Today I noticed something in 1 John 2:12 that has implications regarding the Calvinist, Open Theist, and Arminian.
1 John 2:12, (NASB)
12. I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.
"have been forgiven" is perfect indicative passive in the Greek. Indicative is a statement of a fact (something that has been done) and the perfect tense indicates a completed action with continuing results.
Now the Calvinist can argue that God, in the atonement, forgave the future sins of the elect, knowing and ordaining they would, in the future, repent. And the Arminian can also say that God, being timeless, foresaw all the sins that would be committed in the future, and their repentance, and forgave their sins. But according to the Open Theist God could not have known either the future sins that free will creatures would choose to commit, or that they would repent of them.
How does the Open Theist exegete this verse?
Then again, perhaps I am seeing something that is actually nothing. Got Bob George rattling around in my mind - all our sins forgiven before we commit them.
Open Theism and 1 John 2:12
-
dizerner
Re: Open Theism and 1 John 2:12
[user account removed]
Last edited by dizerner on Sun Feb 19, 2023 12:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Open Theism and 1 John 2:12
2. I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.
I think an Open Theist might say that God has committed Himself to forgiveness so it's accurate to say "have been forgiven."
I think an Open Theist might say that God has committed Himself to forgiveness so it's accurate to say "have been forgiven."
Re: Open Theism and 1 John 2:12
I think it would be more accurate to state that the perfect tense indicates a present state resulting from a completed action. Please consult several grammars on this point....the perfect tense indicates a completed action with continuing results.
If your sins have been sent away (another meaning for αφιημι), as in 1 John 2:12, there are present consequences, for example, your behavior is different. The use of the perfect tense does not imply that necessarily you will maintain that behaviour.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Open Theism and 1 John 2:12
Hi Paidion,
Hoping you would chime in. No disagreement; the past tense could also refer to the sins being forgiven at the time of conversion. But depending on the view one has of the atonement - all sins past, present, future were forgiven at the cross vs. a provisional forgiveness, will affect how the verse is understood. There is much in 1 John that the Calvinist "can make hay" with. With your view of the atonement, and considering v.12, how do you exegete this verse:
1 John 2:19, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
19. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
In your view it would seem that the atonement would have enabled them to persevere. John indicates that if they were converted they would have never left. The way I would see it is that the imperfect "were" and "had been" indicate no real commitment, no consistency, which is reenforced by "not really of us". But the Calvinist will point out that if they had been "of us", they would have persevered, could not finally fall away. To which I would reply that if the Christians John is addressing in the letter could not fall away, why does he warn them against doing so just a few sentences later?
1 John 2:24
24. As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
This will be coming up in class Sunday. We have an excellent teacher; it will be interesting to hear his take, especially since he is wide open to discussion.
Hoping you would chime in. No disagreement; the past tense could also refer to the sins being forgiven at the time of conversion. But depending on the view one has of the atonement - all sins past, present, future were forgiven at the cross vs. a provisional forgiveness, will affect how the verse is understood. There is much in 1 John that the Calvinist "can make hay" with. With your view of the atonement, and considering v.12, how do you exegete this verse:
1 John 2:19, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
19. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
In your view it would seem that the atonement would have enabled them to persevere. John indicates that if they were converted they would have never left. The way I would see it is that the imperfect "were" and "had been" indicate no real commitment, no consistency, which is reenforced by "not really of us". But the Calvinist will point out that if they had been "of us", they would have persevered, could not finally fall away. To which I would reply that if the Christians John is addressing in the letter could not fall away, why does he warn them against doing so just a few sentences later?
1 John 2:24
24. As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
This will be coming up in class Sunday. We have an excellent teacher; it will be interesting to hear his take, especially since he is wide open to discussion.