• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Value of Jesus' Blood was to Satisfy The Eternal Covenant of Salvation Degreed by God for His Elect.

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
"The position on atonement sufficiency, which I contend is the Scriptural one, and which I purpose to defend in this writing, can in brief be described thusly: Atonement sufficiency and efficacy are equal in extent and application. This position, some would say, "Allows for deficiency in God, in that He was notable to provide a sufficiency adequate to the Adamic transgression." Inability and deficiency are incongruous to the nature of God, for with Him all things are possible, and they who would charge us with teaching that God’s throne has a dim shade of insufficiency over it need to learn that it is the "design" of atonement sufficiency we are concerned with; and that the sovereignty of God’s sufficiency has never been questioned by New Testament Baptists. The deficiency in sufficiency supposition is an absurdity that needs no further refutation or consideration.

"I will strive vigorously for Scriptural accuracy in this treatise, but it is needful to be understood by all, that the ultimate literary skills this side of Divine inspiration can, only with so great a theme, develop an abstraction of it. However, an abstraction can be more than the sharing of theory. It can be and should be an enlargement of face, and this is my aim, and by divine enablement, the end which shall be accomplished. So, let us embark henceforth.

Find these at http://sovereigngrace.ddns.net:81/minkatone.html

Return To Index

"To effect the purpose of this treatise, as stated above, the following three sub-headings are prescribed:

Part 1. The design of atonement sufficiency.
Part 2. Scripture typology and atonement sufficiency.
Part 3. A passive or inoperative sufficiency is alien to the attributes of God.
In the following the above order, let us first consider:

Part One:

1.) THE DESIGN OF ATONEMENT SUFFICIENCY.


"In introducing this point, I will set down a maxim, i.e., God is the only absolute infinity. Therefore, all things are subject to metamorphosis or transformation except the essential glory of God. God’s essential glory is not capable of more or less. Addition and diminution have to do with God’s manifestive glory, and not with that glory which is inherent in His nature. All of creation is sovereignly appointed to serve God’s intrinsic glory, but some things of creation are designed by Him to declare or display a greater manifestation of His glory than are some others.

"The stars of heaven are an infinite host, but God knows "the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names" (Psalms 147:4). The universe is an infinity, but to the dismay of the pantheists, it is not the absolute infinity; for only God is omnipresent and nondimensional. Atonement efficiency and sufficiency are infinite, but both are limited in design by the covenant of redemption (Hebrews 13:20). This covenant knows nothing of sufficient grace that does not suffice.

"In the eternal covenant God decreed to save a number of Adam’s fallen posterity by the vicarious sufferings of Christ, and the rest He left in their sins to their just condemnation. Seeing that this covenant is eternal, that there can be no new thought with God, and what He does He always determined to do;

"I ask, Why would God make Christ’s atonement sufficient for those whom He had already passed over in the covenant of eternal favor?

"What is the purpose of a sufficiency beyond that of Divine satisfaction? The design of the sacrifice of Christ was to reconcile the elect unto God, and the sufficiency of that glorious and infinite sacrifice was limited to that infinite sum, beloved of the Father and given to the Son in the covenant of redemption.

"The value of the blood of Christ is not diminished by what it does not do. It did not procure repentance and faith for all men, it did not stay the retributive justice of God against the non-elect, and it did not provide salvational sufficiency for all men. The preciousness of the work of the Holy Spirit is not lessened because He does not once convict the non-elect of their sins, and does nothing to alter their hatred of God, but leaves them in their utter rebellion against all that is holy, just, and good, which culminates in their eternal suffering.

"What is the value of the blood of Christ? Surely, no redeemed person would say it is less than infinite, but it borders on Arminianism to contend that the blood of Christ sufficiently atoned for the sins of mankind. The blood of Christ cannot be overvalued, but in the thinking of finite creatures, its value can be misapplied; and this is precisely what the universal sufficiency theory does. The Atonement of Christ cannot be denuded of any of its parts, and neither can it be made to bear more than what omniscience designed for it to bear.

"The blood of Christ was shed to satisfy the just demands of the law brought against the elect people of God, and when satisfaction is attained, it asks no more. God’s atoning love is equal to the condemnation of His people, and when His justice was satisfied, He had no further quarrel with the elect. God’s law is the basis or standard of His judgment, and the demands of the law levied upon the elect have been substitutionarily satisfied by the death of Christ, and the Righteous Judge has taken His legal pen and has written "justified" on their record, (Romans 8:33).

"But the atoning sufficiency of Christ’s death was not redundant. It did not exceed what was necessary to satisfy the debt which His people owed to His law, and now Divine justice looks for satisfying sufficiency beyond the covenant of sovereign mercy and finds none, except in merited damnation of the non-elect.

"Thus, the equitable and incontestable verdict rendered by the court of Heaven against all who die in there sins reads: "… I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:23). They were fully known by God’s omniscience, but they were total strangers to the covenant of love; and their namesbeing omitted from the Lamb’s book of life, no redemptive sufficiency was provided for them by the atoning blood of Christ.

"A sufficiency which satisfaction does not require is alien to His Scriptures and to the experience of all rational creatures. So it is, in realizing satisfaction, sufficiency and efficiency are co-extensive; for sufficiency is measured by the effect it renders. The old adage which says: "It is better to have too much than too little" is true in the general sense, but it can never apply to God, for He never has too much or too little; just the perfect measure.

"The value of the blood of Christ is infinite, but it is a divinely pre-assigned infinity, and is restricted in its atoning worth and utility to the elect of God.

"Wherein is the wisdom in purchasing a sufficiency for a people whose sins are inexpiable and were reprobate before the foundation of the World?

"Wherein is the wisdom of God in extending the value of the blood to those whom He hated before the ages were born?

"Wherein is the wisdom of God in subjecting His beloved Son to infinite suffering in order to purchase a sufficiency for a people who would never receive the least benefit from it? Most certainly we would not think of questioning the wisdom of God, but the universal sufficiency view is a mooted one, and raises many questions.

"God did not, by the Shedding of Christ’s Blood,
'obtain a universal sufficiency for the curse of sin',


but His Sacrificial Blood was the Means of Ratifying
the Covenant of Redemption (
Hebrews 13:20),
which Covenant Beneficially precluded the non-elect
.

1. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s intercessory prayer is limited to the elect of God (John 17:9).

2. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s imputed righteousness is limited to the elect of God (Romans 4:6.)

3. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s atoning love is limited to the elect of God (Jeremiah 31:3 ; John 17:23 ; Romans 9:13).

4. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s justification is limited to the elect of God. (Romans 8:33).

5. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s meditorial office is limited to the elect of God (Romans 8:34 ; Hebrews 7:25).

6. The design and sufficiency of the eternal covenant is limited to the elect of God (John 5:21 , 6:63 ; II Timothy 1:9).

7. The design and sufficiency of regenerative grace is limited to the elect of God (John 17:6; Hebrews 13:20).

8. The design and sufficiency of Heaven is limited to the elect of God (I Peter 1:2-4).
 

Paleouss

Member
"The position on atonement sufficiency, which I contend is the Scriptural one, and which I purpose to defend in this writing, can in brief be described thusly: Atonement sufficiency and efficacy are equal in extent and application. This position, some would say, "Allows for deficiency in God, in that He was notable to provide a sufficiency adequate to the Adamic transgression." Inability and deficiency are incongruous to the nature of God, for with Him all things are possible, and they who would charge us with teaching that God’s throne has a dim shade of insufficiency over it need to learn that it is the "design" of atonement sufficiency we are concerned with; and that the sovereignty of God’s sufficiency has never been questioned by New Testament Baptists. The deficiency in sufficiency supposition is an absurdity that needs no further refutation or consideration.

"I will strive vigorously for Scriptural accuracy in this treatise, but it is needful to be understood by all, that the ultimate literary skills this side of Divine inspiration can, only with so great a theme, develop an abstraction of it. However, an abstraction can be more than the sharing of theory. It can be and should be an enlargement of face, and this is my aim, and by divine enablement, the end which shall be accomplished. So, let us embark henceforth.

Find these at http://sovereigngrace.ddns.net:81/minkatone.html

Return To Index

"To effect the purpose of this treatise, as stated above, the following three sub-headings are prescribed:

Part 1. The design of atonement sufficiency.
Part 2. Scripture typology and atonement sufficiency.
Part 3. A passive or inoperative sufficiency is alien to the attributes of God.
In the following the above order, let us first consider:

Part One:

1.) THE DESIGN OF ATONEMENT SUFFICIENCY.


"In introducing this point, I will set down a maxim, i.e., God is the only absolute infinity. Therefore, all things are subject to metamorphosis or transformation except the essential glory of God. God’s essential glory is not capable of more or less. Addition and diminution have to do with God’s manifestive glory, and not with that glory which is inherent in His nature. All of creation is sovereignly appointed to serve God’s intrinsic glory, but some things of creation are designed by Him to declare or display a greater manifestation of His glory than are some others.

"The stars of heaven are an infinite host, but God knows "the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names" (Psalms 147:4). The universe is an infinity, but to the dismay of the pantheists, it is not the absolute infinity; for only God is omnipresent and nondimensional. Atonement efficiency and sufficiency are infinite, but both are limited in design by the covenant of redemption (Hebrews 13:20). This covenant knows nothing of sufficient grace that does not suffice.

"In the eternal covenant God decreed to save a number of Adam’s fallen posterity by the vicarious sufferings of Christ, and the rest He left in their sins to their just condemnation. Seeing that this covenant is eternal, that there can be no new thought with God, and what He does He always determined to do;

"I ask, Why would God make Christ’s atonement sufficient for those whom He had already passed over in the covenant of eternal favor?

"What is the purpose of a sufficiency beyond that of Divine satisfaction? The design of the sacrifice of Christ was to reconcile the elect unto God, and the sufficiency of that glorious and infinite sacrifice was limited to that infinite sum, beloved of the Father and given to the Son in the covenant of redemption.

"The value of the blood of Christ is not diminished by what it does not do. It did not procure repentance and faith for all men, it did not stay the retributive justice of God against the non-elect, and it did not provide salvational sufficiency for all men. The preciousness of the work of the Holy Spirit is not lessened because He does not once convict the non-elect of their sins, and does nothing to alter their hatred of God, but leaves them in their utter rebellion against all that is holy, just, and good, which culminates in their eternal suffering.

"What is the value of the blood of Christ? Surely, no redeemed person would say it is less than infinite, but it borders on Arminianism to contend that the blood of Christ sufficiently atoned for the sins of mankind. The blood of Christ cannot be overvalued, but in the thinking of finite creatures, its value can be misapplied; and this is precisely what the universal sufficiency theory does. The Atonement of Christ cannot be denuded of any of its parts, and neither can it be made to bear more than what omniscience designed for it to bear.

"The blood of Christ was shed to satisfy the just demands of the law brought against the elect people of God, and when satisfaction is attained, it asks no more. God’s atoning love is equal to the condemnation of His people, and when His justice was satisfied, He had no further quarrel with the elect. God’s law is the basis or standard of His judgment, and the demands of the law levied upon the elect have been substitutionarily satisfied by the death of Christ, and the Righteous Judge has taken His legal pen and has written "justified" on their record, (Romans 8:33).

"But the atoning sufficiency of Christ’s death was not redundant. It did not exceed what was necessary to satisfy the debt which His people owed to His law, and now Divine justice looks for satisfying sufficiency beyond the covenant of sovereign mercy and finds none, except in merited damnation of the non-elect.

"Thus, the equitable and incontestable verdict rendered by the court of Heaven against all who die in there sins reads: "… I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:23). They were fully known by God’s omniscience, but they were total strangers to the covenant of love; and their namesbeing omitted from the Lamb’s book of life, no redemptive sufficiency was provided for them by the atoning blood of Christ.

"A sufficiency which satisfaction does not require is alien to His Scriptures and to the experience of all rational creatures. So it is, in realizing satisfaction, sufficiency and efficiency are co-extensive; for sufficiency is measured by the effect it renders. The old adage which says: "It is better to have too much than too little" is true in the general sense, but it can never apply to God, for He never has too much or too little; just the perfect measure.

"The value of the blood of Christ is infinite, but it is a divinely pre-assigned infinity, and is restricted in its atoning worth and utility to the elect of God.

"Wherein is the wisdom in purchasing a sufficiency for a people whose sins are inexpiable and were reprobate before the foundation of the World?

"Wherein is the wisdom of God in extending the value of the blood to those whom He hated before the ages were born?

"Wherein is the wisdom of God in subjecting His beloved Son to infinite suffering in order to purchase a sufficiency for a people who would never receive the least benefit from it? Most certainly we would not think of questioning the wisdom of God, but the universal sufficiency view is a mooted one, and raises many questions.

"God did not, by the Shedding of Christ’s Blood,
'obtain a universal sufficiency for the curse of sin',


but His Sacrificial Blood was the Means of Ratifying
the Covenant of Redemption (
Hebrews 13:20),
which Covenant Beneficially precluded the non-elect
.

1. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s intercessory prayer is limited to the elect of God (John 17:9).

2. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s imputed righteousness is limited to the elect of God (Romans 4:6.)

3. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s atoning love is limited to the elect of God (Jeremiah 31:3 ; John 17:23 ; Romans 9:13).

4. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s justification is limited to the elect of God. (Romans 8:33).

5. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s meditorial office is limited to the elect of God (Romans 8:34 ; Hebrews 7:25).

6. The design and sufficiency of the eternal covenant is limited to the elect of God (John 5:21 , 6:63 ; II Timothy 1:9).

7. The design and sufficiency of regenerative grace is limited to the elect of God (John 17:6; Hebrews 13:20).

8. The design and sufficiency of Heaven is limited to the elect of God (I Peter 1:2-4).
Greetings Alan. Thank you for your post.

Just saw this at the end of my allotted time. I'll be back to finish reading it and make some comments. Probably Monday.

Peace to you brother.
 

Paleouss

Member
Greetings Alan. I hope you had a blessed weekend and all the mothers in your life were honored.
"In introducing this point, I will set down a maxim, i.e., God is the only absolute infinity. Therefore, all things are subject to metamorphosis or transformation except the essential glory of God. God’s essential glory is not capable of more or less.
When I read this I think of "being" and "becoming" (like North, Whitehead).
All of creation is sovereignly appointed to serve God’s intrinsic glory
When I read this I think of my own position on the biblical first intent of creation, i.e., "God the Father’s decree to create for God the Son and that God the Son be the purposeful end of creation, that which all creation culminates toward and in; thereby being the purpose of creation’s beginning and end, all for God the Son (I1)" (Col 1:16, Rom 11:36, Heb 2:10, Rev 22:13, 1:8, 1:11, 21:6)
"In the eternal covenant God decreed to save a number of Adam’s fallen posterity by the vicarious sufferings of Christ, and the rest He left in their sins to their just condemnation.
I see the term "eternal covenant" here. I tend not to view God's eternal workings before creation as a covenant, but to each their own. I also see the concept of the concept to of a Un/Limited view materializing in the assertion that "God decreed to save a number.." and then "the rest He left in their sins to their just condemnation" (sufficient and efficient).
"The blood of Christ was shed to satisfy the just demands of the law brought against the elect people of God, and when satisfaction is attained, it asks no more.
Being a multiple purpose guy regarding the Incarnation, death and resurrection (IDR). I tend to to expand the concept beyond the "blood of Christ was shed to satisfy the just demands of the law" (emphasis on "the law"). Although I do agree that one purpose of the IDR had something to do with the law. But also, the IDR had something to do with the Son of God's cosmic triumph (to use a broad heading).
The value of the blood of Christ is infinite,
I agree with this. In the Second Head of Doctrine that came out of the Counsel of Dort, Article 3. It says, "The death of the Son of God is the only most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."
but it is a divinely pre-assigned infinity, and is restricted in its atoning worth and utility to the elect of God.
Here is where it starts to turn and be confusing.
"Wherein is the wisdom in purchasing a sufficiency for a people whose sins are inexpiable and were reprobate before the foundation of the World?
Now it seems that the presentation is not about the traditional concept of sufficient (for the world) and efficient (for the elect). It seems to now take a typical augment used by High Calvinist's. That is, that any blood spilled for the unbelieving is a waste.
"Wherein is the wisdom of God in subjecting His beloved Son to infinite suffering in order to purchase a sufficiency for a people who would never receive the least benefit from it?
And here is that argument.
"God did not, by the Shedding of Christ’s Blood,
'obtain a universal sufficiency for the curse of sin',

but His Sacrificial Blood was the Means of Ratifying
the Covenant of Redemption (
Hebrews 13:20),
which Covenant Beneficially precluded the non-elect
.
And the follow up to that argument

At first it seemed that the presentation was something like the Counsel of Dort. In that, they denied Universalism and claimed an Un/Limited statement that the blood of Christ was "abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world". However, it was only those that believed would the blood be efficient.

But after reaching the end of this post. It appears that not only is Universalism denied, but also some kind of universal work of the atonement for the world (all mean, everywhere). To me, this view ignores much scripture. To be clear, I'm not making a claim that the Bible teaches election. Further, that the Bible teaches that Christ came to secure the elect through the IDR. What I am suggesting is being ignored is the "other verses" that says that Christ came for the whole world also. To do something for them.

Peace to you brother.
 

Zaatar71

Member
"The position on atonement sufficiency, which I contend is the Scriptural one, and which I purpose to defend in this writing, can in brief be described thusly: Atonement sufficiency and efficacy are equal in extent and application. This position, some would say, "Allows for deficiency in God, in that He was notable to provide a sufficiency adequate to the Adamic transgression." Inability and deficiency are incongruous to the nature of God, for with Him all things are possible, and they who would charge us with teaching that God’s throne has a dim shade of insufficiency over it need to learn that it is the "design" of atonement sufficiency we are concerned with; and that the sovereignty of God’s sufficiency has never been questioned by New Testament Baptists. The deficiency in sufficiency supposition is an absurdity that needs no further refutation or consideration.

"I will strive vigorously for Scriptural accuracy in this treatise, but it is needful to be understood by all, that the ultimate literary skills this side of Divine inspiration can, only with so great a theme, develop an abstraction of it. However, an abstraction can be more than the sharing of theory. It can be and should be an enlargement of face, and this is my aim, and by divine enablement, the end which shall be accomplished. So, let us embark henceforth.

Find these at http://sovereigngrace.ddns.net:81/minkatone.html

Return To Index

"To effect the purpose of this treatise, as stated above, the following three sub-headings are prescribed:

Part 1. The design of atonement sufficiency.
Part 2. Scripture typology and atonement sufficiency.
Part 3. A passive or inoperative sufficiency is alien to the attributes of God.
In the following the above order, let us first consider:

Part One:

1.) THE DESIGN OF ATONEMENT SUFFICIENCY.


"In introducing this point, I will set down a maxim, i.e., God is the only absolute infinity. Therefore, all things are subject to metamorphosis or transformation except the essential glory of God. God’s essential glory is not capable of more or less. Addition and diminution have to do with God’s manifestive glory, and not with that glory which is inherent in His nature. All of creation is sovereignly appointed to serve God’s intrinsic glory, but some things of creation are designed by Him to declare or display a greater manifestation of His glory than are some others.

"The stars of heaven are an infinite host, but God knows "the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names" (Psalms 147:4). The universe is an infinity, but to the dismay of the pantheists, it is not the absolute infinity; for only God is omnipresent and nondimensional. Atonement efficiency and sufficiency are infinite, but both are limited in design by the covenant of redemption (Hebrews 13:20). This covenant knows nothing of sufficient grace that does not suffice.

"In the eternal covenant God decreed to save a number of Adam’s fallen posterity by the vicarious sufferings of Christ, and the rest He left in their sins to their just condemnation. Seeing that this covenant is eternal, that there can be no new thought with God, and what He does He always determined to do;

"I ask, Why would God make Christ’s atonement sufficient for those whom He had already passed over in the covenant of eternal favor?

"What is the purpose of a sufficiency beyond that of Divine satisfaction? The design of the sacrifice of Christ was to reconcile the elect unto God, and the sufficiency of that glorious and infinite sacrifice was limited to that infinite sum, beloved of the Father and given to the Son in the covenant of redemption.

"The value of the blood of Christ is not diminished by what it does not do. It did not procure repentance and faith for all men, it did not stay the retributive justice of God against the non-elect, and it did not provide salvational sufficiency for all men. The preciousness of the work of the Holy Spirit is not lessened because He does not once convict the non-elect of their sins, and does nothing to alter their hatred of God, but leaves them in their utter rebellion against all that is holy, just, and good, which culminates in their eternal suffering.

"What is the value of the blood of Christ? Surely, no redeemed person would say it is less than infinite, but it borders on Arminianism to contend that the blood of Christ sufficiently atoned for the sins of mankind. The blood of Christ cannot be overvalued, but in the thinking of finite creatures, its value can be misapplied; and this is precisely what the universal sufficiency theory does. The Atonement of Christ cannot be denuded of any of its parts, and neither can it be made to bear more than what omniscience designed for it to bear.

"The blood of Christ was shed to satisfy the just demands of the law brought against the elect people of God, and when satisfaction is attained, it asks no more. God’s atoning love is equal to the condemnation of His people, and when His justice was satisfied, He had no further quarrel with the elect. God’s law is the basis or standard of His judgment, and the demands of the law levied upon the elect have been substitutionarily satisfied by the death of Christ, and the Righteous Judge has taken His legal pen and has written "justified" on their record, (Romans 8:33).

"But the atoning sufficiency of Christ’s death was not redundant. It did not exceed what was necessary to satisfy the debt which His people owed to His law, and now Divine justice looks for satisfying sufficiency beyond the covenant of sovereign mercy and finds none, except in merited damnation of the non-elect.

"Thus, the equitable and incontestable verdict rendered by the court of Heaven against all who die in there sins reads: "… I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:23). They were fully known by God’s omniscience, but they were total strangers to the covenant of love; and their namesbeing omitted from the Lamb’s book of life, no redemptive sufficiency was provided for them by the atoning blood of Christ.

"A sufficiency which satisfaction does not require is alien to His Scriptures and to the experience of all rational creatures. So it is, in realizing satisfaction, sufficiency and efficiency are co-extensive; for sufficiency is measured by the effect it renders. The old adage which says: "It is better to have too much than too little" is true in the general sense, but it can never apply to God, for He never has too much or too little; just the perfect measure.

"The value of the blood of Christ is infinite, but it is a divinely pre-assigned infinity, and is restricted in its atoning worth and utility to the elect of God.

"Wherein is the wisdom in purchasing a sufficiency for a people whose sins are inexpiable and were reprobate before the foundation of the World?

"Wherein is the wisdom of God in extending the value of the blood to those whom He hated before the ages were born?

"Wherein is the wisdom of God in subjecting His beloved Son to infinite suffering in order to purchase a sufficiency for a people who would never receive the least benefit from it? Most certainly we would not think of questioning the wisdom of God, but the universal sufficiency view is a mooted one, and raises many questions.

"God did not, by the Shedding of Christ’s Blood,
'obtain a universal sufficiency for the curse of sin',


but His Sacrificial Blood was the Means of Ratifying
the Covenant of Redemption (
Hebrews 13:20),
which Covenant Beneficially precluded the non-elect
.

1. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s intercessory prayer is limited to the elect of God (John 17:9).

2. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s imputed righteousness is limited to the elect of God (Romans 4:6.)

3. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s atoning love is limited to the elect of God (Jeremiah 31:3 ; John 17:23 ; Romans 9:13).

4. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s justification is limited to the elect of God. (Romans 8:33).

5. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s meditorial office is limited to the elect of God (Romans 8:34 ; Hebrews 7:25).

6. The design and sufficiency of the eternal covenant is limited to the elect of God (John 5:21 , 6:63 ; II Timothy 1:9).

7. The design and sufficiency of regenerative grace is limited to the elect of God (John 17:6; Hebrews 13:20).

8. The design and sufficiency of Heaven is limited to the elect of God (I Peter 1:2-4).
This seems so strong. It looks as if all have come to see this as true. I think clear posts like this remove some of the obstacles many have to believing what the bible says. I think when people see this they will rejoice in what God has done for everyone believing.
 

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
"There is no question as to the capability of God. He could have, had He been pleased, provided satisfaction for the devil and his angels; but we know this was not His pleasure. It is the design of God’s sovereign grace we are concerned with, and redemptive sufficiency is a product of the omniscient Designer. To talk of atoning sufficiency without forelove runs counter to the tenor of Scripture. Such terms as "uncovenanted mercies," "heathen virtue," and "universal sufficiency," should arouse infinite skepticism in the minds of all who hold the truth of God’s sovereign grace.

"It was God’s eternal design to "bruise" His Son (Isaiah 53:10) and by His infinite suffering provide atoning sufficiency for all whom He represented in His suffering.

"Therefore, Peter, in speaking to the elect, says: "Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers, of Christ’s sufferings; that, when His glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy" (I Peter 4:13). Are the non-elect in any sense or measure partakers of the suffering of Christ? To affirm the universal sufficiency view of the atonement is to say Christ’s substitutionary suffering was at least in part for the reprobate world, for there can be no atoning sufficiency apart from the sufferings of Christ.

"The atonement of Christ is a very special and infinitely gracious work which is limited to the elect (John 10:11), but a general sufficiency which is common to all mankind would destroy the particularistic nature of the atonement, and put a wider dimension on the atonement than is Scripturally warranted.

"God’s love for His people is infinite, yet it is a fixed love; and it can never be more or less than what it has eternally been (Jeremiah 31:3 ; John 13:1 ; Hebrews 13:8). God’s infallible justice has drawn a demarcation line between the elect and the non-elect, and His love honors the line and limits which He has set for it. God is not divided in Himself. God’s love will not manifest itself, even infinitesimally, toward any person whose name is not written in the Lamb’s book of life. Why then, I ask, take atoning sufficiency and set it apart from God’s love? Why make Christ’s atoning sufficiency to go beyond His sufferings, beyond the covenant of redemption, and beyond God’s restrictive design for it? The answer is simply because the universal sufficiency doctrine is ill conceived"

I think of "being" and "becoming"

I think of my own position

materializing

Being a multiple purpose guy

In the Second Head of Doctrine that came out of the Counsel of Dort, Article 3. It says, "The death of the Son of God is the only most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly

it starts to turn and be confusing

the traditional concept of sufficient (for the world) and efficient (for the elect)
1. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s intercessory prayer is limited to the elect of God (John 17:9).

2. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s imputed righteousness is limited to the elect of God (Romans 4:6.)

3. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s atoning love is limited to the elect of God (Jeremiah 31:3 ; John 17:23 ; Romans 9:13).

4. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s justification is limited to the elect of God. (Romans 8:33).

5. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s meditorial office is limited to the elect of God (Romans 8:34 ; Hebrews 7:25).

6. The design and sufficiency of the eternal covenant is limited to the elect of God (John 5:21 , 6:63 ; II Timothy 1:9).

7. The design and sufficiency of regenerative grace is limited to the elect of God (John 17:6; Hebrews 13:20).

8. The design and sufficiency of Heaven is limited to the elect of God (I Peter 1:2-4).

"The term "sufficiency" in the eight postulates enumerated above could be replaced with the word "Efficiency" and it would not change the design or results in the least. As defined by Webster, both terms mean adequacy. The primary distinction between the terms is chronological, for sufficiency begets efficiency; but God is the author of both, and He, being omniscient, would not appropriate a sufficiency beyond the suitability of His designs for efficiency.

"Jesus bled, suffered, and died as the substitute for His people, and the value of His blood was equal to their sin debt, for the Father would not charge one farthing more than that which was owed. "…The Blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:7). Forgiveness cannot extend beyond the offense; and the blood of Christ, though infinite in value, did not procure a sufficiency beyond that which was equal to the sinfulness of His people. "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20), but this abounding grace has not to do with a redemptive sufficiency for the non-elect, but with the bestowal of sonship on the atoned-for ones, whereby they become "joint heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17)".

And here is that argument.

And the follow up to that argument

. It appears that not only is Universalism denied, but also some kind of universal work of the atonement for the world (all mean, everywhere).
Universalism or a universal work for all men is supersticious paganism, at best.
To me, this view ignores much scripture.
The scriptures are not of any private or presumed interpretation. Having a presupposition as to what the scriptures refer to mean is necessary to satisfy the presupposition, with any and all other plain renderings having to be ignored, for no other reason.
I'm not making a claim that the Bible teaches election.
Not need for you to, it does already, no matter what.
What I am suggesting is being ignored is the "other verses" that says that Christ came for the whole world also. To do something for them.
The definition from the Bible doesn't satisfy the presupposition and is dismissed out of hand, and misses what God would have us to understand what He is saying.
 
Last edited:

Paleouss

Member
1. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s intercessory prayer is limited to the elect of God (John 17:9).

2. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s imputed righteousness is limited to the elect of God (Romans 4:6.)

3. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s atoning love is limited to the elect of God (Jeremiah 31:3 ; John 17:23 ; Romans 9:13).

4. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s justification is limited to the elect of God. (Romans 8:33).

5. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s meditorial office is limited to the elect of God (Romans 8:34 ; Hebrews 7:25).

6. The design and sufficiency of the eternal covenant is limited to the elect of God (John 5:21 , 6:63 ; II Timothy 1:9).

7. The design and sufficiency of regenerative grace is limited to the elect of God (John 17:6; Hebrews 13:20).

8. The design and sufficiency of Heaven is limited to the elect of God (I Peter 1:2-4).

"The term "sufficiency" in the eight postulates enumerated above could be replaced with the word "Efficiency" and it would not change the design or results in the least. As defined by Webster, both terms mean adequacy. The primary distinction between the terms is chronological, for sufficiency begets efficiency; but God is the author of both, and He, being omniscient, would not appropriate a sufficiency beyond the suitability of His designs for efficiency.

"Jesus bled, suffered, and died as the substitute for His people, and the value of His blood was equal to their sin debt, for the Father would not charge one farthing more than that which was owed. "…The Blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:7). Forgiveness cannot extend beyond the offense; and the blood of Christ, though infinite in value, did not procure a sufficiency beyond that which was equal to the sinfulness of His people. "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20), but this abounding grace has not to do with a redemptive sufficiency for the non-elect, but with the bestowal of sonship on the atoned-for ones, whereby they become "joint heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17)".
Greetings again Allen. Looks like you are doing some quality time with our Lord. Many blessings to you.

I'm wondering if you think what you wrote contradicts these two things...

1. In the Second Head of Doctrine that came out of the Counsel of Dort, Article 3. It says, "The death of the Son of God is the only most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

Particularly the part that says..."the whole world"? This is the foundation of Reformed thought. Do you agree with it?

2. Calvin wrote that Christ's atoning sacrifice was "sufficient" to atone for the sins of all humanity. In other words, Calvin was in agreement with the Counsel of Dort. Calvin clearly taught that Christ's atoning sacrifice was also "efficient" for the elect (sufficient and efficient).

Do you agree with John Calvin?

As a side note, Websters definitions don't mean much unless they line up with theological definitions. In theology, sufficient/efficient means somethings distinct. At least it did for John Calvin.

As an edit. I read your post apparently before it was finished. I'll have to go back and read what you added after I read it.


Peace to you brother.
 
Last edited:

Paleouss

Member
To be clear, I'm not making a claim that the Bible teaches election.
Alan, I noticed in my other post I didn't type correctly.

What I meant to say, that is an error in my quote above, is that "I'm not making a claim that the Bible DOES NOT teach election". Not sure how I ended up with what the quote above says.

Want to make that clarification.

Peace to you brother
 

Paleouss

Member
Universalism or a universal work for all men is supersticious paganism, at best.
I Agree. Universalism is a false doctrine. Just so we are both clear on what is being said. Universalism is the concept that teaches all will be saved. Again, I do not hold this nor do I think the Scriptures teach this.

Regarding the the work of Christ doing something universal in scope in which all mankind everywhere benefits in some way. To be clear, so we are not talking past each other. I hold to a Un/Limited view of the Atonement. For brevity and this post, you may consider this 4point Calvinism. This view, clearly is not paganism but scriptural. For example, Christ's work was to also put all things under His foot: (1Cor 15:24-28, Rom 8:20-23, Psa 8:6, Heb 2:8).

Also Christ work was to destroy the works of the devil, (1John 3:8) "For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil."

Also Christ work was to become Lord of the living and the dead. "For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living." (Rom 14:8-9).

Also Christ work was to destroy sin and death, 1Cor 15:26 26 The last enemy [that] will be destroyed [is] death.

Do you agree with this multiple purposes of Christ's work?

Peace to you brother.
 

Alan Dale Gross

Active Member
1. In the Second Head of Doctrine that came out of the Counsel of Dort, Article 3. It says, "The death of the Son of God is the only most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."
THESE WERE PEOPLE WHO WEREn't INSPIRED AND NEVER CLAIMED TO BE, OF COURSE. (Sorry caps, ohh, those HURT! :Ninja)

There have been other very unfortunate attempts at articulating the Belief we believe to be of The Bible,
in this same instance, where there are people who have never thought past the words, "all", "the world", even "whosoever",
and giving those words credit for also carrying various other definitions that may be brought under consideration,
to solve any apparent discrepancy, between The Bible's use of the words, "all", "the world", even "whosoever",
and the Doctrine of The Limited Characteristic of Jesus' Atonement.

In this case, someone had listen to Satan and came up with a bright idea to play with the word, "sufficient",
and play like is a wonderful thing to say, so that anyone who is intentionally limiting their awareness of the meaning and use of words,
the words, "all", "the world", even "whosoever".

Although, while they had the intension of countering the pagan and superstitious notions and errors of others who gave their 'Five Points" was mightily accomplished by the Counsel of Dort, their Human reasoning took them crossways on that 'sufficient' talk.

The idea of Humans reasoning that since they want to 'offer the gift of Eternal Life to everyone', that they pretend The Bible teaches it, is wrong.

Those at the Counsel of Dort got that wrong and you see how damaging it was, if I'm right.

There is no scripture reference for many of their sub-points, but it would be nice to see something on this, besides shortsightedness.

While obviously attempting to Exalt the Value of The Lord's Death/Blood, I believe they got out on an improvable and unnecessary limb.

And that limb has a gap, beteen it and the tree.

"Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death"​

"This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins;
it is of infinite Value and Worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world."

Article 4. gives us plainly what Jesus Christ did.

"Article 4: Reasons for This Infinite Value"​

"This death is of such great Value and Worth for the reason that the Person Who suffered it is—as was necessary to be our Savior—
not only a True and Perfectly Holy human, but also the Only Begotten Son of God, of the Same Eternal
and Infinite Essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

"Another reason is that this death was Accompanied by the Experience of God’s Wrath and Curse,
which we by our sins had fully deserved."

That mentions JESUS' great Value and Worth by talking about Who HE was, without the extra tidbit of human reasoning thrown in.

Thi death of Jesus Christ's was "Accompanied by the Experience of God’s Wrath and Curse,
which we by our sins had fully deserved."


Saved individual's sins were what they are talking about, where 'we' fully deserved' The Wrath and Curse of God for them,
but The Wrath and Curse of God Fell on Jesus, for those specific sins, of those specific people.

How do we about Jesus doing that? The Bible said He would:

Im Matthew 1:21, we see where The Bible says,
"And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His Name JESUS:

for He shall Save His people from their sins."

He shall Save = His people + from their sins.




Particularly the part that says..."the whole world"?
Null and Void. Clerical Error. There was only One Perfect Person Who ever Lived.

Words aren't defined by restrictions placed onto them by presuppositions.

The 'world' means the 'world, just like it says.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

"For God so loved the world,...."
The Persic version reads "men": but not every man in the world is here meant,
or all the individuals of human nature;

"because all are not the objects of God's Special Love, which is here Designed,
as appears from the Instance and Evidence of God's Design for His Special Love, which was the Gift of God's Son and Eternal Life:

"nor is Christ God's gift to every one; for to whomsoever He Gives His Son, He Gives all things freely with Him;

"which is not the case of every man.

Nor is human nature here intended,...for though God has showed a regard to fallen men, and not to fallen angels,
and has Provided a Saviour for the one, and not for the other;

and besides, it will not be easily proved, that human nature is ever called the world:
nor is the whole body of the Chosen ones, as consisting of Jews and Gentiles, here designed;
for though these are called the world, John 6:33;
and are the objects of God's special love, and to them Christ is given, and they are brought to believe in him, and shall never perish,
but shall be saved with an everlasting salvation;

yet rather the Gentiles particularly are meant by, 'the world', and God's Elect among them, are meant;
who are often called "the world", and "the whole world", and "the nations of the world",

"as distinct from the Jews; see Romans 11:12, compared with Matthew 6:32.

"The Jews had the same distinction we have now, the church and the world;
the former they took to themselves, and the latter they gave to all the nations around:

"hence we often meet with this distinction, Israel, and the nations of the world; on those words,
""let them bring forth their witness", that they may be justified, Isaiah 43:9
(say (b) the doctors) these are Israel; "or let them hear and say it is truth", these are "the nations of the world", etc.


John 3:17b;
"that the world through Him might be Saved"
; even the world of the Elect in general is intended,
whom God Determined to Save,
and has Chosen, to Obtain Salvation by Jesus Christ,
and has Appointed Christ to be the Salvation of God's Chosen Elect;
and Who being Sent, Came into the world to Seek and Save them;

"and God's Chosen people among the Gentiles in particular is meant, as we clearly see in this same sense from Isaiah 49:6;
"wherefore he is said to be God's Salvation to the Ends of the Earth:
and all the Ends of the Earth are called upon to look unto Him,
and be Saved by Him", Isaiah 49:6.

John 3:16 altered, as commentary;

"For, 'FROM ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH',
"God so Loved the world", 'of God's Chosen people among the Elect Gentiles',

"that He Gave His Only Begotten Son,
that whosoever Believeth in Him should not perish, but have Everlasting Life."

Adapted from John 3 Gill's Exposition


This is the foundation of Reformed thought.
I'm not 'Reformed" anything. They came out of Roman Catholicism, as to their origin, in an attempt to reform Roman Catholicism.

Historical Baptists did not.

Do you agree with it?
Of course not.

2. Calvin wrote that Christ's atoning sacrifice was "sufficient" to atone for the sins of all humanity.
Maybe, whatever, whenever, however, he knows what's right, right now.

As a side note, Websters definitions don't mean much unless they line up with theological definitions.
That's correct.

In theology, sufficient/efficient means somethings distinct.
I don't go along with that Theology.

They look perfectly, essentially, identical in their entirety based on the Theology contained in these 8 points,
along with their scripture references, which have to do specifically with what is being taught by them;

1. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s intercessory prayer is limited to the elect of God (John 17:9).

2. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s imputed righteousness is limited to the elect of God (Romans 4:6.)

3. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s atoning love is limited to the elect of God (Jeremiah 31:3 ; John 17:23 ; Romans 9:13).

4. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s justification is limited to the elect of God. (Romans 8:33).

5. The design and sufficiency of Christ’s meditorial office is limited to the elect of God (Romans 8:34 ; Hebrews 7:25).

6. The design and sufficiency of the eternal covenant is limited to the elect of God (John 5:21 , 6:63 ; II Timothy 1:9).

7. The design and sufficiency of regenerative grace is limited to the elect of God (John 17:6; Hebrews 13:20).

8. The design and sufficiency of Heaven is limited to the elect of God (I Peter 1:2-4).
 

Paleouss

Member
THESE WERE PEOPLE WHO WEREn't INSPIRED AND NEVER CLAIMED TO BE, OF COURSE. (Sorry caps, ohh, those HURT! :Ninja)
My apologies Alan. I presumed you were a Calvinist of the Reformed movement. For if you were, you would hold to the articles of faith and all the counsels. The Counsel of Dort being one of them.

Within the 'spectrum' of Calvinism there is not agreement. Particularly regarding the "I" in TULIP. Yet, even with this disagreement both sides of the Calvinist camp accept the other as 'Calvinists'. Both sides claiming that neither side is "pagan" nor "false doctrine". Just holding that maybe that the other fellow brothers are wrong in one area.

So again, my apologies for my false assumption.
I'm not 'Reformed" anything. They came out of Roman Catholicism, as to their origin, in an attempt to reform Roman Catholicism.
And this was my mistake. I assumed incorrectly that you were a Calvinist proper.

Which brings me to a more puzzling place on who I am talking to. That is, you appear to present all the common positions and arguments of a High Calvinist. Some of them, word for word. Yet you deny being Reformed.

Can I ask if you hold to the Calvinist doctrine of TULIP?

Peace to you brother
 
Top