Do you believe in predestination ?

[Arthur Brain]

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.

Jesus said that He was telling Peter the truth. That he would deny him not once, not twice but three times before a rooster crowed. How more specific could it possibly get if Jesus didn't know what Peter was going to do?! Your position denies that Jesus was telling Peter a specific truth and the irrationality here is on your part. Just because you can't understand how foreknowledge and will aren't incompatible is solely on you.

Sure, I've had moments in life where important things go out of the window only to realize later, and?

I don't insist any such thing and I'm not restricted by your limited parameters and God certainly isn't. God said He was telling Peter the truth in absolute, specific detail as to not only denying Him but the exact amount of times before a rooster crowed. Doesn't get much clearer than that and maybe it's about time you realized that you're in error here.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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?

Oh, I dunno, a message that got folk to 'get the message' so to speak? It's not like this all reads as God decided to destroy a city no matter what and lo and behold it came about is it? You can't apply this to what Jesus said to Peter when it's obvious He knew what Peter was going to do.

 

[Stripe]

Yes.

Then he might have chosen to not deny Him.

What does "What it meant for God" mean exactly?

Seriously?

Hoping asked: What is your definition of "determined"? I answered what I think people would usually mean when talking about God determining something, ie, Hoping's second definition ("caused to be").

See? When you ask for clarification, you get answers.

Seems utterly clear what God was saying here.

It is utterly clear. You keep pretending someone thinks it isn't. Jesus was utterly clear and blunt. He said Peter would disown Him. He was right.

Can you get with where the discussion is at and quit bogging it down?

Now, why would God say He's telling someone the truth if He wasn't?

He was telling the truth. But you yourself admit that Peter had a choice, which means Peter could have chosen not to deny Him.

Scary, huh?

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?

Your questions have no value.

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?

The passage means exactly what it says.

The sooner you get with the picture, the sooner the conversation can advance.

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 [be wrong about what Peter would choose]?

Yes.

Why do you suppose this event is recorded in all four gospels

Because it would be less true if it were only recorded once?

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?

You're literally describing the situation exactly as we would. The difference being, you think there was no chance that Peter would choose otherwise.

So your idea of a rational being includes 'being temporal'

Yes.

It is irrational to be atemporal.

Oh, I dunno, a message that got folk to 'get the message' so to speak? It's not like this all reads as God decided to destroy a city no matter what and lo and behold it came about is it? You can't apply this to what Jesus said to Peter when it's obvious He knew what Peter was going to do.

Did the people of Nineveh have a choice?

 

[Hoping]

God is a rational being. That includes being temporal.

What does rationality have to do with your definition of temporal...(which I wish you would please provide)
This is what Merriam/Webster provided..."
1a: of or relating to time as opposed to eternity
b: of or relating to earthly life
c: lay or secular rather than clerical or sacred
2: of or relating to grammatical tense or a distinction of time
3a: of or relating to time as distinguished from space
b: of or relating to the sequence of time or to a particular time : CHRONOLOGICAL

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.

I feel He created with a "determined" end, but not a determined ending: it is up to us as to where we will end up.
There are only two potential ends.
With Him at the end, or without Him at the end.
It is up to us to "determine" which end we will receive.

 

[Hoping]

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.

Both were prophetic utterances.
But the Ninevites chose which ending they would receive.
Peter, had he remembered the words of Christ at the time, would have had a choice too.
But he didn't remember.

 

[Stripe]

What does rationality have to do with your definition of temporal...(which I wish you would please provide)
This is what Merriam/Webster provided..."
1a: of or relating to time as opposed to eternity

Maybe I've misused the word. What I mean is that God operates in sequence. He exists from moment to moment just as we do. He is not at every time all the time. However, He is eternal, from eternity to eternity.

I don't know how to conceive of things operating in any other way. If you are able, I'd like to know how.

Ultimately, I don't think the distinction between "in time" and "outside" it has any impact on the ice cream challenge.

I feel He created with a "determined" end, but not a determined ending: it is up to us as to where we will end up.
There are only two potential ends.
With Him at the end, or without Him at the end.

I think I agree, if I'm understanding you right. He has a plan that He is capable of achieving regardless of the decisions of billions of people.

He hasn't set in stone — ie, He does not know without fail — every decision of every man for all time.

The whole determined v foreknew distinction is a distraction.

It is up to us to "determine" which end we will receive.

Yep. That's the message.

 

[Hoping]

Maybe I've misused the word. What I mean is that God operates in sequence. He exists from moment to moment just as we do. He is not at every time all the time. However, He is eternal, from eternity to eternity.

I don't know how to conceive of things operating in any other way. If you are able, I'd like to know how.

I sometimes think Of God as one of those mirror balls from the disco era.
Millions of facets all looking at different aspects of creation.
And not all of those facets are in the year 2022.

Ultimately, I don't think the distinction between "in time" and "outside" it has any impact on the ice cream challenge.
I think I agree, if I'm understanding you right. He has a plan that He is capable of achieving regardless of the decisions of billions of people.
He hasn't set in stone — ie, He does not know without fail — every decision of every man for all time.
The whole determined v foreknew distinction is a distraction.
Yep. That's the message.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Jesus said that He was telling Peter the truth.

Yes, He was.

That he would deny him not once, not twice but three times before a rooster crowed.

Correct.

How more specific could it possibly get if Jesus didn't know what Peter was going to do?!

What don't you get about what I said?

My position fully accounts for what Jesus said Peter would do, because Jesus knew Peter!

Let me repeat that:

JESUS. KNEW. PETER.

You interact with someone long enough, and you get to know them very well. Jesus, being God, not only knew Peter as His Creator, but also knew him PERSONALLY because at that point, He had spent the last 3 years of His LIFE in close contact with him!

On the other hand, I don't know Peter personally, but I have scripture that shows Peter to be somewhat of a coward. It's not hard to make the connection that Jesus knew that Peter was a coward, and that if pressed, it would be highly likely that he would deny Christ to preserve his status, rather than face tribulation for knowing Him. Jesus, being FAR more capable at predicting outcomes, and being God Himself, would have a much greater understanding of Peter's character after being with him for three years than I ever could by being with Peter for an entire lifetime.

Thus, Jesus saying what He said, to the degree He said it, makes total sense EVEN WITHOUT the requirement of knowing the future.

In other words: There's no need for Christ to know the future to be able to make the statement He made.

Your position denies that Jesus was telling Peter a specific truth

No, it doesn't.

and the irrationality here is on your part.

There's nothing irrational in my position.

Just because you can't understand how foreknowledge and will aren't incompatible is solely on you.

Then explain how they are, since you claim that it's so easy to understand.

Sure, I've had moments in life where important things go out of the window only to realize later, and?

That's exactly what happened with Peter. Scripture EVEN SAYS IT!

Now Peter sat outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came to him, saying, “You also were with Jesus of Galilee.”But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are saying.”And when he had gone out to the gateway, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.”But again he denied with an oath, “I do not know the Man!”And a little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, “Surely you also are one of them, for your speech betrays you.”Then he began to curse and swear, saying, “I do not know the Man!” Immediately a rooster crowed.And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” So he went out and wept bitterly. - Matthew 26:69-75 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew26:69-75&version=NKJV

I don't insist any such thing and I'm not restricted by your limited parameters and God certainly isn't.

God is not irrational.

You might be, but don't bring God into your irrationality.

. . . maybe it's about time you realized that you're in error here.

You have yet to show any error.

All you have done so far is present bald assertion.

Oh, I dunno, a message that got folk to 'get the message' so to speak?

What message would that be?

God told Jonah to tell them that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. He didn't say anything else.

It's not like this all reads as God decided to destroy a city no matter what

That's EXACTLY how it reads.

and lo and behold it came about is it?

Except that's NOT what happened.

God DIDN'T destroy Nineveh at the end of the 40 days, despite Him stating CLEARLY that He would.

You can't apply this to what Jesus said to Peter when it's obvious He knew what Peter was going to do.

Because you say so?

The point is that God said something would happen in BOTH cases, yet in one case, it did happen, and in the other, it did not.

My position fully accounts for BOTH of those cases AND their outcomes.

Yours does not; at best, it only accounts for the former.

 

[JudgeRightly]

. . . if Jesus didn't know what Peter was going to do?!

The MOST IMPORTANT THING TO GOD is RELATIONSHIPS! It's not knowledge of the future.

To repeat myself again, because I seriously want to drive this point home:

Jesus didn't have to know the future, because Jesus knew Peter. And the fact that He knew him so well is why Jesus was able to say "I tell you the truth..."

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, He was.



Correct.



What don't you get about what I said?

My position fully accounts for what Jesus said Peter would do, because Jesus knew Peter!

Let me repeat that:

JESUS. KNEW. PETER.

You interact with someone long enough, and you get to know them very well. Jesus, being God, not only knew Peter as His Creator, but also knew him PERSONALLY because at that point, He had spent the last 3 years of His LIFE in close contact with him!

On the other hand, I don't know Peter personally, but I have scripture that shows Peter to be somewhat of a coward. It's not hard to make the connection that Jesus knew that Peter was a coward, and that if pressed, it would be highly likely that he would deny Christ to preserve his status, rather than face tribulation for knowing Him. Jesus, being FAR more capable at predicting outcomes, and being God Himself, would have a much greater understanding of Peter's character after being with him for three years than I ever could by being with Peter for an entire lifetime.

Thus, Jesus saying what He said, to the degree He said it, makes total sense EVEN WITHOUT the requirement of knowing the future.

In other words: There's no need for Christ to know the future to be able to make the statement He made.



No, it doesn't.



There's nothing irrational in my position.



Then explain how they are, since you claim that it's so easy to understand.



That's exactly what happened with Peter. Scripture EVEN SAYS IT!

Now Peter sat outside in the courtyard. And a servant girl came to him, saying, “You also were with Jesus of Galilee.”But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are saying.”And when he had gone out to the gateway, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.”But again he denied with an oath, “I do not know the Man!”And a little later those who stood by came up and said to Peter, “Surely you also are one of them, for your speech betrays you.”Then he began to curse and swear, saying, “I do not know the Man!” Immediately a rooster crowed.And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” So he went out and wept bitterly. - Matthew 26:69-75 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew26:69-75&version=NKJV



God is not irrational.

You might be, but don't bring God into your irrationality.



You have yet to show any error.

All you have done so far is present bald assertion.



What message would that be?

God told Jonah to tell them that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days. He didn't say anything else.



That's EXACTLY how it reads.



Except that's NOT what happened.

God DIDN'T destroy Nineveh at the end of the 40 days, despite Him stating CLEARLY that He would.



Because you say so?

The point is that God said something would happen in BOTH cases, yet in one case, it did happen, and in the other, it did not.

My position fully accounts for BOTH of those cases AND their outcomes.

Yours does not; at best, it only accounts for the former.

Jesus knowing Peter is one thing JR, it could well be and in all likelihood was the case that He knew his foibles like all manner of other people. You don't get to downplay what was said and generalize a verse that is absolutely specific with no room for doubt on the score;

Here it is again:

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

You'd have had a case if Jesus had been somewhat more vague on the matter, maybe hinting that Peter would deny him once things were looking a bit dangerous or whatever except the verse is absolutely and unequivocally clear. Peter, on the very same night would deny Him three times, not four, one, two - but three before a rooster crowed. All four gospel accounts relay this.

Your position is irrational if you refuse to acknowledge that Jesus knew what Peter was going to do. Floundering about, trying to deflect and making out otherwise is hardly sensible and an omnipotent deity is hardly obliged to comport to your standards of what's rational anyway. So you can't understand how foreknowledge doesn't equal determinism and whatnot, so? Other folk have no difficulty in differentiating between them so your opinion is worth what in itself exactly?

It's God that said that He knew what Peter was going to do in express detail JR, not me. The amount of times I've heard that God "plainly says" this and that in scripture in debates is something else and yet here you are trying to make out that something as concise, plain, specific and absolute as all get out can't be read for what it clearly states.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The MOST IMPORTANT THING TO GOD is RELATIONSHIPS! It's not knowledge of the future.

To repeat myself again, because I seriously want to drive this point home:

Jesus didn't have to know the future, because Jesus knew Peter. And the fact that He knew him so well is why Jesus was able to say "I tell you the truth..."

Well enough to know that on that very same night that he was going to deny him exactly three times before a rooster crowed? Come off it. Nobody's saying that relationships aren't important but your imitations on what God can know can be dismissed accordingly.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then he might have chosen to not deny Him.


Seriously?

Hoping asked: What is your definition of "determined"? I answered what I think people would usually mean when talking about God determining something, ie, Hoping's second definition ("caused to be").

See? When you ask for clarification, you get answers.

It is utterly clear. You keep pretending someone thinks it isn't. Jesus was utterly clear and blunt. He said Peter would disown Him. He was right.

Can you get with where the discussion is at and quit bogging it down?

He was telling the truth. But you yourself admit that Peter had a choice, which means Peter could have chosen not to deny Him.

Scary, huh?

Your questions have no value.

The passage means exactly what it says.

The sooner you get with the picture, the sooner the conversation can advance.



Yes.



Because it would be less true if it were only recorded once?



You're literally describing the situation exactly as we would. The difference being, you think there was no chance that Peter would choose otherwise.


Yes.

It is irrational to be atemporal.


Did the people of Nineveh have a choice?

Hmm, well, your sense of what's "rational" is hardly the yardstick for humans let alone an omnipotent deity so any limitations you decide to place are pretty much yours and yours alone. Yes, It's possible for God to know what Peter was doing to do in such specific detail while Peter still had a choice in the matter and wasn't programmed to do as he did before the rooster crowed. God simply knew that Peter was going to do as he did.

 

[Idolater]

Hmm, well, your sense of what's "rational" is hardly the yardstick for humans let alone an omnipotent deity so any limitations you decide to place are pretty much yours and yours alone. Yes, It's possible for God to know what Peter was doing to do in such specific detail while Peter still had a choice in the matter and wasn't programmed to do as he did before the rooster crowed. God simply knew that Peter was going to do as he did.

Since Peter was not predetermined to deny Jesus three times, then in order for Jesus to know Peter would deny Him three times, He would have had to have foreseen Peter's eventual circumstances that fateful night. Jesus must have known ahead of time that Peter would be subjected to at least three interrogations that night, in order for Him to know Peter well enough, that He knew Peter would deny Him three times.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Jesus knowing Peter is one thing JR, it could well be and in all likelihood was the case that He knew his foibles like all manner of other people.

I can assure you that God knows people far better than humans do.

You don't get to downplay what was said

Never did.

and generalize a verse that is absolutely specific with no room for doubt on the score.

Here it is again:

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

Yes, I'm well aware what the verse says.

You'd have had a case if Jesus had been somewhat more vague on the matter, maybe hinting that Peter would deny him once things were looking a bit dangerous or whatever except the verse is absolutely and unequivocally clear. Peter, on the very same night would deny Him three times, not four, one, two - but three before a rooster crowed. All four gospel accounts relay this.

Jesus knew Peter, enough to know that he would deny Him at least three times, and then all He needed was a rooster to crow.

Your challenge is to show how Christ needs to know the future in order to know that Peter would deny Him, and that He also needs to know the future in order for a rooster to crow, instead of God causing the rooster to crow after the third time Peter denies him.

Your position is irrational if you refuse to acknowledge that Jesus knew what Peter was going to do.

What part of my statement "Jesus knew what Peter was going to do because He knew Peter" do you not understand, Arthur?! I'm literally agreeing with you that Jesus knew what Peter was going to do! We just differ on the reason!!!

Floundering about, trying to deflect and making out otherwise is hardly sensible

The only one floundering about, trying to deflect and make out otherwise and being hardly sensible here is YOU, Arthur!

and an omnipotent deity

God's omnipotence has very little to do with this.

is hardly obliged to comport to your standards of what's rational anyway.

There is only one standard of rationality, Arthur. I hold to it. You don't.

So you can't understand how foreknowledge doesn't equal determinism and whatnot, so?

Straw man. MULTIPLE TIMES NOW I have referred you to a previous post of mine EXPLAINING THE VERY DIFFERENCE between the two.

Other folk have no difficulty in differentiating between them so your opinion is worth what in itself exactly?

Belittling me is called an ad hominem.

It's God that said that He knew what Peter was going to do in express detail JR, not me.

Yes, we've already gotten past that point, Arthur. Do keep up, please.

The amount of times I've heard that God "plainly says" this and that in scripture in debates is something else and yet here you are trying to make out that something as concise, plain, specific and absolute as all get out can't be read for what it clearly states.

God plainly states that He would destroy Nineveh in 40 days. At the end of the 40 days, Nineveh remained intact.

Either God, with perfect knowledge of the future, was lying about destroying them, OR they had the ability to repent and change God's mind.

The Bible indicates the latter, not the former.

LIKEWISE:

Jesus plainly states that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed. Either Jesus was telling the truth because He knew the future, and Peter would not be able to do otherwise than deny Christ, and the rooster would not be able to do otherwise than crow at the proper moment, OR Jesus was telling Peter the truth because He knew Peter well enough to understand how he would act far better than any other human, and because He can make a rooster crow on command.

The Bible indicates the latter, not the former.

Well enough to know that on that very same night that he was going to deny him exactly three times before a rooster crowed? Come off it.

He knew Peter well enough that He knew that Peter would do what he did, then deny Him, and then all Christ needs is to make a rooster crow. Can God make a rooster crow on command, Arthur? Or does He have to foreknow that a rooster will crow at that exact moment? Which makes more sense?

Nobody's saying that relationships aren't important

You do because your position makes it so that it's not POSSIBLE to have a relationship.

but your imitations on what God can know can be dismissed accordingly.

Appeal to the stone.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Since Peter was not predetermined to deny Jesus three times, then in order for Jesus to know Peter would deny Him three times, He would have had to have foreseen Peter's eventual circumstances that fateful night. Jesus must have known ahead of time that Peter would be subjected to at least three interrogations that night, in order for Him to know Peter well enough, that He knew Peter would deny Him three times.

Yep. Peter wasn't forced or programmed into his denial. There's a difference between God knowing events in advance and forcing them to come about but try telling some of this lot that.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, It's possible for God to know what Peter was doing to do in such specific detail while Peter still had a choice in the matter and wasn't programmed to do as he did before the rooster crowed. God simply knew that Peter was going to do as he did.

Yes, that's our position.

What we differ on is the "why."

Your position is that God knows the future, that's why He knew what Peter would do.

Our position is that God, being God, and having been in a personal in-person relationship with Peter for the past 3 years, that He knew him well enough to know how he would act, and additionally can make a rooster crow on command, that's why He knew what Peter would do.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I can assure you that God knows people far better than humans do.



Never did.



Yes, I'm well aware what the verse says.



Jesus knew Peter, enough to know that he would deny Him at least three times, and then all He needed was a rooster to crow.

Your challenge is to show how Christ needs to know the future in order to know that Peter would deny Him, and that He also needs to know the future in order for a rooster to crow, instead of God causing the rooster to crow after the third time Peter denies him.



What part of my statement "Jesus knew what Peter was going to do because He knew Peter" do you not understand, Arthur?! I'm literally agreeing with you that Jesus knew what Peter was going to do! We just differ on the reason!!!



The only one floundering about, trying to deflect and make out otherwise and being hardly sensible here is YOU, Arthur!



God's omnipotence has very little to do with this.



There is only one standard of rationality, Arthur. I hold to it. You don't.



Straw man. MULTIPLE TIMES NOW I have referred you to a previous post of mine EXPLAINING THE VERY DIFFERENCE between the two.



Belittling me is called an ad hominem.



Yes, we've already gotten past that point, Arthur. Do keep up, please.



God plainly states that He would destroy Nineveh in 40 days. At the end of the 40 days, Nineveh remained intact.

Either God, with perfect knowledge of the future, was lying about destroying them, OR they had the ability to repent and change God's mind.

The Bible indicates the latter, not the former.

LIKEWISE:

Jesus plainly states that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed. Either Jesus was telling the truth because He knew the future, and Peter would not be able to do otherwise than deny Christ, and the rooster would not be able to do otherwise than crow at the proper moment, OR Jesus was telling Peter the truth because He knew Peter well enough to understand how he would act far better than any other human, and because He can make a rooster crow on command.

The Bible indicates the latter, not the former.



He knew Peter well enough that He knew that Peter would do what he did, then deny Him, and then all Christ needs is to make a rooster crow. Can God make a rooster crow on command, Arthur? Or does He have to foreknow that a rooster will crow at that exact moment? Which makes more sense?



You do because your position makes it so that it's not POSSIBLE to have a relationship.



Appeal to the stone.

I have no challenge to answer to with you, none. The verse is explicitly clear in itself. Peter would deny Jesus three times on the very same night before a rooster crowed. It's absolutely specific as to the number of times prefaced with Jesus telling Peter that this is the truth. Could God have the power to make a rooster crow on demand? Sure, but why? Wow, are you going off on some tangent with regards to the bird...

What makes more sense is that God can know the future without programming it and that people who try to place limits on what God can do via their own limited frames of reference can be given short shrift.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, that's our position.

What we differ on is the "why."

Your position is that God knows the future, that's why He knew what Peter would do.

Our position is that God, being God, and having been in a personal in-person relationship with Peter for the past 3 years, that He knew him well enough to know how he would act, and additionally can make a rooster crow on command, that's why He knew what Peter would do.

Seriously, even you should be cringing at this whole 'making a rooster crow on demand' stuff JR. That is lame as all get out. What, Jesus was going to wait until Peter denied Him three times and made the bird chirp? Get real.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The verse is explicitly clear in itself.

Yes, it is.

Peter would deny Jesus three times on the very same night before a rooster crowed.

How you get "God knows the future" out of that is beyond me.

It's absolutely specific as to the number of times prefaced with Jesus telling Peter that this is the truth.

Easily explainable by Christ knowing Peter. No need for God to know the future.

Could God have the power to make a rooster crow on demand? Sure, but why?

Isn't that far simpler of an explanation than "God knows the future"?

What makes more sense is that God can know the future without programming it

Now you're moving the goalposts.

We've been over this part. There are two mainstream views on God's knowledge of the future. One is that He decreed it (which we aren't discussing here), the other is that He knows it because He can see it.

My position is opposed to BOTH of those views, that God does NOT know the future, but instead is fully capable of making extremely accurate predictions far beyond any number of humans' capability, and can make extremely accurate predictions based on relatively little information, let alone getting to know someone personally in-person for three straight years, AND that God can make a rooster crow on demand.

You know what I think? I think that by Jesus telling Peter that he would deny Christ three times before the rooster crows, he was, in addition to whatever other point He was trying to make, setting up a reminder for Peter, so that he wouldn't go on denying Christ, because I think that Peter, had there been no rooster, would have denied Christ many more times than three, but since God can make a rooster crow on demand, that rooster crowing would act as a reminder to Peter, saying, "hey, you're doing exactly what I said you would, and you need to stop!"

and that people who try to place limits on what God can do via their own limited frames of reference can be given short shrift.

The problem is that I'm defending God's omnicompetence, while YOU'RE the one limiting God to have to know the future in order to say something.

Who's limiting God here, Arthur, the person who's saying that God can make extremely accurate predictions and can even make a rooster crow? Or the person who's saying that God couldn't do those things, but instead has to rely on His knowledge of the future to make a prediction He already knows will come about?

Seriously, even you should be cringing at this whole 'making a rooster crow on demand' stuff JR.

Why? It makes more sense, and is more biblically supported, than "God knows the future."

That is lame as all get out.

Appeal to the stone.

What, Jesus was going to wait until Peter denied Him three times and made the bird chirp?

You're saying He couldn't? Why couldn't He do that? Why does God have to know the future, instead of being capable of telling a rooster to crow at a certain point in time, in accordance with someone denying Him?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, it is.



How you get "God knows the future" out of that is beyond me.



Easily explainable by Christ knowing Peter. No need for God to know the future.



Isn't that far simpler of an explanation than "God knows the future"?



Now you're moving the goalposts.

We've been over this part. There are two mainstream views on God's knowledge of the future. One is that He decreed it (which we aren't discussing here), the other is that He knows it because He can see it.

My position is opposed to BOTH of those views, that God does NOT know the future, but instead is fully capable of making extremely accurate predictions far beyond any number of humans' capability, and can make extremely accurate predictions based on relatively little information, let alone getting to know someone personally in-person for three straight years, AND that God can make a rooster crow on demand.

You know what I think? I think that by Jesus telling Peter that he would deny Christ three times before the rooster crows, he was, in addition to whatever other point He was trying to make, setting up a reminder for Peter, so that he wouldn't go on denying Christ, because I think that Peter, had there been no rooster, would have denied Christ many more times than three, but since God can make a rooster crow on demand, that rooster crowing would act as a reminder to Peter, saying, "hey, you're doing exactly what I said you would, and you need to stop!"



The problem is that I'm defending God's omnicompetence, while YOU'RE the one limiting God to have to know the future in order to say something.

Who's limiting God here, Arthur, the person who's saying that God can make extremely accurate predictions and can even make a rooster crow? Or the person who's saying that God couldn't do those things, but instead has to rely on His knowledge of the future to make a prediction He already knows will come about?



Why? It makes more sense, and is more biblically supported, than "God knows the future."



Appeal to the stone.



You're saying He couldn't? Why couldn't He do that? Why does God have to know the future, instead of being capable of telling a rooster to crow at a certain point in time, in accordance with someone denying Him?

Yes, it is absolutely clear. God knew what Peter was going to do in unequivocal and blatant terms. How you can't understand that God knew what Peter was going to do in the future is bizarre. That you're reduced to God forcing a bird to crow on demand in order for the verse to tie in with what seems more rational to you is yet more bizarre. It would also smack of duplicity if God was only saying as He did to wait until Peter denied Him three times before making a rooster squawk. None of the gospel accounts hint that this was about God knowing the character of Peter, they just relay events in clear and absolute fashion without the merest allusion to such. They're flat out clear that God tells Peter He knows that he's going to deny Him three times that very same night. That's it. There could well be a point to Jesus telling Peter the truth about knowing what he was going to do, Peter seemed to get it after all and wept bitterly after he'd realized what he'd done.

You're the one limiting God and you're going to have to find a quote of mine that says that God needs to know the future in order to say something cos I sure don't recall ever arguing that on this or any other thread.