Sufficient for all ?

JustAsIam77 · Jan 16, 2013

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

JM · Jan 16, 2013

cygnusx1 said:
...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 · Jan 17, 2013

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 · Jan 17, 2013

twin1954 said:
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 · Jan 17, 2013

JustAsIam77 said:
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 · Jan 17, 2013

JM said:
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 · Jan 17, 2013

cygnusx1 said:
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 · Jan 17, 2013

cygnusx1 said:
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 · Jan 17, 2013

JM said:
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 · Jan 17, 2013

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 · Jan 17, 2013

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

jm

cygnusx1 · Jan 17, 2013

JM said:
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 · Jan 17, 2013

twin1954 said:
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 · Jan 17, 2013

cygnusx1 said:
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 · Jan 17, 2013

JustAsIam77 said:
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 · Jan 17, 2013

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 · Jan 17, 2013

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 · Jan 17, 2013

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 · Jan 17, 2013

cygnusx1 said:
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 · Jan 18, 2013

JustAsIam77 said:
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.

Sufficient for all ?

Veritas Liberabit Vos

Confessional Free Catholic

Baptist by the Bible

Jacob the twister.....

Jacob the twister.....

Jacob the twister.....

Baptist by the Bible

Confessional Free Catholic

Jacob the twister.....

Jacob the twister.....

Confessional Free Catholic

Jacob the twister.....

Confessional Free Catholic

Veritas Liberabit Vos

Confessional Free Catholic

Confessional Free Catholic

Veritas Liberabit Vos

Veritas Liberabit Vos

Pilgrim

Confessional Free Catholic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency