"Before the rooster crows, you will have denied me (exactly) three times."
--- if you thought about your Open View posit, this makes no sense at all from your theology perspective, let alone mine. It forces you well away from Open precepts. He did not make Peter deny. He did not 'guess' it'd be three times and you do damage to Him over the matter.
What does the context tell us? Does my view or your view better fit the narrative?
Jesus knew he was about to be betrayed, and He knew that Judas was going to be the one to do it.
He knew that Peter would likely follow the soldiers as they took Him before the authorities.
Jesus knew the area, and He knew that His arrest would probably gather a crowd.
Jesus knew that Peter's face would be well known, since he was often if not always by His side during His ministering.
Do you disagree with any of that?
Do you think, maybe, that Jesus didn't need to know the future, but rather is really good at looking at the current circumstances, and could easily foresee a situation where Peter's identity is called into question, even multiple times, and, knowing Peter (because he had just spent the last three years living with him), that he would deny his affiliation with Him, because that's the kind of person Peter was? Because Peter, despite his cowardice, was still loyal to Christ?
Did you notice that in Matthew 26:56, it says that the disciples "forsook Him and fled"?!
They weren't prepared to go up against the Roman army. They weren't prepared for Jesus to be captured and to be put to death (even though Jesus had told them that He must die multiple times, yet they didn't understand). They didn't understand what was going on.
"He did not 'guess' it'd be three times"
Nowhere have I used the term "guess."
Quit straw-manning, Lon.
God makes predictions many times in the Bible.
He OFTEN makes prophecies (which are predictions, not guarantees) that He hopes will not come to pass, and even tells the people concerned that they should change so as to avoid the outcome.
Jesus telling Peter that he would deny Him three times before the changing of the guard (the "crow of the rooster") was, aside from it being a statement of how quickly Peter would deny Him, after making such a bold claim that he (and the other disciples too) would never abandon Him, was a WARNING! It was a warning just like God gave Nineveh, "In forty days Nineveh will be destroyed!" Yet by forty days later, Nineveh had repented, and so God spared her from destruction.
Peter, unfortunately, did not heed the warning, until it was too late.
So which is it, Lon?
Does Jesus need to know the future? Or can He make accurate predictions based on present knowledge, and based on His relationships with people? Was Jesus stating the future, or was He warning Peter to guard his heart so that He doesn't deny the One whom he loves and claimed he would never abandon?
"Lord you know all things, you know that I love you."
--The opposite of 'very hard to see.'
This is exactly what I'm talking about, Lon.
You are completely incapable of seeing it any other way.
It is very hard to shift one's perspective away from the paradigm one holds to. Most people are never able to. I pray it is not the case with you.
Forget "taking off the glasses," Lon, you have your eyes glued to a microscope focused SOLELY on that sentence. You cannot seem to pull yourself away from the microscope long enough to get the big picture.
What does the context say? Do you know what the context is? How does the context affect what the passage says?
Tell us what the context is. The immediate context, within the passage. The context of the narrative within the four gospels. The context within the story of the Bible.
Can you do that?
Here is the context:
Then the Lord Jesus Christ told Peter how he was to die.
Is that what it says?
Or did you miss something?
Because I think you missed something important.
I think you missed the whole point!
Why? Because you're so laser-focused on demonstrating omniscience in the text, that you completely overlook what the passage is trying to teach!
You'd have this because it'd be scripted by the Lord Jesus Christ that men would lead him where he didn't want to go.
Shared via ChatGPT
chatgpt.com
--no, it makes the most sense, because it does no damage to your will, that Jesus indeed "knows all things." It is the best rendering of the text.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
"Lord you know all things."
About what, specifically?
Peter was just confronted, in a very intimate setting, about his love for his Lord.
"Peter, do you agape Me?"
"Yes Lord, you know I phileo You."
"Feed My lambs. . . . Peter, do you agape Me?"
"Yes Lord, you know I phileo You."
"Shepherd My sheep. . . . Peter, do you phileo Me?"
What does it say Peter's response was to that?
It says Peter was grieved, because Christ used "phileo" instead of "agape"!
"Lord, you know all things, you know I phileo you."
"Feed My sheep."
This isn't some doctrinal statement Peter is making.
Jesus is asking if he loves Him.
Peter responds that He knows him completely, that Peter loves Him.
You are literally importing a rendering of the text forced by Open View lenses. There is no other lens but the exact opposite so it is all about glasses JR.
If I'm pot, then you're kettle.
Except that the plain reading of the text doesn't allow for your view, while I'm simply letting the context dictate what Peter is talking about.
Those glasses don't work.
What glasses?
I'm telling you to take OFF the glasses you're wearing.
I didn't say put another pair on.
Let me put it this way:
If you have surgery to remove something in your eye that is hindering your vision, do you replace it with something else? Or do you take that thing that hinders your vision out of your eye and replace it with nothing?
That's what I'm telling you to do.
Take off the "omniscience" lenses.
Don't put any other lenses on.
Read the text. Read the context. Let the context determine the meaning of what the text says.
Let me repeat it because I wholly believe it: Not without a very hard song and dance do your glasses fit.
Repeating your false witness won't make it not a sin, Lon.
Explaining what the passage says isn't "song and dance," no matter how much you cry about it.
These passages make incredibly better sense simply reading them exactly for what they intimate: "Lord you know all things." Do you realize you are the one who denies the plain verse?
Oh, really?
Because as far as I can tell, I'm the only one between the two of us who has considered the context of what Peter says.
All you can do is repeat over and over "Lord you know all things" as though it somehow establishes your position, and you completely ignore everything I've said so far.
I have. I put on your glasses. It is passages like these that would turn me back to orthodoxy. I genuinely could not be an Open Theist any longer after reading these passages. It'd turn me back, no question.
That's because you didn't actually take off the lenses.
Taking off the lenses and replacing them with other lenses won't work, obviously.
But you have to first start by taking off the lenses you have on. Something you haven't done yet.
Not possible without making him deny exactly three times.
You're saying the God of the universe, who is infinitely wise, is incapable of predicting what someone will do a few hours before he does it, without having to make him do it?
What kind of incompetant, insecure god do you believe in!?
Because it's CLEARLY not the God of the Bible!
Prophecies are predictions, Lon. They are POSSIBLE futures. They are not guarantees of anything except of the outcome ONLY IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT CHANGE. If the circumstances change, then all bets are off!
We see this REPEATEDLY throughout the Bible!
Take Jonah!
God told Nineveh "40 days, and you will be destroyed."
Jonah finally made it there three days after he was told to go, and started preaching. 40 days later, and Nineveh was NOT destroyed, why? Because God hopes that His prophecies of judgement will fail! Because He cares more about the RESPONSE to the prophecy than He does the prophecy coming true!
Jesus prophesied that Peter would deny Him three times before 3 AM. It's not a hard prediction for God to make, ESPECIALLY since He just spent the last three years getting to know the guy!
Use your God-given brain for once, Lon!
Think!
Do you think Jesus would have been happy or sad if Peter had NOT denied Him three times?
I think He would have been OVERJOYED!
Or do you think it was eternally necessary for Peter to deny his Creator three and exactly three times!?
Do you even listen to your own arguments?
RIGHT BACK AT YOU!
You seriously need to take a good hard look at what it is you're saying, to see if it ACTUALLY comports with scripture, or if it's just you reading your beliefs into the text!
When the conversation picks back up, Peter is grieved because he denied exactly three times, asked three times if he loves Jesus, and says "You know all things" and Jesus continues to tell him 'what manner he would die.'
That explains nothing. All you're doing is repeating what the text says as though that alone is enough to prove your position.
Peter cut off an ear. He was no coward. Such is said 'after' he denied knowing Jesus. He went into the place Jesus was being beaten to try to save Him. The denials? Not because he was a coward, but because he was willing to do anything to save Jesus...until His words came home after the rooster crowed. That is love. "Lord you know all things, you know I love you."
What a pitiful attempt at an explanation.
Yes, Peter was spontaneous. He wasn't good at thinking things through. He acted out, often rashly. It doesn't mean he wasn't originally a coward.
Remember, he along with the rest of the Disciples forsook Christ and fled!
That's something you do if you're a coward who doesn't have the conviction of his beliefs... which is entirely my point. Jesus knew Peter. He knew Peter did not have the conviction of his beliefs. He knew Peter acted tough, but inside he wasn't courageous enough to stand up for what he believed in. The later passage in John is Jesus guiding him into a more steadfast belief, and Peter was grieved because he knew Jesus was right! He knew EVERYTHING ABOUT PETER!
Your glasses are clouding the passage for a paradigm.
I don't have glasses on. I mean, I do, literally, I'm nearsighted in both eyes, thus I wear glasses. But I'm not wearing any theological glasses here. I'm simply letting the text say what it says, in the context that it says it.
Open Theism doesn't look right.
Because you still have Calvinist lenses on.
Just the opposite! "Lord you know all things, you know I love you."
Supra. It wasn't just "do you love me" "yes" "care for my flock" repeated three times.
Right. Between us is a pair of different glasses. This conversation allows us to really examine those glasses and see which holds up best.
One pair. Yours. You should take them off, so that you can see scripture clearly.
We are both committed, but in amongst this is a prayer that God would open both of our eyes.
As if I wouldn't want that...
I've been here 25 years, not whishy washy, but willing to have the God of the universe change my glasses, if He sees fit and with my careful study. I am more convinced today than 25 years ago that the glasses just don't work.
God can't force you to see things differently, Lon.
Not even with Paul.
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
Literally "παντα (all) γινωσκεις (know)."
And?
Context shows us that "panta" isn't always used to refer to all things without exception, but often all things within a limited scope. (Cf. John 4:29; 1 John 2:20)
See the ChatGPT link.
Yet you haven't been able to address ANY of it. You've only evaded my points, because you HAVE NO ARGUMENT against what I'm saying.
I wasn't bearing false witness.
You were and have not repented of it.
You have to use many words to explain 'knows all' away.
The Bible is a thick book, it's thickness is proportional to the thickness of our skulls.
Sometimes the things scripture is teaching are more complex than just "See, it says 'Lord you know all' things" therefore God must be omniscient!" and require more explanation, especially when the person one is talking to refuses to see it any other way than his preferred reading.
You do the same thing in 1 John.
You mean like with 1 John 2:20, where it says that men know all things?
Yeah, you still haven't properly dealt with that one.
Doesn't it even phase you that John says "...Who is greater than our hearts (even), knows all things?"
So, because it says your favorite phrase, therefore it must mean what you say it means?
Because when we read even just the verses that surround that phrase, we see John is talking about God knowing people's HEARTS!
He didn't stop just to make a didactic statement about how God knows literally everything!
But you have to rip that phrase out of its context because "Lon can't be wrong, because it says '[God] knows all things,' so therefore God MUST be omniscient YAY!"
You literally have to make it a figure of speech to use Open View glasses.
Where have I ever said it was a figure of speech?
As far as I can remember, I have ALWAYS stated that it was SPECIFICALLY talking about God knowing people's hearts. Does that make it a figure of speech on my view? And if so, SO WHAT?! THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT THE CONTEXT INDICATES!
I believe there is a great need: The text itself. You either uses clear glasses, or ones that obscure meaning and simply cannot render the whole of it as to what was going on without a lot of convoluted hoops.
Or you can take the glasses off entirely. But you're too scared to do so.
Your glasses go through a lot of hoops before you come up with your understanding and as such appears contrived for no other reason than to prop up Open Theist ideas.
I'm not wearing glasses. I'm simply looking at the context of these passages and seeing, clear as day, that you, Lon, have to force your beliefs onto the text in order to make them say what you want them to say. Look, I can put your glasses on, and see not only THAT you see it saying "God is ommniscient, but also WHY you think it says that.
But because I've seen the scripture WITHOUT glasses on, I know WHY interpreting it the way you want to interpret it is wrong, because I can clearly see that the glasses you have on prohibit you from looking at the context of the verse. They give you tunnel vision, so that you can only see the verses that confirm your beliefs.
It's called "confirmation bias."
No other theologian, even among cults, sees it this way except Open Theism and Process Theology (not a guilty association, just the extent of those who choose and wear these glasses).
Open Theism isn't a cult. Shame on your for trying to poison the well.
Also, that's an appeal to popularity.
Just because some people don't see it the way OTs do doesn't mean OT is wrong or that they're right.
Stop ignoring the points I'm making. Stop ignoring the context of the verses you keep bringing up as prooftexts.
Peter was acknowledging Jesus' ability to see his heart, rather than making a borad metaphysical claim, which is how you're trying to read it.
Prior to denying Christ, Peter was overconfident. He thought he knew himself well enough to stay faithful under pressure. But Jesus' prediction, which was based on His relationship with him, not through some abstract concept of omniscience, was based on knowing Peter deeply. He knew how Peter would respond to fear and pressure, leading to his denials. Thus, when Jesus confronts him later, in John 21, Peter is recogninzing and acknowledging that Jesus knows his heart and true intentions, despite his past failures. Again: Jesus knew Peter better than Peter did.
Jesus' knowledge is relational rather than abstract foreknowledge. He knows people intimately, and understands how they will respond in given situations. Once you realize that, the need for God to be omniscient goes away entirely, because His predictions ccan rest on what He knows about people, because it's easy to predict what people will do if you know their hearts, even more so if He has a relationship with them!
Instead of viewing Jesus' words as a fied foretelling of inevitable events, they should be understood in light of His perfect wisdom and deep understanding of human nature, especially that of His disciples. Thus, when Peter says, "Lord, you know all things," he isn't making a doctrinal statement about Jesus being omniscient, but rather is acknowledging Jesus' ability to see through pretense, His understanding of Peter's true devotion (agape versus phileo) despite his past failure, and that Peter has learned to trust Jesus' knowledge of him more than his own self-assessment.
But sure, if you want to insist that the passage is saying "God is omniscient," then just continue to ignore all of that. Just don't expect to grow in your understanding of Him.
www.biblegateway.com
www.biblegateway.com
