 |
 | 
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 6/30/2004 9:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Assuming Open Theism, how did Jesus die for our sins? I mean us in the twenty-first century. Our sins did not yet exist, being part of the future, so how could they be dealt with. The only answer that I can think of is ultra-general atonement (I made that up myself  ): Jesus died for all the possible sins of all the possible future people in the world. Honestly, this idea makes me feel a little less important. Now instead of being one out of trillions, I'm one out of ... ... zillions? Is that a real word? We hear pastors say, "He saw your face as He died on the cross." If so, then my face was only one of many possibilities. Sorry 'bout the rambling. I usually try to be more concise. By the way, what in the world is this? -> I just don't get it.
Hi Sahid,
I find that the Open View fits best with the dominant Arminian view of the atonement of Christ, that it was provisional and not "quid pro quo." That is, the atoning death of Christ makes it possible for God to righteously forgive sin; i.e., "that He might be just, and the justifier of him that has faith in Jesus"--(Romans 3) The Father accepts Christ's death as sufficient to atone for all who repent and believe the gospel.
The Open View has no different implication for the atonement than classical Arminianism does, though in fact the OV is more logically consistent with the basic Arminian premise of a general atonement for all. The classical Arminian view of foreknowledge precludes the possibility that ALL could possibly enter into the benefits of the atonement.
A really important point is that it is people who have been "bought and paid for" by "the price of redemption." SINS have not been paid for in a strict sense of quid pro quo, and Scripture never says sins have been paid for in such a way (in the sense of a "sin-debt" payment). Paying the price of redemption is quite similar to saying a fallen soldier has "paid the price for freedom." Obviously, the "price" is metaphorical, while its EFFECTS are quite real.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/30/2004 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Assuming Open Theism, how did Jesus die for our sins? I mean us in the twenty-first century. Our sins did not yet exist, being part of the future, so how could they be dealt with. The only answer that I can think of is ultra-general atonement (I made that up myself ): Jesus died for all the possible sins of all the possible future people in the world. Honestly, this idea makes me feel a little less important. Now instead of being one out of trillions, I'm one out of ... ... zillions? Is that a real word? We hear pastors say, "He saw your face as He died on the cross." If so, then my face was only one of many possibilities. Sorry 'bout the rambling. I usually try to be more concise. By the way, what in the world is this? -> I just don't get it.
An aside: If you Google and find Luther's Ninety-Five Theses, you will see something about "merits." I think the suggestion was that Christ died only for a certain number. And some Calvinists think that only the number/amount of those foreknown were died for... Rubish.
Back to your question.
"God doesn't wear a watch." (Set aside the whole theory of this whole board for an instant. God is called "pre-eternal" in ancient liturgy -- just take that to be "more-than-eternal" and leave what is beyond you and I alone for a moment more.)
Communion is not, as some falsely accuse the Roman Catholics of believing, a re-sacrifice. It is participation in our own now and here of the ONE sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Ever consider that when Christ said "this is my body" he hadn't died yet. And yet that symbol was real of his sacrifice. They "remembered" what hadn't happened yet. Likewise, in ancient (used next Sunday at your local Greek/Russian/Finnish Orthodox Church too!) liturgy we "remember the cross, the grave, his ascension, his reign, AND something that hasn't happened IN TIME but yet we can "lay hold of" through the Spirit: His Glorious Second Coming.
Think of cooking in an oven. I'm a potter and use kilns, so this idea comes from that, but you know kitchen ovens better. "When" are they going to "be done" the children ask about the cookies. If they asked about meat on the grill, their answers would be different depending on how close their hotdogs are to the heat and fire: some get done first. Some later. None are late.
By the Spirit of Christ we can now tap into the fullness of the kingdom of God. And when we sin, we need confession, and to go to church for communion, fellowhip, worship, etc., again...
Instead of "ultra-general" -- which still implies a collection of addes up...'thingies', think of ONE. One Mediator. One Way. One Vine. And TAP INTO THAT. There is room for everyone from the very beginning with Adam and Eve to the very end--whoever that may be.
Oh, the deep, deep love of Jesus,
vast unending, boundless free.
(Great old hymn -- www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/t/othedeep.htm YOU CAN HEAR IT!) | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 7/1/2004 8:06 AM (GMT -6) | | The way I look at Christ's death/atonement I believe he would have done the same even if it were just for ME.
I "think" this is something you put into your post if you are frustrated. At least that's what I have always "assumed" it to mean. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/1/2004 8:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
So I take it that Jesus' sacrifice potentially (no matter how many people come to repentance and belief) covers is big enough to cover all potential people (because all potential people have the potential to repent and believe) not just all actual people in the open view.
How 'bout that?
Sahid, I think that you are comparing Apples and Cursive-Script.
 ................. 
You are speaking NUMBERS when it is QUALITY that is at issue. Life and Death is the issue, not "merits" or "tokens."
.
Try reading this:
www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/1/2004 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/1/2004 10:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
One does not have to be an Open Theist to hold to any of the various atonement theories available, except, of course the penal substitution view, which only works for a determinstic world view.
AGREED.
And I'd like you to explain that to Sahid. Let him hear it from you, John. He has been asking WHICH ONE of the "theories" is O-T. None of them are; and one is 'not.'
Modes of Thought would make the point right now that it is good to consider most of the theories as ANALOGIES that can only be parially applied, and with care.
PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/1/2004 11:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Opps...
quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
The following link leads to an article that is a good introduction to the basics of the Governmental view and what other theories it can reasonably incorporate:
http://twtministries.com/articles/8_mgt/govthry.html[quote]
I forgot John is a moral-government guy.
See what he has to say. I just disagree with it.
I disagree completely with this:
[quote]Anselm of Canterbury (d.1109) in the West was producing his most influential theological discourses which contained the so-called "ontological proof" for the existence of God, a defense of the doctrine of the filioque, and the so-called "satisfaction theory" of the atonement in which it was contended that the death of Christ on the cross was the adequate sacrifice necessary to satisfy the justice and wrath of God the Father.
Heresy!!!!!!
HERE is somethimg much older.......... ("Redemption") www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/doctrine/redemption.html
GIVE THAT A GOOD READ, AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK.
- PotOnWheel | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/1/2004 11:14 AM (GMT -6) | | That's a good description, john.
Sahid, John does not blow all over the place. I like that about him. He's got roots.
(check out that Orthodox site though.  ) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/1/2004 9:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Alright, I get it; there is no one atonement theory for open theism. I didn't mean to say that. I know only a little about the various atonement theories out there, so this might not make the best sense. I was asking about who the atonement is perpared to be available to. As far as I can tell there are two different kinds of people (potential and actual) and, generally, three ways of dealing with them (making atonement available to none, some, or all). That makes 3x3=9 possibilies:
atonement available to. . . - No merely potential people, No actual people
- No merely potential, Some actual
- No merely potential, All actual
- Some merely potential, No actual
- Some merely potential, Some actual
- Some merely potential, All actual
- All merely potential, No actual
- All merely potential, Some actual
- All merely potential, All actual
Yeah, most of those make no sense. But I thought that in open theism, the lamb was slain at the foundation of the world (whichever way you translate it) for all possible people, so that leaves us with only three choices. When God originally thought up redemption, all the future people were only possibilities. I doubt that any open theists hold that "none" of these may be redeemed. So it's "all" or "some". But whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved, so doesn't that imply "all". I don't see how any "some" theory could work outside of determinism. Remember I'm talking about "available" to some, not being received by some.
I think what I'm talking about is more general than individual atonement theories. I thought "general atonement" was a broad category that held many atonement theories within it. (Don't be like me. Never use "general" two different ways in the same paragraph.) Maybe I'm wrong. At least that's how I meant to use it. Let's pretend I did.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 7/1/2004 11:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
As far as I can tell there are two different kinds of people (potential and actual) and, generally, three ways of dealing with them (making atonement available to none, some, or all). That makes 3x3=9 possibilies:
Help me! Did you get 3x3=9 by the TWO different kinds of people multiplied by the THREE ways of dealing with them?
quote:
I meant to use it. Let's pretend I did.
Sahid, I love the way you put things!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/2/2004 3:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
That's a good description, john.
Sahid, John does not blow all over the place. I like that about him. He's got roots.
Sahid, you appear to be blowing all over the place. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/2/2004 8:16 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sahid
Ok, yeah. That one post blew.  All over the place.  I'm just saying if God is preparing to make redemption available to all, then He has to deal with a bunch of possible people. We weren't even in the future when Christ died (under open theism), because there was no future. So dying for/dealing with past, present, and future people/sins/whatever doesn't cut it. Christ would have to make salvation availible to possible people, because He couldn't be sure which ones would even exist.
Didn't the soldiers who gave their lives in the U.S. War of Independance die FOR (for our benefit) us today?
Your line of questioning seems to presuppose the popular (but unscriptural) idea that Christ's death FOR us had to be specifically for each and every one of us (and that each and every one He died for had to somehow already exist in a settled future when Christ died, or else He couldn't have died "for" them.
The difficulty is resolved if one keeps in mind that Christ's death was a provision for reconciliation and forgiveness of sins--for "whosoever may call upon the name of the Lord." (Acts 2:21)
It is possible that you are overlooking what is to my mind the KEY distinctive of free will theism in general and Open Theism in particular; that is, conditionality, as in:
"...that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish, but have eternal life."
The atoning death of Christ, in and of itself, saves no one automatically, apart from their appropriate response to it (repentance and faith). If it did automatically save anyone, Calvinism or Universalism would be the only possible result.
The atonement is but one of several conditions of salvation. It's benefits are sufficient for all mankind, but only efficient for those who repent, believe, and persevere in the obedience of faith.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/3/2004 4:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by John Earp
Your line of questioning seems to presuppose the popular (but unscriptural) idea that Christ's death FOR us had to be specifically for each and every one of us (and that each and every one He died for had to somehow already exist in a settled future when Christ died, or else He couldn't have died "for" them.
The difficulty is resolved if one keeps in mind that Christ's death was a provision for reconciliation and forgiveness of sins--for "whosoever may call upon the name of the Lord." (Acts 2:21)
WELL SAID, JOHN.
Sahid/Zach. just think of the VINE AND BRANCHES parable. Then plug in what John just said. It works.
Can you do that?
 | | Back to Top | | |
| 27 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:58 PM (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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|