 |
| 
Rpeterso
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 6/23/2003 3:26 PM (GMT -6) |   | As far as theological/philosophical systems are concerned, I believe there to be no other system as coherent and as representative of the entire Biblical cannon as Open Theism; however, I also believe there to exist one weakness which must be addressed before Open Theism is to be considered “orthodoxy.” This weakness perhaps lies within ambiguities concerning those aspects of the future that are in fact determined or settled and those aspects that remain open. It seems that the notion of a “partially open” and a “partially closed” future needs to be developed further, for such general statements render Open Theism less credible and/or less convincing. In essence then, is it possible to pinpoint the factors or characteristics of a “settled event” in contrast to one that remains open? If so, can the “settled events” described throughout scripture be specifically categorized in a manner that clearly distinguishes them from the rest of the “open” future?
Ryan
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/23/2003 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | |
In my view, the future is settled to the extent that it is definitely this way and definitely not that way. It is open to the extent that it is possibly this way and possibly that way. While many have puzzelled over this description of the future, I believe it is the one we all assume to be true with every act of deliberation. Consider any decision you have to make. Delibertate about it. Notice that you are assuming by your very act of deliberation that the future is TO THIS EXTENT open -- possibly this way and possibly that way -- and that it is UP TO YOU to resolve it. But also notice how much of the future you assume IS NOT UP TO YOU TO DECIDE. Notice how much you assume is already definitely this way and definitely not that way.
The open view simply says that this assumption we all make is the way reality is.
What do you think?
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/24/2003 7:11 AM (GMT -6) | | In reality though, don't people just assume that an event is settled AFTER it occurs? Who goes through life assuming that there are some things that are settled? I'm talking about events, not about something like, well, I am a male, or I am a female - guess that's settled. (and of course there's the option of changing that too)
What is an example of an event that is settled that corresponds with human cognition? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Rpeterso
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 18
| Posted 6/24/2003 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Doc,
Thanks for your reply! Your reasoning seems logical to me but I am wondering how it relates to Peter’s denial of Jesus in the Synoptics. Christ informed Peter that he “will” deny God three times (Luke 22:34). This appears to me as a certainty, a settled event leaving no option for Peter to do otherwise. On the contrary, Peter clearly perceives there to exist possibilities, for he emphatically contends that he would do nothing of the sort and even rather die than disown his savior. Up until the point of denial, Peter’s process of deliberation clearly suggests that he believed the future to be open yet Jesus’ statement suggests that it is not. Was this event a settled event? And if not, would Jesus not have been lying if Peter’s actions truly existed as possibilities?
Ryan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2003 8:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Since I'm not sure which thread this should go on...
quote:
fred
Catechumen
250 Posts Posted - 06/24/2003 : 1:17:55 PM
---------------------------------------------------
I don't find anything per se objectionable about many, many, many things being left "open" by the Creator. The "cultural mandate" in Genesis seems to 'shout it from the mountain top!' Right?
Where I *think* that I differ with you, Greg, is that I've always read you as saying that the defined and the undefined sit side by side, and I read created reality as being in two tiers, with the created "structure" being the foundation upon which "creational developement" takes place. If we don't differ here, then maybe we don't differ as much as I sometimes think.
First the outline repeated; and then the application.
Creational Structure is that which God's word establishes -- it includes the very nature of all reality. According to this, humanity is created good.
Creational Development is that which mankind, in his office given him/her/they by God has done and can do. According to this we have sinned. But we have invented the basketball, and Michael Jordan expanded its applications a bit.
Mights and Maybes, and lost opportunities exist in the Creational Development tier. Nothing in that tier affects the Creational Structure that God forknew before the foundations of the world.
What say y'all?
AND quote:
quote:
Viewing this as two uncompeting tiers, I don't seem to feel the stress many of you seem to do here. I see the possitives, the potentiality here. Education is an area FILLED with Mights and Maybes.
Here is a Reformed colleges thoughts on the educational task. hOW DOES THIS DISCUSSION OF YOURS BEAR OUT IN THIS APPLICATION
[quote]To understand the nature of education, we must see it against the background of God's mandate to subdue the earth. God called humanity to the task of dressing and keeping the garden, that is, developing and conserving the created order. Moreover, as God's image-bearers, people are capable of fulfilling this mandate, because God, in calling people to his task, also equips them. Education, in its broadest sense, is an essential element in the development and exercise of that capability.
Humanity's ability to develop the creation depends on insight. Consequently, people must study, examine, and understand the world. Furthermore, the results of such study and investigation must be preserved by transmission from one generation to another. Education, therefore, is fundamental to humanity's task of developing and conserving the created order.
Education also relates to the performance of humanity's cultural task in another way, however, God instructed men and women to be fruitful and multiply. This inevitably involves not merely the begetting but also the training of children. Such training, too, reflects the call to develop and conserve, for children must be trained to acquire and exercise insight.
Education, then, is a constituent of life itself, and in its broadest scope refers to all human efforts to gain and transmit insight, whether at the forefront of science in universities and research centers or in the kindergarten class or on mother's lap. Seen thus, education pervades all of life. It is operative in every human relationship. In marriage, it manifests itself in the deepening of understanding between the two partners. In the home, the rearing of children is essentially an educational activity. In the church, we are instructed in the Scriptures. In all other spheres, too, such as commerce, industry, the arts and the media, there is development and conservation which requires growing insight.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/24/2003 8:27 AM (GMT -6) | | | RPeterson - your example is kind of what I'm talking about. Although the incident of Peter denying Christ was a settled event if we are to believe in prophecy and in the Christ's prediction - to Peter it didn't seem settled until after the denial occurred. So again, how does a human comprehend a settled event before it occurs? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/24/2003 8:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
RPeterson - your example is kind of what I'm talking about. Although the incident of Peter denying Christ was a settled event if we are to believe in prophecy and in the Christ's prediction - to Peter it didn't seem settled until after the denial occurred. So again, how does a human comprehend a settled event before it occurs?
Some prophecy is God declaring what He will do. Some prophecy is God predicting what someone will do because He knows them so well. With my limited knowlege, I too, can predict what some people will do. My younger daughter WILL drink some of my Mountain Dew, given the chance.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/24/2003 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | Well the specific prophecy about Peter denying Christ before the cock crows three times - that can't be just the result of Christ knowing Peter very well. How does the specific time of before the cock crowing three times relate to Peter's character and intentions? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2003 9:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
RPeterson - your example is kind of what I'm talking about. Although the incident of Peter denying Christ was a settled event if we are to believe in prophecy and in the Christ's prediction - to Peter it didn't seem settled until after the denial occurred. So again, how does a human comprehend a settled event before it occurs?
Creatures can be "foreknown" by God. But, importantly, that does NOT mean that it is "determined." It is on that last point that I think so much confusion is stirred up. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2003 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | | "Foreknown" and "settled" are not the same thing. Something who's structure is ordained and who's development is dynamic can be foreknown but yet not be "settled" until after it has actually happened. God can foreknow it -- we cannot.
Edited by - fred on 06/24/2003 2:51:43 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/24/2003 9:55 AM (GMT -6) | | | Fred- you seem to be advocating that God can know the future but doesn't cause it. That's fine - but that's not what's being discussed here- Rpeterso is talking about the open theism theology- where not only does God not cause the future, he doesn't know it either. So they explain christ's prediction of Peter's denial as just that Christ so thoroughly knew Peter that he was able to predict w/ accuracy what Peter would do. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2003 10:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I wanted the position voiced that says that it's mistaken to assume that God can't foreknow something and still have "dynamism" in his creation, open to man's "office of tilling and tending."
Most of the discussions seem to gravitate around the negatives, like the presence and proliferation of evil. YET, there is TONS of "dynamism" in the unfolding of the Creation, in perfect accordance to its structure, following the potentialities of its unfolding development. The antithetical, mal-developments are merely parasites.
Edited by - fred on 06/24/2003 3:16:04 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 6/24/2003 12:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
RD:
Well the specific prophecy about Peter denying Christ before the cock crows three times - that can't be just the result of Christ knowing Peter very well. How does the specific time of before the cock crowing three times relate to Peter's character and intentions?
Peter’s denial occurred within a very short period from the time of the prediction (several hours). So in order to make the prediction, Christ only had to know the following (directly or through revelation from the Father):
(1) that Peter’s present character was such that, despite Peter’s bravado, Peter would deny Christ under circumstances that were certain to occur given the present intentions of the group of agents directly or indirectly involved in the trial/crucifixion event;
(2) that in this regard Peter’s present character was solidified at least to the extent that it would not change in the next several hours;
(3) that, given the course of events leading up to this time, and given the present intentions of all agents directly or indirectly involved in the trial/crucifixion event, it is probable that Peter would be confronted about his relationship to Christ at least three times within the next several hours;
(4) that, if necessary, God has it within his power to arrange for Peter to be confronted the requisite number of times.
(A) This could be done by exercising meticulous providence in this case such that (i) events are influenced so that persons who are likely to confront Peter would be in a position to do so and/or (ii) one or more persons who would not otherwise be inclined to confront Peter would be prompted to do so and/or (iii) one or more persons would be compelled to confront Peter in a compatibilistic manner (consistent with the person’s character) and/or (iv) one or more persons would be compelled to confront Peter in some other manner. It seems likely that this could be done without violating God’s purposes for creaturely freedom because the simple act of asking Peter whether he was one of Jesus’s disciples would not seem to have any moral significance.
(B) Alternatively, if necessary, God could have arranged for one or more angels to appear to Peter to confront him.
(5) that God has it within his power to providentially arrange for a cock to crow at any given place and time.
(6) that God’s purposes in revealing this weakness to Peter, the rock on which God intends to build the Church, provides sufficient reason for God to exercise providence in a manner that is atypical if necessary.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/24/2003 12:59 PM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Well the specific prophecy about Peter denying Christ before the cock crows three times - that can't be just the result of Christ knowing Peter very well. How does the specific time of before the cock crowing three times relate to Peter's character and intentions?
Use your imagination, RD. After three times, no one asks anymore. Maybe God whispered in the ears of three people and those three asked Peter. Maybe God whispered in the ears of n number of people until He had his three to ask Peter. Maybe after three people asked Peter, God prevented anyone from getting the chance to ask Peter. I can influence people to act certain ways by suggestion, why can't God?
And who controls the cock (rooster)? Mr. Rooster, not a free moral agent, could easily be prompted when to crow.
If you're God and you're going to send your only Son to earth and You know that Satan knows You're going to do that, how hard is it to predict that Satan will be successful in getting at least one follower to betray Jesus?
A weaker, smaller God, would have to control EVERYTHING in order to get these things done. A POWERFUL God can do it around the actions and choices of free moral agents.
PLUS, the additional benefit, is that you don't have to believe that God Himself is responsible for all the evil in the world! This is probably the strongest evangelistic tool we have. The most asked question, that about God and evil.
"I've been walking in the rain, just to get wet on purpose"
Edited by - Laika on 06/24/2003 6:10:16 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/24/2003 4:37 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm laughing out loud over here Laika - you are bending over backwards and going to extremes- so now God can whisper in someone's ear to make them do something to influence Peter - and exactly how is that different than him influencing Peter himself? Talk about deconstructing the text. Why is it so hard to believe that God just knew that Peter would deny him thrice before the cock crows?
And this just goes hand in hand with other prophecies - particularly Old Testament ones, that are time-dependent. But also Christ himself said that no man knows the day and hour of his return, not even Christ, but only God Himself. He said, 2000 or so years ago, that God knows it. So God knew it then, God knows it now- there is an appointed time.
I have the feeling that God himself could come down from Heaven and appear before you to give you a prophecy, and you would do backflips around it saying - God, there's no way you can know, b/c we're all free to decide!
Sorry if I sound flippant - no disrespect intended. I just think that you, along with everyone else, including me, will go to any length to defend our positions. Makes you wonder what exactly is the case :)
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2003 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
JET
Peter’s denial occurred within a very short period from the time of the prediction (several hours). So in order to make the prediction, Christ only had to know the following (directly or through revelation from the Father):
(1) that Peter’s present character was such that, despite Peter’s bravado, Peter would deny Christ under circumstances that were certain to occur given the present intentions of the group of agents directly or indirectly involved in the trial/crucifixion event;
(2) that in this regard Peter’s present character was solidified at least to the extent that it would not change in the next several hours;
(3) that, given the course of events leading up to this time, and given the present intentions of all agents directly or indirectly involved in the trial/crucifixion event, it is probable that Peter would be confronted about his relationship to Christ at least three times within the next several hours;
(4) that, if necessary, God has it within his power to arrange for Peter to be confronted the requisite number of times.
(A) This could be done by exercising meticulous providence in this case such that (i) events are influenced so that persons who are likely to confront Peter would be in a position to do so and/or (ii) one or more persons who would not otherwise be inclined to confront Peter would be prompted to do so and/or (iii) one or more persons would be compelled to confront Peter in a compatibilistic manner (consistent with the person’s character) and/or (iv) one or more persons would be compelled to confront Peter in some other manner. It seems likely that this could be done without violating God’s purposes for creaturely freedom because the simple act of asking Peter whether he was one of Jesus’s disciples would not seem to have any moral significance.
(B) Alternatively, if necessary, God could have arranged for one or more angels to appear to Peter to confront him.
(5) that God has it within his power to providentially arrange for a cock to crow at any given place and time.
(6) that God’s purposes in revealing this weakness to Peter, the rock on which God intends to build the Church, provides sufficient reason for God to exercise providence in a manner that is atypical if necessary.
I have to say that I admire this, JET. Very nicely done.
But it deserves asking: Why even this much effort, even if you have succeeded in making it the exact opposite of cumbersome. (Again, nicely done.)
1. Why can't this be just an example of it being "foreknown" those few hours?
2. And why (if so) is it assumed that foreknowing means determined?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/24/2003 4:49 PM (GMT -6) | | | I'm very sorry - I just looked it up again - and in Mark it says that Christ predicts Peter will deny him three times before the cock crows twice. Just to be clear :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2003 4:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Seems to me -- at least tonight -- that the way a Calvinist would approach this is NOT from the direction of: who's "responsible for all the evil in the world." And maybe a whole lot more traditions would begin somewhere else too. Any that make a discipline of thinking "Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration" would not begin there. Their beginning would be to ask the bigger, bolder question of what things are like ALL THE TIME -- not just when things go wrong. The presume that the awry times are just a parasitical variation on the "normative" mode. And they presume, they proclaim that the God who still rules (even now) created and sustains all creation. So it is, with John Calvin, to the Creation decree that they look to discover what is normative.
Soapbox of the evening: Does something have to be "determined" for it to be foreknowable by God.
Something very Reformed to be concerned with is this:
quote:
...reflect and promote knowledge of the dynamic unfolding of creation, and it should highlight the various aspects of human responsibility and involvement in this process.
Edited by - fred on 06/24/2003 10:00:02 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/24/2003 4:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi JET - what, in your definition, then constitutes a settled event, if not the Peter example? It seems you could use your rationalizations for any event possible, thus making no event settled. Even Greg Boyd seems to say that some things are settled. How is the determination made, in your opinion?
My thought is that if indeed Peter was very predictable, along with the other disciples, and that Christ didn't have to stretch much to say that Peter would deny him, then why is Christ special? I mean, anyone could have made the prediction. One of the points of prophecy, especially in the Old Testament, was to show that the person was special, that he or she had a revelation from God- and no true prophet could ever tell a false prophecy. If it's just a matter of doing a psychological profile on a person and knowing them through and through, a good psychiatrist could make the same prediction.
If indeed it is then necessary for God to intervene and make the rooster crow - or to tell people to "tempt" Peter to deny Christ, then God is actually doing the causing of the event. How do you reconcile that with your theory? | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/24/2003 5:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
RD
...to tell people to "tempt" Peter to deny Christ, then God is actually doing the causing of the event.
I'd be asking something larger. I'd ask: WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? And I'd ask: HOW DID WE GET HERE.
It literally took all of time up until that night to prepare the world for what was about to happen, and to prepare the world for what the meaning of those events would be, in reality.
It was not just that one man was going to deny another man. The MEANING of those denials must concern us. We are asking something lik, "Why did Peter get wet" when we really have to concern ourselves with noticing the tidal wave that was sweeping over him. This was DRAMA of the hugest dimension that was ever seen on this planet. Peter--seems to me--was just one part of it. Don't over look that the whole gang dispersed later, or that Judas betrayed him. Or that Peter tried to stop the whole thing by "protecting" Jesus, TWICE. (Once with words, to which Jesus told him "get thee behind...; and once with a sword.) Obviously this is something bigger happening -- bigger than even continental drift!!!
Rather than considering whether God woke the cock early that day, or chose the loudest bird, we would do well to consider the huge panorama.
Another part of that very same story (Peter is very near the end.) is when "at the right time" a very young woman was asked by a messenger of God what her answer was.
God did not "force" Mary any more than he forced Peter. God forced neither.
But it might help us a bit if we take in--from where we sit--take in a bit of the big picture. SOMETHING was happening. And it involved the whole of creation. (This isn't a bad time to think in terms of the Andean butterfly's wings that cause the huricane...) Something had begun back about the time the promise of "...and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." And that something came bubbling up and displayed itself.
Great causes were at work that night. Fact was as vivid as fiction. The people asking Peter were as much seeking as they were accusing. The whole world wanted to know; but much of the world was also conflicted. And the best follower joined in with that confliction.
That's what happened. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 6/24/2003 5:42 PM (GMT -6) | | I think Fred is right in looking into the MEANING of this prediction (about Peter). It wasn't just a psychic hot line future info-mercial. Peter was stuck on the typical first century militant-messiah-ruler-reigns view of the Messiah. So long as the miracle working Jesus was around, he was brave. But his real character was squeezed out of him under presurre when his miracle worker was arrested. To humble this potential future leader, God sets him up to have his character exposed three times. After the resurrection, Jesus will drill into him the TRUE meaning of leadership in the Kingdom -- three times. It is "feed my sheep" (Jn 20). And he follows it up with yet another prediction about Peter... this time, not that he'll deny him, but that he'll die for him... and just like him. Peter learned the lesson and became the great leader of the early church he became as a result of it.
If God knew Peter's character was solidified to the extent that under such and such conditions he would deny him, and if God knew there would be sufficient numbers of people who had seen Peter hang'n around with jesus who would notice Peter, and if God knew when cock's crow (viz. at sunrise)... the prediction wouldn't be too diffcult.
Now, an example of a future event that is settled, but which hasn't yet occured.... hmmmm.... in not more than five moves, I will checkmate you. Of course, the actual occurence adds definiteness to the event (otherwise there would be no distinction between its settledness BEFORE its actualization and its actualization). But the event IS settled TO THIS EXTEND.... you SHALL be checkmated in not more than five moves.
Blessings
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/25/2003 5:16 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
I'm laughing out loud over here Laika - you are bending over backwards and going to extremes- so now God can whisper in someone's ear to make them do something to influence Peter
Not influence Peter, just to question him. And not make them do it, just suggest it. Maybe it took Him more than three people to get His three. This is "bending over backwards and going to extremes"? At least you're getting your chuckles; that's why I'm here.
As for roosters, just wander through the rooster barn during the state fair and start crowing yourself. Any time of the day, you'll get them ALL crowing, it's hilarious.
Edited by - Laika on 06/25/2003 10:29:17 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/25/2003 7:07 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika - you said "I can influence people to act certain ways by suggestion, why can't God?" You said it, not me. I do agree with this sentence. If you as a person are doing the influencing, you are acting in the chain of causation, hoping that the outcome of your influence is materialized. Same thing with God, although he is not hoping anything, he knows what will occur.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/25/2003 8:21 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
quote:
Laika - you said "I can influence people to act certain ways by suggestion, why can't God?" You said it, not me. I do agree with this sentence.
Yeah! But then the other shoe drops:
quote:
If you as a person are doing the influencing, you are acting in the chain of causation, hoping that the outcome of your influence is materialized. Same thing with God, although he is not hoping anything, he knows what will occur.
If they choose to NOT follow my suggestion is that still part of the chain of causation?
When God commands something, and they disobey, He knows they were going to disobey because His commanding of it was part of the chain of causation that caused them to disobey Him?
Tomorrow, same time, same place, clean socks...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/25/2003 2:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Why would God whisper in three or more person's ears to get Peter to stumble? What is in it for God? It gives a picture of God manipulating Peter and he's playing around with the boy.
You can accept the fact that Jesus forknew that Peter would deny Him, not based on whispers, circumstances, or Peter's character, but based on Jesus' sovereign knowledge. Do not be afraid of a God that can know all things. It does not make him any less loving or powerful. He is almighty and all knowing God who is above all. The OV reasons that God can know Peter's character is "solidified to the extent that under such and such conditions he would deny him"... that "there would be sufficient numbers of people who had seen Peter hang'n around with Jesus who would notice Peter" ... that God would/could know when the rooster crows, but at the same time he cannot know what Peter might do. Examine the contradictions within that reasoning. God bless.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 31 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:21 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|