracious, etc., etc.,... sound familiar? Holiness, justice, wrath, hatred, etc., were not attributes which were given much, if any, recognition.

So, in the past and again in our day, there are those who take a 'moderate' position and try to balance two opposing propositions while maintaining a profession of being confessional. That is why I always qualify 'sufficiency' by stating that the inherent value of Christ's sacrifice was infinite, but the design, purpose and actual atonement was only for those predestined to eternal life and likewise it is only applied to the same vs. His death was for all but only applied to the elect. Logically, it is an impossibility, for if nothing else it contradicts the oneness of the Godhead.

The position has always been in the small minority in the Reformed churches but as is the case in our day, the Reformed churches are quickly leaving their roots and going in many errant directions. When someone wants to 'redefine terms' a red flag should go up in your mind, Tom.