No man perishes for want of an atonement

[Skandelon]

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!

No I wouldn't, but that is another subject. This thread is about the atonement, not Total Inability or Irresistibility.

 

[preacher4truth]

I think God wise enough in His plan, in that the Son came to save His people from their sins, and that this atonement applies to those ones whom He died to save specifically and only.

Romanticizing the idea of the atonement being enough for all persons is not an Biblical point whatsoever. It is unscriptural, and a sentimental fancy filled with fantasticalism. This is where the foundation of this OP starts/stops in failure.

Only the elect will be saved, and that is for whom alone He died. He came to save His people from their sins (and not from "unbelief" as Skan also propagates as another error).

To say it is available to the non-elect is to deny the Biblical revelation of truth, and shows that those who do feel this way tend to trust in their own reason, and in turn interpret Scriptures with reason rather than interpreting them in full trust of God's choosing, election, predestination and even foreknowledge. God's knowledge, atonement, plan of redemption, thoughts, purposes, will, decisions, determining are way above ours in this and in all things.

The thing is, the Gospel is preached, and only the elect will respond to the salvation of their souls. To dream that the non-elect will come somehow to belief is a bud of universalism waiting to come to full bloom.

A person either accepts this eternal truth or doesn't.

 

[Skandelon]

Christ's work is available TO ALL WHO WILL COME.

Actually, he is saying MORE than that. He is saying that while Christ's intent was ONLY to provide atonement for all who will come (the elect), that in doing so He did all that was necessary for EVERYONE.

I want you to notice something, Steve. Look at the contrast he draws here: "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."

Notice the contrast between the first part and the second? In the first part he is validating Calvinism and your argument that atonement is intended only for the elect (those who will come), but then he shows how that view of Calvinism IS CONSISTENT with his claim that God has done "all that is required for the salvation of all men," even those who don't come, thus "no man perishes for want of atonement."

If "all men" just refers to those who "will come," (the elect) then what's the point in even mentioning this? What issue is he addressing? You undercut his clear motive by making his reference to "all men" to mean only "those 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.

Now, here is where you err.

Hodge would disagree with the first statement and agree with the second. Hodge said it (Christ's work) is available to both classes of men. And he also says that Christ died for the elect alone. I have affirmed both of those all along.

AGAIN, Hodge is saying that in Christ's work to ensure atonement FOR the ELECT, he did ALL that was necessary for ANYONE and EVERYONE. So in dying for the elect alone, he provided all that was needed for the non-elect too, thus the offer is sincere.

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.

Go back and read that passage Allan provided from Hodge. He is talking about those who think that God's atoning blood would be wasted if it covered people sins who are not saved because they seem to assign each sin value matched by Christ's blood. You rightly called it ridiculous but now you seem to be going back on that.

 

[Skandelon]

Steve,

I thought this might help. It's a post from a Calvinistic believer in another forum defending Hodge's view and contrasting it with the other views. Maybe this will clarify my intent:

LIMITED ATONEMENT (HIGH CALVINISM): Christ bore only the sins of the elect on the cross. The sin-bearing of Christ has no reference whatsoever to the non-elect. While common grace is extended to the non-elect, this is an indirect and, as Owen puts it, incedental benefit for them in the atonement - one for which no personal substitutionary sin-bearing is necessary. At the very minimum, the high Calvinist believes that Jesus' death, with respect to the mechanism of it, purchased faith for the elect in such a way that it would be unjust for them not to be regenerated, such that all for whom Christ died must necessarily be justified.

This view must strain to interpret passages that use the words "world," "all," "everyone," etc. This view also faces serious logical problems concerning the genuine offer of the gospel.

UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT: Christ died for the elect and non-elect in the exact same way, with respect to both mechanism and intent. Jesus bore the sins of all men with the intention and hope that all men would exercise their autonomous freedom and accept this gracious gift. We all see the weaknesses of this view.

LIMITED ATONEMENT (MODERATE CALVINISM): Christ died in the same way for both the elect and non-elect, as it relates to the mechanism of the atonement, but indents on actually saving only the elect. This view avoids all the weaknesses of the other two views. It naturally reads passages with a universal bent. It naturally reads passages with a particular bent. It emphasises God's particular salvific intention for his elect. And it avoids logical difficulty with respect to the genuine offer of the gospel. -Brandon

 

[Skandelon]

Came across another clarifying quote from Hodge:

He states that the atonement has objectively "removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men."

I think this phrase is the most concise way to clarify the intent I was attempting to show in this thread. Do you agree with Hodge that the legal impediments have been removed even for the non-elect? Do you affirm with Hodge that the atonement is sufficient for all?

 

[preacher4truth]

Came across another clarifying quote from Hodge:

He states that the atonement has objectively "removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men."

I think this phrase is the most concise way to clarify the intent I was attempting to show in this thread. Do you agree with Hodge that the legal impediments have been removed even for the non-elect? Do you affirm with Hodge that the atonement is sufficient for all?

He's incorrect as are you.

 

[Aaron]

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."

Quoting Hodge out of context doesn't explain anything. You preach a Christ who has died for individuals in vain. His work standing alone doesn't save them. That's the simple fact of the matter.

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:

... if a recipient rejects this divinely revealed truth . . . deficiency is in the recipient . . .
​

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=73312&page=4

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:

No, you preach a vain atonement. That Christ took stripes for sins that will not be forgiven.

Here are the things you asserted:

• Christ suffered not for sin in general, but for each individual sin of every man in the world.
• But His sufferings alone did not result in there forgiveness. God said, Son, I'm going to clobber you for Joe's sins, then I'm going to clobber Him, because my clobbering of you didn't satisfy me.
• Only those who add their faith of choice to the mix will be forgiven.
• Those who choose not to believe are deficient in the quality needed.

Deny it all you wish. These are the things you are saying. Now here are the eminent, inescapable conclusions: Jesus suffered in vain, worked in vain, and in greater measure than He succeeded, He failed.

Here's the Christ I preach: He bore His elect in His sufferings. He was wounded for their transgressions, He was bruised for their iniquities. His sufferings are not in vain, for by His stripes, they are healed. Through His travail, the children God has given Him are born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of any man, not even of Him that is born, but of God, and God alone.

If one does not believe the Gospel, it is because Christ never knew him, not in His wounding, not in His bruising, not in any of His stripes. So he is not known in His resurrection, nor in His ascension, nor in His glorification, and neither in His second coming.

You preach a different gospel than I do. And a different atonement.

 

[Skandelon]

Quoting Hodge out of context doesn't explain anything.

Such an accusation demands one to explain what the correct context and thus alternate understanding should be taken from Hodge, but I doubt you'll actually take the time to do such because its easier to make blanket unfounded accusations and dismiss the argument out of hand...

No, you preach a vain atonement. That Christ took stripes for sins that will not be forgiven.

Actually, in this thread I've been defending a form of Calvinistic atonement, not my view, but maybe you missed they while you were putting words in my mouth. :laugh:

Let me ask you a yes or no question. Is Christ's atoning work sufficient for the salvation of all men? Do you agree with Hodge that, God "removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men???"

Yes or no?

 

[Skandelon]

He's incorrect as are you.

We'll at least you understand plan enough english to see that I'm in agreement with Hodge and you are not on this particular point. :thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

We'll at least you understand plan enough english to see that I'm in agreement with Hodge and you are not on this particular point. :thumbsup:

What is glaringly plain lies within the fact you cannot answer post 182, Aaron, Martin, and others who have lined your OP out as erroneous, nor can you admit your entire OP is as usual for you, in error and the entire premise is false. You pretend to have aha moments against Calvinism, but your premises are fatal errors from the get go. Congrats, you did it again! :thumbsup:

 

[Aaron]

Do you agree with Hodge that, God "removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men???"

Yes or no?

I don't care about Hodge. But now you're waffling again. So instead of Christ dying in vain for Joe, He didn't die for Joe. In fact, Christ died for no man. Not personally. He died for the law. So now the playing field is level. The law is satisfied so sin is a moot point. All one need do now is perform one act of righteousness.

There are only two corners in your side of the room. One is that Christ died for men in vain, and the other is He died for no one. You are left with no alternative.

 

[Aaron]

Let me ask you a yes or no question . . . Do you agree with Hodge that, God "removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men???"

Yes or no?

No. (Parenthical phrase added to satisfy the BB's infernal minimum character limit.)

 

[J.D.]

We'll at least you understand plan enough english to see that I'm in agreement with Hodge and you are not on this particular point. :thumbsup:

I seriously doubt that you are in agreement with Hodge, and you would not say so if you were not isolating his thoughts from their context.

If it makes you feel better, you can put me down as "not a fan of Hodge", nor of the "Princeton School" altogether. But that doesn't make his doctrine the same as yours.

It's obvious that Hodge is defending the doctrine of the sincere free offer, not so much the doctrine of limited atonement. He defends the offer of salvation to the non-elect by binding the incidental effects of the atonement to the free offer, effects which make salvation available to the non-elect.

I too believe that salvation is available to the non-elect in the sense that God does not block the way to it - it is a door which is not only open, but indeed God beckons all men alike to enter. So it is available, but is made unavailable by man's refusal to enter, and nothing else. God has nothing else to do in order for the non-elect to perish but to continue beckoning them. But for the elect, He takes the special step (grace) of effectually drawing them through the door of salvation.

This is the way it is understandable to me, and some of Hodge's arguments are fuzzy to me. But in principle, there is NO difference between what Hodge, Aaron, MartinM, et.al., and myself, believe.

 

[JesusFan]

I seriously doubt that you are in agreement with Hodge, and you would not say so if you were not isolating his thoughts from their context.

If it makes you feel better, you can put me down as "not a fan of Hodge", nor of the "Princeton School" altogether. But that doesn't make his doctrine the same as yours.

It's obvious that Hodge is defending the doctrine of the sincere free offer, not so much the doctrine of limited atonement. He defends the offer of salvation to the non-elect by binding the incidental effects of the atonement to the free offer, effects which make salvation available to the non-elect.

I too believe that salvation is available to the non-elect in the sense that God does not block the way to it - it is a door which is not only open, but indeed God beckons all men alike to enter. So it is available, but is made unavailable by man's refusal to enter, and nothing else. God has nothing else to do in order for the non-elect to perish but to continue beckoning them. But for the elect, He takes the special step (grace) of effectually drawing them through the door of salvation.

This is the way it is understandable to me, and some of Hodge's arguments are fuzzy to me. But in principle, there is NO difference between what Hodge, Aaron, MartinM, et.al., and myself, believe.

Please help me on this one point!

IF jesus died for the sins of all people, BUT that only those whom God has elcted to receive jesus as saviour by His irresitable grace gets it effectual applied on their behalf?

Why would that be same as saying people go to hell with jesus paying for their sins still oustanding?

 

[J.D.]

Please help me on this one point!

IF jesus died for the sins of all people, BUT that only those whom God has elcted to receive jesus as saviour by His irresitable grace gets it effectual applied on their behalf?

Why would that be same as saying people go to hell with jesus paying for their sins still oustanding?

Sorry, I don't understand your question, but just to clarify, I don't believe Jesus died for the sins of all people, and I don't believe Jesus payed for the sins of people in Hell.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I want you to notice something, Steve. Look at the contrast he draws here: "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."

Skandelon, you're like a monkey playing with a watch. You don't understand it, and you won't stop fooling with it until you've broken it. For the umpteenth time, Hodge is saying that nothing stops men coming to Christ. There is no legal impediment. When they come, they will find that His blood covers them and justice is satisfied. That is all.

If you like, this is the question of the 'Sinner's Warrant' to come to Christ that Spurgeon argued through with the Hypers of his day. Is the sinner's warrant that he believes he is one of the elect, or that he is a sinner and Christ died for such as him (Mark 2:17 etc.)? It is, of course, the latter. Sinners who come genuinely to Christ will find that His blood will cover them because it was shed specifically for them.

Do you agree with Hodge that, God "removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men???"

See above. :BangHead: No one who comes to Christ will find any legal impediment to his salvation. I don't know the context of this quote, but I assume that is what he meant.

Steve

 

[JesusFan]

Sorry, I don't understand your question, but just to clarify, I don't believe Jesus died for the sins of all people, and I don't believe Jesus payed for the sins of people in Hell.

Just was asking IF jesus died so that whosoever wills can get saved, but that it is ONLY those whom GOD wills to get saved actually do...

Why is that so different from what "5 pointers" believe in?

 

[humblethinker]

I just read this entire thread. Thanks for contributing.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon, you're like a monkey playing with a watch. You don't understand it, and you won't stop fooling with it until you've broken it.

Why would someone who calls himself a Christian say something like this to another brother in Christ? Does it make you feel better about yourself to tear someone else down? Children in the play yard bully each other with this kind of talk but certainly we can move beyond that level of maturity, can't we?

I can point you to many articles on this subject where Calvinists debate with other Calvinists in this very issue. Many of them on the one side quote Hodge and Shedd and others to support their views, while those on the other side quote Packer and others to support theirs. This is a serious point of contention discussed by serious scholars, some of which I've virtually quoted verbatim and yet you treat me as if I'm a "monkey." And in doing do you reveal your own lack of understanding of the issues involved, not to mention your own character in dealing with an honest point of contention with a fellow brother.

For the umpteenth time, Hodge is saying that nothing stops men coming to Christ. There is no legal impediment. When they come, they will find that His blood covers them and justice is satisfied.

Yes. That is right, he saying this. I'm glad we agree, but can you show me the other "umpteenth times" you said that? Before you said Hodge was only speaking of those who will come (the elect), you never said anything about "no legal impediment" for the non-elect or "nothing stopping [the non-elect] coming to Christ," did you? If you did, can you point me to that post?

Do you affirm now that Christ work is available to the non-elect, since you now affirm there is no legal impediment? I ask because if Christ's work didn't satisfy the legal requirements for the non-elect, then there would still be a legal impediment, wouldn't there?

See above. :BangHead: No one who comes to Christ will find any legal impediment to his salvation.

Now wait a second. Above you said, "Hodge is saying that nothing stops men coming to Christ. There is no legal impediment.," but now you seem to tweak that to mean, "No one who comes will find any legal impediment." Which one is it? Because there is quite a difference in those two statements, don't you think?

 

[Skandelon]

I seriously doubt that you are in agreement with Hodge, and you would not say so if you were not isolating his thoughts from their context.

Of course I'm not in agreement with him. He is a Calvinist. I'm not. He holds to a view of Particular Redemption that I disagree with.

How many times do I need to explain this?

I'm pointing to ONE aspect of the distinction regarding the sufficiency of Christ's atonement which some seem to disagree and belittle regularly here.

If it makes you feel better, you can put me down as "not a fan of Hodge", nor of the "Princeton School" altogether.

This is the way it is understandable to me, and some of Hodge's arguments are fuzzy to me. But in principle, there is NO difference between what Hodge, Aaron, MartinM, et.al., and myself, believe.

Translation: I don't like Hodge much because of his arguments but there is no difference in what we all believe.

You do know there are many Calvinists who disagree on this point with Hodge, right? If you are one of them, just say so and move on. You don't have to pretend to agree with him so as not to lose face. Own your views.