Do you think Peter had a choice?
Do you believe in predestination ?
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
It doesn't really matter. I guess the latter would be what most people would say when asked what it meant for God.
But Brain doesn't want to answer questions.
I don't see how.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
These discussions should always involve ice cream.
You didn't answer this when I asked it of you:
If Peter had not denied Jesus the second time, but instead acknowledged that he was part of Jesus' posse, do you think Christ would have been mad that what He said didn't come about? OR do you think He would have been glad that Peter didn't deny him a second time?
I know, right?
beloved57
Well-known member
arthur
But it does. Gods foreknowledge is grounded in His predetermined counsel/will Acts 2:23
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
So Gods determinate counsel and foreknowledge are joined at the hip.
God knows things will occur because He determined it, its His Purpose !
But it does. Gods foreknowledge is grounded in His predetermined counsel/will Acts 2:23
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
So Gods determinate counsel and foreknowledge are joined at the hip.
God knows things will occur because He determined it, its His Purpose !
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Hundred percent.
OK. Easy. Done:
Mark 14:29 " [But Peter said unto him, Although all shall EAT POOP ICE CREAM, yet will not I.
30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt EAT POOP ICE CREAM thrice.
31 But he spake the more vehemently, If I should die with thee, I will not EAT POOP ICE CREAM in any wise. Likewise also said they all.]"
...
John 18:15 "[And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.
16 But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.
17 Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? He ATE POOP ICE CREAM.
18 And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals; for it was cold: and they warmed themselves: and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.]
...
18:25 [And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He ATE POOP ICE CREAM, and said, I am not.
26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
27 Peter then ATE POOP ICE CREAM again: and immediately the cock crew.]"
Lazarus.
It would seem the better way rather than the way he actually went.
Still, though. At least it's not mint chocolate chip.
It matters greatly.
There are at least two definitions, or, usages of the word "determine".
I have determined that I don't have the money to spend.
I will determine who wins or loses.
God can know Pharaoh would resist Him without causing Pharaoh to resist Him.
God can know Jesus would do His Father's will without causing Jesus to obey.
Agreed. However, those are explanations based on an understanding of the individual. Predictions of how people might act might be easy to get right, but they never eradicate the will.
Agreed, but don't you think God is not limited by time?
I mean, can't He go to any spot in time to look around and see how say, one man's children may turn out?
So, He can know what will happen, but without causing it to happen.
God is a rational being. That includes being temporal. Not that it would matter either way. My test makes only one out of determinism and wills possible.
Either He created with the outcome determined or He didn't. One means determinism, the other allows wills.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yes.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
What does "What it meant for God" mean exactly?
Seems utterly clear what God was saying here. Here it is again:
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times."
Now, why would God say He's telling someone the truth if He wasn't? Why go into specific detail as to not only Peter denying him at all but the exact number of times and before a rooster crows?
You may well not see how, and? Since when is your limited understanding a yardstick of anything and since when does that make a verse that is as plain and clear as a sunny day not mean exactly what it says? If the verse was vague then hey, you'd have room for argument, it isn't. It's absolutely specific.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
God stated to Peter that He was telling him the truth in specific detail. Is there some reason why God would tell Peter that He was telling him the truth only to actually lie about it? Why do you suppose this event is recorded in all four gospels JR, for a laugh? If Christ knew that Peter wouldn't have denied him three times before a rooster crowed then why stipulate that he would? Has it occurred to you in any way that God happened to know what Peter was going to do, told him about it and Peter still had choice in it? Why did Peter have so much recrimination after the rooster crowed when he realized what he'd done? Programmed to?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So your idea of a rational being includes 'being temporal' and apparently abiding by your notion of what such and such does and doesn't allow.
Arrogant much?
Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,“Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me.”But Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. He went down to Joppa, and found a ship going to Tarshish; so he paid the fare, and went down into it, to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord . - Jonah 1:1-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah1:1-3&version=NKJV
. . .
Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying,“Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.”So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent.And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” - Jonah 3:1-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah3:1-4&version=NKJV
. . .
So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. . . . Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. - Jonah 3:5,10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah3:5,10&version=NKJV
Did God fully intend to destroy Nineveh? Or was he lying?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Neither. God wasn't telling an individual person in specific, concise detail as to what he was going to do as Jesus did with Peter and where such came about. Stop deflecting and answer as to why God would be so specific as He was with Peter if He wasn't telling him the truth.
My position just as easily explains why Jesus said what he said, without requiring God to be irrational, in that He knows infallibly the future while He still allows men to chose.
Have you never said to yourself that there's something important to do, and then you see or hear something later, and it hits you that you never did that thing?
Exactly what happened to Peter. No requirement for God to know the future.
Christ had just spent the past three years with Peter, and knew he was a bit of a coward. Jesus knew Peter (not the future) well enough to be able to tell him that, if people confront him about being with Jesus, Peter would, without a doubt, deny Him. Yet since Peter has a will, he COULD have realized what he was doing or about to do, and then manned up, and had the courage to not deny Christ.
You, on the other hand, insist that Peter did not have any choice in the matter, because there was no other outcome possible than Peter denying Christ, though you claim he did. The two are mutually exclusive to one another. Either Peter has a will and chose to deny Christ instead of acknowledging Him, or Jesus knew that Peter would, in fact, deny Him, because he did not have a will (the ability to choose otherwise) nor any other option.
He said He was going to destroy Nineveh in forty days. At the end of the forty days, Nineveh wasn't destroyed.
Was God lying, or is there something else in play here that might explain it?