• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Could Peter have done otherwise?

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I’ve already shown the problem with that. Once Jesus inserted Himself into the equation, it changed things.

My question: if Satan hadn’t asked to sift Peter, would things have turned out differently?
 
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
13,059
1,399
sg
✟271,816.00
Country
Singapore
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Is it that difficult to accept that he already knew that whatever he said to Peter, will not change Peter's decision?
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,515
8,179
50
The Wild West
✟758,809.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,614
379
62
Colorado Springs
✟120,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But did God know before the first prophecy that He would change His mind and prophecy exactly the opposite?
 
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,614
379
62
Colorado Springs
✟120,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican


Could Peter have not denied Christ? Yes. Would he have not denied Him in other situations? Yes. But Jesus knew enough about Peter to know he would fail Satan's sifting in certain situations, and He knew what the situation would be, too. As someone may have pointed out here already, Jesus did something that took away the courage Peter had for fighting (telling him to put his sword away), and Peter was relying on his own bravado. Once that scene had passed, Peter was ripe for Satan to use his discouragement to tempt him.
 
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,614
379
62
Colorado Springs
✟120,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
He ordains all things that come to pass. He doesn’t learn.
Did He ordain the names of all the animals Adam would name? And if so, does that mean that He didn't really want to see what Adam would name them (since He already knew and had ordained those names)?

If you believe God didn't learn the names Adam chose, what does the scripture mean when it says "to see what he would call them"?
[Gen 2:19 KJV] And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.
 
Upvote 0

Derf

Well-Known Member
Aug 8, 2021
1,614
379
62
Colorado Springs
✟120,300.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, I’m saying that God ordained that Peter would deny Christ. I’m not saying that He made him do so.
Isn't that what it means to ordain something? To make sure it will happen?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,525
29,030
Pacific Northwest
✟812,323.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
And yet a man can still resist and reject that grace, that gift of faith, just as Peter freely denied Christ in the moment.

Correct. I didn't suggest otherwise, nor do the Lutheran Confessions.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Is it that difficult to accept that he already knew that whatever he said to Peter, will not change Peter's decision?
But what He said isn’t in the timeline that you said He saw. You aren’t seeing the problem with that.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
You are arguing for a less-than-omniscient god.
 
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Isn't that what it means to ordain something? To make sure it will happen?
God can make sure something happens without forcing people to act in a certain way.
 
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,479
2,671
✟1,040,440.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
But did God know before the first prophecy that He would change His mind and prophecy exactly the opposite?
I believe so yes. Because God deals with us in the moment, not from His all knowing.
 
Upvote 0

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Site Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,757
7,226
63
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,129,179.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Could Peter have stuck to his guns and shown Jesus that He was wrong?
No. Peter did not have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, yet.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I don't understand this statement of yours. How do you know that?
You said “
Think of God as living outside time, he could see your past, present and future simultaneously.

So when he sees Peter denying him in the future, he knows it in the present. But he did not cause Peter to deny him.”

I take this to mean that the reason Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him is because Jesus “saw” it would happen.

Am I correct so far?
 
Upvote 0

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Site Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,757
7,226
63
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,129,179.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jesus would have been wrong if Peter had the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus knew that would not happen until Pentecost (Acts 2).
Jesus did not doubt Peter's love or genuine affection. He just knew that Peter's unassisted flesh could not make good on such a commitment.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Carpe Chaos
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
144,404
27,056
56
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,940,328.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Jesus knew that would not happen until Pentecost (Acts 2).
Jesus did not doubt Peter's love or genuine affection. He just knew that Peter's unassisted flesh could not make good on such a commitment.
So you aren’t holding to “Jesus knew the future”, but “Jesus knew Peter”, correct?
 
Upvote 0

Sabertooth

Repartee Animal: Quipping the Saints!
Site Supporter
Jul 25, 2005
10,757
7,226
63
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,129,179.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So you aren’t holding to “Jesus knew the future”, but “Jesus knew Peter”, correct?
There is probably some overlap.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
15,915
3,981
✟385,104.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I’ve already shown the problem with that. Once Jesus inserted Himself into the equation, it changed things.

My question: if Satan hadn’t asked to sift Peter, would things have turned out differently?
I don't see where Jesus inserted Himself into the equation; He was just right...about what Peter would do. You've already agreed that Jesus didn't make [cause?] Peter to do what he did.
 
Upvote 0