Could Peter have done otherwise?

[Derf]

And guess what? Sodom was still destroyed.

Yes, and it was right because God spared the righteous from His wrath. Thus we can tell that the men of Sodom were not doing God's will, but were sinning. If God wants (wills) people to sin, then sinners are doing His will, and therefore are not sinning. Then God would be unrighteous in destroying the un-sinners in Sodom.

Righteous is defined as that which does right. If God wants (wills) people to do wrong, then either God is not righteous or wrong is not wrong.

Therefore, your citation can't be talking about everything that happens in the world being God's will:
Romans 9:19 KJV — Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Rather, He exercises His will despite the resistance that people (especially the Jews in Rom. 9) exhibit against it. God's righteous sovereignty is defined by His punishing the wicked, not by endorsing and ordaining their sin as if it is what He wants (wills).

 

[Derf]

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

Then let's keep the discussion going.

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

I'm not sure what you mean, but I do recognize that sin leads to bondage.

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 ?

Hunger for nourishment is not sin. Hunger for what belongs to another is sin (covetousness).

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.

I don't see where He rod's slaughter of innocent children is in any way the will of God.

Without sin, indeed, there would not have been a need for a Savior,

True

nor for any Will of God to allow Herod to sin,

Which I've denied.

from Herod's own sinful will.

Which is HIS own sinful will, not God's.

Subsequently, it stems from this God's Will is not for the sinning (i was wrong), but for freedom.

Which did not require slaughter of innocents.

And, as distinct from this Will, sin, whose nature is enslaving, takes obviously advantage of the opportunity.

You lost me. Which opportunity? Herod's slaughter? That was sin. But why is it somehow an opportunity?

Hope it's clear

Not yet.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, and it was right because God spared the righteous from His wrath. Thus we can tell that the men of Sodom were not doing God's will, but were sinning. If God wants (wills) people to sin, then sinners are doing His will, and therefore are not sinning. Then God would be unrighteous in destroying the un-sinners in Sodom.

Righteous is defined as that which does right. If God wants (wills) people to do wrong, then either God is not righteous or wrong is not wrong.

Therefore, your citation can't be talking about everything that happens in the world being God's will:
Romans 9:19 KJV — Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Rather, He exercises His will despite the resistance that people (especially the Jews in Rom. 9) exhibit against it. God's righteous sovereignty is defined by His punishing the wicked, not by endorsing and ordaining their sin as if it is what He wants (wills).

Can God, being both all-powerful and sovereign, change a heart of stone to a heart of flesh whenever He chooses?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

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?

That is a great question that raises the topic of determinism. To answer this question, I am reminded of Jeremiah 1:5 which states, "Before you were born, I knew you." God is omniscient. He knows everything about you and every decision you'd ever make before you were born. So although Peter's denial of Jesus was completely his choice and will be held accountable, God knew Peter would make that decision before he was even born. This is great news because people often feel like they disappoint God because of their failures. But disappointment is the difference between expectation and reality, and God never expects, He just knows. Therefore, no matter how much we keep failing, God is never dissapointed and views every failure as an opportunity for repentance and forgiveness so we can become more like Christ. So although Peter it was technically possible for Peter to prove Jesus wrong due to his free will, it was actually impossible because God knew Peter's decision before he was born.

 

[Derf]

Can God, being both all-powerful and sovereign, change a heart of stone to a heart of flesh whenever He chooses?

No, read the passage:
[Eze 11:18 NKJV] "And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there.
[Eze 11:19 NKJV] "Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh,
[Eze 11:20 NKJV] "that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God.
[Eze 11:21 NKJV] "But [as for those] whose hearts follow the desire for their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their deeds on their own heads," says the Lord GOD.

See that last verse? The result is based on whether they are willing to get rid of the detestable things and abominations, THEN God will give them a new heart of flesh, but those who don't get rid of the detestable things will not get a new heart. And notice that it is a corporate and single heart for "them".

 

[Hammster]

No, read the passage:
[Eze 11:18 NKJV] "And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there.
[Eze 11:19 NKJV] "Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh,
[Eze 11:20 NKJV] "that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God.
[Eze 11:21 NKJV] "But [as for those] whose hearts follow the desire for their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their deeds on their own heads," says the Lord GOD.

See that last verse? The result is based on whether they are willing to get rid of the detestable things and abominations, THEN God will give them a new heart of flesh, but those who don't get rid of the detestable things will not get a new heart. And notice that it is a corporate and single heart for "them".

Then there’s no point in continuing. I don’t see God being limited in what He can do.

But our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever He pleases.
— Psalm 115:3

“I know that You can do all things,
And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
— Job 42:2

 

[Derf]

Then there’s no point in continuing. I don’t see God being limited in what He can do.

But our God is in the heavens;
He does whatever He pleases.
— Psalm 115:3

“I know that You can do all things,
And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.
— Job 42:2

God limits Himself all the time. He never lies. He's never unfaithful. He CANNOT deny Himself. He doesn't change in character. And that's why we can trust that He will raise us from the dead at the last day (or change us to be incorruptible if we're still alive), because He limits Himself to righteousness. Therefore, He is not the one who ordains sin, but permits it for a time, hoping some (all?) will come to repentance.

He does all He pleases, but if He ordains every sin that you or I or the worst of human-kind decide to commit, then He is guilty of lying, child rape, murder of Jews in Nazi camps, etc, because you are saying that such "pleases" Him.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Okay. I'll wait until you answer the last question. Thanks.

“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

 

[Hammster]

He does all He pleases, but if He ordains every sin that you or I or the worst of human-kind decide to commit, then He is guilty of lying, child rape, murder of Jews in Nazi camps, etc, because you are saying that such "pleases" Him.

Can He at least stop any of those sins?

 

[peter2]

Then let's keep the discussion going.

Let it be so

I'm not sure what you mean, but I do recognize that sin leads to bondage.

In Jn 8, 34, Jesus calls the sinner a servant of sin. It's what i meant

Hunger for nourishment is not sin. Hunger for what belongs to another is sin (covetousness).

I agree. I was just illustrating the "dependant" link that men keep nuturing with sin, that looks a bit like dependance they have to food

I don't see where He rod's slaughter of innocent children is in any way the will of God.

I thought you believed so. As for me, i' d say : It was may be not more His Will than the death of His son was.

May be will you agree at thinking that Herod 's rule is based on wordly lies, lied by liars in order to please the ruler.
What will happen, if a Savior rises, that doesn't lie, but speaks the language of the Truth ?
And what's more, a Savior that is expected to rule..

I think : No wonder that Mt 2, 17-18 reports Jeremy's prophecy about Rachel' sorrow. Obviouly God already knew the birth of Jesus would bring about Herod's massacre. His Will in the massacre is indirect, but it is, through His Will of the birth of Jesus

Which I've denied.

I know

Which is HIS own sinful will, not God's.

I know and agree

Which did not require slaughter of innocents.

There the prophecy i spoke about just above

You lost me. Which opportunity? Herod's slaughter? That was sin. But why is it somehow an opportunity

I meant it is an opportunity for sin to lose Herod's soul

 

[Derf]

Let it be so

In Jn 8, 34, Jesus calls the sinner a servant of sin. It's what i meant

Ok.

I agree. I was just illustrating the "dependant" link that men keep nuturing with sin, that looks a bit like dependance they have to food

I think the bondage may have a different nuance, that we sin and continue in it because of fear of death.

I thought you believed so. As for me, i' d say : It was may be not more His Will than the death of His son was.

The death of His son had a particular role to play in redemption. Certainly you don't think Herod's slaughter was necessary for redemption, do you?

May be will you agree at thinking that Herod 's rule is based on wordly lies, lied by liars in order to please the ruler.
What will happen, if a Savior rises, that doesn't lie, but speaks the language of the Truth ?
And what's more, a Savior that is expected to rule..

Then His Will will be done on earth as it is in heaven. But to say that what happens on earth is all according to God's will makes God evil, since He wants all evil to occur. Like doing evil that good may come.

I think : No wonder that Mt 2, 17-18 reports Jeremy's prophecy about Rachel' sorrow. Obviouly God already knew the birth of Jesus would bring about Herod's massacre.

He probably knew that after Herod came to power, but not necessarily before the foundation of the world, or even in Jeremiah's time.

His Will in the massacre is indirect, but it is, through His Will of the birth of Jesus

I don't know that the Rachel's sorrow prophecy was meant as a direct prophecy of Herod's slaughter. Many of those where it says "thus was fulfilled..." the text being fulfilled could apply to numerous situations beyond what the NT writers applied it to.

I know

I know and agree

There the prophecy i spoke about just above

See above comments.

I meant it is an opportunity for sin to lose Herod's soul

I'm still not sure what you mean. Is sin losing Herod's a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[peter2]

I think the bondage may have a different nuance, that we sin and continue in it because of fear of death.

Going on sinning is not always linked to the fear of death, is it ? A mere temptation can do the the sinning, can't it.
And besides for christians, when they do believe in resurrection, because it furthers the fear of death. It's believers' privilige to relativise death

The death of His son had a particular role to play in redemption. Certainly you don't think Herod's slaughter was necessary for redemption, do you?

No, i don't.
But as i wrote earlier, in France we say : "No omelette without egg-breaking", and i add that to take away the sin of the world requires a kind of weaning from sin that's frustrating, and led Herod to the massacre of innocents, for fear of the frustration. In other words, weaning and frustration are both necessary for redemption, but it brings about some wrath of the sinner

Then His Will will be done on earth as it is in heaven. But to say that what happens on earth is all according to God's will makes God evil, since He wants all evil to occur. Like doing evil that good may come.

The weaning is an evil, yes

He probably knew that after Herod came to power, but not necessarily before the foundation of the world, or even in Jeremiah's time.

Not so sure

I don't know that the Rachel's sorrow prophecy was meant as a direct prophecy of Herod's slaughter. Many of those where it says "thus was fulfilled..." the text being fulfilled could apply to numerous situations beyond what the NT writers applied it to.

May be situations and form can be changed over, but the content remains unchanged. I don't know

I'm still not sure what you mean. Is sin losing Herod's a good thing or a bad thing?

A bad thing

 

[Hammster]

God limits Himself all the time. He never lies. He's never unfaithful. He CANNOT deny Himself. He doesn't change in character. And that's why we can trust that He will raise us from the dead at the last day (or change us to be incorruptible if we're still alive), because He limits Himself to righteousness. Therefore, He is not the one who ordains sin, but permits it for a time, hoping some (all?) will come to repentance.

He does all He pleases, but if He ordains every sin that you or I or the worst of human-kind decide to commit, then He is guilty of lying, child rape, murder of Jews in Nazi camps, etc, because you are saying that such "pleases" Him.

Can He at least stop any of those sins?

@Derf ?

 

[Derf]

Can He at least stop any of those sins?

Of course. He does all the time, by killing the perpetrator, or by having him go to prison. He might even cause a president or candidate to turn his head at an opportune moment to prevent an assassination. But just because He doesn't stop all sins doesn't mean He ordained them and is in complete control of everything the perpetrator does or thinks.

 

[Hammster]

Of course. He does all the time, by killing the perpetrator, or by having him go to prison. He might even cause a president or candidate to turn his head at an opportune moment to prevent an assassination. But just because He doesn't stop all sins doesn't mean He ordained them and is in complete control of everything the perpetrator does or thinks.

Of course it does. If can stop something, but choses not to, He has a reason.

 

[Derf]

Of course it does. If can stop something, but choses not to, He has a reason.

His reason may be that he is waiting for them to come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

But if He is waiting, then He isn’t in complete control of everything.

 

[Hammster]

His reason may be that he is waiting for them to come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

But if He is waiting, then He isn’t in complete control of everything.

Okay. We are back to you not believing He’s completely sovereign. I’m done here.

 

[Derf]

Okay. We are back to you not believing He’s completely sovereign. I’m done here.

Meaning you don't agree with the bible verse I quoted? How can God be longsuffering for something He is completely in control of? Are you saying God has to wait on Himself, hoping that He will grant repentance to somebody?

Don't you find that an odd way to think about God? Surely that isn't how you define sovereignty.

 

[Hammster]

Meaning you don't agree with the bible verse I quoted? How can God be longsuffering for something He is completely in control of? Are you saying God has to wait on Himself, hoping that He will grant repentance to somebody?

Don't you find that an odd way to think about God? Surely that isn't how you define sovereignty.

Okay, I’ll play. Taking into consideration the context of 2 Peter 3 (the whole letter, actually), who is the “us-ward” he talking about?

 

[Derf]

Going on sinning is not always linked to the fear of death, is it ? A mere temptation can do the the sinning, can't it.

Why is anything tempting? Isn't it because we don't thing we'll get it soon enough in the right form? "Soon enough" could mean before we die. For instance, fornication (sex before marriage, especially) is tempting because we might not be able to get married and we want to have sex before...death comes.

Hebrews talks about this concept.
Hebrews 2:15 KJV — And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

And besides for christians, when they do believe in resurrection, because it furthers the fear of death.

I don't get what you mean. Resurrection should be a relief from any fear of death.

It's believers' privilige to relativise death

Yes, because it is no longer something to fear.

No, i don't.
But as i wrote earlier, in France we say : "No omelette without egg-breaking", and i add that to take away the sin of the world requires a kind of weaning from sin that's frustrating, and led Herod to the massacre of innocents, for fear of the frustration. In other words, weaning and frustration are both necessary for redemption, but it brings about some wrath of the sinner

The ones who don't repent, surely. Are you thinking Herod was being weaned of sin? I don't see it in anything I've read about him.

The weaning is an evil, yes

Now I'm confused again. I thought weaning from sin is a good thing, not evil.

Not so sure

May be situations and form can be changed over, but the content remains unchanged. I don't know

My point is that the prophecy of Rachel weapons for her children is so unspecific in its content that it could easily have been not fulfilled in Herod's time, and we wouldn't have missed it or thought of it as an unfulfilled prophecy.

A bad thing

Then I don't understand your point. "Sin" isn't an entity, though it is embodied often by Satan. Satan losing Herod's soul sounds like a good thing to me.