We have debated in the past that Jesus knew of Peter's denial by way of induction. This of course was expressed by many as "God knew the heart of Peter and when put in a certain situation, He knew how Peter would respond". By the way, how ever you wish to shroud this it amounts to induction which is merely an educated guess based on the knowledge of current or past events.

 I argued that this simple denial would have required Jesus to have known hundreds of thousands of free will decisions; which to me is not possible especially if men are truly libertarian free. Many of you believed that God could extrapolate this denial based on His knowledge of Peter’s heart.

Let's now consider Jesus prophesying to Peter that "One day you will put out your hands and go where you don't wish...thus signifying the kind of death Peter would suffer" (paraphrased).

Those of you who deny that God knows the future with some sort of clairvoyant certainty (the classical view); thus He must rely on induction. Do you really believe that He could look at the state of affairs in time T, and predict Peter's crucifixion in time T+20 years (or whatever year Peter was crucified in)? Do you realize the millions of free will decisions that would have been required to take place in order for this event to actualize? Could God with His induction know millions of events that are truly free?

I would put forth that if God's induction is this accurate, then there is NO difference between His inductive knowledge and some sort of clairvoyant certain knowledge that the classic theologians teach.

If you are willing to accept the odds of God knowing every single libertarian free will event leading up to Peter's death; then the odds of men evolving from rocks and minerals shouldn't be a real stretch or leap of faith for you.

By the way how, many of you believe in theistic evolution? If you don't have you ever argued that the odds against it are too great?

Most of us argue that determinism is absurd in light of the biblical witness and the self-evident proof of free will. I would argue that the open view is equally abusrd in light of the biblical witness of God's foreknowledge and the impossibility of Him knowing millions upon millions of libertarian free will events. In my humble opinion, the only cogent view of God's foreknowledge is Mystery. God knows things in ways that are beyond the domain of human knowledge and reason. We cannot understand His infinite knowledge or unsearchable counsel.

Chaz

Post Edited (Chaz Finney) : 5/21/2009 11:02:06 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 5/21/2009 4:08:01 PM (GMT-5)

Tom;

I don't object to the mystery of a partly open future. However, if God through His induction knew of Peter's denial and crucifixion; goodness--is there anything He doesn't know via induction? I think if there is ever a mystery card to play it is with the mind of God and His thoughts and knowledge. I think this is most reasonable. Additionally I don't believe that God ordained either the denial or crucifixion as the Calvinists would believe. In light of what God has revealed to us that He knows, the "hows" of what He knows seems a bit moot.

Chaz: I don't object to the mystery of a partly open future. However, if God through His induction knew of Peter's denial and crucifixion; goodness--is there anything He doesn't know via induction?

Tom: But let’s ask ourselves, What factors are included in God’s knowing Peter will die as a martyr?

Had Jesus said, “You’re gonna be crucified upside down in 35 years, on Tuesday, March 14^th, 67 AD, in Rome, at the Northeast corner of Main and 43^rd. You’ll be wearing a brown toga and you’ll have a cheese omelet with OJ for breakfast. They’ll pound the first nail into your LEFT hand at precisely 9:32 AM and THEN proceed to your right hand at 9:41 AM, etc.” We could go on.

THAT would be problematic. It would pose a real problem to me and other open theists who believe in genuine indeterminacy about the world if it were the case that the ‘way the world is’ at AD 33 really did entail those specific details and none other, so that by just knowing the world at AD 33 God knows all THAT about how the world will be at AD 67. 

But Jesus doesn’t say all that. He doesn’t even mention Rome. He just indicates some sort of violence being done to Peter when he’s old. That’s all. And you wouldn’t even conclude that martyrdom is being spoken of if John didn’t make the point clear by commenting on it. And he’s writing his gospel AFTER the fact. Peter has already died by this point. And, nothing is said about crucifixion, though you explicitly say “Jesus knew about Peter’s crucifixion.” But Jesus doesn’t mention crucifixion, nor does John. All Jesus’ words necessarily indicate about the ‘manner’ of Peter’s death is that it will be a violent one, i.e., martyrdom. But there are a lot of ways to kill somebody. True, Peter does end up being crucified, but it doesn’t follow that that’s what Jesus intends or predicts. All Jesus does is predict that Peter will be murdered.

But I agree, even attributing that bit of knowledge about Peter’s future is problematic IF God concludes it only on the basis of creational factors that obtain at the time Jesus’ announces it to Peter. But we can always include what God might intend and/or commit to bring about as part of what God knows. And if God has decided that he wants Peter to die a Martyr’s death as the most appropriate journey for Peter to take, then there’s no real problem at all. God knows Peter will be led away to a martyr’s death because God’s going to work with what he’s got so that, come the appropriate time, Peter gets martyred for the glory of God.

How can God know there will be enough people around when Peter is old who will FREELY choose to murder Peter? Again, I don’t really see a problem. God can know, given the sinfulness and violence of the first century world, that finding a few violent people won’t be a difficult thing to do. That’s NEVER been a difficult thing to achieve at any point in history. God basically says, “You know what, there’s always been a surplus of violent evil people. I won’t have a problem finding them when Peter’s old, and I think I want Peter to glorify me through martyrdom. That’s it.” After all, Jesus doesn’t say, “Hey, there will be 14 men, 9 of them Roman citizens and 5 Greeks, whose names will be Antony, Gaius, Cyril, Clement, etc…and who’ll be wearing…and whose birthdates will be….” Jesus doesn’t say that. His prediction is quite general—“Peter, when you’re old you’re gonna be led away where you don’t wanna go.” That’s it. That could be fulfilled anywhere, anytime after he’s old, and in pretty much any circumstance.

Chaz: Tom, even if the future is fully open…

Tom: An impossibility I think. Rather, just ‘partly’ open. That’ll do. ;o)

Chaz:  God seems to know a heck of a lot. If He knews of Peter's denial, and Peter's crucifixion, I am sure that He knew who would accept Him and who wouldn't in time immemorial.

Tom: Just on the basis of his knowing Peter would deny him and that he came to intend that Peter die a martyr’s death, you conclude that God eternally knows the specific identities of all who will accept and reject him? Wow.

Chaz: I am sure that we will see on Judgment Day that despite His knowledge, He is just and righteous.

Tom: I’ll agree with ya there!

Chaz: Mystery: I tell the students on campus that the bible is not an exhaustive book that reveals the secrets of the universe and because the bible is a partial revelation; one needs to accept some incoherence in their theology.

Tom: Yes, the Bible only reveals some things about some things. But why should this mean having to accept incoherence in our theology? Why can’t the Bible speak coherently about the stuff it does reveal? When I talk about playing the mystery card, I don't at all mean conceding incoherence in my beliefs. I just mean admiting that there are things we don't know, that a full explanation isn't given us, and we'll have to do the best we can. But for me, what it is we're "doing" is speaking coherently about God. I don't believe anything that's incoherent.

Chaz: You'd be amazed how many students on campus asked me this past spring “If God knows the future, how can we have free will.” I answer them with the open view and what I call my ignorant view.

Tom: Do me a favor. Give those students my name and email (opentheist@hotmail.com) and tell them to contact me if they want to know about the open view. Nothing personal, but I’d rather it be me than you who explains the open view to them. ;o7

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 5/22/2009 6:50:19 AM (GMT-5)

Tom: But Jesus doesn’t say all that. He doesn’t even mention Rome. He just indicates some sort of violence being done to Peter when he’s old. That’s all. And you wouldn’t even conclude that martyrdom is being spoken of if John didn’t make the point clear by commenting on it. And he’s writing his gospel AFTER the fact. Peter has already died by this point. And, nothing is said about crucifixion, though you explicitly say “Jesus knew about Peter’s crucifixion.” But Jesus doesn’t mention crucifixion, nor does John. All Jesus’ words necessarily indicate about the ‘manner’ of Peter’s death is that it will be a violent one, i.e., martyrdom. But there are a lot of ways to kill somebody. True, Peter does end up being crucified, but it doesn’t follow that that’s what Jesus intends or predicts. All Jesus does is predict that Peter will be murdered.

Jeff: Right. By Chaz's view there is no difference in warranted or unwarranted inference. There shouldn't even be such things as psychologists. There are LOTS of things that are predictable about people.

And Chaz, if you want to say that providence = predestination, then I guess we all believe in predestination in that sense. But that's not the same thing as Calvinism.

Tom;

The extent of details of Peter's crucifixion doesn't really matter; Jesus knew of his martyrdom. Jesus doesn't always give us full-blown details as He does with say the battle of Armageddon, or Peter's denial, or Abacus' prophecy of Paul being bound in chains in Jerusalem, or the thousands of other prophecies... Not even God could have inductive knowledge to know the way the world will be the extent that He could pinpoint the martyrdom of Peter; because we are talking about an Open Future that doesn't exist yet and there are almost countless ways the future could actualize.

The millions of future free will decisions (that don't have an existence today) that would have to be known by Christ are still an issue regardless of how detailed an explanation he gave. Even if Jesus said “You will be martyred some day” would require Him to know million and millions of future free will decisions that didn’t exist at the time of the prophecy. I think Jesus knew the "kind of death" he would suffer when he said "you will stretch your hands forward (to be nailed to a post)....

for Jesus in 33 AD to know how the world would will be in 67 AD is even a greater challenge when you consider the TRILLIONS of free will decisions that constitute the future. So Let's say that Jesus only inductively guessed that Peter would suffer a martyrs dealth and He didn't know it was crucifixion. This still required TRILLIONS of free will choices that Christ would have to know...

Much more is entailed in this prophecy than, Jesus taking a lucky guess and figuring out that some of his apostles will be martyred. Forget the Open View for a moment and read this prophecy with an open heart.

Tom after reading your reply, you are twisting the bible for sake of your philosophy and are treading on dangerous ground. Tom I am concerned for your eternal salvation because you are so ardently fighting against sound reason and wisdom from the bible; in order to defend your epistemology.

John - Chaz

Hi Chaz (John)-

Chaz: The extent of details of Peter's crucifixion doesn't really matter.

Tom: Really? I think it matters hugely. Saying Jesus predicted a host of specific details (as I described) about Peter’s martyrdom 35 years ahead of time (on the one hand), and predicting only that “Peter will be murdered” (on the other hand) are quite different.

Chaz: The millions of future free will decisions (that don't have an existence today) that would have to be known by Christ are still an issue regardless of how detailed an explanation he gave.

Tom: Sorry, gotta differ with ya. God can determine that martyrdom as such is the manner of death most appropriate for Peter without having also to equally foreknow millions of free-will choices by others.

Chaz: Even if Jesus said “You will be martyred some day” would require Him to know million and millions of future free will decisions that didn’t exist at the time of the prophecy.

Tom: How so?

Chaz: I think Jesus knew the "kind of death" he would suffer when he said "you will stretch your hands forward (to be nailed to a post)...

Tom: I think that's an anachronism, reading how Peter happened to be martyred back into Jesus’ prediction. But the words don’t say that:

“When you’re old, you’ll stretch out your hands and another will carry you where you don’t want to go.”

That could mean being led off, hands bound, to almost any kind of death—stoning, crucifixion, or beheading.

I’m not trying to deny something Jesus’ words explicitly say, Chaz, or force them to say something they don’t explicitly say. I’m just trying to be honest with the TEXT, “What’s it SAY?” and then go from there. But in any event, I already said I don’t NEED Jesus to be predicting only a violent death for Peter (though I think that's all that's here). Jesus can intend crucifixion. That’s not fatal to my view.

Chaz: So Let's say that Jesus only inductively guessed that Peter would suffer a martyrs dealth…

Tom: Not inductively guessed. What are you talking about? I didn’t say that. Nor would I. Nor would I exclude from the factors that constitute this ‘induction’ (if you want to call it that’) God’s own determinations. In fact, in this case, I consider God’s own intentions with respect to Peter to be THE real informant.

Chaz: …and He didn't know it was crucifixion. This still required TRILLIONS of free will choices that Christ would have to know...

Tom: I don't see that at all, Chaz. All God has to know is that God is committed to ask Peter for his life when he's old. That’s all that’s needed to ground Jesus’ prediction. God can work out the details later.

Chaz: Much more is entailed in this prophecy than, Jesus taking a lucky guess and figuring out that some of his apostles will be martyred.

Tom: I specifically ruled out lucky guessing. This makes me think you really don't get the open view at all.

Like I said, send anybody who wants to know about open theism to my email, OK? I wouldn’t want their understanding of the open view to depend on you.

Chaz: Forget the Open View for a moment and read this prophecy with an open heart.

Tom: Ouch!

Chaz: Tom after reading your reply, you are twisting the bible for sake of your philosophy and are treading on dangerous ground. Tom I am concerned for your eternal salvation because you are so ardently fighting against sound reason and wisdom from the bible; in order to defend your epistemology.

Tom: I actually CAN appreciate where you’re coming from. I used to get upset and judgmental in return to people who’d resort to questioning other peoples’ very salvation over this issue. Now I just feel deeply sorry for them. Jesus, have mercy on us all.

God bless you, give you peace, and make you a blessing.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 5/22/2009 11:57:10 AM (GMT-5)

We have debated in the past that Jesus knew of Peter's denial by way of induction. This of course was expressed by many as "God knew the heart of Peter and when put in a certain situation, He knew how Peter would respond". By the way, how ever you wish to shroud this it amounts to induction which is merely an educated guess based on the knowledge of current or past events.

 I argued that this simple denial would have required Jesus to have known hundreds of thousands of free will decisions; which to me is not possible especially if men are truly libertarian free. Many of you believed that God could extrapolate this denial based on His knowledge of Peter’s heart.

Let's now consider Jesus prophesying to Peter that "One day you will put out your hands and go where you don't wish...thus signifying the kind of death Peter would suffer" (paraphrased).

Those of you who deny that God knows the future with some sort of clairvoyant certainty (the classical view); thus He must rely on induction. Do you really believe that He could look at the state of affairs in time T, and predict Peter's crucifixion in time T+20 years (or whatever year Peter was crucified in)? Do you realize the millions of free will decisions that would have been required to take place in order for this event to actualize? Could God with His induction know millions of events that are truly free?

I would put forth that if God's induction is this accurate, then there is NO difference between His inductive knowledge and some sort of clairvoyant certain knowledge that the classic theologians teach.

If you are willing to accept the odds of God knowing every single libertarian free will event leading up to Peter's death; then the odds of men evolving from rocks and minerals shouldn't be a real stretch or leap of faith for you.

By the way how, many of you believe in theistic evolution? If you don't have you ever argued that the odds against it are too great?

Most of us argue that determinism is absurd in light of the biblical witness and the self-evident proof of free will. I would argue that the open view is equally abusrd in light of the biblical witness of God's foreknowledge and the impossibility of Him knowing millions upon millions of libertarian free will events. In my humble opinion, the only cogent view of God's foreknowledge is Mystery. God knows things in ways that are beyond the domain of human knowledge and reason. We cannot understand His infinite knowledge or unsearchable counsel.

Chaz

Post Edited (Chaz Finney) : 5/22/2009 7:53:52 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Chaz Finney) : 5/23/2009 11:08:47 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Daniel M) : 5/24/2009 12:36:22 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 7/22/2009 12:44:31 AM (GMT-5)