Atonement: a 2nd footnote

I hope many of you have enjoyed this series on the atonement of Jesus Christ.  One of the great challenges  for me (as the editor) is that no one officially represents the SFA position officially; for that matter John Owen does not ‘officially’ represent the more limited view either. Theirs lots of variations between the SFA position & even among the more limited view.  With that said, I really appreciated Andy Chances comment from yesterdays blog: “I think sufficiency points to the worth of the sacrifice. It does not necessarily mean than the sins of the world were laid on Jesus; it only means that if they were laid on him, his sacrifice would atone for them.”  This is an important statement and I appreciate Andy highlighting it for us.

Some of you have asked if i am going to post some of my own convictions on this issue before this series is over.  I know it is not popular to say this on BLOGS but honestly i am still developing strong convictions regarding the intricacies surrounding this doctrine.  I believe that Jesus’ death on the cross was limited in intent (to secure a particular redemption for God’s elect) and I believe universalism is heresy.  Logically, i think the “more limited” view seems to make alot of sense; textually i find myself more in the SFA camp.  These are some of the reasons why i have taken more of an “editor” role during this series.  I hope our other pastor/theologians will offer us some mind stretching exegesis in the days to come.  Stay tuned for that, I promise it will come.  May we never forget, Scripture is king and we are slaves of one Text.


2 responses to this post.

  1. […] Kolstad ( gives a second footnote on limited atonement and continues his discussion of the sufficiency and efficiency of the […]

  2. […] Second footnote on limited atonement. […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: