ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!

[Poly]

Originally posted by Turbo

Wow! I made the same point to Christine last night on AIM. Then I asked her:

• Turbopotamus: Was Christ's sacrifice of infinite worth?
  NChristy06: No

Yikes! :shocked:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Turbo

Wow! I made the same point to Christine last night on AIM. Then I asked her:

• Turbopotamus: Was Christ's sacrifice of infinite worth?
  NChristy06: No

:doh:
Seems like a total no-brainer to me!
How much is the life of God worth?
What other answer could there be but that it is of infinite value? :duh:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Jim,

Just to be perfectly clear and to disallow the continued honest use of some of the characterizations of the Open View that you seem to enjoy employing, I would like to say and to make perfectly clear that I believe firmly and absolutely that the price God paid at the cross was of INFINITE value. Allow me to repeat that so I'll know you've gotten it...

THE PRICE GOD PAID AT THE CROSS WAS OF
INFINITE VALUE!​

If there were a billion planets with 100 million souls on each planet and all (and I mean every last single one) came to faith in Christ it would not diminish by even the smallest fraction the remaining value of that which was paid at Calvary.
Jesus' death at the cross is what made God's grace available to ALL, that is, anyone who responds to Him in faith. (And again I do mean anyone at all.) We are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. His blood shed for us is the object of our faith and it is our faith which triggers God's grace not the blood itself otherwise you would indeed have universalism. The blood is what made that grace available. If we do not respond to Him in faith then He will not cleanse us of our sins and we will be left to pay the price we owe ourselves, namely death. Which, by the way, is totally His prerogative to decide. It was His sacrifice, His Son, His blood that was shed, He has the absolute right to say to whom that blood will be applied and under what circumstances. If He wants to place a condition of faith within the plan of salvation then that's up to Him, and rightly so.
Now, that's the way God set it up. If you don't like it, I suggest you get over it! You do not get to decide what the plan of salvation is, God does. If you have a problem with it then you have a problem with nothing less than the very gospel itself and thereby the one who authored it. But be that as it may, if I see that you have accused me or any other person who holds to the Open View of believing that Christ's death was of anything but infinite value, know that you will be guilty of intentionally lying and that I intend to call you on it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Bravo. Our view affirms the sovereignty and love of God. God sets conditions, provides salvation, and desires all to be saved without bias. We are created to know and love Him.

The other view limits the love of God to the elect and wrongly understands His sovereignty as opposed to genuine, impartial love.

It is horrible to think of God as creating babies to damn them apart from their heart choices. This is a pagan god who would do this.

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
Just to be perfectly clear and to disallow the continued honest use of some of the characterizations of the Open View that you seem to enjoy employing, I would like to say and to make perfectly clear that I believe firmly and absolutely that the price God paid at the cross was of INFINITE value. Allow me to repeat that so I'll know you've gotten it...
THE PRICE GOD PAID AT THE CROSS WAS OF
INFINITE VALUE!

I don't doubt for one second that you claim that and that you think you believe it. I just don't think you know what it means. As soon as you invoke a contingency, the value is stripped away. See below.

Clete writes:
If there were a billion planets with 100 million souls on each planet and all (and I mean every last single one) came to faith in Christ it would not diminish by even the smallest fraction the remaining value of that which was paid at Calvary.

Here's the problem: You claim you believe in the transaction view of the atonement, that Christ's blood actually paid for our sins. But if no one "cashed" their blood coupon by choosing first to believe, there would be no payment for anything. On that view, Christ's blood doesn't pay for the sins of those who don't believe, so it's value is contingent, not actual. Therefore, not infinite.

Clete writes:
Jesus' death at the cross is what made God's grace available to ALL, that is, anyone who responds to Him in faith.

There's the contingency [in bold]. And that makes it not infinite. It actually makes it insufficient.

Clete writes:
(And again I do mean anyone at all.) We are saved by grace THROUGH FAITH in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

Eph 2:8,9 isn't talking only about eternal salvation, but also daily, ongoing sanctification. Check the tense of the verb.

Clete writes:
His blood shed for us is the object of our faith and it is our faith which triggers God's grace not the blood itself otherwise you would indeed have universalism.

That is a low-value-atonement view, whether you like it or not. Such an atonement is not sufficient to save. Something must be added, namely "our faith." I don't rely upon my own faith. My own faith fails on a daily basis. I am justified before God by the faith of Christ, that is, Christ's faithfulness in actually and sufficiently paying the penalty in my behalf, not by my own faith.

Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

I have a high-value-atonement view in which the atonement is sufficient to save each and every person for whom the payment was intended.

Clete writes:
The blood is what made that grace available.

See what I mean? It's merely "available." It's sitting there, doing nothing, accomplishing nothing, insufficient to do anything alone. Something must be added.

Clete writes:
If we do not respond to Him in faith then He will not cleanse us of our sins and we will be left to pay the price we owe ourselves, namely death. Which, by the way, is totally His prerogative to decide. It was His sacrifice, His Son, His blood that was shed, He has the absolute right to say to whom that blood will be applied and under what circumstances. If He wants to place a condition of faith within the plan of salvation then that's up to Him, and rightly so.

Then it isn't of infinite value. If a condition is placed on the application, it isn't a sufficient payment. It is value-less in and of itself. Its value depends on something is added. "Infinite" and "insufficient" don't seem to go together.

Clete writes:
Now, that's the way God set it up.

It's not. That's a distortion born out of pagan philosophy. Men are not justified before God by works, and not by his own faith, but by the faithful work of the Son, sufficiently and assuredly and actually; not potentially, or based on "availability". "If you don't like it, I suggest you get over it! You do not get to decide what the plan of salvation is, God does. If you have a problem with it then you have a problem with nothing less than the very gospel itself and thereby the one who authored it."

By the way, Clete. "You don't get to decide" is one of the funniest phrases I've heard in a long time, especially in a debate setting. Can I use it?

Clete writes:
But be that as it may, if I see that you have accused me or any other person who holds to the Open View of believing that Christ's death was of anything but infinite value, know that you will be guilty of intentionally lying and that I intend to call you on it.

Good grief, lighten up, Alice. I don't doubt that you believe it, I just don't think you know what it means. I'm not lying when I say that your view of the atonement is one of low value. You call it "infinite value," but it's not. Henceforth, I will say that Open Theists believe in a so-called-infinite-value-but-in-actuality-low-value-insufficient atonement [SCIVBIALVI atonement, for short. Pronounced: skiv-bee-AL-vee].

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Turbo

Wow! I made the same point to Christine last night on AIM. Then I asked her:

• Turbopotamus: Was Christ's sacrifice of infinite worth?
  NChristy06: No

:shocked:

 

[Clete]

Jim,

We do not save ourselves; it is God who saves when and if we respond to Him in faith. The only reason He can do that and remain holy and just is because of the Sacrifice that was paid by His Son on the cross. It is not our "coupon" to redeem, it is His. As I said it is His sacrifice, His Son, His blood. He can redeem with that blood whomever He wishes under what ever conditions He wants to set up.
Notice all the monetary metaphors. These are the very same ones that the Bible uses over and over again. And it is a good metaphor. It works very nicely, even your "coupon" addition works fine. You know coupons do have real value when redeemed by those who issued it. If you have a coin in your pocket it too has real value. You know why? It's because everyone involved in the economy in which that coin is used agrees that it has value, otherwise it is nothing but a not so nice piece of sculpture. The same is true of the blood of Christ only it has intrinsic value because it is the blood of God Himself. But the value of it belongs to God, not us. It was a sacrifice made to God, by God for our benefit and it is the only thing that pays for our sin, THE ONLY THING. Nothing is added, not our faith, not God's grace, nothing nothing nothing nothing! Got it?
Let me explain what I mean by making an analogy that is similar to one that Jesus made. Let's say that some very rich man or a king perhaps makes an offer to pay off the debts of anyone who asks, no strings attached, all that is needed is that people ask for the free gift. Pretty neat deal, especially if you are in up to your neck in debt that you have no possible way of paying!
This is exactly the position we are in with God. He has offered to pay our sin debt with absolutely no strings attached; all we must do is ask Him to do it and He will. Your suggesting that by my asking for my debt to be paid that the act of asking is part of the payment! That's ridiculous.
So your insistence that we hold a view that places a low-value on the blood of Christ is ridiculous and is only said to have an emotional impact but has no basis in fact. It has nothing to do what you think or whether you think I know what it means for it to be of infinite value. I'm telling you in no uncertain terms that under no circumstances can it be rightly said that we believe that Christ's sacrifice was of a low value, or that what we believe can lead logically to that conclusion, period. Now, will you continue in what is now an intentional mischaracterization of the Open View or will you debate honestly and substantively?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Hilston

Here's the problem: You claim you believe in the transaction view of the atonement, that Christ's blood actually paid for our sins. But if no one "cashed" their blood coupon by choosing first to believe, there would be no payment for anything. On that view, Christ's blood doesn't pay for the sins of those who don't believe, so it's value is contingent, not actual. Therefore, not infinite.

Hilston, please explain this verse.

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Jim,

We do not save ourselves; it is God who saves when and if we respond to Him in faith.

No, you do save yourself, according to your view. You must decide. You must choose. You must "cash in." You. You. You. You. You. When the Bible instructs the rebellious to repent and to choose to follow Christ, it is not an offer. It is a command. Those who repent and follow have already been redeemed. Those who reject, never were.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The only reason He can do that and remain holy and just is because of the Sacrifice that was paid by His Son on the cross. It is not our "coupon" to redeem, it is His.

See what irrationality results? First it's your decision and you redeem the coupon, now it's God.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
As I said it is His sacrifice, His Son, His blood. He can redeem with that blood whomever He wishes under what ever conditions He wants to set up.

No He can't. Not on your view. He can't redeem someone who rejects Him, can He?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Notice all the monetary metaphors. These are the very same ones that the Bible uses over and over again. And it is a good metaphor. It works very nicely, even your "coupon" addition works fine. You know coupons do have real value when redeemed by those who issued it.

Yes, but they are insufficient in and of themselves. They have no intrinsic value.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
If you have a coin in your pocket it too has real value. You know why? It's because everyone involved in the economy in which that coin is used agrees that it has value, otherwise it is nothing but a not so nice piece of sculpture.

You've contradicted yourself. It has assigned value, not real value.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The same is true of the blood of Christ only it has intrinsic value because it is the blood of God Himself.

It has no intrinsic value if something must be added to it.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
But the value of it belongs to God, not us. It was a sacrifice made to God, by God for our benefit and it is the only thing that pays for our sin, THE ONLY THING.

But it has no value until it is "cashed in." That means it is insufficient to actually do anything apart from man's choice.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Nothing is added, not our faith, not God's grace, nothing nothing nothing nothing! Got it?

I hear you, but you're contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Let me explain what I mean by making an analogy that is similar to one that Jesus made. Let's say that some very rich man or a king perhaps makes an offer to pay off the debts of anyone who asks, no strings attached, all that is needed is that people ask for the free gift.

Question: "Free?! No strings? What's the catch?"
Answer: "The catch is you gotta ask for it."

It's not the "strings" that refute your "infinite value" assertion, but the "catch."

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Pretty neat deal, especially if you are in up to your neck in debt that you have no possible way of paying! This is exactly the position we are in with God.

That's where you're wrong, and your flawed view of total depravity is the underpinning of your error. The position is not merely of debt and no possible way of paying, but of debt and no desire to pay. The carnal mind cannot submit to God's requirements. Spiritually dead, we must be made alive, regenerated, before we even realize our need, let alone desire its payment.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
He has offered to pay our sin debt with absolutely no strings attached; ...

He didn't offer anything. It's not an offer. All men everywhere are commanded to repent.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
... all we must do is ask Him to do it and He will. Your suggesting that by my asking for my debt to be paid that the act of asking is part of the payment! That's ridiculous.

No, the fact that the payment is impotent in and of itself, on your view, is what is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
So your insistence that we hold a view that places a low-value on the blood of Christ is ridiculous ...

No, what is ridiculous is that you claim it has infinite instrinsic value, but the logical conclusion of your view is that it only has an insufficient and potential value.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
... and is only said to have an emotional impact but has no basis in fact.

Not only fact, but logic.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
It has nothing to do what you think or whether you think I know what it means for it to be of infinite value. I'm telling you in no uncertain terms that under no circumstances can it be rightly said that we believe that Christ's sacrifice was of a low value, or that what we believe can lead logically to that conclusion, period.

See above.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Now, will you continue in what is now an intentional mischaracterization of the Open View or will you debate honestly and substantively?

There is nothing dishonest of insubstantive about my critique. For you, what Christ did had no intrinsic value. Only potential value (even though you say it had infinite value]. For you, what Christ did was not sufficient to accomplish anything in and of itself, something, namely the faith of men, must be added for it to actually become kinetic. Your explanations belie your claim. So you can continue to call it an atonement of "infinite value," but your explanation demonstrates that it's really only a SCIVBIALVI atonement.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Poly

Hilston, please explain this verse.

1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Wow! Either you've completely forgotten your Calvinist roots, or your former church was full of dolts and dunderheads. Did your former teachers ever discuss this verse?

If "whole world" means all human beings without exception, and if Christ propitiated the wrath of God in behalf of all human beings without exception, the every human being without exception will be saved. Unless, of course, you view the atonement as having low value, in which case you can add man's faith to it and thereby declare the insufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.

The apostle was speaking to specific Jews. The collective pronoun "our" refers to himself and his immediate audience. The "whole world" refers to the rest of the kingdom elect, viz., proselyte Gentiles and the rest of true Israel.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

You have now proven yourself a liar.
You are not interesting in debate but only in lies and intentional mischaracterizations used for cheap emotional points.
You claim repeatedly that you are not a Calvinist and yet all you do is spout Calvinist doctrine all over the place. Up until now I have honored your desire to not be referred to as a Calvinist but since you insist on continuing with this ridiculousness I will, from now on, call that which quacks a duck.
And since you like the phrase so much let me use it again, you do not get to decide what Calvinism is. Practically everything you say is in perfect agreement with Calvinist doctrine if its not a verbatim quote of it, and you are therefore a Calvinist of one stripe or another.
Now, are you satisfied with the results of your dishonesty? You've accomplished exactly nothing except alienating yourself from those who are interesting in real debate. Of course, as a Calvinist you must admit that this whole conversation and its outcome was predestined anyway, so what's the difference? I was predestined to believe in free will and you were predestined to be a jerk. C'est la Vie'!

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Hilston

Wow! Either you've completely forgotten your Calvinist roots, or your former church was full of dolts and dunderheads. Did your former teachers ever discuss this verse?

Don't even go there. You and your "don't try to pull any verses over on me cause I've got it all covered" attitude is really annoying. There are many onlookers, not aware of these arguments, who deserve to see the warped answers that Calvinists will give. (I know, I know, you're not a Calvinist. )

Yes, I've heard this same sickening argument time and again. He didn't mean "whole" when He said "whole". Just like I'm sure that when God says "reconciling the world to Himself" in this passage:

2nd Corinthians 5:19
"....that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation."

.....He really didn't mean that He reconciled the world to Himself. How do we know that God didn't really mean He reconciled the world to Himself even though that's what is said here? Because Hilston says so.

And please, by all means, tell us what God really meant when He said that some will "deny the Lord who bought them"....

2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Jim,

You have now proven yourself a liar.

I saw this coming, Clete. This is the way you deal with discussions that go over your head. You're as predictable as an Arminian. But I'll go through the motions, since this is what you want: I've said nothing untrue (that's what I'm supposed to say, right?).

Why are you so eager to demonize? Because that's the only way you can win an argument?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You are not interesting in debate but only in lies and intentional mischaracterizations used for cheap emotional points.

You don't get to decide my interests, Clete. I'm interested in cigars (which I can no longer smoke) and breakfast cereal (which I can no longer eat), but I'm not interested in stooping to Knight-like, Nineveh-like, Kerry-like and Bush-like childishness.

While those points may be emotional for you, they're not intended that way by me. I honestly, substantively, fail to see how your logic works. At least be honest and admit that you have a dehydrated view of the atonement (just add the water of faith). For you to say it is "infinite" in value, and then to proceed to demonstrate what needs to be added or supplemented or catalyzed or initiated or whatever, it remarkably self-refuting.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You claim repeatedly that you are not a Calvinist and yet all you do is spout Calvinist doctrine all over the place.

Maybe what I'm saying is just biblical, and Calvin happened to get this part right. He was wrong about lots of things, Clete, which is why I don't accept the label. But if it will help you get past your flame-out (to borrow a phrase from another TOL psychoanalyst), I'm willing let you call me a Calvinist. That is, if I can call you Betty. And Betty if you call me, you can call me Al.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Up until now I have honored your desire to not be referred to as a Calvinist but since you insist on continuing with this ridiculousness I will, from now on, call that which quacks a duck.

That's exactly what I expect from the kind of reasoning that espouses an "infinite value" atonement but then devalues it with contingencies.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
And since you like the phrase so much let me use it again, you do not get to decide what Calvinism is.

I guess you do, then. OK, call me a Calvinist if you want, Betty. But everytime one of your cronies takes your cue and starts debating me on some Calvinist doctrine that I reject, I will blame you directly for the mischaracterization.

Crony: "Hilston, why are you denying 'original sin'? I thought you were a Calvinist."
Hilston: "You must've seen Betty call me a Calvinist. I'm not."
Crony: "Betty?"
Hilston: "I meant, Clete Pfeiffer. He's hyper-Arminian/modified Deist/quasi-Process-Theology proponent who goes around calling me a Calvinist. I call him Betty."
Crony:
Hilston: "You know, Betty. From the Paul Simon song?"
Crony:
Hilston: "BETTY! [singing] 'if you'll be my bodyguard, I can be your loooong lost paaaaaal ..."
Crony: Please stop. I get it.
Hilston: [still singing] "... I can call you Betty, and ..."
Crony: "I get it I get it I get it."
Hilston: "Sorry."
Crony: "So."
Hilston: "What?"
Crony: "Does he call you Al?"

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Practically everything you say is in perfect agreement with Calvinist doctrine if its not a verbatim quote of it, and you are therefore a Calvinist of one stripe or another.

Really? I thought I was being original. Figures. Just my luck to be born too late.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Now, are you satisfied with the results of your dishonesty?

I find it "infinitely" amusing how those who make the accusations are the guilty. Your charge of dishonesty is dishonest, Clete. You have no response to my points of argument, so you resort to this stuff. I never read many of Zman's posts, but I would guess he probably backed you into a similar corner.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
You've accomplished exactly nothing except alienating yourself from those who are interesting in real debate.

On the contrary, Clete, things are going quite swimmingly, especially given the title of this thread. It is accomplishing exactly what the subject purports to demonstrate.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Of course, as a Calvinist you must admit that this whole conversation and its outcome was predestined anyway, so what's the difference? I was predestined to believe in free will and you were predestined to be a jerk. C'est la Vie'!

Exactly! I couldn't have said it better myself. By the way -- as a "Calvinist," I would have to say that I believe in free will, wouldn't I? But that would confuse you, wouldn't it? Just like the doctrines of impassibility and immutability; all concepts which cause Open Theists to pop a gasket because they just. Can't. Fathom what these words mean.

 

[godrulz]

I Jn. 2 exegesis or eisegesis?

I contend that the 'literal payment' or 'commercial transaction theory' is problematic and not the only explanation of the nature and extent of Christ's death. Accepting it leads to mental gymnastics to explain things.

 

[godrulz]

Thread: OT makes me FURIOUS.

In fairness, Open Theism should make us CURIOUS to do our due diligence. If it is a pernicious heresy, we should understand it to apologetically refute it. If it is closer to the truth of who God is and His ways, then we want to move beyond blindly accepting tradition to embrace a more scriptural position.

The Open View represents God as dynamic, responsive, loving, relational, experiential, personal, providential.

Even non-OV people are modifying the traditional, classical understanding of God as absolutely immutable (unchanging) and inpassible (without feeling). God is not a static blob.

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by Turbo

Wow! I made the same point to Christine last night on AIM. Then I asked her:

• Turbopotamus: Was Christ's sacrifice of infinite worth?
  NChristy06: No

You act like this is both terrible and incomprehensible. Yet surely Open Viewers will not deny that not all men will be saved. So, I present the following challenge.

Orignally written by Dr. John Owen, Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell and Vice Chancellor of Oxford University, England
"For Whom Did Christ Die?"

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for either:

All the sins of all men.

All the sins of some men, or

Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved.

That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead, suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.

But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, Because of unbelief. I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Christine

You act like this is both terrible and incomprehensible. Yet surely Open Viewers will not deny that not all men will be saved. So, I present the following challenge.

You call that a challenge????

It's like getting tossed a softball!!!

"For Whom Did Christ Die?"

ANSWER: All men.
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

John 4:42 Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.�

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?

John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.�

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for either:

All the sins of all men.

see above

All the sins of some men, or

Some of the sins of all men.

False dilemma. The author of this question is leaving off the obvious answer intentionally and hoping nobody will notice.

Christ died for all the sins of all men. But only those that reckon themselves (associate themselves with) Christ will avail themselves to the payment of their sin.

Romans 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Knight

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,

John 4:42 Then they said to the woman, “Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.�

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?

John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.�

Romans 6:10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I've recently come to learn that when Christine is shown verses like these that don't line up with her theology, she just changes "all" to "all the called" and replaces the "world" with "elect."

 

[Poly]

Originally posted by Turbo

I've recently come to learn that when Christine is shown verses like these that don't line up with her theology, she just changes "all" to "all the called" and replaces the "world" with "elect."

ALL Calvinists do this.

 

[Hilston]

Combined reply to Knight and Turbo:

Originally posted by Turbo

I've recently come to learn that when Christine is shown verses like these that don't line up with her theology, she just changes "all" to "all the called" and replaces the "world" with "elect."

Is this new to you? This is standard determinist exegesis. And Christine is absolutely right for doing that. It's what the passages are teaching. God's love, sacrifice and purpose for the elect.

The saddest thing -- actually it's no longer sad; it's just "infinitely" amusing -- is the fact that a truly devastating critique of universal atonement is presented and you guys just. Don't. See it. What Knight calls a false dilemma was actually a set of three propositions. THREE, Knight! False dilemma? Do you hear yourself? Has anyone ... any friend ... any Open Theist compadre ... was there anyone who saw this faux pas and pointed it out to you? My guess is "no." That's the kind of theological inbreeding that is so fascinating. It is this the kind of sloppy, knee-jerk, unreflective, specious, and willfully ignorant thinking I've come to expect from Open Theists. I admit that I am occasionally guilty of all these things. But with the Open Theists, it is standard operating procedure.

What's a "dilemma," Knight? Look it up. Do you realize how badly you cheapen the work of Christ? Your view makes Christ's sacrifice insufficient. It's a dehydrated salvation, sitting in a jar or a foil envelope, impotent, and intrinsically static. Your view does violence to the language of scripture and the substitutionary nature of the atonement. Christ, in fact, is truly and effectually the substitute for each and every person He died for. On your view, the substitution is merely potential, which is no substitution at all.

Originally posted by Knight
The author of this question is leaving off the obvious answer intentionally and hoping nobody will notice.

That is how myopic and inbred your theology is. Owen didn't leave off the "obvious answer" as you call it. You even quoted it, Einstein! Remember this?:

"The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for either: All the sins of all men. ..."

It's the same answer you gave! Sheesh. If you would slow down long enough to engage your mind and the rational faculties God gave you, you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this. But then again, if it weren't for these kinds of arrogant nonsense responses, my friends and I wouldn't have as much to crack up about.

Here's the arrogance I'm talking about:

Originally posted by Knight
You call that a challenge????

It's like getting tossed a softball!!!

I might joke occasionally about the similarities between Open Theists and the Black Knight of Monty Python's Holy Grail, but occasionally it really is true. You don't realize that John Owen lopped off both arms and both legs and has left you there, a bloody, limbless torso.

Let me hasten to say that there are some exceptions, well at least one. I think Yorzhik has thus far shown himself to be a reasonable and reflective person, despite his Open Theism. At the moment I can't think of any others.

 

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Hilston

Is this new to you?

From Christine, yes. From you, no.

• [jesus]And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.[/jesus] John 12:32

She convinced herself that this verse was mistranslated in ever Bible version before she even looked up the Greek. And when she finally did look it up, she found nothing that indicated that "all" should have been "all called," yet maintained her position.