The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Sufficient atonement

Tom,

There is a significant difference between believing that Christ's sacrifice was inherently sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect and believing that Christ actually made atonement for all but it is only given to the elect.

The eternal purpose of God was to save a remnant of Adam's fallen race through the vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ, God in the flesh. Thus the Son entered into covenant with the Father to give Himself for those whom the Father gave him. And, the Spirit would bring all those whom the Father predestinated to eternal life and of which the Son atoned for to repentance and faith and sanctify them until they were taken home. Thus there is no contradiction in 'roles' within the Godhead, e.g., the Father predestined a definite number of mankind, but the Son died for all of mankind, etc.

Secondly, such a view makes God an unjust Judge. For how could He condemn anyone for whom Christ paid the full price of their sins? When Christ bore His Father's wrath, God was SATISFIED and Christ put the seal upon His work when He cried out, "It is finished!" All those the Father gave Him He said WILL COME TO ME. Thus all for whom Christ died are infallibly saved. It is logically impossible to hold that Christ atoned for ALL but only SOME will be saved... never mind the fact, that no such thing is anywhere taught in Scripture. The Remonstrants submitted this view at Dordt and it was unanimously rejected as heresy.

Over the years, having pondered on the "why" some would entertain such a view I have concluded that it is very much the same reasoning used by those who believe that all infants who die in infancy are saved..... it is based on not much more than emotionalism; man's own idea(s) as to what God must be. In short, it is a form of idolatry, to which we are all prone.