2 Timothy 2:24-25
don't want to be argumentative. One reason this is important to me is not so that everyone thinks like me, but so that we don't alienate or "mis-label" someone who doesn't define Christ's satisfaction exactly like the strict particularists. I appeal to Heidelberg 37 and Dort 2nd Head, esp. articles 3, 5 and 6 to demonstrate that setting a universal aspect to Christ's satisfaction works quite well within the system.
Whether you *want* to be argumentative or not, you are being so. You are making arguments and claiming that Hypothetical Universalism is comppatible with the Reformed Confessions. You're on a hobby horse and convinced that it's really the only way to truly account for man's condemnation for failing to believe the Gospel.
We took up this conversation here: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/87650-Why-does-Limited-Atonement-Matter/page5
Therein we cited multiple Puritans and other sources that demonstrated that saving faith was a "condition to interest" in the Covenant of Grace. You think that, by stringing together quotes from multiple Reformed teachers, that you've established the views compatibility as if it fits like a "hand in a glove" with the Westminster Standards. You appeal to Hodge, which in the previous thread it was never established that he gave you the room you thought you had to demonstrate that failure to exercise saving faith (a condition to interest in the CoG for the elect) is the basis upon which men are condemned. It was also demonstrated that when the Puritans spoke in certain ways (that you appropriate for your view) they are not using the language in the way you think they are doing because you are not grasping the way in which they used language even when they stated that Christ "died for all".
The bottom line is that Theology is not a buffet line and appealing to a website that treats theology like a buffet line is not convincing simply because it supports the tune of a one string banjo.