|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Peter's Pentecost Sermon (Acts 2)
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
The climax of Peter's sermon at Pentecost came when he accused the assembled company of Jews and proselytes of being responsible for crucifying God's Messiah, and in response the terrified assembly were "cut to the heart" and asked Peter and the apostles " Brothers, what shall we do?” Whereupon they were urged to repent of their sins, be baptised, and receive the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2: 36-39). Their impious treatment of the Messiah, therefore, had threatened to bring upon them the wrath of God from which they needed to be saved (Acts 2:40). This argument fits in with Luke's gospel narrative and the words of Jesus, himself, in the parable of the vineyard tenants (Luke 20: 9-19 and the other synoptics).
The implication, therefore, is that Jesus was crucified against the wishes of the Father, moral responsibility resting firmly on the shoulders of practising Jews, including ethnically gentile Jews.
Earlier in the sermon, however, Peter had argued Acts 2:23 "This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men put him to death by nailing him to the cross (Acts 2: 23)." The introduction of divine determination would seem to go against the central thrust of the sermon's argument and its outcome which rests heavily on human responsibility.
Presumably Peter's reference to "God's deliberate plan" arose from his desire to assert God's sovereignty as well as human wilfulness. To my mind Peter fails to convince because he cannot sustain both positions. What do you think, shipmates?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Let me make your problem worse.
In Acts 4:27-28, Peter and John led the believers in prayer thus: quote:
For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.
All I can say is that the apostles didn't seem to see any contradiction between God's foreordaining and human responsibility.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Heheheheheh.
But really, using someone's known sin to direct consequences isn't the most surprising thing, even among ordinary people. I'm thinking of family lore and a seminary student long, long ago in Vietnam. He was known for swooping in on other people's chocolate. Eventually the other students found some chocolate Ex-Lax to leave out...
They then occupied all the bathroom stalls. Did I mention these were seminary students?
[ 14. April 2016, 15:18: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Heh, the question "whose fault was it?" is a complicated one to answer; I can imagine the disciples struggling with it.
FWIW, I'm going with Jürgen Moltmann's answer.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
The difference between foreknowledge or planning, and responsibility for the ultimate act seems pretty clear to me.
For example, I have a friend who knows me well. She knows my sense of humor, she knows my moods, she knows how I react to some things. Something can happen and I will make a comment. She sometimes will say "I knew you were going to say that." And she did. She knows me well enough that she "knew" (i.e., could predict with a high degree of accuracy) how I would react.
That does not mean that I have no responsibility for so acting. She didn't compel me to respond in that way. Even if she set me up (e.g., by making a comment that would cause me to react), she might be responsible for "planning" my response--but the "response-ability" rested with me entirely.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Hedgehog quote:
The difference between foreknowledge or planning, and responsibility for the ultimate act seems pretty clear to me.
The problem, Hedgehog, is the critical difference between planning and foreknowledge, which are not synonyms, as you seem to suggest.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Eutychus quote:
All I can say is that the apostles didn't seem to see any contradiction between God's foreordaining and human responsibility.
Why not?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm not sure I know why. All I know is that I personally don't find this paradox too much of a problem. I have the impression of free will and responsibility, and that's good enough for me.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Hedgehog quote:
The difference between foreknowledge or planning, and responsibility for the ultimate act seems pretty clear to me.
The problem, Hedgehog, is the critical difference between planning and foreknowledge, which are not synonyms, as you seem to suggest.
Well. "Planning"--certainly God did this and carried it out, too, witness all the prophecies, as well as the line-up of Jesus' ancestors, all of which combine to drive to that one historical point. You can throw in Jesus’ personal planning and carry-through (with the Father as well, of course) which attracted the attention of his enemies and ended up with a totally avoidable fatal encounter in the garden of Gethsemane. He clearly planned to be there, ripe for the taking, in a place where no innocent bystanders would be endangered and when no one would find out about it soon enough to mount an attempt at rescue. (This takes a bit of doing in a city like Jerusalem full of pilgrims during Passover.)
“Foreknowledge”—well, that’s where I’d stick all God’s personal understanding of the characters of Caiaphas & co., and for that matter, everyone involved in the Passion—heck, ultimately every human being. God doesn’t have to cause that, he doesn’t even have to approve it; he simply sees it unfolding, inevitably, from the kind of hearts that we have—and then he uses it as part of his own plan.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
A analogy might be generals planning a military campaign. They take account of their own troop numbers and capabilities, and their (limited) knowledge of the enemy forces and commanders. If they get it right (and, I know the maxim that the first casualty of engagement with the enemy is the plan) the outcome is what they wanted. It doesn't need those generals to sit in the offices of their counter-parts and tell them what the plan is and force them to act as planned.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I think we and the gospel writers would agree that "foreknowledge" is compatible with both pre-determination (obviously) and human free will (reasonable prediction). The question of "foreknowledge", therefore, is not a problem.
IMO, however, there is a major problem in deciding whether or not Peter saw the crucifixion of Christ as intended by God as part of a "deliberate plan" or a contrary conspiracy by evil men. I find it difficult to understand why Eutychus can say "All I know is that I personally don't find this paradox too much of a problem," because it is theologically important to decide whether or not God required the judicial murder of Jesus or men. (NB, in this Kerygmania thread I am not trying to press my own opinion but to establish what Peter meant on this issue in his Pentecost sermon).
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
IMO, however, there is a major problem in deciding whether or not Peter saw the crucifixion of Christ as intended by God as part of a "deliberate plan" or a contrary conspiracy by evil men.
To pick up my analogy. The D-Day planners knew that the casualties on the beaches of Normandy would be very high. But, that they were necessary for the overall plan of defeating Hitler. In a sense they were necessary (therefore 'intended' in some sense), and part of the plan. Is that in anyway contrary to saying that those men were killed by German troops defending the beaches?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I like to make a comparison with people like Martin Luther King. He didn't seek death, but he was well aware that this is what he did could lead to. However, he couldn't abandon his people.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that Peter was spelling out to the people that they were given the God-given opportunity of saving Jesus from his fate. They couldn't wring their hands and blame it on anyone else. They had to shoulder their responsibility for the evil that had been done.
God's plan may well include many contingencies, but every one of us has to look to whether we do and say what's right and good. The people understood what Peter was saying.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure I know why. All I know is that I personally don't find this paradox too much of a problem. I have the impression of free will and responsibility, and that's good enough for me.
In my Open Theol. pov (definitely a minority among Christians), God does not have "exhaustive & definitive" knowledge of the future choices of free creatures, for exactly the reasons detailed here-- because foreknowledge and free choice are logically incompatible.
However, we (Open Theists) believe God does have exhaustive knowledge of all the multiple potential choices his free creatures could make and all the potential implications/ consequences of each. In fact, we believe God's "contingent knowledge" is greater (more comprehensive) than what we envision when we talk about "foreknowledge." And because God can anticipate all those potential possibilities and the billions of potential consequences of each, God is able to devise a plan for how to accomplish his promised future in each of those contingent possibilities.
So God would have anticipated Jesus' betrayal and crucifixion as a potential future, and planned for exactly what happened and how he accomplished salvation thru that. But had Pilate, the Sanhedrin, etc chosen differently, he had a different plan for how to accomplish salvation. We don't know what that is because they didn't choose differently-- we only know the past that did happen, not the one that would have happened.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Hmm, yes, God as the master chess player.
I often use the same D-day illustration as Alan.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I think we and the gospel writers would agree that "foreknowledge" is compatible with both pre-determination (obviously) and human free will (reasonable prediction). The question of "foreknowledge", therefore, is not a problem.
IMO, however, there is a major problem in deciding whether or not Peter saw the crucifixion of Christ as intended by God as part of a "deliberate plan" or a contrary conspiracy by evil men. I find it difficult to understand why Eutychus can say "All I know is that I personally don't find this paradox too much of a problem," because it is theologically important to decide whether or not God required the judicial murder of Jesus or men. (NB, in this Kerygmania thread I am not trying to press my own opinion but to establish what Peter meant on this issue in his Pentecost sermon).
I'm totally with you in confusion Kwesi! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
That said, Acts definitely lays the blame of the crucifixion on men.
Point of interest: Luke-Acts has often been given a hard time by failing to produce a theology of the cross. There is no "atonement" theory in the gospel and Acts say the scholars - and I agree. Perhaps that's why I like the two so much. The focus is far more on a repentance that leads to life. Acts 11:18
A couple of notes:
1) "Deliberate plan" does not follow as God requiring the murder of Jesus as you say above.
To say God "requires" anything or "has to do" something restricts the sovereignty of God. Jesus death is not absolutely necessary to God. It is only necessary to some atonement theories. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
2) One of my NT lecturers pointed out there are two parallel things happening in Jesus' story. One is the story of God the Son and the divine stuff. The other is the story of Jesus the man and the human stuff. I found that kind of helpful.
3) I've always found 1 Cor 2:8 curious on this score in relation to Luke-Acts.
None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
What do you make of it?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Evensong quote:
There is no "atonement" theory in the gospel and Acts say the scholars - and I agree.
Well, at least not in the sense that the cross was the act of atonement. Indeed, the tenor of Peter's argument is that the crucifixion rather than effecting atonement made atonement particularly necessary, because by being complicit in the killing of the Messiah the assembled company of Jews (inc. proselytes) were in danger of bringing upon themselves the wrath of God. Atonement with God, however, could be achieved by repentance, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins [including responsibility for the crucifixion], and reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2: 38).
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It seemed to me he said this not with the purpose of saying "you've made yourselves in need of atonement" (as if they weren't so already) but rather "Guys, you missed the bus in a major way here (Messiah? what messiah?) and committed atrocity as well. Turn around now."
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I think I would agree with Lamb Chopped that atonement was always necessary and repentance has always been on the cards. It's the entire prophetic tradition in a nutshell really.
Previously it was the yearly Yom Kippur that enabled this.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I, too, agree with Lamb Chopped! Clearly, the call to repentance leading to atonement is explicit in the gospels (if not earlier) from the preaching of John the Baptist to the ministry of Jesus, and continued in the early church, as we see here. What I was trying to emphasise is that the cross compounded, incapsulated, focussed, intensified its urgent necessity rather than resolving it. Furthermore, such an interpretation would seem to be in conformity with Jesus' own words in the parable of the Vineyard Tenants, though with a wider circle of culpability in Peter's Sermon, which Christian teaching would spread to the whole of humanity e.g. Romans 1.
Going back to my original question, one of the problems with "deliberate plan" is one's ignorance of what that plan was and the essential details of its implementation. ISTM the best way of resolving the apparent paradox is by interpreting "plan" as "intention": the intention to effect an atonement. Consequently, while the cross became a means of implementation, perhaps even inevitable means given the nature of humanity (foreknowledge), it was not a demand of the Father but of cruel men- see again the Vineyard Parable. Viewed this way "deliberate plan", "foreknowledge", and moral culpability can be reconciled in the context of Peter's sermon.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
..."the call to repentance leading to atonement"...
Maybe this is where we're talking past one another.
Atonement is not something that any of us ordinary human beings can do. To atone for something is in the crassest oversimplified English "to make up for" it, to "make good" that which was formerly deficient. That is something that can only be done from a position of strength, of fullness, of overflowing plenty.
To change the metaphor, it is like paying a debt or reimbursing someone for a loss. That is only possible if you've got extra money in your pocket. Atonement is only possible if you yourself are not in a sucky "I screwed up and need forgiveness and help" position at the time atonement is needed.* If you are (and having to repent basically guarantees that you are!), then you can't make atonement. You are in no state to do so. You don't have the wherewithal. Someone else who is in a better situation will have to do it for you.
That someone is Christ. Having no sin of his own, he owes no debt, has nothing of his own that needs atonement; he can afford to cover our need. And he does, by his own choice.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped quote:
Maybe this is where we're talking past one another.
That may be the case, though I'm not sure where the confusion lies. What I'm trying to do is to make sense of certain aspects of Peter's sermon, and to iron out an apparent paradox. I'm not concerned with advancing a particular view of the atonement or whatever but to understand Peter's pitch more coherently in its own terms and account for the reactions to it by those present. Remember this is a Kerygma thread. Of course, one may consider Peter's theology deficient, but that is, perhaps, a secondary matter..
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Going back to my original question, one of the problems with "deliberate plan" is one's ignorance of what that plan was and the essential details of its implementation. ISTM the best way of resolving the apparent paradox is by interpreting "plan" as "intention": the intention to effect an atonement. Consequently, while the cross became a means of implementation, perhaps even inevitable means given the nature of humanity (foreknowledge), it was not a demand of the Father but of cruel men- see again the Vineyard Parable. Viewed this way "deliberate plan", "foreknowledge", and moral culpability can be reconciled in the context of Peter's sermon.
I'll drink to that!
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I think that Peter was spelling out to the people that they were given the God-given opportunity of saving Jesus from his fate. They couldn't wring their hands and blame it on anyone else. They had to shoulder their responsibility for the evil that had been done.
God's plan may well include many contingencies, but every one of us has to look to whether we do and say what's right and good. The people understood what Peter was saying.
"They couldn't wring their hands and blame anyone else." Ah, but Peter could - not wring his hands of course, but blame everyone else he certainly did. In the heat of the moment he was "brave" - chopped off a man's ear. But then he rather lost it - and who wouldn't? But Peter, I believe, unable to forgive himself for the triple denial, took it out on others - not just the listeners at Pentecost. And yet Jesus after the post-resurrection picnic seemed willing to forgive him, in spite of his persistent truculence. "What about that fellow" he asks, trying to deflect his master's unblinking judgment. Poor Peter. Poor cowardly, bullying Peter. The historic abuse of his powers is still far from acknowledged. It will come. It must come.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
When reading Acts 2 I had to remind myself that I was listening to Peter and not to Paul. Because the interpretation of all this found in Paul seems to fit very well indeed with what Peter is saying here.
That is: Israel had been given the Abrahamic responsibility to sort out the problem of a creation gone wrong, and humanity in serious trouble. Their responsibilities, and the fact they would fail to carry them out, and yet would in time be rescued from their failure, were spelled out in the Covenant (hence the 'deliberate plan and foreknowledge' reminder from Peter).
It was Jesus who, as Israel's representative, completed the apparently failed rescue successfully and hence completed the Abrahamic covenant. In order for this to happen, perhaps the doctrine of election required the 'elect' to be the people through whom God would perform the negative task essential to rescuing the world, the handing over of Jesus in order to condemn sin.
Now all this is tentative exegetically. Indeed, even Paul himself uses a 'what if' approach. However it all seems to fit rather well with what Peter is saying in Acts 2, and would seem to be a useful starting hypothesis solution for the OP.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
