 |
| 
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 10/23/2001 12:18 PM (GMT -6) |   | I was looking through The Bondage and Liberation of the Will by Calvin and stumbled across something. In Book III under Augustine supports Calvin, Calvin quotes Augustine as saying in Rebuke and Grace, quote:
"Or will you dare to say that even when Christ asked that Peter's faith should not fail, it would have failed if Peter wanted it to fail? As though Peter would in any way want something different from what Christ had prayed for him to want!"
Maybe I am confused, but when I looked up Luke 22:31-34, I didn't see the same thing as Calvin and Augustine. It looks to me like Peter's faith failed because Peter wanted it to fail. Christ asked for something that didn't come about because of Peter's free will. Am I wrong? I mean, v. 52-60 seem to show that Peter's faith did fail. Wouldn't this support Open View Theism instead of Calvinism? If I am missing something, could someone please show me what's going on here? I don't see how the God of Calvinism in incarnate form could have asked for something that didn't come to pass unless he wasn't sure about what would happen because of the variable of Peter's free will.
I am sure that you all have been over things like this with us newbies over and over, but could someone please explain how a Calvinist would respond to this passage (because Calvin's response doesn't seem to make sense to me), and how an Open View Theist would? Thank you guys (and gals) for all of your help.
Kyle Essary
"Why isn't this a geographical oddity; 2 weeks from everywhere" Everett McGill in O' Brother Where Art Thou? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/23/2001 1:09 PM (GMT -6) | | I love websearches.
Sorry, this is all I found for you so far:
Its at Calvin College; but it is not any old Dutch Calvinist -- can't think of his name.... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Martin Cothran
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 10/24/2001 5:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
It looks to me like Peter's faith failed because Peter wanted it to fail. Christ asked for something that didn't come about because of Peter's free will. Am I wrong? I mean, v. 52-60 seem to show that Peter's faith did fail.
In what way do you think Peter's faith failed in vss. 52-60? His faith didn't fail, although he certainly failed in acting on his faith. I think it is fairly clear vss. 31-34 that Jesus was not referring to Peter giving in to fear and temptations. Giving in to fear and temptation is not the same as losing your faith. In fact, it's pretty clear that's not what Jesus is referring to in these verses since he is predicting Peter's failure (not of faith, but of giving in to fear) in the very same passage.
It seems to me that, if anything, this passage militates against the openness view, since Jesus is here forecasting the "free" decisions of Peter before they happen, which seems to smell ominously like a case of foreknowledge.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 10/24/2001 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | I definitely see what you are saying Martin, thank you. The prediction of Peter denying Christ three times doesn't seem to contradict the openness view though, because from the little bit I have read, the open view claims that not everything in the future is open, but neither is it all determined. Maybe this was one of those things that was determined as a result of the present circumstances and character of Peter.
I still don't see why Jesus would have to ask for something that has already been planned. I was always taught growing up that we pray because it changes us and not because it changes God. God's plan was determined long before we ever prayed it, and therefore prayer is a part of sanctification. If this is the Calvinist response (and at least from my Calvinistic Baptist tradition it is), then why would Christ have to ask for something that had already been planned, so that it can change Him? I think not (at least my tradition would disagree with this also, hehe.)
Then Jesus goes on to make it known to Peter that he had prayed for it. It is almost as if Jesus is saying this to reassure Peter, as though there is a possibility that his faith might fail. Do you see what I mean?
Kyle
P.S. I know I am way outta my league posting on this board, so thank you all once again for helping out a newbie like me. 
Kyle Essary | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/24/2001 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm not sure that all Calvinists (actual people) are as determinist as all that. Sounds like Augustine was. (?) Calvin throws in with him, I guess. (Hear the joke about the Presbyterian preacher who fell down the stairs, got up, and said "I'm glad that THAT is over with!")
quote:
I was looking through The Bondage and Liberation of the Will by Calvin and stumbled across something. In Book III under Augustine supports Calvin, Calvin quotes Augustine as saying in Rebuke and Grace,
quote: "Or will you dare to say that even when Christ asked that Peter's faith should not fail, it would have failed if Peter wanted it to fail? As though Peter would in any way want something different from what Christ had prayed for him to want!"
But may I look at the example of Peter in Augustine's account. (I'm winging this.) Besides Augustin, what would PAUL say? Paul recounts how what he did not want to do he did, and visa versa. Apply that to Peter. I can imagine Peter wanting not to fail, deciding to; and then changing his will (thinking about his mortality -- as though by sin came death, so also by death--mortality--comes more sin!). Am I way off on this? I think, and a favorite Calvinist theologian of mine (Lewis Smedes) would say that we are to be in AWE of this story. Not analyze it! So what if Christ foreknew that Peter would fail, AND Peter had free will. Both are true. Be in awe; don't complain about how it doesn't fit a simple model. (The Genesis model--sin/death/sin is enough.)
I think Augustine is wrong--but partially right. Smedes might just say: "Paul is not philosophizing about the eternal plan of an absolute deity. He is stricken by grace, overwhelmed by love. and he sings. What he says of election in Christ is a song, a confession, a hymn of wonder. Love is not a reason; it is a mystery to sing about."
I can live with that!
PotOnWheel
(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 10/24/2001 12:01 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/24/2001 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | | | Thanks. Go see the "And YOU thought you knew Calvinism... " post. (new) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Martin Cothran
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 10/24/2001 2:12 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I still don't see why Jesus would have to ask for something that has already been planned.
Jesus was able to ask for something that was planned because it was planned with the foreknowledge that it would be asked. God not only ordains the end (that Peter would not fail--i.e. lose his faith), but the means (Jesus' prayer) as well.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 10/24/2001 9:17 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
I still don't see why Jesus would have to ask for something that has already been planned.
Jesus was able to ask for something that was planned because it was planned with the foreknowledge that it would be asked. God not only ordains the end (that Peter would not fail--i.e. lose his faith), but the means (Jesus' prayer) as well.
I know that this is the argument that is used alot, primarily for prayer. But, doesn't this seems rather arbitrary? God plans that Peter will deny him three times, then in the scheme of things he also determines how Peter will do it. Finally, when it comes down to it what in the world is Peter actually doing? The keyword is actually.
Since "doing" is an act of the will. Peter's will is not involved at all since the "means" and the "ends" preceded the act. His will was not involved..unless his will was controled then it merly submitted, but then again....how can you submit if you don't choose to submit?
Prayerfully,
Herb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 10/24/2001 9:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
I still don't see why Jesus would have to ask for something that has already been planned.
Jesus was able to ask for something that was planned because it was planned with the foreknowledge that it would be asked. God not only ordains the end (that Peter would not fail--i.e. lose his faith), but the means (Jesus' prayer) as well.
I know that this is the argument that is used alot, primarily for prayer. But, doesn't this seems rather arbitrary? God plans that Peter will deny him three times, then in the scheme of things he also determines how Peter will do it. Finally, when it comes down to it what in the world is Peter actually doing? The keyword is actually.
Since "doing" is an act of the will. Peter's will is not involved at all since the "means" and the "ends" preceded the act. His will was not involved..unless his will was controled then it merly submitted, but then again....how can you submit if you don't choose to submit?
Prayerfully,
Herb
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/25/2001 1:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I know that this is the argument that is used alot, primarily for prayer. But, doesn't this seems rather arbitrary? God plans that Peter will deny him three times, then in the scheme of things he also determines how Peter will do it. Finally, when it comes down to it what in the world is Peter actually doing? The keyword is actually.
Since "doing" is an act of the will. Peter's will is not involved at all since the "means" and the "ends" preceded the act. His will was not involved..unless his will was controled then it merly submitted, but then again....how can you submit if you don't choose to submit?
Prayerfully, Herb
Herb: Since "doing" is an act of the will. Peter's will is not involved at all since the "means" and the "ends" preceded the act.
Question: Was fear an act of the will? I think so. It can be an expression of our "nature", such as fearing God; or of out damaged nature--such as valuing our life higher than God and the nature in us that He created. (which does NOT have to be a cerebral act, nor does our body have to show it--for instance we could be frozen with fear...and it still could be sin which is "actions" not done in faith.)
Are you picking straw out of your camel's hair? (though I don't know what that would mean--LOL)
Here is something I just plain (obviously) don't understand: "Peter's will is not involved at all since the "means" and the "ends" preceded the act."
Can you explain?
POW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Martin Cothran
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 10/25/2001 1:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I know that this is the argument that is used alot, primarily for prayer. But, doesn't this seems rather arbitrary? God plans that Peter will deny him three times, then in the scheme of things he also determines how Peter will do it.
What is arbitrary about this? Arbrary means a capricious act of will. It may be an act of God's will, but God's will is not capricious.
quote:
Since "doing" is an act of the will. Peter's will is not involved at all since the "means" and the "ends" preceded the act. His will was not involved..unless his will was controled then it merly submitted, but then again....how can you submit if you don't choose to submit?
You are saying that because God wrote human history in which Peter made free will decisions, therefore Peter did not make free will decisions. But God wrote them as free will decisions in his story of humanity--a story which he made real. This is a mystery, but the response to mystery is either to accept it (as Calvinists do) or to take a reductionist approach (as the openness theologians do) and reject one or another aspect of the mystery. Scripture seems to embrace the mystery.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 10/25/2001 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | This is where I always get hung up (along with about 50 other places, hehe). How could God plan for me to have tacos, and then me freely choose to eat tacos. It isn't a free choice if I don't ACTUALLY have the option of eating lasagna or a hamburger.
Kyle
Kyle Essary
Edited by - Kyle Essary on 10/25/2001 10:27:25 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/25/2001 11:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
How could God plan for me to have tacos, and then me freely choose to eat tacos. It isn't a free choice if I don't ACTUALLY have the option of eating lasagna or a hamburger.
Kyle, how can we complicate this?
First, as an artist and a teacher I REALLY don't think that God plans all your meals. I think that part of creation is what God made possible for you and me. I REALLY don't think that God planned for the names that Adam "gave" to the animals. I LOVE the term "potentiality." That is what you have, with tacos, I mean! Just what did that taco look like? I know of "norms" for created things--where some things just are...and God created them that way. (I'll postulate that smell, sight and taste can be "interesting" in food, but have to fit together somehow--any arguments? the very hidden "structure" of that is God's handiwork.) But God really did/does hold off on LOTS of things, INTENDING that WE have a part in it.
So, be creative! But don't spend another moment wondering if you are a gastronomic robot!!!
FREE will can involve something else. You are only partially free to not eat at all. You can do it; but you will die. That is SOME choice! (I guess.) an alcoholic is less free around alcohol than I am. Notice that the "choosing" is the free/not-free part in that one--rather than the availability. How free am I to share if I am selfish at heart? That is another thing. And worth considering.
Jesus FREELY gave himself, offered himself for us. By. "NATURE" we are free to choose God. Conditioned by the mortality brought on by sin we become less-than-free. Baptized into Christ's death and Resurrection, made to partake of Christ by the Spirit we HAVE freedom to: "stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free (and to) be not entangled again with the yolk of bondage."
I think that it is interesting that I can CHOOSE to be FREE, or not......
Thoughts?
PotOnWheel
(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Martin Cothran
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 10/25/2001 2:15 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
It isn't a free choice if I don't ACTUALLY have the option of eating lasagna or a hamburger.
Kyle Essary
Who says you don't have the option? You are perfectly free to eat whatever you want. My point is that God is the author of the story in which you are a character. He wrote everything down to the finest detail, including your free will decision to eat a taco on Tuesday at 6:47. And then, unlike a human author, he makes the story real. It actually happens. You actually make this free will decision. You think that because God authored the story in that way that you have not made a free will decision. But from inside the story all your decisions are free--because you really made them. From outside the story your decision was authored.
There is no logical inconsistency here. You may not fully understand it, but that not a sufficient reason to reject it. You accept a lot of things you do not understand. This, however, seems to be Scripture's view: Our actions are ordained and yet we are responsible for them.
Psalm 139:16
And in Your book they all were written
The days fashioned for me
When as yet there were none of them
| | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 10/25/2001 10:52 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Who says you don't have the option? You are perfectly free to eat whatever you want. My point is that God is the author of the story in which you are a character. He wrote everything down to the finest detail, including your free will decision to eat a taco on Tuesday at 6:47. And then, unlike a human author, he makes the story real. It actually happens. You actually make this free will decision. You think that because God authored the story in that way that you have not made a free will decision. But from inside the story all your decisions are free--because you really made them. From outside the story your decision was authored.
There is no logical inconsistency here. You may not fully understand it, but that not a sufficient reason to reject it. You accept a lot of things you do not understand. This, however, seems to be Scripture's view: Our actions are ordained and yet we are responsible for them.
Psalm 139:16
And in Your book they all were written
The days fashioned for me
When as yet there were none of them
Sounds like the story of Osmo or Oedipus Rex :-)
The question for the scripture quoted is all that "what" is written? All of my determined life or all of the possibilities of the life that I could live.
Psalm 139:16
And in Your book they all (determined events) were written
The days fashioned for me
When as yet there were none of them
Psalm 139:16
And in Your book they all (the possibilities) were written
The days fashioned for me
When as yet there were none of them
Which one is it?
Herb
Edited by - OrthodoxBerean on 10/26/2001 04:00:15 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 10/25/2001 10:58 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Herb: Since "doing" is an act of the will. Peter's will is not involved at all since the "means" and the "ends" preceded the act.
Question: Was fear an act of the will? I think so. It can be an expression of our "nature", such as fearing God; or of out damaged nature--such as valuing our life higher than God and the nature in us that He created. (which does NOT have to be a cerebral act, nor does our body have to show it--for instance we could be frozen with fear...and it still could be sin which is "actions" not done in faith.)
Are you picking straw out of your camel's hair? (though I don't know what that would mean--LOL)
Here is something I just plain (obviously) don't understand: "Peter's will is not involved at all since the "means" and the "ends" preceded the act."
Can you explain?
POW
In my comments I was speaking rhetorically.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Martin Cothran
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 7
| Posted 10/26/2001 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Sounds like the story of Osmo or Oedipus Rex
I don't know who Osmo is, but the story of Oedipus is indeed relevant. The more Oedipus tries to flee his "fate" the more he urges himself toward it. To the Greeks "fate" was an impersonal force. I think this was an inkling or corruption (as with so much of Greek thought) of the truth: that there is a personal, rather than impersonal force directing our steps.
quote:
Psalm 139:16
And in Your book they all (determined events) were written
The days fashioned for me
When as yet there were none of them
Psalm 139:16
And in Your book they all (the possibilities) were written
The days fashioned for me
When as yet there were none of them
Which one is it?
When a human author writes a book, does he write all the possibilities? Or does he write the events as they happen in the story? If he writes all the possibilities, it's not a very good story. I think God wrote a good story.
"There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless, the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand."
Prov. 19:21
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/26/2001 4:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
My point is that God is the author of the story in which you are a character.
The fashionable think is to take "determined events" and "possibilities" and twirl them around as in a brandy glass, sample their bouquet, and make a decision. Ther is probably some real virtue in that. But......I'd like to suggest another angle to come.
I'm not suggesting a solution. But here is the angle.
In the STORY which I also see myself in, not only did God make me to be a character, He also put HIMSELF into the story! INTO. (Bethlehem and Calvary, of course.)
How that makes me spend some time from a different angle is that it constantly reminds me that this is not a completely external affair. Neither is my/our "contribution" in the communion of God and Man, of Christ and His Body something autonomous. I should not imagine that human acts if "determined events" are separated from God, who suffers with us. And neither, if they are to be imagined as "possibilities" are they our independant propriatary. ou very life is only IN God. In His Life. And God has joined Himself to us. And we WILL be with Him and not need any sun--for He will be our light. And that is partially evident now.
I like the statement: "When a human author writes a book, does he write all the possibilities? Or does he write the events as they happen in the story? If he writes all the possibilities, it's not a very good story. I think God wrote a good story." Art--stories--provides a good way to kind of understand what seems so hard to understand. Thanks. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:16 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 |
|
|