Could Peter have done otherwise?

[Hammster]

Peter wasn't converted yet, and was simply boastful in self in front of the others, after Jesus made a statement, since it was foretold in the OT ( Psa. 38:11, 69:20, 88:18; Zec. 13:7):

Zec_13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.

Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Mat 26:32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

Luk_22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

If the question is asked in regards a false ideology of 'predestination', this would not be an example to use. God's prophecy, simply foretells what the disciples would choose in that moment, not that they had to choose what they did. It shows how the disciples would choose to react to the arrest and subsequent death of Jesus.

Predestination has to do with salvation. The question has to do with providence.

 

[bling]

Yes, I agree. I don't see you doing that with Jer. 18.

Jer. 18: 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

How much plainer could God make it? God’s announcement is nothing more than a prophecy about: “What God “says” He is going to do to a nation”. From the fact God may not do what He “says” He will do because it is contingent on the future (future from man’s perspective), what God “says” in these situations should not be taken as unchangeable prophecies, but as warnings. The Bible (God) is redefining some “prophecy” to be contingent. This does not mean other prophecies like those in which Deity prophecies the action of others (not his future actions, but man’s future actions) are contingent.

God is redefining some specific prophecies as warnings.

There are lots of prophecies concerning Israel being wonderfully pleased only to not happen, because Israel fell away, they should have been seen as rewards if they continued in relationship with God and not counted on them happening no matter what they did.

Jer. 18 is an example of God redefining “prophecy” for certain conditions.

I'll have to think about that a bit.

Please do.

You say it is straight forward, but then you say it means something that I don't see in the text. Your understanding of it is informed by your other understandings of God and mankind. Thus you say that God always knows what the nation's will do, and He doesn't change His mind about their destruction or blessing, but the passage is saying He does change His mind on it.

Here is another example of a “word” having a different meaning when used by God or to describe God, “repent”.

When we use the word “repent” we mean: we did something wrong (sinned), are sorry about doing it and will try not to do it again (turn from our ways).

God does not “sin”, nor does God do anything less than the very best it could be done, so what does, “God repented” mean? I would say, God was sorry for what happened (what man did) and God will alter direction (but this does not mean the first direction was not needed for man).

I believe time is relative, but I also believe that you can't have sequence of actions by an individual without some concept of time. In other words, if God made the birds and fish on day 5 of creation, and animals on day 6 of creation, those days were not all the same time to God. When He created man, it was AFTER He created the dry land on which He lives. God creates in an orderly fashion, which means in the right sequence, because one act (creation of man) is dependent on another act (dry land to live on).

I fully agree that “man” need a sequence of events and God would certainly set it up to be that way for man, but God can be outside of man’s time and could have His own sequencing of events in heaven.

 

[Derf]

Jer. 18: 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

How much plainer could God make it? God’s announcement is nothing more than a prophecy about: “What God “says” He is going to do to a nation”. From the fact God may not do what He “says” He will do because it is contingent on the future (future from man’s perspective), what God “says” in these situations should not be taken as unchangeable prophecies, but as warnings.

Of course they are not unchangeable prophecies, but what has changed? Only man's behavior or also God's planned actions? You see above where I recolored some of the text in your quoted posted. The verse shows the things God was doing: announcing, warning, relenting, and PLANNING. And the planning is past tense, something God had already decided to do. Then He changes His plan, based purely on what the nation decides to do. If God already knew what they would decide to do, then He would never have cause to CHANGE (relent of) His plan.

 

[bling]

Of course they are not unchangeable prophecies, but what has changed? Only man's behavior or also God's planned actions? You see above where I recolored some of the text in your quoted posted. The verse shows the things God was doing: announcing, warning, relenting, and PLANNING. And the planning is past tense, something God had already decided to do. Then He changes His plan, based purely on what the nation decides to do. If God already knew what they would decide to do, then He would never have cause to CHANGE (relent of) His plan.

God, from the beginning of time, planned for every contingency and desired nothing but the best, but allowed humans to do stuff which would result in one plan over another plan, without altering the plan which could have happened.

If God did not know what He was going to do, because God did not know what man would do, then there is absolutely no reason and it would be wrong for God to stated one planned action as something that is “going to happen”. He would have to state it as being contingent on something God did no know. The problem only comes up if God does know what man will do, yet God wants to warn humans through a prophet. God uses Jerimiah to define a prophecy about God’s future actions on man to be not set in stone, but contingent on man’s actions, it becomes a warning.

 

[Derf]

God, from the beginning of time, planned for every contingency and desired nothing but the best, but allowed humans to do stuff which would result in one plan over another plan, without altering the plan which could have happened.

Would you read your words carefully, and then explain to me how God could "plan" anything absolutely, and then have a different plan that comes to pass...without admitting that God doesn't know everything absolutely.

If God did not know what He was going to do, because God did not know what man would do, then there is absolutely no reason and it would be wrong for God to stated one planned action as something that is “going to happen”.

Not true. Jer. 18 explicitly tells us that God is willing to change His plan based on what man will do. Thus, the contingent prophecy gives the result if man doesn't repent, and it explains the other result that is possible if man does repent. The "going to happen" changes when man repents.

He would have to state it as being contingent on something God did no know. The problem only comes up if God does know what man will do, yet God wants to warn humans through a prophet.

This is backwards. If God KNOWS what man will do absolutely, then warning him is a waste of time. It only makes sense to warn IF God thinks man might change.

God uses Jerimiah to define a prophecy about God’s future actions on man to be not set in stone, but contingent on man’s actions, it becomes a warning.

Yes, this is true. In such cases neither man's nor God's actions are set in stone, thus a contingent prophecy is possible, and a warning makes sense.

The upshot of it is that if neither man's nor God's actions are set in stone for a future time, then God can't know what the future outcome will be. This is illustrated by Jonas at Nineveh, by Hezekiah on his deathbed, and by Jer. 18. I.e., it is scriptural supported that God does not know the future exhaustively.

 

[Derf]

They are rebellious by nature. I thought that was clear.

They are rebellious by nature.

And who controls their nature? Why are they born that way, unless God wanted them to be rebellious? Was God in control of their nature?

I mean that everything that happens is completely under God’s control.

There's the answer. God wanted man to be rebellious. Which means it's not rebellious, if God wanted it.

Your system refutes itself.

 

[Hammster]

And who controls their nature? Why are they born that way, unless God wanted them to be rebellious? Was God in control of their nature?

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
— Romans 9:19-24

 

[Derf]

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
— Romans 9:19-24

Then God punishes people for being in His will, right?

 

[Hammster]

Then God punishes people for being in His will, right?

God punishes people for sin.

 

[Derf]

God punishes people for sin.

But God, being completely in control of whether anyone is born with a rebellious nature, and being completely in control of whether anyone stays rebellious or not, and having decided who among the whole of mankind throughout history will cease to be rebellious, then decides to punish those rebellious persons, despite the fact that they are DOING GOD'S WILL in being rebellious, with eternal concious torment. Right?

 

[Hammster]

But God, being completely in control of whether anyone is born with a rebellious nature, and being completely in control of whether anyone stays rebellious or not, and having decided who among the whole of mankind throughout history will cease to be rebellious, then decides to punish those rebellious persons, despite the fact that they are DOING GOD'S WILL in being rebellious, with eternal concious torment. Right?

Once again, people are punished for their willful sin.

 

[Derf]

Once again, people are punished for their willful sin.

Which God is in complete control of and wants them to do. Therefore it isn't really sin, to do what God wants you to do.

 

[Hammster]

Which God is in complete control of and wants them to do. Therefore it isn't really sin, to do what God wants you to do.

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
— Romans 9:19

 

[peter2]

Hello Hammster and Derf.
I read a little of your dialogue..
Couldn't Luke 23,34, when Jesus asks the Father to forgive them be a plausible explanation to your questionning ?

 

[Hammster]

Hello Hammster and Derf.
I read a little of your dialogue..
Couldn't Luke 23,34, when Jesus asks the Father to forgive them be a plausible explanation to your questionning ?

You’ll have to expound.

 

[peter2]

You’ll have to expound.

Let me have a try :

i find both your points relevant, and it made me questionning too :

For i have the sensation it would be a mistake to say God didn't want Jesus crucifixion, that is, the sinning of crucifiers too. In France we say : "no omelette without egg-breaking". I wonder then wether Jesus is not asking God for His forgiving the crucifiers, in order precisely to take away the sin of the world, and obviously this of crucifiers.

Isn't the crucified in the best position to ask for forgiveness ?
From anyone else it would be slightly incongruous, wouldn't it ?

 

[Derf]

Let me have a try :

i find both your points relevant, and it made me questionning too :

For i have the sensation it would be a mistake to say God didn't want Jesus crucifixion, that is, the sinning of crucifiers too. In France we say : "no omelette without egg-breaking". I wonder then wether Jesus is not asking God for His forgiving the crucifiers, in order precisely to take away the sin of the world, and obviously this of crucifiers.

Isn't the crucified in the best position to ask for forgiveness ?
From anyone else it would be slightly incongruous, wouldn't it ?

Assuming you are correct, why then would God feel the need to ordain horrendous crimes against children, for instance, and call it "His will"? And why is it that we would call such crimes "crimes" and "horrendous", but God merely says, "Who can resist my will?"

 

[Derf]

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
— Romans 9:19

Genesis 18:25 KJV — That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

 

[peter2]

Assuming you are correct, why then would God feel the need to ordain horrendous crimes against children, for instance, and call it "His will"? And why is it that we would call such crimes "crimes" and "horrendous", but God merely says, "Who can resist my will?"

Assuming so, yes.. It's still a bit confused in my mind.

But i observe you attribute to God a kind of enslavement christians usually put down to sin.

I think what follows is less confusely thought :

Let's consider the fishes' hunger of food in the sea, that the fisher exploits in order to catch them. .
What is the more enslaving in your view, for the fishes : Their hunger, or the fisher and his net ? I mean : How a Savior can lead the fish in order to free it ? Should He first free it from fisher or rather against hunger ?

Well, if you associate Herod with the fisher, it could explain why this king felt a rivalry with the Savior. Both want to attract the fishes, but the first to enslave them, while the second, to free them from both hunger and net of fisher.
That's why, Herod's massacre of innocent children must be first and foremost be attributed to his sin, and only secondly to the Will of God. Without sin, indeed, there would not have been a need for a Savior, nor for any Will of God to allow Herod to sin, from Herod's own sinful will.

Subsequently, it stems from this God's Will is not for the sinning (i was wrong), but for freedom. And, as distinct from this Will, sin, whose nature is enslaving, takes obviously advantage of the opportunity.

Hope it's clear

 

[Hammster]

Genesis 18:25 KJV — That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

And guess what? Sodom was still destroyed.