The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Sufficient atonement

I would like to believe that at the beginning when this subject of the sufficiency of Christ's atonement was discussed, at least some of the forefathers were intent on establishing the infinite worth of Christ's sacrifice as the incarnate Son of God vs. He being something less, e.g., a demi-god, deified man, etc. However, history shows that over time those who held to Pelagianism, semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism or some other aberration of biblical truth wanted to posit that Christ's death was designed and purposed for ALL and that it's failure was due to man's rejection of the gospel. Their intent was to 'protect' God's character as one who is loving, kind, merciful, gracious, etc., etc.,... sound familiar? Holiness, justice, wrath, hatred, etc., were not attributes which were given much, if any, recognition.

So, in the past and again in our day, there are those who take a 'moderate' position and try to balance two opposing propositions while maintaining a profession of being confessional. That is why I always qualify 'sufficiency' by stating that the inherent value of Christ's sacrifice was infinite, but the design, purpose and actual atonement was only for those predestined to eternal life and likewise it is only applied to the same vs. His death was for all but only applied to the elect. Logically, it is an impossibility, for if nothing else it contradicts the oneness of the Godhead.

The position has always been in the small minority in the Reformed churches but as is the case in our day, the Reformed churches are quickly leaving their roots and going in many errant directions. When someone wants to 'redefine terms' a red flag should go up in your mind, Tom.