Limited Atonement: Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect
Limited Atonement: Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect
Dr. Nettles does a wonderful job of summarizing the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” position(s) in his book By His Grace and For His Glory (note pages 302-05). He believes this view represents “a majority view among Calvinists” though as I demonstrated in previous posts, is not the position he himself prefers. From this point on I will refer to the Sufficient for All, Efficient for the Elect view as the SFA position.
The SFA position basically affirms both the sufficiency in the nature of the atonement to save all men and the limitation of the atonement to the elect in its divine intent. It is unlimited in extent but limited in its intent. According to the Synod of Dort, “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” W. G. T Shedd (a Presbyterian theologian form the nineteenth century) wrote, “Christ’s death is sufficient in value to satisfy eternal justice for the sins of all mankind…Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world, and for the expiation of all the sins for all and every man in the world.”
This view would say Jesus Christ bore the sins of the entire world (Isaiah 53:1-6) on his shoulders when he died on the old rugged cross. As the sinless God-man He offered up a perfect sacrifice of infinite value. The extent of the atonement is universal but the intent of the atonement (to save only the elect) is clearly limited. Steele and Thomas explain it this way, the atonement was limited in its original design; not in its worth, value, or scope.
Richard Mayhue believes the atonement of Christ is in some ways a paradox. He argues that this atonement is limited in some senses, and in other ways it is unlimited. He believes it is limited in that it does not extend to angels or animals (Heb 2:16); and that it is not effaciously applied to all humans by God’s choice (via sovereign election). It is unlimited in that its message is extended to all humans in its proclamation; Its sufficiency is unlimited in value; it makes all men accountable in terms of eternal responsibility; It makes common grace available in non-eternal ways to all mankind (Matt 5:45); It benefits all the elect in its redemptive, eternal efficacy. Mayhue points to the Day of Atonement as a OT picture of this NT concept. He concludes his essay with the following words, “Christ’s atonement is unlimited in a non-saving sense for all of sinful humanity, but it is limited in its redemptive efficacy only to those who God particularly and unconditionally elected unto eternal salvation.” According to Dr. Daniels Thomas Boston and the other Marrowmen taught that there were two aspects of the atonement, one general for all men and one particular for the elect alone.
So the argument between those who hold a SFA position and a more limited 5 point view is really over whether or not the atonement of Jesus Christ was truly sufficient for all. In other words, does Jesus’ atonement really cover the sins of the non-elect? Is that what Isaiah 53:1-6 mean? Is that what 2 Peter 2:1ff implies? Is that the John’s intention when he uses the Greek word holos in 1 John 2:2? Please stay with me friends the biblical exegesis is just around the corner…
Are you sure that within the SFA position, it is correct to say that the sins of the whole world (if you mean each and every man) was laid on Jesus?
What I mean is, I think sufficiency points to the worth of the sacrifice. It does not necessarily mean than the sins of the world were laid on Jesus; it only means that if they were laid on him, his sacrifice would atone for them.
It magnifies the worth of Jesus’ sacrifice without necessarily extending it’s effectiveness to each and every person.
Andy,
Great note- I think your post is very accurate. The great challenge is that no one really represents the SFA position officially; for that matter John Owen does not officially represent the more limited view either. Their are lots of variations between the SFA position and the more limited view.
***I really appreciated your statement here: “I think sufficiency points to the worth of the sacrifice. It does not necessarily mean than the sins of the world were laid on Jesus; it only means that if they were laid on him, his sacrifice would atone for them.” ****
You are correct the SFA position does not necessarily mean Christ paid the penalty for elect and non-elect alike (and perhaps this understanding is the most biblical view). I am trying to get my mind around the various interpretations myself.
In days to come some of our other contributors will offer exegesis in regards to some of the key texts. At this point i am more of an editor and a learner.
Grace to you
Caleb
Great stuff. I am finallay getting to understand the different views of atonement!
Juan
Andy,
It would probably be safe to say that Steele and Thomas and Mayhue and Thomas would all have different takes on this issue. Mayhue may not even consider himself a 5 point-(modified) Calvinist.
Juan,
Thanks for your kind words. It is good to know others are benefiting from this short study.
In Christ,
Caleb
Want to know my view on the statement that is prevalent in many Reformed circles on the Atonement which says- “Christ’s death was of infinite worth and is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect”. I am personally convinced that this statement is dabbling with Amyraldian speculation. We know that Amyraldius attempted to fuse together the Arminian tenant that Christ died for all, while holding to part of the Calvinistic tenant that Christ died only for the elect.
In trying to relay information to the public at large as gracious as possible, the Synod of Dordt, one of the most respected councils in the history of the church, said this: “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” Don’t you think this is erroneous? Nothing wrong in saying, “The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value.” But to say, “abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world” is an Arminian statement, don’t you think?
Many Calvinist’s hold that if God desired, He could have saved everyone, and the same atonement that saved His elect, could have saved a million billion worlds – hypothetically speaking of course. 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?”
To say that the atonement is of infinite value or worth is to correctly describe it biblically speaking. I agree with that sentiment because of the design and nature of what the atonement had to be to redeem an elect number of people for their sin. The atonement of Jesus Christ is of infinite worth, and must be of infinite worth, because it is a propitiation and expiation of the elect’s sin before the infinite holiness of an infinitely holy God. God’s character defines the kind of sin offering that must be given. God is infinitely holy. Men have sinned against an infinitely holy God. The sacrifice, then, of the Mediator that God sends, must be infinitely given – an infinite sacrifice. For this reason alone, the Mediator must be God for only God is infinite. We know, Scripturally, Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Only God could offer up to Himself an infinitely holy sacrifice for sin.
To say the atonement of Jesus Christ is “sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect” is really saying only have a truth. The atonement is only sufficient and efficient for the elect. It is sufficient to do exactly what God designed it to do – that is – atone for all the sins of the elect. Could God have decreed something different? Let’s speculate! Sure He could have. He could have decreed that trees grow upside down, that men are born with wings to fly around and live in giant green pea-pods that float in the sky. He could have decreed that all fish breath air, and that the ocean is really made of strawberry jelly. He could have decreed that we see with our nose, smell with our ears, and see with our toes. He could have decreed that Christ’s sacrifice could save everyone, including a million billion worlds. He could have decreed anything. But He decreed what He did decree. As you can see, to speak otherwise is just to speculate, and speculating can become very weird very quickly. Instead, why not simply follow the biblical directives of what Christ actually did, and what He actually accomplished in His infinite sacrifice which had to be infinite for the infinite sins against an infinitely holy God. And mind you, the Bible never depicts God as the one who speculates in hypothetical possibilities, and thus, neither should we.
[paraphrased from an article by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon titled “Jesus died for Aliens on Planet Zeno”. Read the full article on http://www.apuritansmind.com
This is a subject i continue to study and one that truly amazes me. Thanks for your thoughts-
CK
Caleb,
S.Lewis Johnson has a great series on “Limited Atonement” at the Believer’s Chapel website. He gives both historical and theological data/exegesis that was very helpful to me. Also, A.A Hodge’s book “The Atonement” is laborious-to me-but very insightful. David Long’s book, Definite Atonement, is short, but significant. Owen’s book of course is masterful. Best of all and what has cleared up my mind is doing the exegesis of passage myself and both teaching and preaching them in my ministry setting. Look forward to seeing your exegesis. Hope you are well.
Thanks Tom!