 |
| 
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/5/2005 4:23 PM (GMT -6) |   | After reading the thread on Peter's denial, here is another angle to the "character solidification theory".
Character Solidification and Repentance
What is an Open Theist to make of the gospel accounts where Jesus predicted that Peter would deny him three times before the cock crew, but later with God’s help would turn back and strengthen his brothers? This question has been discussed numerous times on this forum. An answer has been proposed called “character solidification”. This theory states Jesus was able to predict what Peter was likely to do in such and such situations based on habits of character, past actions, and “what was in his heart”.
How then, did Peter repent later if his future choices were determined in that one direction? Jesus said before he was betrayed,
“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:31-32)
Jesus prayed, and believed, that although Peter would be sifted, would even deny knowing him, but through all this that his faith would not fail, so he would be able to repent.
Was this repentance available to Judas? It seems not. Paul the apostle gave this advice to a young teacher:
"Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will." (2 Tim. 2:25-26)
Paul acknowledges that God must grant repentance if one is to escape the wiles of sin. Here the “in the hope that” shows repentance might not have been granted. Furthermore, if this teaching is applied to the case of Peter, we see how, even under the Open View God could know that Peter would disown Jesus, but just as surely foresee his repentance: for God was purposed to grant that repentance!
The situation with Peter’s denial also points toward this divinely granted repentance being unconditional. If God had offered Peter conditional repentance, then on the Open View, there is still no certainty that he would again turn and strengthen his brothers. If, because Peter’s character was self-solidified so that he would surely disown Jesus three times, and just as surely would repent if and only if God granted him repentance, the same can be said of Judas: God apparently did not grant it to him. Such was the case of Esau:
“…who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. He could bring about no change of mind, though he sought the blessing with tears.” (Heb. 12:16-17)
Consider the situation we have with the “character self-solidification” theory: Open Theists, in postulating that God cannot foreknow the free choices of men, think they will escape philosophical threats to the integrity of libertarian free will. In reality, they wind up with a genuinely Calvinist theory of repentance.
An iron file, when used on lodestone will become magnetized like a compass needle. That is one of the properties of iron – and of irony. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/6/2005 12:32 AM (GMT -6) | | | Sahid, see my second-to-last paragraph. How could the OV God know for certain that Peter would accept repentance unless it was "if-and-only-if" irresistible repentance? And the same goes for Judas: if repentance was offered him, and it were morally possible that he would accept it, God could not know for certain that he would go to perdition -- but Acts 1, along with Jesus' prophecies, shows he did foreknow it. Note that I am not yet generalizing this. I am only speaking of this case (as other scriptures apply to it). | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/6/2005 12:40 AM (GMT -6) | | | Sahid, please elaborate. The Emmaus disciples didn't know Jesus was going to bring change through suffering, even after the resurrection, until Jesus explained it to them. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/6/2005 10:18 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 10:29 AM (GMT -6) | | |
"Character solidification"???
You're making it more complicated than it needs to be.
Jesus knew Peter didn't understand the way things would "go down".
Jesus knew Peter thought that Jesus was going to take power for the Jews back from the Romans, he was a zealot.
When Jesus was arrested and Peter struck the slave's ear off, thinking the rebellion was beginning, Jesus' response was the exact opposite what Peter was expecting.
Peter flees along with all the others. I'm sure he was as confused as anyone has ever been.
Thousands of people had seen Jesus WITH PETER RIGHT BESIDE HIM for three and a half years. If they recognized Jesus, they would recognize Peter.
Jesus knew where Peter was at, mentally, emotionally, spiritually.
1. Jesus knew people would be questioning Peter, thousands had seen them together.
2. Jesus knew Peter's intent (present knowlege, Deut. 31:21) to continue his evasive maneouvers that started when Peter fled Jesus.
3. God only has to poke a rooster after the third questioning.
I'm always amazed at the complete lack of any supporting evidence for "exhaustive fore-knowlege".
If predicting what people will do proves "exhaustive fore-knowlege", then I have "exhaustive fore-knowlege".
My elder daughter will bake cookies and take them to work. She will not do the dishes.
My younger daughter will watch "Survivor" but will not watch "Firing Line".
The next time they make these choices, I will have proven I have "exhaustive fore-knowlege".
 Post Edited (Laika) : 5/6/2005 11:21:43 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/6/2005 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika, you're making this too easy!
What if Peter had not followed the procession to the courtyard? What if, after the first denial, the servants got suspicious and took him to the magistrate, who tortured him to reveal information, resulting in dozens of denials? What if James and John had gone with Peter into the courtyard, so because they were there, he was ashamed to either affirm or deny, but remained sullen and made some excuse to leave? What if after the first denial, Peter became so filled with remorse, that he fled away to the wilderness?
Jesus' foreknowledge is shown not only in predicting Peter's three denials, but also that he would turn back and regain faith -- before the resurrection. If this was so predictable, simply from present knowledge, then why did Jesus have to pray for Peter that it would be so? Jesus did not pray for Judas. This is warrant for "exclusive, unconditional, divinely-granted repentance".
Also, if it were so easy to predict, why did Jesus stake his divinity on it: I tell you now, so that when it happens, you may believe that I am He. If the disciples were as smart as we are, they would not have been fooled so easily. Alternatively, if all Jesus had to go on was present knowledge, and given the above possibilities, Jesus should have been smarter than to make such a risky claim. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 12:32 PM (GMT -6) | |
Nathan Straub said...
Laika, you're making this too easy!
What if Peter had not followed the procession to the courtyard? What if, after the first denial, the servants got suspicious and took him to the magistrate, who tortured him to reveal information, resulting in dozens of denials?
God poking the rooster between denials three and four.
What if my daughter watches "Full House" before she watches "Survivor"? She has lots of options when it comes to what she could watch.
Prove I don't have "exhaustive fore-knowlege". My proof is the same as the Peter story.
I know what my daughters will do even before they do it! That's proof of "exhaustive fore-knowlege" according to you.
Before she retires for the evening, my wife will visit her mother in the alzheimer's unit, surely I have spoken it, surely it will be done says Laika, proving his "exhaustive fore-knowlege". 
Post Edited (Laika) : 5/6/2005 12:47:35 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 12:59 PM (GMT -6) | |
Nathan Straub said...
Also, if it were so easy to predict, why did Jesus stake his divinity on it: Jesus didn't stake His divinity on fortune-telling as you posit. He staked it on doing the works of His Father.
John 10:25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me."
Mark 2:7"Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"
8Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?
9"Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk'?
10"But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--He said to the paralytic,
11"I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home."
Acts 2:22"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--"
Now I can predict what my loved ones will do in certain situations, as Jesus did in one instance. So if that proves "exhaustive fore-knowlege", than, yes, I have it.
But I haven't been able to heal people as readily as Jesus did. So put me down for not being a messiah, yet with "exhaustive fore-knowlege".  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/6/2005 1:01 PM (GMT -6) | | | That's what I mean... you think it's no big deal to know something like that. See my last paragraph of last post. That you could predict something similar is a hint that your analysis is too simplistic for a "so that when it takes place, you will know that I am He" claim. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | |
Nathan Straub said...
That's what I mean... you think it's no big deal to know something like that. See my last paragraph of last post. That you could predict something similar is a hint that your analysis is too simplistic for a "so that when it takes place, you will know that I am He" claim.
You're obviously bringing an a-priori assumption to the Peter story.
You show one story where Jesus knew Peter's heart and intentions as proof that Jesus had "exhaustive fore-knowlege". I show you three stories where I know my loved ones hearts and intentions, so that proves I have "exhaustive fore-knowlege".
Look at it this way:
If you say "SOME Texans are nine feet tall", then I would have to show you all Texans and that NONE of them are nine feet tall to disprove you.
But if you say "ALL Texans are nine feet tall", then I only have to show you ONE Texan shorter than nine feet to disprove you.
Jeremiah 32:35"They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. "
One hostile example is all that is needed to kill the "for all".
Post Edited (Laika) : 5/6/2005 1:19:42 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 1:28 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Here's another way to look at it.
You believe God has "exhaustive fore-knowlege". That means everything that will ever happen.
That's a big claim.
To support it, you find one story where Jesus can predict one thing someone He knows real well will do within a 24 hour period.
Case proved, right?
Another guy comes along, claims that Jimmy the Greek is Lord Most High and that Jimmy the Greek has "exhaustive fore-knowlege".
You disagree. It doesn't match with your a-priori assumption. Plus, you have your proof, that one story.
He shows you five predictions that Jimmy the Greek has made that have come true.
His five trumps your one.
Jimmy the Greek is five times more likely to have "exhaustive fore-knowlege" based on story-telling than God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/6/2005 1:48 PM (GMT -6) | | | See my second post. "Note that I am not generalizing from this yet." However, what I am arguing is that for this story, the OV must either give God definite foreknowledge of Peter's choices, or else postulate a Calvinist type of repentance in the cases of Judas and Peter to guarantee the certainty of his prediction that he would/would not repent. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 2:00 PM (GMT -6) | |
Nathan Straub said...
See my second post. "Note that I am not generalizing from this yet." However, what I am arguing is that for this story, the OV must either give God definite foreknowledge of Peter's choices, or else postulate a Calvinist type of repentance in the cases of Judas and Peter to guarantee the certainty of his prediction that he would/would not repent. No, I've shown that even I have "exhaustive fore-knowlege" based on your metric.
Check this thread tomorrow and we'll see if what I predicted about my wife came true.
I think Jesus knew Peter well enough that once the shock of realizing Jesus didn't come as earthly king then wasn't playing out, Peter would come around to realizing His true mission and come back to Him. The relationship was strained but not broken.
I think God is wise enough and knows people well enough (the entire scope of what people can choose isn't that large if you categorize it) that He can predict which way they will go without having to have passive knowlege of a future that hasn't happened yet and doesn't exist.
If such scant evidence as is presented for God's having "exhaustive fore-knowlege" were presented for anyone else, it would be rejected because of the a-priori assumption people are bringing to scripture.
“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:31-32)
You're talking about the "when you have turned back" part?
Do you have kids? Do you NOT talk to them this way? Optimistic and confident
"Kid, IF you don't fail miserably......"
Post Edited (Laika) : 5/6/2005 2:07:57 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/6/2005 3:55 PM (GMT -6) | | And I must comment on the Jeremiah verse:
How do you interpret "nor had it entered into my mind that they should do this"? Does should mean ought, or possibility? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/6/2005 7:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Based on all the resurrection accounts, we know that the account of the women was doubted. When Peter entered the tomb and saw the strips of cloth, one account says he believed, while another says he went away wondering what had happened. At any rate, none of the disciples believed or understood the whole truth, or understood that Christ had to suffer and rise again, until near evening, with the men on the road to Emmaus, and later that evening with ten of the disciples gathered together in a house.
Based on the evidence, Peter didn't understand Jesus' purpose at all, from Friday till Sunday evening. So that cannot be an adequate explanation for Peter's immediate remorse and genuine repentance, and returning and strengthening the other disciples, instead of hanging himself like Judas, or any other scenario. What I point to is God's grace granting Peter repentance, and causing him to remember Jesus' prediction and instructions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 5/6/2005 11:36 PM (GMT -6) | |
Nathan Straub said...
And I must comment on the Jeremiah verse:
How do you interpret "nor had it entered into my mind that they should do this"? Does should mean ought, or possibility?
God knew the possibility, not the actuality.
I know the possibility my cats could stay off the countertop, I'd just be surprised if that ever actualized.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/7/2005 5:49 AM (GMT -6) | | | Based on the evidence, Peter didn't understand Jesus' purpose at all, from Friday till Sunday evening. So that cannot be an adequate explanation for Peter's immediate remorse and genuine repentance, and returning and strengthening the other disciples, instead of hanging himself like Judas, or any other scenario. What I point to is God's grace granting Peter repentance, and causing him to remember Jesus' prediction and instructions.
Peter didn't repent at all that day! If he was to repent he would tell the people the truth. Maybe he was remorseful, maybe he remembered that Jesus said it would happen, but that's not repentance. Repentance implies a change of action, a deep change, not a feeling of shame or remorse. It is exactly my point that "Peter didn't understand Jesus' purpose at all." His solidified character given ignorance could be predicted to result in apostasy, remorse, shame, and running away. That same character given understanding could be predicted to repent.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/7/2005 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
Laika said...
God poking the rooster between denials three and four.
No, first between denials one and two! And then Peter did not remember! And then again between denials three and four…
Yes, you're making this too easy!
Laika said...
Jesus didn't stake His divinity on fortune-telling as you posit.
Yes, he did stake his divinity on his prophecies! Jesus confirms Peter's confession of his divinity, with a prediction, similar to the one of his denial:
John 21:17-18 "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself…"
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 | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 5/8/2005 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | A dermined future and a God fully ignorant of the future are two extremes that take unnecessary bagage with them (IMO). It's perfectly ok for the open view/character solidification advocate to agree with the determinist on some points. That God predicts the future and uses this as a "proof" of his divinity can be admitted by both sides. It's not really the subject of the debate. The question is whether this "evidence" matches the explaination that the character solidification advocate gives.
I think we tend to stress the openness too much. I do think much is open, but so much more is determined, I would guess. I think God can predict surprisingly distant and specific events, and I don't think this rules out that many things are undetermined. God could see that something not all that specific would happen to Peter. I don't think this is contrary to the open view.
From that 70's show:
Eric: You said it was our choice.
Kitty: When you choose to go to church, it will be your choice.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Nathan Straub
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2005
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 5/8/2005 9:10 PM (GMT -6) | | | Sahib, now you have me interested. My impression was that the OV is driven by an LFW philosophy, so could not afford to give up any measure of LFW (including determinism). What is your position? | | Back to Top | | |
| 143 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:08 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 |
|
|