Actually, Christ means "Anointed One," and I think that we can safely say that Jesus has always been the "Anointed One."
lighthouse said:Actually, Christ means "Anointed One," and I think that we can safely say that Jesus has always been the "Anointed One."
lighthouse said:Actually, Christ means "Anointed One," and I think that we can safely say that Jesus has always been the "Anointed One."
ChristisKing said:Open Theism can't run from this fact, God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world, and He took on flesh because of the fall. Therefore sin and the fall were foreordained before the foundation of the world, therefore goodbye Open Theism :wave2: .
Lovejoy said:If anointed one means God in the flesh, why were Saul and David both referred to in that fashion? I only ask out of curiosity.
No. Anointed One does not mean God in the flesh. Immanuel does.ChristisKing said:And Anointed One means God in the flesh. Open Theism can't run from this fact, God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world, and He took on flesh because of the fall. Therefore sin and the fall were foreordained before the foundation of the world, therefore goodbye Open Theism :wave2: .
lighthouse said:No. Anointed One does not mean God in the flesh. Immanuel does.
Um, alright, I was just asking because I thought it seemed a little silly to call Saul God in the flesh. I rather assumed that is not what "annointed one" meant. But you have a good day, now.ChristisKing said:The Scriptures not only refer to David and Saul as anointed but also wafers, the clothes of Aaron, Levite priests, certain days, the tabernacle, the altar, vessels, instruments, His people Israel, Cyrus, the cherub, angels, and Christians. Anointed simply means "set aside or sanctioned." Of course there was only one "Anointed One," Jesus Christ. Christ was the only "Anointed One" because He was God in the flesh.
Christ is the only human being who was 100% God and 100% man, so when Scripture refers to Christ it is not just referring to the Eternal Son of God without flesh who always was, but rather it refers to the God/man who was born at a point in time in history.
What the Open Theists got caught doing is saying Christ only means the Eternal Son of God without flesh because it messes up their theology to admit otherwise, with verses like this:
1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
So now we are "chasing bunnies" down little bunny trails as they play on words and attempt to divert from the true and obvious meanings of Word of God. But thats ok, I need the exercise.
God_Is_Truth said:none of that eliminates open theism.
Yes. As in God incarnate, i.e. in the flesh.God_Is_Truth said:doesn't Immanuel mean "God with us"?
How does Christ mean "God in the flesh?" Can you prove this? Where in scripture is this supported?ChristisKing said:Sure it does, this strikes at the very foundation of Open Theism. Since God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world that means Adam's fall and sin were foreordained. This is what is quickly thrown in God's face in the form of the insult of "Originator of sin," and therefore can't be true, even though it is taught in Scripture. (Of course this is not true, Scripture teaches mans heart is the originator of sin.)
But anyway if Adam's sin was not a contingency but so well fixed and known that God taking on flesh was actually foreordained before creation then there is no "open book" for "man to write in" that changes God's plan. But rather both the free will of Adam remained in tact yet God's predestined will from all eternity was fulfilled at the same time. This is what the Apostle Paul marveled over when he wrote:
ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
lighthouse said:How does Christ mean "God in the flesh?" Can you prove this? Where in scripture is this supported?
ChristisKing said:Sure it does, this strikes at the very foundation of Open Theism. Since God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world that means Adam's fall and sin were foreordained. This is what is quickly thrown in God's face in the form of the insult of "Originator of sin," and therefore can't be true, even though it is taught in Scripture. (Of course this is not true, Scripture teaches mans heart is the originator of sin.)
But anyway if Adam's sin was not a contingency but so well fixed and known that God taking on flesh was actually foreordained before creation then there is no "open book" for "man to write in" that changes God's plan.
God_Is_Truth said:it is quite possible to be a open theist and hold that the sin of adam was unavoidable therefore necessitating Christ die and take on flesh.
all it means is that one part of the future was not open. open theism is quite in favor of this as it holds that some of the future is open and some is closed.
ChristisKing said:Doesn't this seem awfully convienent to you that you or any man could just be able to "cherry pick" what future is open and what is closed?
I mean many open theists believed Adam's future was open but after being confronted with Scripture subsequently have had to admit that it may very well have been closed. I mean how can you really be sure what is open and what is closed? What is open today is closed tomorrow. What really appears to be "open" in open theism is the "open flexibility" it provides its adherents on a day-to-day basis.
I find it ironic that you would admit that Adam, the most free man completely untainted with sin and not in bondage of any kind to have ever lived and newly created, would not have had an "open future," yet some of us who are (were) in slavery to sin and who always does (did) the will of the devil until, as the Scriptures teach, God grants (granted) us repentance are completely free with an "open future" to write whatever we will.
Don't you?
God_Is_Truth said:i deny that he had to sin and that sin was ever ordained by God. sin is the most horrible thing to ever come to pass and is completely contrary to the character of God. to suggest that God who is good would decree such a thing for any man is sickening.
ChristisKing said:Funny, I've read that before:
ROM 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
ROM 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
ChristisKing said:The Scriptures not only refer to David and Saul as anointed but also wafers, the clothes of Aaron, Levite priests, certain days, the tabernacle, the altar, vessels, instruments, His people Israel, Cyrus, the cherub, angels, and Christians. Anointed simply means "set aside or sanctioned." Of course there was only one "Anointed One," Jesus Christ. Christ was the only "Anointed One" because He was God in the flesh.
Christ is the only human being who was 100% God and 100% man, so when Scripture refers to Christ it is not just referring to the Eternal Son of God without flesh who always was, but rather it refers to the God/man who was born at a point in time in history.
What the Open Theists got caught doing is saying Christ only means the Eternal Son of God without flesh because it messes up their theology to admit otherwise, with verses like this:
1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
So now we are "chasing bunnies" down little bunny trails as they play on words and attempt to divert from the true and obvious meanings of Word of God. But thats ok, I need the exercise.
ChristisKing said:Funny, I've read that before:
ROM 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
ROM 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?