Could Peter have done otherwise?

[fhansen]

Protestantism isn't antinomian, but neither does it accept legalism as the basis for justification.

Neither does Catholicism. It accepts grace-fueled righteousness as one of the results of justification, and a requirement for salvation.

 

[fhansen]

Okay. Let’s say that Jesus knew, but didn’t say anything. The outcome would have gone a different way. But He did say something, so we ended up the way it did. So this is more than just “Jesus knew what he would do.”

Any of us can influence and convict each other with moral truth. In any case, Peter responded correctly whereas he still could have done otherwise. We don't need to put the cart ahead of the horse.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sometimes I think we just want everything to be easy, which means no change. I most certainly have experienced love to be a choice. It's most often when I go beyond what I just feel like doing, and, in fact, do what I'd otherwise prefer not to do

All well and good, but I'd like to offer a different perspective:

Is doing something out of perceived obligation always the best use of our time and talents? Or shouldn't we be pursuing deeds that are fitting with our unique circumstances and dispositions? Isn't that more excellent, than mere slavish obedience to an external standard?

 

[Hammster]

Any of us can influence and convict each other with moral truth. In any case, Peter responded correctly whereas he still could have done otherwise. We don't need to put the cart ahead of the horse.

Okay. But there is an argument being made that Jesus said what He said because He’s outside of time, and “saw” what Peter would do. That doesn’t work.

 

[fhansen]

All well and good, but I'd like to offer a different perspective:

Is doing something out of perceived obligation always the best use of our time and talents? Or shouldn't we be pursuing deeds that are fitting with our unique circumstances and dispositions? Isn't that more excellent, than mere slavish obedience to an external standard?

Not really. Our problem is in not wanting any obligation, and that tends towards selfishness and sometimes harm IMO. One could sum up man's obligation with, "Thou shalt love."

And Christ's agony in the garden gives an eloquent understanding of what it might mean to go beyond our immediate preferences for the sake of love. The will of man is involved, at God's discretion for our highest good, and there's often necessarily a tension between our doing the right thing, which God will enable us to do, and not doing it. He's drawing us into doing it and doing it more and more willingly, and spontaneously, as we come to prioritize love, as He does.

 

[fhansen]

Okay. But there is an argument being made that Jesus said what He said because He’s outside of time, and “saw” what Peter would do. That doesn’t work.

All right, but where does Jesus get any of his knowledge about future events?

 

[BBAS 64]

Molinism is nonsense. And it is determining the future.

Good day, Hammster

Great thread BTW...

I would agree it is non-sense.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not really. Our problem is in not wanting any obligation...

Is this really a problem? This isn't what immediately comes to mind when I look at the world's problems. Autonomy from religiously imposed duties gives us more freedom to develop our own capacities as human beings. Why isn't this part of divine providence? Why only focus on conventional social obligations?

Just think of it this way, imagine if every single scientist, instead of doing scientific research, were forced to live like a monk. Or every musician or artist had to burn their instruments as "vanity" and instead go into a convent for a life of prayer. Life might not be any richer for doing so, even if it gave some people are more involved sense in a demanding religion.

 

[FireDragon76]

Good day, Hammster

Great thread BTW...

I would agree it is non-sense.

View attachment 351621

Craig is right. It's not nonsense.

 

[FireDragon76]

Okay. But there is an argument being made that Jesus said what He said because He’s outside of time, and “saw” what Peter would do. That doesn’t work.

Causes don't necessarily have to precede their effects.

 

[Hammster]

All right, but where does Jesus get any of his knowledge about future events?

He ordains all things that come to pass. He doesn’t learn.

 

[Hammster]

Craig is right. It's not nonsense.

Molinism doesn’t care about any particular person. It’s only interested in getting the most people saved.

 

[Hammster]

Causes don't necessarily have to precede their effects.

Then I guess you can create any fairy tale you’d like.

 

[fhansen]

He ordains all things that come to pass. He doesn’t learn.

So I think I might finally understand although it's a very novel idea to me. You're saying that Peter denied Jesus strictly because Jesus had just told him that he would do so, thereby causing him to do so? And that if Jesus had said nothing then Peter wouldn't have denied Him?

I mean, if Jesus directly caused Peters actions then Peter shouldn't have been weeping while Jesus maybe should have been for causing such bad behavior.

 

[fhansen]

Is this really a problem? This isn't what immediately comes to mind when I look at the world's problems. Autonomy from religiously imposed duties gives us more freedom to develop our own capacities as human beings. Why isn't this part of divine providence? Why only focus on conventional social obligations?

Just think of it this way, imagine if every single scientist, instead of doing scientific research, were forced to live like a monk. Or every musician or artist had to burn their instruments as "vanity" and instead go into a convent for a life of prayer. Life might not be any richer for doing so, even if it gave some people are more involved sense in a demanding religion.

The problem isn't about freedom from religiosity (which is a bad thing, all right) but it's about "freedom" from God. Being children of God has nothing to do with vocation, nor does it rob us of our freedom but actually fulfills the purpose of our freedom while fulfilling our purpose, our telos, including any capacities we might have. In fact, the church virtually from the beginning promoted and developed education, the arts, sciences, and the pursuit of excellence in general. The church has never been other worldly but all about what needs to be done here for the betterment of humanity both physically and spiritually. OTOH, novel anti-world/matter philosophies have crept in here and there especially in some dualistic or ultra-pietistic or fundamentalist circles.

 

[Guojing]

Did Jesus also see Himself telling Peter he would deny Him?

I don't see why not, does it matter to your point?

 

[Guojing]

So Peter had to deny Christ, but his will was free.

Doesn’t sound free to me.

You are understanding as someone who is living in the time dimension.

You need to understand how it is like to live "outside" time.

 

[Hammster]

So I think I might finally understand although it's a very novel idea to me. You're saying that Peter denied Jesus strictly because Jesus had just told him that he would do so, thereby causing him to do so? And that if Jesus had said nothing then Peter wouldn't have denied Him?

I mean, if Jesus directly caused Peters actions then Peter shouldn't have been weeping while Jesus maybe should have been for causing such bad behavior.

No, I’m saying that God ordained that Peter would deny Christ. I’m not saying that He made him do so.

 

[Hammster]

I don't see why not, does it matter to your point?

Yes. According to you, He lives outside of time and knew that Peter would deny Him. I’m guessing that’s because He saw him do it. However, by telling Peter that he would deny Him, he changed the narrative. So what He saw was different than what actually happened.

 

[fhansen]

No, I’m saying that God ordained that Peter would deny Christ. I’m not saying that He made him do so.

I'm not really sure what the difference would be there. But I think the best way to look at it is that before the foundations of this world God knew every choice that man would make -and that sin would result, of course, if man was left free to obey or disobey, to accept or deny His authority-and He said, "That's the world I want, for My purposes.