Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:28 PM (GMT -6)

06/19/01 12:47 AM Okay this is a question that has worn on me. And I would like to know how open theism makes sense of it or anyone for that matter.

There are facts about the work of Christ that become quite jumbled up for me if I look at them from the Open Theist perspective. Two things we know about Christ’s work are as follows: Christ willingly gave himself to life and death as the suffering servant, God foreknew this event as evidenced by the prophets’ words and descriptions.

My question: Since God knew and foretold of the particular events that would occur in Jesus’ life as he worked out redemption for us, did Christ have any choice concerning those things God foreknew? Examples: Isaiah 52 and 53 give some particulars about Jesus. Especially 53:7-9. Because God foreknew that Jesus would not “open his mouth” to his accusers, did Jesus then not make the choice to not respond. Did Joseph of Arimathea not choose to bury Jesus’ body? This will probably involve some of the same response you all addressed in the discussion over Peter’s denial, which was foreknown by Christ in some vivid detail.

But this is not the primary question I’m asking here. The question I am most concerned about is whether Jesus (the man) chose to die freely. God quite undoubtedly foreknew Jesus’ death and resurrection. As I understand from the Bible, the work of Christ—in his coming to earth as a man, living amongst us, suffering, and then dying for the sins of the world—is probably one of the single most prophesied events recorded in the Old Testament. All the way back to when God was handing out the punishments after Adam and Eve sinned, God was describing what many interpret as a framework for the redemption of mankind in Genesis 3:15.

If there is a single event that God foreknew for sure, it would be THIS event. Perhaps we could say, God foreknew and perhaps even predestined the Christ event. But if this were true, how could Christ choose to give himself? He couldn’t have chosen to give himself if you follow OT logic: foreknowledge negates choice by logical necessity.

I also find it problematic to say that Christ didn’t choose to give himself because if Christ did not choose freely isn’t redemption somehow changed (even flawed)? Was it necessary that Christ chose to die freely for the sins of the world?

Maybe I’m off here, but out of all the events of history, it would seem to me that in this event it is most crucial that Jesus (the human) CHOSE to die for the sins of the world. For if Jesus had not chosen, then he was coerced at the most and in the least redemption falls flat due to robotic necessity of the work of Christ.

Any thoughts?

zophar

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:29 PM (GMT -6)

My take:

First off you’re pitting God against Jesus. Jesus is God. If God foreknows/predestines something Jesus foreknows/predestines it also (at least before the incarnation that is). Isaiah 52 and 53 for example were always thought to be about Israel not one person up until after the fact Christians found a ‘latent’ reference to Christ in them. God didn’t have to twist His own arm to get Himself to do what He wanted Himself to do. Open theists have always been able to say that God could have EDF about what He was going to do because it is up to Him to do it or not.

In regards to prophesy: The way these prophecies look after the fact is quite different than the way they looked before Christ’s death and resurrection. Christ’s death wasn’t so narrowly described that it had to go the way that history indeed went. Some even speculate whether Christ had to die at all. This is a wacko view to my mind but I would say that there is some leeway in the story. For example the Bible didn’t prophesy that Joseph of Arimathea would do what he did. Rather it prophesied that Jesus would be buried in the tomb of a rich man. Joseph of Arimathea fulfilled that prophesy but as always history is more specific than prediction.

Lastly I should mention Christ in the garden because here it seems that it really is a matter of the Father and Son dialoguing about what to do. Perhaps this is what you were referring to when you pitted God against Jesus? Anyway my take is that Jesus really did choose to go through with it and that He could have chosen differently. If He had history would surely have been different. But what about God’s foreknowledge? What about those prophesies? They were conditional upon Jesus’ free choice. We as LFW creatures often make choices that require us to make the same choice more than once. I’m in school right now. I decided I was going to graduate from school in four years form the first year I applied. However each year I have the choice to drop out or take some time off. I have to chose in the same direction if the foreknowledge I possessed (5 times, it think, it’s either 5 or 3, in the Bible it says that humans have foreknowledge too) is to be fulfilled. Jesus made the choice, perhaps before the foundations of the world, that He would die for us/and to kick Satan’s butt. But He always reserved the right to back out of His own free choice because it was exactly that—a free choice made by a free God/man.

Hope that hit some of your q’s

Wislawa

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:30 PM (GMT -6)

It helps to keep the Trinity in mind. Jesus is God, but Jesus is not simply God, Jesus is the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. My take is this:
1. The community of God decided to create a Universe that had an ultimate goal of being reconciled to the community of God. This is the plan from the get go.
2. This reconciliation would not be possible from the side of the creation so would have to be provided for by the community of God.
3. It is decided before the foundations of the world, that the second person of the Trinity would do the work of reconciliation by becoming incarnate, thus breaking the impassible barrier between God and the world, from the divine side.

With these things in mind, are some of your tensions resolved? Christ knew that this was what was required of him, at least from the time of his baptism forward. His plea in the garden reflects the fact that God has been able to do things differently than planned in the past, but this was not going to be the case this time.

Gimme some feedback, how am I doing?

ModesOfThought

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:30 PM (GMT -6)

Modes-

Your #1 is questionable. "God decided to create a Universe that had an ultimate goal of being reconciled to the God" sounds to me like God's purposes for creating the universe included the need for reconciliation, thus God predetermined sin and evil. Don't think you want to say that. Do you?

Wislaw-

Yes, Jesus is God. But what of kenotic Christology? As a man, Jesus had to choose the cross. Is that inconsistent with something in the OV?

Tom

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:31 PM (GMT -6)

Tensions resolved?? Hell NO !!!!

Yup, I see the trinity in the picture and how God chose to be reconciled to mankind through Jesus. But this was God who was choosing. As I understand the composition of Jesus he was fully God and fully man. The fully God part of Jesus chose the cross for sure. But there is a portion of Jesus that was man—this is where God went out on a limb God experienced something new in the person of Jesus. (That’s how I understand Jesus)

Within the broader stroke of things, doesn’t open theism argue that when God foreknows about future events in more detail, mankind then has a proportionately less amount of choice concerning those foreknown details. In the situation of Christ, God knew quite a number of details about the events of Christ’s death and suffering. Since he was “more sure” of the cross happening as it did, then doesn’t it follow to say that the man portion of Jesus had less choice, in a situation where free choice should have been at its peak. And the man Jesus should have most freely chosen.

I don’t think I’m pitting God against Jesus here just realizing the actuality of the tension when you stuff God into a human suit.

By the way what is the definition of EDF?
Is it
1) Knowledge of the future as the past is known.
2) Knowledge of the future as the present is known.
2) Knowledge of the future in the way the future can be known.
3) God knowledge or "other" knowledge--whatever that entails.

Zo

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:31 PM (GMT -6)

Wislawa,

You’re right God didn’t have to twist his own arm. I do acknowledge that Christ before he was incarnated did choose to die

Yes prophecies do look different after the fact. So does anything else. The Isaiah 52 53 prophecies may be about Israel but I don’t think they are limited to Israel. Many old Testament prophesies had multiple subjects (as in ears to land upon). One prophecy was for the prophet, for the nation of Israel and also for a future event applying equally to all. The more multidimensional and multilayered the prophecy was the more inspired the prophecy.

Yes, and the garden event was in my mind the greatest display of the God-man in tension with who he was as both God and man.

Zo

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:32 PM (GMT -6)

Regarding #1, several biblical metaphors suggest reconciliation as the goal of creation:
1. We are Bride of Christ awaiting consumation with the Bridegroom.
2. We as the church are to be one: with each other, with Christ and with God. John 17:20-26.
3. God will eventually be "all in all" 1 Cor. 15:24-28.

There are more but the point is, the reconciliation of all things to God is what I meant, and I'm sticking to it--for now.

Now, for the question of whether God predestined sin and evil:
1. God created this world and is ultimately responsible for the risks that creation entails. This need not be disputed.
2. God knew that creating this sort of world would inevitably lead to the emergence of sin and evil.
3. God does not cause the sin and evil, per se. At this point many like to get out their exacto knives and say it was "inevitable" but not "necessary" that evil and sin emerge. I find this silly really, just admit that God designed this world "for saving" and get on with it.

Here's the question: God said it was good, but good for what? GRACE, thats what.

On Kenotic Christology: I am a firm believer in "kenosis" as per Phil. 2. All good. Christ's incarnation, in and of itself, is in one sense "enough" to bridge the gap between humanity and God. THAT God became a human being, that is the incredible thing! To measure a person's life by the results is normal, if we are talking about a finite human person, but where do we get off measuring God's life on earth in this way? Is it not enough that GOD came here and THAT makes all the difference? What more need we really say? Of course, I believe that the cross and resurrection are important, prophesied and all that, but let us not overlook the meaning of the incarnation as it stands! These other events help us give finite meaning to an infinite act of God!

For those who know Barth's Christology, this is similar. There is only one elect: Jesus Christ. Christ was chosen to become human carry the weight of sin, die and be raised. We are either in Christ or not, but it is Christ who is God's chosen one--and the one cursed by God, which reality will we participate in?

In short, Jesus was not forced to choose the cross by the power of necessity, he was self-destined for the cross, he chose it before creation. BUT as a human, he still wondered about another way--and pleaded for one. But the Lord offered no other way. Christ, who was obedient to the Lord, fulfilled his destiny, as far as we know. Could it have been otherwise? Perhaps. What would that mean? I am not sure, but the Gospels would have been written differently as a result, we would have heard about how God worked this out some other way. God would not be found with out a way to accomplish the goal, and a witness to this accomplishment. God will be all in all. It will be proclaimed. Period.

Back atcha...
ModesOfThought

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:32 PM (GMT -6)

Check out my response to Tom, that may give you more insight into how I sort this. For whatever that's worth.

You need to be careful of admitting to a two-minds Christology. It sounds like you envision Christ as having a different mind that the second person of the Trinity. I believe it to be the same "person" but with all the limitations of finitude. I confess this leans me a bit toward monophysitism, but hey, if I am going to say much of anything on this it will be easy to point to a heresy it moves toward!

The tension of talking about God and humanity in the single person of Christ is inevitable and irresolvable. One cannot think "divine and human" together in a particular person. This is why the incarnation could not have been anticipated.

EDF means: Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge. It is knowledge of the future as DEFINITE. All propositions are eternally answerable with a "yes" or "no". There are no genuine "maybe's" from the divine perspective.

hope that helps...

ModesOfThought

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:33 PM (GMT -6)

I'm down with kenotic Christology. The question is if Jesus had to chose twice, once before incarnation (before He emptied Himself) and then again after incarnation. I think He did chose twice and that the second time could have been different than the first because He is still free as a man. I don’t think this is inconsistent with freedom. See my school analogy above.

Wislawa

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:33 PM (GMT -6)

Modes-

Many thanks for the response. Still, I’m uneasy with the view that “reconciliation” is the purpose of creation. Seems apparent enough to me that the “reconciliation of all things to God” is the MEANS for getting the universe back to being what God created it to be in the first place.

Several biblical metaphors suggest reconciliation as the goal of creation: 1. We are Bride of Christ awaiting consummation with the Bridegroom.
How does this suggest reconciliation was the GOAL of creation? All it does is express an aspect of redeemed humanity’s (i.e., the Church’s) present relationship to Christ. There’s nothing in the context or the metaphor itself that reaches back to a time prior to creation.

2. We as the church are to be one: with each other, with Christ and with God. John 17:20-26.
Again, the only conclusion one need draw from this is that God wishes his church to realize this unity in our corporate life as a church. What is it about our call to maintain unity in Christ that suggests God’s eternal purpose for creation included the Fall, sin, and redemption?

3. God will eventually be "all in all" 1 Cor. 15:24-28.
When God becomes “all in all” in the eschaton, it won’t be the first time. He was this before creation. His goal is to be it again, which in itself calls into question the claim that God created SO THAT he could be “all in all.” He WAS all in all to begin with. The reconciliation of all things gets us BACK to that. So 1 Cor. 15 suggests to me that the reconciliation of all things is a means to an end, not itself the end.

There seems to me to be little practical difference between your view and Mephi’s claim that God willed evil and sin SO THAT he could reveal himself as Savior and Judge. Doc earlier brought up a great point in response. It’s buried somewhere in the “Logic and Future” thread. The point was that even thought WE know the possibility exists that our children MAY be raped, repeatedly abused, and tortured, we still believe loving them and being loved by them is worth the risk of having them. Why? Because in our minds their suffering so is only a possibility at the time we take the risk. However, if I know that any of my children WILL inevitably (regardless of what the inevitability is attributable too—ask ANY parent) be raped, repeatedly abused, and tortured, I wouldn’t have them. Simple as that. If I were certain that they WOULD suffer in this way—I’m only speaking as a father of MY four children, other parents might disagree—I would consider the choice to have them a betrayal of love and relationship. It’s only a RISK where the outcome is UNCERTAIN. I’m with J. Sanders on this.

Now, for the question of whether God predestined sin and evil: 1. God created this world and is ultimately responsible for the risks that creation entails. This need not be disputed.
I don’t dispute it, but it seems to me you do. If God’s pre-creation GOAL is to redeem fallen humanity and reconcile a rebellious cosmos to himself, then what was God RISKING? Everything turned out to fulfil his goal just as he wished. If God’s GOAL in creating the universe is it’s redemption/reconciliation, and the future is open, then what God risked was man’s freely loving him and NOT falling into sin, for until somebody sins God can’t really get on to the business of fulfilling his purpose for the world. On your view, Modes, what God risked in creating the world would include man’s NOT sinning, man’s loving him perfectly from the start. Point is, if we are certain of the inevitability of the consequences of our choice, we risk nothing.

2. God knew that creating this sort of world would inevitably lead to the emergence of sin and evil.
Why? Do you perceive God as weaker if this were not an inevitability?

3. God does not cause the sin and evil, per se.
I have the feeling that there’s a LOT packed into this “per se.”

At this point many like to get out their exacto knives and say it was "inevitable" but not "necessary" that evil and sin emerge…
Which is exactly what Doc argues I believe. But I have a knack for misunderstanding him!

I find this silly really, just admit that God designed this world "for saving" and get on with it.
I could just as easily declare THIS silly, and say “Let’s just admit that God designed the world for sin-free loving relationships, that Satan and sin interrupted this purpose, and that the reconciliation of all things is the means for getting God’s universe back to what he created it for in the first place and get on with it.”

But what seems silly to some keeps others up at night. God “designed the world for saving” can only mean (to me) that he also “designed it for sinning.” The necessary means to a predetermined goal are themselves predetermined.

Here's the question: God said it was good, but good for what? GRACE, that’s what.
First, how ‘bout this? God said it was good. Good for what? Good for loving relationships, that’s what. Secondly, why assume that if God predetermined that our loving relationships with him be predicated on our recognition of need and his gracious supply that sin would inevitably enter the picture at all? Good angels are sin-free but nevertheless contingent beings whose existence and continued service to God are dependent upon God’s grace. So I could agree that “It was good” means “Good for grace” without assuming the inevitability of sin and evil. But by “grace” you mean first the fall, sin, and then the cross.

I see a huge difference between us on this point. But I definitely lack the brains here, so I won’t make this post any longer! Is my writing career over?

Tom

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:34 PM (GMT -6)

Ah, "back to being what God created it to be in the first place." Here is the problem indeed.

1. Did God really think things would stay as God created them?
2. Did God say that creation was perfect?
3. How could the cross be forknown if God intended things to stay a certain way?

My answers:
R1. No, God knew that creation was incomplete. God was not participating in it in the same way God does now after the incarnation.
R2. Creation was said to be "good" not perfect. Perfection comes through suffering and redemption.
R3. The cross was anticipated for many reasons, here are some off the top of my head: for God to experience the world first hand as a creature, for God to defeat Satan, for God to exchange God's righteousness for our sinfulness, to bridge the gap between the finite and the infinite, the divine and the profane, to destroy the need for a mediator by showing up in the flesh...the descriptive appraisals could go on and on, the point is, it was always a part of the plan, if not, Openness would be the belief in the God of zippo foresight.

I know that this didn't address all your responses, I am just pushing in a different direction for the moment, let me know what you want me to address in your response, after considering the above.

No, your writing career isn't over, but perhaps my career as an editor may be ;)

I will try to get to your stuff tonight.

Later...

Modes

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:34 PM (GMT -6)

Modes,

Am I admitting to a two minds Christology? Duno, what that means. But what I mean is that, according to Philippians, he gave up some things to become a man. He also prayed to God, which gives evidence to Jesus being something different or separated from God the father. I say it is a bit of both.

You’ve got the entire person of God sitting in heaven at creation. The fall happens and the 2nd person of the trinity chooses to redeem mankind. (this is where you get off which is why my question isn’t an issue for you) I however go on to say--Jesus then was birthed into this world. In that act, he “extends” his identity to include something else. He doesn’t grow a 2nd mind. He simply has a new experience, which either extends his God identity or conflicts with it. It is that extended part of his identity that is the “man” part of Jesus. Experience influences and extends identity (or it can compete with identity).

But even though Jesus is still God, he now has this new experience that can either reinforce and add to his Godness or take away from it. Why else did Satan try to tempt Jesus. This man part of Jesus had to choose and it had to choose freely. The man part of Jesus had to choose its rightful God identity. It had to choose the cross. OR it could have chosen to be defined by the new “in the world” experience. At that point Jesus would have succumb to Satan. He would have had the two minds maybe. Schidzo Jesus! Hmm.

Thanks Modes your thoughts are helpful.

Yet the question still stands. Did the man part of Jesus choose to die on the cross freely? Was that what the garden struggle was all about? Was it then that the man part of Jesus was given the last chance to freely choose the cross? Or was it about, like Modes says, whether God could find another way to redeem mankind.

Modes suggests God could have done it another way. I’m not so sure. Was God that open or loose with the planning? If Jesus would have been ambushed and murdered by drowning. That would not have fulfilled the foreshadowing of the Old Testament.

Zo

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:35 PM (GMT -6)

Modes-

Thanks for the very challenging thoughts! I’ll be out for eight days of vacation (in Cyprus, eat your hearts out guys!) beginning tomorrow, but here’s a quick response.

Modes:
1. Did God really think things would stay as God created them?

Tom:
I don’t have any problems believing that God, having provided man with every incentive possible (save removing his free will) to secure a sin-free journey through the probationary time, knew Adam’s fall no more or less that it actually was—a possibility. But in any event, why should the answer to this question define God’s primary purpose in creating the universe to begin with? Why cannot God have purposed creation solely for loving relationships that glorified him while at the same time knowing (as you and Doc argue) that man’s sinning was inevitable? As Bobby Knight taught, the GOAL of a basketball game is to score on every possession and steal the ball every time the opponent possesses the ball. That’s a PERFECT game. That’s what you play for. But believing that inevitably you’ll miss some of shots and fail to keep your opponents from scoring doesn’t mean that the PURPOSE of the game is redefined now to include your failing to score and your failing to keep your opponent from scoring. The inevitability doesn’t redefine the purpose.

Modes:
2. Did God say that creation was perfect?

Tom:
Perfect in the sense that sin is impossible? Perfect in the sense that HE is perfect? I don’t think so. But certainly perfect in sense necessary to provide every possible incentive and means for the fulfilment of his creation-goal: freely chosen loving relationships which gloriy him. If it wasn’t CREATED perfect, however, then he only has himself to blame.

If, on the other hand, God created the universe “imperfect” (faulty, less than perfect, whatever), why did he create it this way? Why imperfect? To guarantee that man fall so he could save him? To guarantee the fulfilment of his purpose for creation? Seems to me that a) God created the world SO THAT he could save it, and b) God created the world imperfect, combine to equal c) God created the world imperfect SO THAT man would fall and God could save him, which being interpreted (to my sometimes very warped way of think) mean, “God is the author of sin.”

Modes:
2. There’s every reason to believe he created it exactly as he wanted it to be for his purpose.

Tom:
I’ve already agreed. Unfortunately, this doesn’t prove WHAT he purposed it for. I don’t think you can argue backwards from RESULT (“God redeemed humanity”) to PURPOSE (“God must have created so that he could redeem humanity”) unless you want to argue with determinists that God gets everything he wants (i.e., “whatever happens IS God’s will”).

Modes:
3. How could the cross be forknown if God intended things to stay a certain way?

Tom:
Where is the CROSS foreknown as a certainty prior to creation in Scripture?

Modes:
My answers:
R1. No, God knew that creation was incomplete. God was not participating in it in the same way God does now after the incarnation.

Tom:
If God’s the author of the incompleteness of creation (which you’re arguing), and the inevitability of man’s sinning is attributable to this incompleteness (which follows logically from what you’re arguing), and God created man SO THAT he could save him, then God’s the author of sin.

Modes:
R2. Creation was said to be "good" not perfect. Perfection comes through suffering and redemption.

Tom:
“GOD” is also said to be “good” (tobh). Would you argue linguistically that God is incomplete? Not only is God’s work “good” (tobh), it’s also “complete/perfect” (tamim; Deut. 32.4).

Remove “good” from the creation narrative, Modes, and substitute “incomplete” in its place. Are you happy with its reading? Is that what you think the point of the creation narrative is?

Where does the Bible teach that all perfection comes through suffering and redemption? If this is true, then the fall of man WAS necessitated, and God IS the author of sin.

Modes:
R3. The cross was anticipated for many reasons…

Tom:
If the PURPOSE of creation is redemption, then the cross wasn’t “anticipated.” It was “predetermined.” If the cross WAS “anticipated” (but not certain), as I’d argue, then God PUROSE for creating man cannot include his redemption.

Modes:
…here are some off the top of my head: for God to experience the world first hand as a creature,

Tom:
Is God incapable of experiencing a sin-free world?

Modes:
…for God to defeat Satan

Tom:
I’ll let Doc answer that. I’m still a little puzzled by his claim (in God at War) that defeating Satan was the PRIMARY purpose of the cross, but admitting (in “God at War: Calling Doc…Come in Doc”) that he didn’t see ANY reason why Jesus would have to die in order for God to defeat Satan.

Modes:
…for God to exchange God's righteousness for our sinfulness, to bridge the gap between the finite and the infinite, the divine and the profane, to destroy the need for a mediator by showing up in the flesh...the descriptive appraisals could go on and on, the point is, it was always a part of the plan, if not, Openness would be the belief in the God of zippo foresight.

Tom:
Most of these reasons follow GIVEN THE FALLENESS OF MAN, not assuming God’s purpose for creation included man’s redemption. Once fallen, certainly the purpose OF THE INCARNATION (not the creation of the world) would include the gift of God’s righteousness in Christ, doing way with human mediation in religion, etc.

And (as little as I understand the OV) I cannot see that denying the INEVITABILITY of the fall and human sin means God would have zippo foresight. Why cannot God have purposed the sin-free existence of mankind and foreknown as possible both a) all that would follow from man’s having freely chosen love over evil, and b) all that would follow from man’s having freely chosen evil over love?

Doc’s warfare worldview, as I understand it, follows well whether a) or b) is actualised. But either way, God foreknew HIS response and plans.

Besides, if in Jer. 3 God can “expect” Israel to repent given a) her sinful history, b) the idolatrous context of her existence, and c) all that God had done for her, but be “surprised” that she didn’t repent, then why should it be strange to believe God “expected” man would “make it” as purposed given a) NO sinful history, b) the overwhelmingly positive and godly context of their existence to begin with, and c) all that God had provided (his abiding presence and fellowship) for the fulfilment of his purpose, but was “surprised” when it didn’t happen?

I’ll be thinking about this on the beach over the next week. Wait a minute, on the beach? Well, I’ll think about it when I get back!

Tom

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:36 PM (GMT -6)

Tom:
I don’t have any problems believing that God, having provided man with every incentive possible (save removing his free will) to secure a sin-free journey through the probationary time, knew Adam’s fall no more or less that it actually was—a possibility.

Modes:
This is tantmount to admitting Pelagianism…there is no one righteouss, not even one, all have fallen short…

Tom:
But in any event, why should the answer to this question define God’s primary purpose in creating the universe to begin with? Why cannot God have purposed creation solely for loving relationships that glorified him while at the same time knowing (as you and Doc argue) that man’s sinning was inevitable? As Bobby Knight taught, the GOAL of a basketball game is to score on every possession and steal the ball every time the opponent possesses the ball. That’s a PERFECT game. That’s what you play for. But believing that inevitably you’ll miss some of shots and fail to keep your opponents from scoring doesn’t mean that the PURPOSE of the game is redefined now to include your failing to score and your failing to keep your opponent from scoring. The inevitability doesn’t redefine the purpose.

Modes:
No, but if God is perfect, nothing but perfection is compatible with God. We are perfected through the process of salvation and sanctification.

Modes:
2. Did God say that creation was perfect?

Tom:
Perfect in the sense that sin is impossible? Perfect in the sense that HE is perfect? I don’t think so. But certainly perfect in sense necessary to provide every possible incentive and means for the fulfilment of his creation-goal: freely chosen loving relationships which gloriy him. If it wasn’t CREATED perfect, however, then he only has himself to blame.
If, on the other hand, God created the universe "imperfect" (faulty, less than perfect, whatever), why did he create it this way? Why imperfect? To guarantee that man fall so he could save him? To guarantee the fulfilment of his purpose for creation? Seems to me that a) God created the world SO THAT he could save it, and b) God created the world imperfect, combine to equal c) God created the world imperfect SO THAT man would fall and God could save him, which being interpreted (to my sometimes very warped way of think) mean, "God is the author of sin."

Modes:
The cost of having fellowship with imperfect/incomplete beings (= any beings other than God) is making them perfect. This is the cost God knew would need to be paid from the beginning.

Modes:
3. How could the cross be forknown if God intended things to stay a certain way?

Tom:
Where is the CROSS foreknown as a certainty prior to creation in Scripture?

Modes:
Perhaps not the cross per se, but Christ as the atonement is certainly destined before the foundations of creation according to 1 Peter 1:18-21.

Modes:
R1. No, God knew that creation was incomplete. God was not participating in it in the same way God does now after the incarnation.

Tom:
If God’s the author of the incompleteness of creation (which you’re arguing), and the inevitability of man’s sinning is attributable to this incompleteness (which follows logically from what you’re arguing), and God created man SO THAT he could save him, then God’s the author of sin.

Modes:
To the extent that God made a world in which sin was not only possible, but inevitable, yes, this is ultimately true. BUT to the extent that we are the ones who realize sinful possibilities when faithful ones were available, we are actually the authors of sin.

Modes:
R2. Creation was said to be "good" not perfect. Perfection comes through suffering and redemption.

Tom:
"GOD" is also said to be "good" (tobh). Would you argue linguistically that God is incomplete? Not only is God’s work "good" (tobh), it’s also "complete/perfect" (tamim; Deut. 32.4). Remove "good" from the creation narrative, Modes, and substitute "incomplete" in its place. Are you happy with its reading? Is that what you think the point of the creation narrative is?
Where does the Bible teach that all perfection comes through suffering and redemption? If this is true, then the fall of man WAS necessitated, and God IS the author of sin.

Modes:
Getting/ feisty…okay, your own reading has problems as well if you run it through consistantly, God is said to be "good" but humans are said to be "very good" Gen. 1:31? Do you really want to argue that creation is compelte? Perhaps the Open view isn’t for you after all? Romans 8 suggests that all of creation groans in anticipation for the consumation of creation.

Tom:
If the PURPOSE of creation is redemption, then the cross wasn’t "anticipated." It was "predetermined." If the cross WAS "anticipated" (but not certain), as I’d argue, then God PUROSE for creating man cannot include his redemption.

Modes:
Here again you are in danger of becoming a Pelagian. Just a warning.

Tom:
Is God incapable of experiencing a sin-free world?

Modes:
There is no such world. Both before and after the flood God exclaims her disappointment that "every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually" (Gen. 6:5 and echoed in 8:21).

Tom:
Why cannot God have purposed the sin-free existence of mankind and foreknown as possible both a) all that would follow from man’s having freely chosen love over evil, and b) all that would follow from man’s having freely chosen evil over love?
Doc’s warfare worldview, as I understand it, follows well whether a) or b) is actualised. But either way, God foreknew HIS response and plans.

Modes:
This would all be fine except that God goes on record saying that Christ had been predestined from prior to creation: 1 Peter 1:20, Acts 2:23, and esp. Eph. 1:4-11.

ModesOfThought

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:36 PM (GMT -6)

Just an interesting sidelight about perfection: even God incarnate was not automatically perfect—Jesus was perfected through suffering. “Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him…” (Heb. 5:8–9). GDG

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/26/2001 7:37 PM (GMT -6)

That is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Thanks GDG! So Tom, look forward to hearing from you when you get back from the beach...

ModesOfThought

Glamdring
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 35

Posted 6/27/2001 7:21 PM (GMT -6)

Hola,

I don't know what I'm doing. But I can tell you what I've done. I spent the morning transferring the old posts from the back pages (p12-15).
That in and of itself is a good thing except for that fact that I buried all our current posts on page five!

I brought this one back up not to say anyting erudite but to save Tom the time looking for it when he gets back from the beach.

Glamdring

Glamdring
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 35

Posted 6/28/2001 6:50 PM (GMT -6)

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 6/28/2001 7:05 PM (GMT -6)

’dring, you’re the greatest

luv ya, ’ria

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/1/2001 4:24 AM (GMT -6)

Hi all-

I'm back from the beach. Didn't open my laptop for eight days. Wonderful. Now I'm exploring the new site. Seems wonderful...fully...fully confusing! Arrghh.

I'll figure it out!

Thanks to the moderator and everybody else who helped put it together. Awesome work.

I'm still trying to figure out how much I can decide how it opens up to me when I log on. I wanna see one page with all the latest posts in all the categories. I think I might have it figured out.

Modes, nice come back. Will get back to you later.

Mephi, how are ya?

Dr. Sanders, are you there? You got me into this. Come get me out.

Doc, I met a couple of other missionaries and pastors who read "GOd at War" and are very interested in the open view.

Yes, Modes, the open view IS for me! :) I don't think "the purpose of creation is redemption" is for me. I trust the former does not require the later.

Surf's up!

Oh, yeah. What's a "Neophyte"?

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 07/01/2001 09:27:25 AM

adiaphora
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 123

Posted 7/1/2001 4:36 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Tom, welcome back! I hope you are able to find your way around without too much trouble.

To view just the active topics, select “active topics” from the menu bar right above your log-in.

Ask Mephi what a neophyte is. I got the idea from his convert thread—hey, now you can use the search function to look it up!

Anyway, this board has “ranking” feature for members based on how many posts you have. I tried to come up with some cute ranks. If anyone has any suggestions, send me an email.

Blessings, ~ a d i a p h o r a

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/1/2001 12:10 PM (GMT -6)

Modes-

Thanks for the responses, Modes. I have plenty to think about. My posts must seem old hat to you, having discussed your way through all of this before. I’m not sure if my comments have anything to do anymore with the original post that inquired into Jesus’ choice of the cross. Still, let me offer a few more thoughts in response…

You felt my suggestion that “…God, having provided man with every incentive possible…to secure a sin-free journey through the probationary time, knew Adam’s fall no more or less that it actually was—a possibility” was tantamount to admitting Pelagianism. “There is no one righteous, not even one, all have fallen short,” you remind me. Of course, I agree there IS no one righteous and that all HAVE fallen short. But I don’t see how my believing God purposed man for loving relationship amounts to a denial of the FACT that we are fallen. Admitting that man IS fallen doesn’t necessitate the belief that God created him TO fall, or that God’s purpose for man in any sense necessitated the Fall.

I suggested that even the claim that the Fall was inevitable does not mean God’s purpose in creating man was redemption, the inevitability doesn’t redefine the purpose. You responded, “…but if God is perfect, nothing but perfection is compatible with God. We are perfected through the process of salvation and sanctification.”

I perfectly get your meaning here Modes. Still, it involves believing that God originally created the world (and man) incompatible for fellowship with him. But man was clearly in fellowship with God BEFORE sin entered the scene.

Modes commented: “The cost of having fellowship with imperfect/incomplete beings (= any beings other than God) is making them perfect. This is the cost God knew would need to be paid from the beginning.”

Tom: But is sin/redemption the ONLY way to make unfallen, sinless man all that God intended him to be? Adam couldn’t have become compatibilistically free by passing the test? I think you’re assuming that what DID happen HAD to happen, that because creation DID fall and required redeeming, this in itself must mean man could not have been perfected through non-sinful means. In this case Eden was not probationary at all and sin was not avoidable. Sin becomes necessary and God becomes its author.

You felt Christ’s atoning work was certainly destined before the foundations of creation according to 1 Peter 1:18-21. Of course, a definitely foreknown atonement isn’t the only plausible exegetical take on this passage. Good sense can be made of it on the view that what was predetermined before the foundation of the world was God’s commitment to the possibility of the Cross; a REAL commitment to a REAL possibility.

Tom commented: “If God’s the author of the incompleteness of creation (which you’re arguing), and the inevitability of man’s sinning is attributable to this incompleteness (which follows logically from what you’re arguing), and God created man SO THAT he could save him, then God’s the author of sin.”

Modes responded: “To the extent that God made a world in which sin was not only possible, but inevitable, yes, this is ultimately true. BUT to the extent that we are the ones who realize sinful possibilities when faithful ones were available, we are actually the authors of sin.”

Tom: If God created the world FOR sin and saving, and he is ultimately the author of the inevitability of Adam’s sinful choice, then there were no “available faithful possibilities” to speak of. They never existed.

Modes commented: “R2. Creation was said to be ‘good’ not perfect. Perfection comes through suffering and redemption.”

Tom responded: “GOD is also said to be ‘good’ (tobh). Would you argue linguistically that God is incomplete? Not only is God’s work ‘good’ (tobh), it’s also ‘complete/perfect’ (tamim; Deut. 32.4). Remove ‘good’ from the creation narrative, Modes, and substitute ‘incomplete’ in its place. Are you happy with its reading? Where does the Bible teach that all perfection comes through suffering and redemption? If this is true, then the fall of man WAS necessitated, and God IS the author of sin.”

Modes responded: “Getting feisty…okay, your own reading has problems as well if you run it through consistantly, God is said to be ‘good’ but humans are said to be ‘very good’ Gen. 1:31? Do you really want to argue that creation is compelte? Perhaps the Open view isn’t for you after all? Romans 8 suggests that all of creation groans in anticipation for the consumation of creation.”

Tom: Claiming that what God created man to be COULD have been realized apart from the Fall is not to say that what man was when he was created was a step above God because man gets a “very good” rating while God only gets a “good” rating. The question doesn’t seem to me to be whether or not God’s original creation was “complete” (Scripture clearly makes this claim) but whether or not this “completeness” means he could not have further plans for it that did not require the Fall and sin. I can agree that God had MORE planned for us than was immediately realized in the original creation. But it does not follow that this MORE could ONLY have been realized through the Fall and it’s consequent evil.

Romans 8 indeed teaches that all of creation groans in anticipation of the consummation. But this is all after the fact. GIVEN the fact of the Fall and God’s subsequent subjugation of the created order to “frustration” in response to Adam’s sin, creation groans until the consummation. I don’t see anything here that requires the view that God created the world SO THAT he could subjugate it to frustration SO THAT he could free it.

Is the Open View for me after all? I certainly hope so! But almost certainly not if it requires the belief that God’s PURPOSE for creation is REDEMPTION. I don’t see that the OV requires this. Do you?

Tom commented: “If the PURPOSE of creation is redemption, then the cross wasn’t ‘anticipated,’ it was ‘predetermined.’ If the cross WAS ‘anticipated’ (but not certain), as I’d argue, then God’s PUROSE for creating man cannot include his redemption.”

Modes responded: “Here again you are in danger of becoming a Pelagian. Just a warning.”

Tom: The danger is noted. Do go on to answer me, however. What might you be in danger of, Modes, in adopting a view of God’s purpose for man which effectively predetermines the Fall and sin every bit as much as Calvin’s view?

Tom commented: “Is God incapable of experiencing a sin-free world?”

Modes responded: “There is no such world…”

Tom: Your argument overlooks the fact that there WAS such a world before sin entered the picture. Creation WAS sin-free and man WAS in fellowship with God. He “walked with God in the cool of the day.” I can’t imagine what the author’s purpose of such a refrain might be other than to tell us that God and Adam were enjoying their freely chosen loving relationship. That doesn’t mean the relationship was everything God had planned for it, but neither does it mean the Fall and sin were the only possible means to our relationship growing into all that God had planned. Our marriages may not be all they COULD be on our wedding day, but nobody suggests that suffering adultery is the only possible way to experience all that married love can and should be. In the end, Modes, I hear you arguing that a marriage isn’t all God intended it to be until it’s suffered the betrayal of adultery and gone through the healing process. If not, how is your view different from this?

As an aside, if the author’s [of Genesis] purpose was to argue the incompleteness and imperfection of creation AND man before sin, then we should judge him to have failed to make his point.

Modes responded: “…Both before and after the flood God exclaims her disappointment that ‘every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually’ (Gen. 6:5 and echoed in 8:21).”

Tom: Is not this what man BECAME after the Fall? What is there in the text of Genesis anywhere to suggest that any of this was necessary to God’s purpose for man? Does not God’s “regretting” here suggest just the opposite?

Tom commented: “Why cannot God have purposed the sin-free existence of mankind and foreknown as possible both a) all that would follow from man’s having freely chosen love over evil, and b) all that would follow from man’s having freely chosen evil over love? Doc’s warfare worldview, as I understand it, follows well whether a) or b) is actualised. But either way, God foreknew HIS response and plans.”

Modes responded: “This would all be fine except that God goes on record saying that Christ had been predestined from prior to creation: 1 Peter 1:20, Acts 2:23, and esp. Eph. 1:4-11.”

Tom: 1 Pet., I’ve mentioned, doesn’t make explicit the point you’re claiming, and it is possible to argue that this involves a real and predetermined commitment to a real and predetermined possibility. As for Acts 2.23 (“This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men”), I’m surprised that as an OVer who believes God changes his mind and forms new plans in response to men, you assume that what God does as a result of “planning” he must have ETERNALLY planned. This directly contradicts the core claims of the OV, does it not?

Peter’s confronting his fellow Jews with the claim that their treatment of Jesus fulfilled God’s foreknown plan cannot, on the OV, mean this was necessarily the case from eternity. If Sanders is right and the cross became a sure thing from the Fall onwards, then Peter’s comments make perfect sense of God’s planning (actually, they restate in so many words what Peter says in 1 Pet. 1). Eph. 1.4-11? I don’t see an eternally predetermined CROSS there.

Wow. This is too long. Blessings to you Modes! I think I’ve about exhausted my intelligence here. I’m way out of my depth anyhow. You get the last word! Tare me apart!

Tom

Oh, wait! One last word on GDG’s (are you “Pia” now GDG?) note about Jesus learning obedience through what he suffered and the notion that this somehow proves that the Fall and sin were necessary to God’s purposes for creation. First, to be consistent, you’d have to insist that Jesus sin and be redeemed to be really “perfected.” We are talking about the necessary relationship that exists between perfection and sin aren’t we? But besides this, it is Jesus’ humanity which was perfected through suffering. I’d suggest that perfection through suffering is required GIVEN THE SINFULNESS of the world he was born into. But again, there’s nothing here that suggests that the sinful state itself was originally necessary to God getting what he wanted.

Edited by - TGB on 07/02/2001 07:36:28 AM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/1/2001 12:19 PM (GMT -6)

Glamdring-

Thanks for pulling it up to the front so I could find it!

Blessings,
Tom

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 7/2/2001 5:07 AM (GMT -6)

Welcome back, Tom

Tom said:

There seems to me to be little practical difference between your view and Mephi’s claim that God willed evil and sin SO THAT he could reveal himself as Savior and Judge.

and...

But what seems silly to some keeps others up at night. God “designed the world for saving” can only mean (to me) that he also “designed it for sinning.” The necessary means to a predetermined goal are themselves predetermined.

You're touching on another the big reason that I believe in EDF. Tom, as usual, you are the friggin man. My definition of redemption history. I've placed this here before:

Redemptive history is the panoramic view of ALL existence in general, and human history in particular in which God has designed a reality that would be conducive to his progressive self-revelation to His creation, in the form of a redemptive plan to reconcile all things under his ultimate and universally recognized control after a time of misused delegated authority and cosmic rebellion. The instigator of the rebellion is the Satan (adversary). The apex of the creative event and delegated authority figure is humanity. Lastly, the climax of the redemptive history is Jesus Christ, the culmination of God's progressive revelation to mankind as well as the means of the salvific experience. God created this timeline, according to his OWN will, fully aware of all the bad things that would emerge (sin, death, etc.), but also knowing what tremendous reconciliation and exultation would exist at the consummation of his plan.

See, Tom. The way I see it, either one of two things happened.

1) Redemption TRULY is a "Plan B" in that the emergence of sin was not wanted OR directly anticipated by God. It was known only as a possibility, not inevitability, before creation. This precludes God knowing FOR A CERTAINTY that any human beings would sin.

2) Redemption was a PART of the plan from the jump, and predestination of the same (though maybe not exhaustive) is inevitable. This INCLUDES God knowing for a certainty that human beings would sin.

I choose the latter because otherwise, saying that Christ and the cross were predestined in ANY way from the foundation of the world doesn't make sense to me. This was not seen as a BACK-UP plan, but as a "certainty" that God, by his own actions, would do. Whether or not you deal with EXHAUSTIVE definite foreknowledge, this right here is enough to give anti-Calvinists some problems. With the second view, the emergence of sin is a MEANS to an ultimate END. But here's where the problem is heightened. If we say that God knew that sin was INEVITABLE before the foundations of the world (and thus predestination of the salvation was in effect), does this imply that God knew that is was equally inevitable that at least ONE PERSON would not be a recipient of His salvation as well? That at least one person would be cast into outer darkness, eternal punishment, whatever. Was that an "acceptable risk" for God? Does that give us problems? David Basinger in his book "The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment" on page 65 quotes from Fyodor Dostoyevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov" page 287

"Imagine that it is you yourself who are erecting the edifice of human destiny with the aim of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and contentment at last, but that to do that it is absolutely necessary, and indeed quite inevitable, to torture to death only one tiny creature,...would you consent to be the architect under those conditions?"

Wouldn't it be better to say that redemption and total reconcilation was NOT the prime interest on God's mind in the beginning, but BECAME a primary concern only after sin entered in? This would seem to get us out of the fix. But will the biblical text allow this?

*********************************

You said:

"You felt Christ’s atoning work was certainly destined before the foundations of creation according to 1 Peter 1:18-21. Of course, a definitely foreknown atonement isn’t the only plausible exegetical take on this passage. Good sense can be made of it on the view that what was predetermined before the foundation of the world was God’s commitment to the possibility of the Cross; a REAL commitment to a REAL possibility."

Have to disagree with you there, bud. What about the "mystery" that Paul talks about??

Rom 16:25-27
Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him-- to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

Eph 1:9-12
And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment-- to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

Eph 3:4-6
In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Col 1:25-26
I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness-- the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.
To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

To me, Paul is clearly of the mind that the ministry of reconcilation through Christ was a divine mystery in the mind of God that was to be revealed on a certain planned timetable. An ORCHESTRATED timetable known to God. Now, We HAVE to reconcile these Scriptures above with the notion that Christ was predestined BEFORE any sentient beings were created. Only NOW has it been revealed unto humanity. It doesn't seem to be that Christ's emergence was a commitment to a possibility, but a glorious MYSTERY that God ORCHESTRATED to reveal to us in due time, through certain means. See what I mean? Doesn't this fit well with my "redemptive history" paradigm?

****************************

Tom said:
1 Pet., I’ve mentioned, doesn’t make explicit the point you’re claiming, and it is possible to argue that this involves a real and predetermined commitment to a real and predetermined possibility. As for Acts 2.23 (“This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men”), I’m surprised that as an OVer who believes God changes his mind and forms new plans in response to men, you assume that what God does as a result of “planning” he must have ETERNALLY planned. This directly contradicts the core claims of the OV, does it not?

Friggin aye, buddy.

********************************

Tom said:
Peter’s confronting his fellow Jews with the claim that their treatment of Jesus fulfilled God’s foreknown plan cannot, on the OV, mean this was necessarily the case from eternity. If Sanders is right and the cross became a sure thing from the Fall onwards, then Peter’s comments make perfect sense of God’s planning (actually, they restate in so many words what Peter says in 1 Pet. 1). Eph. 1.4-11? I don’t see an eternally predetermined CROSS there.

Hmmm...what about Paul's gospel and mystery? Remember, Christ in Paul's theology CANNOT be separated from the Cross. For Paul, to say that Christ was predestined is to say that the CROSS was predestined. If we can say that Paul affirmed the eteral predestination of Christ, then that says something. (I trust you know what I mean by "cross")

*********************************

Tom, you unpack this stuff really well, dude. Is OV truly for you? I've never really thought so.

Meph

PS: Neophyte--1. A recent convert to a belief; 2. a proselyte. A beginner or novice. Glad to see you back.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/3/2001 12:53 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi-

I love this forum. I’ve actually had to sit down with my wife and discuss how much time is reasonable for me to spend reading and responding. I’ve noticed Doc hasn’t become a member yet! No Doc? No Wislawa? No point to continuing.

OK. You commented: “Wouldn't it be better to say that redemption and total reconcilation was NOT the prime interest on God's mind in the beginning, but BECAME a primary concern only after sin entered in? This would seem to get us out of the fix. But will the biblical text allow this?”

I’m thinking hard on this, Meph. In the end, biblical/exegetical arguments decide this for me. So, if it can be shown convincingly that the death/resurrection of Christ was a predetermined plan “A” (and not a predetermined plan “B”), I’ll bow to it. The friggin WORD rules! But good sense can be made of the relevant passages. The passages you brought up certainly don’t overwhelm us with only ONE possible interpretation.

Do the Scriptures you suggested make this point? I’m not so sure.

Rom 16:25-27. All I see here, Meph, is that the details (the who, what, how, and when) of Christ’s advent and atoning work, long hidden, are now revealed and made known. The time during which the mystery was hidden (not completely hidden, obviously, for Christ WAS prophesied) would seem to include human history, more specifically the history of revelation. It would make little sense to claim that the mystery was ETERNALLY hidden. Did God hide it from himself? So, the passage would make sense whether the cross was plan “A” or plan “B.” That God’s plans to redeem man remained a mystery through OUR existence does not require the claim that this was his ONLY plan from eternity. It’s the LACK of specificity here that bothers me. If it was Paul’s wish to specify that the redemption and the cross were plan “A” eternally, then a) he certainly had the vocabulary to make this explicit, and b) what sense are we to make of the claim that Christ’s redemption was ETERNALLY hidden? Who was it hidden from. See? Seems to me the Paul’s language here assumes the historical fact of the Fall and works from there. If his point is merely to contrast what was formerly unclear to what is now abundantly clear (i.e., the details of God’s plan to redeem man), then his point is made. Redemption was God’s plan and it was purposefully achieved. I think this is Paul’s point.

Eph 1:9-12. Excellent text. “And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfilment-- to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.”

What is there here that cannot be understood on the assumption that God created man for loving relationship, that sin interrupted this, and that God intended Christ to be the one to fix this?

“In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

I know how this is traditionally understood, and GIVEN THE FACT OF OUR FALLENESS and how things worked out, it makes perfect sense to assume its necessity and push the certainty of it right back into eternity. But there’s nothing in Paul’s choice of words that necessitates this. All I see here is that our hoping in Christ fulfils God’s predetermined will for us? I totally agree with Modes that suffering and atonement were the ONLY available means for perfecting FALLEN humanity. But what is predetermined for us here? That we “exist for the praise of his glory.” Exactly what I’m claiming his eternally predetermined plan for us in fact was. To say that existing for the praise of his glory REQUIRED the fall, sin, and atonement goes beyond what any biblical author actually says.

Eph 3:4-6. Again, what’s here to suggest that God’s PURPOSE in CREATING us was that we fall SO THAT he might rescue us? All I see IN THE ACTUAL WORDS of this text is Paul claiming that what was in former generations a mystery is now abundantly clear, and that this mystery is that God’s plan to redeem mankind was never restricted to Israel but rather took in the nations from the start. The text is perfectly understood as descriptive of God’s redemptive plan AFTER the fact of the Fall.

Col 1:25-26. Ditto. That God’s plan to redeem mankind was in former generations a mystery poorly understood by us does not necessarily mean it was eternally predestined to be the case.

Meph: “To me, Paul is clearly of the mind that the ministry of reconcilation through Christ was a divine mystery in the mind of God that was to be revealed on a certain planned timetable.”

Tom: I totally agree. Redemption didn’t happen accidentally. God planned it and obtained it purposefully. That this plan was an eternally predestined inevitability, however, is nowhere explicitly, or even implicitly, made by Paul in the texts to which you’ve referred.

Meph: “Now, We HAVE to reconcile these Scriptures above with the notion that Christ was predestined BEFORE any sentient beings were created. Only NOW has it been revealed unto humanity.”

Tom: Why? Why must this aspect the mystery of redemption discussed in these passages, i.e., Christ’s role as “redeemer,” be a settled BEFORE any sentient beings were created? I don’t remember seeing this claim in any other the passages themselves. Knowing THAT the mystery was partly revealed to Israel’s prophets and THAT it is now fully revealed says nothing regarding the certainty of when it was settled upon by God.

Meph: “It doesn't seem to be that Christ's emergence was a commitment to a possibility, but a glorious MYSTERY that God ORCHESTRATED to reveal to us in due time, through certain means. See what I mean? Doesn't this fit well with my "redemptive history" paradigm?”

Tom: Dude, it fits perfectly with YOUR redemptive history paradigm! But I still have difficulty understanding how an open theist would claim that God PURPOSED man for sin, or how man’s sinning was anything other than a possibility; or, perhaps, if it was a (statistical “sooner or later”?) inevitability, that this in no way defines the PURPOSE of God’s creating man.

Tom (to Modes) said: “As for Acts 2.23 (“This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men”), I’m surprised that as an OVer who believes God changes his mind and forms new plans in response to men, you assume that what God does as a result of “planning” he must have ETERNALLY planned. This directly contradicts the core claims of the OV, does it not?”

Meph: “Friggin aye, buddy.”

Tom: Modes?

Meph: “Hmmm...what about Paul's gospel and mystery? Remember, Christ in Paul's theology CANNOT be separated from the Cross. For Paul, to say that Christ was predestined is to say that the CROSS was predestined. If we can say that Paul affirmed the eteral predestination of Christ, then that says something. (I trust you know what I mean by "cross")”

Tom: Good point. I follow you, and I’ve been thinking on the implications of this for a while already. My hunch is that Paul was not interested in what MIGHT have been, only in what DID happen and how Christ addressed it. Fact is, we’re fallen. Paul wants to talk about how Christ redeems this situation and, as importantly, that this redemption was NOT an afterthought. It is to God’s glory that the need for redemption was expected and planned for from the beginning. So it doesn’t surprise me that Paul focused his energies on talking about what IS the case, not what MIGHT have been the case. But this doesn’t mean that what MIGHT have been the case COULD NOT have been the case.

Later dudes!

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 07/03/2001 08:03:05 AM

59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:44 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual