No man perishes for want of an atonement

[Skandelon]

Here is a quote from Charles Hodge in his systematic theology:

The objection, however, is at times presented in a somewhat different form. Admitting the satisfaction of Christ to be in itself of infinite value, how can it avail for the non-elect if it was not designed for them? ...... In this form the objection is far more specious. It is, however, fallacious. It overlooks the peculiar nature of the case. It ignores the fact that all mankind were placed under the same constitution or covenant. 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. The secret purpose of God in providing such a substitute for man, has nothing to do with the nature of his work, or with its appropriateness. The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults)
* fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide? The advocates of such schemes say, that the design of the work of Christ was to render the salvation of all men possible. All they can mean by this is, that if any man (elect or non-elect) believes, he shall, on the ground of what Christ has done, be certainly saved. But Augustinians say the same thing. Their doctrine provides for this universal offer of salvation, as well as any other scheme. It teaches that God in effecting the salvation of his own people, did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men, and therefore to all the offer may be, and in fact is made in the gospel......Out of special love to his people, and with the design of securing their salvation, He has sent his Son to do what justifies the offer of salvation to all who choose to accept of it. Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men. He laid down his life for his sheep; He gave Himself for his Church. But in perfect consistency with all this, 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. So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, "No man perishes for want of an atonement."

In many other threads here on the BB it appears that most Calvinists would differ on this point as it has been argued that those who die in unbelief don't perish for their unbelief alone, but because their sin was not atoned.

What do you think? Do you disagree with Hodge on this point?

 

[Skandelon]

Alright, well I'll just reference this post next time the topic of the atonement is raised and Calvinists begin to make the argument that the atonement isn't available to the non-elect. Ok?

 

[convicted1]

Here is a quote from Charles Hodge in his systematic theology:



In many other threads here on the BB it appears that most Calvinists would differ on this point as it has been argued that those who die in unbelief don't perish for their unbelief alone, but because their sin was not atoned.

What do you think? Do you disagree with Hodge on this point?

Bro. Skan, I keep thinking back to the OT and how that the sacrificial lamb, or whatever they used for the atonement of all of Israel, was for that, all of Israel. The atonement was for every Israelite, but only those who chose to believe what the OT prophets told them, actually entered into the Promised Land. It's that way now, Jesus' atonement was for everyone who would ever live on planet earth, but only those who choose to believe God, will get the atonement. If there is such as a thing as Limited Atonement, the ones who perish eternally(failing to believe) limited it themselves.

So, if I understand him correctly, I agree with what he said. Salvation, and also the atonement, was for all, and offered to all(those who know to doeth good, and doeth it not, that is).

 

[Allan]

Here is a quote from Charles Hodge in his systematic theology:



In many other threads here on the BB it appears that most Calvinists would differ on this point as it has been argued that those who die in unbelief don't perish for their unbelief alone, but because their sin was not atoned.

What do you think? Do you disagree with Hodge on this point?

Many reformed today would disagree with many of the Reformed of yesteryear on this issue. Many of the reformed believers in the past (like Luther, Melanchton, Coverdale, or Bullinger, and Bucer are some examples) held that Christ's death was indeed for all men, yet applied only to the elect. We find even Calvin himself speaking to this effect in his commentaries.. though I know and agree that Calvinism isn't exactly derived from Calvin himself ..it is noteworthy.

 

[convicted1]

Many reformed today would disagree with many of the Reformed of yesteryear on this issue. Many of the reformed believers in the past (like Luther, Melanchton, Coverdale, or Bullinger, and Bucer are some examples) held that Christ's death was indeed for all men, yet applied only to the elect. We find even Calvin himself speaking to this effect in his commentaries.. though I know and agree that Calvinism isn't exactly derived from Calvin himself ..it is noteworthy.

I find this post very interesting, Bro. Allan. Most of the reformed on here get on to us about how we have changed over the years, but fail to see themselves swaying from some of the main points of reformed theology. I did not know this that you had posted. Thanks for sharing this with me!! :thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Alright, well I'll just reference this post next time the topic of the atonement is raised and Calvinists begin to make the argument that the atonement isn't available to the non-elect. Ok?

would it interest you to know Hodges views on Slavery as biblical? Do you also agree with that prospective as well?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[preacher4truth]

Alright, well I'll just reference this post next time the topic of the atonement is raised and Calvinists begin to make the argument that the atonement isn't available to the non-elect. Ok?

Yeah, OK, you do that.

If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. - Hodge

Sounds good until you know the Word of God on the matter. None who are saved and come to Christ are non-elect, thus all the saved are all His elect.

You'll have to keep digging to try and prove Calvinism in error, and in so doing you're providing me many opportunities to dismantle readily your erroneous assumptions that you seem to feel are so heavy and irrefutable. Plainly, they're not.

:wavey:

 

[quantumfaith]

Bro. Skan, I keep thinking back to the OT and how that the sacrificial lamb, or whatever they used for the atonement of all of Israel, was for that, all of Israel. The atonement was for every Israelite, but only those who chose to believe what the OT prophets told them, actually entered into the Promised Land. It's that way now, Jesus' atonement was for everyone who would ever live on planet earth, but only those who choose to believe God, will get the atonement. If there is such as a thing as Limited Atonement, the ones who perish eternally(failing to believe) limited it themselves.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sounds good until you know the Word of God on the matter. None who are saved and come to Christ are non-elect, thus all the saved are all His elect.

You'll have to keep digging to try and prove Calvinism in error, and in so doing you've providing me many opportunities to dismantle readily your erroneous assumptions that you seem to feel are so heavy and irrefutable. Plainly, they're not.

:wavey:

:smilewinkgrin::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I find this post very interesting, Bro. Allan. Most of the reformed on here get on to us about how we have changed over the years, but fail to see themselves swaying from some of the main points of reformed theology. I did not know this that you had posted. Thanks for sharing this with me!!

You CANT be serious!

 

[preacher4truth]

You CANT be serious!

Yep.

Let's not pretend that all of the Reformed somewhere back in "la-la land" all agreed on each and every point of Reformed theology, and thus in turn also pretend today that all of a sudden an alarm is being sounded as if disagreement on some points is something new.

I would be more concerned about the proof-text methodology that arms/non-cals use than over this attempt to try and understand "elect."

 

[preacher4truth]

...and by the way, Jesus came to save His elect, and Paul also preached the Gospel for the sake of the elect, for the elect are out there and the elect are the ony ones who would believe the report of the Gospel:

"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel, for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned. For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory." 2 Timothy 2:8-10

Hodges point is mere romanticism, as only the elect will be saved.

** Also note that when Paul said "according to my Gospel" it doesn't imply this was only his "personal opinion." :thumbsup:

 

[stilllearning]

Hello convicted1

You said.......

“Bro. Skan, I keep thinking back to the OT and how that the sacrificial lamb, or whatever they used for the atonement of all of Israel, was for that, all of Israel. The atonement was for every Israelite, but only those who chose to believe what the OT prophets told them, actually entered into the Promised Land.”

This is a common mistake, reformed Christians make.
The “atonement”, indeed “saved” those who accepted it.
(Every Jew, who followed Moses’s instructions in Egypt, who ended up putting the lambs blood on there door posts, were SAVED!)
Then they came into the wilderness, where the first generation died, because of unbelief.

Those that died, did not lose there SALVATION, they were simply chastened to death, because of their unbelief.
In the same way today, New Testament Christians, can be chastened to death, yet go to heaven........
1 Corinthians 3:15
“If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”
--------------------------------------------------
Entering into the Promised Land, was not done for their salvation; But was a reward for their faithfulness.

Here is what the Bible says about it.........
Hebrews 3:7-11
V.7 ¶ Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice,
V.8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
V.9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years.
V.10 Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in [their] heart; and they have not known my ways.
V.11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)

and

Hebrews 3:17-19 & 4:1-3
V.17 But with whom was he grieved forty years? [was it] not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?
V.18 And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?
V.19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.
V.1 ¶ Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
V.2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].
V.3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

and

Hebrews 4:11
“Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.”
--------------------------------------------------
Salvation is by Grace through faith. It is not something that we “labor” for!

But we do labor, to be faithful Christians and be blessed and rewarded by the Lord!

 

[convicted1]

You CANT be serious!

Brother, the point I was trying to make is that both sides, A's and C's have differing views that swayed from their forefathers. I meant no malice in that post, just pointing out that both sides have varying views from their predecessors.

 

[webdog]

would it interest you to know Hodges views on Slavery as biblical? Do you also agree with that prospective as well?:smilewinkgrin:

red herring
n.
1. A smoked herring having a reddish color.
2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

red herring
n.
1. A smoked herring having a reddish color.
2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue.

I factor it into the character of the man & how he interprets scripture.

 

[webdog]

I factor it into the character of the man & how he interprets scripture.

...kinda like how Calvin thought we should baptize infants?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

...kinda like how Calvin thought we should baptize infants?

I think the physical enslavement of another Human Being & looking into scriptures to justify it has more weight than mere baptism dont you?

 

[Skandelon]

I think the physical enslavement of another Human Being & looking into scriptures to justify it has more weight than mere baptism dont you?

While this is a red herring, in that it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, I would like to point out that Hodge is a well respected Calvinistic scholar, as was Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield, both of which are said to have supported the idea of slavery. In fact I think this article makes an important point on that very matter:

Did the Calvinistic assumptions of Edward’s theology contribute to his support of slavery? How did prominent Calvinists of the era approach the issue slavery, and how did prominent Arminians address the issue? Was there a difference in their approaches?

I think a difference can be demonstrated. In short, Calvinists of the era were more likely to support the institution slavery, and Arminians of the era were more likely to support abolitionism. For example (Calvinists) Edwards and Whitfield both supported slavery, while (non-Calvinists) Wesley, Asbury, Wilberforce, and Finney all advocated abolishing slavery.

There were some notable exceptions to the examples above – John Newton (author of “Amazing Grace”) was a Calvinist and also an abolitionist. And over time many Calvinists joined the abolitionist movement. In fact Jonathan Edwards Jr fought against slavery. However, it is noteworthy that many of “trail blazing” abolitionists were from Non-Calvinist backgrounds, and argued against slavery using Arminian theological concepts.

When one looks at the two theological systems, this makes sense. Calvinists focus on the sovereignty of God. Part of that focus is a belief that the world is the way it is because God wants it that way. Thus on the issue of slavery a Calvinist might reasonably argue that slavery is ordained by God and gives Him glory.

Now, can we get back on subject regarding the atonement and how many noted Calvinistic authors don't seem to agree with many on this BB? Which is not that big of a deal except that some here are known to ridicule anyone who represents Calvinism in any other light than the one they happen to be standing in, thus revealing their own views to be more out of the mainstream than those they are belittling.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

you would not deal with that in the Puritan forum. They are well aware of the differences in viewpoints & prospectives. However I have no interest in this subject matter as Im content in my beliefs.