Some questions for an educated Calvinist

[Foghorn]

No, I am using sufficient and efficient in the manner I mean to be.

Sufficient means adequate, as much as is needed.
Efficient means capable of producing desired results without wasting materials, time, or energy.

Christ's work on the cross is sufficient for everyone meaning that there is as much as is needed for all if all were being saved. The same work can be as much or as little as needed. It is efficient for the elect because it isn't wasted on those who reject Him.

Ok, I can live with that.

God bless.

 

[Skala]

Well for one, I have learned Calvinists seem to be even more extreme than I realised... e.g. God's predetermination of sin in the believer, and ascribing everything to the sovereignty of God including sin... I didn't realise this earlier...

Yep. Biblical truth is always extreme.

That's why they murdered Jesus.

 

[Don Maurer]

I am Arminian but would appreciate an informed Calvinist to clarify some issues within Calvinism itself:

(1) Do most Calvinists hold to Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect? Is this a new or old idea in Calvinism?

I am not sure of all the implications of this terminology. I did not read the entire thread yet, maybe others will have some interesting things to say. As far as Christ's substitutionary death being "sufficient for the whole world" I would agree that if Christ were to make a few billion extra elect, he would not have to also shed more blood, or suffer a little more. Since Christ, in his deity was infinite, the value of his atonement is infinite. But that infinite value of that shed blood is a propitiation for only the elect. We are saved to the uttermost.

The part that says "efficient for the elect" I would agree with, but again, there would be a difference in the way I see the term efficient and they way an Arminian would see the term "efficient." While I do not mean to put words in others mouths, I struggle to see Arminians as seeing the atonement as efficient. It seems to be Arminians see the atonement as inefficient. Reformed theology sees the gift of faith (Phil 1:29) as a part of the atonement. Arminians would view the atonement as inefficient for all, but efficient only when someone has the faith that activates the benefits of the atonement.

In other words, while I think I could agree to the terms you write above, it would not be an acceptable to me because we are still looking at the terminology in different ways. This reminds me of the some ECT statements on justification. But I guess that is another story.

(2) Does the hyper-Calvinist idea that the sufficiency of the atonement extends no further than its efficiency not fit more naturally with the title of "Limited Atonement" in TULIP than the supposedly generally accepted idea that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect?

(3) Was this not one of the problems Arminians originally had with "Limited Atonement" in the first place? (Namely opposing the hyper-Calvinist view.) I am an Arminian and can still accept the idea of sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect, which doesn't exactly sound very "limited" to me... Perhaps Calvinists over time have become more Armenian in their interpretation of TULIP?

Again, I strongly suspect that you are not seeing the terms "efficient" and "sufficient" in the same way that I would. Also, I doubt we would agree on the meaning of the term "Hyper Calvinist." Somehow, I feel like you are saying that "Hyper Calvinism" is something that would say Christ was only able to atone for a certain number of elect and did not have the ability to make more people elect even if he wanted to. I do not think even those that are truly hypers would say that. I cannot help but suspect all sorts of terminology issues in what you are saying.

(4) How does the "sufficiency" above differ from Richard Baxter's "general redemption" view?

Just trying to clarify things. Many thanks. Caleb.

I have never read Richard Baxter. I am both impressed and surprised that the term "general redemption" comes up. I was raised in Arminian circles where they claimed to believe in a substitutionary theory of atonement. It was not until I read "Death of death in the death of Christ" by John Owen, that I realized that the original arminians did not base their soteriology on a substitutionary theory of atonement, but up a general ransom theory of atonement. Own frequently sites a Thomas More who wrote "Universality of Free Grace." He also quotes other writers from the Remonstrants.

Nevertheless, being unfamiliar with Richard Baxter's work, I can only speculate. I would of course suspect the same thing as what I wrote above. I would suspect that we are both looking at the term "efficient" in different ways. I would see Arminains as claiming that grace is efficient when we humans meet the divine criteria which is faith. Being Reformed, I would see grace is completely efficient, and so efficient that faith itself is a part of the grace given by God.

If I can change terminology here. I think this could be discussed also using the term "decree." Arminians and Reformed people see the term 'decree" differently. If I understand Arminianism, you would see that God looks down the corridors of time and decrees that people who have faith will be saved. In your scenario, faith is outside of Gods decree. In a reformed understanding of the term decree, there is nothing outside God's control. Whatever comes to pass, comes to pass because God decreed it. RC Sproul speaks of this in this way "there is not one molecule outside Gods control."

In the end, one of the problems with the OP is that it seems to be an attempt to create terminology that is acceptable to both sides. Such attempts to not clarify the differences, but only serve to fog the real issues, issues that are very important.

Semper Reformanda

Don