". . .the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified of them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. . ." (Lev. 10:3) ". . . My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." (Isa. 46:10) All of God’s purposes and pleasures are rooted and grounded in His determination to glorify Himself. God has never done anything, nor shall He ever do anything that is not subordinated to this one supreme end; that is the manifestation of His personal glory.

God manifest 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."

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 Calvary’s Lamb did not provide salvational sufficiency for those who were already in hell when Christ died. To contend for the universal sufficiency view of the atonement is to charge God with designing a sufficiency to no avail, and raises the question: how can God be just and withhold from any person that which was purchased for them by the precious blood of His own Son?

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." (Mal. 1:3; Rom. 9:13), and God’s hatred knows nothing of salvational sufficiency, but only eternal damnation. If this truth seems harsh, it is not in the least so; for truth cannot adorn itself in any defective robe.

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 and 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 (Jam. 2:10). Sin in any measure or nature is an infinite insult to the holiness of God, and therefore an infinite atonement is necessary to reconcile the sinner unto God. If the "plant" of this analogy is one of God’s planting, then the grace of God’s Son will shine just as brightly as if He was the only one whom the Lord planted. But the truth is: Christ never suffered in any degree or sense for the non elect, and the salvational sufficiency of the Son has never shined upon any plant the heavenly Father has not planted (Matthew 15:13).

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" (Rom. 9:18). The conviction sufficiency of the gospel is by omniscient design restricted to the elect of God.

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 20:28). Therefore, the ill supposed atonement sufficiency for the non elect adds up to universal zero.

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" (Heb. 13:20), and that it is shut up in redemptive exercise to all whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of life (Rev. 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 Calvary with infinite love for His people. He suffered their infinite penalty, and in so doing, He purchased for them a sufficiency that is infinitely superior to the infinite condemning power of sin. "For where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Rom. 5:20). The Lord laid upon Him all the iniquity of all His sheep and He, in His death, atoned for their every transgression, but He did not take to Calvary one sin of the infinite sum of the sins of the non elect, and He suffered not in any sense or measure for the sins of the goats. Consequently, no blessing was purchased for them by the blood of Christ.

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 (Isa. 11:10; 53:2; Rom. 15:12)? and by inspiration, Paul says: ". . .If the root be holy, so are the branches" (Rom. 11:16). But of the non elect, the Lord says: "These have no root" (Luke 8:13). Saying "they have no root" is equal to saying "they have no Christ", and saying this is to say they have no atoning sufficiency, for this sufficiency is of Christ. Paul says to the church at Cornish: ". . . Our sufficiency is of God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

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. (1 John 1:7; Heb. 9:22; Rev. 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 I word hath no place in you" (John 8:37). The Lord’s salvational sufficiency cannot be separated from His truth.

The Lord’s inflexible justice never quits its search for satisfaction.

Therefore we read: "Be sure your sin will find you out (Num. 32:23). God’s loving sufficiency provided a substitute for" His people in the person of Christ (2 Cor. 5:21), and His just law, yet looking for satisfaction from all those who were not represented by Christ on the cross, provided hell to serve that end. Salvational sufficiency and condemnatory sufficiency have had, by eternal decree, two classes of people to work with in satisfying God’s justice, i.e., the elect and the reprobate; and these two distinct functions of God’s sufficiency are never frustrated.

God is holy. ". . .Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts" (Isa. 6:3). Salvational sufficiency is holy sufficiency, and clothes the people of God with robes of righteousness (Isa. 61:10), but leaves the non elect destitute of the prescribed garment (Matthew 22:12). The military wardrobe of salvational sufficiency has provided every piece of armor the elect shall ever need in their warfare with the world, the flesh and the devil; and makes them more than conquerors through the Captain of their salvation (Rom. 3:37; Eph. 6:11; Heb. 2:10). However, no salvational sufficiency is provided for those not subject to Holy Spirit conscription (John 5:40; 6:44; Rom. 8:7-8), and consequently, no protection from the penalty of the just and holy law of God.

As defined by Webster both terms, sufficiency and efficiency mean "adequacy." The synonymity 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 (Ps. l10:3), 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 8:44) is manifested by atonement sufficiency and efficiency. This divinely placed difference allows for no spiritual communion between the saved person and the world, for there is no communion between light and darkness (2 Cor. 6:14). And atonement sufficiency being spiritual, it cannot be held in common by all mankind; for all are not included in the covenant wherein atonement sufficiency is mandated.

Abraham’s lamb (Gen. 22:13) had no atoning sufficiency for the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, for they had already perished under the fiery indignation of God (Luke 17:29). Did Israel’s typical sacrifices picture a general sufficiency which included the pagan nations round about Israel? If so, it was a vain sufficiency, for they perished in their own ways (Acts 14:16).

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 polemists 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 Calvary, I am confident I shall be contented with the position contended for in this treatise. One thing for sure, the sending forth of this writing has for now erased all the wonder as to whether I should have written it or not.

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."