No man perishes for want of an atonement

IF ignore means to respond with additional quotes and explanations, then I guess so. :smilewinkgrin:

If you can't see the distinction (that JD just pointed out) that Hodge is making in his post between Calvinists who do believe the atone is sufficient for all and those, like Aaron, who has been arguing that if the atonement was truly sufficient for all that much of Christ's suffering or blood was wasted and that He would be paying twice for non-elect's sin; I can't help you.

 

I prefer the way Hodge explained it, "...it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification."

Once again you are putting words I've never said into my mouth. Do I not say enough that you have to make up stuff? :laugh:

Like you and Hodge, I preach a cross that saves all who believe. The difference is too much of a "peripheral issue" to bother you with though. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Because, as I explained, that would be beside the point. Clearly Hodge believes that the atonement is intended only for the elect, but he is making the point that in accomplishing atonement for the elect he satisfies justice for all. He also dismisses the notion that Christ's blood and suffering would be measured out in accordance with the number of sins committed thus making it "wasted" if it were to sufficiently cover all men, as some argue.

Actually, I didn't concede this point. I pointed you back to the OP which seems to answer this request.

 

Exactly, and SOME CALVINISTS, like Aaron, appear to deny any sense of Christ's atonement being available to the non-elect, because to him that would mean Christ's blood was wasted (the view which Hodge dismissed as being a misrepresentation of Calvinism and which you agreed was a ridiculous view.) That, and only that, is the distinction I'm attempting to point out in this thread.

I KNOW that Hodge did not believe or teach that God intended for Christ's atonement to be for all mankind, but Hodge CLEARLY argues that Christ's work as a substitute IS AVAILABLE TO ALL (including the non-elect), in that His Work as a substitute accomplished all that was necessary to be accomplished for anyone and everyone to be saved if they meet the given condition.

I'm NOT trying to make Hodge out to be an Arminian. Or even a four point Calvinist. I'm simply showing a distinction in Hodge's teaching and that of some on this board. As the illustration I used earlier explained. The father may intent to only rescue his family (the elect) but do so on a large enough boat to hold everyone who is drowning, thus making the "sincere" offer to all drowning to come aboard. That is a view of PARTICULAR (for the elect only) REDEMPTION, which recognizes the universal sufficiency of Christ's work for everyman. Thus, those who perish do so not "from a want of atonement," as if Christ's work wasn't sufficient for them, but for their own rebellion against God....their "refusal to love the truth and so be saved."

Understand now?

I must have answered these points at least a dozen times thus far and I've quoted the man verbatim in almost everyone of those posts...

 

I challenge you to take Hodge's passage in the OP line by line and give your interpretation of what he means for review. You may start it, but I know you won't finish it because by the end even you will recognize that I've correctly represented his views and that your Calvinistic friends here have not...

Will you hit and run, or be willing to defend your accusation? Hmmmm, let's wait and see...

 

Actually, I'd say that Joe's sins aren't forgiven unless he meets the condition for forgiveness, which is confession.

"IF you confess your sins, he is faithful and just to forgive you..."

If Christ's work isn't sufficient to cover the sin of the person being appealed to confess, then the offer cannot be sincere (the accusation Hodge is addressing). So, how does he deal with that? He shows that the NATURE of the atonement, though intended ONLY for the elect, sufficiently supplied all that would be needed for anyone and everyone to be saved IF they believed and confessed, thus making the offer "sincere."

So, for Hodge: While Christ's death was an action not designed or intended to save Joe, it was an act sufficient or able to save Joe. THUS, if Joe perishes it IS "NOT for want of atonement."

 

Ok, to carry on with your baggage analogy. If you were going on a trip into the jungle where baggage will certainly slow you down so that you will be eaten by Lions and before you enter the jungle the guide tells you this warning and offers to take your baggage but you refuse to believe his warning and you keep your baggage and you are killed, is it really because of something the guide neglected to supply? Is it ultimately because of your baggage that you were killed? Or was it because you refused to heed the warning of your guide and give him your baggage?

While your baggage is certainly involved, it is not the ultimate cause of your demise. Because the Guide made provision for your baggage, your rejection of the guide's offer...your unbelief in his warning is the the real reason you perish. Make sense?