Sufficient vs. Necessary

[Reformationist]

I'm curious as to other's views on justification.

Here's my question:

Do you believe that Christ's obedience, even unto death, was sufficient to justify us in the sight of the Lord?

For the purposes of discussion, I am referring to a forensic justification, that is, we are pronounced just by God due to the merits of Christ's obedience, though we are not personally just in our own lives.

Or, do you believe that while Christ's death was necessary for God to pronounce us just, it, by itself, is not sufficient to render us just in the court of God's judgment?

If you wish to post Scripture please try to limit it to 5 or fewer citations.

I just realized that the poll, which I was unable to go back and modify, gives the option of "both" which would be contradictory. What I'm asking by "both" is if you not only believe that His obedience unto death was sufficient but also necessary.

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Woodsy]

My knowledge of Reformed theology is pretty small, but it seems to me that if Christ's death were sufficient, then all would be saved, regardless of ethir own decision as to whether to accept Christ.

As I say, I'm pretty ignorant on this, so correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Terri]

I am confused. I thought a Christian was one who believed that Jesus paid our whole debt--not just part of it.

Am I wrong?

I vote Jesus payment was totally sufficient for anything and for everything!!!!!!!!

 

[Benedicta00]

His sacrifice is sufficient to save mankind and it sufficiently atoned for every sin ever committed or ever will be committed.

 

[Reformationist]

My knowledge of Reformed theology is pretty small, but it seems to me that if Christ's death were sufficient, then all would be saved, regardless of ethir own decision as to whether to accept Christ.

As I say, I'm pretty ignorant on this, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, I don't want to get too far off topic but, as far as reformed theology goes I'll try to briefly address this.

There are actually two issues in your post that I'll address.

First, you say that "if Christ's death were sufficient, then all would be saved." My response to this is that all for whom Christ died are, or will be, saved. Reformed theology espouses a limited (in purpose, not value) atonement. That means that Christ was sent to atone for the sins of God's chosen (elect), not the entirity of mankind. All whom have been graced by God as being of His sheep are saved by the atonement of Christ.

Second, you say, "regardless of their own decision as to whether to accept Christ." We also believe in man's inability to accept Christ's atonement by faith apart from the grace of God. We believe that God's grace in His monergistic work of regeneration is not only efficacious in giving us a new heart, but also in giving us one that is inclined to serve Him. This means that we recognize that man, apart from God's grace, would never desire to serve the Lord because unregenerate man's natural response to the outward call of God is to rebell. We also recognize that God's grace changes the desires of man's heart in such a way as to make him a willing servant of the Lord.

Hope that clears it up. And, just for the record, I'm not really asking if anyone understands the reformed view, which I happen to hold. I'm just interested in discussion of what your view is. We can talk about the differences between my view and yours but let's initially clarify what our own views are.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

I am confused. I thought a Christian was one who believed that Jesus paid our whole debt--not just part of it.

When you say "our whole debt," who are you referring to?

 

[Reformationist]

His sacrifice is sufficient to save mankind and it sufficiently atoned for every sin ever committed or ever will be committed.

Umm...is everyone clear on what "sufficient" means?

Just in case there's any confusion, here is the dictionary definition:

Sufficient - enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end.

On that note, and considering the fact that I know you're not a universalist, how can His death be "sufficient to save mankind" and "sufficiently atone for every sin ever committed or ever will be committed" yet there be some sins that have to be atoned for on judgment day and some people whose sins are not atoned for and subsequently end up in hell?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

His sacrifice is sufficient (enough) to save anyone who is part of the human race.

All one has to do is accept his sacrifice that he offered the father to free them from their bondage.

The sacrifice is sufficient (enough) to justify them to go to heaven.

But of course that does not mean they will actually go there…

 

[Terri]

When you say "our whole debt," who are you referring to?

Ok, I know this is rather circular logic, but I believe that He paid the whole debt for Christians--those that believe He paid the whole debt for them.

Sorry Ref, that is the best I can do.

 

[Reformationist]

His sacrifice is sufficient (enough) to save anyone who is part of the human race.

All one has to do is accept his sacrifice that he offered the father to free them from their bondage.

The sacrifice is sufficient (enough) to justify them to go to heaven.

But of course that does not mean they will actually go there…

I have another word for you. It's "contradiction." A contradiction is when something is and is not in the same relationship.

His sacrifice cannot be sufficient (enough) to save someone if something else is required, which according to you is the case.

Let me give you an example. If you and I are at the movies and I pay for your ticket then the money that I pay for your ticket is sufficient to purchase you a ticket. Nothing else is required. Now, knowing how you view the issue of salvation, I imagine you are going to say something like, "well, I still have to accept the ticket from you" or "I still have to use the ticket." Understand, that is totally separate from the issue of whether my money was sufficient to purchase you a ticket.

This is a very simple issue. If you are going to use the word "sufficient" then you cannot, by virtue of the actual meaning of the word, say that something else is required. That is an incorrect grammatical usage of the word.

I have no problem, though I disagree, with you saying that Christ's sacrifice is able to accomplish a person's salvation or justification if they accept it. However, that statement precludes the possibility of His sacrifice being sufficient.

To use the word "sufficient" in such an arbitrary manner is pointless in debate because we would then open the door to strawman arguments based on other incorrect usages of words. I did not give my own definition of the word. I gave the recognized dictionary definition. You seem to be attempting to use "sufficient" synonymously with "capable" which is not grammatically accurate.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Ok, I know this is rather circular logic, but I believe that He paid the whole debt for Christians--those that believe He paid the whole debt for them.

Sorry Ref, that is the best I can do.

That's fine. I wasn't nitpicking. I just think that a distinction needs to be made between the school of thought that Christ paid the whole debt for all of mankind and the school of thought that Christ paid the whole debt for those who are His disciples.

God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

I have another word for you. It's "contradiction." A contradiction is when something is and is not in the same relationship.

His sacrifice cannot be sufficient (enough) to save someone if something else is required, which according to you is the case.

Let me give you an example. If you and I are at the movies and I pay for your ticket then the money that I pay for your ticket is sufficient to purchase you a ticket. Nothing else is required. Now, knowing how you view the issue of salvation, I imagine you are going to say something like, "well, I still have to accept the ticket from you" or "I still have to use the ticket." Understand, that is totally separate from the issue of whether my money was sufficient to purchase you a ticket.

This is a very simple issue. If you are going to use the word "sufficient" then you cannot, by virtue of the actual meaning of the word, say that something else is required. That is an incorrect grammatical usage of the word.

I have no problem, though I disagree, with you saying that Christ's sacrifice is able to accomplish a person's salvation or justification if they accept it. However, that statement precludes the possibility of His sacrifice being sufficient.

To use the word "sufficient" in such an arbitrary manner is pointless in debate because we would then open the door to strawman arguments based on other incorrect usages of words. I did not give my own definition of the word. I gave the recognized dictionary definition. You seem to be attempting to use "sufficient" synonymously with "capable" which is not grammatically accurate.

God bless

…But I see it differently than you. I do not see that Jesus only died for a certain group of people, I see that he died for all of mankind and I believe in the power of his blood, that the power of his blood atoned for all sins everywhere so it makes a whole lot of sense to me that Christ’s sacrifice is enough to save all of mankind.

What is necessary is our cooperating with God’s grace to apply Christ’s merits to ourselves.

Oh and Don, I am not debating, I'm fellowshipping.

 

[Benedicta00]

Let me give you an example. If you and I are at the movies and I pay for your ticket then the money that I pay for your ticket is sufficient to purchase you a ticket. Nothing else is required. Now, knowing how you view the issue of salvation, I imagine you are going to say something like, "well, I still have to accept the ticket from you" or "I still have to use the ticket." Understand, that is totally separate from the issue of whether my money was sufficient to purchase you a ticket.

Hey, you know what?? You are so right, I agree with this as it is a separate issue, I see justification and salvation as totally separate so I believe his sacrifice is totally sufficient to save us and whether we are saved is another issue all together.

 

[Reformationist]

…But I see it differently than you.

You see the definition of "sufficient" differently than I do? I posted the dictionary definition. What is your definition of "sufficient" and where can recognized support of that definition be found?

I do not see that Jesus only died for a certain group of people, I see that he died for all of mankind and I believe in the power of his blood, that the power of his blood atoned for all sins everywhere so it makes a whole lot of sense to me that Christ’s sacrifice is enough to save all of mankind.

Okay. Two things. First, this thread IS NOT about the issue of limited atonement. It's about whether His death was enough for us, us being whoever is justified be they the elect or all of mankind, to be justified or do we have to add something to it, like "accepting it." If His death is enough to establish us as forensically justified then it is sufficient. If you have to accept His sacrifice for it to be made manifest in your personal life, then it is NOT sufficient.

What is necessary is our cooperating with God’s grace to apply Christ’s merits to ourselves.

So His death is not sufficient?

Oh and Don, I am not debating, I'm fellowshipping.

I have no problem with you debating. That's a rule of the forum, not from me.

You see Michelle, you seem to want to define "sufficient" incorrectly so that you can use the word. That is not going to benefit the conversation. If you and I were talking about ice cream and I said that I loved the hot texture of ice cream you'd probably think I either didn't know that ice cream is cold or that I didn't know what "hot" meant. It would be better for you to just take a stand and use the word accurately. As I said before, I have no problem, though I disagree with the position, if you say that Christ's death is able to make us justified if we accept it. All it means is that you don't get to use the word sufficient. It doesn't mean you're wrong.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Hey, you know what?? You are so right, I agree with this as it is a separate issue, I see justification and salvation as totally separate so I believe his sacrifice is totally sufficient to save us and whether we are saved is another issue all together.

Once again you've applied an incorrect grammatical usage of the word "sufficient." Look Michelle, it's simple. It's either enough by itself (sufficient) or it's not (you need to do something to make it manifest). If you need to do something, like accept His sacrifice, then all you are saying is that it's not sufficient. It doesn't make your view wrong. It just means that you don't think His sacrifice is sufficient.

 

[Benedicta00]

Once again you've applied an incorrect grammatical usage of the word "sufficient." Look Michelle, it's simple. It's either enough by itself (sufficient) or it's not (you need to do something to make it manifest). If you need to do something, like accept His sacrifice, then all you are saying is that it's not sufficient. It doesn't make your view wrong. It just means that you don't think His sacrifice is sufficient.

Who ever said that it had to be enough in of itself?

 

[Benedicta00]

You see the definition of "sufficient" differently than I do? I posted the dictionary definition. What is your definition of "sufficient" and where can recognized support of that definition be found?



Okay. Two things. First, this thread IS NOT about the issue of limited atonement. It's about whether His death was enough for us, us being whoever is justified be they the elect or all of mankind, to be justified or do we have to add something to it, like "accepting it." If His death is enough to establish us as forensically justified then it is sufficient. If you have to accept His sacrifice for it to be made manifest in your personal life, then it is NOT sufficient.


So His death is not sufficient?



I have no problem with you debating. That's a rule of the forum, not from me.

You see Michelle, you seem to want to define "sufficient" incorrectly so that you can use the word. That is not going to benefit the conversation. If you and I were talking about ice cream and I said that I loved the hot texture of ice cream you'd probably think I either didn't know that ice cream is cold or that I didn't know what "hot" meant. It would be better for you to just take a stand and use the word accurately. As I said before, I have no problem, though I disagree with the position, if you say that Christ's death is able to make us justified if we accept it. All it means is that you don't get to use the word sufficient. It doesn't mean you're wrong.

God bless

But I see it as sufficient to save mankind; I do not see it sufficient only if it actually saves a certain group of people.

Do you disagree that it is sufficient to save mankind or do you think something in addition to that was needed to save mankind?

And I am still not debating, I am asking questions.

 

[Reformationist]

Who ever said that it had to be enough in of itself?

Umm...that's what sufficient means. Sufficient means that something, in and of itself, is enough to meet the needs of a situation or proposed end. You see, if a necessity for being justified in the eyes of God is that we do something in addition to Christ's works of obedience then His works of obedience are not sufficient.

 

[Reformationist]

But I see it as sufficient to save mankind; I do not see it sufficient only if it actually saves a certain group of people.

Now you're distinguishing between "sufficiency" and "efficiency." Whether or not His sacrifice does save is different than whether it, in and of itself, is enough to save.

Do you disagree that it is sufficient to save mankind or do you think something in addition to that was needed to save mankind?

Michelle, if I use the definition of sufficient that you are apparently using Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient to save anyone, much less all mankind. You have blatently purported that His sacrifice, in and of itself (which is a condition of sufficiency), justifies no one unless they "accept it?" I, NOT YOU, am the one using the word "sufficient" accurately and my view, as I'm sure you know, is that His death was sufficient to save those for whom He was to sent to die.

Once again, for those who still seem to be confused, this IS NOT a thread about limited atonement, nor do I wish to discuss that here. I am strictly asking whether Christ's death was enough, in and of itself, to justify WHOMEVER it justifies. Or, do we need to add something to His work, such as our acceptance, to be justified?

And I am still not debating, I am asking questions.

And I still have no problem with you debating.

God bless

 

[Benedicta00]

Once again, for those who still seem to be confused, this IS NOT a thread about limited atonement, nor do I wish to discuss that here. I am strictly asking whether Christ's death was enough, in and of itself, to justify WHOMEVER it justifies. Or, do we need to add something to His work, such as our acceptance, to be justified?

Yes, it was and no we do not need to add a thing.