We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded by your direct support for ReKnew and our vision. Please consider supporting this project.

How do you respond to Acts 2:23 and 4:28?

Question: Acts 2:23 and 4:28 tell us that wicked people crucified Jesus just as God predestined them to do. If this wicked act could be predestined, why couldn’t every other wicked act be predestined? Doesn’t this refute your theory that human acts can’t be free if they are either predestined or foreknown?

Answer: In Acts 2 Luke records Peter saying that Jesus was handed over “by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge” and that he was put to death by “wicked men” (Acts 2:23). In Acts 4 it is said that Herod and Pilate did what God’s “power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” (Acts 4:27-28). Does this mean that these people were predestined to carry out the wicked actions they engaged in? I don’t believe it does.

Both texts speak of the event of the crucifixion being preordained and foreknown. But neither speak of Herod or Pilate being preordained or foreknown to carry out this event. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the crucifixion was presettled in God’s plan (whether it was from before the creation of the world or at some point in history can be debated). But it does not seem reasonable to accept the very paradoxical view that God predestines people to do wicked things, and yet holds them responsible for doing them.

Some might object that you cannot have a preordained event without preordaining who will carry out this event. The end cannot be certain while the means to the end remain uncertain, they argue.

The argument doesn’t follow, however. There is no logical problem created by conceiving of an omni-competent God deciding ahead of time that such and such an event will transpire, but leaving undecided the exact means (and also perhaps the exact time) by which the event will transpire. When “the fullness of time” had come (Gal. 4:4, cf. Mk 1:15)—when God saw that the conditions were just right—God decided to fulfill previous promises about a coming Messiah by sending his Son into the world. The time was “ripe,” as it were, for all the variables to be brought together by the wisdom of God to accomplish all that needed to be accomplished. Without pre-settling who exactly would do it, God knew that if Jesus came into the world under these conditions, he would get crucified.

Remember also that Satan’s regime was behind the crucifixion (1 Cor. 2:8). So all God would need to know is that Satan would stupidly see the Incarnation as an opportunity to kill the Son of God and that there were a sufficient number of people who, by their own choices, had made themselves susceptible to Satan’s influence.

In any event, affirming that the Romans and the Jews wickedly crucified Jesus according to “God’s set purpose and foreknowledge” (Acts 2:23) does not require that we accept that God predestines wicked acts.

Category:
Tags: ,
Topics:
Verse: ,

Related Reading

What is the significance of Jeremiah 18:7–11?

The Lord states that “if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.” But if a nation which he has declared he will bless “does evil in my sight…I will change my mind about the good that…

Topics:

Who Rules Governments? God or Satan? Part 1

Running throughout Scripture is the motif that depicts God as the ultimate ruler of the nations. On the other hand, the NT teaches that the ruler of nations is Satan. What do we do with these two apparently conflicting motifs? First, because OT authors tended to understand the creation along the lines of a king-centered…

Reasons God Does Not Control Everything

First, the belief that God is all-powerful does not mean that God exercises all power. It only means that God is the ultimate source of all power. Fallen people may value the ability to control others and project this attribute onto God (Matthew 20:25-28). But the cross breaks all of our fallen assumptions about what…

Process Theology & Open Theism: What’s the Difference?

Question: When ReKnew talks about Open Theism is it a mistake for people to equate it with Process theology, and if so what are the defining differences? I guess I am starting to lean toward Dr. Boyd’s thoughts for all things theologically egg-heady, so I thought I would ask the question. Your ministry has been freeing…

Do you believe God is pure actuality?

The basis of the classical view of God as pure actuality (actus purus) is the Aristotelian notion that potentiality is always potential for change and that something changes only because is lacks something else. So, a perfect being who lacks nothing must be devoid of potentiality, which means it must be pure actuality. I think…

Greg on the Open View of the Future

Greg was featured today on the Pangea blog. (Thanks Kurt!) The blog references a series of lectures Greg presented at the Open Theology and Science Conference at Azusa Pacific University, April 11, 2008 entitled “A Flexible Sovereignty: A Biblical Understanding of Providence and the Nature of the Future” . If you’re looking for a comprehensive video series on…