User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: Can Open Theists be Non-Trinitarian

  1. #1
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,326
    Thanks
    1,876
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 1,355 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    530129

    Can Open Theists be Non-Trinitarian

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    I would be curious if any of our "Jesus is not God" folk on this board are also Open Theists, because the Open Theist premise eventually leads to "Jesus is God" as well.

    The bible doesn't speak of a Trinity let alone say that we should believe in one.
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    I consider myself to be an Open Theist, but do not see how Open Theism could lead to "Jesus is God".
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    1) Do you believe that the Messiah was prophesied before the birth of Je
    sus?
    2) Do you understand that the Messiah also needed to fulfill the role of the Passover Lamb?
    3) Could the sacrifice for the sin of mankind have sin (blemish) and still fulfill that role?

    I'll continue but I'd like your answers for those first.
    1) Do you believe that the Messiah was prophesied before the birth of Jesus?
    Yes, that is indisputable.

    Luke 24:27
    27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.



    2) Do you understand that the Messiah also needed to fulfill the role of the Passover Lamb?
    Yes, but how the Messiah fulfilled the role of Passover Lamb may be up to some debate.

    1 Corinthians 5:7
    7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:



    3) Could the sacrifice for the sin of mankind have sin (blemish) and still fulfill that role?
    The Passover sacrifice was not a sacrifice for sin, but did need to be without blemish.

    Exodus 12:5,7,12-13
    5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

    7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

    12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.
    13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  2. #2
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,803 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195052
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    1) Do you believe that the Messiah was prophesied before the birth of Jesus?
    Yes, that is indisputable.

    2) Do you understand that the Messiah also needed to fulfill the role of the Passover Lamb?

    Yes, but how the Messiah fulfilled the role of Passover Lamb may be up to some debate.

    3) Could the sacrifice for the sin of mankind have sin (blemish) and still fulfill that role?
    The Passover sacrifice was not a sacrifice for sin, but did need to be without blemish.
    Can being "perfect" or "without sin or sinfulness" be something that is merely a matter of genetics or DNA or can it be forced upon someone against their will?

  3. #3
    Over 1500 post club
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,561
    Thanks
    147
    Thanked 286 Times in 233 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Open theists can be anything they want...and God is helpless to stop them because God must wait on humans to decide. I wouldn't be surprised to find open theists who are also atheists. smh

  4. #4
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,803 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195052
    Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
    Open theists can be anything they want...and God is helpless to stop them because God must wait on humans to decide. I wouldn't be surprised to find open theists who are also atheists. smh
    Please find a different board to troll. This is actually meant to be an honest discussion. The subject is whether Open Theism naturally brings about "Jesus is the LORD God" when its implications are realized and as such it probably doesn't have much significance for you.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Rosenritter For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 24th, 2019)

  6. #5
    Over 5000 post club oatmeal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,058
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 399 Times in 333 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    68229
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    1) Do you believe that the Messiah was prophesied before the birth of Jesus?
    Yes, that is indisputable.

    Luke 24:27
    27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.



    2) Do you understand that the Messiah also needed to fulfill the role of the Passover Lamb?
    Yes, but how the Messiah fulfilled the role of Passover Lamb may be up to some debate.

    1 Corinthians 5:7
    7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:



    3) Could the sacrifice for the sin of mankind have sin (blemish) and still fulfill that role?
    The Passover sacrifice was not a sacrifice for sin, but did need to be without blemish.

    Exodus 12:5,7,12-13
    5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

    7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

    12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.
    13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
    Interesting.

    Adam and Eve were without sin, until of course, until they sinned.

    Thus before they sinned they were absolutely pure and sinless and in that state would qualify as lambs without spot or blemish capable of being the "innocent blood" worthy of paying the price for the sin and sins of mankind. However, once they sinned, they became in need of another pure and sinless human to be the lamb of God who could redeem them from their sins and ours
    "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42

    "Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind" Philippians 2:2

    Pro scripture = Protestant

  7. #6
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,803 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195052
    Quote Originally Posted by oatmeal View Post
    Interesting.

    Adam and Eve were without sin, until of course, until they sinned.

    Thus before they sinned they were absolutely pure and sinless and in that state would qualify as lambs without spot or blemish capable of being the "innocent blood" worthy of paying the price for the sin and sins of mankind. However, once they sinned, they became in need of another pure and sinless human to be the lamb of God who could redeem them from their sins and ours
    Good question, that needed to come up sooner or later.

    1. Is there a reason why Adam or Even could not have been used as a sacrifice for the sins for all mankind both present and future, if they were sacrificed preemptively before they sinned in the garden?

    2. Or if that seems sticky, could not God create a human from the dust today and instantly sacrifice that human for the sins of all mankind? Does this seem plausible? Why or why not?

    3. Or if not creating a fresh human from the dust, what about sacrificing a human freshly conceived? Surely in the first instant of conception the zygote wouldn't have sinned yet?

    These scenarios might sound absurd, but the reasoning of these answers are vital in addressing the opening topic.

  8. #7
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,326
    Thanks
    1,876
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 1,355 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    530129
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Can being "perfect" or "without sin or sinfulness" be something that is merely a matter of genetics or DNA or can it be forced upon someone against their will?
    You seem to be trying to make an argument that Jesus had no choice in whether He would do God's will or not.


    Hebrews 10:5-7
    5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
    6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
    7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  9. #8
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,326
    Thanks
    1,876
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 1,355 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    530129
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Good question, that needed to come up sooner or later.

    1. Is there a reason why Adam or Even could not have been used as a sacrifice for the sins for all mankind both present and future, if they were sacrificed preemptively before they sinned in the garden?

    2. Or if that seems sticky, could not God create a human from the dust today and instantly sacrifice that human for the sins of all mankind? Does this seem plausible? Why or why not?

    3. Or if not creating a fresh human from the dust, what about sacrificing a human freshly conceived? Surely in the first instant of conception the zygote wouldn't have sinned yet?

    These scenarios might sound absurd, but the reasoning of these answers are vital in addressing the opening topic.
    Those scenarios show that you have a misconception about the purpose of a sacrifice for sin.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  10. #9
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,803 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195052
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    You seem to be trying to make an argument that Jesus had no choice in whether He would do God's will or not.


    Hebrews 10:5-7
    5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
    6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
    7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
    Not at all (but if that is what you think then please say so.) Restating the question.

    Can being "perfect" or "without sin or sinfulness" be something that is merely a matter of genetics or DNA or can it be forced upon someone against their will?



  11. #10
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,803 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195052
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Those scenarios show that you have a misconception about the purpose of a sacrifice for sin.
    Considering that I didn't offer answers for any of those questions, it doesn't show anything at all. Would you like to answer those questions?

  12. #11
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,326
    Thanks
    1,876
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 1,355 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    530129
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Can being "perfect" or "without sin or sinfulness" be something that is merely a matter of genetics or DNA or can it be forced upon someone against their will?
    What is potentially possible for God to do and what God would actually do are not necessarily the same thing.

    I assume you are still talking about Jesus being without sin and trying to identify a method for God to make Jesus without sin without Jesus being God Himself.
    You have provided two deterministic options, each of which would potentially make it impossible for Jesus to sin.

    Did you forget the Open Theistic option?
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  13. #12
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,326
    Thanks
    1,876
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 1,355 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    530129
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Good question, that needed to come up sooner or later.

    1. Is there a reason why Adam or Even could not have been used as a sacrifice for the sins for all mankind both present and future, if they were sacrificed preemptively before they sinned in the garden?

    2. Or if that seems sticky, could not God create a human from the dust today and instantly sacrifice that human for the sins of all mankind? Does this seem plausible? Why or why not?

    3. Or if not creating a fresh human from the dust, what about sacrificing a human freshly conceived? Surely in the first instant of conception the zygote wouldn't have sinned yet?

    These scenarios might sound absurd, but the reasoning of these answers are vital in addressing the opening topic.
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Those scenarios show that you have a misconception about the purpose of a sacrifice for sin.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Considering that I didn't offer answers for any of those questions, it doesn't show anything at all.
    What it shows is that your questions are based on the presumptions that God demands a blood sacrifice for sin and that a perfect human could be sacrificed against his/her will to satisfy God's demand.
    However, neither of those presumptions are accurate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Would you like to answer those questions?
    The answer is: It is not possible for the death of anything to take away the sins of all mankind.

    Hebrews 10:4
    4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


    The sacrifice of a sinless human cannot take away the sins of all mankind.
    The sacrifice of a God cannot take away the sins of all mankind.

    The sacrifices for sin were given to the children of Israel under the first Covenant as a way for them to show both their contrition and their faith in God's forgiveness.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  14. #13
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,803 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195052
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    What is potentially possible for God to do and what God would actually do are not necessarily the same thing.

    I assume you are still talking about Jesus being without sin and trying to identify a method for God to make Jesus without sin without Jesus being God Himself.
    You have provided two deterministic options, each of which would potentially make it impossible for Jesus to sin.

    Did you forget the Open Theistic option?
    I didn't forget about the option, but rather was listing the deterministic options for evaluation first.

    If someone can be "perfect" and "without sin or sinfulness" by matter of genetics, then why wouldn't this have been the case of Adam and Eve who were freshly created and with DNA specifically chosen by God? Even if it was reasoned that "God didn't know how to do that then... but figured it out now" then there is no reason why our DNA couldn't be replaced now that it has been discovered. If God is truly willing that "all men be saved" and it is a matter of how we are built, then Universalism is the end result of this path.

    IF someone can be "perfect" and "without sin or sinfulness" by having it forced upon them, either against their will or by choosing a subject that has no will, then anyone or anything could be the sinless sacrifice for sin, including a newborn baby, a lamb, a butterfly, or a rock. But if this perfection can be forced, then the same result occurs of inevitable Universalism. No substitute for sin is needed as we could be made sinless.

    I've listed deterministic options above and I think that that covers those bases. Without considering the merits of or arguments against Universalism for now, I propose that "perfection" and "freedom from sinful nature" can only be accomplished in someone that has the exercise of their free will, someone that is not restricted from sin by outside limitations or inability of their mind, but rather constrained and bridled by their true character. A rock is not "sinless" because it does not even have the capacity to sin. God is sinless because he has the power and the capacity, but he is without sin because his nature forbids it.

    This all is for defining "sinless" and "perfect" within the context of what it means when Christ was without sin. I am suggesting that this could not have programmed by DNA, it could not have been forced, it could not have been against his will, it could not be accomplished by possession. This sinless and perfect character would have to be the actual character. Are we on the same wavelength so far?

  15. #14
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,326
    Thanks
    1,876
    Thanked 1,837 Times in 1,355 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    530129
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    I didn't forget about the option, but rather was listing the deterministic options for evaluation first.
    If I could be persuaded by determinism, I would be a Calvinist instead of an Open Theist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    If someone can be "perfect" and "without sin or sinfulness" by matter of genetics, then why wouldn't this have been the case of Adam and Eve who were freshly created and with DNA specifically chosen by God? Even if it was reasoned that "God didn't know how to do that then... but figured it out now" then there is no reason why our DNA couldn't be replaced now that it has been discovered. If God is truly willing that "all men be saved" and it is a matter of how we are built, then Universalism is the end result of this path.
    An argument could be made that Adam and Eve were perfect and without sin before eating from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    IF someone can be "perfect" and "without sin or sinfulness" by having it forced upon them, either against their will or by choosing a subject that has no will, then anyone or anything could be the sinless sacrifice for sin, including a newborn baby, a lamb, a butterfly, or a rock. But if this perfection can be forced, then the same result occurs of inevitable Universalism. No substitute for sin is needed as we could be made sinless.
    Why do you assume that a "sinless sacrifice for sin" as a "substitute for sin" was required?


    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    I propose that "perfection" and "freedom from sinful nature" can only be accomplished in someone that has the exercise of their free will
    Yes, I agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    someone that is not restricted from sin by outside limitations or inability of their mind, but rather constrained and bridled by their true character.
    You seem to be mixing up determinism and free will by claiming that "true character" is the same as "free will".

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    A rock is not "sinless" because it does not even have the capacity to sin.

    God is sinless because he has the power and the capacity, but he is without sin because his nature forbids it.
    If God's nature forbids Him from sinning, then God does not have the capacity to sin, since God's nature determines God's capacity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    This all is for defining "sinless" and "perfect" within the context of what it means when Christ was without sin. I am suggesting that this could not have programmed by DNA, it could not have been forced, it could not have been against his will, it could not be accomplished by possession. This sinless and perfect character would have to be the actual character. Are we on the same wavelength so far?
    No.
    I agree that Jesus was not sinless because of having specially programmed DNA, Jesus was not forced to be sinless, Jesus was not sinless against His will, and Jesus was not sinless because He was possessed by a spirit.

    I am not sure I can agree with the claim that Jesus was sinless because His "actual character" was a "sinless and perfect character".
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  16. #15
    Over 5000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    5,456
    Thanks
    968
    Thanked 1,803 Times in 1,440 Posts

    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195052
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    What it shows is that your questions are based on the presumptions that God demands a blood sacrifice for sin and that a perfect human could be sacrificed against his/her will to satisfy God's demand.
    However, neither of those presumptions are accurate.

    The answer is: It is not possible for the death of anything to take away the sins of all mankind.

    Hebrews 10:4
    4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

    Please don't read more into the questions than what is stated. If your answers to questions 1-3 are No, No, and No, we have agreement so far.

    As to whether God demands a blood sacrifice for sin, as strange as it might seem on the surface, this is the figure that is used.

    Matthew 26:28 KJV
    (28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

    Hebrews 9:20-23 KJV
    (20) Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
    (21) Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
    (22) And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
    (23) It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

    The sacrifice of a sinless human cannot take away the sins of all mankind.
    The sacrifice of a God cannot take away the sins of all mankind.

    The sacrifices for sin were given to the children of Israel under the first Covenant as a way for them to show both their contrition and their faith in God's forgiveness.
    Colossians 1:14 KJV
    (14) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

    This is a tangent from the original subject matter, more to the point of why only God can forgive sin, but consider the meaning of forgiveness: all forgiveness requires sacrifice. For example, if you owe me a thousand pounds and I forgive that debt, there is a sacrifice of a thousand pounds. If you have caused me insult and I forgive the insult, I forgo (sacrifice) my ego and my right to exact retribution. When we forgive the transgressions of others against ourselves, we willingly absorb the damage and waive any penalty.

    God formerly chose to illustrate this using the sacrifice of blood (see Hebrews 9:23) but that was to reflect the pattern of things in the heavens, to convey the meaning and the analogy.

    Regardless, let's not get sidetracked. The bible DOES state that Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins, we agreed that the Passover Lamb did need to be without sin and blemish, and I think we agreed that "without sin and blemish" cannot be from a vegetable or dumb animal or a human that is mind controlled.

    So if we agree that the prophesied Messiah must be without sin (and not merely an accident or coincidence) the Unitarian Open Theist arrives at an inherent contradiction: God cannot know the full and complete free will heart and decisions of a person before they ever exist. Even if God were a gambling God, shall we consider the odds against someone randomly fulfilling that role? This Messiah was born at a very specific time and under very specific circumstances. God wouldn't gamble his honesty and reputation on hoping that "this time it will work" when it hadn't worked out the previous 100 Trillion times, would he?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us