Moderate Calvinist: How do you understand the first part of the oft quoted phrase, “Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect?”
High Calvinist: Christ’s sacrifice, by virtue of its worth, is infinitely valuable, capable of forgiving the sins of a thousand worlds. It is in this respect sufficient for all.
Moderate Calvinist: Do you believe that this sufficiency is presently available to the non-elect?
High Calvinist: What do you mean by “presently?”
Moderate Calvinist: Well, right now. Suppose there is Joe non-elect standing over here. Is Christ’s death capable of dealing with his sin problem?
High Calvinist: Of course! It’s infinitely valuable. You can’t put a cap on it.
Moderate Calvinist: Are the non-elect commanded by God to trust in Christ’s-sufficient-for-them sacrifice then?
High Calvinist: Yes.
Moderate Calvinist: So you would agree that it is a sufficient-for-them sacrifice?
High Calvinist: Yes.
Moderate Calvinist: Can this sufficiency be divorced from the atoning work of Christ?
High Calvinist: Of course not. There is no basis for forgiveness apart from Christ’s work.
Moderate Calvinist: So then it means that Christ’s atoning death, if it is presently sufficient for the non-elect, must include their sins in some respect. Or to say it a bit differently, it would mean that Christ’s atoning death has to extend to their sins.
High Calvinist: Well, I don’t want to say that.
Moderate Calvinist: Why not?
High Calvinist: I don’t want to say that Christ’s death encompasses or extends to include the sins of the non-elect. He died only for the sins of the elect.
Moderate Calvinist: But if sufficiency is tied to Christ’s atoning death, and if Christ did not die for the sins of the non-elect in any objective sense, then how can Christ’s death be a sufficient-for-them sacrifice?
High Calvinist: Well, I suppose I have in mind the intrinsic worth of Christ’s death. As such, it doesn’t mean that He actually paid an objective price for their sins. It only refers to what it’s surpassing worth could have done.
Moderate Calvinist: So if you go the route of saying that Christ’s death is only intrinsically sufficient for the non-elect, then what you are saying is that Christ’s death could have encompassed their sins, but it didn’t.
High Calvinist: That’s right.
Moderate Calvinist: So it could have encompassed their sin. But didn’t. So now it is sufficient for them?
High Calvinist: Well… I see your point. It can’t be presently sufficient for them.
Moderate Calvinist: Yeah, it’s a problem. You have already admitted that it is a sufficient-for-them sacrifice. And now when it looks like that is threatening your belief that Jesus didn’t die in any provisional sense for the sins of the non-elect, you want to restrict the sufficiency to what could have been the case. So in other words, Christ’s death could have been sufficient for the non-elect had He paid an objective price for their sins. But He didn’t. So it isn’t presently sufficient for them. Either the intrinsic sufficiency has some bearing on their sin problem, or it doesn’t. If it does, then you agree with my position. If it doesn’t then it isn’t a sufficient-for-them sacrifice, which is just to say that it isn’t sufficient for them.
High Calvinist: Then it looks like I need to abandon the old Lombardian formula, or restructure it so that it doesn’t speak of sufficiency as a present tense reality.
Moderate Calvinist: Well, look, I would urge you not to abandon the formula. It’s a good formula. Others in your camp have done exactly what you have proposed.¹ But I wouldn’t go there because it creates all kinds of problems with the universal, well-meant gospel offer.
High Calvinist: How so?
Moderate Calvinist: Well, you can look at other things I have written.² But let me go back to an earlier point. You want to say that Christ’s death is a sufficient-for-the-non-elect sacrifice. That’s good. Keep that biblical conviction intact. Don’t give it up. Just allow a category for Christ’s death to be intrinsically and extrinsically sufficient for all. As such, allow the infinite value to pertain to the non-elect. What is so bad with that?
High Calvinist: Well, because it means that I have to admit that Christ’s death encompasses the sins of the non-elect.
Moderate Calvinist: Yeah, that’s fine, so long as you make sure to hold on to the “efficient for the elect” category. Christ died to infallibly secure the salvation of His chosen people who were federally united to Him. Thus, He died specially for the elect, His bride. But because of His great love (John 3:16), and the infinite value of His penal sacrifice (not commercial sacrifice, mind you)³, He extends an objective offer of forgiveness to all men, which includes the non-elect. He beckons them (the non-elect) to come and live, to which, sadly, they refuse, obstinately so.
High Calvinist: It makes sense. But I need to ponder it further.
Moderate Calvinist: That’s fair. But let me just say again that if you agree that Christ’s death is a sufficient-for-the-non-elect sacrifice, such that there really is an objective gospel being offered them, one that is rooted in Christ’s atoning death, then our dispute is in principle over, for that’s the fundamental issue dividing us. The rest is terminology and allowing these agreed upon distinctions (sufficient for all, efficient for the elect) to play out in passages like 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:6, 2 Peter 2:1, etc.
High Calvinist: Wouldn’t it be great if this issue could be put to rest?
Moderate Calvinist: It certainly would. Blessings, friend.
High Calvinist: Blessings.
———————
¹ See the following for examples of its revision
² See One, Two, Three, Four, and Five.
³ See the following.
The Sound of Doctrine 