No man perishes for want of an atonement

[Skandelon]

Of course he is absolutely right. Where in the Bible does it say that Christ's blood has a definite measureable worth? What Reformed confession suggests that God could have saved more people if only the Lord Jesus had had a little more blood to spread about, or if each drop had possessed a little more value? The suggestion would be laughable if it weren't so blasphemous.

Yet, there are those who believe this kind of teaching, as evidenced by the very fact he spends so much time addressing it. I've seen that view of Calvinism represented here, as demonstrated...

The Bible teaches that God the Father gave to the Son before the foundation of the world (2Thes 2:13), a people whom He was to redeem (John 17:2, 6; Heb 2:13). These are His 'sheep' (John 10:15-16), and He will redeem and save every last one of them (John 6:39; 10:27) by shedding His blood upon the cross (John 10:11). Note that the Good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep, not the goats.....
Steve

The rest of your post is a basic Calvinistic defense for your view of Particular redemption and we can discuss it in another thread if you wish, but this thread is specifically addressing the distinction Hodge is addressing regarding those who tend to suggest that God's purchase of a big enough boat to rescue more than only those in his family would be a waste of Christ's blood (reference to illustration earlier). Understand?

 

[Skandelon]

Please bear with me. I want to make sure that I'm understanding you.Here it sounds like you're saying that each of Joe's sins have been forgiven. That the only sin he will be judged for is the sin of unbelief.

I wouldn't say "forgiven" because that suggest's that Joe has requested forgiveness, when he hasn't. As Hodge states, "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." And, "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."

So, even if I was a Calvinist who believed that Joe wasn't elect and thus would NEVER be saved. I could say that Christ's work sufficiently satisfied the demands of the law for him, just as it did for the elect. That work of Christ is "equally available for all." Now, it is ONLY applied through the condition of faith, as Hodge goes on to explain when he says, "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."

So, we can differ regarding our soteriology (Cal/Arm) and still be in agreement on this point. Make sense?

Is it that Joe's sins are forgiven and he goes to hell for the sin of unbelief?

No. His sins are not forgiven, but the work of Christ to satisfy justice was available to him so that they could have been forgiven had he confessed in faith. He didn't because of unbelief, for which he will now perish. So, he perishes for unbelief, not for lack of atonement.

Or is it that Joe's sins are not forgiven because of unbelief?

Yes, his sins are not forgiven because he never repents in faith, so you could say that... But its NOT because Christ's blood or suffering didn't cover or provide for Joe, it did, which is why he stands condemned for unbelief.

 

[Robert Snow]

Wow, I would've expected that one who is truly concerned for the eternal destiny of others would avoid such self indulgence as this. If this 'diposable income' had been given towards the spread of the gospel, if there were even the remotest of chance that this money could have saved even one soul from an infinity of torment in hell....

How do you reconcile/justify such self indulgence with your free will 'gospel means' theology?

Well, it was cheaper than a car to both purchase and maintain. You see, I use it mainly as a means of transportation to work. This allows me money every week that I would not have since the motorcycle gets so much better mileage than my truck does.

Besides, I have to be very careful who gets any money to "spread the gospel" as you say. I certainly would not want not even one cent to end up in the pocket of a Primitive Baptist. This would be counterproductive and would not spread anything close to the actual gospel of God! I surely would not want to be responsible for this happening! :tongue3:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I stand for Jesus Christ humbly and with trembling.

It has been shown by Skandelon and others in this thread that "penal subsitution" is ridiculous, and adsurd effort to support Calvinism's errant view of the completed work of the cross.

No it has not.....not to either mine or anyone who believes in Doctrines of Grace so your own ridiculous negative message achieves nothing in the hearts & minds of any professing Christian DoG believer.

Is this how you choose to convince Calvinists that they're in error, tad amount to hitting someone in the kneecaps with a baseball bat & then asking why he is crawling to the hospital. Very effective!:thumbs::laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't remember anything about Erasmus, but I don't have a problem with him, as far as I know.

BTW, I own a 2008 Kawasaki Ninja 650, and I love it! I guess I was predestined to own and love fast bikes! :smilewinkgrin:

I've never owned a Harley, although I know several men who do own them. Personally, most Harley Davidson's, and indeed most cruisers, are a little low on power and they don't handle or stop well enough for me to feel comfortable riding one of them.

Predestination is about people becoming like Christ not about Japanise Motorcycles. I myself have owned & rebuilt them (Kaws) & I very much like them but my preference for a well made machine is the BMW's ....of course your now in a higher price range. Enjoy your mid life crisis toy!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ok, brother, this comment alone signifies to me that either:

1. You are not reading my posts, because I have stated numerous times that Hodge IS representing historical Calvinism's view of the atonement and not Arminianism.

2. You are not understanding my posts in which I've clearly stated that Hodge is a Calvinist, not an Arminian.

or...

3. You are purposefully changing my views so as to more easily attack and dismiss them as being ridiculous.

Which one is it?

None of the above. I have read through all your posts. I am aware that you have stated that Hodge was a Calvinist, but you seem intent upon effectively denying it. You wrote:-

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?

Hodge never believed that those who die in unbelief perish for their unbelief alone. That is an Arminian doctrine and an error.

What is the name of the book? That would be interesting to see.

John Wesley in the Reformation Tradition by Roland Burrows (Tentmaker Publications). I must confess to having given up on it about a third of the way through.

Now, I'll pick up on your other points in the next post...

Super.

 

[Aaron]

Yes, his sins are not forgiven because he never repents in faith, so you could say that... But its NOT because Christ's blood or suffering didn't cover or provide for Joe, it did, which is why he stands condemned for unbelief.

So Christ died for Joe in vain.

Got it.

 

[Don]

So Christ died for Joe in vain.

Got it.

If that's truly what you got out of it...then calvinism teaches that Christ died only for those that He chose, for a select few. I admit that you may have already addressed this, and I've missed it in the thousands of previous postings. Please confirm that that's what you believe.

 

[Aaron]

If Christ was punished for Joe's sins, but Joe's sins are still imputed to him, then what good was Christ's punishment?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I wouldn't say "forgiven" because that suggest's that Joe has requested forgiveness, when he hasn't. As Hodge states, "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." And, "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."

So, even if I was a Calvinist who believed that Joe wasn't elect and thus would NEVER be saved. I could say that Christ's work sufficiently satisfied the demands of the law for him, just as it did for the elect. That work of Christ is "equally available for all." Now, it is ONLY applied through the condition of faith, as Hodge goes on to explain when he says, "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."

So, we can differ regarding our soteriology (Cal/Arm) and still be in agreement on this point. Make sense?

No. His sins are not forgiven, but the work of Christ to satisfy justice was available to him so that they could have been forgiven had he confessed in faith. He didn't because of unbelief, for which he will now perish. So, he perishes for unbelief, not for lack of atonement.

Yes, his sins are not forgiven because he never repents in faith, so you could say that... But its NOT because Christ's blood or suffering didn't cover or provide for Joe, it did, which is why he stands condemned for unbelief.

This whole post is a total misrepresentation of Hodge's views, and those of Calvinism generally. I repeat my claim; you are trying to make him out to be some sort of closet Arminian.

If you are going to quote someone's views, the very least you can do is to try and understand what they are first. Joe, whoever he is, will die in his sins (John 8:24) because Christ did not die for the sins of the non-elect. If Joe had believed, he would have been covered by the blood of Christ, but he didn't and he wasn't. Yours is an Arminian view, and you are trying to palm it off on to Hodge although you have agreed that he was a Calvinist.

Steve

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This whole post is a total misrepresentation of Hodge's views, and those of Calvinism generally. I repeat my claim; you are trying to make him out to be some sort of closet Arminian.

If you are going to quote someone's views, the very least you can do is to try and understand what they are first. Joe, whoever he is, will die in his sins (John 8:24) because Christ did not die for the sins of the non-elect. If Joe had believed, he would have been covered by the blood of Christ, but he didn't and he wasn't. Yours is an Arminian view, and you are trying to palm it off on to Hodge although you have agreed that he was a Calvinist.

Steve

Now wait for it my friend

 

[Winman]

I don't think Skan has misrepresented Hodge at all, all he did was quote Hodge. I read this quote, and it clearly (at least to me) seems to say that Hodge believed Jesus's sacrifice atoned for all men, elect and non-elect.

Perhaps in this quote Hodge was being inconsistent with Calvinism, there is nothing new or special about that. Spurgeon was often inconsistent with Calvinism and readily admitted it.

The truth is, not all Calvinists agree on every point, just as non-Cals/Arms do not all agree on every point of doctrine.

That is why we must rely upon the scriptures, and not theology. Arguing about what various theologians believe is fruitless, there are as many varying opinions on theology as there are theologians. All you can do is compare a theologian's particular beliefs with scripture, and see if they line up.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Im not going back through all the 132 posts to try to reconstruct Skans argument but I concluded that he was trying to show that eminent Calvinist theologians disagree with mainline Orthodox Calvinistic Christian beliefs & formulate different conclusions. Needless to say, both my DoG colleagues & I are not convinced that Hodge presented it as you & Scan suggest. Further I requested a few other examples of others Calvinists who concur with this theory & have yet to see it. So until I do, I for one remain unconvinced.

 

[J.D.]

What am I missing here? I haven't seen anywhere that Hodge said Christ died for the non-elect.

 

[Robert Snow]

I myself have owned & rebuilt them (Kaws) & I very much like them but my preference for a well made machine is the BMW's ....of course your now in a higher price range. Enjoy your mid life crisis toy!

Ah yes, BMW and Ducati, not to mention Aprillia make supreme machines, but they are outside my price range.

BTW, as far as this being my "mid life crisis toy." I have owned motorcycles for most of the past years since 1965.


Now you also said,"Predestination is about people becoming like Christ."

Yes, I agree completely. We just see the mechanism differently.

Ro 8:29

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

I see it as saying, those who God foreknew would accept his gift of salvation are the same ones who God has determined to conform them to the image of His Son. God doesn't lose any of those who trust in Him for salvation.

 

[Skandelon]

None of the above. I have read through all your posts. I am aware that you have stated that Hodge was a Calvinist, but you seem intent upon effectively denying it.

Some Calvinists (even 5 pointers) argue for the sufficiency of the atonement for all mankind, while some argue that his blood would have been wasted if it covered the sins of all the non-elect too. Hodge was the former and that is what I showed. You have yet to address that distinction and I've explained it as plainly as I know how in the kindest and most respectful way I know how.

What else can I do except say, enough is enough. I wish you well and God Bless!

 

[J.D.]

Some Calvinists (even 5 pointers) argue for the sufficiency of the atonement for all mankind, while some argue that his blood would have been wasted if it covered the sins of all the non-elect too. Hodge was the former and that is what I showed. You have yet to address that distinction and I've explained it as plainly as I know how in the kindest and most respectful way I know how.

What else can I do except say, enough is enough. I wish you well and God Bless!

To say that the Atonement was "sufficient" for the non-elect does not mean that the Atonement was not "efficient" for the elect.

Can you provide a reference to anywhere that Hodge said that Christ actully died FOR the non-elect?

 

[Skandelon]

I don't think Skan has misrepresented Hodge at all, all he did was quote Hodge.

I know, I've never seen anything like it. I quote the guy VERBATIM and they just deny what he clearly just said.

"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."

"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."

So, even if I was a Calvinist who believed that Joe wasn't elect and thus would NEVER be saved. I could say that Christ's work sufficiently satisfied the demands of the law for him, just as it did for the elect. That work of Christ is "equally available for all." Now, it is ONLY applied through the condition of faith, as Hodge goes on to explain when he says, "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."

Someone go line by line through this and show me how I've misrepresented Hodge, otherwise it's just talk.

 

[J.D.]

I know, I've never seen anything like it. I quote the guy VERBATIM and they just deny what he clearly just said.

"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."

"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."

So, even if I was a Calvinist who believed that Joe wasn't elect and thus would NEVER be saved. I could say that Christ's work sufficiently satisfied the demands of the law for him, just as it did for the elect. That work of Christ is "equally available for all." Now, it is ONLY applied through the condition of faith, as Hodge goes on to explain when he says, "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."

Someone go line by line through this and show me how I've misrepresented Hodge, otherwise it's just talk.

Since you've dropped the name of Hodge into this, you should keep bring in the quotes, don't you think?

So find me something by Hodge that says that Christ died FOR the non-elect, i.e., that He actually PROPITIATED the wrath of God on the cross for the non-elect. [by the way, which Hodge are we talking about?]

 

[kyredneck]

Since you've dropped the name of Hodge into this, you should keep bring in the quotes, don't you think?

So find me something by Hodge that says that Christ died FOR the non-elect, i.e., that He actually PROPITIATED the wrath of God on the cross for the non-elect. [by the way, which Hodge are we talking about?]

:thumbsup:

And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. Mt 1:21