No man perishes for want of an atonement

[JesusFan]

It's effectual only for the elect, Matthew 1:21, 2 Timothy 2:10.

and the Elect are those whom God decided to save based upon SOLELY His Will and pleasure, not based upon us accepting jesus by our own "faith and free will?"

 

[Aaron]

Question...

can they be paid for, but the person not receive benefit for their payment?

They're paid for, but the sinner is still in debt? Is God a thief?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Oh deary me! You still don't understand. :BangHead:

Then clearly it is you who is misreading Hodge, because it is abundantly clear that this statement is to address the genuine universal call of the gospel to both the elect and non-elect, as proven by this statement: "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."

Of course the Gospel may be offered to all men. I have not read one person on this forum ever claiming otherwise. How on earth can we know who is elect and who isn't? Our job is to tell all men, "Repent and believe the good news!' (Mark 1:15).

So, throughout this discourse Hodge is addressing "all men" to include "both classes," not just the elect as you wrongly answered.

I did not write, 'Just the elect,' as you very well know. This is what I wrote, in answer to a different part of the Hodge quote:-

I take "all men" to mean all men who will come to Christ in true repentance and faith. They alone receive salvation. They are the elect.

Read Hodge again and try to understand. He says, 'That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification.' Therefore he is not saying that all men receive anything but an offer. Only those who believe receive salvation. They are the ones for whom Christ died. They are the elect. Nothing that Hodge or I have written contradicts that. Nowhere does Hodge claim that atonement is provided for anyone but the elect. What he says is that atonement is provided for all who will come to Christ. As I said before, no one will come to Christ only to find that the grace has run out or the blood has lost its atoning quality. That really does seem to be what you're suggesting.

You have not dealt with the substance of Hodge's quote. You have only restated your version of Calvinism's atonement all the while claiming Hodge doesn't say what he clearly says.

I have absolutely dealt with the Hodge quote. It is you who does not understand. I thought you said that you were once a Calvinist. I find that very hard to believe since you display no understanding of what true Calvinism is.

They will perish for their unbelief, or their rejection of the truth. I've provided countless texts they say those very words verbatim.

People who do not believe perish because they have no atonement for their sins. It is their sins, however, that actually send them to hell.

Matt 7:23. "And then I will declare to them, 'Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness'"

Matt 23:41. "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire......for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink......etc."

John 8:24. "therefore I said to you that you will diein your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

1Cor 6:9. 'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived.'

Gal 5:19-21. 'Now the works of the flesh are evident which are: adultery.............etc. Of which I tell you beforehand, just as I told you in time past, that those who practise such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.'

Steve

 

[preacher4truth]

I have absolutely dealt with the Hodge quote. It is you who does not understand. I thought you said that you were once a Calvinist. I find that very hard to believe since you display no understanding of what true Calvinism is.

I've questioned this myself for the same reasons as you. Everything else you've said? Dead on. We cannot know the elect until the Gospel is preached, and His come forth in belief.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thanks Steve....I was seriously questioning myself there for a while.:thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

Oh deary me! You still don't understand. :BangHead:

Ok, we are both reasonable human beings. Lets stop accusing each other of not having the ability to understand. We may have differing views and perspectives, but let's not reduce our dialogue to that level of discourse. Agreed?

Of course the Gospel may be offered to all men. I have not read one person on this forum ever claiming otherwise.

Brother, that was NOT the point I was attempting to make. I was showing that Hodge's passage had "all men" of "both classes" (the elect and non-elect) in view, while you attempted to take that one line to be in reference only to the elect. I know most mainstream Calvinists affirm the universal call of the gospel.

I did not write, 'Just the elect,' as you very well know.

Yes, I do know, You said, "I take "all men" to mean all men who will come to Christ in true repentance and faith. They alone receive salvation. They are the elect."

How is different from, "just the elect?"

Nowhere does Hodge claim that atonement is provided for anyone but the elect. What he says is that atonement is provided for all who will come to Christ. As I said before, no one will come to Christ only to find that the grace has run out or the blood has lost its atoning quality.

Then can you explain what he specifically means by this:
"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."

We both agree that Christ, the substitute, did satisfy those demands, right? And according to this quote his work in satisfying God's justice is equally available for all, right? If not, please explain what that means?

When I hear "satisfy God's justice" I understand that as "atonement," but is that not the same for your view (or Hodge's view)?

 

[Iconoclast]

Still learning,

Hebrews 4:11
“Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.”

This is an instruction to Christians, to totally commit their lives to Christ, so that they can enter in to this rest.
If indeed God’s rest were salvation; The Bible would not be telling us to labor, to gain it.

I am glad we were able to come to partial agreement.Let me comment on this point;
[QUOTEIf indeed God’s rest were salvation; The Bible would not be telling us to labor, to gain it.

][/QUOTE]

Still....I fully believe salvation is 100% of the Lord. The decree, election,predestination,etc.
However that being said.....all of God's elect are to work as if salvation depended on us! this is what the scripture teaches...that the means of perserverance....is gospel obedience,and a diligent pursuit of holiness in the life!!:thumbs:
[QUOTE23Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,

24Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able
][/QUOTE]

14Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

15Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;

16Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

12Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Believing God is in total control as the scriptures teach gives great boldness and confidence to labor in the Lord.......there is no such thing as coasting for Jesus....we should be serving more and more as we grow....approaching sinners with the gospel each opportunity God gives us.:thumbs:

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ok, we are both reasonable human beings. Lets stop accusing each other of not having the ability to understand. We may have differing views and perspectives, but let's not reduce our dialogue to that level of discourse. Agreed?

This will be my last post on this thread. I have answered each of your questions as clearly as I can on each of the parts of the Hodge quote you have highlighted. Instead of making a sensible comment on what I've written you simply highlight another section of the quote, as you have done again this time. I will answer you once more but then I'm through. I find answering the same question again and again stressful and irritating.

Of course the Gospel may be offered to all men. I have not read one person on this forum ever claiming otherwise.

Brother, that was NOT the point I was attempting to make. I was showing that Hodge's passage had "all men" of "both classes" (the elect and non-elect) in view, while you attempted to take that one line to be in reference only to the elect. I know most mainstream Calvinists affirm the universal call of the gospel.

You are just fooling around here. Of course Hodge has "both classes" in view. He is saying that the Gospel is to be offered to both elect and non-elect, which is what I said he said. [I am not a great fan of the word offered in this connection- I would prefer preached or proclaimed- but since Hodge uses it I suppose it will do]

You said, "I take "all men" to mean all men who will come to Christ in true repentance and faith. They alone receive salvation. They are the elect."

How is different from, "just the elect?"

Because "All men" who trust in Christ will be saved. That is what Hodge is saying and it's what I am saying. A man's warrant to come to Christ is not that he believes that he is elect. It is that he is a sinner and Christ came to save such and promises not to turn any that come to Him away. However, "All men" who come are elect because the natural man does not perceive the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him.

Then can you explain what he specifically means by this:
"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."

We both agree that Christ, the substitute, did satisfy those demands, right? And according to this quote his work in satisfying God's justice is equally available for all, right? If not, please explain what that means?

What is it here that is different to what I've already explained? Salvation is available to all who will come to Christ; every single person. How many more times do I have to say it? No one who comes to Christ will be turned away. However, 'There is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside.......There is no fear of God before their eyes.' That is what the Scripture says. Unless God provides a definite atonement for His elect, not one soul would be saved. What Hodge is saying is that no one should say, There is no salvation for this one or that one, because if they will come to Christ, they will find that salvation.

When I hear "satisfy God's justice" I understand that as "atonement," but is that not the same for your view (or Hodge's view)?

There is more to it than that, but atonement is certainly included. And there is atonement for EVERYONE who will come to Christ in true repentance and faith.

Now I'm through. I cannot go on explaining the same thing time after time.

Steve

 

[Skandelon]

What Hodge is saying is that no one should say, There is no salvation for this one or that one, because if they will come to Christ, they will find that salvation.

Actually, I think what he is saying is that the offer of salvation through the gospel can be genuinely offered BECAUSE Christ's work has satisfied the demands of the law and "is equally available for all."

There is more to it than that, but atonement is certainly included. And there is atonement for EVERYONE who will come to Christ in true repentance and faith.

See how you always have to qualify your "all" and your "everyone" while Hodge does not? You always have to say "all who..." or "everyone who..." but Hodge's statement makes no such qualification. He simply states that the Representative has satisfied the demands and that work is available for all.

Now, it is either available for every individual, or its only available to the elect. Which is it?

You clearly say its available for "everyone who will come...the elect."
Hodge clearly says "is equally available for all."

If you only have 3 Super Bowl tickets and offer them to 5 friends (knowing that you have determined for two of those friends to certainly reject them because for what ever reason you don't like them as much) how can you truthfully claim that you have Super Bowls tickets available for them all? You can't, which is why you offer the qualification "all who can come get them." But even in that situation the offer to the two friends seems misleading at best.

But, I believe Hodge is combating that charge by showing that Christ's work as a substitute didn't just earn the tickets for those 3, it really did provide it for all 5, because his work in satisfying the law for the elect certainly would cover the demands of the law for the non-elect who don't come. After all, if the demands are satisfied by a worthy representative they are satisfied "ONCE AND FOR ALL."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Scan, I would like to see other testimony's from Calvinists who agree with your interpretation of Hodge since you said they are out there....please back that up. And/or commentary on his dissertations.

 

[Allan]

This should help settle Mr. Charles Hodge view of whether he views atonement as being "Limited" or "Universal/General":

Dr Beman s second objection is, that the system he opposes destroys “all mercy in God the Father, in the salvation of sinners, because it represents God as. totally disinclined to the exercise of compassion, till every jot and tittle of the legal curse was inflicted. On the same principle, grace or pardon in the release of the sinner from future punishment, would be out o the question; for what grace, or pardon, or favour, can there be in the discharge of debtor, whose demand (debt?) has been cancelled to the uttermost farthing?” p. 122. This objection is the staple of his book. On p. 100, he represents us as teaching that “the Son of God endured the exact amount of suffering due on legal principle, to sinners.” On p. 107, he says, “The amount of Christ’s sufferings must consequently be the same as the aggregate sufferings included in the eternal condemnation of all those who are saved by his merit… The agonies which he suffered mere equal to the endless misery of all those who rill be saved by his interposition in their behalf.” On p. 146, he says, “If one soul were to be saved by the atonement, Christ must sustain an amount of suffering equal to that involved in the eternal condemnation of that one soul; and if. a thousand were to be saved a thousand times that mount, and in the same proportion for any greater number who are to be rescued from perdition and exalted to glory. To this scheme there are insurmountable objections.” True enough, but who hold that scheme? Dr Beman attributes it to all who believe in the atonement, and do not adopt his scheme; for he says there are but two. This doctrine, that the sufferings of Christ amounted to the aggregate sufferings of those who are to be saved, that he endured just so much for so many, is not found in any confession of the Protestant churches. nor in the writings of any standard theologian, nor in the recognised authorities of any church of which we have any knowledge. The whole objection is a gross and inexcusable misrepresentation. In a more moderate form it was brought forward by the Socinians, and repelled by the writers of that and subsequent ages. De Moor is generally recognised as the theologian of most authority among the churches of Holland, and Turrettin is admitted to be one of the strictest of the Geneva, school, and they both answer this calumny, by denying that, according to their doctrine, there is any necessity for the assumption that Christ’s sufferings were equal to the sufferings of all his people. Thus Turrettin, after quoting at length the objection from Socinus, answers it, first, by showing that the Scriptures teach that the one death of Christ mas a satisfaction or all; that as by the one sin of Adam, many mere made sinners, so by the, righteousness of Christ, many are made righteous. 2. By insisting on the distinction between pecuniary and penal satisfaction. A piece of money in the hand of a king is of no more value than in the hands of a peasant, but the life of a king is of more value than that of a peasant, and one commander is often exchanged for many soldiers. 3. He says the adversaries forget that Christ is God, and therefore, though his sufferings could not be infinite as they were endured by his finite nature, they were of infinite value in virtue of the infinite dignity of his person. Sin, he says, is an infinite evil, because committed against an infinite God, through the act of a finite nature. So the sufferings of Christ. though endured in his human nature, are of infinite value from the dignity of his person.

Dr Beman, under this head, frequently objects that we degrade the atonement into a mere commercial transaction, a payment of a debt, which, from the nature of the case, excludes the idea of free remission. Our first remark on this objection is, that the Scriptures use this same figure, and therefore it is right it should be used. When it is said, Christ purchased the church with his own blood, that we are redeemed not with corruptible things as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, such language means something. In every metaphor there is a point of comparison; the essential idea involved in the figure, must be found in subject to be illustrated. To purchase is to acquire, and to acquire, by giving or doing something which secures a title to the thing acquired. When it is said that Christ purchased the church, it is certainly meant that he acquired it, that it is his, and that by his death he has secured a title to it, founded in the justice and promise of God. This does not make redemption a commercial transaction, nor imply that there are not essential points of diversity between acquiring by money and acquiring by blood. Hence our second remark is, that if Dr Beman will take up any elementary work on theology, he will find the distinction between pecuniary and penal satisfaction clearly pointed out, and the satisfaction of Christ shown to be of the latter, and not of the former kind. I. In the one, the demand is upon the thing due; in the other case, it is upon the person of the Hence, 2. The creditor is bound to accept the payment of the debt, no matter when or by whom offered; whereas in the case of a crime or sin, the sovereign is bound neither to provide a substitute, nor to accept of one when offered. If he does either, it is s matter of grace. 3. Hence penal satisfaction does not ipso facto liberate; the acceptance is a matter of arrangement or covenant, and the terms of that covenant must depend on the mill of the parties. Dr Beman lapsed into an important truth when he said, “Christ suffered by covenant,” p. 98. What that covenant is, we learn from Scripture, and from the manner in which it is executed. The Bible teaches that, agreeably to that covenant, the merits of Christ do not avail to the benefit of his people immediately; his children remain under condemnation as well as others until they believe; and when they do believe, they receive but the first fruits of their inheritance, they are but imperfectly sanctified, and are still subject to many evils; but being in a justified state, their sufferings are chastisements and not punishments, that is, they are designed for their own improvement, and not to satisfy justice.

The satisfaction of Christ, therefore, being for sin and by suffering, is expressly and formally declared not to be of the nature of pecuniary satisfaction.

Charles Hodge, “The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated,” (London: B. Groombridge & Sons, 1846), pp., 45-48.

 

[Skandelon]

Thanks for the post Allan. I particularly think this part of the quote brings much clarity to our discussion:

"This doctrine, that the sufferings of Christ amounted to the aggregate sufferings of those who are to be saved, that he endured just so much for so many, is not found in any confession of the Protestant churches. nor in the writings of any standard theologian, nor in the recognised authorities of any church of which we have any knowledge. The whole objection is a gross and inexcusable misrepresentation."

Interesting indeed!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This should help settle Mr. Charles Hodge view of whether he views atonement as being "Limited" or "Universal/General":

All I have to do is read the 1st line & Im stopping there. Obviously this is a bias & Im not interested in reading it....is that the best you guys can come up with?

 

[preacher4truth]

Thanks for the post Allan. I particularly think this part of the quote brings much clarity to our discussion:

"This doctrine, that the sufferings of Christ amounted to the aggregate sufferings of those who are to be saved, that he endured just so much for so many, is not found in any confession of the Protestant churches. nor in the writings of any standard theologian, nor in the recognised authorities of any church of which we have any knowledge. The whole objection is a gross and inexcusable misrepresentation."

Interesting indeed!

That quote is false. These things have been in the confessions of Protestant chuches, and in the writings of standard theologians (used the word standard there as a scapegoat to say that any one would pick that DID say this doesn't fall into his idea of standard). His objection is the "gross and inexcusable misrepresenatation" having turned a blind eye to the fact this teaching has been around in orthodox teachings and in the teachings of theologians.

 

[preacher4truth]

All I have to do is read the 1st line & Im stopping there. Obviously this is a bias & Im not interested in reading it....is that the best you guys can come up with?

:applause: :applause: :thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

That quote is false.

Your concession to the fact that you disagree with Hodge only goes to prove the intent of this thread.

Thank you. :thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

is that the best you guys can come up with?

Yeah, a quote from Hodge calling "your view" a "gross and inexcusable misrepresentation" of Calvinism is probably not enough to prove the point I set out to make. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[preacher4truth]

Your concession to the fact that you disagree with Hodge only goes to prove the intent of this thread.

Thank you. :thumbsup:

I see you still play pretend.


The intent of this thread is based upon your faulty understanding of Hodge as has been pointed out. Thus your illogical conclusions based upon your false assumptuous, alleged concessions and other misunderstandings, on your part, lead you down the same erroneous path. Congrats!

:thumbsup:

 

[Skandelon]

The intent of this thread is based upon your faulty understanding of Hodge

Yet, you just admitted you disagreed with Hodge's direct quote, remember? Hmmm. :thumbsup:


So, which is it? Do you disagree with Hodge or not?

 

[preacher4truth]

Yet, you just admitted you disagreed with Hodge's direct quote, remember? Hmmm. :thumbsup:


So, which is it? Do you disagree with Hodge or not?

Whether I agree or disagree with Hodge doesn't prove your alleged (and ever changing intent) which is common practice for you, except within your pretending it to do so.