Skip to content

Charles Hodge on 1 John 2:2

August 31, 2007

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, SystematicTheology, 2:558-9.

Advertisements
8 Comments leave one →
  1. October 25, 2007 11:36 am

    That is absolute nonsense.

  2. October 25, 2007 11:36 am

    That is absolute nonsense.

  3. Flynn permalink
    October 26, 2007 3:03 am

    Thats very helpful.

    You are more than welcome to explain your thinking here.

    David

  4. October 28, 2007 5:07 am

    For the scriptural definition of these verses please read the following 2 articles.

    http://savedbyhisblood.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/1-john-22/

    http://chrisjesusboy.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/particular-redemption/

    Chris
    Jesus is Lord!

  5. October 28, 2007 5:07 am

    For the scriptural definition of these verses please read the following 2 articles.

    http://savedbyhisblood.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/1-john-22/

    http://chrisjesusboy.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/particular-redemption/

    Chris
    Jesus is Lord!

  6. December 11, 2007 6:22 am

    Great post! I have a post in a very similar vain on my blog which can be found at http://bringthebooks.blogspot.com/.

    As of now it is the third article from the top. Hope you enjoy.

  7. March 2, 2008 6:36 am

    Well, I like the quote from Hodges, but I don’t really think it really explains the verse at all. I used a similar quote from Hodges when beginning a paper on the defense of Calvinism. “The question which of these systems [Calvinism or Arminianism] is true is not to be decided by ascertaining which is the more agreeable to our feelings or the more plausible to our understanding, but which is consistent with the doctrines of the Bible and the facts of experience.” No question we need to read scriptures like these in light of what is states elsewhere (John 6:44, 65; Acts 13:38, John 3:3, Romans 8:29-30, et al.). I’m sure Hodges has a better explanation/defense of 1 John 1:1 in his Systematic Theology…or elsewhere.

  8. March 2, 2008 8:45 pm

    Hi Damian and others,

    I don’t think these mere 4 sentences by Hodge are meant to be an explanation of the verse. Rather, it is meant to show that there are well-respected Reformed systematicians, such as Hodge, that do not hesistate to take 1 John 2:2 in an unlimited sense. The citation of Hodge helps to set forth the particular paradigm of Hodge himself, even if one disagrees with it. Hodge not only thinks that world connotes more than the elect, but he thinks alternative explanations “wrest” the scriptures.

    One should not think of Hodge as either sub-Calvinistic or as a strict particularist on the atonement. One should see him as representing a different [and ancient] tradition within Reformed theology.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: