ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Lighthouse]

Actually, Christ means "Anointed One," and I think that we can safely say that Jesus has always been the "Anointed One."

 

[godrulz]

Actually, Christ means "Anointed One," and I think that we can safely say that Jesus has always been the "Anointed One."

In His preexistence from eternity past, He was the Word. Messiah/Christ relates to His earthly redemptive ministry. He was anointed by the Spirit as the God-man, not as the Word who was existing when there was a beginning of creation. The man Christ Jesus has always been anointed. Was He as a baby, or was it related to His last years of ministry? He was born Christ, the Lord. Some cults say He became the Christ only at His baptism.

 

[ChristisKing]

Christ was foreordained to come, so goodbye Open Theism

Christ was foreordained to come, so goodbye Open Theism

Actually, Christ means "Anointed One," and I think that we can safely say that Jesus has always been the "Anointed One."

And Anointed One means God in the flesh. Open Theism can't run from this fact, God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world, and He took on flesh because of the fall. Therefore sin and the fall were foreordained before the foundation of the world, therefore goodbye Open Theism :wave2: .

 

[Lovejoy]

If anointed one means God in the flesh, why were Saul and David both referred to in that fashion? I only ask out of curiosity.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Open Theism can't run from this fact, God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world, and He took on flesh because of the fall. Therefore sin and the fall were foreordained before the foundation of the world, therefore goodbye Open Theism :wave2: .

none of that eliminates open theism. :help: :nono:

 

[ChristisKing]

Bunny Trails

Bunny Trails

If anointed one means God in the flesh, why were Saul and David both referred to in that fashion? I only ask out of curiosity.

The Scriptures not only refer to David and Saul as anointed but also wafers, the clothes of Aaron, Levite priests, certain days, the tabernacle, the altar, vessels, instruments, His people Israel, Cyrus, the cherub, angels, and Christians. Anointed simply means "set aside or sanctioned." Of course there was only one "Anointed One," Jesus Christ. Christ was the only "Anointed One" because He was God in the flesh.

Christ is the only human being who was 100% God and 100% man, so when Scripture refers to Christ it is not just referring to the Eternal Son of God without flesh who always was, but rather it refers to the God/man who was born at a point in time in history.

What the Open Theists got caught doing is saying Christ only means the Eternal Son of God without flesh because it messes up their theology to admit otherwise, with verses like this:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

So now we are "chasing bunnies" down little bunny trails as they play on words and attempt to divert from the true and obvious meanings of Word of God. But thats ok, I need the exercise.

 

[Lighthouse]

And Anointed One means God in the flesh. Open Theism can't run from this fact, God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world, and He took on flesh because of the fall. Therefore sin and the fall were foreordained before the foundation of the world, therefore goodbye Open Theism :wave2: .

No. Anointed One does not mean God in the flesh. Immanuel does.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

No. Anointed One does not mean God in the flesh. Immanuel does.

doesn't Immanuel mean "God with us"?

 

[Lovejoy]

The Scriptures not only refer to David and Saul as anointed but also wafers, the clothes of Aaron, Levite priests, certain days, the tabernacle, the altar, vessels, instruments, His people Israel, Cyrus, the cherub, angels, and Christians. Anointed simply means "set aside or sanctioned." Of course there was only one "Anointed One," Jesus Christ. Christ was the only "Anointed One" because He was God in the flesh.

Christ is the only human being who was 100% God and 100% man, so when Scripture refers to Christ it is not just referring to the Eternal Son of God without flesh who always was, but rather it refers to the God/man who was born at a point in time in history.

What the Open Theists got caught doing is saying Christ only means the Eternal Son of God without flesh because it messes up their theology to admit otherwise, with verses like this:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

So now we are "chasing bunnies" down little bunny trails as they play on words and attempt to divert from the true and obvious meanings of Word of God. But thats ok, I need the exercise.

Um, alright, I was just asking because I thought it seemed a little silly to call Saul God in the flesh. I rather assumed that is not what "annointed one" meant. But you have a good day, now.

 

[ChristisKing]

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!

none of that eliminates open theism.

Sure it does, this strikes at the very foundation of Open Theism. Since God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world that means Adam's fall and sin were foreordained. This is what is quickly thrown in God's face in the form of the insult of "Originator of sin," and therefore can't be true, even though it is taught in Scripture. (Of course this is not true, Scripture teaches mans heart is the originator of sin.)

But anyway if Adam's sin was not a contingency but so well fixed and known that God taking on flesh was actually foreordained before creation then there is no "open book" for "man to write in" that changes God's plan. But rather both the free will of Adam remained in tact yet God's predestined will from all eternity was fulfilled at the same time. This is what the Apostle Paul marveled over when he wrote:

ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

 

[Lighthouse]

doesn't Immanuel mean "God with us"?

Yes. As in God incarnate, i.e. in the flesh.

 

[Lighthouse]

Sure it does, this strikes at the very foundation of Open Theism. Since God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world that means Adam's fall and sin were foreordained. This is what is quickly thrown in God's face in the form of the insult of "Originator of sin," and therefore can't be true, even though it is taught in Scripture. (Of course this is not true, Scripture teaches mans heart is the originator of sin.)

But anyway if Adam's sin was not a contingency but so well fixed and known that God taking on flesh was actually foreordained before creation then there is no "open book" for "man to write in" that changes God's plan. But rather both the free will of Adam remained in tact yet God's predestined will from all eternity was fulfilled at the same time. This is what the Apostle Paul marveled over when he wrote:

ROM 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

How does Christ mean "God in the flesh?" Can you prove this? Where in scripture is this supported?

 

[ChristisKing]

Bunny trails....

Bunny trails....

How does Christ mean "God in the flesh?" Can you prove this? Where in scripture is this supported?

Christ is God in the flesh.

That's the teaching of the entire NT, here are just a few verses that prove that Jesus being the Christ means He was God in the flesh, pls let me know if you need more:

ROM 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

PHI 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
PHI 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
PHI 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

HEB 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
HEB 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
HEB 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

1TI 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1TI 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Sure it does, this strikes at the very foundation of Open Theism. Since God in the flesh was foreordained before the foundation of the world that means Adam's fall and sin were foreordained. This is what is quickly thrown in God's face in the form of the insult of "Originator of sin," and therefore can't be true, even though it is taught in Scripture. (Of course this is not true, Scripture teaches mans heart is the originator of sin.)

it is quite possible to be a open theist and hold that the sin of adam was unavoidable therefore necessitating Christ die and take on flesh.

But anyway if Adam's sin was not a contingency but so well fixed and known that God taking on flesh was actually foreordained before creation then there is no "open book" for "man to write in" that changes God's plan.

all it means is that one part of the future was not open. open theism is quite in favor of this as it holds that some of the future is open and some is closed. i don't know of any open theist who beleives that the entire future has always been completely open and that nothing was ever unavoidable or so determined by God that it would be closed. all the open theists i know believe in a future that is partly open and partly closed.

the things that are closed are those which God will sovereignly bring to pass without regards to our own actions, things like the second coming. the things that are open are the decisions we make like what to eat for dinner, what clothes to wear etc. if the fall was foreordained by God and the flesh was thus a necessity then it would fall under the closed part of the future, but this by no means necessitates that the entire future is closed or has always been. thus, adam's sin not being a contingency is quite compatible with open theism and does not, as you put it "strikes at the very foundation" of it.

 

[ChristisKing]

Adam was free but closed, we are enslaved but free?

Adam was free but closed, we are enslaved but free?

it is quite possible to be a open theist and hold that the sin of adam was unavoidable therefore necessitating Christ die and take on flesh.

all it means is that one part of the future was not open. open theism is quite in favor of this as it holds that some of the future is open and some is closed.

Doesn't this seem awfully convienent to you that you or any man could just be able to "cherry pick" what future is open and what is closed? I mean many open theists believed Adam's future was open but after being confronted with Scripture subsequently have had to admit that it may very well have been closed. I mean how can you really be sure what is open and what is closed? What is open today is closed tomorrow. What really appears to be "open" in open theism is the "open flexibility" it provides its adherents on a day-to-day basis.

I find it ironic that you would admit that Adam, the most free man completely untainted with sin and not in bondage of any kind to have ever lived and newly created, would not have had an "open future," yet some of us who are (were) in slavery to sin and who always does (did) the will of the devil until, as the Scriptures teach, God grants (granted) us repentance are completely free with an "open future" to write whatever we will.

Don't you?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Doesn't this seem awfully convienent to you that you or any man could just be able to "cherry pick" what future is open and what is closed?

we don't get to choose. either parts are open or the whole thing is closed. we do not know all that is closed because we are not God. so we go based on scripture as to what things are closed and which are not.

I mean many open theists believed Adam's future was open but after being confronted with Scripture subsequently have had to admit that it may very well have been closed. I mean how can you really be sure what is open and what is closed? What is open today is closed tomorrow. What really appears to be "open" in open theism is the "open flexibility" it provides its adherents on a day-to-day basis.

adam's future was certainly open, even if one part of it was closed. even IF he was destined to sin (eventually), it was not necessarily determined before hand WHEN he would sin. and the rest of his future, after sin, was completely open as well. the only thing you can establish with your point is that one aspect of Adam's future was determined in some sense by God and unavoidable. however, the rest of his future and the rest of eternity have not been determined (though i believe parts of it are).

I find it ironic that you would admit that Adam, the most free man completely untainted with sin and not in bondage of any kind to have ever lived and newly created, would not have had an "open future," yet some of us who are (were) in slavery to sin and who always does (did) the will of the devil until, as the Scriptures teach, God grants (granted) us repentance are completely free with an "open future" to write whatever we will.

Don't you?

i believe adam did have an open future, i deny that he had to sin and that sin was ever ordained by God. sin is the most horrible thing to ever come to pass and is completely contrary to the character of God. to suggest that God who is good would decree such a thing for any man is sickening.

 

[ChristisKing]

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?

i deny that he had to sin and that sin was ever ordained by God. sin is the most horrible thing to ever come to pass and is completely contrary to the character of God. to suggest that God who is good would decree such a thing for any man is sickening.

Funny, I've read that before:

ROM 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
ROM 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

 

[godrulz]

Funny, I've read that before:

ROM 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
ROM 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Poor proof texting. This does not mean God is responsible for evil or individual, unconditional election. The flow of Paul's argument in Rom. 9-11 is not about TULIP.

 

[godrulz]

The Scriptures not only refer to David and Saul as anointed but also wafers, the clothes of Aaron, Levite priests, certain days, the tabernacle, the altar, vessels, instruments, His people Israel, Cyrus, the cherub, angels, and Christians. Anointed simply means "set aside or sanctioned." Of course there was only one "Anointed One," Jesus Christ. Christ was the only "Anointed One" because He was God in the flesh.

Christ is the only human being who was 100% God and 100% man, so when Scripture refers to Christ it is not just referring to the Eternal Son of God without flesh who always was, but rather it refers to the God/man who was born at a point in time in history.

What the Open Theists got caught doing is saying Christ only means the Eternal Son of God without flesh because it messes up their theology to admit otherwise, with verses like this:

1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

So now we are "chasing bunnies" down little bunny trails as they play on words and attempt to divert from the true and obvious meanings of Word of God. But thats ok, I need the exercise.

I have never read an Open Theist who argues that Christ only means the eternal Son without flesh. This is extra/contrabiblical. Most Open Theists have a classical Christology. Our difference is about the nature of the future, not the Deity or humanity of Christ. Boyd and others also have given an alternate understanding of your Petrine texts. The plan of redemption was conceived as a possibility in the mind of God from the beginning, but it did not become an implemented certainty until after the fact.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Funny, I've read that before:

ROM 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
ROM 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Funny how Paul's entire message in Romans 9 is about Israel, the Gentiles and the body of Christ, which is obvious from his conclusion:

Romans 9
30What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;

31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

Paul is not speaking about predestination or unconditional election no matter how hard you want him to be.