Why do Arminians...

[Hammster]

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

I didn't give a definition. But it's obvious that He didn't have foreknowledge of the crucifixion because He saw it would happen. If that were so, then Peter couldn't have said that He planned it.

 

[Hammster]

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?

Where are tees false accusations coming from, Spencer? I never said that I disagreed with God's foreknowledge regarding the trial and death of Jesus.

 

[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.

What did you say at #205?

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

Talk about confusing in the language you use! So God has a 'predetermined plan' for Jesus' crucifixion according to to Acts 2:23, but that does not involve God's 'foreknowledge of the crucifixion' in your understanding?

That's not what Acts 2:23 states (and what my exegesis of this verse demonstrated) in the 1,054 words I provided to refute your perspective. This is what this verse states:

Parallel Verses
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.

​

It is you who is out of step with the Bible and exegesis of Acts 2:23. Every one of those committee translations demonstrate that the translation is parallel to Jesus being handed over for crucifixion by the 'predetermined plan AND foreknowledge of God'.

I will not be demonstrating this again to you. The Scripture is clear. It is Hammster who is incorrect and Simon Kistemaker and R C H Lenski have demonstrated that it is you who is in the wrong. When will you get the message and accept what the Bible states on this verse?

Oz

 

[Hammster]

What did you say at #205?
Talk about confusing in the language you use! So God has a 'predetermined plan' for Jesus' crucifixion according to to Acts 2:23, but that does not involve God's 'foreknowledge of the crucifixion' in your understanding?

That's not what Acts 2:23 states (and what my exegesis of this verse demonstrated) in the 1,054 words I provided to refute your perspective. This is what this verse states:

Parallel Verses
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.

​

It is you who is out of step with the Bible and exegesis of Acts 2:23. Every one of those committee translations demonstrate that the translation is parallel to Jesus being handed over for crucifixion by the 'predetermined plan AND foreknowledge of God'.

I will not be demonstrating this again to you. The Scripture is clear. It is Hammster who is incorrect and Simon Kistemaker and R C H Lenski have demonstrated that it is you who is in the wrong. When will you get the message and accept what the Bible states on this verse?

Oz

I've clarified my statement at least twice. You even responded to one. So I don't know what you are trying to gain here.

 

[OzSpen]

I didn't give a definition. But it's obvious that He didn't have foreknowledge of the crucifixion because He saw it would happen. If that were so, then Peter couldn't have said that He planned it.

Of course you didn't give a definition of foreknowledge. If you had, it would have refuted your view as I demonstrated in my exegesis of Acts 2:23.

It's time that you woke up to what Acts 2:23 actually says in black and white:

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.

Do you get it? At his crucifixion, Jesus was delivered up according to the 'predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God'.

What is the meaning of those last 6 words that include 'predetermined plan' AND 'foreknowledge of God'.

It is you who is clearly wrong here when your view won't agree with Scripture. But you are the one accusing another poster by being unbiblical. How about applying this unbiblical label to yourself?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I've clarified my statement at least twice. You even responded to one. So I don't know what you are trying to gain here.

Don't you get it? Clarifying your statement simply clarifies that you got it wrong. You cannot admit what Acts 2:23 says in black and white. The clarity of Scripture just zooms past you: predetermined plan AND foreknowledge of God according to Acts 2:23.

 

[Hammster]

Don't you get it? Clarifying your statement simply clarifies that you got it wrong. You cannot admit what Acts 2:23 says in black and white. The clarity of Scripture just zooms past you: predetermined plan AND foreknowledge of God according to Acts 2:23.

Why do you think I disagree with this?

 

[nobdysfool]

Seems to me from reading back through the thread that several have totally missed what Hammster said, and what he meant by what he said. So, the rush to refute the Calvinist. Piling on, no less.

His point was that the Scripture did not say "the foreknowledge of the crucifixion", it says "the foreknowledge of God". It could be argued that the foreknowledge of God would include the crucifixion, and that would be totally consistent and fine. The point was, that someone was trying to make God's foreknowledge of the crucifixion, something other than His foreknowledge in general. Something "special". The scripture plainly states that the crucifixion was according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, meaning that He intended it, He planned it, and He made sure it happened. And it happened exactly as He intended, planned, and foreknew. Anyone want to argue with that?

 

[EmSw]

Seems to me from reading back through the thread that several have totally missed what Hammster said, and what he meant by what he said. So, the rush to refute the Calvinist. Piling on, no less.

His point was that the Scripture did not say "the foreknowledge of the crucifixion", it says "the foreknowledge of God". It could be argued that the foreknowledge of God would include the crucifixion, and that would be totally consistent and fine. The point was, that someone was trying to make God's foreknowledge of the crucifixion, something other than His foreknowledge in general. Something "special". The scripture plainly states that the crucifixion was according to the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, meaning that He intended it, He planned it, and He made sure it happened. And it happened exactly as He intended, planned, and foreknew. Anyone want to argue with that?

It seems to me if God had to plan anything, then He is not omniscient. If He had to plan the crucifixion, then He didn't know about the crucifixion until He planned it. If He knew from eternity about the crucifixion, then there is no need to plan it, for it has already happened before Him.

An example would be seeing before you the home in which you already live. Why would you make plans for the home when it is already built?

God's foreknowledge doesn't mean He has to cause circumstances in order to make a thing or event to happen. It has already happened before God. He has always known how an event would unfold or a person will react. No need to make plans to bring it about.

 

[sdowney717]

God foreknowing is deeper than just knowing what will happen in the future.
Since all things are for, to and through Him, He is orchestrating all things to conform to the purpose of His will, and with a definitive, determinative, destination and outcome.

Like God says to Jeremiah,

The Prophet Is Called

4 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying:

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

He does interact with His creation, look at what Micaiah the son of Imla who Ahab hates says,

18 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right hand and His left.

19 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab king of Israel to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner.

20 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ 21 So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’

And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him and also prevail; go out and do so.’

22 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”

And when the angels are interceding for Israel what does God tell them?

12 Then the Angel of the Lord answered and said, “O Lord of hosts, how long will You not have mercy on Jerusalem and on the cities of Judah, against which You were angry these seventy years?”

13 And the Lord answered the angel who talked to me, with good and comforting words. 14 So the angel who spoke with me said to me, “Proclaim, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts:

“I am zealous for Jerusalem
And for Zion with great zeal.
15 I am exceedingly angry with the nations at ease;
For I was a little angry,
And they helped—but with evil intent.”
16 ‘Therefore thus says the Lord:

“I am returning to Jerusalem with mercy;
My house shall be built in it,” says the Lord of hosts,
“And a surveyor’s line shall be stretched out over Jerusalem.”’
17 “Again proclaim, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts:

“My cities shall again spread out through prosperity;
The Lord will again comfort Zion,
And will again choose Jerusalem.”’”

 

[Hammster]

It seems to me if God had to plan anything, then He is not omniscient. If He had to plan the crucifixion, then He didn't know about the crucifixion until He planned it. If He knew from eternity about the crucifixion, then there is no need to plan it, for it has already happened before Him.

An example would be seeing before you the home in which you already live. Why would you make plans for the home when it is already built?

God's foreknowledge doesn't mean He has to cause circumstances in order to make a thing or event to happen. It has already happened before God. He has always known how an event would unfold or a person will react. No need to make plans to bring it about.

So Peter was wrong when He said that God planned and predestined the crucifixion?

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

Wrong. Jesus SAID He died for THE sheep, in a context where He also indicated there were HIS sheep, OTHER sheep of HIS, and those NOT OF MY sheep. Nothing about goats in that context of who He would die for.

The sheep, not SOME sheep.

iow, He died for all. Not just some, as Calvinism wrongly claims.

 

[Hammster]

Wrong. Jesus SAID He died for THE sheep, in a context where He also indicated there were HIS sheep, OTHER sheep of HIS, and those NOT OF MY sheep. Nothing about goats in that context of who He would die for.

The sheep, not SOME sheep.

iow, He died for all. Not just some, as Calvinism wrongly claims.

Non sequitur.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

This statement affirms my claim that Calvinism sees God's omniscience as subservient to His sovereignty.

iow, the ONLY reason He foreknows anything is because He planned for it.

That eliminates the reality of omniscience, because omniscience is not subservient to His sovereignty, but co-equal to it.

 

[Hammster]

This statement affirms my claim that Calvinism sees God's omniscience as subservient to His sovereignty.

iow, the ONLY reason He foreknows anything is because He planned for it.

That eliminates the reality of omniscience, because omniscience is not subservient to His sovereignty, but co-equal to it.

If it's not subservient, then God can't plan anything.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It seems to me if God had to plan anything, then He is not omniscient. If He had to plan the crucifixion, then He didn't know about the crucifixion until He planned it. If He knew from eternity about the crucifixion, then there is no need to plan it, for it has already happened before Him.

An example would be seeing before you the home in which you already live. Why would you make plans for the home when it is already built?

God's foreknowledge doesn't mean He has to cause circumstances in order to make a thing or event to happen. It has already happened before God. He has always known how an event would unfold or a person will react. No need to make plans to bring it about.

You've made an excellent point about God's omniscience. Following Calvinist thought, the ONLY reason God knows all that will occur is because He planned for it to occur, from His sovereignty.

They fail to understand that God's omniscience is co-equal to His sovereignty, not subservient to it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Non sequitur.

A typical response when a proper defense is not possible. These one-liners are quite transparent.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If it's not subservient, then God can't plan anything.

Just proves that your understanding of omniscience misses the mark completely. And explains a lot about reformed theology.

God can plan anything He wants, while still being omniscient of everything.

And His omniscience is not dependent upon His sovereignty.

If it were, then let's just quit talking about "omniscience", since it really is only His sovereignty that plans, which is why He knows. Is that fair?

 

[Hammster]

A typical response when a proper defense is not possible. These one-liners are quite transparent.

Your post had nothing to do with the reason for response to Oz. Hence, a non sequitur.

 

[Hammster]

Just proves that your understanding of omniscience misses the mark completely. And explains a lot about reformed theology.

God can plan anything He wants, while still being omniscient of everything.

And His omniscience is not dependent upon His sovereignty.

If it were, then let's just quit talking about "omniscience", since it really is only His sovereignty that plans, which is why He knows. Is that fair?

According to you, He cannot plan anything because He already knows what's going to happen.