Question regarding Calvinistic view of limited atonement

True.

Even more true. Muller, another Calvinistic scholar and historian explained this quite well when he wrote:

The terms ‘universal’ and ‘limited atonement’ do not represent the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed view–or, for that matter, the view of its opponents. The issue was not over ‘atonement,’ broadly understood, but over ‘satisfaction’ made by Christ for sin- and the debate was never over whether or not Christ’s satisfaction was limited: all held it to be utterly sufficient to pay the price for all sin and all held it to be effective or efficient only for those who were saved. The question concerned the identity of those who were saved and, therefore, the ground of the limitation–God’s will or human choice. Thus, both Calvin and Bullinger taught that Christ’s work made full and perfect satisfaction for all, both commended the universal preaching of the Gospel, both taught the efficacy of Christ’s work for the faithful alone–and both taught that faith is the gift of God, made available to the elect only. In other words, the inference of a limitation of the efficacy of Christ’s satisfaction to the elect alone is found both in Bullinger and in Calvin, despite differences between their formulations of the doctrine of predestination. The Reformed orthodox did teach the doctrine more precisely. In response to Arminius, they brought the traditional formula of sufficiency for all sin and efficiency for the elect alone to the forefront of their definition, where Calvin and Bullinger hardly mention it at all. The orthodox also more clearly connected the doctrine of election to the language of the limitation of the efficacy of Christ’s death, arguing that the divine intention in decreeing the death of Christ was to save only the elect. This solution is presented in the Canons of Dort in concise formula” (Richard Muller, After Calvin, 14).​

I think you just made a legitimate argument. :thumbs:

How's that?

 

We assert,with Hodge, that the Atonement is limited in its design. Christ did not die equally for all men, He died solely for His elect.

However, in doing what was necessary to save His elect, because His elect are men, and because all men are under the same condemnation, what was necessary to save His elect was also the same necessity for all men, and therefore, all men have access by faith to this salvation. It is, therefore, justly preached to all men, but not all men have faith.

You take it the other direction. You assume that if it is justly preached to all men, then it must be meant for all men, and more than that, effectual for all men; that effect rendering their sins a moot point.

But your assumptions are erroneous, and you search Hodge in vain for any foothold in Calvinism. What is the salvation that is offered, if it isn't a salvation from one's sins? It is an affront to literacy to read Hodge's "no man dies for want of an atonement" as meaning that all men's sins have been atoned.

 

Jonny be a bright boy!:laugh:

 

Here is what I believe.....the man who wants salvation already HAS it. The man who hungers and thirsts (desires it) after righteousness is a blessed character (Matt. 5: 2-6). The alien sinner doesn't want salvation, he doesn't fear God, and he doesn't love God; therefore we conclude that the man who wants salvation, fears God and loves God is a subject of grace (Rom. 3: 11, 18; I John 4: 10) .

 

Good Answer :thumbs:

 

Show me where I EVER said that Hodge believed the atonement was "MEANT" for all men? I have said over and over again that Hodge was Calvinistic in that He believed the atonement was only intended for the elect, but in satisfying the legal impediments for the elect he likewise satisfied it for all. You have shifted the conversation back on to design/intent and off of the nature and sufficiency of the atonement in order to appear to be in full agreement with Hodge. Anyone who understands these distinctions can clearly see this.

Only someone who is unlearned regarding the differing views of 'atonement' would make such a comment. May I suggest you look up these terms and do some study:

Substitution Theory
Penal Substitution Theory
Governmental Theory
Commercial Theory
Example Theory
Moral Influence Theory
Mystical Theory
Dramatic Theory
Recapitulation Theory
Ransom Theory

 

Quite the contrary, he emphatically asserted that the offering is only effectual for those for whom it is intended. He said the legal requirements are satisfied only for those who are in Christ.

Again, his statement, "no man perishes for the lack of an Atonement" is not to be construed as saying that the sins of all have been atoned and only one thing remains. You're projecting your own notions and biases into the statement, which is obvious to anyone who would simply read the the chapter from which you are quoting Hodge.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology2.pdf (Chapter 8)

 

I'm sorry Aaron, but this is just factually incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion or interpretation. It is a matter of fact. Hodge states:

"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."

and...

"..all mankind were placed under the same constitution or covenant. What was demanded for the salvation of one was demanded for the salvation of all. 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."

and...

AA Hodge (of the same school) clearly believes that Christ's atonement has indeed "removed the legal impediments out of the way of all men," which you obviously disagree. Just acknowledge the disgreement, Aaron. You don't have to be in agreement with every respected Calvinistic scholar, you know? You said you disagreed with him before, so why are you pretending you are not now?

Again, as reflected in the underlined potion of your quote above, you are talking about the actual sins of each individual person, as if Christ's atonement was a debt payment meant to cover each individual sin of each individual person who is saved (the elect). But Hodge says of that view:

"This doctrine, that the sufferings of Christ amounted to the aggregate sufferings of those who are to be saved, that he endured just so much for so many, is not found in any confession of the Protestant churches. nor in the writings of any standard theologian, nor in the recognised authorities of any church of which we have any knowledge. The whole objection is a gross and inexcusable misrepresentation."​

In the Calvinistic system (according to Calvin himself) that which impedes salvation is the nature of the fallen man. That is what Total Depravity is all about. Nothing keeps them from entering the gate save ONLY their unbelief. It is the fallen man's unwillingness that prevents his salvation, not some legal impediment due to the limitations of Christ's work. Man's being saved is LIMITED by their own depraved nature, not the nature of the atoning work of Christ, according to Calvin and the Princeton Theologians. It would be in your best interest to adopt their view and abandon the more modern approach (which tends toward hyperism).

I could go on to provide quote after quote from Dabney, Shedd and others from the Princeton school of thought to prove that you are incorrect in your assessment, but I think what I have provided will suffice for any objective observer.

 

I posted the link to the entire work. There's no need to discuss it any further. Your take on Hodge is wrong, just as your take on Paul and on Christ.

 

Translation: Nana-nana-boo-boo, stick-your-head-in-doo-doo....

 

Availability has nothing to do with intrinsic value or sufficiency, brother.

The eggs are perfectly sufficient regardless of whether or not they are at ALL available.

It was perfectly sufficient. What it was not was available.

 

Not only would it have been- it was.

Application is the only issue.

I bought 1,800 pounds of quickrete the other day to pour a form we built for a 1,000 gallon septic tank lid.

The quickrete was more than sufficient to fill the form to make the lid. If I decided to not use it for that lid, it would not change the fact that it was intrinsically, by it's own existence, more than sufficient to make the lid.

The only thing was that I decided not to apply that which is sufficient to the form.

The lack of application in no way changed the amount and thus the sufficiency.

 

:laugh: My kids say that all the time and when I read it just now I almost fell out of my chair.

I think JonC nailed this problem on the head when he said...

It would do some well to study the difference in the more 'modern' understanding of the word 'atonement' as it relates to the more historically used word, 'Satisfaction.'

 

Luke,

Since Christ has died, do you believe that what impedes a non-elect man from being saved is:

1. His totally depraved nature

2. His need to have his sins atoned

3. All of the above

 

Here's Hodge's thesis statement:

In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces in the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died “sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;” sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone. 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? ...[T]hese questions must be answered in the affirmative...
​

Hodge dedicated the rest of the chapter to show that Christ's death has one effect for the elect, that this effect is not based on one's faith, but on one's election, faith being the evidence thereof, and the direct result of the covenant between the Father and the Son.


The sense in which the nonelect are affected by the Atonement won by Christ for His elect is not that the nonelect have their sins atoned, (they are not "in Christ," and therefore do not own Him as their substitute) but that all may come if they will. That is all that he means when he said that no man perishes for want of an atonment.

You're trying to say that Hodge said Christ atoned for all, and only the elect receive it, but Hodge explicitly rejected that view in his first proof.

According to this view of the plan of salvation, election is subordinate to redemption. God first redeems all and then elects some. This is the view extensively adopted in this country. According to Augustinians, men, by their fall, having sunk into a state of sin and misery, might justly have been left, as were the fallen angels, to perish in their sins. But God, in his infinite mercy, having determined to save a multitude whom no man could number, gave them to his Son as his inheritance, provided He would assume their nature and fulfil all righteousness in their stead. In the accomplishment of this plan Christ did come into the world, and did obey and suffer in the place of those thus given to Him, and for their salvation. This was the definite object of his mission, and therefore his death had a reference to them which it could not possibly have to those whom God determined to leave to the just recompense of their sins.

​

 

And here is why I suggested you study the distinction between the modern understanding of the word 'atonement' and the word 'satisfaction' as used by Hodge and others. If you go back and read my responses to your posts it was taking issue with your view that Christ's work 'didn't satisfy divine justice' (C Hodges words not mine), or 'remove all legal impediments' (AA Hodges words not mine). I purposefully avoided using the word 'atone' because of its many VARIOUS definitions (as I also took the time to list for your benefit). Thus proving once again Jon's point that "some cannot seem to help but lean on their own understanding. That is exactly what I see in this thread – it is not even a debate because no one accepts that the other has a legitimate argument."

Don't you think that man's totally depraved nature does enough to limit the number of those who will be saved according to your system? Do you really need to have the atonement limiting it as well?

Just admit that SOME Calvinists take a different approach to their understanding of the 'atonement' than you do. It's not that big of a deal.

 

Tomato/tomahto. The issue is that Christ has satisfied divine justice and removed all "legal impediments" for all who believe. He has done nothing for one who does not believe. (Hodge's words AND mine.) And only those whom the Father gave the Son, and those for whom the Son prayed, will believe. (Hodge's words and mine.)

The universal aspect of Christ's work as described by Hodge can be summed up in the words of the Syro-Phoenician woman, "The dogs may eat the crumbs that fall from their Master's table."

And once again you betray your absolute man-centered focus and misapprehension of Calvinism. Nothing can separate a man from the love of God in Christ. Nothing. If God's salvation is limited, it is because He has limited it.

You have such a small, small view of God.

 

To someone not educated on the terms I suppose it appears that way.

Provide the quote.

They actually say that there are no legal impediment for any man to be saved. Thus making unbelief the ONLY condition to be fulfilled. Hodge even goes in detail to explain that condition.

Right. They do teach this. It is THIS that limits the number saved, not the lack of atonement.

How?

1. By leaving the non-elect in their totally depraved condition...

2. By not removing all legal impediments or satisfying justice for them.

OR

3. BOTH.

Some Calvinists, like those of the Princeton school, believe the nature of man is ALL that limits the number who is saved. Other Calvinists believe BOTH are limiting factors. You don't seem able or willing to even acknowledge that distinction.

We both do, but only one of us has realized it, while the other thinks he has it all figured out.