Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > What Theory of the Atonement Squares with OVT?

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 1/27/2003 9:05 PM (GMT -6)

I would like to get some insight into Open Theists' views of the atonement. It seems clear that at least the Calvinistic "sin debt payment" theory of the atonement would not work with the Open View. Perhaps one of the most frequent statements heard today about Calvary is that all your sins, "past, present, and future," were "paid for" when Jesus died on the Cross. This does not seem possible to square with Open Theism.

Wesleyan professor of philosophy and proto-Open-Theist L.D. McCabe (1800s) made the astute observation that the classical view of foreknowledge requires a limited atonement, as in Calvinism. He argued that this was one very good practical and doctrinal reason for Wesleyans to discard the idea of classical foreknowledge.

Have any openness theologians written anything about the atonement?

Thanks

Edited by - John Earp on 01/28/2003 02:30:35 AM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/28/2003 5:02 AM (GMT -6)

We can't forget that there is still a future, regardless of whether one believes that God does or does not know it exhaustively. With that in mind, an understanding of atonement is affected by the open view only in that perspective: God either forgives sin as its as it is committed, though God foreknows that we are able, and most likely will, sin (the open view), or he sees into the future of all sin and has already provided atonement for those sins yet to be committed (the non-open view).

Regardless of one's view of the future, God has atoned for all sin for all time, the same way for all believers.

Hope that helps,

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 1/28/2003 6:13 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

We can't forget that there is still a future, regardless of whether one believes that God does or does not know it exhaustively. With that in mind, an understanding of atonement is affected by the open view only in that perspective: God either forgives sin as its as it is committed,

Where in the Bible do we find the idea that God forgives sin "as it is committed?" 1 John plainly states that it is "IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins..."

quote:

Regardless of one's view of the future, God has atoned for all sin for all time, the same way for all believers.

The problem is that we must define precisely in what sense God has atoned for all sin for all time. This idea, if not properly defined, can be quite easily taken to imply universalism. (Much like Carlton Pearson and other neo-Universalists are teaching nowadays).

If the death of Christ is viewed as a "sin debt payment" for all sin for all time, then likewise universalism is obviously true (contrary to the many scripture passages which plainly state that few there be that find eternal life).

This is why it would seem very important for Open Theists to define their theory of the atonement. It would seem that the standard Arminian (Moral Government) view of Christ's death being a demonstration of God's mercy and justice, whereby He can now justly forgive repentant sinners on account of Christ's death on their behalf would perfectly fit with the Open View.

The following website has some very helpful articles referring to the Moral Government theory of the atonement (which was considered THE atonement theory among Methodists of the 1800s).

http://www.biblical-theology.com/moralgov/index.htm

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

http://revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 01/29/2003 12:05:56 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 1/28/2003 8:01 PM (GMT -6)

Good question J.E. Several comments:

* Since the 50's, openness people have gravitated toward the moral government view of the atonement. There's a whole organization, rooted in Gordon Olson's teaching, that closely associates openness and moral government theory (E.E.M.: Evangelistic Education Mission [or Ministry]). Many early YWAM people were (and still are) both openness and Moral Government adherents. The connection here seems to be the strong emphasis on free will and individual moral responsibility, something that may logically work against the Penal Substitutionary view of the atonement.

* Bruce Ware has argued that openness adherents can't hold to the substitutionary view of the future because we don't believe God knows which particular sins people will commit in the future. Hence we can't say that Jesus died "for all the sins in the world." I responded in an article (in the ETS Journal) that God need not know which particular sins we will commit to pay the price for all sins we could commit. If I give my daughter a blank check and say "this will cover any possible car you might choose to buy," noone would argue that "I did not pay for my daughters future car" on the grounds that I didn't know which car she'd buy when I wrote her the check.

* I myself have defended (in God at War the Christus Victor model of the atonement as the primary (but not only) model of the atonement in the Bible. I think it fits with the openness motif very well.

Hope this helps

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 1/29/2003 4:51 AM (GMT -6)

Hey John,

Let me add to my original post just to clarify a tad.

First, I do not propose atonement within a universalism context. That's not what I meant. Sorry about that. I was assuming we were already starting this discussion from some sort of (Evangelical) Christian (or Orthodox) definition of atonement, to which I, for example, as an open theist, hold tenacious; I've not altered anything in regard to the atonement because of the open view. From these confines, as I stated, I see nothing adjusted or being redefine in regard to the atonement merely because one holds to an open view. Sure, non-open theists may SAY that the open view affects the atonement this or that way, but, as Greg has said, it's unfounded. It's like demanding that the flowers on the side of the road on which I drive must be destroyed (or perhaps just ruined) because my car isn't the same as another's car.

You stated, The problem is that we must define precisely in what sense God has atoned for all sin for all time.

That would most certainly be true, if universalism was what I'm was suggesting. But since it's not, there's not need (that I can see) to lay this burden of defining the atonement onto the open view platform; it's not relevant.

I want to note something that you also said. You asked the following question: Where in the Bible do we find the idea that God forgives sin "as it is committed?" 1 John plainly states that it is "IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins..."

Suppose you were to sin right now (any sin, since sin is sin) and the rapture happened or you just dropped dead immediately after you sinned WITHOUT having been able to have asked for forgiveness. Do you believe that God would say, "Oh, John, you were so close! A second more of life and you would have had time to have asked for forgiveness for that last sin. Well, as it stands, you didn't. Tsk, tsk. And since you didn't (couldn't) ask for forgiveness, I can't (couldn't) cleanse you from it. Off to eternal banishment with you now, and be smart about it."?

I don't think (guess I could be wrong here) that you believe the above scenario is possible.

The above is not an argument from Sripture to support my view that God has provided an atonement for sin for all time (another thread, perhaps, will bring that discussion); if we are TRUE Christians, we are constantly cleansed from sin, but we are subject to God's diverse discipline. But the above scenario surely must beg you to consider the validity of the view that one HAS to ask for forgiveness before they can be cleansed from sin, merely because you've quoted I John.

And I'm not suggesting that one can just sin away and he'll be kept clean as a dove. Absolutely not. I am saying that I believe Scripture teaches that the real heart after God, the true Christian is constantly cleansed by the blood of Christ. If were weren't cleansed, we'd be held back from eternity for those sins we don't even know we've committed: sin is sin is sin. It makes not difference that I know about it or not. Further if God has a beef with one over a sin or anything else, for that matter, He will let that one know about it and will discipline him if necessary.

Well, off to another thread,

Starkman

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 1/29/2003 7:14 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

I want to note something that you also said. You asked the following question: Where in the Bible do we find the idea that God forgives sin "as it is committed?" 1 John plainly states that it is "IF we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins..."

Suppose you were to sin right now (any sin, since sin is sin) and the rapture happened or you just dropped dead immediately after you sinned WITHOUT having been able to have asked for forgiveness. Do you believe that God would say, "Oh, John, you were so close! A second more of life and you would have had time to have asked for forgiveness for that last sin. Well, as it stands, you didn't. Tsk, tsk. And since you didn't (couldn't) ask for forgiveness, I can't (couldn't) cleanse you from it. Off to eternal banishment with you now, and be smart about it."?

Short answer: I believe that God would (usually) give a person "time to repent," as He did with the false prophetess Jezebel in Rev. 2:21: I gave her *time* to repent, but she refuses to repent of her fornication. Even Ananias and Sapphira were given a chance to repent.

quote:
But the above scenario surely must beg you to consider the validity of the view that one HAS to ask for forgiveness before they can be cleansed from sin, merely because you've quoted I John.

The verse I quoted seems quite clear--If one confesses, one is forgiven. The opposite must also be true as far as I can tell--If one doesn't confess, one is not forgiven.

As to "sins we don't even know we've committed," also known of as "sins committed in ignorance," the Bible discusses this in Lev. 4. Essentially, as soon as such sins done in ignorance are revealed to us for what they truly are, the covenant people were to confess them in faith of the atonement. I don't really see how this differs in the New Covenant. One obviously cannot repent of something until he is aware of it. As far as God disciplining his children, yes, if it weren't for that, none of us would make it.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

Edited by - John Earp on 01/30/2003 8:05:19 PM

¡Que Payaso!
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 108

Posted 1/30/2003 1:10 AM (GMT -6)

John Earp & Starkman,

quote:
all your sins, "past, present, and future," were "paid for" when Jesus died on the Cross. This does not seem possible to square with Open Theism.

One possibility is to consider Christ's role as a "living" atonement. I am not able to look up the passages at the moment, but I believe reference is made at least twice in the NT to this role that Christ presently fills. This may help solve the problem of future sins which may or may not be committed. Christ lives to atone for them.

Payaso

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." - Bilbo Baggins

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 2/11/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6)

While not addressing your question directly, I think this is an AWESOME book on the Atonement.

www.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=1571

Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

apo64
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 3

Posted 2/14/2003 1:42 PM (GMT -6)

Hmmm haven't thought much about this. However, I've been reflecting much on Romans 5

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The long short of it all is:
1) Sin was in the world before the law (though it came through a pre- mosiac law)
2) Death reinged in the world through sin
3) Law was added so we might become conscious of sin
4) The gift was given yet was unlike the trespass
5) The gift gave life like the trespass brought death
6) Death follwed one trespass but the gift follwed many trespasses
7) Death reigned through Adam Life reigned through Christ
8) The Gift must berecieved

So Christ's atonement on the cross is complete for those who recieve it. The question isn't what sins are forgiven but who is forgiven Christ's work is complete.

I guess that's the way I'm reading this. Sorry if I added nothing to this.

Thanks

Edited by - apo64 on 02/14/2003 6:44:08 PM

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:19 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual