No man perishes for want of an atonement

I think God wise enough in His plan, in that the Son came to save His people from their sins, and that this atonement applies to those ones whom He died to save specifically and only.

Romanticizing the idea of the atonement being enough for all persons is not an Biblical point whatsoever. It is unscriptural, and a sentimental fancy filled with fantasticalism. This is where the foundation of this OP starts/stops in failure.

Only the elect will be saved, and that is for whom alone He died. He came to save His people from their sins (and not from "unbelief" as Skan also propagates as another error).

To say it is available to the non-elect is to deny the Biblical revelation of truth, and shows that those who do feel this way tend to trust in their own reason, and in turn interpret Scriptures with reason rather than interpreting them in full trust of God's choosing, election, predestination and even foreknowledge. God's knowledge, atonement, plan of redemption, thoughts, purposes, will, decisions, determining are way above ours in this and in all things.

The thing is, the Gospel is preached, and only the elect will respond to the salvation of their souls. To dream that the non-elect will come somehow to belief is a bud of universalism waiting to come to full bloom.

A person either accepts this eternal truth or doesn't.

 

He's incorrect as are you.

 

Quoting Hodge out of context doesn't explain anything. You preach a Christ who has died for individuals in vain. His work standing alone doesn't save them. That's the simple fact of the matter.

... if a recipient rejects this divinely revealed truth . . . deficiency is in the recipient . . .
​

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=73312&page=4

No, you preach a vain atonement. That Christ took stripes for sins that will not be forgiven.

Here are the things you asserted:

• Christ suffered not for sin in general, but for each individual sin of every man in the world.
• But His sufferings alone did not result in there forgiveness. God said, Son, I'm going to clobber you for Joe's sins, then I'm going to clobber Him, because my clobbering of you didn't satisfy me.
• Only those who add their faith of choice to the mix will be forgiven.
• Those who choose not to believe are deficient in the quality needed.

Deny it all you wish. These are the things you are saying. Now here are the eminent, inescapable conclusions: Jesus suffered in vain, worked in vain, and in greater measure than He succeeded, He failed.

Here's the Christ I preach: He bore His elect in His sufferings. He was wounded for their transgressions, He was bruised for their iniquities. His sufferings are not in vain, for by His stripes, they are healed. Through His travail, the children God has given Him are born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of any man, not even of Him that is born, but of God, and God alone.

If one does not believe the Gospel, it is because Christ never knew him, not in His wounding, not in His bruising, not in any of His stripes. So he is not known in His resurrection, nor in His ascension, nor in His glorification, and neither in His second coming.

You preach a different gospel than I do. And a different atonement.

 

What is glaringly plain lies within the fact you cannot answer post 182, Aaron, Martin, and others who have lined your OP out as erroneous, nor can you admit your entire OP is as usual for you, in error and the entire premise is false. You pretend to have aha moments against Calvinism, but your premises are fatal errors from the get go. Congrats, you did it again! :thumbsup:

 

I don't care about Hodge. But now you're waffling again. So instead of Christ dying in vain for Joe, He didn't die for Joe. In fact, Christ died for no man. Not personally. He died for the law. So now the playing field is level. The law is satisfied so sin is a moot point. All one need do now is perform one act of righteousness.

There are only two corners in your side of the room. One is that Christ died for men in vain, and the other is He died for no one. You are left with no alternative.

 

No. (Parenthical phrase added to satisfy the BB's infernal minimum character limit.)

 

I seriously doubt that you are in agreement with Hodge, and you would not say so if you were not isolating his thoughts from their context.

If it makes you feel better, you can put me down as "not a fan of Hodge", nor of the "Princeton School" altogether. But that doesn't make his doctrine the same as yours.

It's obvious that Hodge is defending the doctrine of the sincere free offer, not so much the doctrine of limited atonement. He defends the offer of salvation to the non-elect by binding the incidental effects of the atonement to the free offer, effects which make salvation available to the non-elect.

I too believe that salvation is available to the non-elect in the sense that God does not block the way to it - it is a door which is not only open, but indeed God beckons all men alike to enter. So it is available, but is made unavailable by man's refusal to enter, and nothing else. God has nothing else to do in order for the non-elect to perish but to continue beckoning them. But for the elect, He takes the special step (grace) of effectually drawing them through the door of salvation.

This is the way it is understandable to me, and some of Hodge's arguments are fuzzy to me. But in principle, there is NO difference between what Hodge, Aaron, MartinM, et.al., and myself, believe.

 

Please help me on this one point!

IF jesus died for the sins of all people, BUT that only those whom God has elcted to receive jesus as saviour by His irresitable grace gets it effectual applied on their behalf?

Why would that be same as saying people go to hell with jesus paying for their sins still oustanding?

 

Sorry, I don't understand your question, but just to clarify, I don't believe Jesus died for the sins of all people, and I don't believe Jesus payed for the sins of people in Hell.

 

Skandelon, you're like a monkey playing with a watch. You don't understand it, and you won't stop fooling with it until you've broken it. For the umpteenth time, Hodge is saying that nothing stops men coming to Christ. There is no legal impediment. When they come, they will find that His blood covers them and justice is satisfied. That is all.

If you like, this is the question of the 'Sinner's Warrant' to come to Christ that Spurgeon argued through with the Hypers of his day. Is the sinner's warrant that he believes he is one of the elect, or that he is a sinner and Christ died for such as him (Mark 2:17 etc.)? It is, of course, the latter. Sinners who come genuinely to Christ will find that His blood will cover them because it was shed specifically for them.

See above. :BangHead: No one who comes to Christ will find any legal impediment to his salvation. I don't know the context of this quote, but I assume that is what he meant.

Steve

 

Just was asking IF jesus died so that whosoever wills can get saved, but that it is ONLY those whom GOD wills to get saved actually do...

Why is that so different from what "5 pointers" believe in?

 

I just read this entire thread. Thanks for contributing.