Dr C Hodge on the Atonement

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.

 

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.

 

Sounds very Calvinistic to me

 

What Hodge says is exactly what Calvinists believe. </font>[/QUOTE]Care to explain my points in the OP?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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?