Arminian Aberrations cont.

[Luke2427]

I said:

What I am debating you on here is that you seem to be implying that the two Hodges were stating that Jesus died for all men equally and that the atonement is applicable to all men equally.

Skandelon said:

No, I'm saying Christ's atonement is a sufficient satisfaction for the sins of all men and God sincerely desires that every man to whom the atonement is offered would trust in it. And if it is truly sufficient it must be truly applicable.

Maybe you can better relate to Shedd, because he is actually addressing the very same accusation of "that view is universalism" that started this mess:

"It may be asked: If atonement naturally and necessarily cancels guilt, why does not the vicarious atonement of Christ save all men indiscriminately, as the Universalist contends? The substituted suffering of Christ being infinite is equal in value to the personal suffering of all mankind; why then are not all men upon the same footing and in the class of the saved, by virtue of it? The answer is, Because it is a natural impossibility. Vicarious atonement without faith in it is powerless to save. It is not the making of this atonement, but the trusting in it, that saves the sinner. 'By faith are ye saved. He that believeth shall be saved,' Ephesians 2:8; Mark 16:16. The making of this atonement merely satisfies the legal claims, and this is all that it does. If it were made, but never imputed and appropriated, it would result in no salvation. A substituted satisfaction of justice without an act of trust in it, would be useless to sinners. It is as naturally impossible that Christ's death should save from punishment one who does not confide in it, as that a loaf of bread should save from starvation a man who does not eat it. The assertion that because the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all men, therefore no men are lost, is as absurd as the assertion that because the grain produced in the year 1880 was sufficient to support the life of all men on the globe, therefore no men died of starvation during that year. The mere fact that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for human sin, alone and of itself, will save no soul.

To affirm the sufficiency of the atonement demands that you admit that the only limitation or hinderance for salvation is man's faith response (whether effectually caused by God or not), which if I recall you denied in an earlier debate. For if something is said to be sufficient then is must be applicable otherwise how can it be sufficient? That would be like saying this ticket is sufficient to grant you entrance into the show, but its not applicable to men. The second statement negates the first. Likewise to state the atonement is sufficient for everyone, but its not applicable to everyone is non-sensical, because it wouldn't be sufficient to those its not applicable.

It is not true that to affirm sufficiency demands that the only hinderance is man's faith response. That most assuredly is a hinderance, but it is not the ONLY hindrance. That does not follow.

I have eggs sufficient to feed five families. ONE hindrance to those five families could be their lack of faith that I actually have the eggs- true. But another hindrance could also be that I never intended for four of those five families to ever have my eggs. You'll have to trust that I have good reasons though you cannot understand them. But specifically I only ever intended for MY family to eat those eggs.

 

[Skandelon]

It is not true that to affirm sufficiency demands that the only hinderance is man's faith response. That most assuredly is a hinderance, but it is not the ONLY hindrance. That does not follow.

With all due respect, I don't care if you don't think it follows, it is what the Hodges and Shedd are arguing. That is MY point and it is being made to show that one can hold to THIS form of atonement without being deemed a Universalist.

What does the statement, "No one perishes for lack of atonement," mean to you? If the atonement is truly sufficient AND there is a hinderance to its being applied (besides the lack of faith), then what is that hinderance and how can you still claim its sufficiency if that hindrance prevents its application?

 

[Luke2427]

With all due respect, I don't care if you don't think it follows, it is what the Hodges and Shedd are arguing. That is MY point and it is being made to show that one can hold to THIS form of atonement without being deemed a Universalist.

What does the statement, "No one perishes for lack of atonement," mean to you?

It means that there is no deficiency in the work of Christ. No man hungers for want of groceries in my town. There are groceries enough for everyone. That does not mean that the grocer HAS TO intend to stock the shelves of every single person in town.

 

[convicted1]

It means that there is no deficiency in the work of Christ. No man hungers for want of groceries in my town. There are groceries enough for everyone. That does not mean that the grocer HAS TO intend to stock the shelves of every single person in town.

Well, on a lighter note. In your town, if that grocer doesn't stock enough for everyone in town, then he'll soon be out of business. Because, they will go somewhere else to buy what they need, if he doesn't have it in stock....:laugh:


Now, on to the "mud slinging", err, I mean, thread. :love2:

 

[DaChaser1]

With all due respect, I don't care if you don't think it follows, it is what the Hodges and Shedd are arguing. That is MY point and it is being made to show that one can hold to THIS form of atonement without being deemed a Universalist.

What does the statement, "No one perishes for lack of atonement," mean to you? If the atonement is truly sufficient AND there is a hinderance to its being applied (besides the lack of faith), then what is that hinderance and how can you still claim its sufficiency if that hindrance prevents its application?

just take the John Calvin view here!

that the death of Christ upon the Cross sufficient in its value to indeed be able to save all, as being God, death had unlimited value, but ONLY effectual towards being apllied towards those whom God had elected to be saved in Christ!

 

[Skandelon]

It means that there is no deficiency in the work of Christ.

And if that is true then the ONLY thing between a person and salvation is their own unbelief, right?

 

[Skandelon]

I have eggs sufficient to feed five families. ONE hindrance to those five families could be their lack of faith that I actually have the eggs- true.

Agreed. Which would be like Calvin said, that all other legal impediments have been removed, save only their unbelief.

But another hindrance could also be that I never intended for four of those five families to ever have my eggs.

Which would be equal to unconditional election, not atonement. That was my point before. The limiting is not in the atonement, but in the CHOICE of God to elect and irresistibly call some to faith. Just as the hinderance is your intent not to give them eggs, so too the hinderance or limitation is God's intent not to give the non-elect faith. Faith is the only hinderance. We both agree on that point...we just disagree as to the intent of God and the nature by which we have faith.

So, do we now agree that the only hinderance for salvation is faith? (whether faith is limited by free will or God's will is another discussion)

 

[seekingthetruth]

I said:


Skandelon said:


It is not true that to affirm sufficiency demands that the only hinderance is man's faith response. That most assuredly is a hinderance, but it is not the ONLY hindrance. That does not follow.

I have eggs sufficient to feed five families. ONE hindrance to those five families could be their lack of faith that I actually have the eggs- true. But another hindrance could also be that I never intended for four of those five families to ever have my eggs. You'll have to trust that I have good reasons though you cannot understand them. But specifically I only ever intended for MY family to eat those eggs.

What? This explains Calvinism? [inflammatory]

Besides, if you had food for my family and purposely withheld it, for whatever reason, i would never trust you. As a matter of fact, this would make you an enemy of mine, not someone I would "have to trust".

Your analogies make no sense. Do you use these in sermons?

John

Besides, if you only intend for your own family to eat enough eggs for 5 families, ist that the ultimate form of greed and selfishness? Doesnt the Bible teach against this sort of behavior and not promote it? yet you attribute this sort of greed and selfishness to God?

No wonder i am NOT a Calvinist