Could Peter have done otherwise?

[ARBITER01]

I agree. Peter’s free will was not as free as some think.

I don't consider Peter under some dominant control of GOD.

 

[Derf]

I’ve point out why the “outside of time” argument doesn’t work here.

Could you either repeat the why or point me to the post you are referring to? I agree with you, but I'd like to see your reason.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Did Peter not have free will to do otherwise?

Peter didn’t have the courage to face death, that’s why he denied Christ. He was more concerned about not getting stoned to death or crucified for admitting that he was a follower of Christ and Jesus knew this. So no he couldn’t have done otherwise because it was a prophetic foretelling of what Peter was going to do of his own free will.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Peter’s will was to not deny Christ. So it looks like God’s foreknowledge overrides our will.

No it looks like God’s foreknowledge is a result of our free will. There’s nothing that indicates that God was the cause of Peter’s denial.

 

[CoreyD]

No it looks like God’s foreknowledge is a result of our free will. There’s nothing that indicates that God was the cause of Peter’s denial.

That's an interesting way of putting it.
It sent my mind reeling all the way back to the beginning of sin.
Everything God prophesied, outside of his divine will and purpose, was a result of man's free will.
So you are correct, but I am sure this truth will be dismissed as well.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That's an interesting way of putting it.
It sent my mind reeling all the way back to the beginning of sin.
Everything God prophesied, outside of his divine will and purpose, was a result of man's free will.
So you are correct, but I am sure this truth will be dismissed as well.

I believe that everything we do from now until the end of our life is actively shaping what God had foreseen before creation when the book of life was written.

 

[CoreyD]

I believe that everything we do from now until the end of our life is actively shaping what God had foreseen before creation when the book of life was written.

Before creation?
That is interesting. However, I do not want to derail this thread, but we disagree on that one, as I see no scriptural basis for that view.

 

[Palmfever]

Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same.
— Matthew 26:33-35

Could Peter have stuck to his guns and shown Jesus that He was wrong?

Yes.
But he may have feared for his own life. Christ knew and taught a lesson. There are times when we perceive a threat and either keep our mouth shut or quietly acquiesce. It had nothing to do with Peter losing his faith. Peter was solid and had a moment of weakness as we sometimes in our youth do. What he proved is that he was human.
No he could not prove Jesus wrong. In Christ's reality it was a done deal.

 

[o_mlly]

Did Peter not have free will to do otherwise?

As God does not take away what He gives, Peter did have, and always had, free will.
,
However, if Peter's passions, fear, impeded his free will then his culpability may have been mitigated. Still the act is objectively evil.

 

[Derf]

Peter didn’t have the courage to face death, that’s why he denied Christ.

Yes, that makes sense.

He was more concerned about not getting stoned to death or crucified for admitting that he was a follower of Christ and Jesus knew this.

Right.

So no he couldn’t have done otherwise because it was a prophetic foretelling of what Peter was going to do of his own free will.

This seems to go against what you said above. Are you saying that we can't overcome those feelings and fears? When God told Joshua to "be strong and courageous", wasn't He telling Joshua to overcome his fears? And if it is possible to overcome such fears, then why would the prophetic foretelling of Peter's denial make it impossible to actually be courageous?

 

[bling]

Yes, that makes sense.

Right.

This seems to go against what you said above. Are you saying that we can't overcome those feelings and fears? When God told Joshua to "be strong and courageous", wasn't He telling Joshua to overcome his fears? And if it is possible to overcome such fears, then why would the prophetic foretelling of Peter's denial make it impossible to actually be courageous?

As God does not take away what He gives, Peter did have, and always had, free will.
,
However, if Peter's passions, fear, impeded his free will then his culpability may have been mitigated. Still the act is objectively evil.

Yes.
But he may have feared for his own life. Christ knew and taught a lesson. There are times when we perceive a threat and either keep our mouth shut or quietly acquiesce. It had nothing to do with Peter losing his faith. Peter was solid and had a moment of weakness as we sometimes in our youth do. What he proved is that he was human.
No he could not prove Jesus wrong. In Christ's reality it was a done deal.

I don't consider Peter under some dominant control of GOD.

Could you either repeat the why or point me to the post you are referring to? I agree with you, but I'd like to see your reason.

Peter didn’t have the courage to face death, that’s why he denied Christ. He was more concerned about not getting stoned to death or crucified for admitting that he was a follower of Christ and Jesus knew this. So no he couldn’t have done otherwise because it was a prophetic foretelling of what Peter was going to do of his own free will.

Yes.
But he may have feared for his own life. Christ knew and taught a lesson. There are times when we perceive a threat and either keep our mouth shut or quietly acquiesce. It had nothing to do with Peter losing his faith. Peter was solid and had a moment of weakness as we sometimes in our youth do. What he proved is that he was human.
No he could not prove Jesus wrong. In Christ's reality it was a done deal.

This question has everything to do with God being outside of time.

Time has been shown experimentally over the last 100 years to be relative and no experiment has shown time to not be relative. God may have created time, but even if God did not He still would not be limited by time, His relative time does not have to be controlled by our relative time.

Think about this: If I know a truly free will choice you made yesterday that choice is fixed and cannot be changed since it is history. The fact I know your free will choice of yesterday, does not keep it from being your free will choice.

Just because your free will choice tomorrow is fixed does not mean God is the one fixing it, since you are the one who fixed the choice by making the choice of your own free will.

History cannot be changed even if God was the only one to knew about something that has happened, since it still happened it is history. Since God does everything right perfectly the first time, there is no reason to do it over again.

God is outside of time and omnipresent throughout time, so God at the end of time knows everything historically that has happened throughout time, making it unchangeable (fixed). Yet again just because God at the end of time knows all things that happened throughout time perfectly, does not mean human autonomous free will choices were not made and thus “fixed” by man making the choice.

God’s actions are also fixed and can be called foreordained or predestined.

God did not present this miraculous method of “how” He knows the future, but that is not unusual while communicating to man from man’s perspective is also God’s way.

With Peter, God at the end of time, this same God throughout time, knows what Peter and Christ chose to do with Christ being supplied the information by God at the end of time. Christ knowing the unrepentant state Peter was in can also realize His words will not keep Peter from sinning, but will help Peter to repent in the end, but it is still Peter’s choice.

 

[Hammster]

I don't consider Peter under some dominant control of GOD.

Okay.

 

[Hammster]

Could you either repeat the why or point me to the post you are referring to? I agree with you, but I'd like to see your reason.

Post 219. I actually responded to you.

 

[Derf]

This question has everything to do with God being outside of time.

Time has been shown experimentally over the last 100 years to be relative and no experiment has shown time to not be relative. God may have created time, but even if God did not He still would not be limited by time, His relative time does not have to be controlled by our relative time.

Think about this: If I know a truly free will choice you made yesterday that choice is fixed and cannot be changed since it is history. The fact I know your free will choice of yesterday, does not keep it from being your free will choice.

Just because your free will choice tomorrow is fixed does not mean God is the one fixing it, since you are the one who fixed the choice by making the choice of your own free will.

History cannot be changed even if God was the only one to knew about something that has happened, since it still happened it is history. Since God does everything right perfectly the first time, there is no reason to do it over again.

God is outside of time and omnipresent throughout time, so God at the end of time knows everything historically that has happened throughout time, making it unchangeable (fixed). Yet again just because God at the end of time knows all things that happened throughout time perfectly, does not mean human autonomous free will choices were not made and thus “fixed” by man making the choice.

God’s actions are also fixed and can be called foreordained or predestined.

God did not present this miraculous method of “how” He knows the future, but that is not unusual while communicating to man from man’s perspective is also God’s way.

With Peter, God at the end of time, this same God throughout time, knows what Peter and Christ chose to do with Christ being supplied the information by God at the end of time. Christ knowing the unrepentant state Peter was in can also realize His words will not keep Peter from sinning, but will help Peter to repent in the end, but it is still Peter’s choice.

But if God is "outside of time", then He can't interact with people, or even the other members of the godhead. Interactions require some kind of time passage, though not necessarily the same as our time.

Plus, there are no scriptures that back up the "outside of time" model. God is orderly, which means He does things at the proper time and in the proper sequence. Time passage and sequence are impossible for someone who is "outside of time". Plus, He can't know what time it is here for you right now.

 

[Derf]

Post 219. I actually responded to you.

Oh, right. I agree that God can't both be inside of time and outside of time. At least I think that's what you're saying here:

Let’s say that Peter was going to deny Christ three times regardless of anything else happening. So let’s assume that Jesus knew this, and because He knew this, He made His proclamation. What changes is how and why Peter wept. It’s possible that Jesus saw him weep out of guilt. So there still could be weeping. But after Jesus made His proclamation, Peter wept when he remembered Jesus’ words. So by interjecting Himself into the story, He changed the narrative.

 

[Hammster]

Oh, right. I agree that God can't both be inside of time and outside of time. At least I think that's what you're saying here:

I don’t know how He does it to where men have free volition to choose, and where He’s sovereign over everything, but scripture teaches both.

 

[Derf]

I don’t know how He does it to where men have free volition to choose, and where He’s sovereign over everything, but scripture teaches both.

What does it mean to be "sovereign"? Do you remember the Mayflower Compact? Here's how it starts: "IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James".

Was James sovereign?

 

[Hammster]

What does it mean to be "sovereign"? Do you remember the Mayflower Compact? Here's how it starts: "IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James".

Was James sovereign?

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
— Matthew 28:18

 

[BNR32FAN]

Before creation?
That is interesting. However, I do not want to derail this thread, but we disagree on that one, as I see no scriptural basis for that view.

“All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭13‬:‭8‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, that makes sense.

Right.

This seems to go against what you said above. Are you saying that we can't overcome those feelings and fears? When God told Joshua to "be strong and courageous", wasn't He telling Joshua to overcome his fears? And if it is possible to overcome such fears, then why would the prophetic foretelling of Peter's denial make it impossible to actually be courageous?

If Jesus told Peter that he is going to do something that means that He has already foreseen the outcome and that even His telling Peter what he was going to do wasn’t going to change that outcome. I’m not saying that Peter didn’t have a choice, I’m saying that Jesus knew what his choice would be.