Charles 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.Systematic Theology, 2: 553.
[Lane brought up a possible problem with this quotation. I’m not at home so I can’t double-check the source. I’m more confident of other quotations in the blog entry linked below…]
From here. David shares lots of challenging thoughts and I think any Calvinist will find the post worth reading. A couple of paragraphs from him:
If you want to agree with Warfield, then please be consistent, as consistent as Owen was, and own that is it stands, then, the expiation is not actually sufficient for any given reprobate man, and, further, that there is nothing you can offer him.
Any offer you can have to any man–given that you do not know who the elect and non-elect are, has to be a bare agnostic hypothesis, that were this given man to believe, it would turn out that there was an expiation for him too. But be honest, stating a conditional proposition is not an offer. One can state conditional propositions easily, but that’s not the same as offering a benefit.
If I remember right, because I agreed with Murray on the Free Offer of the Gospel, I dared to disagree with John Murray on the same issue for the same reason (and back when I went to seminary–back in the mid- to late 90s–disagreeing with Murray was hard to do; he hadn’t been declared an embarrassing constantly inebriated relative in the Reformed family yet. More like the godfather.). I’ll post about this when I have some time.
Mark, you and your source have left out the next sentence on that page:
“But there are other facts which this theory leaves out of view, and with which it cannot be reconciled.” Plainly the section you quoted was not actually Hodge’s view.
Do please post. I recall when you were going to seminary at that time and working through the free offer issues.
Murray’s work on the offer is brilliant. It really bugs me that Hoeksemian hyperism snuck into the Presbyterian scene through Clark and Robbins. Gerstner’s acceptance of Hoeksemian hyperism was way too late in life to have any impact. But Clark, on the other hand, has done so much damage.
David
Fair enough. You might also want to look up (when you get home), the earlier comments at the bottom of the previous page:
“Christ did act as a representative; and what He did secured with certainty the benefits of his work for those for whom He acted. This being conceded, it of course follows that He acted as the representative and substitute of those only who are ultimately to be saved.”
And then on the top of page 553:
“There is another argument…the high-priest interced for all those for whom he offered sacrifice. The one service did not extend beyond the other…What was true of the Aaronic priests, is true of Christ…He intercedes for all for whom He offered Himself as a sacrifice. He himself, however, says expressly, ‘I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.’ (John 17:9) Him the Father heareth always, and, therefore, He cannot be assumed to intercede for those who do not actually receive the benefits of his redemption.”
Then follows a discussion that plainly indicates that while the theory originally quoted in your post explains some of the facts, it is utterly irreconcileable with other facts “not less clearly revealed and equally important.”
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. 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.
(1.) That God from eternity gave a people to his Son.
(2.) That the peculiar and infinite love of God to his people is declared to be the motive for the gift of his Son; and their salvation the design of his mission.
(3.) That it was as their representative, head, and substitution, He came into the world, assumed
our nature, fulfilled all righteousness, and bore the curse of the law.
(4.) That the salvation of all given to Him by the Father, is thus rendered absolutely certain.
2:553-4.
If that is not saying what I believe it is saying, then I would like to see why.
David
Note, I did not cite Hodge to prove the effectual application and intention of the expiation, but that, against Warfield, he believed that the legal barriers have been removed, etc.
But what was cited is actually Hodge’s position.
David
Lane, I’m not at home to double-check but I’ve put strikethrough marks and a note of warning until I check the source.
“But there are other facts which this theory leaves out of view, and with which it cannot be reconciled.”
Do you not see that Hodge is distancing himself from this theory? It doesn’t fit all the facts, Hodge is saying.
Lane,
You are missing it. He separates himself from the whole theory, sure, but, nonetheless, agrees with some of it.
David