Why do Arminians...

[FreeGrace2]

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

No, that's not according to me, so please don't try to put false words in my mouth.

Since God knows what will happen when men make free choices, He also can plan for events and circumstances that prevent or limit these free choices.

Omniscience includes not only the actual, but every kind of possibility or potential. In that way, He either permits what will happen or influences circumstances so that they won't happen.

Do you agree or disagree that God knows the result of any and every possible choice facing every human being in history, such that He knows how each and every choice from each and every person will effect the rest of history?

 

[Hammster]

No, that's not according to me, so please don't try to put false words in my mouth.

Since God knows what will happen when men make free choices, He also can plan for events and circumstances that prevent or limit these free choices.

Omniscience includes not only the actual, but every kind of possibility or potential. In that way, He either permits what will happen or influences circumstances so that they won't happen.

Do you agree or disagree that God knows the result of any and every possible choice facing every human being in history, such that He knows how each and every choice from each and every person will effect the rest of history?

Sure. Do you are with scripture that God planned the crucifixion?

 

[EmSw]

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

Did Peter have God's book before him?

So, if God had to plan the crucifixion, He must not have known about it, but, had to have instructions for it to happen.

You have just voided His omniscience. In other words, when God was planning the crucifixion, didn't He already know how it would occur? Didn't He already know who would be involved, who would be the judge, what year it would occur, who would drive the nails into Jesus' hands and feet, where the crucifixion would take place, and so forth?

 

[Hammster]

Did Peter have God's book before him?

So, if God had to plan the crucifixion, He must not have known about it, but, had to have instructions for it to happen.

You have just voided His omniscience.

What? That makes no sense. It seems as if you were saying that creation just popped up one day, and right in the middle of it was the cross, but God knew it would happen, even though He had no control over it.

 

[EmSw]

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

Why plan anything when everything has already happened before Him?

God does have a plan for man's salvation, and it runs all throughout the Bible, but, this plan is contingent upon man. Either man follows the plan laid out by God, or he doesn't.

 

[EmSw]

What? That makes no sense. It seems as if you were saying that creation just popped up one day, and right in the middle of it was the cross, but God knew it would happen, even though He had no control over it.

Did God know from eternity past know the crucifixion would happen, or did He not? If He did know the crucifixion would happen, did He also know how, when, and where it would happen also?

It seems you think God lives in the past, present, and future as man does. All things are before Him, past, present, and future.

 

[Hammster]

Why plan anything when everything has already happened before Him?

God does have a plan for man's salvation, and it runs all throughout the Bible, but, this plan is contingent upon man. Either man follows the plan laid out by God, or he doesn't.

I thought you said God couldn't plan?

 

[Hammster]

Did God know from eternity past know the crucifixion would happen, or did He not? If He did know the crucifixion would happen, did He also know how, when, and where it would happen also?

It seems you think God lives in the past, present, and future as man does. All things are before Him, past, present, and future.

Was the crucifixion God's idea? Did He want it to happen?

 

[stan1953]

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

The point is he did NOT plan it. He FOREKNEW what would happen as a result of giving His ONLY begotten son to the world. As a perfect and obedient son, Jesus did exactly what His father wanted and the results of His obedience are recorded for history. Hence the reason we must obey in order for God's plan to have it's perfect fruition in our lives.
However we digress, which I'm sure was the purpose of your comments.

 

[Hammster]

The point is he did NOT plan it. He FOREKNEW what would happen as a result of giving His ONLY begotten son to the world. As a perfect and obedient son, Jesus did exactly what His father wanted and the results of His obedience are recorded for history. Hence the reason we must obey in order for God's plan to have it's perfect fruition in our lives.
However we digress, which I'm sure was the purpose of your comments.

So the cross was just an unfortunate byproduct of Jesus' obedience? If He'd have lived to a ripe old age, we'd still be good to go?

 

[EmSw]

I thought you said God couldn't plan?

You are using the verb form, while I used the noun form. Don't confuse them.

Let me ask you, when God was planning the crucifixion (as you say), did He already know how it would happen?

 

[EmSw]

Was the crucifixion God's idea? Did He want it to happen?

This doesn't answer my questions to you. Let's try again.

Did God, from eternity past, know the crucifixion would happen, or did He not? If He did know the crucifixion would happen, did He also know how, when, and where it would happen?

 

[OzSpen]

Why do you think I disagree with this?

I'm not a mind reader, so why you do it is up to you to tell us.

But this I know: You sure know how to construct a straw man logical fallacy with your interpretation of Acts 2:23.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person (The Nizkor Project).

​

You do not want Acts 2:23 to mean the foreknowledge of the crucifixion when its direct words are 'the foreknowledge of God'. But what does the verse state?

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.
​

What is included in God's 'predetermined plan and foreknowledge'?

1. This Man, Jesus, was 'delivered over';
2. He was 'nailed to a cross';
3. He was placed on the cross 'by the hands of godless men',
   
4. 'and put to death'.

This is referring to Jesus' trial (delivered over) and crucifixion (nailed to a cross; put to death). The foreknowledge of God, according to Acts 2:23, was God's foreknowledge of Jesus' trial and crucifixion.

So you have created a straw man fallacy in your refusal to see that 'the foreknowledge of God' refers to God's foreknowledge of the crucifixion and what would happen there.

When you engage in the use of this logical fallacy in creating your distorted view of what Acts 2:23 states, we cannot have a logical conversation.

But the buck stops with you. You can quit your use of this logical fallacy in regard to Acts 2:23, or you can continue with this fallacious reasoning. If you do the latter, logical reasoning with you comes to a halt.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Brother in Christ, nobdysfool,

You are agreeing with Hammster's straw man logical fallacy regarding Acts 2:23. Your claim was that this Scripture did not say 'the foreknowledge of the crucifixion' but 'foreknowledge of God'.

But what was the 'foreknowledge of God' about? Let's check Acts 2:23 again to make sure we know the subject matter:

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.​

So what is included in 'the foreknowledge of God' according to Acts 2:23?

1. This Man, Jesus, was 'delivered over';
2. He was 'nailed to a cross';
3. He was placed on the cross 'by the hands of godless men',
   
4. 'and put to death'.

Even a novice to Scripture could see that this foreknowledge was referring to being put to death by being nailed to a cross. How does that happen? Through crucifixion. So your supporting Hammster's false view of the content of Acts 2:23 means that you are committing this fallacy:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position....

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person (The Nizkor Project).
​

Thus, your kind of reasoning is flawed and we cannot have a reasonable, Christian conversation when you violate one of the fundamentals of a logical discussion.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with 'the rush to refute the Calvinist', but from my perspective, I've spent a lot of time on the exegesis of this passage to demonstrate that Hammster's exegesis is faulty. Your making this discussion represent a 'piling on' is another false representation.

You claim that someone was wanting to make God's foreknowledge of the crucifixion something other than God's foreknowledge in general. You have zoomed right past the content of Acts 2:23 with that kind of statement. The facts are that this verse refers to God's foreknowledge about a special action - Jesus' death by crucifixion on a cross.

Thanks for affirming that 'It could be argued that the foreknowledge of God would include the crucifixion, and that would be totally consistent and fine'.

It is not only that IT COULD BE ARGUED but that IT IS ARGUED in Acts 2:23 that God's foreknowledge included His foreknowledge of Jesus' death on the cross.

In Christ,
Oz

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?

 

[nobdysfool]

A perfect example of a thread derail attempt, to wrangle over nit-picky details because some were caught taking to task another because they misunderstood what he said, because they will jump at any opportunity to make a Calvinist look bad, and to smear Calvinist theology by the employment of the very method being used to derail the thread. There have been so many straw man fallacies employed in this foolhardy mission to destroy Calvinism, that straw is at a premium. and before someone asks for proof, and/or examples, use Oz's definition (which is actually very good), and judge previous posts in this and other threads by that standard.

And just for the record, Hammster did not use a straw man fallacy, his original statement/question was misunderstood, and what followed after was based on that misunderstanding.

 

[sdowney717]

The point is he did NOT plan it. He FOREKNEW what would happen as a result of giving His ONLY begotten son to the world. As a perfect and obedient son, Jesus did exactly what His father wanted and the results of His obedience are recorded for history. Hence the reason we must obey in order for God's plan to have it's perfect fruition in our lives.
However we digress, which I'm sure was the purpose of your comments.

Oh yes this was the plan of God to send Jesus to the cross, it is the reason He was sent by the Father.
Acts 4

27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

v28 clearly shows that.

 

[OzSpen]

Brother,

This is a false accusation against me in what I wrote at #261. Please deal with the content of what I wrote instead of giving this kind of red herring logical fallacy where you want to change the topic and accuse me of 'a thread derail attempt'.

Why are you repeating this falsehood against me: 'they will jump at any opportunity to make a Calvinist look bad'. Anyone who refuses to deal accurately with the content of Scripture should be taken to task, whether that is you or me.

As for, ' There have been so many straw man fallacies employed in this foolhardy mission to destroy Calvinism', this is a hasty generalisation fallacy because it generalises about something for which I made only a specific call.

It is you who is derailing this thread by this kind of comment, when you fail to deal with the specifics of what I wrote to you in #261.

Oz

A perfect example of a thread derail attempt, to wrangle over nit-picky details because some were caught taking to task another because they misunderstood what he said, because they will jump at any opportunity to make a Calvinist look bad, and to smear Calvinist theology by the employment of the very method being used to derail the thread. There have been so many straw man fallacies employed in this foolhardy mission to destroy Calvinism, that straw is at a premium. and before someone asks for proof, and/or examples, use Oz's definition (which is actually very good), and judge previous posts in this and other threads by that standard.

And just for the record, Hammster did not use a straw man fallacy, his original statement/question was misunderstood, and what followed after was based on that misunderstanding.

 

[sdowney717]

Matt 24

6 He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee,

7 saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’”

What Jesus said beforehand must take place.
And Jesus rebuked Peter when Jesus was saying he was going to die in Jerusalem. To say that Christ was not crucified by the plan of the Trinity is to take the side of Satan.
I don't understand why this very basic teaching is even in contention.

Matt 16

Jesus Predicts His Death and Resurrection

21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.

22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”

23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

 

[OzSpen]

The point is he did NOT plan it. He FOREKNEW what would happen as a result of giving His ONLY begotten son to the world. As a perfect and obedient son, Jesus did exactly what His father wanted and the results of His obedience are recorded for history. Hence the reason we must obey in order for God's plan to have it's perfect fruition in our lives.
However we digress, which I'm sure was the purpose of your comments.

You say that God did NOT plan it but FOREKNEW it. That's not what 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 (NASB).
​

The exegesis of this passage demonstrates that Jesus' crucifixion (nailed to a cross and death pursued) was:

1. By the predetermined plan of God, and
2. By the foreknowledge of God.

It is incorrect to say that God did NOT plan it. Acts 2:23 corrects such a view.


Oz

 

[stan1953]

You say that God did NOT plan it but FOREKNEW it. That's not what 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 (NASB).
​

The exegesis of this passage demonstrates that Jesus' crucifixion (nailed to a cross and death pursued) was:

1. By the predetermined plan of God, and
2. By the foreknowledge of God.

It is incorrect to say that God did NOT plan it. Acts 2:23 corrects such a view.

Oz

Basically because God's plan is precipitated on His foreknowledge. This order is consistent in the NT. Foreknowledge always is first in how God makes His contingencies if you will. Of course contingency or most other words fall far short of what goes into God's plan, but I word it as best I can. As the Bible teaches, prophecy is a form of foreknowledge so in that sense Christ fulfilled everything that was prophesied about Him, or what God KNEW would happen beforehand.