# Charles Hodge on 1 Jn 2:2



## Flynn (Feb 21, 2006)

G'day all,

Now, if we were to focus on C Hodge here, we will find some interesting things just waiting to be discovered. The last paragraph is the key, but Ive quoted the context for context's sake. 

In answer to this question, it may be remarked in the first place that Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they deny is that he died equally, and with the same design, for all men. He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumnerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance. 

These are the universally admitted consequences of his satisfaction, and therefore they all come within its design. By this dispensation it is rendered manifest to every intelligent mind in heaven and upon earth, and to the finally impenitent themselves, that the perdition of those that perish is their own fault. They will not come to Christ that they may have life. They refuse to have Him to reign over them. He calls but they will not answer. He says, "Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." Every human being who does come is saved. 

This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches. Charles Hodge, Systematic, vol, 2, pp558-9. 

Now note here, Hodge says, Christ "gave" himself as a propitiation, not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world. Note then, this is a sufficient satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Note too, his comment about wresting the Scripture. The implication is that no true Augustinian need to wrest the Scripture (ie convert holos kosmos into: the elect) in order to express his Augustinianism. 

So, how could Christ "give" himself as a propitiation for the sins of the whole world?

Take care,
David


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Flynn_
> The last paragraph is the key, but Ive quoted the context for context's sake.



Here's more to put Hodge in context and, again, it proves that Ponter is incapable of reading anyone in context or quoting in context even if only for context's sake:




> He says, 'Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.' Every human being who does come is saved. This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches. *But, in the second place, it is to be remarked that general terms are often used indefinitely and not comprehensively. They mean all kinds, or classes, and not all and every individual.* When Christ said, 'I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,' He meant men of all ages, classes, and conditions, and not every individual man. When God predicted that upon the advent of the Messiah He would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, all that was foretold was a general elusion of the Holy Ghost. And when it is said that all men shall see (experience) the salvation of God, it does not mean that all men individually, but that a vast multitude of all classes shall be saved. *The same remark applies to the use of the term world. It means men, mankind, as a race or order of beings. No one hesitates to call the Lord Jesus the 'Salvator hominum.' He is so hailed and so worshipped wherever his name is known. But no one means by this that He actually saves all mankind. What is meant is that He is our Saviour, the Saviour of men, not of angels, not of Jews exclusively, nor yet of the Gentiles only, not of the rich, or of the poor alone, not of the righteous only, but also of publicans and sinners. He is the Saviour of all men who come unto Him. *Thus when He is called the Lamb of God that bears the sin of the world, all that is meant is that He bears the sins of men; He came as a sin-offering bearing not his own, but the sins of others.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Here's more to put Hodge in context and, again, it proves that Ponter



When you say, "here's more..." do you mean that your quote is the next paragraph in that section? Or are you trying to counter Hodge's comments on one verse with Hodge's comments on another verse?


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Magma2_
> ...



If you look closely, he appears to include the last paragraph posted by "Flynn" (the part before the first usage of bold type) and I would assume pastes the section that follows.

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Pilgrim]


----------



## Flynn (Feb 22, 2006)

G'day There,

I rather expexted the comment from Sean.

Lets be sure to read Hodge very carefully. Let me repost the critical paragraph. And lets try not to gloss over this Sean; really try. 

Here is the last paragraph:

This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation *effectually* for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches. Charles Hodge, Systematic, vol, 2, pp558-9. 

Now, then, he says Christ died effectually for the sins of his people... Now who are his people? He clealy means the body of Christ, the elect. It would be nonsense to propose otherwise. Then he goes on to juxtapose the sins of the whole world, over and against "his people." Really try hard not to gloss over this Sean.

Second argument, any credible thinker here would know that the formula to which C Hodge references, Christ died sufficiently FOR ALL, but efficiently *for the ELECT*. Hodge overlays that formula with his understanding of 1 Jn 2:2. No need to be a rocket scientist to see that. If Hodge secretly meant what Sean proposes, to quote John Robbins "nonsense has come" for then Hodge has said, Christ died effectually for the sins of his people, but ineffectually (ie a bare sufficiency) for the sins of his people.

So what Hodge later says cant be used to bulldoze what he has just said. Rather, he is giving other examples as to how the term kosmos can be interpreted. So lets deal with the citation Ive already posted before you seek to move on to something else.

So the question comes back to this, and this time I will better qualify it, how then "for Hodge" did he think Christ gave himself as a sufficient propitiation for the *sins* of the whole world? On Hodge's terms, how could he say that?

Hope that helps,
David

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## Magma2 (Feb 22, 2006)

> Now, then, he says Christ died effectually for the sins of his people... Now who are his people? He clealy means the body of Christ, the elect. It would be nonsense to propose otherwise.



Then it would seem in the questionable mind David, and in spite of the above detailed and expanded explanation of what he meant, Hodge must have been speaking nonsense since he wrote:



> What is meant is that He is our Saviour, the Saviour of men, not of angels, *not of Jews exclusively,* nor yet of the Gentiles only, not of the rich, or of the poor alone, not of the righteous only, but also of publicans and sinners. He is the Saviour of all men who come unto Him.



A quite natural and even charitable reading of Hodge - in context - would suggest that "œhis people" is a reference to Jesus´ natural kinsmen who were his immediate disciples. It is well known that Hodge strongly opposed the Amyraldianism of men like Ponter. Hodge rejected as nonsense the idea that "Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but only for the elect efficiently." So why does Ponter foolishly attempt to wrest isolated quotes from Hodge as if he were a supporter and promoter of a twofold will of God and twofold intent of the atonement? While there are many who openly embrace Ponter´s compromise with the Arminianism he adores, I hardly see Hodge as an appropriate vehicle. 

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Magma2]

{EDITED BY ADMINISTRATOR}
{The poster will refrain from such personal and irrelevant attacks, which are obvious based on the gleeful emoticon attached to it. If such is necessary, please know that the result will be swift banning. FTG}

[Edited on 2/22/2006 by fredtgreco]

My apologies Fred. I wasn't sure if that dancing banana might be a bit over the top. 

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Magma2]

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Flynn (Feb 22, 2006)

Sean says:

A quite natural and even charitable reading of Hodge - in context - would suggest that "œhis people" is a reference to Jesus´ natural kinsmen who were his immediate disciples. It is well known that Hodge strongly opposed the Amyraldianism of men like Ponter. Hodge rejected as nonsense the idea that "Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but only for the elect efficiently." 

end

Hodge regarded as nonsense?? 

Okay: 

In the second place, the question does not concern the value of Christ's satisfaction. That Augustinians admit to be infinite. Its value depends on the dignity of the sacrifice; and as no limit car be placed to the dignity of the Eternal Son of God who offered Him self for our sins, so no limit can be assigned to the meritorious value of his work. It is a gross misrepresentation of the Augustinian doctrine to say that it teaches that Christ suffered so much for so many; that He would have suffered more had more been included in the purpose of salvation. This is not the doctrine of any Church on earth, and never has been. What was sufficient for one was sufficient for all. Nothing less than the light and heat of the sun is sufficient for any one plant or animal. But what is absolutely necessary for each is abundantly sufficient for the infinite number and variety of plants and animals which fill the earth. All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood. vol 2, p544-5,


The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the mission of his Son. What was the design of Christ's coming into the world, and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was it specially to render certain the salvation of his own people, i. e., of those given to Him by the Father? The latter question is affirmed by Angustinians, and denied by their opponents. It is obvious that if there be no election of some to everlasting life, the atonement can have no special reference to the elect. It must have equal reference to all mankind. But it does not follow from the assertion of its having a special reference to the elect that it had no reference to the non-elect. Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. 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? vol 2, p 545-6

There is another class of passages with which it is said that the Augustinian doctrine cannot be reconciled; such, namely, as speak of those perishing for whom Christ died. In reference to these passages it may be remarked, first, that there is a sense, as before stated, in which Christ did die for all men. His death had the effect of justifying the offer of salvation to every man; and of course was designed to have that effect. He therefore died sufficiently for all. vol. 2, p560-1


Now lets take note of your argument. You cite a passage from Hodge here he says sometimes terms like all and world denote man as a class, mankind, not merely Jews. He means man qua man, man as he is a man, a human thing, opposed to angel-kind, or as opposed to the supposed limitation of the Jewish-kind. But he says, as these terms may mean man as a kind of thing, a race, it does not automatically mean every single man. Okay, so far so good.

Then you actually flip Hodge on his head and say by the term "whole world" indeed, by the term, "sins of the whole world," he really meant the Gentiles, and secretly he meant elect Gentiles at that. The last I checked, a jew was still part of mankind, that kind of thing called man. They are still part of the "hominum." Ummm... Dont think so.

And to show the further absurdity of your assertion, let us imagine that Hodge meant by the term "his people", the Jews, and the whole world all non-Jews, where from Hodge do you get that he meant a further step: elect Jews? And then again, to compound the illogic: non-elect non-Jews, aka elect Gentiles?

You are glossing over Hodge, indeed, turning him on his head. And as to his nonsense, he himself affirms the very thing you deny.

Take care,
David

[Edited on 2-22-2006 by Flynn]


----------



## Flynn (Feb 23, 2006)

For the most part, I am just going to ignore Sean and his future comments. For example, this one from yesterday: " Hodge rejected as nonsense the idea that "Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but only for the elect efficiently." 

It should be evident that he is flatly wrong here. Ive also shown that his claims regarding Calvin and the formula on 1 Jn 2:2 is also dead wrong. Sean's like a liberal democrat, always on the wrong side. ;-)

Now though, I want to post a few comments from Charles Hodge. Before anyone, after reading them, accuses me of taking him out of contact, I would ask folk to slow down. I plan to get to my point as I lay out the proper foundation. I maintain only by understanding the foundations of the respective positions can we properly evaluate men like Dabney, Shedd, C Hodge, Calvin, even Amyraut.

In the following days I will explain the citation that Sean posted on Hodge on the meaning of world, showing how that in no way does it refute these comments or my arguments (to come) from these citations. Further, it must be clear to the reader that I am not saying that C Hodge did not think that Christ died with any special specificity, or limited decretal intention to save the elect. He did. He defended a special specificity and design of Christ's death, as an expression of a divine sovereign plan of salvation. Hodge, et al, affirmed unconditional election and preterition; as do I.

Hodge:

1)
We accordingly find that the plan of salvation as unfolded in the New Testament is founded on the assumption that God is just. The argument of the sacred writers is this: The wrath of God is revealed against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men. That is, God is determined to punish sin. All men, whether Gentiles or Jews, are sinners. Therefore the whole world is guilty before God. Hence no man can be justified by works. It is a contradiction to say that those who are under condemnation for their character and conduct can be justified on the ground of anything they are or can do. vol 2, p492. 

I cite this to show that C Hodge can use ther phrase "whole world" to denote every single sinner.

2)
The passages in which Christ is represented as a sacrifice for sin, are too numerous to be here specially considered. The New Testament, and particularly the Epistle to the Hebrews, as before remarked, declares and teaches, that the priesthood of the old economy was a type of the priesthood of Christ; that the sacrifices of that dispensation were types of his sacrifice; that as the blood of bulls and of goats purified the flesh, so the blood of Christ cleanses the soul from guilt; and that as they were expiations effected by vicarious punishment, in their sphere, so was the sacrifice of Christ in the infinitely higher sphere to which his work belongs. Such being the relation between the Old Economy and the New, the whole sacrificial service of the Mosaic institutions, becomes to the Christian an extended and irresistible proof and exhibition of the work of Christ as an expiation for the *sins* of the *world*, and a *satisfaction* to the justice of God. vol 2, p506-7. 


3)
What Paul teaches so abundantly of the sacrificial death of Christ is taught by the Apostle John (First Epistle, ii. 2). Jesus Christ "is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the *sins* of the *whole world*." The word here used is hilasmos, propitiation, expiation; from hilaskomai, to reconcile one's self to any one by expiation, to appease, to propitiate." And in chapter iv. 10, it is said, "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." The inconsistency between love, and expiation or satisfaction for sin, which modern writers so much insist upon, was not perceived by men who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. In chapter i. 7, this same Apostle says, "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." To cleanse, katharizein, kathairein, katharismon poiein, agiazein, louein (Revelation i. 5) are established sacrificial terms to express the removal of the guilt of sin by expiation. vol 2, p511 

4)
All the arguments presented on the preceding pages, in favour of the doctrine of expiation, are of course arguments against a theory which rejects that doctrine. Besides, this theory evidently changes the whole plan of salvation. It alters all our relations to Christ, as our head and representative, and the ground of our acceptance with God; and consequently it changes the nature of religion. Christianity is one thing if Christ is a sacrifice for sin; and altogether a different thing if He is only a moral reformer, an example, a teacher, or even a martyr. We need a divine Saviour if He is to bear our iniquities, and to make *satisfaction* for the *sins* of the *world*; but a human saviour is all that is needed if the moral theory of the atonement is to be adopted. Gieseler says, what every Christian knows must be true without being told, that the fathers in treating of the qualificationa of Christ as a Saviour, insisted that He must be, (1.) God; (2.) a man; and (3.) as man free from sin. It is a historical fact that the two doctrines of the divinity of Christ, and expiation through th blood of the Son of God, have gone hand in hand. The one has seldom been long held by those who deny the other. The doctrine of expiation, therefore, is so wrought into the whole system of revealed truth, that its rejection effects a radical change, not only in the theology but also in the religion of the Bible. vol 2, p572. 

5)
That it is not to be inferred because certain writers are quoted as setting forth one particular theory, that they recognized the truth of no other view of the work of Christ. This remark is especially applicable to the patristic period. While some of the fathers speak at times of Christ's saving the world as a teacher, and others of them say that He gave himself as a ransom to Satan, and others again that He brings men back to the image of God, this does not prove that they ignored the fact that he was a sin offering, making expiation for the *guilt* of the *world*. It is characteristic of the early period of the Church, before special doctrines had become matters of controversy, that the people and the theologians retain the common language and representations of the Bible; while the latter, especially, dwell sometimes disproportionately on one mode of Scriptural representation, and sometimes disproportionately on another. The fathers constantly speak of Christ as a priest, as a sacrifice, and as a ransom. They ascribe our salvation to his blood and to his cross. The ideas of expiation and propitiation were wrought into all the services of the early Church. These Scriptural ideas sustained the life of the people of God entirely independently of the speculations of philosophical theologians. vol 2, pp589-90. 


To conclude, to deny these straightforward statements, one would have to prove that for C Hodge, whenever he used the terms whole world, or world, in these references and contexts, he meant the elect. But given his explicit comments (cited the other day) the term whole world is mankind generally. Let me restate, given his citation and explanation of 1 Jn 2:2 as Ive already posted, he did mean that "world" and "whole world" were mankind at large (elect and non-elect inclusive).

There is no evidence that he limited his *English* use of "world" in these contexts to the elect; even *John's* use and meaning of kosmos for that matter that I am aware of. 

So in terms of C Hodge's theology, how could he have considered that Christ gave himself as an expiation and propitiation for the sins of the world, even of the whole world?

Whats going on in his theology that enables him to say this?

Lord willing, I will try an posit an answer in a few days. In between, I will answer any comments, questions (reasonably) challenges.

If you can, please think about all this before you shoot off a reply.

Take care,
David


----------

