Search results

Ok, to carry on with your baggage analogy. If you were going on a trip into the jungle where baggage will certainly slow you down so that you will be eaten by Lions and before you enter the jungle the guide tells you this warning and offers to take your baggage but you refuse to believe his...

Actually, I'd say that Joe's sins aren't forgiven unless he meets the condition for forgiveness, which is confession. "IF you confess your sins, he is faithful and just to forgive you..." If Christ's work isn't sufficient to cover the sin of the person being appealed to confess, then the offer...

I challenge you to take Hodge's passage in the OP line by line and give your interpretation of what he means for review. You may start it, but I know you won't finish it because by the end even you will recognize that I've correctly represented his views and that your Calvinistic friends here...

Exactly, and SOME CALVINISTS, like Aaron, appear to deny any sense of Christ's atonement being available to the non-elect, because to him that would mean Christ's blood was wasted (the view which Hodge dismissed as being a misrepresentation of Calvinism and which you agreed was a ridiculous...

If that is your definition, then you have something (intent) being caused by nothing (the vacuum), which violates the determinists premise that something can't be caused by nothing. Why not just say that Satan caused or originated the intent while in the vacuum?

Because, as I explained, that would be beside the point. Clearly Hodge believes that the atonement is intended only for the elect, but he is making the point that in accomplishing atonement for the elect he satisfies justice for all. He also dismisses the notion that Christ's blood and...

I prefer the way Hodge explained it, "...it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification." Once again you are putting words I've never said into my mouth. Do I not say enough that you have to make up stuff? :laugh...

IF ignore means to respond with additional quotes and explanations, then I guess so. :smilewinkgrin: If you can't see the distinction (that JD just pointed out) that Hodge is making in his post between Calvinists who do believe the atone is sufficient for all and those, like Aaron, who has been...

Right. :thumbsup: But, some Calvinists (as appears to be demonstrated in this very thread) feel that IF Christ atoning work did sufficiently supply "all that was needed" for the non-elect too that Christ's work would be "wasted" or his "blood spilt" or that the non-elect's sin would have been...

And his people are "the church" or "his bride" or "believers." Now, let the debate continue as to if Christ's work for believers is sufficient for those who never believe (whether by effectual means or not).

But it's not as if my view is that He wants to effectually save Joe (in the way Calvinism teaches), but just can't do it. My position is that He wants to save Joe through means that Arminianism teaches (which is not irresistible.) You continue to make these errors because you dismiss this...

Yeah, I do. He means that if Arminianism is right then Christ must be a failure, which presumes that God didn't, BY HIS OWN CHOOSING, plan for man to be saved in the way taught by Arminians. That is a debate fallacy called "question begging," not to mention grossly offensive and basically...

Haven't you learned about the fallacy of question begging yet? Careful Brother. Even if your right this kind of a statement is only going to inflame those who disagree and harden them against listening to anything you say; and if your wrong you've just called the Son of the Living God a...

See the OP.

Did I indicate otherwise? I doubt he'd say that since he believes in particular redemption. Charles Hodge believed that God in effecting the salvation of his own people, did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men, but clearly Hodge still affirms that God's intent (like the Father...

I know, I've never seen anything like it. I quote the guy VERBATIM and they just deny what he clearly just said. "He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men." "What was demanded for the salvation of...

Some Calvinists (even 5 pointers) argue for the sufficiency of the atonement for all mankind, while some argue that his blood would have been wasted if it covered the sins of all the non-elect too. Hodge was the former and that is what I showed. You have yet to address that distinction and...

I wouldn't say "forgiven" because that suggest's that Joe has requested forgiveness, when he hasn't. As Hodge states, "He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men." And, "What was demanded for the salvation...

Yet, there are those who believe this kind of teaching, as evidenced by the very fact he spends so much time addressing it. I've seen that view of Calvinism represented here, as demonstrated... The rest of your post is a basic Calvinistic defense for your view of Particular redemption and we...

Ok, brother, this comment alone signifies to me that either: 1. You are not reading my posts, because I have stated numerous times that Hodge IS representing historical Calvinism's view of the atonement and not Arminianism. 2. You are not understanding my posts in which I've clearly...