The Arminian order: prescience precedes the plan, not the reverse
The three key terms and their Arminian interpretation
Prognōsis appears only twice in the NT: here and in 1 Peter 1:2 (“chosen according to the foreknowledge of God”). It is transparently derived from proginōskō (“to know beforehand”), a cognitive verb. The Arminian insists this is straightforward prescience — God’s prior cognitive awareness of what will occur — not a veiled synonym for predetermination.
Calvinists sometimes argue that prognōsis carries the Hebraic sense of yādaʻ (“to know” as relational intimacy, as in “Adam knew Eve”). Arminians respond: even if relational connotations exist elsewhere, the conjunction with boulē in Acts 2:23 demands a cognitive reading. Peter distinguishes two things — plan and foreknowledge — using kai (“and”). If both meant the same thing, the conjunction is vacuous.
Boulē appears 12 times in the NT. Modified by hōrismenē (set, determined — perfect passive participle of horizō), it describes a plan that was fixed and settled. Calvinists read this as an unconditional decree that rendered the crucifixion certain by divine fiat.
Arminians accept that the plan was genuinely “set” — God was not uncertain about what would happen. But the basis on which the plan was set was foreknowledge, not unilateral decree. A plan can be fixed and certain because God infallibly foresaw what free creatures would do, not only because God irresistibly determined what they would do.
Ekdoton is a hapax legomenon — it appears only here in the entire NT. It means “delivered up, handed over.” Peter attributes the delivering to God’s plan and foreknowledge, but immediately adds: “you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death.”
This dual attribution is central to the Arminian reading. The agents are genuinely culpable (“you … put Him to death”) because their actions were genuinely free. God delivered Jesus over knowing what they would freely do — not by causing them to do it. The moral force of Peter’s accusation requires that the “lawless men” acted from their own volition.
This article presents the Arminian perspective. The Proof Text Explorer shows how Calvinism, Arminianism, Provisionism, and Molinism each interpret Acts 2:23 — side by side.
Why Arminians think the Calvinist reading creates a moral difficulty
Why Arminians argue they do not need Molinism
How grace enables but does not determine — even in the crucifixion narrative
From the Arminian tradition, spanning the Reformation to the present
Calvinists read prognōsis as “fore-ordination” or treat foreknowledge as grounded in the decree. On this view, God’s eternal decree rendered the crucifixion certain, and the agents acted “freely” in a compatibilist sense — doing what they desired, though their desires were ultimately determined by God.
The decree makes God the author of sin. If God unconditionally determined that the “lawless men” would crucify Jesus — determining their desires, their reasoning, their actions — then God is the ultimate cause of their sin. Peter’s accusation (“you put Him to death”) becomes morally incoherent if the accused had no power to do otherwise.
Compatibilist freedom redefines “freedom” to mean “doing what you want” while conceding that what you want was determined by God. Arminians argue this is not genuine freedom in any morally meaningful sense. If Judas could not have refrained from betraying Jesus, the betrayal is not a free act — it is a determined event wearing the mask of freedom.
The conjunction kai (“and”) between boulē and prognōsis shows Peter intends two distinct concepts. Collapsing foreknowledge into decree makes the conjunction redundant.
Molinists argue that simple foreknowledge is “providentially useless” — if God merely foresees what will happen (including His own future actions), He cannot use that knowledge to change anything. Middle knowledge, by contrast, gives God pre-volitional counterfactual knowledge that genuinely informs His decree.
Unnecessary philosophical complexity. Middle knowledge introduces a speculative logical framework (counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, the Grounding Objection, possible worlds) that goes far beyond the biblical data. Arminius himself was aware of Molina’s system and explicitly declined to adopt it.
The “providential usefulness” objection assumes that God needs a pre-volitional mechanism to achieve His purposes. But if God is genuinely omniscient — if His prescience is infallible and comprehensive — then His eternal plan was never formed “before” He knew what would happen. God’s knowledge and plan are co-eternal and mutually informing. The logical order (foreknowledge → plan) describes their conceptual relationship, not a temporal sequence.
Simple foreknowledge is sufficient for Acts 2:23. Peter says God had a “set plan and foreknowledge” — not a “set plan and middle knowledge.” The text does not require counterfactuals; it requires prescience.
Provisionists agree with much of the Arminian reading but reject prevenient grace. They argue the Fall did not destroy the human capacity to understand clearly revealed truth, so no prior restoring grace is needed — the gospel itself is sufficient to enable response.
Insufficient on depravity. Arminians agree with Provisionists that God’s foreknowledge is prescience and that the agents were genuinely free. But Provisionism underestimates the depth of the Fall. Without prevenient grace, the “natural capacity” to respond becomes a form of semi-Pelagianism — attributing to fallen human nature a spiritual capacity it does not possess.
Arminius and Wesley were clear: fallen humanity is dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1) and cannot respond to God by unaided natural ability. Prevenient grace is necessary to restore the capacity for genuine choice. The Provisionist rejection of prevenient grace leaves the system without an adequate account of how fallen agents have genuine moral freedom.
On Acts 2:23 specifically, the Arminian and Provisionist readings are very similar — both affirm prescience over decree. The disagreement is anthropological (the nature of the Fall), not exegetical (the meaning of this text).
Core concepts for the Arminian reading — click to expand
Get notified when we publish new analyses