 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > 1Pet. 1.20: Real Commitment to a Real Possibility | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 11:45 AM (GMT -6) |   |
TGB
02/26/01 10:01 AM
1Pet. 1.20: Real Commitment to a Real Possibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi all-
I keep coming at the OV from different angles, sometimes pro, sometimes con. For those who can, I’d appreciate hearing open viewers comment on 1Pet. 1.20: “For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for your sake.”
We all know how this is understood by those affirming EDF. What about open viewers?
I don’t see how OViewers can suggest this is one example of God knowing the future in terms of certainties (not that I’ve heard any suggest this), that the crucifixion is one of the things God did know eternally, for the crucifixion assumes the Fall, an event OViewers argue what known by God only as a possibility. Thus, before Creation the crucifixion was NOT a “foregone” conclusion, which is how 1Pet. 1.20 has been traditionally understood.
I’d like to suggest the following OV take on 1Pet. 1.20. Dump on me at will.
Before God created this whole ball of wax, God knew sin and the Fall were possibilities. In considering this, God decided it was worth the risk, and also determined what course of action he would take in the event sin became a reality. That course of action was the cross. Thus, God committed to the cross before the foundation of the world. But commitment to such a possibility must in fact be a genuine commitment to give himself and die for man. After all, commitment to a possibility is not less than REAL commitment. Though the cross was not a foregone conclusion before the foundation of the world, God’s commitment to it was.
I’m expressing this poorly. My point is, as far as God was concerned, the emotional turmoil required of the commitment to the cross was real (even nightmarish) even though the event was not a foregone conclusion. Consider Abraham. Isaac’s death in Abraham’s heart and mind was a done deal before the raised knife could possibly begin its path downward toward Isaac’s body. (I’m only making one specific point of comparison here.) God knew when the existential line was crossed in Abraham’s heart, and that’s when he brought the text to an end. My point with regard to 1Pet. 1.20 is that God had to cross the same existential line, and he did that before the foundation of the world.
For example, if one is to embark upon a venture he knows MAY require the expenditure of $1,000.00, then before the venture can be committed to one must be willing to spend the money. In a sense, one has to “spend it.” He can genuinely hope the expenditure doesn’t cost him that much, but there’s no question of the commitment to spend that much IF required. What Peter (from the OV point of view) I think is saying is that the death of Christ was not a last minute arrangement, not an “unforeseen cost” that God had not taken into account. On the contrary, God was prepared. He counted the cost involved in creating man with such freedom and committed unreservedly to the possibility of the cross. This does not mean God was “possibly committed.” Again, commitment to a possibility is a real commitment. In every conceivable sense God experienced what any father and son would experience in committing to such an arrangement. In this very real sense Christ was “slain before the foundation of the world.”
Forgive my language if it seems philosophically imprecise and/or inaccurate. I’m groping for the right expressions. I think you all get my meaning.
I know opponents of the OV will disagree and I’d like to hear their comments, but I would especially appreciate OViewers checking in. Doc, is this your take on 1Pet. 1.20?
Blessings,
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
02/28/01 12:16 PM
Am I THAT irrelevant?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on guys, my post can't be that irrelevant. Some OVer tell me I'm on or off base.
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
MrIndifference
02/28/01 12:42 PM
RE: Am I THAT irrelevant?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is pretty well how I would explain that verse also. Sorry, but I can't really think of anything to add as of current.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Geebob
02/28/01 7:32 PM
RE: 1Pet. 1.20: Real Commitment to a Real Possibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. I have made that case in the thread "Another Challenge from meph."
It seems that you interpret 1pet 1:20 as a plan for the crucifixion. I don't see that as necessary all though the surrounding text is about the crucifixion.
I believe that the incarnation was determinned but not the crucifixion. I do like you said, believe that the possibility was planned for
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
TGB
03/01/01 7:07 AM
RE: RE: 1Pet. 1.20: Real Commitment to a Real Possibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geebob-
Assuming God only knew sin as a possibility, and assuming that the incarantion was determined, what do you understand to be the predetermined "purpose" of incarnation, since it is now (in your view) unrelated to dealing with sin and evil?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Geebob
03/01/01 6:10 PM
RE: RE: RE: 1Pet. 1.20: Real Commitment to a Real Possibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to clarify that I think that the incarnation, as a means for our redeption was planned for in as much as sin was recognized as a possibility.
However the incarnation as a means for redemption is no more determined than was sin. The Cross did not have to happen because sin did not have to happen.
The primary purpose for the incarnation as determined was for the purpose of intimacy with God. Jesus is the bridegroom and the church is the bride. In this picture redemption is only necessary should "fiance" for the son of God fall.
Jesus in the flesh allows us to relate with God in a way not possible without the incarnation.
Also when we love Jesus as a man and give him the adoration he deserves, we may come close to realizing how much God loves us.
Of coarse he is fully God (and that is the point) and in worshipping him as God we must not diminish that who we are worshipping is fully man (that is also the point!)
If God is imeasurably glorious and valuable, his full participation in humanity shows that he thinks that the works of his hands is immeasurably valuable.
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ModesofThought
03/01/01 9:08 PM
RE: 1Pet. 1.20: Real Commitment to a Real Possibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howdy.
Lots of interesting ideas floating around on this thread...
Let me just say that the way you pose the problem (sin) has everything to do with the way you pose the solution (atonement). There are at least 4 (probably more) different major themes in the NT about this:
1. satisfy the sacrificial requirements (lamb of God, Christ as both Priest and offering). This can be thought of in terms of either appeasing the wrath of God or cleansing sin from humans. I would fit the legal language into this scheme, sacrifices are required as a result of OT law.
2. The Christus Victor model where the goal is to release the captives from Satan's bondage. Anselm's bait and switch fits here.
3. John has Christ as the light which eliminates the darkness. Which lends itself to an illuminating role that Christ has as the example or good teacher.
4. Christ as the healer who restores relationships and all brokenness, a sort of good/divine shepherd model. The word "salvation" has this meaning in its root from which we derive our word "salve".
My point in bringing all this up is simply to say that the life, death, and resurrection play different roles in each of these interpretive themes. This should make a difference in how we talk about what is or is not necessary. Anyone who proposes a "meta-narrative" which is expected to explain the overarching message of Scripture will want to be sure that their theory attends to the necessary data (meaning the life, death and resurrection).
At the risk of being overly minimal, I would agree with Kierkegaard that the incarnation is certain and necessary from before the foundations of the creation. Not merely a possibility. I say "overly minimal" because I acknowledge up front that this presentation only explains the life of Christ (the death and resurrecting would need to be accounted for in another run at this):
1. By the time we come to the end (perhaps even the beginning?) of Gen 1, there is now God and that which is not God. There is a covenantal relationship, but it is not the full glorious union that we are promised in the final reconciliation. In otherwords, the incarnation does not simply restore us to a prefall state, but makes possible what is well beyond that--to the perfected union that God desires to have ultimately.
2. What happens in the incarnation is that God bridges the gap between divine and human, infinite and finite, God and human. This is the decisive point. God has done it. We are to benefit from it. Though we can reject it. Through Christ's life, death, and resurrection, God satisfies all the various ways of presenting the problem between God and humanity, indeed, even God and reality (see Romans 8)!
3. That GOD became HUMAN is what is really radical. Infinitely moreso than the accopmlishments of that human's life. We measure people by the accomplishments of their life, but do we dare measure God in this way? Rather, with Kierkegaard, I would suggest (as much for fun as anything, I am not sure I buy this whole scheme yet) that God's plan was from the beginning to reconcile the world to Godself and doing that required that God enter into it and draw it back unto Godself. Humans will all have to assess the meaning of that reality for themselves (usually in terms of one the various themes above), and they will either have faith or be offended.
"Blessed is the one who is not offended at me." said Christ.
In this way, one could say both "Yes" God knew that there would be an incarnation. It was not a backup plan!!!(This notion I wholey reject)But the specifics of Jesus' life are still a bit ambigous until they become more solidified throughout history. We see some of that solidification happening along the way through the Old Testament prophecies. Anyway the obvious clarity of "death by crucifixion" drawn from many OT texts is simply much more ambiguous than what some would have you believe. So in that way the problem solves itself to some degree.
Thanks to the others on this thread for the good discussions that stimulated me to jump in! As Tom described, crucifixion per se is not required to be a part of that which is destined beforethe foundation of the world. As an aside, notice in this passage all the mixture of metaphors which occurs!
vs. 14 speaks of ignorance which people formerly had (see #3 above)
vs. 17 has the judge/law scenario
vs. 18 has the ransom theory (I missed that one!)
vs. 19 has the OT sacrificial model in mind
vs. 20 could be claimed by the more abstract theme (which I borrowed from Kierkegaard) or perhaps the "revealed" could be tied to #3
Just food for thought...throw it back at me if you like!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
03/03/01 2:27 AM
RE: RE: 1Pet. 1.20: Real Commitment to a Real Possibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey you guys I hope you keep this post afloat with ideas so as I study this subject I can jump in. I just got to the subject in Sander's book and, to be honest, had never even thought of it before. I always thought incarnation, death, resurrection, all together, all planned, etc. Wow, what an eye opener! Coming to open theism has made me realize that certain belief systems have tried to corner the market (unfairly I might add), seeming to push their view as the only view. But if you look hard you can find some good theologians who make different points that also have strong basis in scripture. Keep it going...John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ModesofThought
03/03/01 9:22 AM
RE: RE: RE: 1Pet. 1.20: Real Commitment to a Real Possibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks writerdad, I was beginning to wonder why no one was responding to my last post on this thread. The fun thing about atonement theories, theologically speaking, is that it has never been settled in history that one must take a particular motif at the expense of the others. There are trememdously rich resources (in terms of the text, not necessarily my post) for conversation here...
Let's hope for lot's of engagement
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
writerdad
03/04/01 10:02 AM
RE: RE: RE: RE: 1Pet. 1.20: Real Commitment to a Real Possibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes: actually, I got equally inspired by your post here and in the "are we reformed," section, so I am a bit behind. I got some ideas floating in my head, but it may take a couple of days for them to see the light. As my wife sometimes says, "you got the right idea there, hon, but its just a little slow on the uptake... (okay, she only said it once, but hey, I got to give her credit...)," John 17:3 Harold
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
springs
(Forum Moderator)
03/04/01 3:56 PM
RE: 1Pet. 1.20: Real Commitment to a Real Possibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What he said!!!
When I grow up I want to be able to write like GDG!
Then maybe I could keep up with Modes and the rest of you.
springs
springs
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:00 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|