Dr C Hodge on the Atonement

Cassidy, NONE of your replies above show that Jesus' death in any way was the cause for any of these "blessings". Are you saying, that had Jesus not come, the rain and sunshine would stop? Or that man would any worse sinners? I think that you have completely confussed what is known as "common Grace", with the death of Jesus. Jesus may have said to have been the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world (in that God is out of time), but, we all know from Scripture that He actually dies early in A.D. Again, how can this verse show that Christ's death is a benefit to the non-elect?

Do you not believe that the non-elect will spend eternity in hell? If so, how can you ever say that Christ's death was a benefit to them?

I do not see anywhere in Scripture where it shows that Jesus' death benefits the unsaved, unless they repent. For, in their unsaved state they will go to hell, because they have chosen to reject the Salvation that is alone in Jesus Christ.

 

Paul33, you ask.

"How is the offer sincere if millions have never heard the gospel and never will? The problem you site still exists, even in your view."

There is no problem with what the Bible teaches. It is agreed that Scripture does teach in Mark 16:15-17, for example, that the offer of Salvation through the presching of the Gospel, is to be made to "every creature" (lit in Greek, "to all the creation", humans of course), that is the "totality of the human race". But, this comes with a condition. "he that believes and is baptized will be saved, he that believes not, will be condemned" (verse 16). The offer is indeed sincere to one and all, who hear the Gospel. That many will not hear the Gospel does not render its message to be insincere, just because they did not get the chance to hear it. It is my belief, that God in His foreknowledge knows those who, if they had heard the Gospel, who have either accepted or rejected it, and on this basis will either save or damn them. At the end of the day, no one who was meant to be in heaven will be in hell, and vice versa.

 

Let's turn it around. Do you believe that unbelievers will spend eternity in hell? If so, how can you ever say that Christ's death was a benefit to them? </font>[/QUOTE]I have NEVER said that the death of Jesus Christ benefits anyone who is in hell. It most certainly does benefit everyone as long as they are alive, as they still have the choice to repent and be saved. It is the Calvinists who say that Jesus' death is for all the world, in the sense that it benefits the whole world. But, no one as yet explained how this is. I have seen what Cassidy has posted, regarding God giving everyone rain and sunshine, as if to say that if Jesus did not come, these two things whould cease. The death of Jesus is also supposed to some how restrain sin. I think that all would agree that things are getting much worse, as the Scripture says that wickedness will increase.

 

So are you saying that Christ's atonement has value only for those who believe, or who still might believe? How is that not a limited atonement? </font>[/QUOTE]No, you cannot speak in these terms of the death of Jesus Christ. The "value", as you put it, is indeed "priceless". Its "scope" is "unlimited". Its "effect", is a reality in "those who believe"

The error of Calvinism is to make the Atonement of Christ "actual", in that His death actually saved those who He had died for, that is "the elect". The problem that this causes, is, that if Jesus by His death has already "saved" all of the elect, then it can only mean that all of the elect are already saved, even before they are born and actually believed in the Gospel. If this were true, there is no need to preach the Gospel at all, as the elect are already saved, even before they have any faith themselves.

Can you not see the problems this causes?

 

So the atonement is limited in effect?

That's just another strawman. We do not say that the salvation of the elect has already been applied to all of the elect. But we do say that it most certainly will be. The elect, and them alone, are the ones who will believe. </font>[/QUOTE]No strawmen here, whatever. The Calvinistic position on an "actual Atonement" would require this to be true. Check it out.

 

It would be good for you to read the whole Hodge article. He discusses this very point. Check it out:

"If a substitute be provided and accepted it is a matter of grace. His satisfaction does not ipso facto liberate. It may accrue to the benefit of those for whom it is made at once or at a remote period; completely or gradually; on conditions or unconditionally; or it may never benefit them at all unless the condition on which its application is suspended be performed. These facts are universally admitted by those who hold that the work of Christ was a true and perfect satisfaction to divine justice. The application of its benefits is determined by the covenant between the Father and the Son. Those for whom it was specially rendered are not justified from eternity; they are not born in a justified state; they are by nature, or birth, the children of wrath even as others. To be the children of wrath is to be justly exposed to divine wrath. They remain in this state of exposure until they believe..."

So unless you separate accomplishment and application you have a strawman. </font>[/QUOTE]Whatever, check out Dr John Reisinger, another Calvinist:

"II. The NATURE of the atonement-Exactly What Did Christ Accomplish By His Atoning Death On The Cross?

The Necessity of the atonement answers the question, "Why?" The Nature of the atonement answers the question, "What?" It is over the what that Christians disagree.

The chart on page 12 contrasts the theological views of the two main groups and the Scripture verses that each group uses. It is easy to see how differently both groups view the nature of the atonement. One group sees real atonement, or an actual payment that forever removes sin, as only a possibility until the sinner does his part with his free will and makes the atonement effective. In this view the sinner's faith is 'his part' in salvation. The other group sees the atonement of Christ as a real atonement that, in and of itself, removes forever the sin of all those for whom the atonement was made. This view sees the death of Christ as not merely making salvation possible for all men but actually guaranteeing that all those for whom Christ died will be saved. It is also clear that the two views are miles apart. It might be well to review the central differences between the two. Remember that both groups believe that the atonement was absolutely essential and that it is only through the atonement of Christ that any sinner can be saved."
(http://www.soundofgrace.com/apr98/page1.htm)

Do you see what I mean. Is there a confusion with the Calvinists?

 

Yes, but did you not read the words I made bold?
"The other group sees the atonement of Christ as a real atonement that, in and of itself, removes forever the sin of all those for whom the atonement was made."

 

Yes, and I read the rest of it too. That is what I said - you need to distinguish between accomplishment ("Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us") and application ("if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved"). Both are true. </font>[/QUOTE]No, I don't see what you are saying in the passage I quoted from. It very claerly says, that Christ's death, "removes forever the sin of all those for whom the atonement was made."

You cannot get any clearer that says that the Atonement of Christ actually removes the sins of the elect. It does not say after they confess.