[CCWoody]

"Scripture has always been understood very personally here: Christ died for you and he paid for your sins," Ware writes before quoting 1 Peter 2:24, "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross."

"This [doctrine] is lost in open theism, and more importantly, the open view here is not what the Bible teaches." Boyd argues that Christ paid the price for "possible" future sins and that he "over-paid" for all the sins of the world.

Sanders and Boyd both argue that Ware's arguments against open theism can be equally applied to Arminianism, a model accepted within evangelicalism that, among other things, holds that God's election of sinners is based on foreknowledge.

Yep, you open theists, xzins and wc, have Jesus blood spilled in vain, the Father having the Son murdered in a willy nilly haphazard way where creation runs out of God's control.

Of course, I agree with Boyd in that "Ware's arguments against open theism can be equally applied to Arminianism."

[Hank Kerchief]

"This [doctrine] is lost in open theism, and more importantly, the open view here is not what the Bible teaches." Boyd argues that Christ paid the price for "possible" future sins and that he "over-paid" for all the sins of the world.

The doctrine that the atonement was "payment" for sin is Calvinist doctrine. There is not one word of Scripture that says sin is payed for. This fact is completely ignored by Cavlinists.

The consequences of sin are never described as a debt, but rather a wage or payment one receives. The wages of sin is death. It is a sentence that must be born, not a payment that can be made to make the sin OK.

The idea that sin can be paid for is the basis of RC indulgences and Calvinist heresy, but is totally unBiblical.

So long as you continue to misunderstand this very basic idea from Scripture, there is no hope you will understand the rest of it.