No man perishes for want of an atonement

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The fact is that those who believe in the false doctrines of the TULIP

ie, Calvin, Bunyan, Edwards, Whitefield, Kuyper, Warfield, Maher, Knox, Cartwright, Sibbes, Owen, Matt Henry, Thomas Boston, Willam Carey, John Ryland, Henry Martyn, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Robert Moffat, David Livingstone, John G Paton, John R. Mott, RC Sproul, Al Martin, Hodge, Boyce, Phil Ryken, Andrew Fuller, Albert Mohler, John Gill, Andrew Fuller,Charles Spurgeon,Arthur Pink, John Piper, James White, Mark Dever,
Paul Washer,John F. MacArthur etc

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

:laugh:Fiddlesticks:laugh:fiddlesticks:laugh:

 

[JesusFan]

Let's see if I have this straight. Joe was on Christ's mind on the Cross. The debt of Joe's sins were paid. Not just Joe's sins in general, but Joe's sins distinctly. Each count. Those days as a teen looking at porn, his fornication throughout college, his love of money—every transgression. Jesus took those very acts upon Himself, and satisfied his debt. But Joe doesn't believe in Christ. So God is going to exact again from Joe what Christ already paid?

jesus dies to cover the sin debt owed to God by Joe, and that is indeed paid in full, sufficient, BUT
in order to haveit effectually applied, for Joe to receive his "credit" for it has to ask for it by faith

Joe though dead spiritually, unable to do thatrequirement God has for him todo, so IFGod enables Joe, quickens his state to be able to now respond by faith and receive His credit, than Joe will place faith and get his credit!

And the "joes" that God elects to receive the means to get their credit from jesus will get it, rest will not, as they were not enabled to do such!

 

[Skandelon]

I have done this at least twice, and you have ignored it.

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

Just read my posts instead of dismissing them as "A standard presentatio of Calvinism."

Steve

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.

 

[Skandelon]

In other words, something must be added to Christ's work to make it effectual.

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."

You say people possess this adder by nature, and if folks aren't saved, it's because they are deficient in what is added.

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:

No matter how you slice it, you preach a cross that doesn't save.

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:

 

[Skandelon]

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,

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.

or that He actually propitiated the wrath of God for the non-elect,

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

 

[J.D.]

jesus dies to cover the sin debt owed to God by Joe, and that is indeed paid in full, sufficient, BUT
in order to haveit effectually applied, for Joe to receive his "credit" for it has to ask for it by faith

Joe though dead spiritually, unable to do thatrequirement God has for him todo, so IFGod enables Joe, quickens his state to be able to now respond by faith and receive His credit, than Joe will place faith and get his credit!

And the "joes" that God elects to receive the means to get their credit from jesus will get it, rest will not, as they were not enabled to do such!

The sufficiency of Christ's atonement does NOT mean that Joe's "sin debt" is paid. Joe's sins are paid for only if Christ died efficiently for Joe's sins.

 

[JesusFan]

The sufficiency of Christ's atonement does NOT mean that Joe's "sin debt" is paid. Joe's sins are paid for only if Christ died efficiently for Joe's sins.

That is why i have always said "potentially" paid for all, all can be saved, but ONLY effectually applied to the Elect of God...

 

[J.D.]

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.

Hodge:

The simple question is, Had the death of Christ a reference to the elect which it had not to other men? Did He come into the world to secure the salvation of those given to Him by the Father, so that the other effects of his work are merely incidental to what was done for the attainment of that object? ... That these questions must be answered in the affirmative, is evident, —

................

 

[Luke2427]

Mat 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

Jesus is the man, the treasure is the elect, and the field is the world (all men). The field does not belong to him, as all men are sold under sin. To obtain the treasure (the elect) hidden in this field (all men), he goes and sells all he has (his blood) and buys the entire field so he can obtain the treasure hidden in the field.

Which is Calvinism except for the "world" being all men which it almost NEVER means.

 

[Luke2427]

Hodge:



................

Skandelon has a habit of misrepresenting Calvinist scholars and trying to make it seem that they believe Arminian tenets.

For six months or so he has contended the most ridiculous things about Jonathan Edwards.

Gl and others tried to correct him there.

I see you are trying to correct him here on his misrepresentation of Hodge.

Perhaps he will finally examine his propensity to do this and conclude that he needs to be more thorough in his study of what these scholars ACTUALLY believed and what, in context, they ACTUALLY were saying.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Skandalon,
Half way through this thread, you wrote:-

Then can you explain what he [Hodge] 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?

To which I replied:-

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.' (Rom 3:9-12, 18). That is what the Scripture says. Unless God provides an unconditional election, a definite atonement and an irresistible calling for chosen sinners, 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.

Therefore there is a sense in which Christ's atonement is available for all, for the one who comes to Him, He will by no means turn away. But that absolutely does not mean that there is an atonement for those who will not come. Nor especially does it mean that Hodge believed in any way whatsoever that Christ died for the unsaved. All his writing and all his teaching point to his belief in the historic doctrines of grace.

Now will you please either reply to my points or else stop libelling this poor man.

Steve

 

[Winman]

double post

 

[Winman]

Which is Calvinism except for the "world" being all men which it almost NEVER means.

No, it is not Calvinism, as Calvinism teaches Jesus only purchased the elect (Limited Atonement). Jesus taught that he purchased the "field" and not the treasure only. The field respresents the world (all men), the treasure is the elect hidden in the field.

Jesus did not buy the treasure only, he bought the entire field. This is Unlimited Atonement.

But I am sure many Calvinists agree, I know many Calvinists reject Limited Atonement, even a few here at BB, but noted scholars as well, such as Barnes who wrote the famous commentary.

Doesn't really matter to me what various theologians believed, the scriptures repeatedly say Jesus died for all men.

 

[Skandelon]

Therefore there is a sense in which Christ's atonement is available for all

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?

Now will you please either reply to my points or else stop libelling this poor man.

Steve

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...

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon has a habit of misrepresenting Calvinist scholars and trying to make it seem that they believe Arminian tenets.

For six months or so he has contended the most ridiculous things about Jonathan Edwards.

Gl and others tried to correct him there.

I see you are trying to correct him here on his misrepresentation of Hodge.

Perhaps he will finally examine his propensity to do this and conclude that he needs to be more thorough in his study of what these scholars ACTUALLY believed and what, in context, they ACTUALLY were saying.

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...

 

[Skandelon]

The sufficiency of Christ's atonement does NOT mean that Joe's "sin debt" is paid. Joe's sins are paid for only if Christ died efficiently for Joe's sins.

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."

 

[JesusFan]

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

."

is it JUST me here, but IF Hodge truely meant this as you said, isn't this really close to ole 4 point Amyraldian, as jesus died/atoned for potentally all, any can get saved, but ONLYapplied to those able to receive it by faith, IE the Elect of God? the elect being those sinners who God chose to effectual apply the benefits if the death of Christ by effectually.irresistably drawing/calling them ?

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."

person perished due to being a sinner, and that he MUST atone/pay for his own sins before God, as by not accepting provision of Jesus, will be left "holding his own baggage"

 

[Skandelon]

person perished due to being a sinner, and that he MUST atone/pay for his own sins before God, as by not accepting provision of Jesus, will be left "holding his own baggage"

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?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

This is where you go wrong. You still don't understand. Christ's work is available TO ALL WHO WILL COME. It is not available to the non-elect, because the non-elect will not come and because Christ did not die for their sins. However, neither you nor I have the faintest idea who the non-elect are, so we preach the Gospel and tell folk that if they will come to Christ He will not turn them away.

Aaron is exactly right that Christ is not available to the non-elect because He did not shed His blood for them. Nor did I or Hodge state differently. But no one should say, "I am not one of the elect; therefore I cannot be saved." Who has been up to heaven to have a look at the Book of Life and find his name missing? Let people come to Christ and if they do they will find that the Father placed His love on them before the foundation of the world, sent the Son to die for their sins and has drawn them by the Spirit with covenant mercies (Jer 31:3).

Now do you understand?

Steve

 

[JesusFan]

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?

Would say that God wrote the directions on the signs in "God language" and ONLY those given spiritual eyes from God to see it can see and follow it!