Elder O. B.
Mink
(May 3, 1924 - August 25, 2004) Part One Part Two Part Three (Romans 5:11) - “And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement”. Voluminous are the writings of sovereign grace advocates under the heading of limited atonement or particular redemption, and this is as it should be; for in this great truth, God’s attributes of omnipotence and omniscience are gloriously manifested. There is near to perfect accord in the school of sovereingn grace as to the salvational effectuality of the atonement, but there is at the same time a disconcerting measure of discord in the ranks of sovereign grace believers as to the extent of the sufficiency of the atonement. Was Christ’s expiatory sacrifice sufficient to remit the sins of mankind, or was it restricted in atonement sufficiency to those chosen of God from the Adamic race? This question poses a dark enigma to many, and has been the basis of much debate throughout the history of Christendom. Nevertheless, our feeble efforts in this treatise shall be expended in an attempt to magnify the truth as relates to the question. If by God’s grace our endeavor is rewarded with a small token of success, a proportionate measure of darkness will be lifted from the question and our efforts amply recompensed. Some brethren whom I esteem very highly, and whose friendship I am determined to keep in constant repair, espouse what I consider an unorthodox view of the sufficiency of the atonement; namely, atonement sufficiency is equal in extent to human evil, but not in intent. This view is commonly referred to by theological scholars, as, the sufficiency-efficiency view of the atonement, and is today, by far, the most popular view being propagated by Calvinists and Baptist. However, there are today among God’s elect people, as there have always been, and shall ever be, a large and concerned number who take a more conservative view of the atonement of Christ; that view being, all that was wrought in and by the atonement was and is limited to the elect of God. This view magnifies the Majesty of God more than the other, for in it there is no undersigned sufficiency. 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
not able 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.
To effect the purpose of this treatise, as stated above, the following
three sub-headings are prescribed: 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
non-dimensional.
Atonement efficiency and sufficiency are
infinite, but both are limited in design by the covenant of redemption
(Hebrews 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 their sins reads: “… I never knew you:
depart
from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 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. 1. The design and
sufficiency of Christ’s intercessory prayer is limited to the elect of
God (John 17:9). 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). 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 The
atonement of Christ is a very special and infinitely gracious work
which
is limited to the elect (John 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.
“All
scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, …” (II
Timothy
This text most assuredly includes the Old Testament and its many and various types, for the New Testament was not yet in existence. A type has been aptly defined as “A Divinely appointed illustration of some spiritual truth.” A better definition would be hard to come by and because of the sameness of meaning of type and symbol; I will use them interchangeably in this writing. Typical teaching permeates the Scriptures. Everywhere we turn in the Bible we are confronted with types and they are there for our profit. A.) First let us look at the
Ark of
Noah, a vivid type of Christ. I Peter 3:20-21 is
a clear and unmistakable reference to Noah and the It was not the divine purpose
to
save
all the antediluvian posterity of Adam in the No doubt during this
exceeding
period
of one hundred and twenty years of Atonement sufficiency is
anchored
in
God’s forelove, and Christ loves only those who were given to Him by
the
Father in the covenant of redemption (Jeremiah 31:3; John
13:1, 17:6; Romans The Likewise, Jesus Christ was
provided
by God before the foundation of the world to deliver His people from
the
storm of judgment upon sin (II Timothy 1:9). Christ’s
mission
to this earth, as with the B.) The second type we want
to
consider
is that of the Passover Lamb of Exodus 12. The pure, free, and
infinite
grace of God provided It is the common concurrence
that
Israel
in slavery to Egypt is a type of God’s elect in their pre-regenerate
state,
in which state they “walked according to the course of this world”
(Ephesians 2:2), or like ancient Israel in bondage, walked
according
to the course of Egypt. It is also uniformly held by students of the
Scriptures,
that Christ said of all who have
owned
His
Lordship over them, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of
the world” (John The Apostle Paul said,
speaking of
the antitype of God’s counsel is eternal and
so are
all His decrees. Thus, the decree of unpardonableness against the sin
of
blaspheming the Holy Spirit is eternal (Matthew In view of this, I ask, “Did
the
atoning
sufficiency of “... The Lord doth put a
difference
between the Egyptians and Knowledge of the importance
and
purpose
of the lamb was limited to Christ, the antitype of Peter, speaking of the
glorious and
exclusive offering of the blood of Christ within the veil of heaven’s
tabernacle,
says “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
through
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the
blood
of Jesus Christ: grace unto you, and peace be multiplied” (I
Peter
1:2). “Grace” and “peace” are blessings purchased for
the elect by the shed and sprinkled blood of Christ, and every other
purchase
made by the vicarious sufferings of Christ shall be realized by the
elect
of God, and by them only; for His intercession on the cross was
eternally
and sovereignly restricted to them. “... the good shepherd
giveth
His life for the sheep” (John Every blessing the redeemed
of God
shall ever experience in time and eternity was procured for them by the
sacrificial blood of Christ. On the other hand, all the suffering and
grief
which the non-elect shall ever know, is owing to their infinite hatred
of the blood of God’s Lamb (Hebrews What is typically true of the
lamb
of Exodus 12 is equally true of all the God ordained animal
sacrifices
of the Old Testament, for they all were typical of the all-concluding
sacrifice
which God would make upon “For by one offering He
hath
perfected
forever them that are sanctified” (Hebrews Most surely, atonement
sufficiency
is infinitely good, and no good thing wrought by the propitiation of
Christ
shall ever be voided. Therefore, atonement sufficiency is limited to
the
elect, and they are made more than conquerors through Him that loved
them
(Romans The
Passover Lamb
of Exodus 12 is not a picture of universal sufficiency, but of
particular
protection. Atonement sufficiency equals deliverance from the curse.
Christ
did not die to provide a sufficiency that would go eternally wanting
for
a people to protect, but His shed blood has provided a covering for the
people of God, and Paul says: “Blessed are those whose
iniquities
are forgiven, and whose sins are covered” (Romans 4:7). It
irrevocably
follows: all whose sins are not covered, 3.) A Passive Or Inoperative Sufficiency Is Alien to The Attributes Of God
“... the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified of them that come
nigh Me, and before all the people I will be glorified ...” (Leviticus
10:3)
“... My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure.” (Isaiah
46:10) God manifests His attributes
and in
so doing magnifies His person. God is holy; so are all of His works.
God
is infallible; so are all His designs. God is omniscient; so all of His
works are perfectly wrought. God is just; so are all His ends. “If my
soul
was sent to hell, God’s righteous law approves it well.” God is
immutable;
so His sufficiency changes not. God is sovereign, and so is His
sufficiency. Maxim: There is no such thing as a powerless power. God has sent forth His sufficiency, not inertly, but with power to achieve His purpose for which it was sent. Salvational sufficiency is a product of Divine love, and God’s love cannot be other than effective. God’s love is sovereign and so is the sufficiency which is sent to manifest that love. There is no such thing as an unpremediated or purposeless sufficiency emanating from God, as would be the case with salvational sufficiency for the non-elect; for it never suffices. Neither God’s love nor His sufficiency can fall into a void, and neither of them know any disturbing influences, but run sovereignly to the goal appointed of Him “Who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will” (Ephesians 1:11). What worth is atoning
sufficiency
to
a people who were already in hell when the price of it was paid? Abel’s
lamb had no sufficiency for Cain. Moses’ lamb had no sufficiency for
Pharaoh,
and most certainly the blood of The universal sufficiency theory and Christ’s words, wherein He said; “... I pray not for the world ...” (John 17:9) have an element of incongruity in them. This incongruity causes some to wonder why Christ would not pray for those for whom He would suffer the shedding of His blood to provide them with salvational sufficiency, and what the design of that sufficiency is, seeing that the blood purchased sufficiency does not prevail in behalf of all its objects. The exclusiveness of Christ’s
mediatorialship,
both on the cross and on the throne, was and is solely for the elect of
God. Christ’s mediation cannot be empty or futile, and all for whom He
interceded on the cross, He now intercedes for with the crown of all
majesty.
There is in God a sufficiency toward the non-elect, but it is one of
indignation,
and not salvation. God says: “... Esau have I hated.” (Malachi
1:3; Romans I have often read the following analogy from various sources, and in every instance it is set forth in an effort to support the erroneous doctrine of universal sufficiency of the atonement. The analogy: “The sun necessarily gives off as much heat even if only one plant is to grow, Christ necessarily suffered as much even if only one person was to be saved.” This analogy brings honor to God when properly considered, but when used to try to support the contention that the atonement of Christ purchased salvational sufficiency for the non-elect, it breaks down. The analogy is expounded
thereby:
Christ
would have suffered as much for one of His elect as He did for all of
them.
He would have also suffered as much for one elect person had his sin
been
but one (James The analogy, if applicable at
all,
must be restricted to God’s elect people, for the solar sun does
nothing
for rocks, but hardens them, and the salvational sufficiency of the Son
of God does nothing for spiritually reprobate rocks, but hardens them.
The “stony ground” hearers of Matthew 13 were not
benefited
by the gospel seed, for the simple reason the gospel was not endowed
with
sufficiency to convict them of their sins, and they were left with
their
hard and stony hearts. “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have
mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth” (Romans Every part and parcel of
atonement
favor was a ransom paid, i.e., the blood of Christ. Surely it is agreed
that sufficiency, as well as efficiency, was purchased by the vicarious
punishment of Christ. How then can the non-elect be objects of
salvational
sufficiency, seeing no ransom was paid for them? Only the sins of the
elect
were imputed to Christ, and only for the elect “many” did He
give
His life as a ransom (Matthew There cannot be efficiency without sufficiency, and there can be no atoning sufficiency or efficiency without the suffering of Christ upon the cross. Therefore, it unavoidably follows that the advocates of the universal sufficiency theory of the atonement have Christ suffering for the non-elect on the cross. A most grievous error! It is readily and gladly admitted that the power of Christ’s blood is greater than all sin, yea, of angels and men. However, we need to remember that His atoning blood is the “blood of the everlasting covenant” (Hebrews 13:20), and that it is shut up in redemptive exercise to all whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of life (Revelation 13:8, 21:27). Surely, none would say that Christ in His atonement purchased salvational sufficiency for the fallen angels, but if not, why not, seeing the power of His blood is greater than all sin? The answer is simply that God never intended to save the fallen angels, nor reprobate men, so He limited the atoning power of Christ’s shed blood to His elect. To say God’s love is greater than all the fires of hell is to speak the truth, but it does not mean that God loves a single person who is in hell, or that shall ever go there. God’s love for one of His elect is as great as it is for all of His elect, for His love is never less than perfect, and every elect person is as a “firebrand” plucked from the burning by the love of God. God’s love is sufficient to quench every infernal blaze, but all who enter those dread gates enter because Christ in His substitutionary and loving death merited no atonement sufficiency for them. The Apostle John, speaking of the atoning death of Christ, says: “... Having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto the end” (John 13:1). Christ went to Christ made no satisfaction for the sins of the non-elect, so their sins remain; and the atonement sufficiency which some claim for them is of no value to them; and the proponents of the universal atonement sufficiency theory are left with a sovereign and omniscient sufficiency which has lost its way. Perish the thought! Wherever divine efficacy is limited, so is divine sufficiency. Even the thought of a sufficiency which affects not its designs is ridiculous, for sufficiency manifests itself by the fruit it produces. There is no such thing as a fruit without root, and there is no such thing as a sufficiency without fruit. Over and over in the
Scriptures
Christ
is metaphorically referred to as the “root” of His people (Isaiah There is eternal and perfect harmony between all of God’s attributes. His love never interferes with His holiness, for His love is holy. His justice has no argument with His grace, for it is by His grace the elect are justified (Titus 3:7). His sufficiency and His efficiency know no variance. His sufficiency is not more or less than His efficiency and vice versa. They are equal in strength and design. Salvational efficiency makes manifest the trophies of God’s sovereign and sufficient grace, but they travel hand in hand in bringing to pass this glorious end, for where one is, so is the other. It is a true premise from God’s Word that the expression of one thing excludes all else unless otherwise specified by the Scriptures. Many illustrations could be cited from Scripture which affirm this premise, but I will refer only to the all-important one, and that is blood redemption. The blood of Christ is the Biblically specified remedy for sin. Therefore, every other pretended remedy has been precluded by the blood of the everlasting covenant, and is nothing more than Satanic quackery. Hence, all but the elect of God are excluded from the sufficiency of the atonement, for nowhere in holy Writ is it even inferred that the blood of Christ was shed to make an atonement for the non-elect. So that which follows is not universal atonement sufficiency, but a limited atonement; for God will not provide a sufficiency for sins apart from the shed blood of His Son (I John 1:7; Hebrews 9:22; Revelation 1:5). There are no passive
attributes in
God. His love is ever reaching forth to bless its objects. His love and
His redemptive sufficiency cannot be separated, and His love and
redemptive
sufficiency infallibly follow the lines set out for them in the
covenant
of election. Jesus was the personification of I truth. He said “I am
the truth” (John 14:6).
However, He said
to the reprobate Jews: “... My word
hath no place in you” (John The Lord’s inflexible justice
never
quits its search for satisfaction. Therefore we read: “Be sure your
sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23).
God’s loving sufficiency provided a substitute for His people in the
person
of Christ (II Corinthians God is holy. “Holy, holy,
holy, is the Lord of hosts” (Isaiah 6:3).
Salvational sufficiency is holy sufficiency, and clothes the people of
God with robes of righteousness (Isaiah
61:10),
but leaves the non-elect destitute of the prescribed garment (Matthew As defined by Webster both terms, sufficiency and efficiency mean “adequacy.” The synonymy of the two terms is so exact that a distinction between them is virtually nonexistent, and if a distinction would be allowed, it would be one of chronology rather than design. However, let us remember that God is not subject to chronology as finite men are. He is not such a one as we. God is not subject to the rules of mathematics, and more often than not the equations of men run counter to the omniscient counsel. The chronology of Holy Spirit regeneration comes under the heading of language accommodation, for with God there are no prerequisite functions in bringing to pass the new birth of His people. In the eternal mind, atonement sufficiency and efficiency have never known a distinction in design, function, or results. God is the sovereign and omniscient author of both, and He would not appropriate a sufficiency beyond the suitability of His designs for efficiency. The universal sufficiency theory does not as much as produce one straw of mercy upon the infinite ocean of God’s everlasting judgment, but this lack of favor toward the non-elect does not in any wise vitiate the sufficiency of God, for it is immune to negation. Let me reiterate. Every person whom God intended to be saved by the atonement shall be saved. So it follows by inevitable deduction, that God never meant the infinite power of the atonement would prevail for or provide a propitiatory sufficiency for the non-elect, seeing, none of them are ever saved. Both the unlimited power and design of the atonement are seen by the fact that some of every kindred, tongue, and people are saved. All the elect are made
willing by
the
power of God (Psalms 110:3), but
all who are
left to their own will are eternally beyond the scope of God’s
atonement
designs. God is the sovereign discriminator, and the difference He has
put between His people and those of the devil (John Abraham’s lamb (Genesis What good is the digging of a sixty foot well, when the same measure and quality of water may be had at thirty feet? The answer of course is, none. God is infinitely more wise than the wisest of His creatures, and He would not send forth a universal atonement sufficiency when a particular sufficiency would accomplish the same end. What good is a belt and buckle that never meet? What good is an atonement sufficiency for a people who are never benefited by it? Are reprobates divinely appointed to both eternal wrath and eternal sufficiency? Or could it be the sufficiency purchased for them by the atoning death of Christ finally exhausts itself? Perhaps this atonement sufficiency loses interest in some of the people for whom Christ died in order to procure it for them, and finally enters an abeyance that can never be broken. Atonement sufficiency is a benevolent work of God, and there is not nor shall ever be such a thing as a disinterested benevolence emanating from God. I do not mean to satirize, nor to try to rationalize the Scriptures, and would never knowingly tamper with the Word of God. But it is my purpose and aim to alert the reader of this treatise to the fact that in many cases what we want to believe is not necessarily the truth. Where is the one among us who does not love broad and spacious theological horizons? Is not the doctrine of the universality of the gospel appealing? Surely it is, and rightfully so. Is not the doctrine of the universality of God’s family appealing? Surely it is, and rightfully so. Is not the doctrine of the universal sovereignty of God appealing? Surely it is, and rightfully so. But where is the one among us who will not say that the doctrine of the universal sufficiency of the atonement that does not suffice for all whom Christ died to provide it is appalling? Surely none, for so it is. The atonement sufficiency of Christ is definite and absolute; and it is limited in its designs, operations, and effects. To say this is not to question the sovereignty of God’s sufficiency, nor is it to question His omniscience from which the redemptive scheme was formulated. But it is said to magnify both God’s sovereignty and omniscience; for a sufficiency which is particular, and infallibly accomplishes all of its designs, is more honoring to God than an atonement sufficiency which leaves part of the people for whom it was purchased to perish in their sins. No doubt what I have said
herein
will
become grist for the mills of theological controversy, and some
polemicists
may seem to turn it to their advantage but that disturbs me not. It
might
be at the mercy seat of Christ, I will say: “I wish I had not written
that.”
But until I look upon the face of Him who atoned for my sins upon the
tree
of Either way, I am convinced that the disturbance of theological quiet, is more honoring unto God, than what some dear brethren refer to as: “Respectful Silence.” |