 |
| 
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 7/23/2003 3:33 PM (GMT -6) |   | Sorry guys.
I was going through purging some old posts of mine, and I stuffed up.
Just ignore this.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/23/2003 4:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Albert,
I will try to respond to your post in more detail later, but for now I would like to offer a bit of a different perspective on the atonement that fits perfectly with Open Theism: The Moral Government view of the atonement. This view was considered THE Wesleyan-Methodist view during most of the 1800s and early 1900s, and derives from the Governmental theory developed by Hugo Grotius, a student of Arminius.
Essentially, it says that the death of Christ was substitionary in the sense that it provided a substitute FOR the penalty deserved (public or universal justice), but not a strict satisfaction of retributive justice (as on the classic Reformed view).
For more info on the MG view, see the following link:
http://www.biblical-theology.com/moralgov/index.htm
Also, Dr. Boyd has promoted the Christus Victor view in his books (and of course as the name for this website), which also can be nicely reconciled with the Open view.
God bless,
John
"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 | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/23/2003 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
That was nicely said and I agree to a certain point. I don't know that I can articulate what that certain point is, but let me try.
The concept of "everlasting life" has presented me with problems for a long time. I ask myself, "How can one have everlasting life one minute and not have it the next minute?", where "everlasting" is aiwnion, as in John 3.16. Then I see you making this statement, "But union with Christ occurs only when we believe. How could it be legal for God to impute our sins to Christ, before we were united to him in faith?" and I fixate on "union" and "united". Is it possible that we have "everlasting life" as long as we are in union with Christ, but that "everlasting life", being an attribute of God, is lost if we are no longer in union? Well, I think that is more than possible and is one of the reasons I abandoned Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). 1 John 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal (aiwnion) life, and this life is in his Son.
So, what does that have to do with what you said? Since, Christ is "eternal/everlasting/aiwnion life", does He change when we come into union with Him? Or, is the scripture true that says, Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.?
Edited by - Paul5388 on 07/23/2003 10:18:50 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/23/2003 5:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Paul and Albert,
In addition to Paul's excellent observations, I would like to add that 1 John presents Jesus AS "eternal life."
1 John 1:2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- (This can only mean Jesus is "eternal life").
1 John 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
1 John 5:12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
1 John 5:13 ¶ These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Jesus (or, being in union with Him) is "eternal life" regardless of who accepts or rejects Him. Therefore, the idea that eternal life necessarily implies "once saved, always saved" (as Paul notes) does not follow from the definition the scriptures themselves give to eternal life.
Certainly there are many scriptures which present eternal life as a present reality; however, there are also many which present eternal life as a goal to be strived for. For example:
Matt 25:46 "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Rom 6:22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.
Gal 6:8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
Titus 3:7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to {the} hope of eternal life.
In any case, even if though we should affirm with Scripture that eternal life in a very real sense is a present reality to all who believe in Christ (as in John 3), this also does not require us to conceive of it as anything other than vital spiritual union with Christ (as in "I am the Vine and you are the branches").
My 2c
P.S.: As to imputation, I find that Augustinian-Calvinian concept to be greatly overemphasized and in fact not really fitting well with the Arminian position. Imputation of righteousness or sin seems directly contradicted in Ezek. 18, and is only referred to in passing in the NT. Strictly speaking, imputation, if true, requires no personal holiness in the believer whatsoever, which as you probably know is a very strong emphasis in the Bible and especially the New Testament. Also, if Christ's righteousness is imputed to us upon initial exercise of faith in Him, then apostasy is by definition impossible, for no matter how much sin one may commit, Christ's righteousness is still ours.
Yes, we are forgiven because of the merits of Christ's death on our behalf, but this does not necessarily mean we have no moral obligation to pursue a godly life. The imputation scheme to my mind only fits with the TULIP.
"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
Edited by - John Earp on 07/23/2003 10:47:42 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/24/2003 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
I told you there may be problems with my ability to articulate, but maybe I didn’t carry the thought far enough.
You say it isn’t “anything other than vital spiritual union with Christ”, but I have to ask if our position and function within the body of Christ is only “spiritual”? I perceive my function as an ambassador for Christ to be more than spiritual.
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Matt. 25.37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Food and clothing seem to be pretty much non-spiritual to me, but it is done to Him even though it was actually “the least of these my brethren”. This does more than imply there is also a physical union, as Albert possibly observed in the example of marriage. The church is individual physical members who come together (assemble) to function in more than the spiritual realm.
I Cor. 12.20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
I Cor. 12.27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Consider how many of the gifts are to function in the physical realm.
Rom. 12.5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.
9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.
10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;
11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;
Just as an example, the older women were supposed to teach (one of the gifts) the younger women eight real world things, like loving their children (Titus 2.4-5). So, there is a physical aspect of salvation and being part of the body of Christ.
Let’s go back to my question, “Since, Christ is "eternal/everlasting/aiwnion life", does He change when we come into union with Him?” Maybe I should have said “physical union”, instead of assuming you would understand that was what I was referring to. Since, there is certainly a physical union, does He change with each addition to His body? According to the Hebrews quote, He is the same. He is an unchanging manifestation of the triune Godhead, whether we are talking about the past, present or future.
But, we also need to consider when we actually became a part of Christ (it has a direct bearing on imputation that Albert brought up). Did we become part of Christ when the church/body was formed, when we believed or maybe even before the church/body was formed?
I’ll let you respond before going on.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/24/2003 5:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Paul: Thank you for your comments. I guess I don't see doing good works like giving food and clothing as "unspiritual." I think we agree that eternal life is only "in the Son."
"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 | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/25/2003 4:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
Not that I disagree with anything you said in your last post, but let me remind you of this, Habakkuk 2.4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. Luther didn't make a New Testament find, it actually had its origin in the Old Testament.
BTW, I thought the mirror analogy was very good.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/27/2003 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Albert,
"John, I don't agree with what you say about imputation etc., but I just want to wait a short while for other contributions before I post on that." Maybe you need to prime the pump a little more to get others involved? If you make an observation contrary to the OV they will swarm in like bees. | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/27/2003 8:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Albert and Paul,
The following is something I posted to my Revival Theology discussion group a while back. I thought it might offer some leads with regard to the view of the atonement compatible with Arminianism (and OVTheism).
Friends,
We have been discussing the theology of revival, and I would like to direct our attention to the most holy of all subjects, the atonement of Christ.
It is often asserted by Calvinistically oriented teachers that the atonement was a "sin-debt payment" or "satisfaction of wrath." The Arminian position has typically been what is called the Moral Government (MG) theory of the atonement (which is a very different thing than the Moral **Influence** theory).
The MG view says that Christ's death had to do with *public* justice, as opposed to the satisfaction of *retributive* justice, and that Christ death was in order to make forgiveness possible without diminishing the Law of God. As Rom. 3:26 says, "...that He might be just, and the justifier of him that has faith in Jesus."
Rom 3:21 But now apart from the Law {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. {This was} to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26 for the demonstration, {I say,} of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.
28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
I submit for your consideration the following articles, which do a good job explaining the basics of the Moral Government view of the Atonement:
by one of our list members, Pastor Dean Harvey:
http://www.biblical-theology.com/moralgov/atone.htm
by Grider, a Nazarene scholar:
http://www.biblical-theology.com/moralgov/govthry.htm
And closely related to this subject is Harry Conn's "God's Morphic Gospel," in which the author expounds on the conditional nature of convenant:
http://www.biblical-theology.com/moralgov/morphic.htm
"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 | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/27/2003 8:19 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I would say, though, that the idea of justification by faith was hidden in the Old Testament, not that it was entirely absent.
Galatians 3, Romans 4, & Hebrews 11 (among others) seems to me to teach quite clearly that justification by faith was something that Abraham in fact did receive and know by revelation of God.
Gen 15:6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
"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 | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/27/2003 8:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Albert,
I appreciate very much the opportunity to discuss with this subject with you. As far as there being any one particular atonement theory that is THE Open Theism view, as far as I know that hasn't been decided amongst Open Theists as of yet. I only offered the Moral Gov't and the Christus Victor views as views compatible with the Open view, not as the only possible views compatible with it.
That said, I do not find the imputation scheme, which is part and parcel of the whole Calvinistic soteriology, to be necessarily convincing to either an Arminian point of view or the Open view. The reason is that if in fact Christ's righteousness is imputed/credited to the believer at justification, then the plain and unavoidable fact is that nothing can ever remove or negate this credit, as it is Christ's perfect righteousness that is imputed to the believer in the penal substitution/satisfaction theories of atonement. In that view, God placed on Christ the actual sin-debt earned by the sins of the elect, and therefore nothing and no one can ever place that debt back on such a one. The plain fact is, the imputation scheme is utterly incompatible with Arminianism and the Open view.
Now that is not to say that we are not forgiven on account of Christ's death on our behalf, for of course we are. "The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7).
However, it seems to me that the Arminian and Open view on this is that the forgiveness of sins is in fact always conditionated upon the repentance and faith of the sinner; i.e., "IF we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)
This I submit is true in both Old and New Testaments, that one is justified by faith and not by works, and that forgiveness of sins is conditionated upon repentance, faith, and atonement.
"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 | | |
|
Paul5388
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295
| Posted 7/28/2003 6:54 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
If the righteousness of Christ can never be taken away, we have to understand that He will never take it away, but we can reject it. Heb. 6.6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. You will notice it is "they" who fall away, not that "they" are forced away and the crucifiction is of necessity "afresh" or needed again, which isn't going to happen.
Heb. 10.29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Check Rom. 4 and see how many times logizetai (3049) is used and the different ways of translating, i.e. "counted", "reckoned" and "imputed" and maybe the concept of "imputing" can be clarified a little. I reckon/figure recalling the use of "reckon" in Texas would emphasize it isn't set in concrete. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:02 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 |
|
|