Limited Atonement
... is probably the least politically correct doctrine in the politically incorrect Christian faith - so much so that many Christians vehemently deny that the Bible even teaches it.
Briefly, limited atonement means that Christ's atoning work on the cross is efficacious (effective) for a specific group of people: those sinners, chosen before the foundation of the world, for whom He died. These are truly saved; they are not merely offered the potential to be saved from their sins and the rest is up to them (thank God!). While the Bible does speak of Christ's death "for the world" in several places, these references cannot be divorced from the numerous mentions and discussions of election of individual persons for eternal life.
Anyway, this bit of live blogging (by a Reformed Baptist; half right, but everyone has to start somewhere!) briefly and helpfully describes a few theological implications and practical applications of this important doctrine.
Read it, and let's talk.
UPDATE April 26, 2007: this is helpful, too.
posted by Aaron @ 4:35 PM
2 Comments
2 Comments:
Please show me where election is ever associated with eternal life. I can't seem to find a verse that shows a person is elected to eternal life.
Luke 6:13 reads, "And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles." The word for "chose" here is "eklegomai," the verb from which "eklektos" or "elect" is derived. This passage reveals Christ electing certain men out from among those who were already His disciples to give them a place of special service. Among these, He elected Judas Iscariot, one who was among His disciples, but who was not a believer at all! This alone is enough to prove that election has nothing to do with salvation.
Thanks for the comment, Lyle.
To take a stab at your question, I would start with observing that the concept and doctrine of election is all through Scripture - from the Lord loving Jacob but "hating" Esau, to the theophany shown Moses ("I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy"), to Jeremiah 1:5, to Jesus' teaching (many outwardly called through the gospel proclamation, few inwardly chosen) to Ephesians 1:4 ("...he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless in his sight"), to Romans 8:29-30, and so forth.
The "golden chain of five links" in Rom. 8:29-30 cannot be read as anything but individual election to eternal life, I would argue, without doing violence to the plain sense of the text. God's foreknowledge (of those called according to his purpose in v28) leads to his predestining them to be conformed to the image of His Son (they will be His brothers). Those predestined, he also effectually called; those called are also justified. Those justified are so certain to be glorified at the consummation that Paul speaks of it in the past tense.
It's true that Jesus chose (same verb) Judas Iscariot, but this does not exhaust the meaning of eklegomai, any more than Paul's use of "flesh" in Rom. 7 (as the sinful nature) forces the same word to denote a sinful nature in John 1:14. Context is the chief determinant of meaning.
Does that make sense?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home