ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[lee_merrill]

Heinous evil has no good purpose.

Why then does God bring judgment, is this for an evil purpose?!

Jeremiah 9:7 Therefore this is what the Lord Almighty says: "See, I will refine and test them, for what else can I do because of the sin of my people?”

See this book of Jeremiah, for what this meant:

Jeremiah 9:11 "I will make Jerusalem a heap of ruins, a haunt of jackals; and I will lay waste the towns of Judah so no one can live there."

The Open View is too simple.

The cross itself is part of God's redemptive plan of love and justice. Voluntarily coming and dying for a great good is not evil (though you could say those who freely killed him did evil).

That is the point, the cross was a heinous evil deed, and God meant it for good, and planned and brought it about.

And I believe these points have gone unaddressed:

Lee: So let’s not have people saying “the future can’t be known because it hasn’t happened yet”? And I think a free choice that will be made is definite knowledge of the future.

Muz: Except that it isn't free.

God is only able to bring about his will in human choices when choices aren’t free? Well, I am too.

Lee: in this verse, there is a sense of condemnation for not doing what they ought to have done, this would seem to require the Open View state that God was indeed seeking to bring about repentance.

Muz: I don’t know why.

Revelation 9:20-21 The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood-- idols that cannot see or hear or walk. Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts, their sexual immorality or their thefts.

You are saying there is no idea here that they should repent? Clearly the point is that in spite of all the judgments, they did not repent, implying we should marvel at this.

“The commission which these horsemen had was against idolaters; and though multitudes of them were destroyed, yet the residue continued their senseless attachment to dumb idols…” (Adam Clarke)

Lee: And yet these choices, made by people, are known.

Muz: Not each individual.

How do you know, may I ask? But grant the point, most of them did not repent, how can this be known, if these are free choices?

So, if God changes His mind, is He still righteous in your eyes?

Not if he says he won’t take back his words.

Isaiah 31:2 Yet he too is wise and can bring disaster; he does not take back his words.

Lee: So “takes away the sin of the world” is “takes away the sin of believers”? But I think Jesus came to do more than simply stop some sinning.

Muz: He came to take away the consequences of our sin with respect to being under the judgment and wrath of God. That's what it means.

That would be turning aside judgment and wrath (i.e. propitiation), but not taking away sin. “Takes” we may note, is the verb, “sin” is the object, we can’t be rewriting Scripture like you have done here. And this exemplifies Jesus succeeding (he does not try to take away the sin of the world, he does it), succeeding in destroying the devil’s work. Note also, “the devil’s work,” singular, so this would not mean just some of the devil’s works, Jesus came to destroy his work, as he came to take away the sin (not sins, and not some sins) of the world.

Muz: Yes, all the Devil's works will fail to achieve the Devil's purposes.

Agreed.

John 10:10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

Colossians 2:15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

John 16:33 "… take heart! I have overcome the world."

Lee: But was the cross man’s will, and also not God’s will? The Open View is simplistic, it involves a denial of plans that God has of even pain and suffering, for a purpose for good.

Muz: Calvinism says that the rape of a 9 year old girl is God's will and He makes it good. I don't find that either biblical or acceptable.

Muz, answer the question, please. Was the cross man’s will, and also not God’s will? And again, Calvinism does not say what you said, it may be satisfying to knock down a straw man, but it’s not very satisfactory.

Lee: … Paul’s thorn in the flesh—given to him to keep him humble.

Muz: First, we don't know exactly what it was.

But this doesn’t matter, correct?

Second, God probably wasn't the direct cause of the thorn. God simply refused to remove it.

But who gave him the thorn so that he would not be exalted beyond measure?

"This is the same lesson we learn from 2 Cor. 12:7 where Paul says that his thorn in the flesh was a messenger of Satan, and yet was given for the purpose of his own holiness. 'To keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me – to keep me from exalting myself!' Now, humility is not Satan's purpose in this affliction. Therefore the purpose is God's. Which means that Satan here is being used by God to accomplish his good purposes in Paul's life." (John Piper)

Muz: Calvinism says that God causes evil so that He can do good from it.

As in the cross, yes—OVT says God did not act in any way to bring about the cross?

John 13:26-27 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. "What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him.

OVT says that man commits evil, and God, in his goodness, grace, and mercy, brings good to those who seek His face through it.

Yet God has no such plan from the start in each instance? This is all damage control?

Zechariah 13:9 This third I will bring into the fire; I will refine them like silver and test them like gold. They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The Lord is our God.'

Lee: But how is creating a world with real, regrettable evil not having the end justify the means?

Muz: That's the Calvinist problem. OVT says that God created a world without evil.

So let me rephrase, how is creating a world in which you knew there may well be real, regrettable evil as a result of man’s sin, how is this at least being willing to have the end justify the means?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[RobE]

By faith.

I reckon myself to have died in Him and that the life I now live I live by faith. God's word teaches us that we are identified in Him, seated with Him in the heavenly places, perfect and righteous in Him.

The Vine and the branches.

I accept by faith that these things are so and as a result God conforms me into the image of His Son.

God conforms to no one! You conform to God through His Son. What is the branch without the Vine?

John 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.​

What makes you presume that God 'lives' through you when the scripture states that if you don't conform to Him- you will 'wither and die'?

He rose again three days later and now lives His life through me by the power of that very resurrection!

9"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17This is my command: Love each other.​

How long have you considered yourself a Christian? When did man get elevated over God in your view? Certainly, you will admit that God doesn't live His life through you since the branches get their life from the Vine. What's going on with you? The scriptures are plain that God chose us, and not the other way around...

John 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.​

How long have you considered yourself a Christian?

Resting in Him,
Clete

A while. And you?

 

[Philetus]

First let me say that I generally agree with you on this, in the same way that humans die, Jesus, the God-man, died.


However, I don't think it's as clear cut as you want to make it out to be. There is a mystical aspect to God dying that isn't easily explained, and depending on how one defines "death", one might express this truth differently.


So, I wouldn't go so far as to exclude AMR from being saved, as we tend to use terms a bit differently, and from how I understand Calvinists use death, I can understand his reservation to express this in the same way that you do.

Muz

Nobody wants to go that far. But.....

One cannot deny that Calvinism endlessly tries to manage the mystery by redefining simple terms in order to preserve its own twisted view of reality and theology. Someone divine died on the cross. What had previously prevented humanity and God from enjoying a reciprocal loving relationship that preserved the integrity and identity of God (as well as the true humanity of creatures) ceased to exist at the cross. God’s uncompromising demand for righteous was satisfied not because of anything we did or do, but because God let it die. God didn’t just quit sucking air! God died to Himself that we might live. There is no other salvation. NO other way God could save us. God laid down His own life and took it up again, but the life He took up is a life that is forever informed by HIS OWN incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection. The change we undergo through our participation in the passion of Christ Jesus and His resurrection is mere whimsy compared to the change in God. Our little debates over knowledge of the future are fanciful by comparison. I think what Clete is recognizing is that the real issue in the debate over the future is that God in fact does change and the incarnation proves it.

Is God the Son’s experience so far removed from that of the Father and the Spirit (as if ‘they’ were so ‘separate’ that ‘they’ could remain unaffected) that the very life, death and resurrection of Jesus goes relatively unnoticed by ‘them’ as mere melodrama for our benefit alone? I’m convinced that Calvinism’s attempt to manage the mystery and preserve God’s immutability has done much damage to the understanding of the Trinity as One and that those who hold to it as tenaciously as AMR are in fact in danger of denying the very salvation they seek to explain. To preserve their view they must deny that Jesus was a whole person, that God as trinity remains one, and that mankind has been given freedom to live and lay down their lives as they choose. Only one choice gives them the power to become children of God and the power to ‘take’ life up again and truly live. All other choices result in death being final and we would be without hope.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

The Son of Man died on the cross, not God the Son, the second person of the Godhead. The Scriptures consistently use the first designation when referring to the humanity of Christ, the second when referring to the divinity of Christ. The divine did not die on the cross. That is the core issue that is being misunderstood. God cannot die and His creation continue to exist. There is only one God, comprising one eternal essence. The distinctive offices (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of that single essence do not divide that essence into three parts.

The three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the one God.

You dice and slice so much that the 'R' in AMR must stand for Ronco.
You really don’t think much of God’s ability to create or have much appreciation for His creation, do you?

Philetus

 

[Lon]

Difficult discussion even among like-minded theologians.

I find two aspects that muddy the clear waters that always comes into play in this:

1) a definition and understanding of death. I think the cessational view tends to greatly cloud discussion into this subject.

2) Christ's two natures. It is difficult to divide that which is unified. There is a perplexity to 'how' Christ accomplished this.

While I've been on both sides of this discussion, I've yet to come to as strong of a conclusion as either Clete or AMR. I appreciate those views very much and at times either has spoken to me, but again, depending on how I view the two clarity items above.

When someone asks: "Did God die?" I'd say "Of course not."

When asked: "Did Jesus die?" the answer is "Of course."

The face value of either question or statement depends on how I perceive those two clarity items in the discussion. At this venture in my life, coming up with a clear and reasonable stance on those two points needing clarity is where I wrestle.

 

[Lon]

You dice and slice so much that the 'R' in AMR must stand for Ronco.
You really don’t think much of God’s ability to create or have much appreciation for His creation, do you?

Philetus

In this particular instance, I prefer my plate diced very well. Any clarity from either participant is much appreciated as I still wrestle with how to place the pieces back together.

Despite the flaming, I am very much appreciating both sides of the discussion. If we were all on the same page doctrinally, I'd expect the same heat, just a bit more appreciation without offense if that makes sense.

 

[lee_merrill]

Difficult discussion even among like-minded theologians.

Yes.

When someone asks: "Did God die?" I'd say "Of course not."

When asked: "Did Jesus die?" the answer is "Of course."

Agreed, for "God" means in general usage, what Christians mean by the Trinity, God in his entire nature.

So death would mean ceasing life on this earth? And we may note that there was victory even here, for the essence of Jesus' life was not destroyed:

Hebrews 7:16 ... who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.

"Who dying, died not" (Spoken of 300 Spartans)

 

[Nang]

Yes.


Agreed, for "God" means in general usage, what Christians mean by the Trinity, God in his entire nature.

So death would mean ceasing life on this earth? And we may note that there was victory even here, for the essence of Jesus' life was not destroyed:

Hebrews 7:16 ... who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.

"Who dying, died not" (Spoken of 300 Spartans)

Well, I am no theologian, but I have read John Owen!

So I believe part of the answer to all this, is that Jesus Christ, the God/Man died the death of His people, not His own. His incarnation and works in the flesh were totally vicarious. He was sent to be the sin-bearer and suffer God's wrath directed against His children.

He was a substitute offering, provided by God, to pay the death penalty imposed on those He represented in flesh and blood.

Thoughts???

Nang

 

[Nang]

Nobody wants to go that far. But.....

One cannot deny that Calvinism endlessly tries to manage the mystery by redefining simple terms in order to preserve its own twisted view of reality and theology.

As AMR has pointed out, it is the OVT'ers who have redefined orthodox terms. You state one of them here . . ."manage the mystery."

The OT has a different definition of the "mystery" to begin with. The "mystery" does not need to be "managed." For the mystery is that the gospel of Jesus Christ would be proclaimed globally to all the nations; the kingdom of heaven comes to all men and not just the Jews.

This was not revealed fully to the nation of Israel; they have been blinded to this truth by God, and remain so blinded.

Someone divine died on the cross. What had previously prevented humanity and God from enjoying a reciprocal loving relationship that preserved the integrity and identity of God (as well as the true humanity of creatures) ceased to exist at the cross.

What ceased to exist on the cross was the sins of Christ's people. This was accomplished by the sin-bearer, who suffered God's full wrath against those sins, and remained obedient even unto death.

God’s uncompromising demand for righteous was satisfied not because of anything we did or do, but because God let it die.

This makes no sense. You are saying God's demand for righteousness died on the cross. ???

God didn’t just quit sucking air! God died to Himself that we might live.

"God died to Himself?" Where do you find that teaching in the Scriptures?

There is no other salvation. NO other way God could save us. God laid down His own life and took it up again, but the life He took up is a life that is forever informed by HIS OWN incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection.

I am beginning to feel pity for you people. It is obvious you are not receiving good teaching at all. This statement is backwards to the truth.

Jesus Christ conquered death and resurrected despite His incarnation, and crucifixion in the flesh. He did so through the power of the Godhead, for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all accredited with raising Jesus from the grave.

The proof that death did not touch the divine essence of the Son, was the fact that His flesh did not start to rot while He lay dead. He remained intact even in death as the God/Man.

The change we undergo through our participation in the passion of Christ Jesus and His resurrection is mere whimsy compared to the change in God.

There was NO CHANGE in God! Whoever is telling you this is a false teacher.

Our little debates over knowledge of the future are fanciful by comparison. I think what Clete is recognizing is that the real issue in the debate over the future is that God in fact does change and the incarnation proves it.

Clete simply reveals he does not know what he is talking about, or, if he does know, he is the false teacher. You should not listen to him, for he refuses to study these deep matters of God properly.

Is God the Son’s experience so far removed from that of the Father and the Spirit (as if ‘they’ were so ‘separate’ that ‘they’ could remain unaffected) that the very life, death and resurrection of Jesus goes relatively unnoticed by ‘them’ as mere melodrama for our benefit alone? I’m convinced that Calvinism’s attempt to manage the mystery and preserve God’s immutability has done much damage to the understanding of the Trinity as One and that those who hold to it as tenaciously as AMR are in fact in danger of denying the very salvation they seek to explain. To preserve their view they must deny that Jesus was a whole person, that God as trinity remains one,

No Calvinist denies the unity of the two natures of Christ, or denies that the three persons of the Godhead are One. This is a false witness against Calvinists, and it is made in the face of hundreds of words posted by us on TOL. I sometimes wonder how much of our efforts are read at all.

and that mankind has been given freedom to live and lay down their lives as they choose.

Where in the bible do you read that Christians are to live in "freedom to lay down their lives?" Another term, that is not orthodox or Scriptural. What do Christians need to lay down their lives for, when their lives are hid in Christ? Can you cite Scripture to back up these words.

Only one choice gives them the power to become children of God and the power to ‘take’ life up again and truly live. All other choices result in death being final and we would be without hope.

Philetus

There is absolutely no teaching in the Holy Scriptures that speaks of "one choice" giving sinners power "to become children of God." None.

So why do you teach what the bible does not teach?

The only person who chose who would be the children of God, was the Father. (Eph. 1:4)

It was God's choice, never sinful man's.

Nang

 

[RobE]

Difficult discussion even among like-minded theologians.

I find two aspects that muddy the clear waters that always comes into play in this:

1) a definition and understanding of death. I think the cessational view tends to greatly cloud discussion into this subject.

2) Christ's two natures. It is difficult to divide that which is unified. There is a perplexity to 'how' Christ accomplished this.

While I've been on both sides of this discussion, I've yet to come to as strong of a conclusion as either Clete or AMR. I appreciate those views very much and at times either has spoken to me, but again, depending on how I view the two clarity items above.

When someone asks: "Did God die?" I'd say "Of course not."

When asked: "Did Jesus die?" the answer is "Of course."

The face value of either question or statement depends on how I perceive those two clarity items in the discussion. At this venture in my life, coming up with a clear and reasonable stance on those two points needing clarity is where I wrestle.

This is represented withing the Belgic Confession...

But these two natures are so united together in one person, that they are not even separated by His death. So then, what He committed to His Father when He died was a real human spirit which left His body. But meanwhile, His divine nature remained united with His human nature even when He was lying in the grave; and His deity never ceased to be in Him, just as it was in Him when He was a little child, though for a while it did not show itself as such.

My solution here is that neither nature died, only Jesus' body which would answer question #1. The creed answers #2. And let's not forget the 'descended into hell' portion of our creeds. Would these answers put forward the idea that Jesus' divine nature defeated death and threw open the gates of hell fulfilling the scriptures that say the Godhead 'raised' His human body from the dead.

I've heard a teaching that states Jesus didn't substitute for our sins. The teaching states that Jesus simply took away the 'sting' of death because death took him unjustly. Before that time death was the natural outcome of sin. When death took Our Lord, then death fulfilled its own nature(or supernature), but was unable to contain our Lord who was without sin.

This is where the Vine and branches come into play. Death has no power over Him in whole or part since He's already died. The branches being part of the Vine have therefore died with Him already and death has no claim on them because it's already exacted its punishment through the death of Christ and His body. I guess you could say that Christ 'substituted' himself, but this isn't entirely true since He is in us and we are in Him. In effect we, as the body of Christ, were indeed crucified 2000 years ago. The idea maintains that Christ need not literally take our sufferings onto Himself, but did provide the price for those who are in Him.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Let's try one more time with more details. Wrong thinking about the Incarnate Christ will lead to numerous misunderstandings and doctrinal error. If you have a truly biblical understanding, you will agree with what follows.

1. When the Word became flesh, it does not mean that the Logos ceased to be what He was beforehand. In John 1:14, the verb egeneto does not mean the Logos changed into flesh, thereby changing His essential nature, only that He took on that particular character, that He acquired an additional form, without in any way changing His original nature. He remained the Son of God. The statement “the Word became flesh” does not mean He took on a human person, nor merely took on a human body. From the word sarx (flesh), the denotion is human nature, consisting of body and soul. The word sarx is similarly used in Romans 8:3; I Timothy 3:16; I John 4:2; II John 7 (comp. Philippians 2:7).

2. The death of Christ was not an abolishment of the union of the Logos with the human nature, nor did the death consist in the divine nature’s being forsaken of God, nor did the death consist of the withdrawal of God the Father’s divine love and good pleasure from the person of the Mediator. The Logos remained united with the human nature even when the body was in the grave. The divine nature could not be forsaken by God and the person of the Mediator was and continues to be the object of divine favor. The death of Christ revealed itself in the human consciousness of the Mediator as a feeling of God-forsakenness. The human nature for a moment lacked the conscious comfort and sense of divine love that it might derive from its union with the divine Logos. The human nature was painfully aware of the fullness of the divine wrath that was bearing down upon it. But, even in this darkest hour, there was no despair, while Christ exclaims He is forsaken, He directs His prayer to God the Father. Indeed, Christ he is quoting (from Psalms) a cry of desolation that also has implicit in its context an unremitting faith in the God who will ultimately deliver Him.

2a. Christ was "put to death in the flesh;" as the Apostle states it (1 Pet. 3:18), i.e., it was the body that only suffered death, not his soul, which did not die, but was commended into the hands of His divine Father.

2b. Nor did His Deity or divine nature die, for an impassible God is not capable of suffering death. Yet the body of Christ suffered death, in union with his divine person, hence the Lord of glory is said to be crucified and God is said to purchase the church with His blood (1 Cor. 2:8; Acts 20:28).

2c. The death of Christ, as is death of all, lay in the disunion of, or in a dissolution of the union between soul and body—these two were parted for a while; the one (the soul) was commended to God in heaven; the other (the body) was laid in the grave. Christ was not reduced to a state of non-existence, as the Socinians argued. His soul was with God in paradise; and his body, lay in a sepulchre, where it saw no corruption.

2d. The death of Christ was "real," not in appearance only; His body was really dead, for Christ laid His body down of Himself for the sins of His people.

2e. In addition this corporal death endured by Christ, there was a death in His soul, though not of His soul. A death which answered to a spiritual and an eternal death. As in the transgression of the first Adam, which involved Adam and all Adam’s posterity, exposing them to not only a corporal death, but also to a moral or spiritual death, and an eternal death; so must the second Adam undergo death, as He was the surety of His elect, and must undergo death in order to make satisfaction for that transgression of the first Adam, and all other transgressions of theirs, in every sense of the threatening in Gen. 2:17.

2g. While a moral or spiritual death (the loss of the image of God, a privation of original righteousness, etc.) could not fall upon the pure, holy soul of God the Son, there was something similar to it as He was sorrowful even unto death, bearing the weight of the sins of His people, sensing the Divine wrath on their account, being made sin and a curse, that made the circumstance tantamount to an eternal death, or the sufferings of the wicked in Hell. While the death of finite persons is different, and Christ being infinite, the essence of the death was the same. Eternal death is punishment of loss (separation from God) and punishment of sense (everlasting wrath of God). Christ, being infinite, was able to bear the whole demands for satisfaction from God at once. Moreover, the infinitude of Christ more than compensated for the eternity the punishment required.

3. Even as an infant, the full divinity (all the attributes of God) existed within the Incarnate Christ. Yes, even as a baby, the universe was being upheld by His divinity.

4. In order for a substitute to stand in for mankind to eliminate the guilt and penalty of sin and provide a perfect righteousness for a vast multitude of people, the substitute must be both fully God and fully man. Jesus had to be a man because it was man who was guilty of sin and deserving of punishment. The Messiah also had to be God. A mere man could not:
(1) render a sacrifice of infinite value from God, that could atone for the elect from every tribe, nation and tongue (Rev. 5:9);
(2) have withstood the assaults of Satan, the constant temptations and the immense suffering and agony that Jesus endured: and
(3) intercede or mediate between God and man. Who but the Lord of glory, the God-man could endure the unmitigated wrath of God that all mankind deserved in the space of a few hours?

5. The sixteen hundred year old Chalcedonian description of the Incarnation refutes everyone who teaches (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians, Apollinarians, Monarchians, Eutychianites, Nestorianites, Docetites, Kenotics, Adoptionists) that the Messiah was not truly God; or, was not consubstantial (i.e., of the same substance; or, identity of essence) with the Father. To deny the Chalcedonian description is to fall within one of the refuted heresies, which can be classified six ways:
1. deny the genuineness (Ebionism) or the completeness (Arianism) of Jesus’ deity,
2. deny the genuineness (Docetism) or the completeness (Apollinarianism) of his humanity,
3. divide his person (Nestorianism), or confuse his natures (Eutychianism).

 

[Nang]

I've heard a teaching that states Jesus didn't substitute for our sins. The teaching states that Jesus simply took away the 'sting' of death because death took him unjustly.

Jesus Christ volitionally laid down His life; it was not taken from "him unjustly."

Before that time death was the natural outcome of sin. When death took Our Lord, then death fulfilled its own nature(or supernature), but was unable to contain our Lord who was without sin.

Do you agree with this teaching, Rob?

Death is the wages of sin. It is a legal sentence imposed on all who have offended Almighty God and His Law. It is not "natural," but a curse that is inescapable.

I guess you could say that Christ 'substituted' himself, but this isn't entirely true since He is in us and we are in Him.

Why would this preclude His suffering in our place? Seems to me it explains His representing His people in His suffering. He knew us, because the Father chose us in Him before creation, and so He died personally on our behalf. Those the Father gave Him constitute His "church;" His "bride;" His spiritual body of believers on this earth.

The idea maintains that Christ need not literally take our sufferings onto Himself, but did provide the price for those who are in Him.

What does "provide the price" mean? Jesus Christ is the one who paid the ransom to free the sons of God from the curse of sin, death, and the devil. The "price" was His precious blood, was it not? With which His people have been "bought." Christians are His possession, paid for with His blood. So what do we need to be provided with, but faith to believe this good news!

I believe Jesus Christ made a substitutional oblation with His blood, to remit our sins, and died our deaths in order to provide us reconciliation with God and access to the throne of grace.

He did this in His office as High Priest, entering the holiest of holies and making intercession on our behalf. And I believe He continues to offer this oblation and intercession at the throne of grace, as the sole Mediator between God and man.

But then, I believe in a particular (limited) atonement; offerings and intercessions being made by Christ only for specific, and elect persons given to Him by the Father (John Chapter 17) . . . not a universal and sentimental suffering exhibited on the cross, for sinners at large.

The Scriptures teach Jesus Christ died as High Priest and Mediator for His church; not for the world.

"The fruits of Christ's mediation have been distinguished by some into those that are more general and those which are more peculiar, which, in some sense, may be tolerable; but that the offices of Christ should be said to be either general or peculiar, and himself in relation to them so considered, is a gross, unshaped fancy. I answer, then, to the thing intended, that we deny any such general mediation, or function of office in general, in Christ, as should extend itself beyond his church or chosen. It was his "church" which he "redeemed with his own blood," Acts 20:28; his "church" that "he loved and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church," Eph. 5:25-27. They were his "sheep" he "laid down his life for," John 10:15; and "appeareth in heaven for us," Heb. 9:24. Not one word of mediating for any other in the Scripture. Look upon his incarnation. It was "because the children were partakers of flesh and blood," chap. 2:14; not because all the world were so. Look upon his oblation: "For their sakes," saith he, ("those whom thou hast given me,") "do l sanctify myself," John 17:19; that is, to be an oblation, which was the work he had then in hand. Look upon his resurrection: "He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification," Rom. 4:25. Look upon his ascension: "I go," saith he, "to my Father and your Father, and that to prepare a place for you," John 14:2. Look upon his perpetuated intercession. Is it not to "save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him?" Heb. 7:25. Not one word of this general mediation for all. Nay, if you will hear himself, he denies in plain terms to mediate for all: "I pray not," saith he, "for the world, but for them which then hast given me," John 17:9." John Owen, "The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ" Book I, Chapter VIII

Nang

 

[Lon]

Thanks AMR, there are some fine clear points in that discussion. I'd almost hope that in the future, our Bible colleges will focus more on this aspect in classes. It needs a very careful walkthru and I'd almost hope that it be the subject of a Christology class that spends about a month or more on it. It needs a careful tread and rich clarity.

I think my professor had some erroneus ideology in presenting the kinosis passage. It has left perplexing questions.

Thanks Rob, for the Belgic Confession

Article 19: The Two Natures of Christ

We believe that by being thus conceived the person of the Son has been inseparably united and joined together with human nature, in such a way that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in a single person, with each nature retaining its own distinct properties.
Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life,^44 filling heaven and earth.

His human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature-- it has a beginning of days; it is of a finite nature and retains all that belongs to a real body. And even though he, by his resurrection, gave it immortality, that nonetheless did not change the reality of his human nature; for our salvation and resurrection depend also on the reality of his body.

But these two natures are so united together in one person that they are not even separated by his death.

So then, what he committed to his Father when he died was a real human spirit which left his body. But meanwhile his divine nature remained united with his human nature even when he was lying in the grave; and his deity never ceased to be in him, just as it was in him when he was a little child, though for a while it did not show itself as such.

These are the reasons why we confess him to be true God and true man-- true God in order to conquer death by his power, and true man that he might die for us in the weakness of his flesh.

^44 Heb. 7:3

It does speak clarity into this discussion and echos much of AMR's post (or vise-versa).

 

[Philetus]

As AMR has pointed out, it is the OVT'ers who have redefined orthodox terms. You state one of them here . . ."manage the mystery."

The OT has a different definition of the "mystery" to begin with. The "mystery" does not need to be "managed." For the mystery is that the gospel of Jesus Christ would be proclaimed globally to all the nations; the kingdom of heaven comes to all men and not just the Jews.

This was not revealed fully to the nation of Israel; they have been blinded to this truth by God, and remain so blinded.

What ceased to exist on the cross was the sins of Christ's people. This was accomplished by the sin-bearer, who suffered God's full wrath against those sins, and remained obedient even unto death.

This makes no sense. You are saying God's demand for righteousness died on the cross. ???

"God died to Himself?" Where do you find that teaching in the Scriptures?

I am beginning to feel pity for you people. It is obvious you are not receiving good teaching at all. This statement is backwards to the truth.

Jesus Christ conquered death and resurrected despite His incarnation, and crucifixion in the flesh. He did so through the power of the Godhead, for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all accredited with raising Jesus from the grave.

The proof that death did not touch the divine essence of the Son, was the fact that His flesh did not start to rot while He lay dead. He remained intact even in death as the God/Man.

There was NO CHANGE in God! Whoever is telling you this is a false teacher.

Clete simply reveals he does not know what he is talking about, or, if he does know, he is the false teacher. You should not listen to him, for he refuses to study these deep matters of God properly.

No Calvinist denies the unity of the two natures of Christ, or denies that the three persons of the Godhead are One. This is a false witness against Calvinists, and it is made in the face of hundreds of words posted by us on TOL. I sometimes wonder how much of our efforts are read at all.

Where in the bible do you read that Christians are to live in "freedom to lay down their lives?" Another term, that is not orthodox or Scriptural. What do Christians need to lay down their lives for, when their lives are hid in Christ? Can you cite Scripture to back up these words.

There is absolutely no teaching in the Holy Scriptures that speaks of "one choice" giving sinners power "to become children of God." None.

So why do you teach what the bible does not teach?

The only person who chose who would be the children of God, was the Father. (Eph. 1:4)

It was God's choice, never sinful man's.

Nang

You need to learn to read. The mystery doesn't need to be handled at all!
Don't know who you are arguing with Nang. Your theology is dead. Love the new avatar though. You two don't get out of your bag much, do you? Be sure to feed the cat.

Philetus

 

[Nang]

You need to learn to read. The mystery doesn't need to be handled at all!
Don't know who you are arguing with Nang. Your theology is dead. Love the new avatar though. You two don't get out of your bag much, do you? Be sure to feed the cat.

Philetus

Who, two?

(The avatar was Lon's suggestion, BTW)

 

[Lon]

Jesus Christ volitionally laid down His life; it was not taken from "him unjustly."




Do you agree with this teaching, Rob?

Death is the wages of sin. It is a legal sentence imposed on all who have offended Almighty God and His Law. It is not "natural," but a curse that is inescapable.



Why would this preclude His suffering in our place? Seems to me it explains His representing His people in His suffering. He knew us, because the Father chose us in Him before creation, and so He died personally on our behalf. Those the Father gave Him constitute His "church;" His "bride;" His spiritual body of believers on this earth.





What does "provide the price" mean? Jesus Christ is the one who paid the ransom to free the sons of God from the curse of sin, death, and the devil. The "price" was His precious blood, was it not? With which His people have been "bought." Christians are His possession, paid for with His blood. So what do we need to be provided with, but faith to believe this good news!

I believe Jesus Christ made a substitutional oblation with His blood, to remit our sins, and died our deaths in order to provide us reconciliation with God and access to the throne of grace.

He did this in His office as High Priest, entering the holiest of holies and making intercession on our behalf. And I believe He continues to offer this oblation and intercession at the throne of grace, as the sole Mediator between God and man.

But then, I believe in a particular (limited) atonement; offerings and intercessions being made by Christ only for specific, and elect persons given to Him by the Father (John Chapter 17) . . . not a universal and sentimental suffering exhibited on the cross, for sinners at large.

The Scriptures teach Jesus Christ died as High Priest and Mediator for His church; not for the world.

"The fruits of Christ's mediation have been distinguished by some into those that are more general and those which are more peculiar, which, in some sense, may be tolerable; but that the offices of Christ should be said to be either general or peculiar, and himself in relation to them so considered, is a gross, unshaped fancy. I answer, then, to the thing intended, that we deny any such general mediation, or function of office in general, in Christ, as should extend itself beyond his church or chosen. It was his "church" which he "redeemed with his own blood," Acts 20:28; his "church" that "he loved and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church," Eph. 5:25-27. They were his "sheep" he "laid down his life for," John 10:15; and "appeareth in heaven for us," Heb. 9:24. Not one word of mediating for any other in the Scripture. Look upon his incarnation. It was "because the children were partakers of flesh and blood," chap. 2:14; not because all the world were so. Look upon his oblation: "For their sakes," saith he, ("those whom thou hast given me,") "do l sanctify myself," John 17:19; that is, to be an oblation, which was the work he had then in hand. Look upon his resurrection: "He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification," Rom. 4:25. Look upon his ascension: "I go," saith he, "to my Father and your Father, and that to prepare a place for you," John 14:2. Look upon his perpetuated intercession. Is it not to "save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him?" Heb. 7:25. Not one word of this general mediation for all. Nay, if you will hear himself, he denies in plain terms to mediate for all: "I pray not," saith he, "for the world, but for them which then hast given me," John 17:9." John Owen, "The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ" Book I, Chapter VIII

Nang

Thanks also Nang, this is also clear.

"Not a theologian" indeed.

 

[lee_merrill]

Is it time to begin a eulogy for OVT? The Open View is now no longer defending the Open View, the question under discussion now is really a topic unrelated to basic OVT theology?

 

[Yorzhik]

I responded to Philetus, but to get back on the topic, any SV'er can respond to this:

And also to note, the promises of God (the triune God, not just Jesus) mean nothing from a transcendent God. Did God promise Christians salvation? It would be to God's glory to send Christians to hell. And who could question God? It would be righteous, no less.

 

[RobE]

I've heard a teaching that states Jesus didn't substitute for our sins. The teaching states that Jesus simply took away the 'sting' of death because death took him unjustly. Before that time death was the natural outcome of sin. When death took Our Lord, then death fulfilled its own nature(or supernature), but was unable to contain our Lord who was without sin.

This is where the Vine and branches come into play. Death has no power over Him in whole or part since He's already died. The branches being part of the Vine have therefore died with Him already and death has no claim on them because it's already exacted its punishment through the death of Christ and His body. I guess you could say that Christ 'substituted' himself, but this isn't entirely true since He is in us and we are in Him. In effect we, as the body of Christ, were indeed crucified 2000 years ago. The idea maintains that Christ need not literally take our sufferings onto Himself, but did provide the price for those who are in Him.

Jesus Christ volitionally laid down His life; it was not taken from "him unjustly."

'Unjustly' in the sense that He was without sin and death has power over those who are sinless.

Do you agree with this teaching, Rob?

Not necessarily, I've only heard it.

Death is the wages of sin. It is a legal sentence imposed on all who have offended Almighty God and His Law. It is not "natural," but a curse that is inescapable.

Genesis 3:3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

It is the wages of sin, but as far as it being a 'legal sentence' what proof have you. Certainly death has no power over those without sin, but what makes death unnatural?

Why would this preclude His suffering in our place? Seems to me it explains His representing His people in His suffering. He knew us, because the Father chose us in Him before creation, and so He died personally on our behalf. Those the Father gave Him constitute His "church;" His "bride;" His spiritual body of believers on this earth.

The body of Christ suffered. It didn't merely 'represent' suffering. As the 'branches' our sins were upon the cross with the Vine. In effect, we as the body of Christ, suffered and already 'died' to fulfill death's hold over us. However, the Vine who was sinless, couldn't be held by death because it was powerless against Him. He therefore 'rose' and took us, His body, with Him. Death has no claim against His body anymore since the 'price' has already been paid!

Romans 7:4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.

Romans 8:10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

Romans 12:4 Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.

1 Corinthians 12:24 .....But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.​

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.​

But then, I believe in a particular (limited) atonement; offerings and intercessions being made by Christ only for specific, and elect persons given to Him by the Father (John Chapter 17) . . . not a universal and sentimental suffering exhibited on the cross, for sinners at large.

The Scriptures teach Jesus Christ died as High Priest and Mediator for His church; not for the world.

Certainly you do. In opposition to Calvinism, traditional Christianity has proclaimed that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for 'all to be saved' and not just for the elect. Are you able to see the sufficiency for 'all' in the above line of thinking? Anyone who became a branch would enjoy the mercy of salvation, but those who refused the Vine would not receive the merits of Christ's sacrifice. It could then be said that Christ died only for the branches and that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for 'all to be saved' simultaneously. Christ, and His body, would be the only thing saved in all of creation. Pelagians couldn't claim to be able to save themselves and in fact all of the heresies would be refuted. As Augustine said 'act like the elect and become the elect'.

Becoming a branch requires grace to inspire faith to join with grace and make it effecacious; and God has promised universal sufficient Grace to obtain faith. This does NOT preclude God from having knowledge of who's names are written in the Book of Life. In fact, that's a totally different issue. The following scriptures are true within this line of thinking......even though I might disagree with the author's conclusions.

"The fruits of Christ's mediation have been distinguished by some into those that are more general and those which are more peculiar, which, in some sense, may be tolerable; but that the offices of Christ should be said to be either general or peculiar, and himself in relation to them so considered, is a gross, unshaped fancy. I answer, then, to the thing intended, that we deny any such general mediation, or function of office in general, in Christ, as should extend itself beyond his church or chosen. It was his "church" which he "redeemed with his own blood," Acts 20:28; his "church" that "he loved and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church," Eph. 5:25-27. They were his "sheep" he "laid down his life for," John 10:15; and "appeareth in heaven for us," Heb. 9:24. Not one word of mediating for any other in the Scripture. Look upon his incarnation. It was "because the children were partakers of flesh and blood," chap. 2:14; not because all the world were so. Look upon his oblation: "For their sakes," saith he, ("those whom thou hast given me,") "do l sanctify myself," John 17:19; that is, to be an oblation, which was the work he had then in hand. Look upon his resurrection: "He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification," Rom. 4:25. Look upon his ascension: "I go," saith he, "to my Father and your Father, and that to prepare a place for you," John 14:2. Look upon his perpetuated intercession. Is it not to "save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him?" Heb. 7:25. Not one word of this general mediation for all. Nay, if you will hear himself, he denies in plain terms to mediate for all: "I pray not," saith he, "for the world, but for them which then hast given me," John 17:9." John Owen, "The Death Of Death In The Death Of Christ" Book I, Chapter VIII

Nang

 

[Philetus]

I responded to Philetus, but to get back on the topic, any SV'er can respond to this:

And also to note, the promises of God (the triune God, not just Jesus) mean nothing from a transcendent God. Did God promise Christians salvation? It would be to God's glory to send Christians to hell. And who could question God? It would be righteous, no less.

I simply don't understand what you are saying here. Can you flesh it out a little?