1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

No man perishes for want of an atonement

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Aug 17, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 8 of 11
  1. J.D.

    J.D. Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    11
    Hello KY, how are you doing? I think we are getting close to settling on a church. Send me an email and I'll fill you in.
     
    #141 J.D., Aug 21, 2011
  2. Robert Snow

    Robert Snow New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    4,466
    Likes Received:
    3
    Amen! God has chosen to save those who will believe the gospel and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation!
     
    #142 Robert Snow, Aug 21, 2011
  3. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Scandal is going to ignore the eminent conclusion of his position. First, Christ's act failed with God. It did not result in the forgiveness of Joe's sins. Second, it failed with Joe, it did not result in his conversion.

    Christ is a failure. It's a good thing some of us were good and wise enough to believe in Jesus, or He would have been a total failure. Hey, without us, there's no Jesus. (You can use that in your signature if you wish, Scan.)
     
    #143 Aaron, Aug 21, 2011
  4. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Did I indicate otherwise?

    I doubt he'd say that since he believes in particular redemption. Charles Hodge believed that God in effecting the salvation of his own people, did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men, but clearly Hodge still affirms that God's intent (like the Father with the boat in the analogy earlier) was to only go after his family (the elect). That is what makes it "particular." But (according to Hodge) his substitutionary work, while only meant for the elect ones, sufficiently supplied all that would ever be needed for any one who believes thus making "his work available for all men."

    How can I be any more clear about this? Or maybe I should say, How can Hodge be any more clear since I'm mostly just quoting him verbatim over and over. :tonofbricks:
     
    #144 Skandelon, Aug 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2011
  5. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    See the OP.
     
    #145 Skandelon, Aug 21, 2011
  6. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Haven't you learned about the fallacy of question begging yet?

    Careful Brother. Even if your right this kind of a statement is only going to inflame those who disagree and harden them against listening to anything you say; and if your wrong you've just called the Son of the Living God a failure. Either way, you lose. :(
     
    #146 Skandelon, Aug 21, 2011
  7. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    20,157
    Likes Received:
    2,988
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh baloney, get off of it. Is this all you got? You know what he meant.
     
    #147 kyredneck, Aug 21, 2011
  8. convicted1

    convicted1 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    28
    Context of this verse is needed, Bro. Larry. "His people" here is talking about the Jews. He came to the Jews first, and when they rejected Him, He then went to the Gentiles. In John chapter one, it says "He came to His own(OT Jews), and His own(OT Jews) believed Him not. But as many as did believe Him, gave He them the power to become the sons of God." He even wept over Jerusalem and said that He would have gathered them under His wings like a hen does her brood, but they would not. So, even in rejecting them, He was willing to save them, they just chose to not believe Him.

    Also, the one who came to Him and asked Him what must he do to inherent eternal life, Jesus loved him, even though he walked off after Jesus told him to sell his worldly goods, and pick up his cross and follow him. So here are just two examples of where Jesus was wanting to save sinners, and they chose to either not believe or just walk away.

    Jesus stated in John 12:32, "If I be lifted up will draw all men unto me." Those who die(d) lost, chose not to place their trust in Him.
     
    #148 convicted1, Aug 21, 2011
  9. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yeah, I do. He means that if Arminianism is right then Christ must be a failure, which presumes that God didn't, BY HIS OWN CHOOSING, plan for man to be saved in the way taught by Arminians. That is a debate fallacy called "question begging," not to mention grossly offensive and basically foolish in every way imaginable.
     
    #149 Skandelon, Aug 21, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 21, 2011
  10. J.D.

    J.D. Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    11
    Okay, I'm joining this discussion late and I don't have time to read the whole thread, so this might have been covered already but here goes.

    Hodge is speaking to the SUFFICIENCY of the atonement, which makes the offer of salvation to the non-elect "sincere". This is the view of perhaps a majority of all calvinists. Personally, while I believe that the sufficient-efficient argument is technically correct, it is not the best way of expressing the effects of the atonement.

    But I also notice that in the quotation, Hodge clearly expresses agreement with the Canons of Dortd, which says:

    This is the context of Hodge's work.
     
    #150 J.D., Aug 21, 2011
  11. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is your position. Not mine. You said Christ atoned for Joe's sins. Not sin in general, but his very acts. Each count. You also said that it did not result in the forgiveness of Joe's sins.

    You say He wanted Joe saved, was punished for Joe's sins, sent him a Preacher with the Gospel, sent the Holy Spirit, and for all that Joe wasn't saved.

    At the very least all Christ's work was vainity and vexation of spirit.

    Can there be any other conclusion?
     
    #151 Aaron, Aug 21, 2011
  12. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    20,157
    Likes Received:
    2,988
    Faith:
    Baptist
    All true Brother Willis, but, the passage doesn't say the He 'wants to', or that 'He'll try to', or that 'He might'; it expressly says HE SHALL save His people from their sins. It's a done deal.

    I guess you missed this topic on another thread. Christ was telling him if he wanted to be complete, give up his riches and follow him in discipleship, and the young man, at that point in time, walked away. No, Christ never failed here.

    Christ never failed here either. 'All men, i.e. 'all anthropos', all races, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. In the kingdom of God there neither Jew nor Greek nor Barbarian nor Synthian nor bond nor free, but all are one in Christ Jesus.
     
    #152 kyredneck, Aug 21, 2011
  13. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    But it's not as if my view is that He wants to effectually save Joe (in the way Calvinism teaches), but just can't do it. My position is that He wants to save Joe through means that Arminianism teaches (which is not irresistible.) You continue to make these errors because you dismiss this vital distinction as being peripheral.

    Sounds like Joe doesn't have any excuses, does it? He has plenty in your system though. :)

    Or a genuine display of love and compassion as he makes an appeal for reconciliation. You know, like the scripture teaches.
     
    #153 Skandelon, Aug 21, 2011
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    And his people are "the church" or "his bride" or "believers." Now, let the debate continue as to if Christ's work for believers is sufficient for those who never believe (whether by effectual means or not).
     
    #154 Skandelon, Aug 21, 2011
  15. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Right. :thumbsup:

    But, some Calvinists (as appears to be demonstrated in this very thread) feel that IF Christ atoning work did sufficiently supply "all that was needed" for the non-elect too that Christ's work would be "wasted" or his "blood spilt" or that the non-elect's sin would have been "paid for twice." Hodge finds this view misrepresentative of Calvinism, which was my point in starting this thread.

    Well, I don't necessarily deny that may be the case, but technically the quote only expresses agreement with that particular quote of the Canons of Dort as his context seems to be in support of that conclusion that, "no man perishes for want of an atonement." You affirmed that point in your first paragraph, so enough said. Thanks! :thumbs:
     
    #155 Skandelon, Aug 21, 2011
  16. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,856
    Likes Received:
    2,115
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [QUOTE="Skandalon]Someone go line by line through this and show me how I've misrepresented Hodge, otherwise it's just talk.
    [/QUOTE]
    I have done this at least twice, and you have ignored it. Just read my posts instead of dismissing them as "A standard presentatio of Calvinism."

    Steve
     
    #156 Martin Marprelate, Aug 22, 2011
  17. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,635
    Likes Received:
    1,608
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We are on the same page here.
     
    #157 Earth Wind and Fire, Aug 22, 2011
  18. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    In other words, something must be added to Christ's work to make it effectual. You say people possess this adder by nature, and if folks aren't saved, it's because they are deficient in what is added.

    No matter how you slice it, you preach a cross that doesn't save.

    So you preach a cross that condemns?
     
    #158 Aaron, Aug 22, 2011
  19. J.D.

    J.D. Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    11
    Well, you yourself admitted that you do not expect to find a passage in which Hodge would indicate that Christ actually died FOR the non-elect, or that He actually propitiated the wrath of God for the non-elect, which I believe makes the point. So let's leave it there.
     
    #159 J.D., Aug 22, 2011
  20. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    28,315
    Likes Received:
    1,109
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The fact is that those who believe in the false doctrines of the TULIP, use logical fallacies, ie argument against the opponent such as asserting they are "hitting someone in the kneecaps with a baseball bat." Doctrines that are systemically defended by logical fallacies, such as TULI must be considered logical fallacies themselves. QED
     
    #160 Van, Aug 22, 2011
Page 8 of 11
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...