Do you believe in predestination ?

[Arthur Brain]

If it's basic, explain it. How can God know if it is not determined? Is His knowledge fallible? If someone saw a list of outcomes, would they be able to decide on opposition to them?

Explain your ideas instead of just asserting them and ignoring the challenge.



That's not a royal we.



I don't think you have the first clue what I think about all this.



Can He be irrational in nature? Because Him knowing without having determined while being the ultimate power is the height of irrationality.

It's already been explained and in basic terms so repeating the same serves what purpose exactly? You didn't bring a 'challenge', you brought some scenario you thought was worthy of being credited as one when it wasn't. The actual case of Peter was and is far more relevant. No, I don't think God is irrational but wow, people sure can be...

 

[Arthur Brain]

So then...



Does what Jesus said sound more like like Jesus was making a prophecy of what the future would be, or does it sound more like Jesus is telling Peter He knows him well enough that He knows Peter will deny him?

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."

Sounds like Jesus knew exactly what Peter was going to do and in very specific fashion. Pretty darned clear really.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Jesus was right about what Peter would do.

What you need to do is explain how this fact means that your assessment of how He knows is correct.

So far all we have is your assertion that it must be so and numerous attempts to avoid the challenge.

He could hardly be wrong could He? He does tell Peter He's telling him the truth about what's he's going to do after all. Hardly a hunch or something...

 

[Stripe]

It's already been explained.

All we have is your assertion that a difference between foreknowledge and determinism when applied to God must allow for wills to exist. Describe how. Explain how God could know without having determined.

Or are we supposed to take it on faith?

repeating the same serves what purpose exactly?

We don't want you to keep repeating yourself. We want you to respond to what we say to advance the discussion.

You didn't bring a 'challenge'

Of course I did. It challenges the notion that foreknowledge does not preclude will.

People like you assert that God knows without fail what people will choose. I challenge that assertion by asking if they could still choose were God to tell them the outcome.

The challenge gets mocked, ignored or misconstrued, but never answered.

We know why.

you brought some scenario you thought was worthy of being credited as one when it wasn't.

But you won't explain yourself. You'll just ignore the challenge, quote a Bible passage and pretend that justifies what you assert.

No, I don't think God is irrational

So explain yourself. How can an ultimate power know without having determined?

 

[Stripe]

He could hardly be wrong could He?

Why not? Because you say so?

He does tell Peter He's telling him the truth about what's he's going to do after all. Hardly a hunch or something...

Uh huh. You don't seem to comprehend what this discussion is about.

Nobody is arguing with you about how confident Jesus was.

 

[Arthur Brain]

All we have is your assertion that a difference between foreknowledge and determinism when applied to God must allow for wills to exist. Describe how. Explain how God could know without having determined.

Or are we supposed to take it on faith?



We don't want you to keep repeating yourself. We want you to respond to what we say to advance the discussion.



Of course I did. It challenges the notion that foreknowledge does not preclude will.



But you won't explain yourself. You'll just ignore the challenge, quote a Bible passage and pretend that justifies what you assert.


So explain yourself. How can an ultimate power know without having determined?

Is this a group post or something or are you referring to yourself in the royal...eh, nevermind. Look, you can convince yourself that foreknowledge equates to determinism as you like, you have anyway despite the obvious counter arguments that have been made time and again.

Your ice cream scenario was lame. God tells a man he's going to choose chocolate instead of vanilla or something, big whoop. Jesus told Peter that he was going to deny Him three times before a rooster crows with no room for doubt. Way more interesting in context.

Been explained but you keep pretending it hasn't been if ya like.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why not? Because you say so?


Uh huh. You don't seem to comprehend what this discussion is about.

Nobody is arguing with you about how confident Jesus was.

Seriously? I'm saying that Jesus could hardly be wrong and that's your response???! Wow...

So, when Jesus clearly tells a person that He's telling them the truth about what they're going to do as is the case with Peter then it's just Christ being confident about it? Maybe the rooster was just there for decorative purposes or something as well?

Telling...

 

[Stripe]

You can convince yourself that foreknowledge equates to determinism as you like, you have anyway despite the obvious counter arguments that have been made time and again.

What obvious counter? Your assertion?

Your ice cream scenario was lame.

It's meant to be. Yet, there it is.

God tells a man he's going to choose chocolate instead of vanilla or something, big whoop.

Big scoop, actually. The challenge is: Does the man have a choice?

That is the challenge.

We know why you are avoiding it.

Jesus told Peter that he was going to deny Him three times before a rooster crows with no room for doubt. Way more interesting in context.

That's not the challenge. It's what you've glommed onto to avoid the challenge.

Been explained.

Where?

 

[Arthur Brain]

What obvious counter? Your assertion?



It's meant to be. Yet, there it is.



Big scoop, actually. The challenge is: Does the man have a choice?

That is the challenge.

We know why you are avoiding it.



That's not the challenge. It's what you've glommed onto to avoid the challenge.


Where?

Addressed in the last few pages of this thread. I'm not gonna repeat it all again.

'Big scoop'? Wow Stripe, you've been funny and not inadvertently for a change! Yes, the man had a choice as with one of my replies to JR if you'd been following along.

 

[Stripe]

Seriously? I'm saying that Jesus could hardly be wrong and that's your response???! Wow...

Yes, that was my response.

Do you have an answer or are we just supposed to believe you that Peter could not have done other than deny Christ?

So, when Jesus clearly tells a person that He's telling them the truth about what they're going to do as is the case with Peter then it's just Christ being confident about it?

No. Are you just making things up for people to believe to ruin another discussion?

Maybe the rooster was just there for decorative purposes or something as well?

Maybe you're just here for trolling reasons.

When are you going to answer a question?

 

[Stripe]

Addressed in the last few pages of this thread. I'm not gonna repeat it all again.

You don't have to repeat it. Just give the post number.

Yes, the man had a choice.

Then God does not know.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, that was my response.

Do you have an answer or are we just supposed to believe you that Peter could not have done other than deny Christ?



No. Are you just making things up for people to believe to ruin another discussion?


Maybe you're just here for trolling reasons.

When are you going to answer a question?

What answer do you need that hasn't been given in regards to Jesus and Peter? How could it be any more clear? Jesus obviously knew what Peter was going to do and in specific detail and in no uncertain terms told him so. Jesus said to Peter that He was telling him the truth that he would deny Him three times before the rooster crows. That's what happened as recorded in all four gospels.

What are you saying Stripe? That Jesus could have been wrong?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You don't have to repeat it. Just give the post number.


Then God does not know.

Scroll through the thread.

God isn't limited by you dude.

 

[Stripe]

What answer do you need that hasn't been given in regards to Jesus and Peter?

How could it be any more clear?

You asserted: Jesus "could hardly be wrong."

We want to know why He could not be wrong. Because you say so?

Jesus obviously knew what Peter was going to do and in specific detail and in no uncertain terms told him so. Jesus said to Peter that He was telling him the truth that he would deny Him three times before the rooster crows. That's what happened as recorded in all four gospels.

Uh huh. We know. And He was right.

What are you saying Stripe? That Jesus could have been wrong?

He would have been astonished if He were.

God isn't limited by you dude.

Is He a rational being?

Because foreknowledge without determinism is irrational for an ultimate power.

 

[Arthur Brain]

How could it be any more clear?

You asserted: Jesus "could hardly be wrong."

We want to know why He could not be wrong. Because you say so?



Uh huh. We know. And He was right.

He would have been astonished if He were.


Is He a rational being?

Because foreknowledge without determinism is irrational for an ultimate power.

You want to know why I think Jesus could not be wrong?

Wow, this is Twilight Zone territory now really. You don't believe that when Jesus expressly says to someone that He's telling them the truth about what they're going to do that it isn't for real? If you doubt Jesus's own direct words to Peter where He expressly states that He's telling him the truth about what he's going to do before the rooster crows then that says a whole lot more about you than it does anyone else.

Do you think Jesus could have been wrong even though He told Peter He was telling him the truth about what he was going to do?

Oh, and 'foreknowledge without determinism' being irrational for an ultimate power is hilarious on so many levels given the source.

 

[Stripe]

You want to know why I think Jesus could not be wrong?

That's right.

Wow, this is Twilight Zone territory now really. You don't believe that when Jesus expressly says to someone that He's telling them the truth about what they're going to do that it isn't for real?

Of course it's for real.

If you doubt Jesus's own direct words to Peter where He expressly states that He's telling him the truth about what he's going to do before the rooster crows then that says a whole lot more about you than it does anyone else.

Cool.

Now, do you have an answer or are you just going to wail all day?

Do you think Jesus could have been wrong even though He told Peter He was telling him the truth about what he was going to do?

Yip. Peter could have not denied Him.

Oh, and 'foreknowledge without determinism' being irrational for an ultimate power is hilarious on so many levels given the source.

We're happy you're entertained.

However, it's still irrational.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's right.



Of course it's for real.



Cool.

Now, do you have an answer or are you just going to wail all day?



Yip. Peter could have not denied Him.


We're happy you're entertained.

However, it's still irrational.

So, when Jesus expressly states that He's telling the truth about something and what another person is going to do, He could be wrong in your opinion then? Why would Jesus state that He was telling the truth if it wasn't or couldn't be the case? That sound rational to you?

He could have so easily stated that Peter might deny Him or some such and yet He doesn't. He says Peter WILL deny him three times before the rooster crows. He tells Peter that this is the truth. In blatantly clear and unequivocal terms. Oh, and that's what happened.

You think Jesus could be wrong still?

 

[Idolater]

Three years ago:

... If we take this analogy where the parent knows the child well enough to know what the child will do given particular circumstances, and extend it out (abstractly) to God's superior knowledge of us, and the parent's limited power to arrange the child's circumstances to God's superior power to do so, then again I see where both that God can be limitlessly sovereign, and us be limitlessly free, at the same time, is possible.

 

[Hoping]

All we have is your assertion that a difference between foreknowledge and determinism when applied to God must allow for wills to exist. Describe how. Explain how God could know without having determined.

Or are we supposed to take it on faith?



We don't want you to keep repeating yourself. We want you to respond to what we say to advance the discussion.



Of course I did. It challenges the notion that foreknowledge does not preclude will.

People like you assert that God knows without fail what people will choose. I challenge that assertion by asking if they could still choose were God to tell them the outcome.

The challenge gets mocked, ignored or misconstrued, but never answered.

We know why.



But you won't explain yourself. You'll just ignore the challenge, quote a Bible passage and pretend that justifies what you assert.


So explain yourself. How can an ultimate power know without having determined?

What is your definition of "determined"?
Is it "deemed to be, figured to be"? (I deemed we didn't have the money for dinner out.)
Or is it "caused to be"? (I spent the money for dinner on something else.)

 

[Hoping]

How could it be any more clear?

You asserted: Jesus "could hardly be wrong."

We want to know why He could not be wrong. Because you say so?



Uh huh. We know. And He was right.

He would have been astonished if He were.


Is He a rational being?

Because foreknowledge without determinism is irrational for an ultimate power.

Can't God know without causing what will happen?