Can Open Theists be Non-Trinitarian

genuineoriginal

New member
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.

I consider myself to be an Open Theist, but do not see how Open Theism could lead to "Jesus is God".

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.​

 

Rosenritter

New member
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?
 

MennoSota

New member
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
 

Rosenritter

New member
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.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
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
 

Rosenritter

New member
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.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
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.​

 

genuineoriginal

New member
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.
 

Rosenritter

New member
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?


 

genuineoriginal

New member
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?
 

genuineoriginal

New member
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.
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.
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.
 

Rosenritter

New member
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?
 

genuineoriginal

New member
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.

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.

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?


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.
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".

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.

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".
 

Rosenritter

New member
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?
 

Rosenritter

New member
If I could be persuaded by determinism, I would be a Calvinist instead of an Open Theist.

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.

Which is specifically why I chose the word, "sinfulness" rather than "having committed their first sin." A human infant is sinful even if it hasn't had the opportunity to sin just yet. That's the distinction that I draw, and it can be proved in each and every case: just give it a little time and you'll have all the proof needed to show I was right.

Why do you assume that a "sinless sacrifice for sin" as a "substitute for sin" was required?

Is the question if the sacrifice had to be without sin? Or that a sacrifice was required? I think I covered much of this already in what I just hit "Post Quick Reply" to a moment ago. The New Testament is pretty straightforward that as our Passover Christ's blood was shed for our sins.

Hebrews 4:14-15 KJV
(14) Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
(15) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Either this was a lucky accident, or it was part of and parcel of the prophecy. The high priest needed a sacrifice as an atonement for sin before entering into the Holy of Holies because he himself had sin. He that is sinful cannot offer himself as a sacrifice. Jesus entered into the Holy of Holies as our High Priest without another sacrifice; he did not need anyone to cleanse him.

Lucky accident? Or all part of the law and the prophets, where the sacrifice was to be without spot or blemish, where the offering was to be without leaven? "Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven?" Do we agree as to the symbolic meaning of leaven?

Exodus 34:25 KJV
(25) Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

You seem to be mixing up determinism and free will by claiming that "true character" is the same as "free will".

If an inmate doesn't murder any of his other inmates but this is only accomplished by keeping him in chains and a straight jacket, that "lack of murder" isn't his true character. Watch what he does when he has access to exercise his own will, that is his true character.

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.

No silly semantics please. If the restriction is self-imposed then that is one's true character.

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.

Sounds like you're doing well so far, but ... ?

I am not sure I can agree with the claim that Jesus was sinless because His "actual character" was a "sinless and perfect character".

How was Jesus without sin then? It's sounding like you are implying that his sinlessness was imputed unto him, but we just ruled out every variation of that.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Please don't read more into the questions than what is stated.
Please don't assume that your questions are free of questionable theology.

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
A passover lamb is not shed for the remission of sins.


So if we agree that the prophesied Messiah must be without sin
The prophesied Messiah was without sin, but where do the prophecies say he must be without sin?

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.
Once again, you seem to be trying to force arguments that come from determinism upon Open Theism.

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?
Open Theism is about the general rule that God allows humans to have the free will to make their own choices.
That does not mean that God does not intervene in special cases, such as when He refused to allow Balaam to speak curses against the children of Israel.

Did God intervene in Jesus' life so that Jesus remained free from sin?
Of course He did.
But God's intervention was to support Jesus whenever Jesus chose of His own free will to do the will of God.

Luke 22:41-43
41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.​

 

genuineoriginal

New member
Which is specifically why I chose the word, "sinfulness" rather than "having committed their first sin." A human infant is sinful even if it hasn't had the opportunity to sin just yet. That's the distinction that I draw, and it can be proved in each and every case: just give it a little time and you'll have all the proof needed to show I was right.
Original Sin is a false theology brought into Christianity from the heretical teachings of Manicheism by Augustine.

Is the question if the sacrifice had to be without sin? Or that a sacrifice was required?
No, the question was about why you think a "substitute for sin" is required.
The Bible may say that there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood, but that does not mean that Jesus' death was done as a substitute for our sin.
The key word being "substitute".

I think I covered much of this already in what I just hit "Post Quick Reply" to a moment ago. The New Testament is pretty straightforward that as our Passover Christ's blood was shed for our sins.
We might get further in this discussion if you stop trying to confuse the purpose of the passover sacrifice with a sin sacrifice.

Hebrews 4:14-15 KJV
(14) Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
(15) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Either this was a lucky accident, or it was part of and parcel of the prophecy. The high priest needed a sacrifice as an atonement for sin before entering into the Holy of Holies because he himself had sin. He that is sinful cannot offer himself as a sacrifice. Jesus entered into the Holy of Holies as our High Priest without another sacrifice; he did not need anyone to cleanse him.
There is only one time of the year that the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and that was not Passover.

Leviticus 16:29
29 And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that sojourneth among you:
30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.​


If an inmate doesn't murder any of his other inmates but this is only accomplished by keeping him in chains and a straight jacket, that "lack of murder" isn't his true character. Watch what he does when he has access to exercise his own will, that is his true character.

If the restriction is self-imposed then that is one's true character.
Very well, I can accept this definition of free-will and true character.
It is much better than the false theology that comes from assuming that mankind has a sinful "nature".

How was Jesus without sin then? It's sounding like you are implying that his sinlessness was imputed unto him, but we just ruled out every variation of that.
I am not implying that Jesus had sinlessness imputed upon Him, but that is not what was just ruled out.
What we just ruled out was sinlessness from determinism.
That still leaves sinlessness from the exercise of Jesus' own free will, with assistance from God's divine intervention for each free will decision that was made.

Each of us has access to the ways to escape temptation that God provides to us.

1 Corinthians 10:13
13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.​

As the Son of God, Jesus had more reasons to remain sinless, along with greater understanding of how to do that, and greater support from God in remaining sinless, than anyone else has ever had.
 

Rosenritter

New member
Please don't assume that your questions are free of questionable theology.

You may answer the contained theology (and I was hoping you would, that's why I phrased it thus) but don't presume that every question is my theology. Do you understand the difference ?

A passover lamb is not shed for the remission of sins.

THE Passover Lamb was shed for the remission of sins. Note the capitalization in the original statement?

The prophesied Messiah was without sin, but where do the prophecies say he must be without sin?

Exodus 12:5 and 34:25, for starters. Indirectly Psalm 24, as with hindsight we see the Messiah described beginning in Psalm 22. More directly in Isaiah 53 once the Messiah is understood as the "suffering servant."

Exodus 12:5-6 KJV
(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:
(6) And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

Exodus 34:25 KJV
(25) Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.

Psalms 24:3-4 KJV
(3) Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place?
(4) He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.

Isaiah 53:9-12 KJV
(9) And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
(10) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
(11) He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
(12) Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Notice that the messianic prophecy in Isaiah 53 specifically says that his soul is an offering for sin. Those who did have sin themselves needed a sin offering, a theme of the law repeated in a great many places previous. Note that it says he was numbered with the transgressors but not because he was a transgressor, but because he bares their sins and makes intercession for them as an offering.

Even without the previous passages, I think Isaiah 53 is strong enough to say that the Messiah was to be without sin and a sacrifice for sin, and this was prophesied far in advance of the birth of Jesus.

Once again, you seem to be trying to force arguments that come from determinism upon Open Theism.

You keep saying that but I don't know what you are thinking by it.

Open Theism is about the general rule that God allows humans to have the free will to make their own choices.
That does not mean that God does not intervene in special cases, such as when He refused to allow Balaam to speak curses against the children of Israel.

Did God intervene in Jesus' life so that Jesus remained free from sin?
Of course He did.

If Jesus was only stopped from sinning by specific intervention, then that would create multiple problems, including:
* That Jesus was sinful and was only stopped from sinning by forces beyond his control, and
* that we could likewise be "without sin" in the same way (thus needing no sacrifice for sin) if God would only do the same for us.

Your reasoning leads to a conclusion that any one of us (or any man) could be perfect and without sin, provided we have all the temptations removed. But if that was the case, why did God put trees in Eden at all?
 

genuineoriginal

New member
THE Passover Lamb was shed for the remission of sins. Note the capitalization in the original statement?
You can capitalize anything you want, but you will still be mistaken every single time you try to claim that a passover lamb was shed for the remission of sins.
Isaiah 53:9-12 KJV
(9) And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
(10) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
(11) He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
(12) Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Notice that the messianic prophecy in Isaiah 53 specifically says that his soul is an offering for sin. Those who did have sin themselves needed a sin offering, a theme of the law repeated in a great many places previous. Note that it says he was numbered with the transgressors but not because he was a transgressor, but because he bares their sins and makes intercession for them as an offering.

Even without the previous passages, I think Isaiah 53 is strong enough to say that the Messiah was to be without sin and a sacrifice for sin, and this was prophesied far in advance of the birth of Jesus.
A sin offering is a different sacrifice from the passover lamb.
 
Top