In Ursinus’s Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, we are given the explanation for the distinction between the “sufficiency” of the atonement and the “efficiency” of the atonement. Ursinus writes:
Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he made, but not as it respects the application thereof; for he fulfilled the law in a two-fold respect. First, by his own righteousness; and secondly, by making satisfaction for our sins, each of which is most perfect. But the satisfaction is made ours by an application, which is also two-fold; the former of which is made by God, when he justifies us on account of the merit of his Son, and brings it to pass that we cease from sin; the latter is accomplished by us through faith. For we apply unto ourselves, that merit of Christ, when by a true faith, we are fully persuaded that God for the sake of the satisfaction of his Son, remits unto us our sins. Without this application, the satisfaction of Christ is of no benfit to us. (pg. 215)
However, David has shown us a different understanding of this. Here is how Herman Witsius used the distinction:
We therefore conclude, 1st. That the obedience and sufferings of Christ, considered in themselves, are, on the account of the infinite dignity of the person, of that value, as to have been sufficient for redeeming not only all and every man in particular, but many myriads besides, had it so pleased God and Christ, that he should have undertaken and satisfied for them. (The Economy of the Covenants, 2.9.2; 1:256)
Do you see the difference? Ursinus says that Jesus death actually is sufficient, whereas Witsius said it would have been sufficient, had God so willed it to be. Witsius teaches a hypothetical sufficiency while Ursinus teaches an actual sufficiency.
This even more significant when we understand Ursinus’ definition of faith. For Ursinus, faith is being “fully persuaded that God for the sake of the satisfaction of his Son, remits unto us our sins.” Wisius cannot make this a requirement of faith, though, since no one knows that Christ’s satisfaction remits his sins until after he has already come to faith. Witsius cannot preach the same message that Ursinus can.
There’s been a theological shift between the two thinkers, and this is seen in most clearly in those areas which effect the visible church and normal ministerial activities.
It matters.
Pratt: “Christ died for you!” *wink* (crosses fingers and whispers under his breath), “if you are elect.”
But is hypothetical sufficiency even possible or intelligible? I can only imagine it fitting into a nominalist framework were sufficiency is entirely a matter of God’s voluntaristic will, and God could have decided that Jesus stubbing his toe or Abraham’s offering up of Isaac was sufficient for the elect.
In other words, how is Witsius not in the same nominalist territory of the younger John Owen who believed that redemption could have been accomplished by God without any cross or incarnation?
Is that not a different issue Mark?
Early Owen of Death of Death could say that God could have willed to save by any means.
Witsius here is not committed to that: just as Later Owen had no need to retract his commitment to the revised formula.
Had God elected more, Christ would not have suffered any more, per se. God would have imputed more sin, but the suffering would have been the same, said early Owen, for the vicarious payment is an exact idem due to any given sinner: viz., physical Death.
Both later Owen and Witsius could say that God needed vicarious payment in order to pardon.
Thinking aloud,
David
Yeah, the covenant of redemption is an issue here too.
For some high Calvinists anything could have been given the pactum merit which God in turn accepted as satisfaction.
This detaches the satisfaction’s merit from the person’s merit (ie. the infinite worth). Dabney rightly takes these guys to task for this.