Just how LIMITED is the ATONEMENT?

[glfredrick]

1Pe 2:7-8 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone," and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

 

[Luke2427]

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

Do you know what a straw man is?

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?

For the millionth time, I acknowledge that there are all kinds of differences Among Calvinists on all kinds of things including the atonement.

What none of us are willing to acknowledge is that you know beans from apple butter about what Hodge means here. He does not mean that Christ died for every sin of every man, but rather that, due to the infinite value of his sacrifice it is more than enough to save every man in this world and a thousand like it.

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?

Not equally, no.

 

[Skandelon]

Do you know what a straw man is?

Of course, it is what you are doing to me right now by acting as if I am the one denying that Calvinists have differing views on the atonement when in reality my OP's purpose was to point out these various views and discuss them.

For the millionth time, I acknowledge that there are all kinds of differences Among Calvinists on all kinds of things including the atonement.

No kidding?! You do? I didn't know. I asked you to tell us what that difference is and where you stand on it Luke. You are making this unnecessarily contentious.

What none of us are willing to acknowledge is that you know beans from apple butter about what Hodge means here.

This is quite funny considering what I'm about to show you...

Before you said, "I believe exactly like Hodge..." and "I agree with the quote"

I asked, "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?"

But you reply...

Not equally, no.

Yet, my question is based directly off of Hodge's quote where he said, "What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all. 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." -C. Hodge

So now are you saying you don't agree with him on this point?

 

[preacher4truth]

Seriously skan I don't see where Luke2427 is denying Calvinists have differing views in your over-generalized remark.

Of course they do.

He and others just do not agree with your quotes that you've used, insofar as they don't prove your point, neither do the comprehensive theologies of those whom you've quoted match up to the statements you've pulled from their theological works.

You're digging and digging for proof, yet you use the same quotes so very often, quotes that others have shown are not proving what you want them to say.

I'm probably thought of as a person that relentlessly and incessantly starts thread after thread against non-cal theology. That is not the case. Simply looking at my stats and threads started proves such.

However, you're ...[personal attack snipped]

 

[Skandelon]

Seriously skan I don't see where Luke2427 is denying Calvinists have differing views in your over-generalized remark.

Of course they do.

Ok, this is getting RIDICULOUS.

Go back and read my posts. We both have agreed there a different views, but every time I attempt to define those differences (with the actual quotes of the scholars themselves) I'm rebuked with charges of misrepresentation. So, I request that HE define the differences and tell us which side he falls on and why...and he ignores the request.

I wonder why that is? Could it be that I'm not misrepresenting anyone and that I'm actually defining a difference that Luke hasn't yet considered or fully vetted? I think that is most likely...

The rest of your post is once again turing to personal attacks which is unnecessary and unwarranted. Please stop.