Calvinism and Universalism

[darinhouston]

Steve if for you, "guess" is a synonym for "predict" and if you were not portraying my position as ridiculous by implying that God merely makes good guesses about the future, then there is nothing for which to apologize (in the modern sense of the word). In that case, I regret that I misunderstood you.

But I must say that I have never encountered the word "guess" as a synonym for "predict". If you asked an astronomer when Halley's comet will become visible from earth, it would seem quite appropriate to receive the answer, "We predict that it will next appear in 2061." It would seem strange indeed to hear, "Well, we are guessing that it will appear in 2061." A guess is little more than a thought, based on little or no information. A prediction is based on a substantial amount of knowledge. But the astronomer doesn't KNOW Halley's comet will appear in 2061. For some unusual astronomical phenomena may occur which would cause the comet to explode before 2061.

If you say that your wife will be on the computer tomorrow, I would understand that statement to be your best guess based on your knowledge of her habits.

It's so much more than a guess, best or otherwise. Since it's based on my knowledge of her habits, it's a prediction.

In any case, I thought such a statement about your wife was being presented as a parallel to Jesus saying what He said about Peter. I don't really understand your position.

You thought correctly. It is a parallel in the sense that both are predictions. Yet there is a great difference. The difference is that Jesus had much more information about Peter (He knew what was in man --- John 2:25) than I have about my wife. Therefore his prediction was much more likely to become reality.

So, is it possible that Jesus could have been wrong about the prediction? Also, in the Open view, how much could He have "known" about the rooster and Peter that would have given Him sufficient information to "predict" the timing and number of Peter's denials? This would be like saying "my wife will be on the computer tomorrow at 2pm and send 3 emails before she receives my call."

Prediction and guess seem to differ to me only by degree. Prophecy is in a completely different category.

[Jill]

.

[Paidion]

So, is it possible that Jesus could have been wrong about the prediction? Also, in the Open view, how much could He have "known" about the rooster and Peter that would have given Him sufficient information to "predict" the timing and number of Peter's denials? This would be like saying "my wife will be on the computer tomorrow at 2pm and send 3 emails before she receives my call."

Darin, I have answered his question in a previous post. Did you fail to read it? Or do you just want a repeat?

[darinhouston]

So, is it possible that Jesus could have been wrong about the prediction? Also, in the Open view, how much could He have "known" about the rooster and Peter that would have given Him sufficient information to "predict" the timing and number of Peter's denials? This would be like saying "my wife will be on the computer tomorrow at 2pm and send 3 emails before she receives my call."

Darin, I have answered his question in a previous post. Did you fail to read it? Or do you just want a repeat?

Gettin' kinda grumpy lately? Maybe I missed a post. I'll go back and re-read.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You wrote:

But I must say that I have never encountered the word "guess" as a synonym for "predict". If you asked an astronomer when Halley's comet will become visible from earth, it would seem quite appropriate to receive the answer, "We predict that it will next appear in 2061." It would seem strange indeed to hear, "Well, we are guessing that it will appear in 2061." A guess is little more than a thought, based on little or no information. A prediction is based on a substantial amount of knowledge. But the astronomer doesn't KNOW Halley's comet will appear in 2061. For some unusual astronomical phenomena may occur which would cause the comet to explode before 2061.

I find your explanation rather improbable, to say the least. Certainly the behavior of comets is predictable, but what of the actions of free-will agents? If you think Jesus was merely predicting what Peter would do, how could it have been much more than a guess? What was there in Peter that would allow Jesus to make such an exact prediction, expressed, as Steve noted, as a certainty? Was Peter cowardly? When Judas came with a band of soldiers and officers to betray Jesus, Peter promptly pulled out his sword and whacked off the ear of the High Priest's servant. That doesn't seem to be the act of a coward who would meekly deny he even knew Jesus a short time later. Not exactly a track record of behavior comparable to that of a comet.

Then consider some of the web of actions that took place, concluding in Peter's denial:

1. When Jesus was led away to the high priest Caiaphas, Peter followed at a distance, to see what would happen. Had Peter not done this, there would have been no occasion for denial of Jesus.

2. Another disciple (John?) would ask Peter to come inside.

3. A maiden was at the door, recognized and challenged Peter. No challenge, no denial.

4. That Peter would sit with the officers to warm himself by the fire, and again be challenged by a maiden. The maiden apparently recognized Peter when the men did not.

5. The men would take an interest in the matter and confront Peter.

6. Peter would go outside and again be challenged.

7. Peter's last challenge occured after an hour had gone by, and he denied Jesus just before the cock crew.

8. Peter apparently still had his sword; after cutting the man's ear off, Jesus had told him to put it back in the sheath. Based on Peter's prior behavior it might as easily be predicted that Peter would again resort to violence as it would that he would meekly deny Jesus.

Considering all the actions of free agents involved in the incident, and not the least the timing of an action by an animal, momentarily after the last denial, your explantion would seem incredible. If Jesus could not foresee Peter's action, (or God revealed it to Jesus), a good guess is as good of an explanation as is a prediction.

Sorry if this offends, but that's the way I see it after careful consideration.

If we consider same of the other prophecies Steve has mentioned, and the order of magnitude of acts by free agents necessary for them to have occured, it boggles the mind. The incidents you have mentioned regarding apparent prophecies that did not come to pass should be regarded as expressions of God's intentions, expressed in terms for human understanding. God does not make mistakes.

[Paidion]

What would have happened if something else had happened? A useless exercise. I can do the same for my prediction that my wife would go on the internet the next day. Let's say my prediction became reality. Does that mean I KNEW she would go on the internet tomorrow? That it wasn't merely a prediction? Apparently it would mean that, according to your reasoning. For "consider some of the web of actions that took place", concluding in my wife going on the internet.

1. When my wife went to her computer, her computer booted up okay. Consider what would have happened if her hard drive failed at that time. She wouldn't have gone on the internet.

2. None of my wife's friends called and invited her to go shopping with them that day. If they had, my wife would not have gone on the internet.

3. Consider the fact that my wife didn't decide to clean the house all that day. I must have KNOWN even what her decision was going to be! For she went on the internet instead. Am I omnicient or what?

etc., etc., etc.

The incidents you have mentioned regarding apparent prophecies that did not come to pass should be regarded as expressions of God's intentions, expressed in terms for human understanding. God does not make mistakes.

Who says God makes mistakes? Certainly not I. The reason you call them "mistakes" is that you assume that future actions are objects of knowledge. They're not. The future doesn't exist. There's nothing to know!

[Paidion]

Gettin' kinda grumpy lately? Maybe I missed a post. I'll go back and re-read.

I'm sorry, Darin, for coming on so strongly. I guess I was feeling a little frustrated with being confronted with arguments with which I have already dealt. You are by no means the only one, but it happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Sometimes I have felt like shouting, "Why doesn't (name) read what I just wrote?" But I have no justification for being that way. For I have done the same thing myself a number of times. I haven't carefully read what was written, and asked a question I should not have asked.

[Troy]

Consider another factor, namely, God's Sovereignty over the animal kingdom. Is not God able to make roosters crow "on cue?" No one believing in the Open View of the Future that I know claims He is unable to. Hence, it would not be difficult in the least to assert that God brought this aspect of Jesus' prediction to pass by decreeing that the rooster would crow when He wished for it to. There would also be no difficulty in asserting that God put the rooster in the right spot to crow either, because God could have put the rooster where ever He pleased.

[darinhouston]

Gettin' kinda grumpy lately? Maybe I missed a post. I'll go back and re-read.

I'm sorry, Darin, for coming on so strongly. I guess I was feeling a little frustrated with being confronted with arguments with which I have already dealt. You are by no means the only one, but it happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

Sometimes I have felt like shouting, "Why doesn't (name) read what I just wrote?" But I have no justification for being that way. For I have done the same thing myself a number of times. I haven't carefully read what was written, and asked a question I should not have asked.

No prob, Paidion.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You seem to be missing the point. For Jesus to predict Peter's denial, if, as you insist, He could not know in advance what Peter would actually do, would have to be based on Peter's past pattern of behavior, temperament, etc. Peter seems to have been rather impetuous, given to bravado, and inclined to use of his sword. Doesn't seem to me to have had a pattern of cowardice. Perhaps you know of something about Peter that I am not recalling.

In addition, Jesus had to make correct predictions about the actions of other free will agents. This doesn't seem to fit well with Jesus certainty about what Peter would do, in particular with the timing of the events, the cock crow, etc.

Perhaps I am missing your point. Is it your view that God is able to make an infinite number of calculations of all possible actions, and the way they will all interact, etc., and come up with predictions that are mostly correct, but occasionally wrong, and that the only way He can be certain is by intervention, including overriding free-will?