Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

Skan,

What you miss is that man must keep the law perfectly....they cannot....That is why God came to earth as the last Adam....to keep the law for us.

Unbelief gets mentioned because anyone who gets saved...MUST BELIEVE...that Jesus kept the law perfectly for us.

Those who believe not are condemned already jn 3...because they as law breakers ,condemned in Adam, and condemned additonally by their own law braking have no hope outside of Jesus.

Unsaved men are still under a covenant of works...thus condemned.

 

This is not what Hodge is saying. Neither is it what Calvin is saying.

"He was wounded for our transgressions . . ." does not apply to the unbeliever, because he has no union with Christ.

To take the lifeboat example that you lifted from Hodge, those who do not enter the lifeboat do not enter because of unbelief, but it's the water that kills them.

Those who have no union with Christ, do not have one because of unbelief, but it's their transgressions of the law that kill them.

 

You must be 100% perfect(yes I know that's redundant...) to go to heaven. No one is perfect. Christ came to earth and lived a perfect life. He is our righteousness! Those that are in Christ(believers) will be presented as righteousness because they are in Christ. Those that are not in Christ(unbelievers) will be guilty. They will be guilty of breaking God's law and thus must be punished. Those in Christ receive no condemnation because Christ paid for it on the cross. He is our substitute.

Christ's payment on the cross is of infinite value. If God chose to save everyone, Christ's payment would be sufficient. But no one here believes that God has chosen to save everyone. So Christ's death is sufficient, but only efficient to those in Christ. Those left in Adam will suffer eternal just punishment for their transgression of the law.

 

Hi JohC

Hi JohC, I read your opening post, but not the intervening posts. Just wanted to inject another word in the mix, reconciliation.

Christ's finished work on the cross provides reconciliation to the whole world, or the propitiation or means of salvation. He laid down His life for all. But in order to receive the benefits of that "general reconciliation" you have to individually receive the reconciliation.

Calvinism takes these two separate spiritual translations, and puts up an ungodly conglomeration, utterly unbiblical.

Why would ambassadors of Christ beg the lost "to be reconciled" to God if it was a done deal. Calvinists solve these kinds of issues by saying we are just doing what we are commanded to do, without any need for the actions to fit the theology. Fiddlesticks.

 

The law as described in Romans 1 and 2.

 

our very natures as sinners already condemned us before God, even before we herad and rejected jesus for first time!

I am assuming here an unsaved person!

 

What do you mean by Unbelief? Is it that you reject the Being of God (ie the Trinity) & therefore your an atheist or is it that you continue to sin & your a carnal type of Christian who just never takes it seriously (ie they profess belief but you dont see any fruit). This ways deeply on me so I would appreciate a thought out answer. Thanks.

 

Think that the sinners are judged based upon first Adams transgression of the Word of the Lord, before the law was even given, and that acrt caused us to all be seperated from God at birth!

 

ahhh then you believe in original sin & from that flows all human sins however thats not my question brother. Again please define "Unbelief"

 

But is there anything except their unbelief preventing them from getting in the life boat, like the size of the raft? THAT is the issue here!

Is the life boat big enough for everyone invited to fit, or was it made just big enough for the ones irresistibly drawn to ride? Was the blood split on the cross just enough to cover the debt for the sins committed by the elect ones, or was the satisfaction of justice made for the elect actually sufficient to cover everyone? If by some cosmic miracle someone who wasn't elected came to genuine faith in Christ tomorrow would Christ's atonement be sufficient, or would he need to die again for their sins?

 

Aaron, Luke and all,

C. Hodge is clearly saying that it is a FALSE ASSUMPTION to think that Calvinists have historically taught that the satisfaction of Christ on the cross was comparable to the payment of a debt for individuals, as if he suffered just so much for so many. Some, like Aaron, seem to think He paid so much for one soul, and so much for another, and any payment made available to a soul that ends up lost in hell would be wasted...or his blood would be split needlessly.

If this is the correct view of the atonement then, according to Hodge, the gospel can only be rightly offered to those whose debts he has actually cancelled. Hodge adamantly reject this view and argues, "That this doctrine was never held by any historical church and the ascription of it to Augustinians can only be accounted for on the ground of ignorance."

 

Do me a favor and compare/contrast the view of Owen and Hodge regarding the Atonement. Do you not acknowledge the difference?

Both are Calvinists, but certainly you realize there is no small distinction on this matter?