Sufficient For All, Efficient for Who?

Discerning The Efficacy of Atonement within the Lombardian Formula

The conversation of the scope of the atoning work of Christ is one of severe consequence, as from it questions of assurance, evangelism and security arise. When considering the scope, it is important to consider both the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s work on the cross. The language of sufficient and efficient finds its ontology within the medieval church and the work of French bishop, Peter Lombard. It is from Lombard that statements of Christ’s work being sufficient for all humanity but efficient only for the elect became popularized.[1] This understanding of sufficiency and efficiency became a benchmark for understanding the scope of the atonement within the reformed tradition. There are varying interpretations within the Lombardian formula in the reformed tradition as for whom Christ’s atonement is effective. This paper will look at the efficiency of Christ’s atonement in relation to the elect. Particular emphasis has been given to views of efficacy found within the reformed tradition. Further, this will explore a broader understanding of the efficacy of Christ’s atonement in light of the Lombardian formula.

It is important to clarify the terms of sufficiency, efficacy and elect. Sufficiency refers to the objective reality of the accomplishment of Christ. According to the Canons of Dort, sufficiency is, “This death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and worth, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.”[2] Efficacy refers to the subjective application and experience of the sufficient work of Christ. It additionally describes the ability to fulfill the purpose for which it is made or given.[3] Effective grace refers to the effectiveness of bringing salvation to those to whom the grace of God is directed.^[4] Elect is a term used to describe a people, nation or group whom by God’s choosing, bring about God’s good purposes. This can be God’s choosing of people or a nation for service to Him or specifically to draw upon those who will or have received salvation through Christ Jesus. It is difficult to create a firm definition of the elect as the mechanism of election greatly differs within theological persuasion. This will become evident in the following sections.

Definite Atonement

As previously stated, one of the primary developers of the notion of efficiency for the elect is twelfth-century scholastic theologian Peter Lombard. Lombard was a twelfth-century canon in the Cathedral of Notre Dame.[5] In his work, Sentences, Lombard comments on both the efficiency and sufficiency of Christ’s death. Lombard wrote, “[Christ] offered himself of the Alter of the cross not to the devil, but to the triune God, and he did so for all concerning the sufficiency of the price but only for the elect concerning its efficacy because he brought about salvation only for the predestined.”[6] Lombard suggests that Christ offers Himself up as a sacrifice which, in theory, is sufficient for all people. However, in as far as efficacy, only for those whom the Father has predestined. This limits the atoning work to only those whom the Father elects. It is from here the reformed doctrine of definite or particular atonement arises.

This doctrine has been developed over time and is often associated with Calvinist theology. The association with Calvinism comes as one of the core tenets of Calvinism is limited atonement which is synonymous with definite atonement. However, despite the association with Calvin, Calvin himself never explicitly advocated for a definite atonement perspective. Within the Institutes of The Christian Religion, there is a potential allusion to salvation being ordained exclusively for the elect in 2.16.2; however, there is no explicit reference to the definite nature of atonement within the Institutes.[7] The doctrine of definite atonement became canonized within the reformed tradition within the synods of Dort and Westminster Confession. The Synods of Dort landed on an official stance of definite atonement, which led to the reformed confessional document of the Canons of Dort. Within this document, article seven explains the nature of the election, “God hath decreed to give to Christ, to be saved by Him, and effectually to call and draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit.”[8] The following article references the scope of who elects. According to the Canon of Dort, the elect are those whom “He hath chosen us from eternity, both to grace and glory, to salvation and the way of salvation, which He hath ordained that we should walk therein.”[9] Similarly, the Westminster Confession, in speaking of the atoning work, states the inheritance of the fruit of the atonement is “for those whom the Father has given unto Him.”[10] These confessional statements draw upon the divine sovereignty of God individually electing some people unto glory and salvation in Christ.

Many Puritan theologians advocated for a definite understanding of atonement with one of the most vehement defenders being John Owen. In Owen’s work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Owen explores what Christ’s death accomplishes. Throughout his book, Owen provides a defence of the infinite value of the sacrifice of Christ and its sufficiency. However, on the subject of efficiency, there is a clear expounding on a definite perspective. In book four of The Death of Death in the Death of Christ Owen explained, “Christ died for all in respect of the sufficiency of the ransom he paid, but not in respect of the efficacy of its application.”[11] Drawing on Lombard, Owen outlines that in Christ’s death, there was ultimate sufficiency due to the supreme value of His life and the sacrifice offered. However, in efficacy, Owen firmly advocated that Christ’s death was only for the elect and that the elect is limited to whom the Father has effectually called to himself. In 3.1, Owen wrote, “But now this covenant was not made universally with all, but particularly only with some, and therefore those alone were intended in the benefits of the death of Christ.” Carl Trueman, commenting on Owen’s view, suggests that for the elect, “God has obliged himself to grant pardon to those whose debts he has himself paid.”[12] Within a definite atonement, there is security for the elect due to God’s electing action to save people. God’s sovereign predestination is inherent to this view of election; God the Father selects people to be saved in Christ. However, intrinsic to Owen’s explanation is the doctrine of double predestination. The implication of such is that God predestined some to be the objects of mercy and others to be the object of God’s wrath.[13] This has led to criticism of the character of God in relation to the elect. The Puritan understanding can be summarized as Christ died specifically for the elect. Although Christ’s death was sufficient to achieve the redemption of all humanity, its effectiveness is limited exclusively to the elect.[14] The reason it is only efficient for the elect is because of the infinite power of Christ’s work. If Christ was to die for those who would not believe it would make His work on the cross in vain.

Definite atonement presents a clear, rationalistic and coherent approach to understanding the Atonement.[15] However, despite its adoption within much of the reformed tradition, there have been major critiques of the definite atonement. Many of these have been the minimizing of scriptures that indicate a universal atonement. Scriptures including John 1:29, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” and 1 John 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”[16] These texts advocate the intention of Christ’s atonement to be for all people. Additionally, elsewhere in scripture, there is evidence of God’s desire that all people would come into a relationship with him.[17] Ross Hasting suggests that adopting a definite view of atonement can only be done by, “minimizing the texts that seem to indicate a universalist atonement.”[18] Hastings is not alone in this critique that Definite atonement compromises the New Testament affirmation of the universal nature of the love of God for the purposes of redemption.[19]

Hypothetical Universalism

Within the broader reformed perspective, there has been an adoption of alternatives to a definite atonement. These views maintain aspects of the Lombardian formula, while at the same time, they create a more expansive understanding of efficacy. This view is called hypothetical universalism. There are many different understandings of how the atonement could be hypothetically universal in efficacy. However, in keeping with the Lombardian formula and the reformed tradition two views stand out.

The first of these views is referred to as English Hypothetical Universalism or, as theologian Oliver Crisp calls it, Anglican Hypothetical Universalism.[20] This perspective is moderately reformed and was initially put forward by John Davenant who was the British delegate to the Synod of Dort. Davenant taught that Christ’s death was the basis for salvation for all people.[21] The view still holds to the position of efficacy for the elect. However, Robert Letham explained, “The universal provision precedes and overshadows a decree by which God determined salvation for the elect, who alone are saved.”[22] While it is the elect ultimately who are saved, Christ’s atonement is universally effective on the condition of faith in Christ. In contrast to its theological cousin of definite atonement which limits the extent of the atonement, hypothetical universalism proposes a scope of atonement which is effectively unlimited.

Another more common branch of hypothetical universalism is Amyraldism. While Amyraldism is a hypothetical universality position, it is important to note that not all hypothetical universalist positions are Amyraldrian. Sometimes referred to as four-point Calvinism or moderate reformed theology, Amyraldism developed from the theology of Moïse Amyraut. Amyraut was a seventeenth-century French reformed theologian who, contrary to some schools of thought, was not attempting to create a middle position between Calvinism and Arminianism.[23] Amyraut did face opposition for his position as he was censured and opposed by many.[24] was still well within Reformed orthodoxy. Although He was never condemned in any confessional document or deemed heretical by any council.[25] Amyraldism emerged from the reformed tradition intending to remain with the convictions of Calvinism. This is supported by theologian Jeff Fisher who suggests that Amyraldism, “Stays arguably close to Calvin’s view.”[26] The major difference between traditional Calvinism and Amyraldism is the scope of the atonement. Traditional Calvinist thought would hold to the aforementioned definite perspective while the scope of the atonement in Amyraldism holds a more expansive view. The scope of atonement in Amyraldism suggests that Christ died equally for all people. However, there is a condition of belief in God.[27] In turn, the atonement is for all people, hence universal, but belief in Christ and faith is what determines the efficacy of the atonement.

Despite a few differences, these two theological streams share a more expansive view of the scope of atonement. Being hypothetically universal does not imply the guarantee of salvation of all people independent of Christ. Rather, it implies that Christ’s saving work is, in principle, sufficient to save all of humanity.[28] This is in opposition to a definite atonement in the understanding of New Testament passages that suggest the universal scope of the atonement. There is no caveat needed in the language of Christ dying for the world.[29] This is because Christ did, in fact, die for the sins of the world. The nature of the decrees between these two hypothetical positions works out differently. Within Amyraldism, there is a twofold divine decree where God’s conditional decree to save all humanity depends on faith.[30] However, since God, in His providence, knows that not all respond in faith, there is a second effectual decree that only the elect is given the faith necessary for salvation.[31] Hypothetical Anglican universalism avoids this division of decree by holding to Crisp’s explanation, “Christ’s in-principle sufficient work is made effective for those to whom God bequeaths the gift of faith.”[32] With this, Christ’s death does indeed save the elect, but it also grants a possibility to all to be saved for all people through faith in Christ.[33]

As stated above, hypothetical universal atonement does still fall within Lombard’s understanding of sufficiency and efficiency. Regarding the sufficiency of the atonement, both hypothetical universalism positions expressed here maintain that Christ’s death was sufficient for all humanity to be saved. This view of sufficiency is held in common with more traditional Calvinistic reformed perspectives. On the topic of efficiency both the Anglican Model and Amyraldian hold to an efficiency for the elect but see it differently than their definite counterparts.

Amyraldian efficacy remains within the Lombardian formula. The efficacy is for the elect; however, it supports a broader understanding of the elect. The Amyraldian understanding of election moves past the infralapsarian and supralapsarian understanding of divine decree. The Amyraldian perspective holds that instead of electing some to be saved and leaving others to be condemned or, in the case of supralapsarian, choosing who is saved but also who is damned. The third position offered by Amyraldism is that God’s will is to elect some to receive effectual grace.[34] Amyraldian atonement holds that Christ died on the cross for all people based on their belief in him. However, knowing that not all would believe, God elected some to salvation.[35] Accordingly, the application of efficacy of the atonement is to the elect however, it is not only accomplished at the cross but through the Spirit’s call to repentance.[36] There are two conceptual stages to the divine will within this view. The first stage is God’s decree to save all humanity depending on faith in Christ.[37] The second stage is God’s response to knowing that not all would choose Him and so necessitated a second effectual decree, which ensures the elect are given the necessary faith in Christ for salvation.[38] Anglican Hypothetical Universalism provides a simple understanding of the divine will and avoids dividing the will into two conceptual stages. Rather as Crips explains, “Christ’s in-principle sufficient work is made effective for those whom God bequeaths the gift of Fatih.”[39] This view holds that the elect are those whom God gives the gift of faith and that within this giving of faith, the efficacy of the atonement is actualized.

Despite the acceptance of the doctrine in many denominations, hypothetical universalism does receive critique. One of the main criticisms is the implication of double payment. Double payment suggests that if Christ dies and takes punishment for all people, however, some people die without faith and consequently receive judgment.[40] The implication here is that sin is paid for twice, first in the atonement and secondly by those who did not have faith. Crisp counters this within the hypothetical universalism argument by suggesting that sufficiency is indeed for all, but also, the call for good remains effectual. It is not God’s damnation but rather the individual’s denial of his effectual call to Himself.[41] While this explanation may not be the most satisfactory the problem of double effect is not exclusive to hypothetical universalism but rather much of reformed soteriology.

Unlimited Christocentric Atonement

This paper has explored more traditional reformed perspectives of the scope of atonement. There has been a continual emphasis on the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and its efficacy for the elect. However, the scope of the atonement, although broader in the hypothetical view, is still rather restrictive. One possible way of remedying the challenge of reconciling election, atonement and the universal nature lens of New Testament atonement is by seeing the elect through a universal Christocentric Atonement lens purposed by Karl Barth.

Twentieth-century theologian Karl Barth in his magnum opus Church Dogmatics explores the concept of election. In the divine decree of God in election, Barth rejected the notion of individual election. Rather Barth asserted that,

The election of grace is the eternal beginning of all the ways and works of God in Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ God in His free grace determines Himself for sinful man and sinful man for Himself. He therefore takes upon Himself the rejection of man with all its consequences, and elects man to participation in His glory.[42]

Barth reconsiders the traditional reformed doctrine of individual election by divine decree and predestination and sees it in the person of Christ. This view is Christocentric in foundation. Within it, election, divine decree, the logos and the beginning of all things are completely dependent on the person of Jesus Christ.[43] The subject of God’s election is not on the individual but rather the person of Jesus.[44] Predestination is then the divine election of Jesus to be both the elect and elector.[45] The implication of this is that the elect are those who are in Jesus. Hastings clarified, “Barth thinks of election first at the election of Christ, the election by God to be for humanity, the election by God in the Son to become human for humanity, to be the covenant partner of God as representative humanity.”[46] The election comes from Christ as the true human, the new and greater Adam. Jesus vicariously stands in the place of humanity, assuming sinful flesh. The atonement does not merely take place on the cross as within the standard understanding of penal substitutionary models. Rather, the vicarious representation has a high emphasis on the incarnation as the place of atonement. The result is that Christ heals human nature by assuming sinful flesh. Through His actions, all humanity can participate within Christ for eternal life. Ergo, the scope of the atonement thus becomes an unlimited Christocentric atonement.

Another Christocentric atonement model comes in the Evangelical Calvinism of Scottish Divine T.F. Torrance. Torrance was an interpreter of Barth so understandably much of his view is shaped by Barth’s theology. Evangelical Calvinism, remaining in a moderate reformed soteriology, rejected the definite atonement model in favour of the election put forth by Barth. Torrance explained election as, “Election is the love of God enacted and inserted into history in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, so that in the strictest sense Jesus is the election of God.”[47] Torrance’s Evangelical Calvinism is another form of “four-point” or moderate Calvinism, with the point of tension being the scope of the atonement. Both Barth and Torrance suggest that since Christ is the elect one, the atonement can be truly universal in scope. This has a strong element of Barthian Vicarious representation as Torrance believes that Christ’s vicarious action for humanity, effectually heals human nature.[48] There is a universal bend in the nature of the atonement. With Christ electing Himself along with the Father and Spirit for humanity, it is difficult to comprehend how anyone could be excluded from the atonement.

Unlimited Christocentric atonement can be seen within the moderate reformed tradition. However, when evaluated against the sufficiency-efficiency distinction of the Lombardian formula, it is interesting to test the veracity of the Christocentric model. Regarding the sufficiency of the atonement, the Christocentric view of sufficiency would remain consistent with all the views within the reformed tradition. However, it would be difficult to hold the same for efficacy. The unlimited Christocentric views put forward by Barth and later Torrance hold the highest view of efficacy surveyed in this paper. Since Christ is the elect one in his vicarious action, he takes on rejection and reprobation in our place as the Judge becomes the judged in our place.[49] The outcome of the vicarious action of Jesus for Torrance is,

Because in Jesus Christ human nature is perfectly and indivisibly united to God the Creator, he constituted in his humanity the ontological source and ground of being of every man and woman, whether they know him or not, but to those who receive and believe in him, he is the One in whom and through whom they may be born anew as sons and daughters of the heavenly Father.[50]

The efficacy of the atonement in an unlimited Christocentric model is not only potentially effective as with hypothetical universalism but rather, it effectively justifies all humanity. There appears to be a universal bend to the nature of this atonement model. While both Barth and Torrance reject the notion of universalism, critics have argued that it is inherent to this understanding of soteriology.[51] The efficacy of the Christocentric model, taking Barth and Torrance at their word, would be universally effective for all people to receive eternal life. However, salvation is still in, through and dependent on Christ. Lombardian efficacy claims that atonement is efficient for the elect. The Christocentric model cannot be held within Lombardian efficacy for two reasons. Lombardian efficacy is that the atonement is efficient for the elect. In reframing of Christ as the elect one election is the move from the individual to Christ. Christ is the one who offers atonement by His incarnation and sacrifice. Since Christ is the elect one to say Christ’s atonement is efficient for Christ would be counterintuitive; the one who is able to provide atonement for all does not need atonement. Rather than being atoned for Christ is the one elected by the Father to be the bearer of atonement for all people.[52] Additionally, since Christ’s action restores humanity, all people can effectively receive salvation as a result of Christ’s vicarious representation, making the atonement effective for all.

With these considerations, it is clear to see that the unlimited Christocentric view cannot work within the Lombardian distinction. However, if modified, the formula could apply. A semi-Lombardian view of Christocentric unlimited atonement would state that the atonement is sufficient for all and efficient “in” the elect.

Conclusion

This paper has provided an overview of the efficacy and scope of Christ’s atonement in relation to the elect with viewpoints across the reformed tradition. While arguably not exhaustive or definitive, this paper has analyzed three perspectives on the efficacy of Christ’s action. Each of these views holds a high regard for the sufficiency of Christ’s work, but they differ in the application of His work. Definite atonement holds the most limited view of the efficacy of the atonement. While being the most limited in scope, it ascribes a very high view of the value of Jesus’s life death, and work. The hypothetical universalist perspective reconciles the challenges of universal scripture passages in addition to expanding the efficacy and emphasizing faith in response to the effectual call of Christ. The Christocentric model verging on the side of universalism rejects the notion of the elect as individuals or nations. Rather this view claims election is not only through but in the person of Christ. This view of efficacy part ways with the Lombardian view to emphasize the universal call to salvation in Christ the Son. Given the variety of different perspectives that exist, there is and will be debate over the efficacy of the atonement. No particular model is fully able to completely reconcile the full majesty and mystery of what our Lord accomplished on the cross.

---

[1] Peter Lombard, The Sentences: Book 3: On the Incarnation of the Word, trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto, ON: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2007).

[2] Synod of Dort, Canons of Dort, 1619, 2.3.

[3] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999).

^[4] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999).

[5] Peter Lombard, The Sentences: Book 3: On the Incarnation of the Word, trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto, ON: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2007).

[6] David S Hogg, “Sufficient for All, Efficient for Some: Definite Atonement in The Medieval Church,” essay, in From Heaven He Came And Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, ed. David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 75–94, 81.

[7] John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of The Christian Religion (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2017), 2.16.2.

[8] Synod of Dort, Canons of Dort, 1619, Article 2.7.

[9] Ibid., Article 2.8.

[10] Westminster Divines, The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647, 8.5.

[11] John Owen and J. I. Packer, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: (A Treatise in Which the Whole Controversy about Universal Redemption Is Fully Discussed) (London: Banner of Truth, 1963), 184.

[12] Carl R Truman and Jonathan Gibson, “Atonement and Covenant Redemption,” essay, in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, ed. David Gibson (Wheaton, Il: Crossway, 2011), 201–23, 223.

[13] Hodge, Charles. 1997. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. In supralapsarianism, sometimes referred to as double predestination God, in His grace, chooses some individuals to be called according to His mercy and others to become objects of His wrath. Within the framework of supralapsarianism’s election and reprobation, God creates some people to be saved and others to be lost.

[14] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Chichester, West Sussex, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2017), 279.

[15] Ibid

[16] ESV Bible, John 1:29, 1 John 2:2.

[17] See, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, Titus 2:11, and 2 Peter 3:9 for texts expressing the desire of God for all people to enter into relationship with Him.

[18] W. Ross Hastings, Total Atonement: Trinitarian Participation in the Reconciliation of Humanity and Creation (Lanham, Maryland: Fortress Academic , 2019), 280.

[19] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Chichester, West Sussex, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2017), 279.

[20] Oliver D Crisp, “Anglican Hypothetical Universalism,” essay, in Unlimited Atonement: Amyraldism and Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2023), 23–42.

[21] Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019, 572.

[22] Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019, 572.

[23] Jeff Fisher, “Amyraut in Context,” essay, in Unlimited Atonement: Amyraldism and Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2023), 131–52, 131.

[24] Ibid. 141

[25] Ibid., 131, 152.

[26] Ibid., 151.

[27] Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 571.

[28] Oliver D Crisp, “Anglican Hypothetical Universalism,” essay, in Unlimited Atonement: Amyraldism and Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2023), 23–42. 28.

[29] Ibid., 29.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Oliver D Crisp, “Anglican Hypothetical Universalism,” essay, in Unlimited Atonement: Amyraldism and Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2023), 23–42. 28.

[33] Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 428.

[34] Jeff Fisher, “Amyraut in Context,” essay, in Unlimited Atonement: Amyraldism and Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2023), 131–52, 148.

[35] Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019, 572.

[36] Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019, 427.

[37] Oliver D Crisp, “Anglican Hypothetical Universalism,” essay, in Unlimited Atonement: Amyraldism and Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2023), 23–42. 29.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid., 34.

[41] Oliver D Crisp, “Anglican Hypothetical Universalism,” essay, in Unlimited Atonement: Amyraldism and Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2023), 23–42. 29.36- 38.

[42] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2 The Doctrine of God, ed. Geoffrey William Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2010), 99.

[43] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics II.2 The Doctrine of God, ed. Geoffrey William Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2010), 100.

[44] Ibid., 107.

[45] Ibid.

[46] W. Ross Hastings, Total Atonement: Trinitarian Participation in the Reconciliation of Humanity and Creation (Lanham, Maryland: Fortress Academic , 2019), 282.

[47] T. F. Torrance, “Universalism or Election?,” Scottish Journal of Theology 2, no. 3 (September 1949): 310–18, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0036930600004713, 315.

[48] Oliver D Crisp, “Anglican Hypothetical Universalism,” essay, in Unlimited Atonement: Amyraldism and Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2023), 23–42. 40.

[49] Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 430.

[50] Thomas F. Torrance, The Mediation of Christ (Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1992). As Cited in Oliver D. Crisp, “T. F. Torrance on Theosis and Universal Salvation,” Scottish Journal of Theology 74, no. 1 (February 2021): 12–25, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0036930621000028Salvation,” Scottish Journal of Theology 74, no. 1 (February 2021): 12–25, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0036930621000028.

[51] Oliver D. Crisp, “T. F. Torrance on Theosis and Universal Salvation,” Scottish Journal of Theology 74, no. 1 (February 2021): 12–25, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0036930621000028, 25.

[52] See 1 Peter 1:20, Ephesians 1:4.