SUFFICIENT FOR ALL, EFFECTIVE FOR THE ELECT
1TIM.2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to
come to the knowledge of the truth.
1JOHN 2:2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and
not for ours only but also for the sins of the
JOHN 1:29The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and
said, "Behold, the Lamb of God,
who takes away the sin of the world (2889)!
JOHN 3:14-16 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, so must the Son of man be
lifted up, that whoever beleives in him may have eternal
life. For God so loved the world(2889)
that he gave his only Son, that whoever beleives in him
should not perish but have eternal life.
ROM. 5:18 Then as one man's trespass led to
condemnation for all men, so one man's act of
righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. [FROM
THE GREEK INT. BY BERRY; so
then as by one offence [it was] towards all men to
condemnation, so also by one accomplished
righteousness towards all men to justification of life.
(i.e. available for.)]
JOHN 12:47 for I did not come to judge the world(2889) but
to save the world(2889).
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the
people, even as there will be false
teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive
heresies, even denying the Lord who
bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
2889. Kosmos; prob. from the base of 2865; orderly
arangement, i.e. decoration; by impl. the
world (in a wide or narrow sense, includ. its inhab., lit.
or fig. [mor.]:-adorning, world.
HEBREW GREEK KEY STUDY BIBLE
LEXICAL AIDS TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
2889 Kosmos; world, cosmos from kosmeo(2885), to set in
order, adorn. That which pertains to
space and not time (aion, 165, age). The sum total of the
material universe, the beauty in it ; the
sum total of persons living in the world.
VINE'S EXPOSITORY DICTIONARY OF N.T. WORDS
I. KOSMOS, primarily order, arrangement, ornament, adornment
(I Pet. 3:3, see ADORN, B), is
used to denote (a) the earth, e.g., Matt.13:35; John 21:25;
Acts 17:24; Rom. 1:20 (probably here
the universe: it had this meaning among the Greeks, owing to
the order observable in it); 1 Tim.
6:7; Heb. 4:3; 9:26; (b) the earth in contrast with Heaven,
1 John 3:17 (perhaps also Rom. 4:13);
THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
VOL.1 THE HISTORY OF THE CREEDS
PAGE 518 "Calvin himself says that Christ died sufficienter
pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis."
i.e. sufficient for all, effective for the elect.
VOL.3 THE EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT CREEDS
THE CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF DORT
SECOND HEAD OF DOCTRINE
OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST, AND THE REDEMTION OF MAN THEREBY.
ART.3 The death of the Son of God is the only and most
perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin;
is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to
expiate the sins of the whole world.
ART.5 Moreover the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever
beleiveth in Christ crucified shall
not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise,
together with the command to repent and
believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations,
and to all persons promiscuously and
without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure
sends the gospel.
ART.6 And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not
repent nor beleive in Christ, but
perish in unbelief; this is not owing to any defect or
insufficiency in the sacrifice offerred by Christ
upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.
ART.8 For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious
will and purpose of God the Father,
that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious
death of his Son should extend to all
the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of
justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly
to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ
by the blood of the cross, whereby he
confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of
every people, tribe, nation, and
language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity
chosen to salvation, and given to him
by the Father; that he should confer upon them faith, which,
together with all the other saving
gifts of the Holy Spirit, he purchased for them by his
death; should purge them from all sin, both
origional and actual, whether committed before or after
beleiving; and having faithfully preserved
them even to the end, should at last bring them free from
every spot and blemish to the enjoyment
of glory in his own presence forever.
It should be pointed out here that the doctrines espoused by
the Reformed Churches at the time of
the formulation of the Canons of the Synod of Dort, did not
differ with Calvin. They beleived, as
clearly stated in the 3rd article that the death of Christ
was "abundantly sufficient to expiate the
sins of the whole world", as also stated in many passages of
the Word of God. They beleived, as
Calvin did also that this atonement was only effective for
the elect, as stated in the 8th article, "all
those, and those only". They also believed that the elect
were those "whosoever believeth in
Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting
life", as clearly put forth in Article 5 and in
the Holy Scriptures.
As is abundantly clear in the
Scriptures and in History, the truth gets distorted with
by the machinations of Satan or by mans own folly, so let us
now examine what time has done to
the most noble document drawn up at Dort in 1619.
THE DEEPER FAITH:
AN EXPOSITION OF
THE CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF DORT
of Doctrine: of the Death of Christ, and the Redemption of
It will be pointed out here that Girod entitled the
second head of doctrine "LIMITED
ATONEMENT", while the Canons do not have that heading.
Calvinists, those who espouse the Reformed Faith, speak of
the death of Christ as
"Limited Atonement." You understand the word "atonement."
speak of the
death of Christ as an atonement for sin, we mean that the
death of Christ
upon the cross
paid the price of sin. He atoned for, that is, He paid the
price of our sin.
When we say that His death was a limited atonement, we mean
that He died for a
number; we mean that His death atoned for a limited number;
we mean that
He paid the
price of sin for a limited number.
The above quotation shows that the current teaching is that
the death of Christ was NOT
"sufficient for all". It also indicates that Christs death
paid the price for the elect, and only the
elect, whereas 2 Peter 2:1 is very clear "even denying the
Lord who bought them". Modern
Calvanism says He didnt buy them, yet those who would deny
the Lord can hardly be called
Now, we have said that the Calvinists, the fathers of the
Reformed Faith, gave
doctrine a name; they called it the "limited atonement."...
And we shall not properly honor God the Father, nor Christ
the Son, nor the Holy
unless we graciously hold this to be the teaching of the
Word of God.
The gracious author obviously holds that one can not
properly give due honor(worship) to God
unless he beleives in a doctrine which has no corresponding
phrase within the Word of God, nor
even within the Canons from which it is supposed to come. If
the reader will take the time to go
through, not only the Canons of the Synod of Dort, but also
the Westminster Confession of Faith,
the Belgic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism they
will not be able to find one usage of the
phrase "limited atonement", nor the concept or arguments
espoused by the so called "reformed
churches" of today. If I may quote out of the concluding
article of the Canons of the Synod of
...Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the
gospel of Christ to conduct themselves
piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in
the universities and churches; to direct it,
as well in DISCOURSE as in WRITING, to the glory of the
Divine name, to holiness of life, and
to the CONSOLATION of AFFLICTED souls; to REGULATE, by the
to the analogy of faith, NOT ONLY their sentiments, but also
their LANGUAGE, and to
ABSTAIN from all those PHRASES which EXCEED the LIMITS
NECESSARY to be observed
in ascertaining the GENUINE SENSE of the HOLY SCRIPTURES,
and may furnish insolent
sophists with a JUST PRETEXT for violently assailing, or
vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed
If there were a single soul in all the ages for whom Christ
died, but who was not
saved, it would
mean that the death of Christ had been a failure as far as
that man is
since there are millions of unsaved in every generation, in
more who are not
reconciled to God than who are, it would mean that the death
Christ was more a
failure than a success.
To say that the death of Christ upon the cross is in any
wise a failure is to
I find it hard to disagree with the author on his final
point. For if the Word of God states that "he
is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but
also for the sins of the whole world." If a
theological position is set forth that demands that this
Scripture cannot mean what it says, then it
would be appropriate to quote Matthew 15:9 "in vain do they
worship me, teaching as doctrines
the precepts of men."
To say that Christ set out to save men by His death upon the
cross, and then to
say that He
failed in even one instance is to cast a terrible aspersion
Secondly, to say that Christ died for a single soul which
has not been saved
is to imply
that God is not just. Therefore, we cannot beleive that God
allow His Son to
pay the price of any man's sin and yet condemn that man.
The doctrines of Dort had little problem with such an
argument. A careful study of their doctrines
will show that such an argument never came up. They stated
it very simply in the 2nd head, 6th
article. "And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do
not repent nor believe in Christ, but
perish in unbelief; this is not owing to any defect or
insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ
upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves."
I will conclude by saying again that the reformed doctrines
of the Synod of Dort and Westminster
were most noble in their application and spirit, but the
twisted version that has been inherited by
the reformed churches of the 20th century is not the
true gospel (i.e. good news) of the Lord
Jesus Christ and bears many similarities to todays cults.
There is no more important doctrine than
the atonement provided on the cross by our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ, and this is what has
been attacked by modern day Calvinism, for if their
doctrines are true you cannot say to a sinner
that "Christ died for your sins, Christ paid the price for
your sins, repent of your sins". I would
beg to ask how would one go about preaching the "good news"
that "Christ might have died for
your sins", this gospel does not bring joy but despair, for
it is a false gospel, in opposition to the
Word of God, and to the Canons of the Synod of Dort from
which it is "supposed" to have
What to do?