Fuller - The sufficiency of the Atonement?

[Carbon]

Andrew Fuller
"He died for the human race; while He made an atonement for the elect only, the atonement was sufficient to save the non-elect if they would only believe. The atonement was sufficient to save and would save the elect, regardless of whether they ever heard the gospel or believed in Jesus or the atonement; but the non-elect must believe in the atonement in order for it to be able to save them."


I disagree with Fuller.


Thoughts?

 

[Carbon]

Andrew Fuller
"He died for the human race; while He made an atonement for the elect only, the atonement was sufficient to save the non-elect if they would only believe.

And this teaching is where in the scriptures?

 

[Carbon]

He died sufficiently for all men and efficiently only for the elect? This is not supported by a scriptural view of the nature of the atonement or by the Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement.

Why is the term “sufficient for all” used in discussing the atonement?

 

[Carbon]

According to J. I. Packer, “Preaching the gospel is not a matter of telling people that God has set His love on each of them and Christ has died to save each of them. The knowledge of being the object of God’s eternal love and Christ’s redeeming death belongs to the individual’s assurance . . . which is to be inferred from the fact that one has believed, not proposed as the reason one should believe,”

 

[Carbon]

John Owen said,

There are none called by the gospel even once to enquire after the purpose and intention of God concerning the particular object of the death of Christ, everyone being fully assured that His death shall be profitable to them that believe in him and obey him.”

The preacher’s task is to explain man’s need of Christ, His sufficiency to save, and His offer of Himself as Savior to all who truly turn to Him. If you are proclaiming a gospel message that demands a universal provision in the atonement, you are not proclaiming the gospel of the Scriptures.

 

[ReverendRV]

Andrew Fuller
"He died for the human race; while He made an atonement for the elect only, the atonement was sufficient to save the non-elect if they would only believe. The atonement was sufficient to save and would save the elect, regardless of whether they ever heard the gospel or believed in Jesus or the atonement; but the non-elect must believe in the atonement in order for it to be able to save them."


I disagree with Fuller.


Thoughts?

That's basically what I believe...

 

[ReverendRV]

He died sufficiently for all men and efficiently only for the elect? This is not supported by a scriptural view of the nature of the atonement or by the Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement.

Why is the term “sufficient for all” used in discussing the atonement?

The reason it's used in the discussion is because most Calvinists believe in the Sufficiency of Christ's Sacrifice...

 

[ReverendRV]

That's basically what I believe...

Except I would say 'the Sacrifice was sufficient to save the non-elect if they would only believe.'

The Atonement was not Sufficient, because the Atonement is Limited...

 

[Carbon]

To say that Christ’s death on the cross provided an atonement sufficient for all is to specifically suggest that He has atoned for the sins of all men, which is essentially a universal atonement. Which is false.

William Cunningham (1805-1861) gives insight into potential misunderstanding of the Reformed position, which serves as a call for care in using the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” terminology.

A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which has often been adverted to in this discussion, and which it may be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect, — sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis. Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion, and Calvin himself among the rest, — admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation; not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His death for the redemption of all men, but because the statement — whether originally so intended or not — was so expressed as to suffest the idea, that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that all men should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the shedding of His blood. Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ — viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or design — was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, because this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infinite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit; whereas the original scholastic form of the statement, — namely, that He died sufficiently for all, — seems to indicate that, when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death.

 

[ReverendRV]

To say that Christ’s death on the cross provided an atonement sufficient for all is to specifically suggest that He has atoned for the sins of all men, which is essentially a universal atonement. Which is false.

William Cunningham (1805-1861) gives insight into potential misunderstanding of the Reformed position, which serves as a call for care in using the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” terminology.

A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which has often been adverted to in this discussion, and which it may be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect, — sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis. Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion, and Calvin himself among the rest, — admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation; not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His death for the redemption of all men, but because the statement — whether originally so intended or not — was so expressed as to suffest the idea, that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that all men should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the shedding of His blood. Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ — viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or design — was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, because this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infinite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit; whereas the original scholastic form of the statement, — namely, that He died sufficiently for all, — seems to indicate that, when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death.

Right. Christ's Atonement is without a doubt a Limited Atonement...

 

[Carbon]

That's basically what I believe...

Would you say, Fuller stated that Christ had made satisfaction for both the elect and reprobate, and consequently both were bound to believe in him?

 

[ReverendRV]

Would you say, Fuller stated that Christ had made satisfaction for both the elect and reprobate, and consequently both were bound to believe in him?

I don't know what Fuller said about that, but I wouldn't say that...

 

[armylngst]

Andrew Fuller
"He died for the human race; while He made an atonement for the elect only, the atonement was sufficient to save the non-elect if they would only believe. The atonement was sufficient to save and would save the elect, regardless of whether they ever heard the gospel or believed in Jesus or the atonement; but the non-elect must believe in the atonement in order for it to be able to save them."


I disagree with Fuller.


Thoughts?

Where I disagree is where it says "regardless of whether they ever heard the gospel or believed in Jesus or the atonement." Scripture still says that God ordained that through the foolishness of preaching, men come to know Him. So the elect still hear and respond to the gospel, but the fact that they WILL respond, and WILL believe/accept is a foregone conclusion. The 12 disciples heard it straight from Jesus. Why would Jesus tell the 12 to go out into the world and preach the gospel, making disciples of all nations, if it wasn't required?

I also believe that the non-elect won't believe in the atonement. I don't even feel one has to believe they can't. They won't.

 

[makesends]

Andrew Fuller
"He died for the human race; while He made an atonement for the elect only, the atonement was sufficient to save the non-elect if they would only believe. The atonement was sufficient to save and would save the elect, regardless of whether they ever heard the gospel or believed in Jesus or the atonement; but the non-elect must believe in the atonement in order for it to be able to save them."


I disagree with Fuller.


Thoughts?

Sounds like a self-made construction, for sure. Not sure how he arrived there, but yeah, he jumps some steps to get there. Assertion, at best, seems to me.

 

[ReverendRV]

Sounds like a self-made construction, for sure. Not sure how he arrived there, but yeah, he jumps some steps to get there. Assertion, at best, seems to me.

According to the First Commandment, would you say it's the Duty of All to have Faith in Christ?

 

[makesends]

He died sufficiently for all men and efficiently only for the elect? This is not supported by a scriptural view of the nature of the atonement or by the Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement.

Why is the term “sufficient for all” used in discussing the atonement?

To attempt to satisfy the Arminianistic believer.

 

[makesends]

According to the First Commandment, would you say it's the Duty of All to have Faith in Christ?

"God commands all men everywhere to believe." Whether that is part of the first commandment or not, it makes no difference, as far as I can tell: They will not, unless the Spirit of God causes their faith.

But yeah, it does fit.

 

[Carbon]

"God commands all men everywhere to believe." Whether that is part of the first commandment or not, it makes no difference, as far as I can tell: They will not, unless the Spirit of God causes their faith.

Anen. Regeneration before faith.

 

[ReverendRV]

"God commands all men everywhere to believe." Whether that is part of the first commandment or not, it makes no difference, as far as I can tell: They will not, unless the Spirit of God causes their faith.

But yeah, it does fit.

Since it fits, the Jews are Commanded to have Jesus Christ as their God. And when a Gentile keeps the Law, he shows that the Law is written on his heart. The Law to Worship Jesus Christ is written on the heart of all...

In this sense, Christ can be Propitiation for the World; especially for those who Believe...

 

[makesends]

I doubt that, since all men are without excuse and are considered believers in God as per Romans 1.

You mean, "unbelievers"? But I'm not sure what you say you are doubting here. Or why.

So, moving on to faith in Christ and His Gospel? That faith comes via God as a gift, so duty faith fails there as a disingenuous man-made ideology since man cannot believe unless God grants faith.

"If they would only believe" is imho a fairy tale that falls short of a 2 Timothy 2:15 mandate. In addition to that it makes faith the cause of salvation, when God and His grace are the cause.

Oh. Maybe you meant to be answering the OP, and not me.