I have elsewhere argued for limited atonement (cf. Reymond; Long et. al.), which has to do with the scope of the design and application of the benefits of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, hereafter referred to as “Christ’s sacrifice.” This post does not pertain to what Christ actually accomplished but rather to what Christ could have accomplished. In other words, it is a brief explanation of what the Calvinist means - or, at least, what I mean - when he speaks of the “sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice,” as well as a comment or two on a possible objection which could be made within the context of a Calvinistic soteriology.
Perhaps some people believe that the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice implies God designed the effects of Christ’s sacrifice to be universal in scope. However, this is not what the Calvinist means when he asserts the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice; Christ didn't intend to save reprobates by His sacrifice, nor can it be said that the fact that living reprobates have yet to be judged implies grace procured through Christ’s sacrifice. What the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice alludes to is the fact that, given His divine dignity and perfect obedience, Christ’s sacrifice was such that He could have acted as penal substitute for any number of sinners, had the Father so desired:
//Limited Atonement: the doctrine that the intention of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection was to secure propitiation for the elect alone. While it is counter-factually true that “if the Father desired to save all men without exception, Christ’s sacrifice was such that all men without exception could have been saved,” it is in fact the case that the Father does not desire to save all men without exception; hence, the atonement is hypothetically sufficient for all, but actually efficient only for the elect.//
Update: I have erased the final three paragraphs to this post because I am no longer persuaded it was accurate to say that there are no sins for which Christ could not make amends.