Archive for the ‘The Removal of Legal Obstacles’ Category
AA Hodge (sample):
1) 4th. Nor as to its actual application. Arminians agree with Calvinists that of adults only those who believe are saved, while Calvinists agree with Arminians that all dying in infancy are redeemed an saved. 5th. Nor is there any debate as to the universal reference of some of the benefits purchased by Christ. Calvinists believe that the entire dispensation of forbearance under which the human family rest since the fall, including for the unjust as well as the just temporal mercies and means of grace, is part of the purchase of Christ’s blood. They admit also that Christ did in such a sense die for all men, that he thereby removed all legal obstacles from the salvation of any and every man, and that his satisfaction may be applied to one man as well as to another if God so wills it. AA Hodge, Outlines of Theology (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879), 416.
2) The design of Christ in dying was to effect what he actually does effect lo the result. lst Incidentally to remove the legal impediments out of the way of all men, and render the salvation of every hearer of the gospel objectively possible, so that each one has a right to appropriate it at will, to impetrate temporal blessings for all, an f the means of grace for all to whom they are providentially supplied. AA Hodge, Outlines of Theology (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879), 417.
3) 19. What was the doctrine of the “Marrow Men” in Scotland?
The “Marrow of Modern Divinity” was published in England, 1646, and republished in Scotland by James Hog of Carnock, 1726. The ” Marrow Men ” were Hog, Thomas Boston, and Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, and their followers in the Secession Church. They were perfectly orthodox with respect to the reference of the atonement to the elect Their peculiarity was that they emphasized the general reference of the atonement to all men They said Christ did not die for all, but he dead for all, i.e, available. “God made a deed of gift and grant of Christ unto all men.” They distinguished between “giving love,” which was universal and his “electing love,” which was special (“Marrow of Mod. Divinity “). Dr. John Brown said before the Synod of the United Secession Church, 1845, ” In the sense of the Universalist, that Christ died so as to secure salvation, I hold that he died only for the elect. In the sense of the Arminian, that Christ died so as to purchase easier terms of salvation, and common grace to enable men to comply with those terms, I hold that he died for no man. In the sense of the great body of Calvinists, that Christ died to remove legal obstacles in the way of human salvation by making perfect satisfaction for sin, I hold that he died for all men” (Hist. of Atonement controversy in Secess. Church, by Rev. And Robertson). AA Hodge, Outlines of Theology (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1879), 417-418.