Atonement Question(s)

[JM]

(@Geralt)

"sufficient for all (not everyone that ever lived- but all Jews and Gentiles), efficient only for His elect."

Is the above statement Amyraldian, Morrowism, Hypo-Calvinism?

 

[twin1954]

(@Geralt)

"sufficient for all (not everyone that ever lived- but all Jews and Gentiles), efficient only for His elect."

Is the above statement Amyraldian, Morrowism, Hypo-Calvinism?

I wouldn't know what category to put it in but I do know that it is a hypothetical compromise in order to appease the universal redemption people. It has no true meaning for it actually doesn't say anything about the efficacy of the atonement. It tries to get around the actual purpose and fact of the atonement of Christ for a particular people. It denies the truth that Christ only intended to redeem a particular people called His elect or chosen.

 

[hedrick]

I think it's ambiguous. If "elect" is meant in a purely Calvinist sense, then all Calvinists would agree with it. I don't think anyone has ever said that Jesus' death only had enough power to save a limited set of people.

 

[twin1954]

I think it's ambiguous. If "elect" is meant in a purely Calvinist sense, then all Calvinists would agree with it. I don't think anyone has ever said that Jesus' death only had enough power to save a limited set of people.

The problem with that is that it doesn't take into account the intention of the atonement. Christ died for a specific people, or a particular people called the elect of God, so His atonement was only meant for them. If He had desired or intended to save the whole of mankind certainly He could have for His blood and sacrifice was enough but His intent is the question not His ability.

The intent of Christ was to save His people from their sins not to save all people without exception. That is why the statement is a hypothetical and a compromise to soothe the Arminian.

He actually accomplished redemption for all He intended to save and no other.

Could He have saved all mankind is a ridiculous and useless contention because that was never His intention. The power of the Gospel is in the fact that He actually saved all He intended to save. We can trust that His atonement was effectual for all He meant to save and they will come to Him as He said in John 6:38-40

 

[hedrick]

What are you disagreeing about? The quoted statement said that only the elect were actually redeemed. If the statement had said "sufficient for all, but only some respond," that would be Arminian. I don't think the statement as actually worded is inconsistent with your posting.

 

[TaylorSexton]

What are you disagreeing about? The quoted statement said that only the elect were actually redeemed. If the statement had said "sufficient for all, but only some respond," that would be Arminian. I don't think the statement as actually worded is inconsistent with your posting.

It seems to me that twin1954's contention is that the statement, while true, is only a half truth. The atonement has intention behind it, and this statement makes no explicit mention of it. The statement is pithy, but the atonement deserves more than a pithy summary.

My 2 cents...

 

[twin1954]

What are you disagreeing about? The quoted statement said that only the elect were actually redeemed. If the statement had said "sufficient for all, but only some respond," that would be Arminian. I don't think the statement as actually worded is inconsistent with your posting.

My disagreement is because the statement is only a hypothetical and has no real meaning. The accomplished atonement in Christ is the crux of the Gospel. We don't preach a hypothetical we preach an accomplished redemption.

While the statement itself isn't Arminian it is designed to appease the Arminian. Why should we attempt to appease the Arminian.

 

[Geralt]

"People usually get around this by citing the axiom, “Christ’s atonement was sufficient for all, but efficient only for some. What does this mean? The Calvinist would interpret this axiom to mean that the value of Christ’s sacrifice is so high, His merit so extensive, that its worth is equal to cover all the sins of the human race. But the atonement’s benefits are only efficient for believers, the elect. The non-Calvinist interprets this axiom in slightly different terms: Christ’s atonement was good enough to save everyone — and was intended to make salvation possible for everyone. But that intent is realized only by believers. The atonement is efficient (or “works”) only for those who receive its benefits by faith."

[quoted from: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/biblical-scholasticism/ ]

(@Geralt)

"sufficient for all (not everyone that ever lived- but all Jews and Gentiles), efficient only for His elect."

Is the above statement Amyraldian, Morrowism, Hypo-Calvinism?

 

[JM]

My disagreement is because the statement is only a hypothetical and has no real meaning. The accomplished atonement in Christ is the crux of the Gospel. We don't preach a hypothetical we preach an accomplished redemption.

While the statement itself isn't Arminian it is designed to appease the Arminian. Why should we attempt to appease the Arminian.

Agreed. You cannot reconcile Augustine with Pelagius. Many do so to present Jesus as an offer.

"Among the more conservative and moderate of these hawkers of Jesus are those that confine themselves to the preaching of a Jesus that is willing to save all men and who, therefore, present salvation as a mere chance, an opportunity the realization of which depends upon man's choice. . . . And with heartrending pathos they will reach the climax of their perorations by saying: Jesus is still waiting, waiting for you to open the door of your heart, that He may enter in! Won't you come? Won't you open the door? Won't you accept Him and let Him in . . . Hawking Jesus is denying Him. . . . But Jesus, the Jesus of Scripture must be preached. He must be preached to all men promiscuously no doubt. It is a patent fact that, when the apostles go into all the world, they never hawk Jesus, they simply preach Him. . . . They preach Jesus and Him crucified and raised from the dead. They call men to repentance and faith in His name. But they never hawk Jesus. They preach a gospel that is, indeed, a power of God unto salvation; a Jesus that actually satisfied for the sins of His people, that actually saves by the power of His Spirit. And as many as are ordained to eternal life believe and are saved under their preaching, while the rest are hardened, hate the apostles, are enraged against them, stone them, kill them, as they did the prophets." Herman Hoeksema

 

[JustAsIam77]

Why is it so hard to understand that the Creator of the universe who was tormented and killed on the cross in the human person of Jesus Christ at Calvary was a sufficient sacrifice to save all mankind but was only efficient for the elect. I know we're talking hypothetical outcomes but I agree with Hedrick regarding this. It is God who decided who would be saved but certainly the sacrifice itself was enough to save everyone if He intended it to be so, which He did not!

This has been discussed here before and although I agree with Ron and JM on most theological matters we won't ever agree on this one.

 

[twin1954]

Why is it so hard to understand that the Creator of the universe who was tormented and killed on the cross in the human person of Jesus Christ at Calvary was a sufficient sacrifice to save all mankind but was only efficient for the elect. I know we're talking hypothetical outcomes but I agree with Hedrick regarding this. It is God who decided who would be saved but certainly the sacrifice itself was enough to save everyone if He intended it to be so, which He did not!

This has been discussed here before and although I agree with Ron and JM on most theological matters we won't ever agree on this one.

What is the point of preaching a Jesus who could have saved the whole world if He has intended to? The cross isn't a matter of what He could have done but what He did do. The Gospel isn't a matter of what He could have done but what He did do. There is no hope in a message of what Christ Jesus could have done but in what He did do.

To preach a Savior who could have saved all mankind if He intended to but only saved His chosen is not the Gospel. No wonder the Arminian thinks that the God we worship is a monster. We do not preach a monster but a sovereign God who saves whom He will not because we were better or different than the worst of sinners but because He is glorified in the fact that we are the worst of sinners.

To preach a Savior who could have saved all mankind but didn't want to is very different than preaching a sovereign Savior who saves whom He will. The sinner has no hope in a Savior who could have saved him if He had wanted to but in a sovereign Savior who has saved folks called sinners.

A gospel of a Savior who could have saved is very different than the Gospel of a Savior who has actually saved.

 

[MechPebbles]

I don't like the quoted statement because the words "sufficient" and "efficient" can be made to mean almost anything. Such statements of faith merely allow people of different theological persuasions to get along and come to some form of consensus.