#7 Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect
Many Calvinist’s affirm that Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect. In doing so, they seem to embrace the position almost universally accepted by the church. But what do they really mean? They don't mean Christ's death can save the reprobate. Rather, they mean that Christ’s death would saved everyone, if God had willed it to be offered for all men. This removes its actual sufficiency and only makes it a hypothetical sufficiency. While it may be true that Christ would have had to suffer any more than He did to save more, had they been elected, it is not true that Christ’s blood can save them. Christ’s blood was not actually offered to God on the reprobate’s behalf, nor was His blood intended to be the basis of their salvation. The Calvinist position removes the provisional aspect of salvation talking the weight out of the historic position of the Church: sufficient for all, efficient for the elect. In this regard, Calvinists stand alone against the whole balance of Christendom.
Comments
I believe you would agree that the number of adherents has no bearing on the truth. (By the way... by some counts, atheism is the fourth most popular religion in the world.)
If Christ's atonement were EFFICIENT (effective) to save the reprobate... then they would not be reprobate, but saved.
How do you view the old testament concept of "atonement" (particularly, what do you make of the consistent statements in the old testament, that whenever the priest made an atonement for something, that thing "shall be forgiven."? I assume that you would agree that the old testament atonements were types and shadows of the perfect atonement that was Christ. If the old testament atonements certainly resulted in forgiveness... how is it that Christ's atonement does not certainly result in forgiveness?)
I agree that the # of adherents does not impact truth. At some times, its right to take on everyone at once. I am thinking of Elijah or Luther… I am just pointing out that thinking Christ didn’t die for everyone goes against the better judgment of most Christians. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, as long as one is sure what he believes is right.
TJ: If Christ's atonement were EFFICIENT (effective) to save the reprobate... then they would not be reprobate, but saved.
I understand. Given the hypothetical that Christ died for someone who in reality is reprobate, hypothetically that person would be saved. That’s why I said that under Calvinists, Christ’s death is only hypothetically and not actually sufficient for all. It’s not like based on what Christ actually did, He can save the reprobate.
TJ: How do you view the old testament concept of "atonement" (particularly, what do you make of the consistent statements in the old testament, that whenever the priest made an atonement for something, that thing "shall be forgiven."? I assume that you would agree that the old testament atonements were types and shadows of the perfect atonement that was Christ. If the old testament atonements certainly resulted in forgiveness... how is it that Christ's atonement does not certainly result in forgiveness?)
Based on passages like:
Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
and this:
Romans 3:21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe
My view is that the sacrifices themselves did not bring about forgiveness, but rather OT saints were justified by grace through faith. Did they understand it all? No. But they did have faith:
Hebrews 11:13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
But we still have expression in the OT that if an atonement is made the sin will be forgiven. So I would explain them as those who truly repented of their sin and had faith in God’s promises were forgiven. They were not forgiven by the sacrifices, but what the sacrifices represented. On the other hand, those who offered sacrifices but remain unrepentant, God did not forgive.
Leviticus 26:27 " 'If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. 30 I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you. 31 I will turn your cities into ruins and lay waste your sanctuaries, and I will take no delight in the pleasing aroma of your offerings.
Christ’s offering is what the Levitical sacrifices represented, so it works much the same way. Those that believe are forgiven, those that don’t are not.
God bless,
Dan
I agree that the OT saints were forgiven by grace through faith in the sacrifice of Christ.
I agree also that the blood of the animals did not wash away sins (certainly not eternally).
Nevertheless, the sacrifices were commanded by God using this language:
"Make a sacrifice for [it] and [it] shall be forgiven."
Now... if that forgiveness came in truth on the basis of the work of Christ himself on the cross-to-come (which I don't necessarily argue with, but is not related to my point)... this would just underscore my point regarding the work of Christ even more.
1) The sacrifice is made specifically for [it]
2) [It] shall be forgiven.
The faith of [it] is definitely the means "through" which this grace was applied. But also, note that the OT sacrifices were made "for" people with faith.
The OT priests did not make sacrifices for the unbelieving gentiles.
Do you think that no sacrifices were made for unbelieving Jews? If so, what do we make of the text from Lev 26?
Dan
it appears that Leviticus 26 is discussing the blessings and curses under the law. So I don't quite get what you are trying to say about sacrifices. Indeed all human beings are under the law UNLESS they have faith. This passage does not seem to address who the OT sacrifices were intended for, or sacrifices at all.
theojunkie's blog