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

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by Lovejoy

So salvation is not a negating action, but an affirming action. The Blood that covers is not the same thing as the Water that grants life?
I have given this illustration in the past...

Think of canning:

You sterilize the jars (cleansed by the blood)
You fill them with fruit (the indwelling Holy Spirit)
You seal them (for the day of redemption of our bodies.

The blood of Jesus does not "cover" our sin, it takes it away, so that we can receive what God came to give us... His Life!
 

Lovejoy

Active member
Originally posted by Sozo

I have given this illustration in the past...

Think of canning:

You sterilize the jars (cleansed by the blood)
You fill them with fruit (the indwelling Holy Spirit)
You seal them (for the day of redemption of our bodies.

The blood of Jesus does not "cover" our sin, it takes it away, so that we can receive what God came to give us... His Life!

Cover is "christianese", if you know what I mean, so it just comes naturally. Since I understand the process as a "negation", I guess I also understand that it is a cleansing, not a covering. I do not know why I use the word. Quite a good illustration though, and I fully plan on stealing it for my own use! :p

I am still working on a few aspects of this, but frankly, I do not plan on understanding it all today. I just want to make sure I do not get caught up in the same sort of idiocy that led to "governmental" atonement, or some such. Maybe I will PM you after I work this through for awhile. God bless.
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo
Having your sins forgiven is not what saves you. Salvation is life.
So are you claiming that everyone in hell, and going to hell, already has all their sins forgiven?

Originally posted by Sozo
All men are reconciled to God, through the death of Jesus. But, we are saved by His life, not by His death. The life of Jesus is eternal life, it is the very life of God.
What are we saved from?

Originally posted by Sozo
Reconciliation is an exchange. We give Him our life, and He gives us His. The death Of Christ paid the debt that separated us from God, and now we give Him our life, in exchange for His.
So would you say that men must save themselves by agreeing to a transaction?

Originally posted by Sozo
Salvation is found in Him; in His life!
Again, salvation from what?

Originally posted by Sozo
The sin issue has been dealt with at the cross ("It is finished"). Man's problem is no longer a sin issue, but a life and death issue.
I see, so we no longer need to tell the world that their sin will send them to hell, correct?

Originally posted by Sozo
Those who have not come to Christ to receive His life are still dead. Forgiveness of sin is found "in Him".
"Forgiveness of sin is found"? I thought it was a done deal.

Originally posted by Sozo
"For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

*Please remember I abhor Calvinism*
Since I'm not a Calvinist, you don't have to worry about me quoting R.C. Sproul or John Piper to you. So lighten up.

Originally posted by Sozo
Ask yourself this...

I buy everyone in the world a new car! The purchase has been completed. The keys and titles are at a specific redemption center. Simply go to the redemption center, identify yourself, turn in the keys to your old car, and receive the new one.

Does everyone have a new car?
Wrong question. The question is: Does everyone own a new car? If you truly purchased it in their behalf, the answer would be yes. But in actuality, since you put a stipulation on the ownership of the car, they don't really own it, which means that you really didn't buy the car for them. It isn't really their car until they've met your demands. You're basically holding the new car hostage until you get what you want, which is the keys to their old car. So the price you paid for the car does nothing for the people who want to keep their old keys. It accomplishes nothing apart from what must be added by turning in one's old car keys.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Turbo

:doh: I accidentally copied the word for Father before. Sorry. I'll edit that post.

:confused: But It sure looks like [size=+1]pasan[/size] (pasan), not [size=+1]pasa[/size] (pasa), to me.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible...h%205:22&ot=bhs&nt=tr&new=1&nb=joh&ng=5&ncc=5


Right.

The transliteration in my interlinear was 'pasa'...your link is a phonetic (pronunciation in English) vs literal spelling in Greek.

Moot point... (e.g. patr is pronunciation for Gk. word 'pater')
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo

That is pure BS! You are so full of crap, godrulz! You have done nothing but insult the blood of Jesus, and malign the gospel since you've been here. You MIGHT be right about one jot, but you are in egregious error on nearly everything else you spew out of your Christ-hating mouth!

Nice twist...hit a sore spot did I?:cry:

Why would a Christ-hatrer defend His Deity and affirm a love relationship with Him and give of my time, energy, and money to serve Him? I must be the biggest fool around. Amazing how God uses this "Christ-hater" for 25 years to serve His people and reach the lost here and abroad.

If others share sozo's rabid assessments, please point out core truth that makes me an unregenerate reprobate. Differing views on sanctification (Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Calvinistic, Holiness, etc.) are simply not salvific dividing lines for heaven and hell.

I strongly affirm the biblical, historical, orthodox doctrines of the faith. I just do not blindly cower to sozo's articulations.

What's with the rivalry. I am a brother in Christ, not the devil incarnate.
 

Turbo

Caped Crusader
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by godrulz

your link is a phonetic (pronunciation in English) vs literal spelling in Greek.
Actually, there is a font you can download on the page so that the Greek text is displayed properly.
 

natewood3

New member
Poly,

Look, I didn't mean to upset you. This is a real sore spot for me. I believed the way you do for the better part of my life and now that I see the absurdity of it, I can't stand seeing others sucked into this warped and all too common view of God. I think you're a very intelligent person and that's why it's all the more a shame that you view God as you do. And I should say in all fairness that although you do misrepresent the OV, you seem to do it more out of ignorance rather than purposely as some on here make a habit of doing.

Just because it is a sore spot does not mean that you should criticize in the way you did. That gets nowhere. I am a forgiving and tolerant person who does not really care about people getting mad or criticizing me. However, I did not find anything I said "double talk" and I did not see where you proceeded to show me why it was double talk. I also did not see where you showed me why my "style" was childish. You came across arrogant, acting as if I was a dumb child with whom you had absolutely no time to discuss anything. THAT is what got to me, not necessarily the words...

You say I misrepresent the OV; PLEASE correct me when I do. I am here to learn and discuss. So, if I misrepresent, then correct me so I will know. BTW, HOW did I misrepresent the OV?

In that post, you said:

So, you say He chose to 'reveal' His Son to you. Again, you limit God. See, my view of God goes beyond the way you describe Him. He has no need to plan to "happen to reveal His Son" to certain individuals ahead of time. His power, authority and influence is so great that He can reveal Himself to the whole world and have no doubts that there will be people who will accept Him.

You bolded the word "need" in "He has no need to plan to 'happen to reveal His Son..." I did not say He NEEDED to do that either, so I am confused as to why you would say that. Also, as I said to Turbo, you believe your God's "power, authority and influence is so great that He can reveal Himself to the whole world and have no doubts that there will be people who will accept Him." His power, authority, and influence is obviously very weak, it seems to me at least, because most people will reject Him. In my view, which probably doesn't matter to you, I believe that when Christ reveals Himself so people see Him as He really is in all His glory in the death, burial, and resurrection, then they will respond, not because Christ forced them, but because they now are able to see Christ without the blinders and hear His words of invitation. You say that is not loving, because God does it against their "free will;" I say it is the most loving thing He could do for any human being. Why does He not do it to all? Christ came to redeem a special people, His Bride...
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Sozo

Yep Nope Propitiation.


Yep... it paid the penalty for sin.

Are you getting any of this?

I actually agree with this, if we are talking the same language. His death was a substitute for the penalty. Jim is correct to note that if it is a literal payment for everyone (commerical transaction), then all should be saved. The problem is that it is not a literal payment. Payment is a metaphor describing an aspect to His death. All are not saved because they do not appropriate the universal provision (grounds vs conditions).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Hilston

Hilston wrote: He paid for the sins of the entire world?

Hilston wrote: So then the whole world will be saved, right?

That doesn't make sense. If the debt is paid for the whole world, then everyone should be debt-free before God, right? If not, please explain.

Hilston wrote: Then why did Jesus die?

If Jesus died to propitiate God's wrath for the entire world, then the entire world is no longer under God's wrath, right? If not, please explain.

Hilston wrote: Doesn't His blood have any value?

If it paid the penalty for all men's sins, then there should be no one suffering in hell for their sins, right? If not, please explain.

The literal payment/commercial transaction theory of the atonement is one of five major theories. It logically leads to universalism. It is problematic as Jim is intuitively pointing out. We all agree universalism is false teaching.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
How is it that Hilston is not an idiot and Christ-hater for not articulating redemption in the same way as sozo?

How is it that sozo can be defiantly wrong on Greek grammar, yet can accurately judge my heart, motives, and relationship with Christ based on posts about sanctification?

Time for more humility about basic knowledge and less dogmatism about things that God alone can judge (eternal destinies).

When I see sozo in heaven, do I have to hug him, or can I kick him in the head with my TKD first?:rolleyes:
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by Sozo
Jim, you are an intelligent person.
Ok, I stand corrected.

Pay close attention, Jim.

Originally posted by Hilston

So are you claiming that everyone in hell, and going to hell, already has all their sins forgiven?
No, I am claiming that all sin has been paid for through His blood, but some men want to pay their own way, and so thay do not accept God's provision, even though it has clearly been made. These men are still dead, and they need life. Death is separation from God. Hell is eternal separation from God (were you aware of that? :chuckle: ) Forgiveness of sin is in Him. It's IN HIM, Jim. ALL that God has prepared, is IN HIM ("HIM" being Jesus, of course).

Are you saying that God was NOT satisfied with the sacrifice of Jesus, and that it was not finished, and that the debt for all sin was not paid?
What are we saved from?
Wrath, Sin, Law, & Death (Romans 5, 6, 7, & 8)
So would you say that men must save themselves by agreeing to a transaction?
No, men receive life, by the grace of God, through faith. Salvation is a free gift.
Again, salvation from what?
Are you any relation to a guy named Jay Bartlett?
I see, so we no longer need to tell the world that their sin will send them to hell, correct?
What sends people to hell is their unbelief in Jesus.

John 16: 8-9

"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me

Their sin is what brought death.

The wages of sin is death...

But, there is good news (gospel), Jim!!!

The free gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus!

"Forgiveness of sin is found"? I thought it was a done deal.
Now, you are just being silly.
Since I'm not a Calvinist, you don't have to worry about me quoting R.C. Sproul or John Piper to you. So lighten up
Jim...Jim...Jim... :nono: , you really missed my point there, didn't you.
Wrong question. The question is: Does everyone own a new car? If you truly purchased it in their behalf, the answer would be yes. But in actuality, since you put a stipulation on the ownership of the car, they don't really own it, which means that you really didn't buy the car for them. It isn't really their car until they've met your demands. You're basically holding the new car hostage until you get what you want, which is the keys to their old car. So the price you paid for the car does nothing for the people who want to keep their old keys. It accomplishes nothing apart from what must be added by turning in one's old car keys.

The good news, Jim, is that it is all about Jesus. He is the redemption center. When you come to Him, you receive ALL (is that pantas, or something else :D ), that God has prepared for those who love Him. God demands that we deny ourselves (turn in the old keys) obey Christ (get the new keys), and that salvation (the car) is found in no other.
 
Last edited:

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by natewood3

Sozo,

Can I jump in and ask a simple question?

Is unbelief a sin? If so, was it not paid for on the cross?
Sin is lawlessness, and requires the shedding of blood for forgiveness. Unbelief requires repentance.
 

logos_x

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

The literal payment/commercial transaction theory of the atonement is one of five major theories. It logically leads to universalism. It is problematic as Jim is intuitively pointing out. We all agree universalism is false teaching.

Unless you understand what universalism really says, then it makes perfect sense of Hell in light of Christ's victory.
Universalism simply stands on the fact that God never expresses any of His attributes at the expense of another...that even His wrath and punishment for sin are intended to be correctional, leading to repentance and cleansing and rebirth. It doesn't negate the threat of Hell...only it's purpose is re-examined and it's duration dependent on how much Hell is deserved and how long it takes to complete it's work of reforming the soul that goes there.
It is a logical conclusion for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which, it acknowledges Christ's universal victory at the cross and His resurection, and removes many of the limits we place on God's ability to save to the uttermost.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
This is another loop hole that attempts to show that Christ fully succeeded in saving everyone He died for. Calvinism suggests it is because he only died for the elect, so saves all those whom He died for (limited atonement). You seem to suggest that the atonement is unlimited, the debt is paid, so all will ultimately be saved (universalism). It also sounds like you have a twist of Catholic purgatory or Eastern reincarnation mixed in.

The biblical teaching is that our destinies are fixed at death either in heaven (presence of the Lord) or hell...>lake of fire= separation from God. There are no second chances/probation or purging in light of the finished work of Christ.

I still think the provision is fully efficacious and intended for all without discrimination or favoritism/arbitrariness. The reason it does not save all is not related to a deficiency in the sacrifice or a unilateral decision based on God's sovereign will. It is based on the rejection or lack of appropriation of the effective provision (Jn. 3= belief vs unbelief). We either respond to the truth of the Gospel (person/work of Christ) by receiving Him or continuing in our rebellion and rejection of His free gift of eternal life.
 

Hilston

Active member
Hall of Fame
Hilston asked: So are you claiming that everyone in hell, and going to hell, already has all their sins forgiven?

Originally posted by Sozo
No, I am claiming that all sin has been paid for through His blood, but some men want to pay their own way, ...
But you said, "Having your sins forgiven is not what saves you." So are you saying Christ died for the forgiveness of all sins, but nonetheless, there are sins unforgiven? Please explain.

Originally posted by Sozo
... and so thay do not accept God's provision, even though it has clearly been made.
But if the provision has been made, there is no guilt for sin. The price has been paid, regardless of whether or not they want to "pay their own way." If Jesus went ahead and paid their way in advance, there is no "paying their own way." Their payment would be refused. And if they have to accept the payment to make it count, then there really was never a true provision, only a potential provision, which is no provision at all.

Originally posted by Sozo
These men are still dead, and they need life.
This is puzzling. You describe guiltless, sinless men (i.e. Jesus died for their sins) who are still dead and going to hell if they don't turn in their old car keys?

Originally posted by Sozo
... Death is separation from God.
Right. So, those in hell are there for not making the trade, not because of any sins they committed, since Christ's death paid for all their sins, right?

Originally posted by Sozo
Hell is eternal separation from God (where you aware of that? :chuckle: ) Forgiveness of sin is in Him. It's IN HIM, Jim. ALL that God has prepared, is IN HIM ("HIM" being Jesus, of course).
Maybe someone likes having their sin forgiven, but would still rather keep their own life. What have they done to deserve eternal separation from God and torment in hell? Especially considering that all their sins are paid for.

Originally posted by Sozo
Are you saying that God was NOT satisfied with the sacrifice of Jesus, and that it was not finished, and that the debt for all sin was not paid?
I'm just asking questions to better understand your view of the atonement. On my view, there are zero losses. God saves each and every one He chose to love and sent His Son to die for. There will be no one in hell for whom Jesus died, and they go to hell for their sins, and are punished eternally for their sins.

Hilston asked: What are we saved from?

Originally posted by Sozo
Wrath, Sin, Law, & Death (Romans 5, 6, 7, & 8)
But I thought you said "Having your sins forgiven is not what saves you." So Christ's payment for our sin doesn't save us, yet, here you say we are saved from sin. That suggests there are a bunch of people in hell whose sins are forgiven, but still they will be tormented and punished for eternity -- for what, exactly?

Originally posted by Sozo
No, men receive life, by the grace of God, through faith. Salvation is a free gift. Are you any relation to a guy named Jay Bartlett? What sends people to hell is their unbelief in Jesus.
Isn't unbelief a sin? Sin is disobedience to God's commands. Jesus commanded the people to belief in Him. He even called that doing the work of God. So not believing would be a sin. Why didn't Jesus die for that sin, too?

Originally posted by Sozo
John 16: 8-9
"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me
That doesn't seem to make sense, if the Holy Spirit comes after the sacrifice of Christ, which means that all sins are forgiven. Why would the Holy Spirit convict the world concerning sin after Jesus' death paid for all sin?

Originally posted by Sozo
Their sin is what brought death.
That shouldn't be true anymore, since Christ's death paid for all sins. Now, by your statements, death comes from not trading in the old car keys. Sin has nothing to do with it, right?

Originally posted by Sozo
The wages of sin is death...
That can't be right. You said death, "separation" from God, is the result of not trading our life for His. It has nothing to do with sin, especially given the fact that all sin has been already paid for. Should I may scratch that verse out of my Bible, because you said all sins have already been paid for and "having sins paid for does not save you."

Originally posted by Sozo
But, there is good news (gospel), Jim!!!

The free gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus!

The good news, Jim, is that it is all about Jesus. He is the redemption center. When you come to Him, you receive ALL (is that pantas, or something else :D ), that God has prepared for those who love Him. God demands that we deny ourselves (turn in the old keys) obey Christ (get the new keys), and that salvation (the car) is found in no other.
Seems to me, by what you're saying, that salvation is not really in Christ, but in ourselves, our own decision to turn in the old keys. In other words, Christ's work is impotent until we agree to the terms, which means everything He did is insufficient. It hasn't really accomplished anything. We must first add our own works to the equation in order to catalyze the potentiality of salvation. Without the catalyst, Christ's work is just an impotent, insufficient token that doesn't really accomplish anything.

In your "new car" analogy, I pointed out that you had asked the wrong question. The question is: Does everyone own a new car? If you truly purchased it in their behalf, the answer would be yes. But in actuality, since you put a stipulation on the ownership of the car, they don't really own it, which means that you really didn't buy the car for them. It isn't really their car until they've met your demands. You're basically holding the new car hostage until you get what you want, which is the keys to their old car. So the price you paid for the car does nothing for the people who want to keep their old keys. It accomplishes nothing apart from what must be added by turning in one's old car keys.

Isn't it true then, on your view, since all sin has been paid for and "having your sins forgiven is not what saves you", that we no longer need to tell the world that their sin will send them to hell?

Originally posted by Sozo
Those who have not come to Christ to receive His life are still dead. Forgiveness of sin is found "in Him".
Did you say "Forgiveness of sin is found"? I thought all sin was paid for already. How can "forgiveness of sin be found."
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Jim, I think you are misunderstanding sozo's view (not that I can fully understand it either).


Two problems among many that create confusion:

i) The 'atonement' is not a literal payment/commercial transaction. Seeing it as such leads to some of the things you see as problematic. Sin is not a physical thing, but a wrong moral choice. Forgiveness is not a physical thing like a gift box with a bow. It is a relaxation of the claims of justice in favor of mercy due to a substituted penalty.

ii) Future sins are not literally forgiven centuries before they come to pass. You cannot forgive something that is not even there. Christ's death was a substitute for the penalty of sin (death) that hangs over the individual. If one comes in repentant faith (God's conditions), they will appropriate the efficacious provision. If they persist in unbelief (cuts them off from the life line of salvation), they will not experience the benefits of salvation (doing it their way vs God's way/terms).

Unbelief is a unique sin. There is not blanket forgiveness without moving from unbelief to faith. It is possible to be a believer and lust. It is not possible to be a believer while in a persistent state of unrepentant rejection and unbelief.

The TULIP solution of limited atonement does not solve the issue. It is academic to say God succeeded because He saved all the elect He wanted to. The reality is that countless millions still fall short of the glory of God and perish. In either view, this seems to be an abject failure of God's true intentions for His beloved race that He created to know and love Him.

God is grieved and heart-broken at those who perish (they, not God are culpable for being lost...in your view, God could have saved them, but chose not to...this is contrary to His love and impartiality/justice). He did everything possible (satisfied love and wrath) to ensure that all would be saved. All are not saved (both views) because some refuse the gift (your view, because God withheld grace/faith).

A doctor with the cure for cancer can freely offer it to all those with the death sentence of cancer. If some refuse to come to the loving, perfect doctor for the effective cure, it is not the doctor's fault nor is it a failure of the cure. It is the patient's fault alone. If they would have appropriated the provision, they would have been cured.

God is not the reason why multitudes perish. Man alone is responsible for his demise due to his unintelligent rebellion (Jn. 3).
 

Sozo

New member
Originally posted by godrulz

A doctor with the cure for cancer can freely offer it to all those with the death sentence of cancer. If some refuse to come to the loving, perfect doctor for the effective cure, it is not the doctor's fault nor is it a failure of the cure. It is the patient's fault alone. If they would have appropriated the provision, they would have been cured.
:thumb:
 

logos_x

New member
Originally posted by godrulz


The biblical teaching is that our destinies are fixed at death either in heaven (presence of the Lord) or hell...>lake of fire= separation from God. There are no second chances/probation or purging in light of the finished work of Christ.

Is it really the biblical teaching? Tradition has been based on "biblical teaching" and has been wrong.
No...it is what you have been taught the bible teaches, not necessarily what the bible teaches. You have even been taught that universalism is false doctrine and deception to keep you from questioning what you have been taught the bible teaches.

1Co 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1Co 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

How does this fit in if our destinies are fixed at physical death?


I still think the provision is fully efficacious and intended for all without discrimination or favoritism/arbitrariness. The reason it does not save all is not related to a deficiency in the sacrifice or a unilateral decision based on God's sovereign will. It is based on the rejection or lack of appropriation of the effective provision (Jn. 3= belief vs unbelief). We either respond to the truth of the Gospel (person/work of Christ) by receiving Him or continuing in our rebellion and rejection of His free gift of eternal life.

In this view..Hell has no purpose. It only torments without end, and will never lead to anything good. Evil continues, no possibilty of redemption...even if they repent.
Amazing thing that God could be so unsuccessful just because people didn't understand or hear the gospel before they died.
Millions , pehaps billions, burn for all eternity because of stupidity...whether man's stupidity, or if the tradition is actually true...God's.
No...God is not so inept, and his ability to save to the uttermost is sure, in spite of the traditions of men.
And...the salvation of all is not a loophole...it is God doing the impossible.
 
Top