No man perishes for want of an atonement

[J.D.]

: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

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.

 

[Robert Snow]

: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

Amen! God has chosen to save those who will believe the gospel and turn to Jesus Christ for salvation!

 

[Aaron]

So Christ died for Joe in vain.

Got it.

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.)

 

[Skandelon]

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

Did I indicate otherwise?

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

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:

 

[Skandelon]

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

See the OP.

 

[Skandelon]

First, Christ's act failed with God. It did not result in the forgiveness of Joe's sins.

Haven't you learned about the fallacy of question begging yet?

Christ is a failure.

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.

 

[kyredneck]

....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.

Oh baloney, get off of it. Is this all you got? You know what he meant.

 

[convicted1]

: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

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.

 

[Skandelon]

Oh baloney, get off of it. Is this all you got? You know what he meant.

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.

 

[J.D.]

See the OP.

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:

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death
This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death
For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

This is the context of Hodge's work.

 

[Aaron]

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.

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?

 

[kyredneck]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Skandelon]

You say He wanted Joe saved

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.

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.

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

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

Or a genuine display of love and compassion as he makes an appeal for reconciliation. You know, like the scripture teaches.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

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).

 

[Skandelon]

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.

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.

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

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:

 

[Martin Marprelate]

[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

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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


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.

We are on the same page here.

 

[Aaron]

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.)

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.

Sounds like Joe doesn't have any excuses, does it?

So you preach a cross that condemns?

 

[J.D.]

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:

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.

 

[Van]

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:

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