ectypal.net

Yet Beza, like Andreae, did not deny that Christ’s oblation was able to satisfy a thousand worlds if God had wished to show compassion on them. This is the sense in which Beza affirmed the sufficient/efficient distinction. Still, Beza denied that Christ suffered for the sins of the nonelect.

What emerges in this period is differing approaches among the Reformed on the extent of Christ’s atoning work. Pareus, for example, consistently argued for and employed the Lombardian formula in answer to the question of for whom Christ died. Beza, as we have already seen, did not find the formula useful and rejected its wording, while Tossanus consistently emphasized the efficacy of Christ’s death, maintaining that Christ died efficaciously only for the elect.