I do not have a problem with that remark. I confess I would not word it that way, but what he is saying is accurate in my opinion.
But had I or Quantum said it I seriously doubt you would allow so much grace, am I wrong?
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.
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.
