Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/19/2002 7:13 AM (GMT -6)

Hi all-

After suggesting to a friend (who holds to simple foreknowledge) that simple foreknowledge is of no providential value to God, my friend suggested that Acts 2.23 (“This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men”) was an example of God making use of such knowledge. He pointed out that “the definite plan and foreknowledge” were governed by one article in Greek suggesting that they be viewed “closely”: God simply “foreknew” the events surrounding Christ’s crucifixion and made use of this to bring about his “definite plan.”

The nouns "the plan and foreknowledge..." are simple datives and could be understood as "according to" the plan and foreknowledge or "by means of" the plan and foreknowledge.

Comments?

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/19/2002 8:05 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Acts 2.23 (“This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men”)

There are two things going on in this passage, for sure. Two things; besides whether one want to use this verse to open up the particular field of discussion your friend is opening.

BOTH the fact that the Jerusalem crowd (Jews and Romans--just as both of these were represented in the garden) AND the fact that Jesus was his own to either deliver himself to death or not to deliver him self to death (remember what he told his judge) are true. Both of these (at least in the English translation you provide) have their own verb sets: With respect to the economy of salvation, "Jesus (was) delivered up according to ... (the) definite plan ... of God"; but is of the accusing crowd that it is said of their own actions -- where they condemned not Him but themselves in rejecting the true Pascal Lamb -- "you crucified and killed ... (this Jesus)."

That's the way I'm looking at it. The "predestined" part is with respect (And I'm not limiting it to this aspect--but neither am I going to try and twist the text to say anything preconceived that one might bring to it!) to God's plan for salvation; elsewhere called His "divine purpose."

If one wants to, this allows for lots of human freedom, individually and collectively.

I suppose that with respect to the collective of Jerusalem rejecting the Lord of All, and killing God -- the ultimate -- that is something that they grew closer and closer to. And with respect to Mary conceiving God in her womb, that is also something where the time for it became full. Personally, I think the time of Christ was more connected to the ripening of this promise than to how bad humanity could be -- Noah's and Lot's times were pretty bad.

So, I think that the definite, carefully foreknown plan of God describes the economy of salvation, and not the act of a particular crowd.

You friend doesn't have anything. (Call him, and raise him fifty.)

Edited by - (o) on 07/19/2002 1:09:20 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 7/19/2002 11:39 PM (GMT -6)

Yo Tom,

First, it doesn't seem to me that your friend believes in SIMPLE foreknowledge. It rather seems that your friend holds to Middle Knowledge, for (it seems) God is here responding to what he knows agents WOULD do in such and such circumstances. Simple foreknowledge just holds that God knows what WILL happen.

Second, I'm with "o" in saying that the text certainly has the event of the crucifixion connected to God's foreknowledge. This is why I conclude that the crucifixion was predestined and foreknown as a certainty, perhaps from the foundation of the world. But it DOESN'T connect God's foreknowledge to WHICH INDIVIDUALS would crucify Christ. (So with Ac 4:28).

What do you think?

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/20/2002 3:49 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks Doc and (0)-

Here’s a comment of John Sanders’:

quote:
Acts 2.23 says that Jesus was handed over to the Jewish leadership according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God. This verse is commonly taken to refer to the “paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility.” There is no paradox here, however. It was God's definite purpose (horismene boule, a boundary-setting will) to deliver the Son into the hands of those who had a long track record of resisting God's work. Their rejection did not catch God off guard, however, for he anticipated their response and so walked onto the scene with an excellent prognosis (foreknowledge, prognosei) of what would happen. The crucifixion could not have occurred to Jesus unless somehow it fit into the boundaries of what God willed (boule, Acts 2.23; 4.28). But this does not mean that humans cannot resist the divine will. Luke says that the Jewish leaders 'rejected God's purpose (boulen) for themselves' (Lk 7.30). God sovereignly established the limits within which humans decide how they will respond to God. In the sense God determined that the Son would suffer and die and sent him into a setting in which that result, given the history and character of the covenant people, was quite assured.

What I passed on to my friend was:

quote:
I really don’t see that Acts 2.23 cannot be understood within the open view. All the passage essentially affirms is that God foreknows what he purposes to do. He purposed to save humanity, so he obviously foreknew he would save humanity. Now, the fact that human free choices were involved in bringing this about doesn't refute the open view. God can know what agents will choose if the certainty of their choices proceeds from a will sufficiently solidified over time by their own free will. So, all God’s “purpose” and “foreknowledge” in Acts 2.23 need require is that God know that there were enough evil people in Israel who had made themselves the sort of people who would certainly crucify a person like Christ if he was sent to them.

Sanders quotes Jack Cottrell on Acts 2.23 also:

quote:
…it is by this means [viz., timeless foreknowledge] that God can allow man to be truly free in his choices, even free to resist his own special influences, and at the same time work out his own purposes infallibly. For if God foreknows all the choices that every person will make, he can make his own plans accordingly, fitting his purposes around these foreknown decisions and actions…. Acts 2.23 is a perfect illustration of the way God works through his foreknowledge….On the one hand, God had predetermined that Jesus would die as a propitiation for the sins of the world; this was his own unconditional plan for saving the world. On the other hand, the details of how this would be accomplished were planned in relation to God’s foreknowledge of the historical situation and of the choices of men such as Judas.

Sanders immediately proceeds to make mincemeat of this. If God possesses timeless knowledge of past, present, and future, he possesses it in one timeless sweep and (as Doc points out elsewhere) doesn’t acquire this knowledge in sequence or in stages. So it’s simply not possible for such knowledge to be both “derived from the events themselves” and “the basis for God’s actions in those events,” for the foreknown events are themselves the result of divine-human interaction. They cannot then provide God a basis upon which to determine his actions.

This is all familiar to you guys and crystal clear to me I’m just frustrated. For example, my friend ended up his note to me with this comment:

quote:
Logic says that if God knows people’s free choices beforehand they are not free. Acts 2:23 shows that God knew people's free choices and they were free. Choose Scripture. Logic says that God cannot use foreknowledge to intervene in history. Acts 2:23 shows that God knew the actions of people beforehand to accomplish His purpose in history. Choose Scripture.

What d’ya say? When someone affirms what they admit to be self-contradictory, it kinda brings dialogue to an end doesn’t it?

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

GODesteem
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34

Posted 7/20/2002 12:25 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Tom! I need some clarification on a few things you stated (including a quote from your friend). First off, you wrote:

"God can know what agents will choose if the certainty of their choices proceeds from a will sufficiently solidified over time by their own free will. So, all God’s “purpose” and “foreknowledge” in Acts 2.23 need require is that God know that there were enough evil people in Israel who had made themselves the sort of people who would certainly crucify a person like Christ if he was sent to them."

Benjamin:

What has constantly puzzled me is how a person persuaded by Open Theism can speak of the "certainty" of a "free" choice in the same sentence! You really should either (1) redefine what certainty means, or (2) use "probable" instead of "certain" (and its derivatives). It does not matter how many past decisions God has knowledge of, according to Open Theism's basic premise, a person cannot make a free choice if God knows WITH CERTAINTY what they will do. God knows all of the possibilities, but He never can speak with absolute certainty about any future action of a free agent, otherwise that free agent is then obligated to perform what God said (and/or knew)he or she would do. In other words, they cannot act in any manner different from what God "predicted." Please clarify my apparent misunderstanding of the Open View (with Scriptures if possible).

Secondly, something was also written which may actually sort out my confusion as explained above. You quoted your friend as saying:

"Logic says that if God knows people’s free choices beforehand they are not free. Acts 2:23 shows that God knew people's free choices and they were free. Choose Scripture. Logic says that God cannot use foreknowledge to intervene in history. Acts 2:23 shows that God knew the actions of people beforehand to accomplish His purpose in history. Choose Scripture."

The problem as I see it is in the definition of "free." Your friend obviously holds to libertarian free will. Can I simply ask how you define what it means for a person to make a "free" choice? I will save my discussion of this amazing passage for the future (if God wills, of course) :c)

God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure!

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 7/20/2002 8:18 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
What has constantly puzzled me is how a person persuaded by Open Theism can speak of the "certainty" of a "free" choice in the same sentence!

Hi Ben! Good to hear your voice. About God's foreknowing free choices, I believe open theists have all from the get-go pointed out that God can foreknow a free choice as certain IF the certainty comes from the will of the person making the choice. The only case in which a morally responsible choice can be foreknown with certainty is if the person has over time misused their libertarian free will and chosen themselves into compatibilistic ways of behaving. For example, invite a hardened alcoholic to have a drink (especially after she's gone a day without one). Will she accept the drink? Yes. Certainly? I'd say so, yes. You can bank on it. Is she responsible? Yes, because she chose her way into this addiction with now has her will captive. What would be impossible is to ETERNALLY foreknow this choice to have a drink.

quote:
Secondly, something was also written which may actually sort out my confusion as explained above. You quoted your friend as saying: "Logic says that if God knows people’s free choices beforehand they are not free. Acts 2:23 shows that God knew people's free choices and they were free. Choose Scripture. Logic says that God cannot use foreknowledge to intervene in history. Acts 2:23 shows that God knew the actions of people beforehand to accomplish His purpose in history. Choose Scripture." The problem as I see it is in the definition of "free." Your friend obviously holds to libertarian free will. Can I simply ask how you define what it means for a person to make a "free" choice?

You'd think my friend holds to libertarian freedom. I need to check on that. He didn't used to. But it's a good point. If he believes in compatibilistic free will, then there IS no contradiction to affirm. People who affirm compatibilistic free will do so to avoid the contradiction my friend thinks we ought to affirm. I'll check on my friend's view. I, however, as you know, affirm libertarian free will.

God bless you Ben (if he wills!),
Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

timlings
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130

Posted 7/21/2002 9:51 AM (GMT -6)

I think John Sanders is onto a winner here...

quote:
It was God's definite purpose (horismene boule, a boundary-setting will) to deliver the Son into the hands of those who had a long track record of resisting God's work. Their rejection did not catch God off guard, however, for he anticipated their response and so walked onto the scene with an excellent prognosis (foreknowledge, prognosei) of what would happen.

It was God's plan that Jesus should die for the sins of the world. But God didn't kill his Son - lawless men did. But even in their rebellion and sin, God used their actions to accomplish his own purposes.

And if you notice, God's plan and definite foreknowledge was to have Jesus 'delivered up'. He gave up Jesus to let him die. If you go by the track record, God knew that if he sent his Son to earth, he would get killed by his people. They did it to God's prophets after all. Most of Jesus's life, nobody could lay a hand on him, as noone could take Jesus's life off of him: he had to lay it down freely. And when he did, it was as innevitable as throwing a defenceless animal into a pack of ravenous wolves. After all, Satan was never going to pass up the opportunity of getting the Messiah killed! As what TGB was saying about an alcoholic - you can still know a certainty with people exercising freedom. You can also predict what a group of people will do without knowing which specific individuals will take part.

Hope this makes sense and is helpful.

Love

Tim

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/21/2002 2:22 PM (GMT -6)

Nice, Tim.

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:17 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual