frustrating GOD

PETER’S DENIAL Boyd proposed that Jesus predicted Peter’s denials, just before the crucifixion, without actually knowing any of the details that made Peter’s denials possible. According to Boyd, Jesus’ prediction was solely based on His knowledge of a character flaw Peter had. Let us read Boyd’s description of the event: “Contrary to the assumption of many, we do not need to believe that the future is exhaustively settled to explain this prediction. We only need to believe that God the Father knew and revealed to Jesus one very predictable aspect of Peter’s character.” In my estimation Boyd moves too quickly from Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial, to Peter’s restoration (John 21:15-19). This is a significant hermeneutical mistake. There is nothing in Jesus’ prediction about the denial that could have led anyone to believe that Peter’s restoration was forthcoming. This is especially true in light of open theism’s own foundational premise that God cannot know the future because it does not exist to be known. According to Boyd’s own theology, God could not have caused Peter’s denials with the intent of restoration. The God of the open view cannot know any future human events. And, both, Peter’s denials and his restoration were human events still in the future. In jumping to the conclusion of Peter’s restoration, Boyd stated that, “Three times Peter had his true character squeezed out of him so that, after the resurrection, he might three times have Jesus’ character squeezed into him.” This is very cute, but Jesus could not have predicted Peter’s denial in order “to squeeze His character back into him” later. This is non-sense. The open view cannot assume that Jesus would anticipate Peter’s restoration[clk1] because He had no way of knowing Peter’s reaction to the three denials. Actually, the two events can only be connected by the open view in hindsight. Peter’s denials were predicted as a standalone event—“before the rooster crows you will deny me three times.” Since the God of open theism could not have known Peter’s ultimate reaction to the guilt the denials would have caused him, his restoration could not have been the reason for the God of open theism to arrange the circumstances that produced his denials. The God of the open view could not have “orchestrated” the events surrounding the denials because this would have required that He had to manipulate people’s freewill to achieve His purpose. Besides, the God of open theism could not have had Peter’s restoration in mind because, as open theists have told us, prophecies often do not come to pass anyway. This is simply not possible within open view theology because future events are not there to be known. However, if Peter’s restoration was God’s end game, then, God knew more about all the events surrounding the denials than Boyd is willing to accept. As a matter of application, Peter’s denials made his restoration necessary, but to understand these two separate events as interconnected is not theologically sound. Classical view theologians have no problem seeing the events as connected because they believe in God’s foreknowledge of man’s future. However, the God of open theism has no such option. If we accept Boyd’s explanation, the God of open theism is able to predict a series of unconnected events (everything that happened that night from Jesus’ arrest to the rooster crowing), with thousands of variables, based on one man’s character trait. The God of open theism has to be able to make this prediction even though the future of said man does not exist and cannot be known. This same God could not predict that Suzanne’s husband would betray her shortly after their marriage (see Chapter 2). The Apostle’s cowardice, we are told, caused him to deny Jesus not only once, but three times. If the God of open theism is able to make such a prediction in a contextual vacuum with Peter, He should have been able to give Suzanne similar warnings regarding her husband’s inclination to unfaithfulness. Why wasn’t the God of open theism able to reveal to Suzanne, based on His perfect knowledge of her husband’s character, that the man she fell in love with was a scoundrel? Why does Boyd rush to such an easy explanation in Peter’s case, while ignoring the same possibility entirely in Suzanne’s case? One more thing needs to be made very clear. While the God of the open view may have desired to restore Peter at a later time, He could not have desired Peter’s restoration until after the denials because He could not have known the effect the denials would have on Peter. Since open theists have told us that prophecies are not always fulfilled, the God of open theism could not have been certain that Peter would in fact deny Jesus three times. As far as Peter was concerned, the consequences of his denials could have been disastrous. Additionally, Boyd has stated that the God of the open view does not know uncreated events. Therefore, the God of the open view could not have made a connection between the denials and his restoration. This is especially true because Boyd cannot simply explain away Peter’s denials based on an a posteriori reinterpretation of his restoration. Let us consider another aspect of these events. The God of foreknowledge knew about Peter’s restoration because He knew of Peter’s love for Jesus and foreknew his sincere repentance. Jesus, specifically told Peter that, “the devil has asked to sift you, but I have prayed for you” (Luke 22:31). Not only did Jesus know that Peter would deny Him. He also knew that the devil himself had asked God for permission to sift Peter, but Jesus had prayed for Peter, possibly so that he would not end up like Judas. The God of the open view could have planned Peter’s restoration, but since He only knows the possibilities, there is no way for the God of openness to know that Peter would repent. Judas guilt led him to suicide. Peter’s guilt led him to repentance. How can the God of the open view plan Peter’s restoration in light of what we know about Judas reaction? What if Peter had responded like Judas? God knew a great deal more about these events than Boyd wants us to believe.