Just how LIMITED is the ATONEMENT?

[Luke2427]

Put up or hush up. Blanket unfounded accusation don't fly here. Quote me and show how I've misrepresented Calvinism. Make sure you tell us which branch of Calvinism (Supra, Infra, Amyr, etc) that I've misrepresented and why.

I'll be glad to do this. But it will require some of my time and so I expect to be rewarded by you.

WHEN I point out several examples where you have either dishonestly or ignorantly misrepresented Calvinsts, I expect you to reward me by starting a thread entitled- "I repent" and your first post be a sincere apology for dishonesty or ignorance- whichever one it is.

Good, then stop pretending like you all agree on this point and discuss the distinction with me and where you stand on it...

No one has pretended anything. The only pretending that is going on is you pretending that this reputable Calvinist scholar believed that Christ died to make salvation available to all men.

That is the EPITOME of pretending.

Have you heard that song titled, "You probably think this song is about you." Well, its not always about you. Its about the VARIOUS views of the atonement. I am FINE with the fact you all disagree. I'm simply pointing to the motives of these 'respected' scholars for taking THIS view rather than another. If you remember correctly I was ridiculed for believing that men perish for their unbelief alone, yet that is what MANY scholars (even on the Calvinistic side) have taught and believe.

What it appears that you are doing is trying to make Hodge sound like he is a leaky Calvinist who leans toward the Arminian viewpoint on the atonement.

If that is what you are doing you are either ignorant on this subject or you are a liar.

I am OBVIOUSLY not the only one who thinks you are trying to do this.

 

[Skandelon]

I'll be glad to do this. But it will require some of my time and so I expect to be rewarded by you.

WHEN I point out several examples where you have either dishonestly or ignorantly misrepresented Calvinsts, I expect you to reward me by starting a thread entitled- "I repent" and your first post be a sincere apology for dishonesty or ignorance- whichever one it is.

I can't disagree with your so called case against me? I think Steve and others have shown that you do more harm to the Calvinistic case than I have ever done with the manner in which you address people.

No one has pretended anything. The only pretending that is going on is you pretending that this reputable Calvinist scholar believed that Christ died to make salvation available to all men.

What does Hodge mean when he writes:

"What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all....If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all."

He is clearly talking about what is "demanded for the salvation of all" and he clearly concludes those demands have been met and thus are "equally available for all."

What else could he mean BY THIS QUOTE? Please don't change the subject or just throw out more quotes. Please tell us what you think Hodge meant by THIS QUOTE.

I await your answer.

What it appears that you are doing is trying to make Hodge sound like he is a leaky Calvinist who leans toward the Arminian viewpoint on the atonement.

This statement presumes that Calvin himself didn't hold to a similar view when in reality there are MANY scholarly papers written showing that Calvin did indeed hold to this view. It is a debatable point, yes, but that is why I'd like to discuss it rather than be attacked for misrepresentation.

If that is what you are doing you are either ignorant on this subject or you are a liar.

I can't understand why so many people don't like your methods. Hmmmm

 

[Skandelon]

Yes. It IS sufficient for those who would be saved. Duh.

The Mississippi River is sufficient to quench my thirst, too. But that is not ALL it is sufficient for.

So, you agree that the atonement is sufficient for the salvation of all mankind, right?

What does that mean to you? Does that mean is it merely valuable enough to be sufficient if indeed Christ had chosen to atone for the sins of everyman OR does that mean it is actually sufficient for the salvation of every man?

I await your answer....

 

[glfredrick]

So, you agree that the atonement is sufficient for the salvation of all mankind, right?

What does that mean to you? Does that mean is it merely valuable enough to be sufficient if indeed Christ had chosen to atone for the sins of everyman OR does that mean it is actually sufficient for the salvation of every man?

I await your answer....

The atonement is sufficient and effecatious for the salvation of the elect of God. If salvation is for all, then logically, all would be saved unless God is incapable or unable to finish what He already paid for. Are you willing to go out on that limb?

I know that you pin the difficulty of salvation on mankind, but that is not an exit for you. If we are indeed all "sinners" and our "wages" are death, then why are some admitted and others rejected? Or conversely, why can some "find the way" and others not? You have eliminated no difficulty by pinning responsiblity for salvation on the faithfulness of mankind, for while yet in sin, mankind has no faithfulness.

Whom, or how many, are the elect we do not and cannot know. That may be "all" humans, but the ecclesiological record would disagree with that, for it seems that "many" fail to either "find the right path" or "are not called by God" depending on one's theological vantage point (to which the Scriptures agree:

Mat 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
Mat 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Luk 13:24 "Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

 

[Skandelon]

Allow me to quote from another Reformer who even more clearly defines this particular view of the atonement:

"The mere fact that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for human sin, alone and of itself, will save no soul. Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did, and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Ghost and the act of faith on the part of the individual men, he would have died in vain. Unless his objective work is subjectively appropriated, it is useless, as for as personal salvation is concerned. Christ's suffering is sufficient to cancel the guilt of all men, and in its own nature completely satisfies the broken law.” -Shedd

See how he is explaining how the broken law and sins of men are satisfied in Christ's work, yet none WILL BE SAVED apart from the irresistible regenerative work of the Holy Spirit leading to faith, which is reserved for the elect alone?

Your view seems to argue that Christ just paid for the sins of the elect alone thus making the legal obligations for them unsatisfied. This means they perish not only for their unbelief but for their lack of atonement. This is why you said the sins would be paid for twice, once by Christ and again by the one going to hell (i.e. Christ suffered just so much for so many and the rest will suffer in hell for their sin). That perspective is soundly rejected by Hodge and these other Calvinists.

 

[Skandelon]

The atonement is sufficient and effecatious for the salvation of the elect of God.

No its not, not according to scholarly Calvinists. The atonement alone is not efficacious within the Calvinistic system. If the atonement alone was efficacious then there wouldn't be the need for regeneration (irresistible call).

And you accuse me of misrepresenting Calvinism?

If salvation is for all, then logically, all would be saved unless God is incapable or unable to finish what He already paid for. Are you willing to go out on that limb?

Well, Calvin, Hodge, Shedd and others aren't arguing that salvation is "FOR ALL," they are arguing that the atonement was FOR THE ELECT, but in accomplishing satisfaction of justice (atonement) for even one He accomplished it for everyone. But without faith, no one will be saved. That is where Irresistible Grace (regeneration) comes in.

I know that you pin the difficulty of salvation on mankind, but that is not an exit for you. If we are indeed all "sinners" and our "wages" are death, then why are some admitted and others rejected?

Faith.

 

[Luke2427]

I can't disagree with your so called case against me? I think Steve and others have shown that you do more harm to the Calvinistic case than I have ever done with the manner in which you address people.

Well, that's not saying much, I'm afraid. I think we'll all agree that you've not done much damage to Calvinism at all.

What does Hodge mean when he writes:

"What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all....If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all."

Are you serious? You really don't know?

Did you not even READ the quotes I put up a few pages back????

He is clearly talking about what is "demanded for the salvation of all" and he clearly concludes those demands have been met and thus are "equally available for all."

What he did, Skan, is make a sacrifice that is sufficient in it's worth to save all of mankind a million times over. And what he does is offer that to all men.

Your main problem Skandelon is you lack the ability to properly interpret any Calvinist, it seems.

You think Edwards agrees fully with the Arminian divines on original sin- which is MADNESS.

You think Hodge believes Christ died for all men salvifically- which I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is not so.

You simply don't get it.

You'll take one sentence or one paragraph which is PART OF A WHOLE and isolate it and use it to misrepresent someone.

So let me get this straight, Skan. You REALLY believe that Hodge was saying that Christ died for every man in order to save every man- even after I showed you that he CLEARLY did not believe that, right?

 

[Luke2427]

So, you agree that the atonement is sufficient for the salvation of all mankind, right?

What does that mean to you? Does that mean is it merely valuable enough to be sufficient if indeed Christ had chosen to atone for the sins of everyman OR does that mean it is actually sufficient for the salvation of every man?

I await your answer....

For the tenth time- YES. The atonement of Christ COULD save all mankind in this world and a thousand worlds like it if God had intended to apply it to all mankind.

God never had any such intentions.

God always intended to make a world which he knew would fall. God always intended to save some and not all out of that world. And God always intended to give his Son as a sacrifice for the elect; but what God did in actually atoning the sins of the elect was make a sacrifice that was more than sufficient to cover all the sins of all the world a million times over.

God offers that salvation to all men but he never intended to apply it to all men. In that sense alone is it available. That is what Hodge believed. Those who God has forever intended to apply it to are called the elect.
Those who God NEVER HAD any intention of applying it to are the non-elect.

 

[Luke2427]

Well, Calvin, Hodge, Shedd and others aren't arguing that salvation is "FOR ALL," they are arguing that the atonement was FOR THE ELECT, but in accomplishing satisfaction of justice (atonement) for even one He accomplished it for everyone.

Faith.

No. They are not saying that Christ "ACCOMPLISHED" the atonement for everyone.

They are saying that what Christ did is sufficient to pay for EVERYONE'S sins. That is true. They are not saying that it DID pay for everyone's sins.

That's where you miss it.

 

[Skandelon]

Well, that's not saying much, I'm afraid. I think we'll all agree that you've not done much damage to Calvinism at all.

Which is why I'm now acknowledging your efforts, which have been all the more effective. Thanks! :applause:

Are you serious? You really don't know?

Did you not even READ the quotes I put up a few pages back????

Stop pretending Luke, no one is buying it. We all know this has been a point of contention among Calvinists such a Baxter, Shedd, AA Hodge, C Hodge and others. Just acknowledge the divide and tell us which side you are on and why.

What he did, Skan, is make a sacrifice that is sufficient in it's worth to save all of mankind a million times over.

Ok, so you believe it is sufficient in its worth/value, but the value of the atonement is not available to every man. Is that accurate?

Isn't that like what I said earlier when I said the you believe the atonement is valuable enough to be sufficient, rather than it's actually being sufficient? Please explain.

Listen, we KNOW there is a disagreement among Calvinists, you even said so. So what is that disagreement in your view and which side do you fall on? Do you agree with Calvinists like Pink and Baxter or more with Shedd and Hodge? And Why?

Your main problem Skandelon is you lack the ability to properly interpret any Calvinist, it seems.

<snicker> Ok, keep telling yourself that and maybe all the papers and books written on this subject will magically disappear.

You think Edwards agrees fully with the Arminian divines on original sin- which is MADNESS.

Actually, Edwards himself said that his view of the ORIGIN OF EVIL (not original sin) was in agreement with the Arminian divines, remember?

You think Hodge believes Christ died for all men salvifically

Aww...aww...aww, I have to stop you there. I never said that. Go read my posts yet again. Why don't you try actually quoting me and responding line by line to my actual quotes? That might help you keep from doing this kind of thing.

So let me get this straight, Skan. You REALLY believe that Hodge was saying that Christ died for every man in order to save every man- even after I showed you that he CLEARLY did not believe that, right?

NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!.....:BangHead:

You know what, never mind.... I'll go talk to someone who will actually read what I and others write...

 

[Luke2427]

Which is why I'm now acknowledging your efforts, which have been all the more effective. Thanks! :applause:

0 x 0 = 0

Stop pretending Luke, no one is buying it.

Snotty- and bull.

We all know this has been a point of contention among Calvinists such a Baxter, Shedd, AA Hodge, C Hodge and others. Just acknowledge the divide and tell us which side you are on and why.

For the tenth time again- NNE except your straw men have denied that there are differences in this massive and old group of people called Calvinists.

What group on earth a tenth of it's size and age DOESN'T have differences???

So what?????????

Ok, so you believe it is sufficient in its worth/value, but the value of the atonement is not available to every man. Is that accurate?

I believe exactly like Hodge that there is a sense in which he died for all men (but not to provide ACTUAL atonement for them) and a sense in which he did not die for all men.

Isn't that like what I said earlier when I said the you believe the atonement is valuable enough to be sufficient, rather than it's actually being sufficient? Please explain.

No.

It is not only sufficient- it is MORE than sufficient. It is sufficient to save Lucifer and all the fallen angels and every man and devil who ever lived.

The Mississippi river is more than sufficient to quench the thirst of every single American for better than a year. That sufficiency does not change if only 10,000 stoop and drink.

 

[quantumfaith]

0 x 0 = 0



Snotty- and bull.



For the tenth time again- NNE except your straw men have denied that there are differences in this massive and old group of people called Calvinists.

What group on earth a tenth of it's size and age DOESN'T have differences???

So what?????????



I believe exactly like Hodge that there is a sense in which he died for all men (but not to provide ACTUAL atonement for them) and a sense in which he did not die for all men.




No.

It is not only sufficient- it is MORE than sufficient. It is sufficient to save Lucifer and all the fallen angels and every man and devil who ever lived.

The Mississippi river is more than sufficient to quench the thirst of every single American for better than a year. That sufficiency does not change if only 10,000 stoop and drink.

0/0 = undefined.

 

[jbh28]

0/0 = undefined.

...infinity.... lol

 

[quantumfaith]

...infinity.... lol

Only if you can if the numerator and denominator are differentiable, then you can use L'Hopital's Rule.

 

[Amy.G]

Only if you can if the numerator and denominator are differentiable, then you can use L'Hopital's Rule.

Speaking in tongues again I see. :tongue3:

 

[Robert Snow]

0/0 = undefined.

I guess it takes a Calvinist to divide something into zero parts. :laugh:

 

[Luke2427]

Actually, Edwards himself said that his view of the ORIGIN OF EVIL (not original sin) was in agreement with the Arminian divines, remember?

No, Skandelon. I remember your gross misrepresentation of Edward's remark that that he agrees with a particular aspect of the theodicy of the Arminian divines.

An aspect with which WE ALL AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!

That aspect which separates them FROM PELAGIANS!!!


About four different people tried to open your eyes to your misrepresentation of Edwards there and you are STILL OBLIVIOUS.

 

[convicted1]

Speaking in tongues again I see. :tongue3:

Yep. JBH and QTF need to quit this. They are drifting towards pentecostalism and/or WOF........come back Brothers.....we have cookies(to steal that from Brother QTF)......:laugh:

Hey Sister Amy, I have a secret for you. Come closer.....no closer....even closer......:tongue3:

 

[quantumfaith]

I guess it takes a Calvinist to divide something into zero parts. :laugh:

Actually, the only mathematician capable of dividing by zero is God himself.

 

[Skandelon]

For the tenth time again- NNE except your straw men have denied that there are differences in this massive and old group of people called Calvinists.

What?! I'm the one showing the distinctions between the various Calvinistic views on the atonement, yet you accuse me of denying they exist???

If there are differences among Calvinists, which we BOTH agree there are, then why don't you acknowledge that difference with regard to the various views of the atonement and tell us which side you are on and why? Why is this so difficult for you?

I believe exactly like Hodge that there is a sense in which he died for all men (but not to provide ACTUAL atonement for them) and a sense in which he did not die for all men.

Ok, so you agree that the demands of the law are satisfied by Christ, the representative or substitute. And that Christ's work is equally available for all? You agree that Christ did all that was necessary, so far as the satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men? You are saying you fully agree with this, right?

So, you disagree with Pink, Murray and other Calvinists who disagree with this view?