Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement

[Glenn Hendrickson]

I just read P.L. Rouwendal's article in WTJ titled "Calvin's forgotten classical position on the extent of the atonement: About Sufficiency, Efficiency, and Anachronism." In it Rouwendal contends that disagreements over whether Calvin held to particular, universal, or hypothetical universal atonement are anachronistic in nature, for these distinctions grew out of a fourth (the classical) view which held that "Christ died sufficiently for all men, but efficiently only for the elect."

Anyone else read this? any thoughts? I thought it was a good article, something worth investigating deeper.

[Fusion!]

Doies this have anything to do with Driscoll's limited/unlimited atonement

[Glenn Hendrickson]

No, it is about interpreting John Calvin's theology of atonement. The article didn't mention Driscoll (does driscol even have a book on Calvin's theology?)

Fusion! said:

Doies this have anything to do with Driscoll's limited/unlimited atonement

[James Cohen]

What's "Driscoll's limited/unlimited atonement"?

[Tom]

How long is the article and do you have a link to it? What is anachronism? Does it have anything to do with the order in which the atonement is applied being backwards or shifted in chronology?
I would say that God does precisely as He intends, that being the case, i'd say He died sufficiently ONLY and efficiently ONLY for the elect and by saying that it doesn't at all diminish the worth or power of the sacrifice in saying that it was NOT sufficient for all.