Could Peter have done otherwise?

[Hammster]

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.

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?

 

[Guojing]

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.

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

 

[The Liturgist]

I disagree that patristic theology is the final word on Christian doctrine.

Well, it’s not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.

 

[Derf]

Yes, Peter could have done differently, and Jesus would have known.

In those days Hezekiah became mortally ill. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die and not live.’”
— Isaiah 38:1

Could this have happened differently to Hezekiah? Yes indeed... it did!

Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, and said, “Remember now, O Lord, I beseech You, how I have walked before You in truth and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in Your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah, saying, “Go and say to Hezekiah, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of your father David, “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add fifteen years to your life.
— Isaiah 38:2-5

But did God know before the first prophecy that He would change His mind and prophecy exactly the opposite?

 

[Derf]

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?

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.

 

[Derf]

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.

 

[Derf]

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?

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

 

[Hammster]

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.

 

[Hammster]

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.

You are arguing for a less-than-omniscient god.

 

[Hammster]

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.

 

[zoidar]

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.

 

[Guojing]

But what He said isn’t in the timeline that you said He saw.

I don't understand this statement of yours. How do you know that?

 

[Sabertooth]

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.

 

[Hammster]

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?

 

[Hammster]

No. Peter did not have the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, yet.

Interesting. Jesus would have been wrong if Peter had the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Sabertooth]

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.

 

[Hammster]

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?

 

[Sabertooth]

So you aren’t holding to “Jesus knew the future”, but “Jesus knew Peter”, correct?

There is probably some overlap.

 

[fhansen]

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.