Why do Arminians...

[Marvin Knox]

Not what I said. I said He is not subject to time.

I didn't mean to say that you did say that. I merely meant that He could know beforehand. Just because He isn't subject to time doesn't mean that He can't speak of such things as "beforehand" or that He can't function "in" time.

ALSO:

"‘For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and, and those whom he justified he also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30)

The key here is that it is people He foreknew and not the actions they would take. That's not to say, of course, that He didn't also know their actions. He knows and always has known everything.

The important point is that this section of verses cannot be used to show that His foreknowledge of an event (such as believing on Christ) was the basis for predestination.

The fact that He absolutely knew beforehand that they would believe on Christ is however the fact which proves that they were predestined to believe on Christ.

 

[stan1953]

I didn't mean to say that you did say that. I merely meant that He could know beforehand. Just because He isn't subject to time doesn't mean that He can't speak of such things as "beforehand" or that He can't function "in" time.

Definitely He has to function in time because of us, but His plan was made outside of time.

ALSO:
"‘For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and, and those whom he justified he also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30)
The key here is that it is people He foreknew and not the actions they would take. That's not to say, of course, that He didn't also know their actions. He knows and always has known everything.
The important point is that this section of verses cannot be used to show that His foreknowledge of an event (such as believing on Christ) was the basis for predestination.
The fact that He absolutely knew beforehand that they would believe on Christ is however the fact which proves that they were predestined to believe on Christ.

That is what the context of this scripture is, actions. "Those" is the keyword here and love Him refers to accepting His gift of His Son as John 3:16 teaches. The omniscience of God is not being called into question here, but the point being made is THOSE that love Him. That is an action and the action that is required to accept the gift of His son.
Those were not predestined to believe, they were predestined to be conformed.

 

[Hammster]

and yet Acts 2:23 states;
this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

God's plans are always based on His foreknowledge, Just as Paul teaches in Romans 8:28-30, and 11:2, and as Peter teaches in 1 Peter 1:2 and 20.
BTW, they are all from the NASB.

"the predetermined plan". Exactly. And it doesn't say "foreknowledge of the crucifixion".

 

[stan1953]

"the predetermined plan". Exactly. And it doesn't say "foreknowledge of the crucifixion".

I have no idea what you are trying to say by this. Do you not believe that God had foreknowledge of the crucifixion?
This is another example of your really saying nothing.

 

[OzSpen]

I didn't mean to say that you did say that. I merely meant that He could know beforehand. Just because He isn't subject to time doesn't mean that He can't speak of such things as "beforehand" or that He can't function "in" time.

ALSO:

"‘For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and, and those whom he justified he also glorified" (Romans 8:29-30)

The key here is that it is people He foreknew and not the actions they would take. That's not to say, of course, that He didn't also know their actions. He knows and always has known everything.

The important point is that this section of verses cannot be used to show that His foreknowledge of an event (such as believing on Christ) was the basis for predestination.

The fact that He absolutely knew beforehand that they would believe on Christ is however the fact which proves that they were predestined to believe on Christ.

You obviously know the meaning of 'ALSO' as you used it in this multiple paragraph citation.

However, the same meaning of 'also' applies to Rom 8:30: ' And those whom he predestined he ALSO called, and, and those whom he justified he ALSO glorified"

The 'key' - to use your language - is to understand that the people 'who' were predestined were ALSO called, justified and glorified. So God's foreknowledge of people ALSO involved action that would happen to them - being conformed to the image of his son, being called, being justified, and being glorified.

There was no action towards those who love God without action on their behalf, which God in his foreknowledge knew would happen.

 

[OzSpen]

"the predetermined plan". Exactly. And it doesn't say "foreknowledge of the crucifixion".

Calvinist commentator on the Book of Acts, Simon Kistemaker, refutes your understanding of Acts 2:23 with your wanting to exclude foreknowledge of the crucifixion. He wrote:

23. “This man was given up to you according to God’s set purpose and foreknowledge, and you by using lawless men nailed him to the cross and killed him.”

We note these two points:
a. God’s purpose. Peter intimates that the audience is fully acquainted with the trial and death of Jesus Christ. He employs the personal pronoun you in this verse to involve his listeners in assuming responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion. However, he views their accountability from a divine point of view. God is in complete control even though the Jews brought Jesus to trial and the Roman soldiers killed him.

Peter says that Jesus’ death occurred according to “God’s set purpose and foreknowledge.” The expression set purpose denotes a plan that has been determined and is clearly defined. The author of this set purpose is God himself (see 4:28). Peter removes any doubt whether God acted rashly in formulating his purpose to hand over Jesus to the Jewish people. He adds the term foreknowledge. With this word, Peter points to God’s omniscience by which every part of his plan is fully known to God in advance (I Peter 1:2). In his first epistle, Peter writes that “[Jesus] was chosen before the creation of the world” (I Peter 1:20, NIV). And last, through all the Old Testament prophets, God foretold that Christ would suffer (3:18).

b. Man’s responsibility. Peter holds his audience responsible for Jesus’ death. In their view, “Jesus’ messianic claim and his death on the cross were irreconcilable, self-contradictory opposites" [Dulon 1975:473]. They know that “anyone who is hung on a tree is cursed [by God]” (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Peter opposes this view by pointing to God’s determinate counsel and foreknowledge.

Here is an unresolved tension between God determining the death of his Son and man being held responsible for perpetrating the deed (see 3:17–18; 4:27–28; 13:27). God himself handed Jesus over to the Jews, who put him to death by nailing him to the cross. The Jews could not exonerate themselves by blaming Jesus’ death on the Romans, whom the Jews called “wicked men,” for they themselves had engaged the help of the Romans. Peter teaches that the Jews must be held accountable for killing Jesus (3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39). The Jews must see all the aspects of God’s plan. Thus Peter says,

24. “God raised him up, having freed him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for him to be kept in its power” (Kistemaker 1990:93-94).

​

Günter Dulon in his examination of the etymology of the Greek word horizw used in Acts 2:23 explained that

'Jesus’ messianic claim and his death on the cross were irreconcilable, self-contradictory opposites for the Jews. Peter wished to counter this offence by showing that it was God's "deliberate (hwrismene) will and plan' (Acts 2:23 NEB) by which Jesus was crucified by blinded Jewry. Similarly in Lk. 22:22 the Son goes the way "determined" by God for him, "but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed". It is this Jesus who is the one "ordained" by God to be the judge of the last judgment (Acts 10:42).

Paul made a similar statement to the Areopagus. After God had "determined" allotted periods and boundaries for the men that he had created so that they should seek him, he "appointed" a man to judge the world on the day appointed for it (Acts 17:26, 31)' (Dulon 1975:473).
​

In your response here you have violated some fundamentals of the Greek grammar of Acts 2:23 and Kistemaker, a Calvinist from your own camp, and Dulon have exposed some of your exegesis of this passage. The facts are that Acts 2:23 teaches God's set purpose in the trial and death of Jesus involved God's foreknowledge.

However, it is too easy for us to think of God's foreknowledge from our human perspective. That is not the case when we are dealing with the attributes of God. Richard Lenski's commentary (he was a Lutheran) helped me gain a better handle on how God's 'deliberate will and plan' involved 'foreknowledge' in Christ's death:

'In what way God delivered Jesus up to die on the cross [Acts 2:23] is indicated by the weighty datives [cases] of means. The success of the betrayal by Judas, which placed Jesus into the power of the Sanhedrin, was due to no cunning or power of men (Matt. 26:53, 54; Luke 22:53b). The death of Jesus was due to "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God"; the perfect participle horismene, "having been fixed or determined on," places the counsel of God back into eternity. God formed his plan of salvation, which involved the sacrificial death of his Son, in eternity and therefore alone gave him over to the murderous Jews. The divine counsel comes first, and on it rests the divine, infallible foreknowledge. The relation of the two is not one of time - in God no before and after exists - but of inward connection. When we consider the actions of men, this relation is reversed; what God determines in eternity regarding them rests on his infallible foreknowledge. "Counsel" and "foreknowledge" are not identical; to make them one and the same is to misunderstand both. The "foreknowledge" is misunderstood when it is regarded as an action of the will, a determination to do something and thus knowing it in advance' (Lenski 1934:83).
​

So Acts 2:23 involves God's 'set purpose and foreknowledge' but understood from the perspective of God's attributes and actions. I find you to be dodging the issue when you want to exclude God's foreknowledge in relation to Jesus' passion.

Oz


Works consulted
Dulon, G 1975. Horizw, in C Brown (ed), The new international dictionary of New Testament theology, vol 1, 472-474. Exeter, Devon, U.K. / Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Paternoster Press / Zondervan Corporation.

Kistemaker, S 1990. New Testament commentary: Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. Also available HERE (accessed 17 May 2014).

Lenski, R C H 1934. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers (edition assigned from the 1961 edition by Augsburg Publishing House).

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not sure what your getting at.

I was replying to your statement:

Crucifixion. Planned and predestined.

“For, in fact, in this city both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, to do whatever Your hand and Your plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4:27, 28 HCSB)

What's the application of this crucifixion that is planned and predestined to Christians? What's the purpose of the planned, predestined crucifixion?

 

[Hammster]

I have no idea what you are trying to say by this. Do you not believe that God had foreknowledge of the crucifixion?
This is another example of your really saying nothing.

Of course He had foreknowledge. But it's based on the fact that He planned it, not that He just knew it would happen.

 

[Hammster]

Calvinist commentator on the Book of Acts, Simon Kistemaker, refutes your understanding of Acts 2:23 with your wanting to exclude foreknowledge of the crucifixion. He wrote:

23. “This man was given up to you according to God’s set purpose and foreknowledge, and you by using lawless men nailed him to the cross and killed him.”

We note these two points:
a. God’s purpose. Peter intimates that the audience is fully acquainted with the trial and death of Jesus Christ. He employs the personal pronoun you in this verse to involve his listeners in assuming responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion. However, he views their accountability from a divine point of view. God is in complete control even though the Jews brought Jesus to trial and the Roman soldiers killed him.

Peter says that Jesus’ death occurred according to “God’s set purpose and foreknowledge.” The expression set purpose denotes a plan that has been determined and is clearly defined. The author of this set purpose is God himself (see 4:28). Peter removes any doubt whether God acted rashly in formulating his purpose to hand over Jesus to the Jewish people. He adds the term foreknowledge. With this word, Peter points to God’s omniscience by which every part of his plan is fully known to God in advance (I Peter 1:2). In his first epistle, Peter writes that “[Jesus] was chosen before the creation of the world” (I Peter 1:20, NIV). And last, through all the Old Testament prophets, God foretold that Christ would suffer (3:18).

b. Man’s responsibility. Peter holds his audience responsible for Jesus’ death. In their view, “Jesus’ messianic claim and his death on the cross were irreconcilable, self-contradictory opposites" [Dulon 1975:473]. They know that “anyone who is hung on a tree is cursed [by God]” (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13). Peter opposes this view by pointing to God’s determinate counsel and foreknowledge.

Here is an unresolved tension between God determining the death of his Son and man being held responsible for perpetrating the deed (see 3:17–18; 4:27–28; 13:27). God himself handed Jesus over to the Jews, who put him to death by nailing him to the cross. The Jews could not exonerate themselves by blaming Jesus’ death on the Romans, whom the Jews called “wicked men,” for they themselves had engaged the help of the Romans. Peter teaches that the Jews must be held accountable for killing Jesus (3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:39). The Jews must see all the aspects of God’s plan. Thus Peter says,

24. “God raised him up, having freed him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for him to be kept in its power” (Kistemaker 1990:93-94).

​

Günter Dulon in his examination of the etymology of the Greek word horizw used in Acts 2:23 explained that

'Jesus’ messianic claim and his death on the cross were irreconcilable, self-contradictory opposites for the Jews. Peter wished to counter this offence by showing that it was God's "deliberate (hwrismene) will and plan' (Acts 2:23 NEB) by which Jesus was crucified by blinded Jewry. Similarly in Lk. 22:22 the Son goes the way "determined" by God for him, "but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed". It is this Jesus who is the one "ordained" by God to be the judge of the last judgment (Acts 10:42).

Paul made a similar statement to the Areopagus. After God had "determined" allotted periods and boundaries for the men that he had created so that they should seek him, he "appointed" a man to judge the world on the day appointed for it (Acts 17:26, 31)' (Dulon 1975:473).
​

In your response here you have violated some fundamentals of the Greek grammar of Acts 2:23 and Kistemaker, a Calvinist from your own camp, and Dulon have exposed some of your exegesis of this passage. The facts are that Acts 2:23 teaches God's set purpose in the trial and death of Jesus involved God's foreknowledge.

However, it is too easy for us to think of God's foreknowledge from our human perspective. That is not the case when we are dealing with the attributes of God. Richard Lenski's commentary (he was a Lutheran) helped me gain a better handle on how God's 'deliberate will and plan' involved 'foreknowledge' in Christ's death:

'In what way God delivered Jesus up to die on the cross [Acts 2:23] is indicated by the weighty datives [cases] of means. The success of the betrayal by Judas, which placed Jesus into the power of the Sanhedrin, was due to no cunning or power of men (Matt. 26:53, 54; Luke 22:53b). The death of Jesus was due to "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God"; the perfect participle horismene, "having been fixed or determined on," places the counsel of God back into eternity. God formed his plan of salvation, which involved the sacrificial death of his Son, in eternity and therefore alone gave him over to the murderous Jews. The divine counsel comes first, and on it rests the divine, infallible foreknowledge. The relation of the two is not one of time - in God no before and after exists - but of inward connection. When we consider the actions of men, this relation is reversed; what God determines in eternity regarding them rests on his infallible foreknowledge. "Counsel" and "foreknowledge" are not identical; to make them one and the same is to misunderstand both. The "foreknowledge" is misunderstood when it is regarded as an action of the will, a determination to do something and thus knowing it in advance' (Lenski 1934:83).
​

So Acts 2:23 involves God's 'set purpose and foreknowledge' but understood from the perspective of God's attributes and actions. I find you to be dodging the issue when you want to exclude God's foreknowledge in relation to Jesus' passion.

Oz


Works consulted
Dulon, G 1975. Horizw, in C Brown (ed), The new international dictionary of New Testament theology, vol 1, 472-474. Exeter, Devon, U.K. / Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Paternoster Press / Zondervan Corporation.

Kistemaker, S 1990. New Testament commentary: Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. Also available HERE (accessed 17 May 2014).

Lenski, R C H 1934. Commentary on the New Testament: The interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers (edition assigned from the 1961 edition by Augsburg Publishing House).

Why do you think that refuted my understanding?

 

[Hammster]

I was replying to your statement:

What's the application of this crucifixion that is planned and predestined to Christians? What's the purpose of the planned, predestined crucifixion?

“I am the good shepherd. I know My own sheep, and they know Me, as the Father knows Me, and I know the Father. I lay down My life for the sheep. But I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock, one shepherd. This is why the Father loves Me, because I am laying down My life so I may take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down on My own. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to take it up again. I have received this command from My Father.” (John 10:14-18 HCSB)

 

[OzSpen]

I have no idea what you are trying to say by this. Do you not believe that God had foreknowledge of the crucifixion?
This is another example of your really saying nothing.

Please take a read of all of these translations of Acts 2:23:

New International Version
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.

English Standard Version
this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

New American Standard Bible
this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

King James Bible
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Though He was delivered up according to God's determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail Him to a cross and kill Him.

International Standard Version
After he was arrested according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified this very man and killed him using the hands of lawless men.

NET Bible
this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“This one, who was separated to him for this, in the foreknowledge and will of God, you have betrayed into the hands of the wicked, and you have crucified and murdered.”

Jubilee Bible 2000
him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain,

King James 2000 Bible
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

American King James Version
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

American Standard Version
him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:

Douay-Rheims Bible
This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain.

Darby Bible Translation
-- him, given up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye, by [the] hand of lawless [men], have crucified and slain.

English Revised Version
him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:
​

The New Living Translation says the same thing but in simpler language:

New Living Translation
But God knew what would happen, and his prearranged plan was carried out when Jesus was betrayed. With the help of lawless Gentiles, you nailed him to a cross and killed him.
​

So all of these translations make it clear that Jesus was delivered over to the Jews and lawless men according to the determined plan AND foreknowledge of God. It cannot be stated more clearly, but this Calvinist has great difficulty in accepting the teaching of Scripture that affirms the foreknowledge of God in understanding the trial and death of Jesus.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

“I am the good shepherd. I know My own sheep, and they know Me, as the Father knows Me, and I know the Father. I lay down My life for the sheep. But I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock, one shepherd. This is why the Father loves Me, because I am laying down My life so I may take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down on My own. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to take it up again. I have received this command from My Father.” (John 10:14-18 HCSB)

That doesn't answer my question, so it is your diversion, which is a red herring logical fallacy.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Not close. While you may use the bible, a lot of your theology is unbiblical.

How come there has not been any refutation? A lot of disagreement, but nothing that qualifies as refutation.

Calvinists have admitted that much of their theology is inferred from passages, with no clearly stated verses to back up what is claimed. Easy defense when there aren't verses that say what is claimed.

I've given many verses that actually say what I believe, and none of it contradicts any other portion of Scripture.

So please don't tell me what's unbiblical.

 

[FreeGrace2]

God's activity and interaction with His creation is one of proactive participation according to scripture. He isn't standing idly by and watching things happen and simply choosing not to prevent it. He is said to be the one who "does" those things which occur.

Then, He "does" sin, as well??? That would be the conclusion of your view.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Originally Posted by Marvin Knox View Post
God's activity and interaction with His creation is one of proactive participation according to scripture. He isn't standing idly by and watching things happen and simply choosing not to prevent it. He is said to be the one who "does" those things which occur.

Amen yes, we are talking of the unsearchableness of His judgments.

So, another who believes that God "does" the sin. Wow.

 

[OzSpen]

Why do you think that refuted my understanding?

I go to all of the effort of showing you the exegesis of Acts 2:23 to demonstrate that you are WRONG in your denial of God's 'foreknowledge' regarding the death of Jesus, and you have the audacity to give me this one liner.

This again demonstrates that you are not serious about giving answers of substance. You have proven to me that I waste my time giving extended responses to you. I wrote 1,054 words to refute your perspective and you come back to me with 8 words. That's a disgrace.

Which of these two sentences from my post at #208 do you not understand? 'So Acts 2:23 involves God's 'set purpose and foreknowledge' but understood from the perspective of God's attributes and actions. I find you to be dodging the issue when you want to exclude God's foreknowledge in relation to Jesus' passion'.

Oz

 

[Hammster]

That doesn't answer my question, so it is your diversion, which is a red herring logical fallacy.

It's not a diversion. It's scripture. It shows the purpose. He died for His sheep. If you disagree with my answer, that's fine. Please show me the correct answer.

 

[Hammster]

I go to all of the effort of showing you the exegesis of Acts 2:23 to demonstrate that you are WRONG in your denial of God's 'foreknowledge' regarding the death of Jesus, and you have the audacity to give me this one liner.

This again demonstrates that you are not serious about giving answers of substance. You have proven to me that I waste my time giving extended responses to you. I wrote 1,054 words to refute your perspective and you come back to me with 8 words. That's a disgrace.

Which of these two sentences from my post at #208 do you not understand? 'So Acts 2:23 involves God's 'set purpose and foreknowledge' but understood from the perspective of God's attributes and actions. I find you to be dodging the issue when you want to exclude God's foreknowledge in relation to Jesus' passion'.

Oz

I haven't denied God's foreknowledge of the crucifixion. I've asserted that His foreknowledge was based on His plan, not because He saw that it would happen.

 

[OzSpen]

I haven't denied God's foreknowledge of the crucifixion. I've asserted that His foreknowledge was based on His plan, not because He saw that it would happen.

From where do you get such a definition of God's foreknowledge?

 

[OzSpen]

You accused me falsely. I'm sorry that it took you that much time to respond. I liked the info in the post, but there was nothing that I disagreed with.

This is how contradictory you can become in your responses. You don't agree with God's foreknowledge regarding the trial and death of Jesus (based on Acts 2:23) and then you now say in my exegetical refutation of your view that 'there was nothing that I disagreed with'.

Don't you understand how contradictory your statements are? (1) You say you don't believe Acts 2;23 teaches about God's foreknowledge of the crucifixion, and (2) I refuted your view by exegesis and now you have the audacity to say, 'there was nothing that I disagreed with'.

Do you know the meaning of contradictory?