Sufficient for all ?

[JustAsIam77]

Cyg..my position about this is well documented in the archives here at CF. Suffice it to say I agree with you.

 

[JM]

...then why provide a sufficiency in the limited atonement for everyone ?

God doesn't provide a sufficiency for everyone. That wouldn't make much sense at all.

 

[twin1954]

The thing is that the whole concept of sufficient and efficient is hypothetical and pointless. The work of Christ is efficient to do exactly what it was intended to do. To speculate about whether He could have saved all men without exception is moot because He doesn't. Its just a smokescreen to hide behind when you don't want to deal with simple truth. It is a sugar coat of the simple fact that Christ died with an intended purpose to save a particular people. What would be the point of a work that was sufficient to do more than it is intended to do? Christ is of infinte value to all who believe and He is of infinite value to the Godhead but to the unbelieving rebel lost and damned He is worthless.

 

[cygnusx1]

The thing is that the whole concept of sufficient and efficient is hypothetical and pointless. The work of Christ is efficient to do exactly what it was intended to do. To speculate about whether He could have saved all men without exception is moot because He doesn't. Its just a smokescreen to hide behind when you don't want to deal with simple truth. It is a sugar coat of the simple fact that Christ died with an intended purpose to save a particular people. What would be the point of a work that was sufficient to do more than it is intended to do? Christ is of infinte value to all who believe and He is of infinite value to the Godhead but to the unbelieving rebel lost and damned He is worthless.

That. May be true but remember the feeding of the multitudes , not only was there enough food for all there was much in abundance left over , not even required ...... I am still thinking and praying , the sufficiency argument is so entrenched in Reformed theology I would be a fool to simply reject it without careful weighing ..... Sufficient for all but efficient for the elect takes some meditation methinks , to be continued DV

 

[cygnusx1]

Cyg..my position about this is well documented in the archives here at CF. Suffice it to say I agree with you.

Thanks bro would you care to remind us ? Thanks

 

[cygnusx1]

God doesn't provide a sufficiency for everyone. That wouldn't make much sense at all.

There are many things that seem to make no sense the reformers were no fools they subscribed to sufficient for all formula for a reason , I don't think they did it purely in the abstract , is a man blameworthy for rejecting the blood of the new covenant ?

 

[twin1954]

That. May be true but remember the feeding of the multitudes , not only was there enough food for all there was much in abundance left over , not even required ...... I am still thinking and praying , the sufficiency argument is so entrenched in Reformed theology I would be a fool to simply reject it without careful weighing ..... Sufficient for all but efficient for the elect takes some meditation methinks , to be continued DV

The over abundance in the feeding of the multitude had a distinct purpose. It was done to show us the greatness of the mercy of God.And I am sure that none of it was wasted. If it didn't have a distinct purpose the Spirit wouldn't have inspired it to be recorded. That isn't the case with the sufficiency argument.

 

[JM]

There are many things that seem to make no sense the reformers were no fools they subscribed to sufficient for all formula for a reason , I don't think they did it purely in the abstract , is a man blameworthy for rejecting the blood of the new covenant ?

I think we tend to read into their works things that are not there, not fully developed or not really explained. We also ask questions of the Reformers they never thought to answer.

Calvin may have, at times, put forth the idea. If I remember correctly guys like Zanchius and Beza, Calvin's successor, did not believe in the 'sufficient for all' formula. That phrase didn't become popular until The Marrow controversy and the Marrow men were first condemned by their church for teaching it, they were called Amyraldian.

jm

 

[cygnusx1]

I think we tend to read into their works things that are not there, not fully developed or not really explained. We also ask questions of the Reformers they never thought to answer.

Calvin may have, at times, put forth the idea. If I remember correctly guys like Zanchius and Beza, Calvin's successor, did not believe in the 'sufficient for all' formula. That phrase didn't become popular until The Marrow controversy and the Marrow men were first condemned by their church for teaching it, they were called Amyraldian.

jm

jm I think this may be far too reactionary a approach , far too much of a broad brush approach , even John OWEN the principle proponent of Limited Atonement uses the phrase "sufficient for all efficient for the elect " if memory serves I think it was used at Dort but I would need to check , Spurgeon was extremely robust in his defence of definite atonement , he also used the well tried formula , and the list goes on and on.

It is one thing to hold the formula in an amyraldian sense , it is another thing entirely to hold it in a Owen Pink Spurgeon Calvin sense I think .

If I get the time I will post some links up for your consideration , this obviously is a big topic because it overlaps a few other contended issues .

 

[cygnusx1]

The first link helps some :

Limited Atonement: Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect « Expository Thoughts

Another link :

http://teampyro.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/sufficient-for-all-efficacious-for.html?m=1

It seems I am not alone :

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/there-problem-use-sufficient-limited-atonement-discussions-15244/

 

[JM]

cyg, it seems you baited me into another argument. There is nothing left for me to add.

jm

 

[cygnusx1]

cyg, it seems you baited me into another argument. There is nothing left for me to add.

jm

Sorry jm that's a shame

 

[JM]

The concept of sufficient for all but efficient for the elect is a hypothetical suger coat intended to appease those who can't swallow truth. It is misleading and borders on dishonesty.

No one can deny that there is infinite value in the person and work of Christ. What we deny is that the value is derived by the amount of people He died for.

What twin wrote.

 

[JustAsIam77]

Thanks bro would you care to remind us ? Thanks

No problem:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7509749/

Even though I believe it to be true I agree with Twin in that it's all hypothetical reasoning and doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

 

[JM]

Even though I believe it to be true I agree with Twin in that it's all hypothetical reasoning and doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

I don't understand how, like you posted JustASIam, that it amounts to anything more then trying to reason toward Arminianism. It shouldn't be a problem, biblically, if I believe Christ's death is of infinite value to the elect and that His death is efficacious.

jm

 

[JM]

atonement-sufficient-for-all-but-efficient-for-the-elect

But here is the rub; the Scriptures never speak hypothetically in this way – ever. Instead, they always speak of what Christ did do and what Christ accomplished. For example, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” This is what Christ did. A pondering god on what “might have been” or what “might be” is not at all-sovereign, and all knowledge God. God speak in terms of reality, not possibility. He operates in the realm of the actual, not the realm of “what if?”
​

Jesus diedforaliensonplanetzenoby Dr C Matthew Mcmahon

To place, then, the atonement of the Lord of glory into the realm of possibility is a theological mistake. To speculate about the nature of the atonement, or what the atonement could have done, is a mistake. To say that the atonement of Jesus is “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” is to say the same thing as the crazy statement – the atonement of Jesus Christ is “sufficient to save aliens on planet Zeno, efficient for the elect,” or any other wild construction you would like to place in the beginning of the statement. It remains completely and utterly hypothetical, which is, in fact, meaningless. Meaningless propositions are those that have no weight or no reality to them, and do not press orthodox theology forward to become more defined and helpful. Instead, they confuse people, and confuse good theology. If one wants to say “I mean that the atonement is infinite”, then that is simply a reiteration of the “infinite worth” that the Synod of Dordt previously stated. With that phrase I am very much in agreement.
​

​

 

[JustAsIam77]

JM..I've read Pinks discourse about this subject that you posted, I will have to meditate about it. Thanks for the link brother.

 

[JustAsIam77]

JM.. I think the sufficiency vs efficiency argument is speculation and not relevant to actual scripture teaching.

Thanks for taking the time to change my mind. I turned 61 today, old dogs can learn new things.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Here's a quote from a web page . I have been attempting to ascertain the point of a hypothetical redemption seeing as only those who believe will in fact receive . What do you make of the old formula ?

"Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect"

Awhile back, had a similar discussion, which started based on John Calvin's commentary of certain proof texts used by proponents of universal atonement. Basically the person tried to make a case in favor of John Calvin not holding to limited atonement because of a couple of specific commentary quotes (which are difficult passages, at least taken "plainly") to the effect of "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect". I see nothing wrong with affirming the old formula. To me at least, it's almost like a mystery, what I mean is, I don't understand why certain passages of Scripture would or could so easily steer us away from the greater context of so many other passages. I will not quote those passages, but I do not deny they are there, and yes they are difficult, at least in English translations, but if we're guided by the principals of Sola Scriptura and Biblical inerrancy, then we have the presupposition that there are no contradictions in Scripture, nor in God or His truth.

 

[JM]

JM.. I think the sufficiency vs efficiency argument is speculation and not relevant to actual scripture teaching.

Thanks for taking the time to change my mind. I turned 61 today, old dogs can learn new things.

I'm humbled. May God in His grace make me less stubborn and more willing to change when confronted with the truth.