Thanks also for the thoughts regarding the atonement. The only problem with the statement “sufficient for all, efficient for some” is that it can be affirmed by Arminians, Calvinists and 4-Pointers – it just depends on what one means by each word!

In the book the way the sufficiency of Christ’s death is spoken about (though, I’m sure Tony didn’t mean it to), it seems to basically play into the hands of a 4-pointer’s ‘unlimited-limited’ view. That is, the sufficiency is stressed so much that to uncareful readers with uncareful ears, it ends up sounding like Christ did actually and sufficiently pay for the sins of every person, but only effectually applies it to the elect.

David, I love your suggestion of “available for all”. This is how I always qualify the statement “sufficient for all”: that the atonement makes the free and genuine offer of the gospel available to every single person.

For an author (as you know) it is a great honor for a reader to carefully read and comment on your own work. And I appreciate this review from you, and greatly appreciate the ministry role you play in the Church today, especially when it comes to joy and the struggles to joy in this joy-smiting planet.

A couple of thoughts in return.

You are exactly right that so much more needs to be said about the happiness-holiness connection. I have always been struck by the Psalmist who emphasizes the holiness of God being the attractive beauty that draws the regenerated soul towards himself (Pss 29:2; 96:9). That’s glorious! We must see God’s holiness if we are ever going to approach his joy. And the practice of holiness in our lives is also essential. We will never be happy if we are never holy. In this particular book I respond to the prevailing emphasis in American culture that you can be happy if you do more of the right things, the right hacks, the right gimmicks. Into this DIY cultural motif I’m responding, not without an emphasis on personal holiness, but with an emphasis not on more things we can do, but on what God has sovereignly enacted by his own initiative (GDI — love that!). But yes, perhaps a follow-up book!

As for “sufficient for all, efficient for some,” I take this to be fairly resolved in the Reformed tradition from Calvin to Aquinas to Lombard to Gottschalk and then back to Prosper of Aquitaine who probubly got it from Augustine. It’s based on John 3:16 and the legitimacy of the general call for all sinners to repent, but more importantly it’s a way of magnifying the sufficiency of the cross. The world’s best high-jumpers just barely scrape over a 7-foot bar. That’s not how Christ paid for the wrath-deserving elect. It was a death sufficient for thousands of worlds of sinners (John Newton). But do we need to rethink this line? Is it too risky? Perhaps. It does seem to be more of a philosophical conclusion than an exegetical one.

Anyhow, thanks for the review, brother!