September 25, 2006

Charles Hodge (1797–1878) on 1 John 2:2

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.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 2:511.
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.
Ibid., 2:558–559.

Bio:  
Wiki

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

What about Warfield on 1 Jn. 2:2? Just kidding, Tony :-)

David Ponter said...

Hey there Anom. Its me David Ponter.

My initial response to Warfield is that he turns the noun into a verb. Its a noun. He is the expiatory sacrifice not only for our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world. John is not saying he has expiated not only our sins but for the sins of the whole world.

Secondly, his argument hinges on Owen's trilemma; which in turn relies on a pecuniary idea of satisfaction where personal belief or unbelief is irrelevant. Once the debt is paid it ipso facto sures the remission of the debt.

Next: He, like Owen, makes a deal about Christ being the expiation even for the sin of unbelief. So where does that get us? He has to add, like Owen, that belief (the condition of the application of the expiation) is also purchased and secured FOR ALL WHOM the expiation is made. Clearly the expiatiory sacrifice is not a sacrifice for the act of belief. This is actually critical. So he has to assume that somehow it infallibly secures faith (ie its own application for all whom it was made). Good luck on finding a single verse to prove that.

I hope you see how this is critical. It plays into the next point which Ill handle in the next comment.

David

David Ponter said...

Warifeld: The expedient made use of by many commentators in their endeavor to escape from this maze of contradiction is to distinguish between Christ as our "Advocate" and Christ as our "Propitiation", and to connect actual salvation with him only in the former function. Thus Richard Rothe tells us that "the propitiation in Christ concerns the whole world," but "only those in Christ have an advocate in Christ," with the intimation that it is Christ's advocacy which "makes the efficacy of his propitiation effective before God." In this view the propitiation is conceived as merely laying a basis for actual forgiveness of sins, and is spoken of therefore rather as "sufficient" than efficacious--becoming efficacious only through the act of faith on the part of the believer by which he secures Christ as his Advocate.

David: Thats the problem isnt it. In Protestant Scholastic Calvinism, the expiation actually secures its own application for all whom it was made. And so the argument goes. If X does not have the expiation infallibly applied to him, then ergo, the expiation was not made for X.

Fine, but surely one should prove the premise that the expiation infallibly secures its own application for ALL whom it was made.

Now lets assume that that idea is false because it cannot be sustained in Scripture? What are you left with? You are left with the option that the expiation does this:

Nor would we attach any force to the argument, that if Christ made penal satisfaction for the sins of all, justice would forbid any to be punished. To urge this argument surrenders virtually the very ground on which the first Socinian objection was refuted, and is incompatible with the facts that God chastises justified believers, and holds elect unbelievers subject to wrath till they believe. Christ's satisfaction is not a pecuniary equivalent, but only such a one as enables the Father, consistently with His attributes, to pardon, if in His mercy He sees fit. The whole avails of the satisfaction to a given man is suspended on His belief. There would be no injustice to the man, if he remaining an unbeliever, his guilt were punished twice over, first in his Savior, and then in Him. See Hodge on Atonement, page 369. Lectures, p., 521.

What Dabney says here is clearly the position of Shedd and C Hodge.

Now, Anom, please read that very carefully, especially the last line. If it cant be proven that the expiation somehow infallibly secures its own application for all whom it was made, then all you are left with is this: that the expiation is properly a penal matter, in that it lays down the sufficient preconditions which enable the just judge to apply the benefit of the expiation to whomever he wishes. As Judge, he may lay down conditions, any and all conditions he wish.

So once again, if you cant prove that the expiation infallibly secures its own application for all whom it was made, you are forced out of the Owen-Warfield paradigm back into the proper penal paradigm of C Hodge, Dabney and Shedd.


David

David Ponter said...

Warfield: It is obvious that such a view can be held only at the cost of emptying the conception of propitiation of its properly expiatory content, and shifting the really saving operation of Christ from his "atoning" death on earth to his "intercession" in heaven....No support is given this elaborate construction by John; and our present passage is enough to shatter the foundation on which it is built....that the atonement is to be conceived as universal while its application is particular, and that expiated while believers only enjoy the benefits of this expiation. The "advocacy" of our Lord is indeed based here on his propitiation. But it is based on it not as if it bore merely an accidental relation to it, and might or might not, at will, follow on it; but as its natural and indeed necessary issue....The efficacy of the advocacy rests on that of the propitiation, not the efficacy of the propitiation on that of the advocacy....The propitiation accordingly not merely lays a foundation for a saving operation, to follow or not follow as circumstances may determine. It itself saves..."

David: as to emptying, well I say who cares. As soon as one steps out of pecuniary categories the enture discussion changes. Once you are in penal categories, all this stuff I find really as empty as a democrat caring for tax-breaks.

But to the heart of Warfields argument.

To repeat Warfield:

[1] The "advocacy" of our Lord is indeed based here on his propitiation. [2] But it is based on it not as if it bore merely an accidental relation to it, and might or might not, at will, follow on it; [3] but as its natural and indeed necessary issue.... [3a]The efficacy of the advocacy rests on that of the propitiation, not the efficacy of the propitiation on that of the advocacy....

That logic is interesting. He posits an either/or. Basically, its either A or B. Its not B, therefore its A. Its either necessarily efficacious in and of itself, or completely contingent. That already sounds like a potential false dilemma fallacy to me.

So now we come to 3, the efficacy of the advocacy rests on the expiation, not the efficacy of the expiation rests on the advocacy.

Well prove that. He is still assuming that the expiation sures its own application for all whom it is made.


The shedding of the animals sacrificial blood for the entire nation did not ipso fact and necessarily sure sin-remissoin for the same entire nation. Sin remission depended upon the Priest applying the blood on the altar, to make atonement. The shedding of the blood (the expiatory sacrifice), itself didnt make atonement, but the application of it by the Priest. Hebrews then adds: then the application of the blood upon our hearts by the HS secures our cleansing.

Next, the interesting assumption here from Warfield, is that there is a direct linear causal relationship here: A causes B. Or, if not, there is no causal relationship, all is merely contingent.

Well pah to that. The expiation is the means, the exact and direct means by which God secures atonement (reconciliation: Godward and manward). Its the exact and proper *means* by which this is effected. But itself, it is not a causal agent or power: which is what Warfield must assume (it by and of itself secures its own application for all whom it was made).

So its not a case of either A or B, necessary or pure contingency. Its not an accidental relationship as _I_ understand it. The expiation is the proper means and grounds which God uses to able him to justify any sinner.

Ill leave it that. I think that refutes what Warfield was saying.

come and join us at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Calvin_and_Calvinism/

David Ponter said...

you are going to have to put up with the typos. I am a streams of consciousness guy and I dont have time to proof-read it. Just be charitable and overlook my editing sins.

David

David Ponter said...

Hey there Anom,

I should have added:

1)I am more than willing to chat about this.

2) Have you seen the comments from J Edwards, CHodge, Dabney and Shedd on this?

3) we are interested in some of the controlling assumptions nested in high Calvinist arguments, such as the arguments which purport to establish a necessary proof of limited expiation/imputation:

A) that the expiation secures its own application for all whom it is made; B) Christ as high priest effectually prays for all whom the expiation is made; and C) the Trilemma.

D) The pseudo-inductive arguments such as: purport to claim that the idea that the expiation could be unlimited entails chaos and disorder within the Trinity. The idea that the will of God has failed, etc.

C) The alleged "exegetical" claims that seek to convert terms like world and all to some of all kinds. I have yet to see a non-paradigm dependent hermeneutic rule that determines when and where an all or a world denotes some of all kinds.

Stuff like that.

At a personal level, the level of hostility and insults from various quarters just blows me away.

So all this is to say, you are more than welcome to discuss this with me here or at the C&C list. (I am glad tho that this blog is not an "reformed baptist" blog. ;-)

Take care,
David

Anonymous said...

David,

Thanks for the response, I will carefully consider your comments. Given Warfield's intimate acquaintance with the issues involved here, as well as his knowledge of Calvin and his great learning (and this is not an argument against what you said), how is it that he dropped the ball on this one? Blind spot? Theological pressupposition I guess? Anyway, thanks...

David Ponter said...

Ive actually never liked Warfield. My first intro to him was via the Van Til debate on presuppositionalism. I found Warfields claims on Scripture to be excessive: eg there is so much inductive evidence that it as good as, amounts to, deductive evidence.

But that aside: its clear that Warfield primarily relied on secondary sources, such as Turretin and Symmington. By his time, there had been a mini-revival of Scottish works on the atonement (Martin, Symmington, et al). His lapsarian chart, and his Plan of Salvation display this. Warfield really screwed up there. He like Turretin tried to reshape the so-called Amyraldian order of the decrees into the traditional linear lapsarian model. We see this too in Warfields rather misdirected attempt to undermine the idea of legal obstacles. His counter there assumes a certain view of the expiation: if an abstacle is removed, nothing prevents salvation, etc etc.

Secondly, its clear that AA Hodge was moving back towards the Protestant Scholastic model and Warfield followed along.

I was thinking about your comments and my replies. Here is what I am hearing from a few sources--and this is nothing new--its the idea that an atonement must be a true atonement. What do they mean by that? They mean, an atonement must in and of itself, save all those for whom it was made. It must have some intrinsic efficacy which enables effectual extrinsic salvation.

The normal way of premising that out is to say: the expiation secures its own application. That was explained in at least two forms: that there can be no separation between the expiations impetration and its application. To say it this way is just another way of saying: it must secure its own application.

If we ask: How does it secure its own application, the answer will be: because it purchases faith, salvation and any and all conditions necessary. I found this in Owen today:


All that is here affirmed may be reduced to these heads...

(2.) Hence Christ is said actually, or ipso facto, to deliver us, because our deliverance, which is to be accomplished sub termino, is the infallible, absolute, immediate issue and product of what he did for us. Actual and ipso facto are opposed to the intervention of any such thing as should make our deliverance to be only potential or conditional...

This being the sum and plain intendment of that place, I suppose there will not need any operose endeavor to remove the objections that are laid against it. And therefore, to that before expressed, I say, Christ hath actually and ipso facto procured our deliverance. Hence we have actual right unto it, but not actual possession of it; and where the difficulty of this should rest I know not. Men may, as oft as they please, create contradictions in their own minds, and entangle themselves with doubts in the knots which themselves have tied. Works, Death of Christ, vol 10, p., 475.

He is saying, there can bo no intervening conditionality which may entail contingency.

So, how does on prove that the expiation, in and of itself, secures its own application for all whom it was made?

Answer: by treating it as if it is a simple pecuniary payment. Debt payments ipso facto remit debt. Its their nature. A debt payment cannot fail to remit the debt.

Secondly, following that assumption, is to say it buys things (eg faith and salvation) for _all_ _whom_ _it_ _was_made_. But now proving that will be very difficult, say I.

If the premise "the expiation secures its own application for all whom it was made" cannot be proven, it must be discarded. Thats just being honest. For then we must admit we have gone further than Scripture, we have established postulates which Scripture does not sustain.

Back to Warfield. In Protestant Scholastic polemics, and in 19thC polemics, tho, that premise came to be seen as an inviolable self-evident truth. It took on mythological status. It became an unchallengable theological legend. But it cant be proved.

The other premise-argument which cant be proved is the claim that Christ as high priest effectually intercedes for ALL whom the expiaiton is made.

So, whats interesting here. The truth is, you actually wont find these arguments in Calvin, in Bullinger, in Edwards, in C Hodge, in Dabney, or in Shedd. You will only find modified forms of them: such as: for all whom Christ *especially* dies for, he effectually intercedes as high priest. For all whom the expiation was especially made for, its application will be secured.

Despite what folk like Roger Nicole may say of Calvin, for example, you, me or he, will not find those arguments in Calvin.

Ill shoot off one more reply and then wait for your rejoinders.

David Ponter said...

One closing comment. I mentioned the other day about a linear casuality: A causes B, B causes C, etc. This is present in Owen's Death of Christ, as well as his Death of Death. Its standard.

Owen then imagines that any rejection of his linear causality must invariably ential absolute contingency and mere potentiality. As if its either A or B.

James White posts like this. You will often see him and others write like this: Either Christ died effectually for the elect, or he merely died to make salvation possible.

Well there is a grain of truth in here, but also distortion. The linear idea is a grasp, a clutch at certainty. The thought is, this is the only way to establish a certain intention within the Trinity, etc etc.

But the moderal Calvinist way of looking at it is so see the causal complex more as triangulation of causalities. An event is rendered certain and efficacious when multiple causes from different directions are brought to bear on that event. So its not a case that either he only died for the elect or that he only died to make salvation possible for all.

For certainty is not rested in mere actions, but in agents, in persons. Its the divine persons all acting in unity which effect a certain outcome. There is no alleged chaos or disunity within the Trinity. All are working in concert, effecting different aspects to bring about a necessary end.

So we can say, the atonement actually does save those for whom it was especially made. This is not because there is something pecuniarily magical aboutt the expiation, but because its really really powerful and big God effecting our salvation from first to last. We can say, this atonement actually saves, exactly because it is the real and proper means by which God saves his elect.

Hope that helps,
David

David Ponter said...

dang you cant edit these things, moderate, etc etc