I think Lane and I agree, “No man perishes for want of an atonement.”

I’m not home yet, but regarding my earlier post, I remembered that Hodge’s Systematic theology is available online.

With apologies to David, I’m not seeing the quotation the way he does:

The final test of any theory is its agreeing or disagreeing with the facts to be explained. The difficulty with all the Anti-Augustinian views as to the design of Christ’s death, is that while they are consistent with more or less of the Scriptural facts connected with the subject, they are utterly irreconcilable with others not less clearly revealed and equally important. They are consistent, for example, with the fact that the work of Christ lays the foundation for the offer of the gospel to all men, with the fact that men are justly condemned for the rejection of that offer; and with the fact that the Scriptures frequently assert that the work of Christ had reference to all men. All these facts can be accounted for on the assumption, that the great design of Christ’s death was to make the salvation of all men possible, and that it had equal reference to every member of our race. But there are other facts which this theory leaves out of view, and with which it cannot be reconciled.

As I see it, the statement in bold is a theory that Hodge claims does not account for all the facts revealed in Scripture. He agrees with the facts that the theory accounts for (“the fact that the work of Christ lays the foundation for the offer of the gospel to all men, with the fact that men are justly condemned for the rejection of that offer; and with the fact that the Scriptures frequently assert that the work of Christ had reference to all men”), but he thinks there are other facts.
In my opinion, David’s point is better substantiated from later in Hodge’s Systematic Theology

Admitting the satisfaction of Christ to be in itself of infinite value, how can it avail for the non-elect if it was not designed for them? It does not avail for the fallen angels, because it was not intended for them; how then can it avail for the non-elect, if not designed for them? How can a ransom, whatever its intrinsic value, benefit those for whom it was not paid? In this form the objection is far more specious. It is, however, fallacious. It overlooks the peculiar nature of the case. It ignores the fact that 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. The secret purpose of God in providing such a substitute for man, has nothing to do with the nature of his work, or with its appropriateness. The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide? The advocates of such schemes say, that the design of the work of Christ was to render the salvation of all men possible. All they can mean by this is, that if any man (elect or non-elect) believes, he shall, on the ground of what Christ has done, be certainly saved. But Augustinians say the same thing. Their doctrine provides for this universal offer of salvation, as well as any other scheme. It teaches that God in effecting the salvation of his own people, did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men, and therefore to all the offer may be, and in fact is made in the gospel. If a ship containing the wife and children of a man standing on the shore is wrecked, he may seize a boat and hasten to their rescue. His motive is love to his family; his purpose is to save them. But the boat which he has provided may be large enough to receive the whole of the ship’s company. Would there be any inconsistency in his offering them the opportunity to escape? Or, would this offer prove that he had no special love to his own family and no special design to secure their safety. And if any or all of those to whom the offer was made, should refuse to accept it, some from one reason, some from another; some because they did not duly appreciate their danger; some because they thought they could save themselves; and some from enmity to the man from whom the offer came, their guilt and folly would be just as great as though the man had no special regard to his own family, and no special purpose to effect their deliverance. Or, if a man’s family were with others held in captivity, and from love to them and with the purpose of their redemption, a ransom should be offered sufficient for the delivery of the whole body of captives, it is plain that the offer of deliverance might be extended to all on the ground of that ransom, although specially intended only for a part of their number. Or, a man may make a feast for his own friends, and the provision be so abundant that he may throw open his doors to all who are willing to come. This is precisely what God, according to the Augustinian doctrine, has actually done. Out of special love to his people, and with the design of securing their salvation, He has sent his Son to do what justifies the offer of salvation to all who choose to accept of it. 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 557the 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.”

I can’t find that exact quotation in the translation of the Canons of Dordt, but I did find this:

However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault (art. 6, canon 2).

I have to say that I have been taught exactly the opposite in the name of “limited atonement” one of the five points based on the canons.

13 thoughts on “I think Lane and I agree, “No man perishes for want of an atonement.”

  1. David

    Your quotation is from 2:55ff.

    Well with respect Mark, I will have to disagree. 🙂

    Read it again and again until you get it. But let me help the best way I can:

    Hodge:

    The final test of any theory is its agreeing or disagreeing with the facts to be explained. The difficulty with all the Anti-Augustinian views as to the design of Christ’s death, is that while they are consistent with more or less of the Scriptural facts connected with the subject,

    David: So the opposing position is consistent more or less with Scripture at some points.

    Hodge: they are utterly irreconcilable with others not less clearly revealed and equally important.

    David: the opposing position, however, is also inconsistent. with Scripture on other points.

    David: So far so good.

    Hodge: They are consistent, for example, with the fact that the work of Christ lays the foundation for the offer of the gospel to all men, with the fact that men are justly condemned for the rejection of that offer; and with the fact that the Scriptures frequently assert that the work of Christ had reference to all men.

    David: Now, here he is saying, the opposing view IS consistent with Scripture on these facts. Note he says, Scripture teaches that the work of Christ has reference to all men.

    Hodge: All these facts can be accounted for on the assumption, that the great design of Christ’s death was to make the salvation of all men possible, and that it had equal reference to every member of our race.

    David: What facts? these facts which Scripture teaches etc.

    David: He explains how it is that those facts are consistent. Here he refers to the facts he has identified as consistent. Its there bolded.

    David: But now there are facts which which the opposing theories leave out:

    Hodge: But there are other facts which this theory leaves out of view, and with which it cannot be reconciled. On the other hand it is claimed that the Augustinian doctrine recognizes all the Scriptural assertions connected with the subject, and reconciles them all. If this be so, it must be the doctrine of the Bible.

    David: Now tho, he says that the opposing theory is not consistent with Scripture. Why? Because the opposing position denies that Christ died especially for anyone. And so Hodge goes on to prove that very point.

    But where he says they are consistent, he means Christ’s death has equal reference to all.

    This motif of general and special is a constant in Hodge. For example:

    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. C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol 2, pp., 545.

    Nor is Hodge opposed to saying that Christ died equally for all, in some sense:

    The all is of necessity limited by what the Scriptures teach of the design of his death. If his death was merely didactic, intended to reveal and confirm some truth, then he maybe said to have died for all benefitted by that revelation, and therefore for angels as well as men. If designed to make it consistent with the interests of God’s moral government for him to pardon the sins of men, then he may be said to have died equally for all men. But if his death was intended to save his people, then it had a reference to them which it had not to others. Hodge, 2 Corinthians, 5:14, (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1860), 135.

    I dunno, he seems pretty clear to me on what he is agreeing with, and what he is not agreeing with. And he is not disagreeing with the critical facts I have cited.

    Hope that helps,
    David

    Reply
  2. David

    You have that “but” in there which introduces dysjunction. The dysjunction is not in the previous sentence.

    But there are other facts which this theory leaves out of view, and with which it cannot be reconciled.

    Anyway….

    David 🙂

    Reply
  3. David

    What happens when you mess with the mind of an historical theologian:

    Anyway, we have this:

    In assuming this ground, he is guilty of the same one-sidedness, the same contracted view, which he exhibits in his doctrine concerning the nature of the atonement. It is conceded that the work of Christ does lay the foundation for the offer of salvation to all men. Dr. Beman hence concludes that this was its only end; hat it merely opens the way for the general offer of pardon. His theory is designed to account for one fact, and leaves all the other revealed facts out of view, and unexplained. The Bible teaches, however, a great deal more in relation to this subject, than that one fact. It teaches, 1. That Christ came in execution of a purpose; that he suffered, as Dr. Beman expresses it, by covenant, and ratified that covenant with his own blood. 2. That his mission was the result and expression of the highest conceivable love. 3. That it not merely removes obstacles out of the way, but actually secures the salvation of his people. 4. That it lays the foundation for a free, full, and unrestrained offer of salvation to all men. 5. That it renders just the condemnation of those who reject him as their Saviour; that rejection being righteously the special ground of their condemnation. Charles Hodge, “Beman on the Atonement,” Essays and Reviews, in (New York, Robert Carter & Brothers, 1857), 175.

    These suppositions are made simply to show that, according to our doctrine, the reason why any man perishes is not that there is no righteousness provided suitable and adequate to his case, or that it is not freely offered to all that hear the gospel, but simply because he wilfully rejects the proffered salvation. Our doctrine, therefore, provides for the universal offer of the gospel, and for the righteous condemnation of unbelievers, as thoroughly as Dr. Beman’s. It opens the door for mercy, as far as legal obstructions are concerned, as fully as his: while it meets all the other revealed facts of the case. It is not a theory for one fact. It includes them all ; the fact that Christ died by covenant for his own people, that love for his own sheep led him to lay down his life, that his death renders their salvation absolutely certain, that it opens the way for the offer of salvation to all men, and shows the justice of the condemnation of unbelief. No MAN PERISHES FOR THE WANT OF AN ATONEMENT, is the doctrine of the Synod of Dort ; it is also our doctrine. Charles Hodge, “Beman on the Atonement,” Essays and Reviews (New York, Robert Carter & Brothers, 1857), 182.

    David: If you look at the flow of his thought here, its very similar, posit the opposing theory, spot the facts, delineate agreement and disagreement.

    Reply
  4. Pastor TA

    Actually, Mark, the bolded quote in Hodge is him explaining how what he has noted before about all the non-Augustinian theories and what they affirm that is biblical are all subsumed under the proper view that Christ’s death makes all men salvable. In other words, he’s showing how what they purport to offer in their theories that is biblical is nothing that we don’t already have in the Augustinian view.

    David has it right in his reading.

    Reply
  5. Pastor TA

    And yes, many of us were taught exactly the opposite when we learnt the Owenic version of Limited Atonement, which has become so popular because it so easily brushes the Arminians aside. It takes much more discussion (and charity) toward our Arminian brothers to concede (as Hodge did) that they have certain points about their theory of redemption that is biblical and right, but that their conclusion based on those facts is flawed. The High and Hyper-Calvinist tactic of dismissing all those premises by decretalizing all references to “all” and “the world” (i.e., whenever a universal reference is made, it’s just about the elect, anyway) makes dealing with their arguments easier, but it makes us into the sectarian and quirky kind of Christians we have become known as.

    However, it’s clear that that’s not what the best and brightest of the Reformed divines believed and taught, from Calvin on down. It was only when High Federalism came into vogue that everything began to be decretalized (and incidentally, it is also when the Reformed sacramentology began to be decretalized as well).

    Reply
  6. Steven W

    Pastor TA’s last point nails it.

    High Federalism can’t allow for sacramental speech or the objectivity that liturgical theology depends upon. It is simply not possible to say that there is life for the parishioner in Christ’s body unless we first know that that life is “for” the specific parishioner in question. Of course, decretally speaking, all you can do is guess.

    Go ahead and believe, and then we’ll see if we can tell you what it is that you’re trusting to be sufficient is actually sufficient for you.

    Reply
  7. David

    This is interesting stuff from C Hodge too.

    This is an extended block quotation but I will try and bold the critical part and then after make a comment.

    Hodge:

    His satisfaction does not ipso facto liberate. It may accrue to the benefit of those for whom it is made at once or at a remote period; completely or gradually; on conditions or unconditionally; or it may never benefit them at all unless the condition on which its application is suspended be performed. These facts are universally admitted by those who hold that the work of Christ was a true and perfect satisfaction to divine justice. The application of its benefits is determined by the covenant between the Father and the Son. Those for whom it was specially rendered are not justified from eternity; they are not born in a justified state; they are by nature, or birth, the children of wrath even as others. To be the children of wrath is to be justly exposed to divine wrath. They remain in this state of exposure until they believe, and should they die (unless in infancy) before they believe they would inevitably perish notwithstanding the satisfaction made for their sins. It is the stipulations of the covenant which forbid such a result. Such being the nature of the judicial satisfaction rendered by Christ to the law, under which all men are placed, it may be sincerely offered to all men with the assurance that if they believe it shall accrue to their salvation. His work being specially designed for the salvation of his own people, renders, through the conditions of the covenant, that event certain; but this is perfectly consistent with its being made the ground of the general offer of the gospel.

    Lutherans and Reformed agree entirely, as before stated, in their views of the nature of the satisfaction of Christ, and consequently, so far as that point is concerned, there is the same foundation for the general offer of the gospel according to either scheme. What the Reformed or Augustinians hold about election does not affect the nature of the atonement. That remains the same whether designed for the elect or for all mankind. It does not derive its nature from the secret purpose of God as to its application. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 2:555-556.

    David: he is pointing to a previously stated comment about where they agree.

    A few questions. In the previously cited offending remark, what exactly would one think Hodge disagreed with? Does he disagree with the fact that the death of Christ made the salvation of all men possible? No. Does he disagree with the fact that in some sense Christ died equally for all? No, I have shown otherwise. And, why would he refer to the “grand design” of the atonement, if he was seeking to refute those “facts”.

    Anyway.

    David

    Reply
  8. mark Post author

    A couple of things:

    1) I’m fine with David being right, I’m just still blind to it.

    2) Pastor TA wrote: Owen’s version “has become so popular because it so easily brushes the Arminians aside.” But that was also the whole reason Owen felt driven to come up with his theory. He wanted to take the atonement away from Arminiains. I think this is too obvious to be denied when one reads Owen.

    3) I’m willing to be corrected but I really choke on associating a Congregationalist dissenter with “High Federalism.”

    Reply
  9. Steven W

    I believe it was a “few.”

    But I think your third point goes to show that “Federalism” does not equal “Covenantalism.” This is what Murray was getting at when he said we’d been defining covenant as contract for too long now, and that such a definition is wrong.

    The 20th century saw the rise of Covenant Theology thanks to the simultaneous growth of Biblical Theology. This produced something much different from what was going by the title “Federal Theology.”

    Reply
  10. Anonymous

    Okay well lets try this:

    Charles Hodge:

    III. Tfte design of God in giving his Son was that men should not perish but have everlasting life. The perdition to which they were exposed included eternal misery and eternal sinfulness. The salvation includes deliverance from that perdition, and eternal holiness and eternal blessedness.

    2. It is here, as well as elsewhere taught, that it was the design of God to render the salvation of all men possible, by the gift of his Son. There was nothing in the nature, or the value, or the design of his work to render it available for any one class of men only. Whosoever believeth, etc. This is not inconsistent with other representations that it entered into God’s design to render the salvation of his people certain by the death of his Son.

    Charles Hodge, ‘God So Loved the World,” in Conference Papers, (New York, Charles, Scribner’s Sons, 1879), 17.

    Hodge a little later goes on to say that Christ did not only make the salvation of all men possible, but that he infallibly secures the salvation of his people (my paraphrase).

    So surely now, 1) there can be no apriori objection to the predications within the contended section that Hodge says can be assimilated. 2) There is warrant here for a careful re-reading of that paragraph, looking for the point where he expressly states continuity and disonctinuity with the opposing thesis.

    What is more, critical expressions here are again the same. 🙂

    Thanks,
    David

    Reply
  11. David

    Okay well lets try this:

    Charles Hodge:

    III. Tfte design of God in giving his Son was that men should not perish but have everlasting life. The perdition to which they were exposed included eternal misery and eternal sinfulness. The salvation includes deliverance from that perdition, and eternal holiness and eternal blessedness.

    2. It is here, as well as elsewhere taught, that it was the design of God to render the salvation of all men possible, by the gift of his Son. There was nothing in the nature, or the value, or the design of his work to render it available for any one class of men only. Whosoever believeth, etc. This is not inconsistent with other representations that it entered into God’s design to render the salvation of his people certain by the death of his Son.

    Charles Hodge, ‘God So Loved the World,” in Conference Papers, (New York, Charles, Scribner’s Sons, 1879), 17.

    Hodge a little later goes on to say that Christ did not only make the salvation of all men possible, but that he infallibly secures the salvation of his people (my paraphrase).

    So surely now, 1) there can be no apriori objection to the predications within the contended section that Hodge says can be assimilated. 2) There is warrant here for a careful re-reading of that paragraph, looking for the point where he expressly states continuity and disonctinuity with the opposing thesis.

    What is more, critical expressions here are again the same. 🙂

    Thanks,
    David

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *