Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
I'm not sure I can word my question properly and getting the language down is one of the reasons why I'm posting, but in the thread title above and in this post below I'm trying to speak of the sufficiency of the atonement in its intrinsic value, not the intention of the atonement.
My questions are: (1) In Christ's death, did he pay the penalty due to all the sinners of the world? His sacrifice being of infinite intrinsic value such that it could have paid for any God intended it to pay for, it would seem that Christ paid the penalty due to all, suffering what all men's sins deserved. And hence, the elect being part of that all, their sins are sufficiently paid for too? And it is not until we look at the intent of the atonement that we see that Christ's death procured the salvation of the elect only (since it was intended for them only)?
(2) I was wondering a bit about 1 John 2:2. I had always thought that the "world" referred to something general, kind of like what we see with "all" and "world" in other places concerning this issue. However, I recently saw Charles Hodge's comments on this verse (e.g., "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." In his systematic theology, Hodge also mentions that Christ, in effecting salvation for the elect, did all that was necessary for the salvation of all men). It seems he states that Christ did indeed do all that was necessary for the salvation of all, which I understand to be similar to what I was asking in (1) (that in doing what was needed for the salvation of all, Christ did what was needed for the salvation of the elect too).
If he is correct, how would one arrive at this from the text? If he is incorrect or I misunderstand him, where and how does he or I err?
My questions are: (1) In Christ's death, did he pay the penalty due to all the sinners of the world? His sacrifice being of infinite intrinsic value such that it could have paid for any God intended it to pay for, it would seem that Christ paid the penalty due to all, suffering what all men's sins deserved. And hence, the elect being part of that all, their sins are sufficiently paid for too? And it is not until we look at the intent of the atonement that we see that Christ's death procured the salvation of the elect only (since it was intended for them only)?
(2) I was wondering a bit about 1 John 2:2. I had always thought that the "world" referred to something general, kind of like what we see with "all" and "world" in other places concerning this issue. However, I recently saw Charles Hodge's comments on this verse (e.g., "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." In his systematic theology, Hodge also mentions that Christ, in effecting salvation for the elect, did all that was necessary for the salvation of all men). It seems he states that Christ did indeed do all that was necessary for the salvation of all, which I understand to be similar to what I was asking in (1) (that in doing what was needed for the salvation of all, Christ did what was needed for the salvation of the elect too).
If he is correct, how would one arrive at this from the text? If he is incorrect or I misunderstand him, where and how does he or I err?