"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement."
Romans 5:11

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 sovereign 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:

1. The design of atonement sufficiency.

2. Scripture typology and atonement sufficiency.

3. A passive or inoperative sufficiency is alien to the attributes of God.

In the following the above order, let us first consider:

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 of creation is designed by Him to a greater manifestation of His glory than is some other.

The stars of heaven are an infinite host, but God knows "the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names" (Ps. 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 (Heb. 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, (Rom. 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 names being 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 coextensive; 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 (Heb. 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 (Rom. 4:6).

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

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

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

6. The design and sufficiency of the eternal covenant is limited to the elect of God (John 5:21; 6:63; 2 Tim. 1:9).

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

8. The design and sufficiency of Heaven is limited to the elect of God (1 Pet. 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" (1 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" (Rom. 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" (Rom. 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 (Isa. 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" (1 Pet. 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 (Jer. 31:3; John 13:1 ; Heb. 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.