I guess you could call me an open theist and I believe in Christ's imputed righteousness for my salvation. What else would we rely on? Certainly not our own righteousness.Do Open Theists rely by faith in Christ's imputed righteousness for their salvation?
For all those in the Body of Christ, yes. I would say it was also eternally settled that all those in the Body would be conformed to the image of Christ, be holy and blameless, be justified and glorified.If so, do Open Theists consider the imputed righteousness that saves, as being eternally SETTLED?
Do Open Theists rely by faith in Christ's imputed righteousness for their salvation?
If so, do Open Theists consider the imputed righteousness that saves, as being eternally SETTLED?
Nang
You are probably confusing Open Theism and Moral Government Theology.
Many Open Theists would agree with you, including the TOL types, I think.
There are various views on imputation, so you beg the question by assuming only your theory is right (just like you do with TULIP, sovereignty, etc.).
I would say a consistent free will Open Theist would not be OSAS/POTS. The TOL Enyart types claim Open Theism and are OSAS, but this is probably more MAD or Exchanged Life theories than Open Theism.
I guess you could call me an open theist and I believe in Christ's imputed righteousness for my salvation. What else would we rely on? Certainly not our own righteousness.
For all those in the Body of Christ, yes. I would say it was also eternally settled that all those in the Body would be conformed to the image of Christ, be holy and blameless, be justified and glorified.
I can't answer for open theists in general. For me, I am saved by virtue of having faith in Christ. Salvation is faith in Christ. I've no objection to the notion that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, however, that seems an overly legalistic or transactional way of putting it.
God has provided for us a means of salvation by faith in his Son and the exact mechanism that he himself gets to approve of us is not that important.
I quite like the idea (from Noah) that we give something to God and he is consequently pleased with us and then overlooks (he is after all a God of mercy) our offences.
Our giving to God is our response to Christ in faith - a complete giving of self to the Lordship of Christ.
Eternally settled, no. God will not withdraw from the relationship but we can.
Agreed.
So why do you call yourself an "Open Theist?"
Nang
Imputation issues are not germane to Open Theism.
Your arrogant ignorance is showing. You assume the Calvinistic view is the right one, but the Wesleyan one must also be considered (both sides claim biblical support). Just because you think your view is the only one does not mean it is not a debated subject in Christian circles of various stripes.
The Open Theism debate focuses on foreknowledge, predestination, etc. The soteriological views, including imputation, are not part of the debate, but are personal and influenced by denominational background, etc.
Using your logic, eschatological debates and controversies (you have them in your camp also) are the warp and woof of TULIP. No, they are not, so don't make models of providence the same as soteriology.
Most Open Theists would not quibble with you on that point, but they will disagree on your deterministic system because they are free will theists. That IS a pivotal issue, but imputation is another can of worms not related to the Open Theism debate.
Now, if you are talking about Finney/Barnes (who reject Open Theism) and their Moral Government Theology, then you can make a fuss about MGT and your version of imputation. If you get Wesley, Whitefield, Calvin, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Moody, Sproul, Packer, Piper, etc. in the same room, they will also not spout your exact version on the subject and may agree or disagree with each other in general or on specific details. You have to define what YOU mean, since Nang's version might not be AMR's version, etc.
You are not infallible nor are the Calvinistic creeds.:deadhorse:
I highly suspect you have no clue as to the significance of the doctrine of Federal Imputation. That is sad, for it is the core truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
However, you are able, if willing, to research the subject with a bible (or even a Google) search, if the Spirit so leads you.
Or you could inquire of AMR for discussion and study of his (and mine) understanding of this most vital teaching. He would be most pleased, I am sure, to fill you and other Open Theists in about this wonderful truth!
I consider myself an open theist because I believe that Scripture teaches that the future is partly open and partly settled. In other words, it does not teach that the entire future is settled.Agreed.
So why do you call yourself an "Open Theist?"
Nang
I consider myself an open theist because I believe that Scripture teaches that the future is partly open and partly settled. In other words, it does not teach that the entire future is settled.
The imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, to undeserving sinners, is wholly and nothing other, than a legal ruling on the part of God that transacts saving grace to whom He pleases.
You might quite like such a notion, but it is nothing but a belief that favor with God can be achieved by the works of His creatures. That is NOT the gospel of grace, which teaches that favor and grace comes from God only and stricly according to Christ's righteousness, alone.
<sup class="versenum">20 </sup>Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. <sup class="versenum">21 </sup>The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though<sup value="[<a href=" #fen-niv-205a"="" title="See footnote a">a]" class="footnote">[a]</sup> every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
Thankfully, righteousness depends upon the successful works of Jesus Christ and the grace of God, and not the sinful human's choice or efforts to maintain or withdraw from any human imaginary relationship with salvation, at all.
Such is the crux of my OP.
That is one way of looking at and as such, as I said, I have no objection to it. However, it is certainly not the only way of looking at it. It is not merely a legal issue. If it were, it sounds as if you would conclude that God is subject to the law.
Imputed righteousness is simply a way of looking at what Christ has done for us.
most OVers would concur that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers. Perhaps what you are trying to do is to make faith a work and then we are not really having a discussion about whether righteousness is imputed to believers but whether our works save us.
Thankfully, we believe in a God who responds to our faith, who attributes our faith in Christ to us as righteousness and who actually loves us.
We don't believe that a god who decides in advance whether we will get salvation or damnation and that our choices are predetermined to agree with him, loves us at all. And we don't believe that they are real choices as they are already predetermined.
And we don't accept Calvinism because it destroys faith. Whereas Paul distinguished between faith and works, Calvinists are so misanthropic that they cannot accept this distinction and want to make all faith the same as works and they want relationships with God to be strictly on the imaginary level.
The imputation of His righteousness isn't an open vs. settled view issue. It's dispensational issue, though. It's odd that the Bible clearly states His righteousness is imputed to those of us who are in Him and yet many people believe otherwise and that salvation can be lost, i.e. we can become unrighteous, through our own actions yet they confirm that we cannot be righteous of our own accord. It's dizzying.
As the Newsboys put it in one of their songs [I don't recall which one at the moment], "How could we ever return that which we never could earn?"
Scripture?This does not fairly represent the non-Calvinistic, non-OSAS view. The issue is faith vs unbelief, not self-righteousness, not actions/works/behaviour.
Faith that ceases is unbelief. Faith that continues is the condition for salvation/perseverance. Like Calvinists, you think Arminian faith/continuing in faith is tantamount to a self-work/action/behavior. No, it is FAITH, the antithesis being unbelief (an unbelieving believer is an oxymoron except to wrong OSAS). Nang is wrong to think that free will faith (involves mind/will) is Roman Catholic or works vs grace. She confuses grounds and conditions of salvation and injects a monergistic view that is not biblical.
Scripture?