Just how LIMITED is the ATONEMENT?

[Herald]

Calvin DOES NOT EQUAL "Calvinism."

Before you take someone to task or ask them to take care about Calvin, in reference to Calvinism, it would be helpful for you to understand exactly what Calvinism actually is. I'll let you do your own homework, but as I stated above, Calvin had nothing, really, to do with the 5 points of the TULIP that make up the preponderance of the doctrine of grace often called Calvinism.

Additionally, what has ecclesiology to do with soteriology, save that one needs to be saved before being part of the church and its practices?

I think you failed to note the "LOL" in my comments. "LOL" means "laughing out loud." The post was partially tongue-in-cheek. Me thinks you're making much ado about nothing. I KNOW you are when webdog comes to my defense (webdog: just kidding, brother)!

 

[Herald]

Before flying off the handle and "taking someone to task" it would help to understand who you are engaging. Herald is a calvinist :laugh:

And to quote Don Rickles, "I'm a nice guy."

 

[Amy.G]

Sorry to burst your bubble Amy, but we ALL get our theology from man and not from God. The ALL includes yourself, your pastor, your favorite teachers, etc.

I am from the Scriptures and doctrines as originally sourced, not from a list of people that I have to support.

So, which is it? You seem to be confused as to just where you get your theology.

 

[Skandelon]

Pulleeaasseee... Really?

Yes, really. You have no substance here, just personal attacks. Deal with my content and if you think I am taking them out of context, show it. It should be real simple for you to disprove my points here if that is the case. What is evident is that you would rather besmirch me than discuss the topic I raise here concerning the various views of the atonement held by various Calvinistic scholars...which, by the way, is a discussion MANY much smarter individuals than any of us have had for decades. Yet, instead of dealing with the content you choose to throw out one liners that attempt to undermine my character. That is more revealing about your character than it is mine.

Just stick to the topic or leave. If you don't like me, fine. You don't have to respond to my posts.

Above, you make out Christ to be a mere example

Where? I've never said such a thing. This entire post is a bunch of unfounded and unsupported and unspecific accusations. As I told P4T, put up or hush up. Show where I've taking them out of context. Make your case. I would welcome a good debate for once from one of you. That is why I come to the "debate forum." You may think that is "an axe to grind" or whatever, so sue me for enjoying debating theology on a theology debate forum. Why are you here? To throw out one liners and and unfounded accusations?

I challenge any of you to do as Herald began to do (though he hasn't responded to my last post to him), and try to avoid attacking my personhood and attempt to handle a widely debated and often discussed point of contention regarding the atonement. If you don't want to do that then go away...please. :wavey:

 

[glfredrick]

So, which is it? You seem to be confused as to just where you get your theology.

Not at all... I know where theology comes from and I explained it. Scholars (men and women) read the Scriptures and derive theology. God does not hand down theology from heaven on finger-inscribed tablets. No confusion whatsoever.

Why are you trying to obfuscate the issue? That is the bigger question. You seem to want to take the pious route and claim that your theology is direct from God, yet you cannot demonstrate how that happens. Perhaps just mark it up as a point for me in this particular debate point and we can move on to the actual question.

 

[Skandelon]

It is not just that they won't believe, they cannot.

Ok, but is that all that is keeping them from being saved? OR is there something else besides their unbelief that prevents them from salvation...like maybe there sins have not been atoned? Has the legal impediments been removed (as AA Hodge says), or haven't they? Is unbelief the only reason they aren't saved (as Calvin argues)? Has God satisfied the demands of justice for every person (has C. Hodge states)?

This is the subject of this thread. Can you discuss it?

 

[Rippon]

Calvinism itself stems from an answer to the Arminian challenge at the Synod of Dort,

Ah,no,you are mistaken there. Calvinism,existed long before that term was coined. You have to get the horse in the proper position --in front of the cart.

 

[glfredrick]

Yes, really. You have no substance here, just personal attacks. Deal with my content and if you think I am taking them out of context, show it. It should be real simple for you to disprove my points here if that is the case. What is evident is that you would rather besmirch me than discuss the topic I raise here concerning the various views of the atonement held by various Calvinistic scholars...which, by the way, is a discussion MANY much smarter individuals than any of us have had for decades. Yet, instead of dealing with the content you choose to throw out one liners that attempt to undermine my character. That is more revealing about your character than it is mine.

Just stick to the topic or leave. If you don't like me, fine. You don't have to respond to my posts.

I made my point very simply and in one sentence when I pointed out that you had finally come into contact with real Calvinistic writing instead of just dealing with your preferred straw man.

What proof that Hodge was a Calvinist above all else? Sure. That is easy...
All the cites below are from Hodge's "Predestination."

On the other hand, Calvin presents his characteristic doctrine of eternal election in living connection with the great practical experimental questions of personal salvation and of divine grace. If we are sinners, it is evident that the practically essential thing in religious experience is to appreciate truly our guilt, unworthiness, and helplessness before God, and God’s free grace toward us to its full extent. If God is infinitely gracious and just, if at measureless expense he redeemed us at the cost of the pain, shame, and death of his Son, it follows that any failure in our appreciation of our own unworthiness and helplessness, or of God’s gracious activity in our salvation, would be absolutely insufferable. To claim more for ourselves or to ascribe less to God than the facts of the case justify would he the greatest of all sins, and would be the very thing to make salvation impossible. The sense of our own guilt, pollution, and impotence, and of the absolute unconditioned freeness of the grace which saves us, is involved in every case of genuine religious experience.

The expiatory work of Christ which is sufficient for, adapted to, and freely offered to all men, being presupposed, the question of questions is, How — by what agencies and on what conditions — is it effectually applied to any individual? The Scriptures make it plain that the condition of its effectual application is an act of faith, involving real spiritual repentance and the turning from sin and the acceptance and self-appropriation of Christ and of his redemption as the only remedy. But what will prompt a sinner in love with his sin, spiritually blind and callous, thus to repent and accept Christ as the cure of the sin he loves? The first movement cannot begin with man. The sinner of himself cannot really desire deliverance from sin; of himself he cannot appreciate the attractive beauty, loveliness, or saving power of Christ. The dead man cannot spontaneously originate his own quickening, nor the creature his own creating, nor the infant his own begetting. Whatever man may do after regeneration, the first quickening of the dead must originate in the first instance with God. All Christians feel this as the most intimate conviction of their souls. Yet it involves necessarily this very doctrine of eternal predestination or election. If God begins the work, if our believing follows his quickening, then it is God, not man, who makes the difference between the quickened and the unquickened. If we believe, it is because we have been first quickened. If any man does not believe, it is because he is yet dead in his natural sin. God’s eternal choice therefore cannot depend upon foreseen faith, but, on the contrary, faith must depend upon God’s eternal choice.

In the theology of the heart all Christians are Calvinists — that is, all Christians ascribe all their salvation unto God. And this is the only form in which the doctrine of sovereign predestination should be insisted upon as of vital religious interest.

Nevertheless, the Scriptures are very explicit upon these points. (1.) The foreordination of God does include the free actions of men and angels, as it does all other classes of events whatsoever. God works in man freely and spontaneously to will according to his good pleasure (Phil. ii. 13). Men and nations are the mere instruments (the axe, saw, rod) in the hand of God to do his will (Isa. x. 15). God definitely predicts the free actions of men ages before the men themselves exist (Isa. xliv. 28; xlv. 1-4). All prophecy implies foreknowledge; and all foreknowledge on the part of a God who has intelligently and of purpose created all things out of nothing, of course implies the foreordination of all the foreseen results of that creation. If even one so limited in knowledge and power as you or I should place in the hands of a dependant a horse that we certainly knew would run away on that road and in the hands of that man, beyond question we would predetermine that runaway and all of its foreseen results. (2.) The Scriptures go even further, and declare that even the sinful acts of men are foreordained by God. This does not mean that God regards the wicked acts with complacency, or that he will condone them, or that we are in any degree excusable for acting them, much less that God is their author or cause, directly or indirectly. It means, simply, that these wicked actions were a clearly foreknown part of a system of things which God freely chose, and the future existence of which he freely and righteously determined for good and sufficient reasons, the evil never being ordained as an end in itself, but always as a means to an infinitely greater and better end.

But students of the Scriptures see that they do moreover teach explicitly that God does elect some individuals to eternal blessedness and to all the means thereof. Here the precise point of difference between Arminians and Calvinists comes in. The old Arminian statement was that God graciously elected the class of believers to everlasting life, and that if any individual man was included in the election it was because he was included in the class of believers. The more modern Arminian statement is to the same effect; in other words, that God elected certain individuals to eternal life, on the ground of their faith as foreseen by him. But the question necessarily arises, Where did these individuals come by their faith? If they got the faith of themselves, then their salvation is not entirely of grace and of God. If God gave them their faith, then it was in his purpose; and if it was embraced in his purpose, it could not have been the condition on which it was suspended. But the Scriptures and Christian experience unite in affirming that “faith is the gift of God” (Eph. ii. 8; Acts v. 31; 1 Cor. iv. 7). The designed effect of this eternal election is “ that we should he holy, and without blame before him in love” (Eph. i. 4; ii. 10; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 2), and therefore that holy state could not have been the foreseen condition of his choice. The very gist of the election is that of the children who “neither had done good or evil,” “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” God chose one and rejected the other. The very gist was that “the potter hath power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour “ (Rom. ix. 11-21). The order in which the Holy Spirit puts the matter is very clear: “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts xiii. 48). It was the personal foreordination to eternal life which determined the believing, and not the foreseen believing which conditioned the foreordination.

This history is glorious and secure past all contradiction. It is natural also — a natural outgrowth of consequences out of principles. Predestination exalts God, and abases man before God. It makes all men low before God, but high and strong before kings. It founds on a basis of eternal rock one absolute Sovereign, to whose will there is no limit, but it levels all other sovereigns in the dust. It renders Christ great, and the believing sinner infinitely secure in him. It establishes the highest conceivable standard of righteousness, and secures the operation of the most effective motives to obedience. It extinguishes fear, it makes victory certain, it inspires with enthusiasm, it makes both the heart and the arm strong. The Ironsides of Cromwell made the decree of predestination their base; hence they never lost a battle, and always began the swelling chorus of victory from the first moment that the ranks were formed. The man to whom in all the universe there is no God is an atheist. The man to whom God is distant, and to whom the influence of God is vague and uncertain, is an Arminian. But he who altogether lives and moves and has all his being in the immanent Jehovah is a Calvinist.

 

[glfredrick]

Ah,no,you are mistaken there. Calvinism,existed long before that term was coined. You have to get the horse in the proper position --in front of the cart.

No, the tenets that BECAME Calvinism existed, but Calvinism did not.

“The Synod gave a very close examination to the ‘five points’ which had been advanced by the Remonstrants, and compared the teaching in them with the testimony of Scripture. Failing to reconcile that teaching with the Word of God, . . . they unanimously rejected them. They felt however, that a mere rejection was not sufficient. It remained for them to set forth the true Calvinistic teaching in relationship to those matters which had been called into question. This they proceeded to do, embodying the Calvinistic position in five chapters which have ever since been known as the five points of Calvinism.” (Steel and Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, P&R Publishing, 1963, p. 14, quoting Ben A. Warburton, Calvinism, p. 61.)

 

[Skandelon]

Glf, you argue as if I'm attempting to prove these men aren't Reformed in their soteriology, when in reality I'm only presenting various nuances and differences in their approach regarding Christ's atonement.

I have said time and again that they are "Calvinists," and the fact that you seem to think I'm attempting to deny that is only proof you haven't taken the time to objectively consider my arguments.

Dr. James Richards, a Calvinist who rejected a strict view of limited atonement, stated the problem clearly: "We argue it from the indefinite tender of salvation made to all men where the Gospel comes. To us, no maxim appears more certain than that a salvation offered implies a salvation provided; for God will not tantalize his creatures by tendering them with that which is not in his hand to bestow."

Now, notice that this man WAS A CALVINIST. He believed that the atonement was sufficient and available to all mankind thus making the offer of the gospel sincere. But he also believed that ONLY those 'irresistibly called' (regenerated) would come to faith and be saved. Many argue this was Calvin's view as well. You may disagree, which is fine but let's have that discussion without the disparaging remarks, shall we?

 

[Skandelon]

Consider this quote from Hodge, which actually deals with the topic at hand:


It is therefore, in its nature, adapted to ALL SINNERS who are under that law…The righteousness of Christ, therefore, consisting in the obedience and death demanded by the law under which all men are placed, is adapted to ALL MEN…These suppositions are made, simply to show that, according to our doctrine, the reason why any man perishes, is not that there is no righteousness provided suitable and adequate to his case, or that it is not freely offered to all that hear the gospel, but simply because he willfully rejects the proffered salvation…It [our doctrine] opens the door for mercy, as far as legal obstructions are concerned” - C. Hodge


So, either you affirm that "THE ONLY REASON WHY ANY MAN PERISHES" is "because he willfully rejects the proffered salvation" or you believe that there are still legal obstructions keeping him from being saved (i.e. the atonement didn't satisfy the demands for him). Which is it?

 

[Luke2427]

Consider this quote from Hodge, which actually deals with the topic at hand:


It is therefore, in its nature, adapted to ALL SINNERS who are under that law…The righteousness of Christ, therefore, consisting in the obedience and death demanded by the law under which all men are placed, is adapted to ALL MEN…These suppositions are made, simply to show that, according to our doctrine, the reason why any man perishes, is not that there is no righteousness provided suitable and adequate to his case, or that it is not freely offered to all that hear the gospel, but simply because he willfully rejects the proffered salvation…It [our doctrine] opens the door for mercy, as far as legal obstructions are concerned” - C. Hodge


So, either you affirm that "THE ONLY REASON WHY ANY MAN PERISHES" is "because he willfully rejects the proffered salvation" or you believe that there are still legal obstructions keeping him from being saved (i.e. the atonement didn't satisfy the demands for him). Which is it?

I agree with the quote as do most Calvinists I imagine.

The atonement is sufficient to save all men in this world and a thousand worlds like it.

So what?

 

[Luke2427]

Then why do you say, "so long as he is not suffering for sins that will still be punished."

You say, "The cross is perfectly sufficient for the sins of those who will be saved by it." But you fail to acknowledge that some Calvinistic scholars believed and taught that the atonement is sufficient for every individual...even the non-elect.

There is a difference in saying that the atonement is merely valuable enough to be sufficient and saying that it IS sufficient.

Luke, please understand, I'm not asking you to agree with this view, just acknowledge it as existing within the Calvinistic system and being promoted by some Calvinistic scholars throughout history. And acknowledge the distinction in the two views while providing defense for your view in light of that distinction. Is that too much to ask?

I'll acknowledge that without hesitation.

But Hodge is not disagreeing with my view in these quotes- period.

Hodge believed, as I do, that the value of the sacrifice of Christ was so great that it was more than sufficient for every man who would ever be born.

If I have a gold nugget worth one million dollars I have something that is sufficient in value to feed every person in my county for a year, but if many of them do not take it as I offer it then they could starve to death that very year.

The substitution part is applicable only to the elect. There on the cross he ACTUALLY atoned for our sins- not potentially. He would apply that atonement as he sees fit at a certain point in our lives.
Though the death of Christ is sufficient for all men in this world and a thousand worlds like it ad infinitum it only saves the elect and only actually atones for their sins.

I think what you are trying to do, whether ignorantly or with chicanery, is misrepresent Hodge's view as one which has Christ dying for every sinner who'd ever live and paying for the sins of every sinner who'd ever live.

This simply is not so.

Here is Hodge:

“If God from eternity determined to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seem to be a contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equal reference to both portions; that the Father sent His Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He gave Him up for those whom He had chosen to make the heirs of salvation.”4

Here Hodge is arguing that it would have been a waste and a lack of foresight on God’s part to have Jesus die for individuals he had not chosen to salvation. Or put differently: It would not have made sense for Jesus to die for those He never intended to save. Thus, any attempt to separate particular election from limited atonement involves an inherent contradiction.

Furthermore Hodge said:

There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone. The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object?
That these questions must be answered in the affirmative, is evident, —

Then he goes on to prove that Christ did not die to save all men but rather he died to save the elect only.

He says things like:

These Scriptural facts cannot be admitted without its being also admitted that the death of Christ had a reference to his people, whose salvation it rendered certain, which it had not to others whom, for infinitely wise reasons, God determined to leave to themselves. It follows, therefore, from the nature of the covenant of redemption, as presented in the Bible, that Christ did not die equally for all mankind, but that He gave Himself for his people and for their redemption.

and...

We accordingly find numerous passages in which the design of Christ's death is declared to be, to save his people from their sins. He did not come merely to render their salvation possible, but actually to deliver them from the curse of the law, and from the power of sin. This is included in all the Scriptural representations of the nature and design of his work. No man pays a ransom without the certainty of the deliverance of those for whom it is paid. It is not a ransom unless it actually redeems. And an offering is no sacrifice unless it actually expiates and propitiates.

and...

It is difficult, in the light of Ephesians v. 25, where the death of Christ is attributed to his love of his Church, and is said to have been designed for its sanctification and salvation, to believe that He gave Himself as much for reprobates as for those whom He intended to save. Every assertion, therefore that Christ died for a people, is a denial of the doctrine that He died equally for all men.

I suspect you'll want to close the thread now...

 

[righteousdude2]

Anything that Comes From God is Only Limited by....

....His own infinite inabilities!

I contend that as far as we humans know, there is very little that our God can't do, except maybe not allow an unrepentant sinner into heaven.

 

[Skandelon]

I agree with the quote as do most Calvinists I imagine.

The atonement is sufficient to save all men in this world and a thousand worlds like it.

So what?

Ok, never mind Luke, you are probably right. All those papers, debates, and volumes of works devoted to this distinction among various Calvinistic scholars is probably just a figment of my imagination....

 

[Luke2427]

Ok, never mind Luke, you are probably right. All those papers, debates, and volumes of works devoted to this distinction among various Calvinistic scholars is probably just a figment of my imagination....

Whatever, Skandelon. As has been pointed out to you by NUMEROUS different people on NUMEROUS occasions, it is your tendency, if not addiction, to misrepresent Calvinists.

I acknowledged that Calvinists do indeed disagree amongst themselves on many things.

But if that is the point you are trying to make here- I cannot IMAGINE a more POINTLESS endeavor.

SO WHAT??

So what if they disagree???

There are multiplied MILLIONS of us.

What could you POSSIBLY hope to establish by pointing out that some of us disagree?????????

What group as old and large and diverse as Calvinists in HISTORY has ever agreed on EVERYTHING???

All I am saying is that, imo, Hodge is dead on in the quotes you provided.

I have not read this thread thoroughly, but I'll tell you what I think you may be trying to do here. You may be trying to say that Hodge promotes this idea that Christ died for everybody the same. That is either a mistake based on horrific ignorance or it is an outright lie.

 

[preacher4truth]

I'll acknowledge that without hesitation.

But Hodge is not disagreeing with my view in these quotes- period.

Hodge believed, as I do, that the value of the sacrifice of Christ was so great that it was more than sufficient for every man who would ever be born.

If I have a gold nugget worth one million dollars I have something that is sufficient in value to feed every person in my county for a year, but if many of them do not take it as I offer it then they could starve to death that very year.

The substitution part is applicable only to the elect. There on the cross he ACTUALLY atoned for our sins- not potentially. He would apply that atonement as he sees fit at a certain point in our lives.
Though the death of Christ is sufficient for all men in this world and a thousand worlds like it ad infinitum it only saves the elect and only actually atones for their sins.

I think what you are trying to do, whether ignorantly or with chicanery, is misrepresent Hodge's view as one which has Christ dying for every sinner who'd ever live and paying for the sins of every sinner who'd ever live.

This simply is not so.

Here is Hodge:


Here Hodge is arguing that it would have been a waste and a lack of foresight on God’s part to have Jesus die for individuals he had not chosen to salvation. Or put differently: It would not have made sense for Jesus to die for those He never intended to save. Thus, any attempt to separate particular election from limited atonement involves an inherent contradiction.

Furthermore Hodge said:


Then he goes on to prove that Christ did not die to save all men but rather he died to save the elect only.

He says things like:


and...


and...


I suspect you'll want to close the thread now...

Your quotes here reflect the true context of the theology of Hodge and truly represent what a Calvinist would teach. Do all Calvinists agree on every point? Of course not, but the fact remains Hodge was in fact misrepresented by skn in his short quip of him in the OP. The quotes in the OP fall well short and are taken out of this context which I've stated all along. Of course, this was only met with "provide me with a scholar who says that I am taking Calvin out of context" in so many words. We don't need a scholar when common sense dictates this and shows him incorrect and the comprehensive views of both Calvin and Hodge prove that these "quotes" given by him are an inaccurate representation of their theology as a whole. The above quotes prove he has taken Hodge out of context, and is painting an inaccurate portrait of his theology.

I am not amazed though, this same practice is used in Scriptural interpretation, and it is called proof-texting.

I expect you'll receive a brush-off response due to giving some accurate info that is dismantling skns (what he believes is a) case.

 

[Skandelon]

Hodge believed, as I do, that the value of the sacrifice of Christ was so great that it was more than sufficient for every man who would ever be born.

Yet earlier you argued that it was sufficient for those who would be saved. Hmmmm

Though the death of Christ is sufficient for all men in this world and a thousand worlds like it

Luke, what do you think "sufficient" means? It doesn't mean that it is valuable enough to be sufficient, you know? It means that it has removed all legal impediments thus making the atonement "available" to all. Therefore, the ONLY thing keeping someone from salvation is their unbelief, not the fact that their sins can't be atoned because Christ only suffered so much for just so many. Do you now understand the distinction?

I think what you are trying to do, whether ignorantly or with chicanery, is misrepresent Hodge's view as one which has Christ dying for every sinner who'd ever live and paying for the sins of every sinner who'd ever live.

No, I'm saying that Hodge taught that, "every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is required to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all...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."

Thus, "the reason why any man perishes, is not that there is no righteousness provided suitable and adequate to his case, or that it is not freely offered to all that hear the gospel, but simply because he willfully rejects the proffered salvation…It [our doctrine] opens the door for mercy, as far as legal obstructions are concerned”

Furthermore Hodge said: “If God from eternity determined to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seem to be a contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equal reference to both portions; that the Father sent His Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He gave Him up for those whom He had chosen to make the heirs of salvation.”4

Right. Notice the phrase "as truly as and in the same sense." That should tell you something about Hodge's approach versus someone like Pink. This distinction is not something I came up with Luke. This is a historical and age long discussion among much smarter people than us. Don't shoot the messenger.

Then he goes on to prove that Christ did not die to save all men but rather he died to save the elect only.

No one is denying that claim Luke. Please read the post again more carefully.

I suspect you'll want to close the thread now...

While that might save you some embarrassment, I'd rather see how you actually deal with the distinction being presented.

 

[Skandelon]

Whatever, Skandelon. As has been pointed out to you by NUMEROUS different people on NUMEROUS occasions, it is your tendency, if not addiction, to misrepresent Calvinists.

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 acknowledged that Calvinists do indeed disagree amongst themselves on many things.

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

But if that is the point you are trying to make here- I cannot IMAGINE a more POINTLESS endeavor.

Huh, my POINT is to discuss the various views of the atonement. Apparently some of you would rather undermine me and my intentions instead. Oh the horror, a non-Cal wants to debate the differing views of the atonement on a theology debate forum! LINCH HIM!! Come on guys, just stick to the issue.

So what if they disagree???

There are multiplied MILLIONS of us.

Fine, then don't pretend like you agree and then not discuss the differences while getting mad at me for pointing them out. Geeesh

What could you POSSIBLY hope to establish by pointing out that some of us disagree?????????

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.

All I am saying is that, imo, Hodge is dead on in the quotes you provided.

And yet your quotes contradict his views at every turn. You've acknowledged that you all disagree on some points, so what disagreement over the atonement do some have? And what side of that disagreement do you fall on?

I have not read this thread thoroughly, but I'll tell you what I think you may be trying to do here. You may be trying to say that Hodge promotes this idea that Christ died for everybody the same.

Wrong.
I'm saying, as HODGE SAID, that in dying for the elect he satisfied the justice for all thus making the appeal of the gospel sincere. Read them again...

 

[Luke2427]

Yet earlier you argued that it was sufficient for those who would be saved. Hmmmm

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.

Hmmmmmmmm.....

Luke, what do you think "sufficient" means? It doesn't mean that it is valuable enough to be sufficient, you know? It means that it has removed all legal impediments thus making the atonement "available" to all.

It depends on what you mean when you say available.

What it seems clear you mean is that Hodge is saying that Christ died for every single person to make salvation AVAILABLE to all.

That is a blatant misrepresentation. Period.

Therefore, the ONLY thing keeping someone from salvation is their unbelief, not the fact that their sins can't be atoned because Christ only suffered so much for just so many. Do you now understand the distinction?

I already understood that. And I already agreed with it. So???

No, I'm saying that Hodge taught that, "every man is required to satisfy the demands of the law. No man is required to do either more or less. If those demands are satisfied by a representative or substitute, his work is equally available for all...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 most of us Calvinists AGREE WITH HODGE on this point. So?????????????

Thus, "the reason why any man perishes, is not that there is no righteousness provided suitable and adequate to his case, or that it is not freely offered to all that hear the gospel, but simply because he willfully rejects the proffered salvation…It [our doctrine] opens the door for mercy, as far as legal obstructions are concerned”

And????????????????????????????????????????????

Right. Notice the phrase "as truly as and in the same sense." That should tell you something about Hodge's approach versus someone like Pink. This distinction is not something I came up with Luke. This is a historical and age long discussion among much smarter people than us. Don't shoot the messenger.

I am not. I am asking the messenger to make a point with all of this.