ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[SaulToPaul 2]

I'll take a guess, Rob. #4 but substitute "normal" for "nice"
Am, I right, Nang?

 

[RobE]

We discover that sin which is meant as evil, becomes the conduit for the destruction of the natural men in the world and the rebirth of spiritual men in Christ.

Well, I would say the cross destroys the natural man, the sinful nature, but yes.

Of course and re-written.

We discover that sin which is meant as evil, becomes the conduit for the destruction of the natural men in the world; and the Cross, which overcomes that natural outcome, the conduit for the rebirth of spiritual men in Christ.

 

[Nang]

And an entirely logical and just answer. The problem, in my humble opinion, is that God dispenses the only hope of salvation to select men according to this idea.

Correct. All Covenant (promise of salvation) is worked according to Unconditional Election.

The responsibility to believe is then removed from those who don't receive that hope. How then is God able to judge and condemn those same men for unbelief?

Through the federal headship of Adam. Adam was created, accountable and responsible to God, under the Law, as federal head and representative of the human race. When Adam failed, and he was separated from the spiritual life and presence of God, he corrupted in his nature, and all his progeny corrupted also.

The opposite to this, is the federal headship of the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Who as a Man, represented all the souls the Father gave Him to save. All believers are His spiritual offspring, and inherit His victory over sin, death, and the devil.

So, when Adam sinned, all human kind died. (Romans Chapter 5) And deservedly so, because not a one of Adam's offspring have proven to be faithful to God, either.

When Jesus Christ achieved perfect righteousness (Romans Chapter 5), this was imputed (undeservedly so) to His spiritual offspring, and this is called the grace of God.

Matthew 26:20 When evening had come, He sat down with the twelve. 21 Now as they were eating, He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.”
22 And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and each of them began to say to Him, “Lord, is it I?”
23 He answered and said, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the dish will betray Me. 24 The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”
25 Then Judas, who was betraying Him, answered and said, “Rabbi, is it I?”
He said to him, “You have said it.”​

Would it be fair to say that God in His goodness decreed the birth of Judas when Christ says that 'It would have been good....'?

We are not in the position to judge God. We must not fall prey to that tendency. We must remind ourselves of the Scripture, that warns:

"You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?' But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why have You made me like this?'" Romans 9:19, 20

2 Kings 17:15 , 1 Kings 19:14 , 1 Samuel 15:26 , Hebrews 12:25 , Revelation 16:9

2 Thessalonians 2:10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.​

Refusal and rebellion are an act of the will, are they not?

They are the acts of moral agency (will) that is held in bondage to sin, death, and the devil. Have you read Luther's "The Bondage Of The Will." It is a must read, or at least a re-read for everyone who desires to understand these things.

1. Not Another Nice Grandma
2. Nanna ANd Grandpa
3. Never Ask Nanna or Grandpa
4. Not A Nice Grandma

How about the first word?

Heh . . .well, you have the correct first word in two of your guesses.

Nang

 

[Nang]

I'll take a guess, Rob. #4 but substitute "normal" for "nice"
Am, I right, Nang?

Tsk, tsk . . .I think you just talked out of school, STP!

Nang

 

[lee_merrill]

We discover that sin which is meant as evil, becomes the conduit for the destruction of the natural men in the world; and the Cross, which overcomes that natural outcome, the conduit for the rebirth of spiritual men in Christ.

Alrighty, I misunderstood what you meant by "natural men," I've read too much Watchman Nee...

Now A New Grandma? Never A Noisy Grandma?

Blessings,
Lee <- Not A Natty Geek

 

[RobE]

Correct. All Covenant (promise of salvation) is worked according to Unconditional Election.

Through the federal headship of Adam. Adam was created, accountable and responsible to God, under the Law, as federal head and representative of the human race. When Adam failed, and he was separated from the spiritual life and presence of God, he corrupted in his nature, and all his progeny corrupted also.

Ah, but this would be punishment for another's sin. Each man is accountable for his own acts and not the acts of his brother at judgement. Aquinas answered this saying that original sin is not of the same condemning nature as direct rebellion. Therefore, the innocents, aren't accountable in the same way we are. This isn't an acceptable solution. The matters of Divine government certainly point to this having some validity, but responsibility isn't transferrable.....Wait a minute. This would explain how Christ took the sins of the world upon Himself. The sins of Adam's progeny were 'transferred', but only the sins of those who were given Him by the Father. If all the sins of all Adam's progeny were 'transferred' then all would be saved. I understand the underlying logic of Calvinism better now. This is why you vehemently reject Clete's idea that Christ's act was sufficient for ALL to be saved. You do understand that my idea of Christ's act is different than this. I will have to study it and get back to you. Always a student, never a teacher.

1 Corintians 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."​

Well, my preliminary search is over. I would have to tell you that your position is very compelling and I now understand why you hold it a little better. I would have to say that until now, I've never truly considered the ramifications of Christ truly bearing our sins in a real and literal way. I guess I've always considered the act of overcoming death as Christ's method of salvation. I've never thought about sin being transferrable in this manner. My position, as I have now examined it, has been that as the body of Christ we participated in His death and will participate in His victory over it. The vine and branches again. But then again, I could say that the sins on the cross weren't His, but were mine since I participated. This seems a little far fetched on the surface, but I'll continue to study.

For now I can't continue the discussion until I discover if sin is transferrable or if this is just a way to describe events. It would appear that if sin is transferrable that your argument of Adam transferring sin to us is valid. I'll get back to you.

The opposite to this, is the federal headship of the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Who as a Man, represented all the souls the Father gave Him to save. All believers are His spiritual offspring, and inherit His victory over sin, death, and the devil.

So, when Adam sinned, all human kind died. (Romans Chapter 5) And deservedly so, because not a one of Adam's offspring have proven to be faithful to God, either.

When Jesus Christ achieved perfect righteousness (Romans Chapter 5), this was imputed (undeservedly so) to His spiritual offspring, and this is called the grace of God.

My question here is how did we become His spiritual offspring?

We are not in the position to judge God. We must not fall prey to that tendency. We must remind ourselves of the Scripture, that warns:

"You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?' But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why have You made me like this?'" Romans 9:19, 20

I'm not judging God. I'm trying to ascertain where the responsibility comes from.

Heh . . .well, you have the correct first word in two of your guesses.

Nang

'Not A' would seem to be the first two words.

G = Grandma seems obvious since your grandchild came up with it.

I'm stuck.

 

[Nang]

Ah, but this would be punishment for another's sin. Each man is accountable for his own acts and not the acts of his brother at judgement. Aquinas answered this saying that original sin is not of the same condemning nature as direct rebellion. Therefore, the innocents, aren't accountable in the same way we are. This isn't an acceptable solution. The matters of Divine government certainly point to this having some validity, but responsibility isn't transferrable.....Wait a minute. This would explain how Christ took the sins of the world upon Himself. The sins of Adam's progeny were 'transferred', but only the sins of those who were given Him by the Father. If all the sins of all Adam's progeny were 'transferred' then all would be saved. I understand the underlying logic of Calvinism better now. This is why you vehemently reject Clete's idea that Christ's act was sufficient for ALL to be saved. You do understand that my idea of Christ's act is different than this. I will have to study it and get back to you. Always a student, never a teacher.

Yes, please consider this. Federal headship is taught in Romans Chapter 5 and I Cor. 15:45-49.

Well, my preliminary search is over. I would have to tell you that your position is very compelling and I now understand why you hold it a little better. I would have to say that until now, I've never truly considered the ramifications of Christ truly bearing our sins in a real and literal way. I guess I've always considered the act of overcoming death as Christ's method of salvation. I've never thought about sin being transferrable in this manner.

Jesus Christ came as a literal "sin-bearer" for His people. (Isaiah 53:4-12) It was a literal and physical sacrifice, for which a Lamb without blemish or spot was required. And His cross work was a forensic necessity under the Law to remove the curse of the Law. He not only bore God's wrath against our specific sins (past, present, and future), but He paid the death sentence imposed upon us, due to Adam's first representation.

My position, as I have now examined it, has been that as the body of Christ we participated in His death and will participate in His victory over it. The vine and branches again. But then again, I could say that the sins on the cross weren't His, but were mine since I participated. This seems a little far fetched on the surface, but I'll continue to study.

The sins were our sins; transferred unto Christ.

There is a strong type of this transferral of sin in the O.T. and in the tabernacle ordinances. When an Israelite brought their animal sacrifices to the tabernacle to make burnt offering for sin, they brought the animal before the priest, and either they or the priest would lay hands on the head of the animal, to signify transference of personal sins and guilt onto their innocent sacrifice. Then the animal, bearing the tranference of sins, was killed and its blood was sprinkled on the alter, to atone for all those sins (at least for a year).

See Leviticus 4:14, 16:21, 24:14 and Numbers 8:12 to see this concept and type taught.

And of course, we see the very first example of God allowing transference of sentence for sin, in the garden, where He did not immediately slay A&E when they partook of the forbidden tree, but instead imposed their death upon innocent animals, whose bloody skins God used to clothe A&E's nakedness. God Himself transferred the sentence and worked the atonement . . .to teach us that Jesus Christ willingly took the sins of those the Father gave Him, upon His own body, and shed His own blood to justify us before God.

For now I can't continue the discussion until I discover if sin is transferrable or if this is just a way to describe events. It would appear that if sin is transferrable that your argument of Adam transferring sin to us is valid. I'll get back to you.

'Not A' would seem to be the first two words.

G = Grandma seems obvious since your grandchild came up with it.

I'm stuck.

Actually, STP spilled the beans.

NANG = Not A Normal Grandma

Please don't hurt me . . .

 

[godrulz]

Federal Headship is an Augustinian construct, not explicitly biblical.

Confusing moral vs physical depravity is also part of Nang's problem? The former is not genetic/inherited; the latter is passed on to all men because of Adam.

 

[Nang]

Federal Headship is an Augustinian construct, not explicitly biblical.

You and I should think things through as deep and as well as Augustine.

It is shameful the way people use his name as an epithet. He was a devout and faithful father of the church of God.

Confusing moral vs physical depravity is also part of Nang's problem?

Nang has no problems, other than not being a normal grandma. . .

So, since it is not my problem, but yours, how do you describe or define "physical depravity?" Or can you?

The former is not genetic/inherited; the latter is passed on to all men because of Adam.

All depravity caused by sin is a moral (heart) issue. And you are correct, in that because moral depravity is spiritual, it cannot be genetically inherited.

(I have no idea what you mean by physical depravity being "passed on to all men." You will have to define physical depravity, first.)

Moral depravity of the human spirit (sin) is imputed to all men according to Adam's original sin as federal head of the human race. (Romans 5:12)

Imputed = Something/anything transferred from one, to others' accounts.

Adam, was created by God as representative and as the source of the human race sinned; therefore, his sin was imputed to all men.

Jesus Christ, sent by the Father into the world as federal head and source of all the elect created in Him, and then given to Him by the Father, imputed His righteousness to their account.

Nang

 

[godrulz]

The federal headship THEORY of Adam was taught at my Pentecostal, Arminian Bible College. Augustine formulated it, not the earlier Fathers or Scripture. The history of doctrinal development shows a variety of conflicting views through the centuries. Even early on, the believers could not agree about many things.

There are also a variety of theories as to what imputation means. Wesley understood it differently than Calvin did. Theology is not always black and white and we tend to import assumptions that are not always defensible with detailed word, theological, contextual studies.

Physical depravity includes disease, death, and a propensity to sin. Adam introduced this to the world by the Fall. Even sinless Christ and believers in Christ die physically. This was inherited from Adam.

Moral depravity is based on choice and volition, not genetics or seeing sin as a substance. It cannot be passed on to man. We are culpable for our sins, not Adam's sin. This is why Augustinian 'original sin' confuses physical and moral depravity. Murder, adultery, idolatry, etc. are volitional, not transmigrated through the blood or various other theories about how we inherit Adam's sin.

We agree that all men are sinners and in need of a sinless Savior.

Thank you for taking me of ignore. Iron sharpens iron. Let us assume we both have good hearts, love Jesus, and are not stupid or senile.

You are loved and appreciated. I have grey hair too (what little is left)

 

[Nang]

The federal headship THEORY of Adam was taught at my Pentecostal, Arminian Bible College. Augustine formulated it, not the earlier Fathers or Scripture.

Federal headship is not theory. It is biblical truth. All of mankind was within the loins of the first Adam, and all the spiritual sons of God were created in Jesus Christ. (Eph. 2:10)

Physical depravity includes disease, death, and a propensity to sin.

Right, which is the effects caused by the moral depravity of Adam. All physical (material) manifestations in this world, only reflect spiritual reality.

Moral depravity is based on choice and volition, not genetics or seeing sin as a substance.

Right, but those choices are the result of the will being enslaved to sin, death, and the devil.

It cannot be passed on to man.

Anyone who denies the imputation of sin, according to the first Adam's actions, is left logically bound to deny the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ to the legal records of His people before God.

We are culpable for our sins, not Adam's sin.

Adam's sin made all men culpable. All men, because they are imputed with Adam's sin nature, continually and willfully repeat his sin. That is the human nature inherited from Adam. Thus all men are responsible and accountable for the sins willfully commited according to the sinful nature inherited from Adam, their federal head and representative.

Thank you for taking me of ignore. Iron sharpens iron. Let us assume we both have good hearts, love Jesus, and are not stupid or senile.

You are loved and appreciated. I have grey hair too (what little is left)

\

I love Jesus Christ with all my heart.

I am not stupid.

I am not senile.

I have no grey hair.

(I am not a normal grandma!)

You are loved and appreciated, too, even though you have grey hair.

Are you a grandpa, yet?



Nang

 

[RobE]

Yes, please consider this. Federal headship is taught in Romans Chapter 5 and I Cor. 15:45-49.

Well, this was a useful day. I studied original sin, atonement, redemption, and a few other 'light' topics. Thanks, Nang. :readthis:

Anyway, the doctrine of original sin is the loss of sanctifying Grace for the human family through it's head - Adam. It isn't a sin which results in damnation, but it is a sin which destroyed the natural interaction between man and God. A debilitating condition which leads to mortal sin, but isn't mortal sin in and of itself.

You were correct about the headship, but incorrect that original sin would warrant our damnation. Check Augustine - The retractions.

Jesus Christ came as a literal "sin-bearer" for His people. (Isaiah 53:4-12) It was a literal and physical sacrifice, for which a Lamb without blemish or spot was required. And His cross work was a forensic necessity under the Law to remove the curse of the Law. He not only bore God's wrath against our specific sins (past, present, and future), but He paid the death sentence imposed upon us, due to Adam's first representation.

Christ's sacrifice, according to Catholocism, who established the doctrine of original sin is one of atonement to God, not of penalty repayment or substitution in the sense your speaking of.

As Christ's body we would enjoy the resurrection and the re-uniting with God warranted by the federal head of our body - Jesus Christ. He was found perfect and was given authority over all things including, finally through His death, that of death itself.

The sins were our sins; transferred unto Christ.

There is a strong type of this transferral of sin in the O.T. and in the tabernacle ordinances. When an Israelite brought their animal sacrifices to the tabernacle to make burnt offering for sin, they brought the animal before the priest, and either they or the priest would lay hands on the head of the animal, to signify transference of personal sins and guilt onto their innocent sacrifice. Then the animal, bearing the tranference of sins, was killed and its blood was sprinkled on the alter, to atone for all those sins (at least for a year).

As a gift to God for payment of debt, not the sins themselves. Those sins were already committed. The debt paid allowed reconciliation between man and God. The sins themselves are forgotten once the debt which is owed has been paid. The sins were not on the cross, the payment of debt was.

And of course, we see the very first example of God allowing transference of sentence for sin, in the garden, where He did not immediately slay A&E when they partook of the forbidden tree, but instead imposed their death upon innocent animals, whose bloody skins God used to clothe A&E's nakedness. God Himself transferred the sentence and worked the atonement . . .to teach us that Jesus Christ willingly took the sins of those the Father gave Him, upon His own body, and shed His own blood to justify us before God.

Sin and death are two different things. One resulting from the other. The sin and the payment of sin respectively. Christ made the payment, but the sin was unrevocable. The sins were not transferred, the debt was paid by another. In the case of old Testament sacrifices the animals paid, but only as a foreshadowing, of the ultimate final sacrifice which was substantial enough for the entire world.

Cleke's assertion here is in agreement with Augustine and the Catholic Church. He's in opposition to them in the fact that Christ's Divine nature suffered and died. I ran across this in my searches today. The Divine is imortal and unable to suffer. Only Christ's human nature did so, and that is what made the sacrifice acceptable. His Divinity, which is inseperable, made that same sacrifice universal.

Actually, STP spilled the beans.

NANG = Not A Normal Grandma

Please don't hurt me . . .

My kind of person. :bannana: I'm a little bananas myself.

 

[godrulz]

I love Jesus Christ with all my heart.

I am not stupid.

I am not senile.

I have no grey hair.

(I am not a normal grandma!)

You are loved and appreciated, too, even though you have grey hair.

Are you a grandpa, yet?



Nang

Do you dye your hair?

How much do you weigh?

My goatee is grey and my sides, but it is mostly brown, receding, not bald.

My kids are not married, so no grandpa. I am 47, not 67.

 

[Nang]

Do you dye your hair?

Nope.

How much do you weigh?

This matters to you? Why?

(135 very light, slight, and fluffy, lbs)

You could seriously hurt me!

My goatee is grey and my sides, but it is mostly brown, receding, not bald.

My kids are not married, so no grandpa. I am 47, not 67.

My only daughter is your age . . .47 years.

I find it in me to love you as I love my own kid . . . you are now my adopted internet child . . . godrulz!

Grey goatee and all!

. . Let's put this silliness to rest . . .

O.K.?

Nang

 

[Lon]

This thread is full of 'doctrinal' passages that over emphasize proof-texts while ignoring the narrative. Its the primary knee-jerk reaction to Open Theism. Your summery of Bob Hill's post is a prime example of tossing out narrative while claiming to see the 'whole' by reading only 'biblical doctrine' to refute the teachings of narrative. At its worst a purely doctrinal reading of scripture reduces God to an 'unmoved mover' in the midst of the sweep of creation's history where God is portrayed as the 'most moved mover' in a dynamic, interactive story.

One doesn't have to attend a seminary to know what their focus is. One can read. The press is overrun and the internet makes the availability of scholarly research papers an easy reach, especially if one subscribes through his own university library. And just which of those tribal 'doctrines/systematic theologies' being so closely guarded is biblical? "Yours," no doubt? Even if it rips the narrative to shreds? I don't think so. Mine? Not necessarily! Open Theism is a relatively new discipline (as far as 'systematic theology' goes) and has a lot of work ahead of it. I'm constantly reminded of this when I read how easily Open Theists toss around terms that are forced on it by preconceived theologies read as 'biblical' doctrine and try to fit them into the mix. We all suffer from residual thinking.

I've been arguing points of Open Theism since high school though I never heard it called such until I got to TOL. The likes of Boyd, Sanders and Pinnock have only served to bring it to the forefront of evangelical circles and in my case helped me to be more disciplined in my reading of scripture. I'm sure you are aware of the fallout they have endured from the guardians of their traditions.

Philetus

BTW, Since you seem to find the personal data so necessary, I've done biblical and theological work at three very diverse schools. I just keep coming home where there is at least moderate tolerance for thinking outside the boxes. You will probably find it amusing that my own school hasn't quite found a category for me yet. That's fine with me. I think Open Theism hasn't much more than scratched the surface of the need to rethink and un-reform the classical strongholds. The discussion has only begun and the views expressed here on TOL are but preliminary discussion about a few major but most important issues. Just MHO.

I think that is true. It is being addressed, but we are initial stages as I see it too.

I went to Multnomah, so I'm biased. Inductive Bible study throughout my tenure. Very thorough.

As to the doctrinal passages. I've not seen it other than narrative. You are right, there are a lot of passages mentioned, but none doctrinal that I could see. All narrative.

 

[Philetus]

I think that is true. It is being addressed, but we are initial stages as I see it too.

I went to Multnomah, so I'm biased. Inductive Bible study throughout my tenure. Very thorough.

As to the doctrinal passages. I've not seen it other than narrative. You are right, there are a lot of passages mentioned, but none doctrinal that I could see. All narrative.

I think it would be helpful if you would explain how you distinguish between a narrative vs doctrinal passage. Are the narratives there for filler or do they 'teach' as well? What do you do with a verse like 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (KJV translates doctrine for teaching). Do you see all scripture as falling into one of these categorizes or all scripture as useful for all these good works?

 

[RobE]

At the time of Jesus' words, Judas' heart had shifted. It was present knowledge and apparent what Judas was purposing to do. God can read minds and see circumstances, you know. Jesus did not prophecy this until Judas went bad. He did not predict it when He was 12 in the Temple, right?

I answered this here.

Godrulz,

Have you no more to say? Shall we leave God knowing the future and not knowing it at the same time? What circumstances(causes) might reveal future free acts to God?

 

[lee_merrill]

And I believe I still have a question pending, how can God know only a remnant will be saved, if this involves individuals' free human choices over hundreds and thousands of years?

Blessings,
Lee <- May have to resume my eulogy for the Open View?

 

[godrulz]

And I believe I still have a question pending, how can God know only a remnant will be saved, if this involves individuals' free human choices over hundreds and thousands of years?

Blessings,
Lee <- May have to resume my eulogy for the Open View?

Which verse about remnant are you proof texting?

Even insurance companies can predict death rates and stats accurately. If it was prophesied that only 456,989 people would be saved and it came to pass to the number, then you would have a point (unless Calvinism is true, then God would only elect and save that number so He could state it in advance).

 

[RobE]

Which verse about remnant are you proof texting?

Even insurance companies can predict death rates and stats accurately. If it was prophesied that only 456,989 people would be saved and it came to pass to the number, then you would have a point (unless Calvinism is true, then God would only elect and save that number so He could state it in advance).

I actually don't hate butting in here. See I spent months upon months dealing with this flawed idea of prediction.

'Dict' = to say, pre-dict-ing = fore-say-ing. Prediction and prophecy are the same thing.

I predict it will rain tommorrow. It didn't rain so I didn't predict it accurately or it could be said that I didn't predict it at all.

Your comments 'Even insurance companies can predict death rates and stats accurately' admits foreknowledge of future occurences in regards to free will agents.

Think past the surface. Those predictions are based upon present knowledge. That knowledge is not exhaustive, in the case of the insurance companies, so their predictions are merely accurate and not precise. God's knowledge is exhaustive, however, and He is able to predict future events precisely. According to your own knowledge presented over the last couple of days, God is able to foreknow the actions of free will agents. If Allstate can do it, why is it so difficult for God to do so?

Lee's point(s) is that some won't be saved since it's foreknown only a remnant will be saved; despite the possibility that all will be saved or all won't be saved. The future outcomes of free will agents are known in a universe where open theism claims those outcomes can't be known and free simultaneously. And yet we know them, nonetheless, through scripture which doesn't deceive.

This leaves open theology with a choice:

1) God foreknows free choices somehow.
2) God coerces the outcome through power because it's his will.

If the later, then welcome to the theology of Divine Decree and double predestination. Free will, what's that?

Why don't you join Bob Enyart and myself? You merely have to say that God is able to foreknow the future and free will still exists. In Bob's case you just say that God chooses not to know some things. Or you could say that God knows some future free will acts and not others. Oh! It's already the same thing that Bob's saying.