Dr C Hodge on the Atonement

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, May 3, 2005.

  1. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr Charles Hodge, who was a leading Calvinist, had this to say in a chapter in his Systematic Theology, entitled “For Whom did Christ die”?

    “In the third place, the question does not concern the suitableness of the atonement. What was suitable for one was suitable for all. The righteousness of Christ, the merit of his obedience and death, is needed for justification by each individual of our race, and therefore is needed by all. It is no more appropriate to one man than to another. Christ fulfilled the conditions of the covenant under which all men were placed. He rendered the obedience required of all, and suffered the penalty which all had incurred; and therefore his work is equally suited to all. (Volume II, p.545)
    It is evident from the passage above, that, though Hodge did believe in a Limited Atonement, yet, like Robert Dabney and John Calvin himself, does use language that shows that the death of Christ was not altogether “limited”.
    When Hodge uses “all” in the above passage, it is not done so to denote the “elect” only. This can be seen by his words, “each individual of our race”, which can only be taken to mean just that, the whole human race.
    It is also noteworthy to see Hodge also say, that Christ, “suffered the penalty which all had incurred”, “and therefore his work is equally suited to all”
    I have already shown elsewhere, that Dr Dabney on John 3:16, and 1 John 2:2, shows that the language used in these places, does not support the Calvinistic teaching on Limited Atonement. Likewise, Calvin on Mark 14:24 uses language that clearly can only apply to the whole human race.
    There is no doubt, that the candid mind will have to admit, that it is not “cut and dry”, that Jesus’ death for intended for the elect only. As we have seen from three Calvinistic theologians, that the Biblical data does not support their “theory” of Limited Atonement.
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Man, this is unreal. You keep quoting "Calvinist scholars" who are repeating what people here have told you over and over. Why? Did you think we were wrong?

    You say these guys don't "support the Calvinistic teaching on Limited Atonement." What we are finding out is that you don't know what the Calvinistic teaching is. What these guys are telling you is what I and others have told you. It is the Calvinistic teaching on limited atonement.

    This is but another example of you being unwilling to learn. Had you listened, you would have already learned that what you quote Hodge as saying is "the Calvinistic teaching on limited atonement." Your concept of what "Limited Atonement" is is not our concept of it.
     
  3. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think someone here used this phrasing:

    Christ's blood is sufficient for all but only efficient for the elect. I would agree with this idea.
     
  4. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeh Larry, whatever

    You don't seem able to understand what Hodge, Dabney and Calvin says on the Atonement. You keep on saying that this is what Calvinists believe. Really? Did you actually read what Hodge says? Can tou not see that his language clearly shows that Jesus could not have died for the elect only. You accuse me of not knowing what Calvinists believe, which is completely wrong, as judging from what I read Calvinists post here, I would say that i probably know more than most of them. You also wrongly accuse me of being unteachable, when in fact I am very open to the Holy Spirit. You are not canded in accepting the truth for what it is, but rather like putting people down, just because they don't accept the unbiblical nonsense called Limited Atonement.
     
  5. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds very Calvinistic to me
     
  6. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Hodge says is exactly what Calvinists believe.
     
  7. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shoot - another double post. Sorry.
     
  8. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Hodge says is exactly what Calvinists believe. </font>[/QUOTE]Care to explain my points in the OP?
     
  9. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    You'll have to explain them. I have no idea why you are so confused about what Calvinists believe.
     
  10. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    You'll have to explain them. I have no idea why you are so confused about what Calvinists believe. </font>[/QUOTE]Me confused? I think that if you read what Hodge says without your Calvinistic bias, you will see that his language does NOT support Limited Atonement. I ask you again to respond to what I say, rather, like Larry, avoid the issues.
     
  11. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    I read it. It's Calvinist theology. What you say shows that you don't understand Calvinist theology. Sorry, but that's how it is.
     
  12. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely. Hodge's For Whom Did Christ Die? is a classic explanation of definite atonement.

    Definite atonement says that God had special reference to the salvation of his elect "in the mission and work of his Son."
     
  13. russell55

    russell55
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Calvinist have you heard say that the death of Christ had absolutely no benefits for mankind in general? You seemed to have assumed "limited atonement" meant something it doesn't.

    Christ's death ensures the salvation of the elect, but that doesn't mean it doesn't provide a means by which any person might be saved if they believe.
     
  14. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then you agree with false doctrine!

    Efficiency cannot be lacking where there is sufficiency!

    You confuse suffient with abundance!
     
  15. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,180
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Nobody has said the death of Christ was limited. Nor have we said the atonement was limited in its scope or all-sufficiency. All we have said is that the atonement is limited in its application. For some reason you can't (or won't) seem to understand that even though you have been told over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

    Nobody has disagreed. The atonement is sufficient for all efficient only for believers.
    Once again, nobody has disagreed.
    And once again you are wrong. And I think you know you are wrong because every time you are asked what you have to add to Christ's finished work on the cross you balk and don't answer, but instead go on a rant about how dumb we are and how we "don't get it."

    I see. "Many" now means "all?" Did God make a mistake when He inspired the word "pollwn?"

    As nobody has made such a claim it is just another straw man so you can avoid dealing with the real issue.
    And once again you prove you don't have a clue of what you are taking about.

    None of the above quotes differs in any major way with anything any of us have been saying.

    Now, answer the question.

    If Christ's atonement only made salvation possible what do you have to add to His finished work to make the possibility become a reality?
     
  16. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cassidy, no, it is not I who does not understand, but your reply again shows your lack of understanding of what even Hodge is saying.

    How can you say, that Hodge's words, "and suffered the penalty which all had incurred", which no doubt is speaking about the daeth of Jesus Christ, be said to be limited to the elect only? If the penalty that Jesus suffered in His death, is said to be for "all", which Hodge himself shows to mean, "each individual of our race"; then how can you say that this language does not mean that Jesus died for the human race? Unless you have difficulties with understanding the English langauage, it is very clear to me that here Christ indeed died for all.

    Again you show your ignorance (willful?) with the use of "polus". It is clear from its use in Greek, when used in the masculine plural, and without the article, it means: "many, multitude, numerous". When contrasted with One, as in Jesus Christ, it refers to "mankind". This is exactly what Paul says in Romans 5:19, "for as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous". Are you saying that "many" does not refer to "mankind"? Are you saying that in Adam only the "elect" fell? I though that you were some kind of professor. Did you not learn any Greek?

    You, like Larry, Whetstone, and the rest of the Calvinists, are content in putting forth your misconceived, unbiblical notions, and will not accept that what you believe on the Atonement is not found in Scripture.
     
  17. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    What Calvinist have you heard say that the death of Christ had absolutely no benefits for mankind in general? You seemed to have assumed "limited atonement" meant something it doesn't.

    Christ's death ensures the salvation of the elect, but that doesn't mean it doesn't provide a means by which any person might be saved if they believe.
    </font>[/QUOTE]OK Russell, may be you are going to explain how the death of Jesus Christ actually "benefits" the non elect?
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,180
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    I didn't say that and I don't believe it. And that is the problem. You still fail miserably to understand what we believe even after we have told you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
    I have not claimed that Jesus did not die for the entire human race. He did. And that is the problem. You still fail miserably to understand what we believe even after we have told you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
    Unless you have difficulties with understanding the English language, I have never denied that. And that is the problem. You still fail miserably to understand what we believe even after we have told you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
    I learned my Greek quite well, thank you. And thank you for proving my point. Once again you have demonstrated that the problem is not with my doctrine but with your failure to understand what we believe even though we have told you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
    No, what we put forth is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We agree with the writers you posted. The difference is that we don't say they said something they didn't say as you seem to keep doing about us.

    Now, one more time. If Christ's death only made your salvation possible what do you have to add to the finished work of Christ to make your salvation a reality?
     
  19. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cassidy, you Greek has a lot to desired, as you were clearly wrong in your understanding of "many". I did clearly show from Paul's use in Romans, where the whole human race is meant. But you ignore this as it disproves your point.

    You ask:

    "Now, one more time. If Christ's death only made your salvation possible what do you have to add to the finished work of Christ to make your salvation a reality? "

    What I have to "add", nothing. What I have to "do" is what Jesus Himself says, "repent and believe the Gospel". Can you understand this much?
     
  20. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Cassidy, I am going to put this question to you as well.

    In what way does the death of Jesus Christ actually "benefit" the non-elect?
     

Share This Page

Loading...