The Limited Sufficiency Atonement. View

What I am concerned here is with the efficiency - sufficiency distinction.

Some 5 Pointer Calvinists teach that this distinction is not valid as far as the Limited Atonement doctrine is concerned. See: http://sglblibrary.homestead.com/files/AbandonedTruth/ATROSSCH5.htm where it is strongly implied that the "sufficiency-efficiency view" - the second view - is unscriptural.

Others teach that this in fact is what is involved in the Limited Atonement. See http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/sratonement.htm

That said, I want to just think out loud for a second... just scratch work... I make no guarantees that my thoughts are correct.

*Note - After reading Phil Johnson's The Nature of the Atonement, I see that the first view up above is a minority view.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> Thought Experiment:

Suppose that only 3 people existed in the world, Chloe, Zoe, and Joey. Each of these 3 individuals only commit 1 sin each, and that this is the exact same sin, viz., while going for a walk one evening, all three of them spot an object, and all three of them covet that object with the same intensity and for the same duration.

Now let us assume the following scenarios in which Chloe and Zoe are elect and see what comes of them ...

(1) A General (or Universal) Atonement Scenario:
In this case, we can say that Christ died for Chloe, Zoe and Joey, and that His death was sufficient for all three of them. However, it is only efficient for Chloe and Zoe.

(2) A Strictly Limited Atonement scenario, where it is held that the sufficiency-efficiency view is invalid.
Here again lets assume, that Christ died only for Chloe and Zoe, but not Joey. In this case, Christ death was sufficient for Chloe & Zoe, but Joey. It was also only efficient for those two.

In this scenario, the sufficiency-efficiency view only holds for Chloe & Zoe. However, as far as all three are concerned, it is invalid, and I suppose that the proper thing say is that the atonement was insufficient for all three, and efficient for only two of them.

(3) A Merely Limited Atonement Scenario, where it is held that the sufficiency-efficiency view is valid.
Here again we will assume that Christ died only for Chloe and Zoe, but not Joey. In this case, we will still say that Christ's death was sufficient for all three, but efficient only for Chloe and Zoe.

Now some comments:

1) All three views apply the sufficiency-efficiency distinction in some sense.

2) What the General Atonement doctrine and the Merely Limited Atonement doctrine, both state are that Christ's death was sufficient for every human being that is living and has ever lived.

3) It seems that the Strictly Limited Atonement view's denial of the sufficiency-efficiency distinction can only come about by some odd chains of reasoning.

What sense does it make to say that Christ's death was only sufficient for Chloe and Zoe and not Joey. All three of them after all committed the same sin, no? Can Christ atone for coveting or not? Or can he only atone for this sin in the case of Chloe or Zoe?

Perhaps some other chain of reasoning feeds this odd denial of the sufficiency-efficiency distinction? Maybe there is something quantitative going on. Perhaps Christ only died for 2 sins, and not 3 sins? Odd ... I don't know.