We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
How do you respond to Acts 2:23?
Peter preaches to the crowd on the day of Pentecost, “[T]his man [Jesus], handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law.”
Jesus’ death was certainly planned and foreknown by God, as the previously discussed verses have repeatedly demonstrated. While the verse specifies that the “handing over” was part of God’s “definite plan,” it does not teach that any particular individual who participated in this event was determined or foreknown by God. God may predestine and/or foreknow an event which he plans to accomplish without predestining and/or foreknowing which individuals will carry out this event. He would simply have to know that “at the right time” there would be people, including several key religious and political figures, who would under the right conditions act this way toward his Son.
Some people have a difficult time fathoming how a group event could be predicted without predicting exactly which individuals will participate in it. But consider that despite their limited knowledge, advertisers, insurance agents and sociologists routinely predict group behavior with remarkable accuracy while being completely incapable of predicting individual behavior. One can, for example, quite accurately predict the percentage of drivers within a given age group who will get involved in a car accident within the next year. But one cannot predict which individuals will comprise this group. Group behavior is very predictable and consistent. Individual behavior is generally less predictable and often deviates from previous patterns.
Why then should we consider God’s ability to predestine and foreknow an event, while not predestining or foreknowing which individuals will carry out this event, to be a difficult matter for him? I submit that an omniscient Creator who eternally knows all possibilities, who sovereignly influences all things, and who perfectly knows each human’s heart, would have no trouble whatsoever accomplishing this.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism, Responding to Objections
Verse: Acts 2
Related Reading
Open2013
As I’m sure many of you know, the understanding of the Christian faith and the model of the Christian church is in the process of being transformed. All around the globe, and in a multitude of different ways, we are seeing new wine being poured out and old wine skins bursting apart. Many of us…
The Incarnation: More Than a Rescue Mission
A mistake people often make concerning the Incarnation is that they fail to distinguish the eternal plan of God to unite himself with humanity in Christ, on the one hand, from the atoning significance this plan acquired after the fall, on the other. Some therefore think of the Incarnation as a sort of “Plan B”…
How do you respond to Isaiah 53:9?
Speaking of the suffering servant Isaiah says, “[T]hey made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich…” As with most evangelical exegetes, I believe that Isaiah 53 constitutes a beautiful and stunning prophetic look at the person of Jesus Christ. The most impressive feature of this prophecy is that the suffering servant…
What is the significance of Genesis 22:12 ?
Abraham passed God’s “test” (vs. 1) by being willing to sacrifice his son. The Lord says “…now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son…” If the classical understanding of foreknowledge is true, God’s statement “now I know” seems disingenuous. The meaning of God’s explanation for this knowledge — “since…
Greg’s Interview on The Christian Transhumanist Podcast
Here is an interview I did for The Christian Transhumanist Podcast that I wanted to share with all of you. Micah Redding and I discuss everything from Relativity Theory to Politics. I think you’ll find it interesting, but I want to offer a word of clarification before you listen. At one point in this interview…
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…