That the Atonement has become a controversial doctrine no one will deny. That said, it is a fact that all theologians agree that the Gospel is to be proclaimed to all nations. But what does that mean? Does it mean that Christ in His death is a sufficient Saviour for the whole human race? What does that mean? Is the Gospel to be preached in the full knowledge that Christ’s finished work is, by design, sufficient to save the world, is now available to all, and is effectual to save all who believe in Christ? Or was Christ’s death sufficient only for the salvation of the elect?
Indeed, did DML-J mean by ‘sufficient for all’ what the limited Atonement advocates mean? This camp sees it as a ‘bare sufficiency,’ making it merely adequate to cover mankind’s sin, having the potential to cover the sins of all men. But something can be sufficient for a purpose without it being designed for that purpose. Norman Douty’s illustration is helpful here.
Imagine a multi-millionaire moving into his street with sufficient wealth to pay the debts of everyone living there, but decided, despite that, that his wealth would be of no help to them because he had previously decided it was only for the relief of his friends who lived elsewhere.
This is the logical fallacy of the limited Atonement understanding of ‘sufficiency.’ Of what use is a ‘sufficient for all’ Atonement if it is not designed for all? It is surely a miserly God Who would provide Atonement that is ‘sufficient for all’ but not intended for all. If the Atonement is sufficient only for those for whom it is efficient, then the use of ‘sufficient’ is entirely redundant. Such a naked sufficiency, propounded by Beza and followed by Owen, is of no use to guilty sinners because these theologians in effect ‘deprive the universal sufficiency of the atonement of all its value.’ Smeaton adds his point that Christ’s “sacrifice was of infinite value, and sufficient to cancel sin, though infinitely great.’ Again, here is naked sufficiency that in effect tells us nothing. ‘Particular redemptionists only mean that the intrinsic value of Christ’s death was sufficient, in itself, to cover all the sins of mankind.’
Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656), one of the Caroline divines, wrote: ‘He is much deceived that thinks a preaching of a bare sufficiency [in the death of Christ] is able to yield sufficient ground of comfort to a distressed soul… ‘ Ussher’s point is powerful. A provisional sufficiency for all but not intended for all is not sufficient for all after all. ‘If God designed that Christ die only for the elect, how can the infinite worth of His death, in itself, afford ground for offering salvation for all men?’ Davenant contends that ‘the mere sufficiency of the thing cannot so far avail, that Christ should be affirmed to have died sufficiently for all, without an ordained sufficiency to all from the intention and act of the offering.’ The sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s Atonement are co-terminous for Davenant.