 |
 | 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/1/2005 9:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | Jeff: But the open view does not ultimately depend on what we make of such matters. It is typically suspected first on philosophical grounds (for reasons that even non-theists can appreciate) and then retrospectively perceived in scripture in such passages as God saying He repented that He had made man.
Tom: Interesting. My journey (and that of others) ran in precislely the opposite direction. It was biblical considerations that FIRST started me down the road and which ultimately convinced me of the OV. The philosophical arguments were icing on the cake.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/1/2005 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: He realized the incoherence of saying God knows EVERYTHING.
Tom: But God DOES know everything!
I just had to say that. 
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/1/2005 2:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: You're nothing if not predictable!!
Tom: Solidified character I guess! How appropriate for a thread about Peter!
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/1/2005 2:24 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/1/2005 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Spiderman
JEE,
This, in my opinion, is an area in which Open Theists need to do a lot of work. On the one hand, they want to build a theology around the notion of freedom, openness and genuine choice. The point of this is that we can then say, "Yes, you have free will and are thus responsible for your actions." Fine. This I can understand. However, where Open Theists (particularly Boyd) become unclear (at least as far as I can see) is that they lean heavily on the idea that character determines behavior and that the future is, to some extant, closed.
Why is character formation unclear to you? It is quite self-evident that choices when persisted in form habits, which over time tend to form our character for good or evil.
quote:
An example might illustrate this point:
On the one hand, we have the Open Theist’s position that Peter’s character determined his actions and thus Jesus could predict his denial. However, let's go to the Old Testament. God speaks of being "surprised" at the behavior of the Israelites, even going so far as to say that their actions "did not even enter my mind." The Open Theist states that this is proof positive that man is free and not determined, that the future is open, that God is surprised, etc...
...But these Old Testament passages are the cornerstone of Open Theism.
Actually, Dr. Boyd (and I think Dr. Sanders, too) has backed off from using the Jeremiah reference of "divine surprise" as supporting evidence for an Open Future. They have in fact conceded that it is at best a figurative expression of God's extreme disappointment with the path Israel took. But it would be a denial of God's perfect knowledge of the present if we were to say God was genuinely surprised in the sense of having never even had an inkling that they might choose to rebel.
But this concession does not rule out the many other passages in which God himself speaks in subjunctive terms with regard to the future, when God says "If..." And all the Open View is saying is that the future is not 100% settled/fixed/predetermined, but is in fact to a limited degree contingent upon human choices.
Hoping everyone has a blessed New Year in Christ,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Spiderman
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 1/3/2005 11:09 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Why is character formation unclear to you? It is quite self-evident that choices when persisted in form habits, which over time tend to form our character for good or evil.
Character formation is clear to me because philosophical convictions lean towards a compatibilistic account of freewill. What is unclear, however, is how open theists can still believe they have a better accounting of free will if they take positions that mirror compatibilism. How is Peter's decision really "free" if it was just the result of character formation and a causal chain of events? Is it a free choice because at some point along the way in Peter's past he had a choice to form his character a certain way and made the wrong choice? Maybe he made some wrong choices as a toddler and this led to a vicious circle of character formation that ultimately led to his denial of Christ?
As a compatibilist brother, I don't really feel that libertarian freedom gives us that much, so I have no problem saying that character formation (along with many, many other factors) form the way we make free choices. But how are you in any better of a position if you write off Peter's denial to a causal chain of events and call it "character formation"?
quote:
Actually, Dr. Boyd (and I think Dr. Sanders, too) has backed off from using the Jeremiah reference of "divine surprise" as supporting evidence for an Open Future. They have in fact conceded that it is at best a figurative expression of God's extreme disappointment with the path Israel took.
I'm glad to hear that.
quote:
But this concession does not rule out the many other passages in which God himself speaks in subjunctive terms with regard to the future, when God says "If..." And all the Open View is saying is that the future is not 100% settled/fixed/predetermined, but is in fact to a limited degree contingent upon human choices.
My thought is that these instances ARE contingent upon human choice - in a very real and genuine way - yet they are still foreknown and (at least in some cases) predestined. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/3/2005 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Spidey,
In my mind, the compatibilistic view of free will totally precludes actual responsibility for one's actions, and relegates human behavior to nothing more than impulse-led (animalistic) behavior. (My understanding of compatibilism is that in that scenario, "one is free to do what one wants, though one's wants are determined by God").
I personally don't see how meaningful, responsible character formation even fits in with compatibilism; perhaps you could explain? If all one's acts are caused by God (even if only secondarily), how is one's character being formed at all?
How compatibilism presents man as truly responsible for his actions is something I have a very hard time fathoming, to be honest with you. Compatibilism seems to amount to nothing more than "God pulling the strings," causing us to do everything we do, whether good or evil. How God is not the author of sin in compatibilism is not at all clear.
No one in the Open Theist camp has ever tried to deny the fact of habituation strongly influencing (and eventually determining) our choices. And no one in the Open Theist camp has ever denied that God at times unilaterally causes certain things to happen and even in some cases causes evil people to do His will (like Pharoah, for instance). But what Open Theism argues is that this is not God's normal mode of dealing with humankind, and that in such cases, God does not hold the pawns responsible for what HE causes them to do.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Spiderman
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 1/4/2005 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
[size=3][font=Book Antiqua]Hi Spidey,
In my mind, the compatibilistic view of free will totally precludes actual responsibility for one's actions, and relegates human behavior to nothing more than impulse-led (animalistic) behavior.
I personally don't see how meaningful, responsible character formation even fits in with compatibilism; perhaps you could explain?
How compatibilism presents man as truly responsible for his actions is something I have a very hard time fathoming, to be honest with you. Compatibilism seems to amount to nothing more than "God pulling the strings," causing us to do everything we do, whether good or evil. How God is not the author of sin in compatibilism is not at all clear.
I think it is helpful to distinguish two forms of determinism; often referred to as "hard" and "soft" determinism. Hard determinism seems to be what is irritating your theological sensitivities. This is the "hand in the glove" view where man basically does as God says to do. You referred to it as "God pulling the strings."
As I see it, soft determinism, or compatibilism, holds more promise. For one thing, it takes into account the fact that our choices involve a myriad of complex factors, some of which we are not even aware of; things like past experiences, biological, psychological, emotional, and even spiritual issus that we have. All of these things shape our choices and inclinations. Secondly, the compatibilist, for the most part, wants to preserve free will (i.e. he believes determinism is compatible with free will). Whether or not he is successful, though, is subject to debate.
Lastly, from a biblical perspective, it seems that compatibilism helps us explain the nature of some of those pesky predestination/foreknowledge verse that cause us so much aggitation. Eph. 1, Rom. 9, the Pharaoh passages, etc...
That was why I initially inquired as to how your view of responsible character formation was any different than a compatibilist's view of human freedom. If you say that our character formation determines our choices, then we have a sort of compatibilistic view.
quote:
No one in the Open Theist camp has ever tried to deny the fact of habituation strongly influencing (and eventually determining) our choices.
So, are we responsible for choices we make if we are simply under the influence of "habituation"?
quote:
And no one in the Open Theist camp has ever denied that God at times unilaterally causes certain things to happen and even in some cases causes evil people to do His will (like Pharoah, for instance). But what Open Theism argues is that this is not God's normal mode of dealing with humankind, and that in such cases, God does not hold the pawns responsible for what HE causes them to do.
Hhmmmm....Are you saying Pharaoh was not responsible for his actions? I'm not sure I have ever heard this view...that some people are not responsible for actions b/c God made them do it... | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/4/2005 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Spiderman
Lastly, from a biblical perspective, it seems that compatibilism helps us explain the nature of some of those pesky predestination/foreknowledge verse that cause us so much aggitation. Eph. 1, Rom. 9,
Besides Christ, those two passages can be understood far more reasonably as indicating corporate election, as opposed to particularistic election.
quote:
the Pharaoh passages, etc...
In the Exodus narrative, Pharoah had already formed his own character (hardened his own heart) and God merely confirmed that choice for His glory. As I said earlier, "libertarian free will, over time, becomes compatibilistic free will." But the person who has so solidified his character for evil is still responsible for his evil actions, just as a person who flies off the handle in a rage would be responsible for any violence they may inflict upon others while in that rage, even though they can in a sense be truly said to have "lost control." In such a case, the person "lost control" as a direct result of their own evil choice to let their anger rule.
quote:
That was why I initially inquired as to how your view of responsible character formation was any different than a compatibilist's view of human freedom.
In my understanding of compatibilism (soft or hard doesn't really matter, as far as I can tell), one is free to do what one wants, but one's wants have been determined/formed/caused by God, PERIOD. It is counterintuitive to me how that could in any sense be a truly responsible formation of moral "character." Indeed, one has to wonder how the words, "moral," and "character" would even be meaningful in such usage.
quote:
If you say that our character formation determines our choices, then we have a sort of compatibilistic view.
Yeah, like I said, libertarian free will, over time, becomes compatibilistic free will. The distinction as I see it is that in my view there is LFW, however much it may be misused and morph into compatibilism, while in Edwardsean compatibilism there is NO libertarian free will, ever.
quote:
No one in the Open Theist camp has ever tried to deny the fact of habituation strongly influencing (and eventually determining) our choices.
quote:
So, are we responsible for choices we make if we are simply under the influence of "habituation"?
Yes, for we have previously CHOSEN our present character development/habituation.
quote:
And no one in the Open Theist camp has ever denied that God at times unilaterally causes certain things to happen and even in some cases causes evil people to do His will (like Pharoah, for instance). But what Open Theism argues is that this is not God's normal mode of dealing with humankind, and that in such cases, God does not hold the pawns responsible for what HE causes them to do.
quote:
Hhmmmm....Are you saying Pharaoh was not responsible for his actions? I'm not sure I have ever heard this view...that some people are not responsible for actions b/c God made them do it...
I'm saying that in cases where God absolutely unilaterally CAUSES people to act in a certain way to fulfill his providential purpose, they are not responsible and cannot be responsible for those things they had no control over. In view of how much Scripture reveals that Pharoah hardened his own heart, with God confirming that choice, I don't think Pharoah's case would fall into this category, in my view.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Spiderman
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 8
| Posted 1/5/2005 5:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, I am familiar with the standard arguments for Open Theism and I remain quite unimpressed. However, you seem very comfortable with them, so I suppose it's all good. I won't exhaust the board by answering them all, but I'll just make a couple of observations:
First, I would encourage you to do a little more introductory reading on compatibilism. The compatibilism I would suggest does not simply say "God makes me do what I want to do." Rather, the suggestion is that human beings are a complicated people whose actions and will are the result of many forces, and often we are quite unconscious about why we do what we do. Ultimately, we find that God is the cause of all things, but we as people do make conscious and genuine choices throughout our lives. Some of them we are quite conscious of the consequences and of our freedom to act or not to act. To will or not to will.
Next, your suggestion that God overrides our wills and, in a sense, forces us to do things seems absurd to me. It further confounds me that you would suggest that some people will not be held responsible for their actions because "The devil made me do it;" or, according to your view, "God made me do it." I simply find it outrageous to suggest this and find absolutely no Scriptural evidence that God will give some people a pass because he acted unilaterally upon their wills. On the contrary, the judgment passages seem to indicate that everything we do will be brought before God for justice.
Finally, I think you are simply playing semantical games with the Pharaoh passage. Why would you say "Pharaoh hardened his heart" means that "Pharaoh hardened his heart," while then asserting that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" actually means "God confirmed his choice." Do you honestly believe that the biblical author (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) really meant to make a distinction between the two? I do not. I think the author was perfectly content with the philosophical tension of asserting both that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" and "God hardened Pharaoh's heart." You are obviously reading into this passage a theological/philosophical presupposition. (We all do it, though, so that's not always a big deal.)
In fact, I would ask you the following question: What is to stop a hyper-Calvinist from approaching this text the same way you do? Why can't a hyper-Calvinist say, "When the Bible says, 'God hardened Pharaoh's heart' it means 'God heardened Pharoah's heart,' but when it says 'Pharaoh hardened his heart' this actually means 'Pharaoh confirmed God's choice.'" Do you see how that type of semantical game can be played both ways? I, for one, am equally irritated with both positions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/5/2005 8:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Spiderman
First, I would encourage you to do a little more introductory reading on compatibilism. The compatibilism I would suggest does not simply say "God makes me do what I want to do." Rather, the suggestion is that human beings are a complicated people whose actions and will are the result of many forces, and often we are quite unconscious about why we do what we do. Ultimately, we find that God is the cause of all things, but we as people do make conscious and genuine choices throughout our lives. Some of them we are quite conscious of the consequences and of our freedom to act or not to act. To will or not to will.
I'm talking about Edwardsean compatibilism, which is specifically as I have stated.
quote:
Next, your suggestion that God overrides our wills and, in a sense, forces us to do things seems absurd to me.
Hmmm. Why's that? You don't think He could do that whenever He saw fit?
quote:
It further confounds me that you would suggest that some people will not be held responsible for their actions because "The devil made me do it;" or, according to your view, "God made me do it." I simply find it outrageous to suggest this and find absolutely no Scriptural evidence that God will give some people a pass because he acted unilaterally upon their wills. On the contrary, the judgment passages seem to indicate that everything we do will be brought before God for justice.
As far as I can tell, what you are apparently missing is the very thing you claim to argue for--the complexity of human action--which is precisely what an Open Theist tries to do when dealing with all the pertinent passages.
quote:
Finally, I think you are simply playing semantical games with the Pharaoh passage.
Okay.
quote:
Why would you say "Pharaoh hardened his heart" means that "Pharaoh hardened his heart," while then asserting that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" actually means "God confirmed his choice."
What else do you think Pharoah hardening his heart means but that he solidified his own choice? God confirming one's choices is just another way of saying the same thing.
quote:
Do you honestly believe that the biblical author (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) really meant to make a distinction between the two? I do not.
In my understanding, "hardening one's own heart" and "solidifying one's own choice" are saying the same thing in different words. I'm not saying there's any real substantial difference between the two things; one is just another way of saying the other.
quote:
I think the author was perfectly content with the philosophical tension of asserting both that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" and "God hardened Pharaoh's heart." You are obviously reading into this passage a theological/philosophical presupposition. (We all do it, though, so that's not always a big deal.)
I see the fact that Scripture says BOTH are true as a clear indication of synergism.
quote:
In fact, I would ask you the following question: What is to stop a hyper-Calvinist from approaching this text the same way you do? Why can't a hyper-Calvinist say, "When the Bible says, 'God hardened Pharaoh's heart' it means 'God heardened Pharoah's heart,' but when it says 'Pharaoh hardened his heart' this actually means 'Pharaoh confirmed God's choice.'" Do you see how that type of semantical game can be played both ways? I, for one, am equally irritated with both positions.
Sorry to irritate and confound you so. I don't think you should get all worked up over my use of terminology. As I said earlier, "hardening one's own heart," in my usage, means nothing more than "solidifying one's own choice," and "God hardening one's heart" means nothing more and nothing less than "God confirming one's choices," as, for instance, Romans 1 plainly states, among others.
Blessings,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/16/2005 4:51 PM (GMT -6) | |
But Jesus had to guess that Peter would be both brave and cowardly! That his courage and his cowardice would balance. Now that's not so easy to predict.
John: First, let us be clear on the fact that we are not saying Jesus "guessed" anything at all--He KNEW Peter's character perfectly.
And Jesus also predicted his memory! Peter didn't remember Jesus' telling him about his denial, the first time the rooster crowed...
John: Nothing in the prophecy by Jesus says or necessarily implies anything of the kind; all that was necessary was that Peter deny Christ three times. As Peter's character was perfectly predictable and perfectly well known by Christ at this time, and as God making a rooster crow three times doesn't involve any problem at all for the Open View (for we freely admit that God can unilaterally cause non-moral agents like chickens and roosters to do as He wills), then it does not follow here that there was some sort of exhaustive definite foreknowledge necessary for Peter's denial to be fully predictable by Christ, without violating Peter's own previously freely formed character in the least, and without requiring us to think that God somehow FORCED Peter to do as he did.
Blessings.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 2/22/2005 10:03 PM (GMT -6) | | various folks said...
Lee: But Jesus had to guess that Peter would be both brave and cowardly! That his courage and his cowardice would balance. Now that's not so easy to predict.
John: First, let us be clear on the fact that we are not saying Jesus "guessed" anything at all--He KNEW Peter's character perfectly.
Yes, but we're talking about predicting Peter's actions, which is more than knowing his character.
various folks said...
Lee: And Jesus also predicted his memory! Peter didn't remember Jesus' telling him about his denial, the first time the rooster crowed...
John: Nothing in the prophecy by Jesus says or necessarily implies anything of the kind.
But that is implied, in predicting "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times," though Jesus doesn't say this explicitly.
various folks said...
John: As Peter's character was perfectly predictable and perfectly well known by Christ at this time...
But how does this explain a precarious balance? That was implied, too, Peter had to put himself in a place where he would be challenged. Not to mention the other people involved, the soldier who recognized him had to decide not to simply arrest him, like he set out to do in the garden...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
AtTheWell
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 133
| Posted 2/23/2005 10:36 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Lee said: Yes, but we're talking about predicting Peter's actions, which is more than knowing his character.
and,
But how does this explain a precarious balance? That was implied, too, Peter had to put himself in a place where he would be challenged. Not to mention the other people involved, the soldier who recognized him had to decide not to simply arrest him, like he set out to do in the garden...
I have to agree with you here Lee, I really am still stuck on this one..... the open theism paper posited that something could be settled, and therefore predicted, if it happens in all possible futures, I believe, and made such good sense of it, so maybe I can settle for that. (And if I didn't get that right, feel free to correct me!)
But still what about the fact that if Jesus tells you that you will do something, doesn't that approach suggesting a desired outcome at all???? AT ALL??? We know through our "modern psychology", how telling our children they will do something doesn't necessitate an outcome, say for example, "you're going to fall if you run because you are clumsy" but come on- there is SOME power in suggestion isn't there? That's why we don't want to say things like this to our children right? Or does all this get cancelled out because we are after all talking about Christ, and Peter is an adult, - so I wonder....
-- As you stated earlier also Lee, Peter had no memory of this at the moment of denial, this is also compelling-- if Jesus didn't want Peter to do this, why wouldn't he come up under him and say "Peter, you have the ability to not DENY me, and I want to strengthen that in you, because Satan wants to sift you as wheat with this denial thing" ?????
Was this a protective move?
What could have happened to Peter if he hadn't denied him wouldn't have been as bad as denying Christ right? Oh sooooo many questions. What am I missing here? And, I thought I could just throw this one into the all possible futures thing.... help!
Peace, ATW | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 2/23/2005 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Lee Merrill said...
Yes, but we're talking about predicting Peter's actions, which is more than knowing his character.
John responds: So now I'm arguing with a Calvinist about whether a person can act contrary to their character?
Lee said: But that is implied, in predicting "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times," though Jesus doesn't say this explicitly.
John responds: Jesus knows roosters tend to crow early in the morning. The Holy Spirit, who perfectly led Jesus in all that he ever said and did, knew that there was a very dependable, clock-like rooster who lived near where the trial of Jesus was to be held, and that this particular rooster ALWAYS crowed at particular times in the morning, presumably having to do with the coming sunrise. The Holy Spirit also knew perfectly well precisely when the sun would rise (if men can figure such things out by observing the rotation of the heavenly orbs, certainly God would already know such things). So essentially, Jesus was saying, in the lingo of the day, “Before the next sunrise, you will deny me three times.” The rooster crowing would be only minimally different from a grandfather clock chiming or an alarm clock going off.
Furthermore, Jesus had perfect knowledge of Peter’s character and what Peter would do under pressure if put in certain situations such as this. We all can do the same sort of character assessment with people we know really well; why do you think Jesus couldn’t do such a thing unless God possessed exhaustive definite foreknowledge (EDF)? I honestly don’t see why the account requires us to think that God possesses EDF.
John: As Peter's character was perfectly predictable and perfectly well known by Christ at this time...
Lee: But how does this explain a precarious balance? That was implied, too, Peter had to put himself in a place where he would be challenged. Not to mention the other people involved, the soldier who recognized him had to decide not to simply arrest him, like he set out to do in the garden...
Based on what we know of Peter’s rather volatile and intense relationship to Jesus, as well as what we know of Peter’s tempestuousness in general, and what we know of his claim that he would not forsake Jesus, it presents no problem whatsoever to see how Jesus could reliably predict Peter’s denial, based on His PERFECT knowledge of Peter’s character and modus operandi.
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 2/23/2005 10:42:01 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 2/24/2005 9:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
AtTheWell said...
The open theism paper posited that something could be settled, and therefore predicted, if it happens in all possible futures…
But doesn't that remove free will? I'm speaking Open Theistically. They could not choose otherwise, in such predictions which are about a human action, that involved a choice on their part.
AtTheWell said...
… there is SOME power in suggestion isn't there?
That could be, I do believe God does work to influence, or even bring about certain choices, sometimes:
Isaiah 44:28 … who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."
AtTheWell said...
… if Jesus didn't want Peter to do this, why wouldn't he come up under him and say "Peter, you have the ability to not DENY me…"
I do believe Jesus wanted Peter to find out his inadequacy to deliver on his commitments, without relying on Christ, and Satan was not, apparently, refused when he requested to sift Peter. Sifting purifies! And it does seem Peter came out better for this.
Daniel 11:35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless…
AtTheWell said...
What could have happened to Peter if he hadn't denied him wouldn't have been as bad as denying Christ right?
It may even be that Peter would have lost something by not going through this, yes, it might have turned out worse, if he had not had this experience of failure.
Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: "God, I thank you that I am not like other men…"
various folks said...
Lee: Yes, but we're talking about predicting Peter's actions, which is more than knowing his character.
John: So now I'm arguing with a Calvinist about whether a person can act contrary to their character?
Yes indeed! I'm not a determinist, I don't believe that every action could be predicted, if we just fully knew all about the present. Believers are in the will of God, and I don't believe God's will is constricted, where there's always and only one inevitable outcome, based on the circumstances.
2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is ... freedom!
various folks said...
Lee said: But that is implied, in predicting "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times," though Jesus doesn't say this explicitly.
John: The rooster crowing would be only minimally different from a grandfather clock chiming or an alarm clock going off.
Certainly the crowing of the rooster could have be easily predicted, but predicting Peter's memory at the moment of the first rooster crow is not so easy! Not to mention the doorkeeper deciding to let him in, and the soldier deciding not to arrest him...
JEE said...
John: Jesus had perfect knowledge of Peter’s character and what Peter would do under pressure if put in certain situations such as this.
Then that's definite knowledge of the future! Which is then quite possibly closed, in many instances where the Open View would say it was actually open.
I do think the Open View tries to have it both ways, sometimes, and say God is the invincible chess master, and yet he can set out in a primary purpose, and fail…
Blessings,
Lee
P.S. I'm off to Texas for the weekend, it may be next Tuesday before I can check for any further discussing…
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 2/24/2005 8:23:53 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 78 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:52 AM (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 |
|
|