Believing or Not Believing Because of Evidence

[seer]

With man it's impossible...but with God, ALL things are possible. Or do you not believe that?

I have no idea what you mean by that, are you suggesting second chances after death?

Did you misread what I wrote or just misunderstand it? Because this is not what I said and I know you wouldn't deliberately misquote me so....?

I said that God promised to save "everyone who trusts in His Son" . I never said He promised to save everyone.

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood, you said: then God must give each person a chance to accept His Son as the payment for their sins, otherwise, it's a false promise.

Where does God say He promised to give every man a chance to repent?

Well, one theory would include, the "Doctor Who" type theory that there are fixed points in God's plan that MUST take place and cannot be changed, and, this would be an acceptable explanation since in OVT theology, the future is as open or as closed as God wants it to be, so, this is plausible. God can close certain things but maintain a VAST majority of Free will. ISTM that in Calvinism they seem to be an all or nothing type theology. But, Scripture is full of examples of God doing exceptional things but not making it a rule. For instance, how many talking donkeys have there been? How many parted sea's? How many prophets swallowed by a fish to be regurgitated later? How many people were healed by Jesus power by grabbing his clothes? Just because it's happens a certain way once doesn't make it a rule.

OK, so God could have absolute foreknowledge but at times chooses not to exercise that ability. I think that is possible.

There are several different ways this could have happened without Omniscience (absolute foreknowledge). Omnipotence would do it, i.e. God says this is going to happen and He just....makes it happen.

So God made Peter sin and deny Christ? I like your first explanation better.

Another more nuanced way would include Jesus knowing Peter better than Peter knew himself and the whole point of this "predictions" was to bring Peter to a point that he would recognize he was actually a coward at heart and was only brave when Jesus was around doing miracles etc. Jesus who knew the time was short, (Judas was already in the process betraying him) also, He knew Satan was going to attack Peter. "...Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to have you, (past tense) that he might sift you like wheat..." Notice that Bible Gateway footnotes that in vs. 31 "you" is plural...IOW, Jesus is talking to ALL of them (the disciples) but in vs. 32, Jesus shifts to a singular "you". Speaking only of Peter. So, Jesus knew all the disciples hearts and knew that Peters faith was so weak that he would deny him if push came to shove. Next, It would not have been anything to convince Peter to follow Jesus to the courtyard. Peter had been traveling with Jesus for over 3 years and was pretty well known. That a juicy piece of gossip would be in the works when Jesus is hauled into court in the middle of the night would have had anyone curious as to why. Seeing someone who had been his disciple for over 3 years there, it would be a natural question would it not? Hey! Your one of his disciples, what's going on? No, I don't know him. Are you sure? I know I've seen you with him. See, simple for God to see how this was going to go. To give you a simple example, if I offer my oldest son a choice between a bowl of Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream OR a bowl of steamed broccoli, I can tell you without even asking him which one he will choose one million times out of one million. He loves Mint Chocolate chip ice cream and absolutely HATES broccoli. If I being a mere mortal can make a determination like that, how much more can God who is infinitely more intelligent than I am.

That is the weakest response. Too many variables. You couldn't be sure that any one would confront Peter, never mind three times, by different people, why not two or five? And why before the cock crowed? Why not after? Your first explanation makes more sense.

[Littlejoe]

I have no idea what you mean by that, are you suggesting second chances after death?

No, not suggesting anything, just that's it's possible. just because you and I don't know how, doesn't mean it's not possible is all I'm saying at this point.

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood, you said: then God must give each person a chance to accept His Son as the payment for their sins, otherwise, it's a false promise.

Where does God say He promised to give every man a chance to repent?

John 3:16 - "For God so love the worldwill draw all men unto me."
Titus 2:11 - "11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people

1 Timothy 2:3-6 - "3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man[a] Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time."

The Promise is for "everyone" "all people", "the world", "all men" "the ransom for all", etc., etc., Yet, you're saying that it's possible that the God of our Bible created the way out of bondage to sin and death for everyone in the world, but then, only tells a relatively few about it and therefore condemns those who have never had it offered to them?

So, to answer your Question of "What if the Calvinists are right?" My answer is - I just don't see how they could be based on Scripture and what God has revealed of Himself to us. If they are, then IMHO, we are worshiping a God who at the very least, misleads us and over-inflates not only His abilities but His promises.

OK, so God could have absolute foreknowledge but at times chooses not to exercise that ability. I think that is possible.

Again, not what I said, but you are correct, God can do whatever He wishes, your explanation here is also plausible. However, to be fair, my first point is closely tied to the second point...i.e. God-did-it encompasses both explanations actually.

So God made Peter sin and deny Christ? I like your first explanation better.

Why would it be necessary for God to make Peter sin first and deny Christ? Why wouldn't he be able to react to the sin that Peter commits and decide to teach Peter about himself?

That is the weakest response. Too many variables. You couldn't be sure that any one would confront Peter, never mind three times, by different people, why not two or five? And why before the cock crowed? Why not after? Your first explanation makes more sense.

You think it's if not impossible, then improbable that God knew Peters heart, and when he uttered those fateful words and said that he "wouldn't deny Christ", that God couldn't already know where the Sanhedrin was going to bring Jesus, (it was probably already settled) could not have made sure there were people hanging around (that may have been normal, do you know?) Prompted someone to question Peter. Could not have made a rooster crow whenever He wanted it to happen???

So, you place limits on what God is capable of? Are you sure that's a wise position to take?

[seer]

No, not suggesting anything, just that's it's possible. just because you and I don't know how, doesn't mean it's not possible is all I'm saying at this point.

OK

John 3:16 - "For God so love the worldwill draw all men unto me."
Titus 2:11 - "11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people

1 Timothy 2:3-6 - "3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man[a] Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time."

The Promise is for "everyone" "all people", "the world", "all men" "the ransom for all", etc., etc., Yet, you're saying that it's possible that the God of our Bible created the way out of bondage to sin and death for everyone in the world, but then, only tells a relatively few about it and therefore condemns those who have never had it offered to them?

Joe, I am very familiar with the texts. But we are back to the point above. Since most peoples have not heard the gospel, you would have to hold to second chances after death. And I see no Biblical justification for that. And you know how the Calvinist would look at the "all" texts - not all individuals, but all classes and groups. Not just Jews, but any or all ethnic groups.

So, to answer your Question of "What if the Calvinists are right?" My answer is - I just don't see how they could be based on Scripture and what God has revealed of Himself to us. If they are, then IMHO, we are worshiping a God who at the very least, misleads us and over-inflates not only His abilities but His promises.

If you limit the words world or all then there is no problem. I'm not saying that they are right.

Again, not what I said, but you are correct, God can do whatever He wishes, your explanation here is also plausible. However, to be fair, my first point is closely tied to the second point...i.e. God-did-it encompasses both explanations actually.

Why would it be necessary for God to make Peter sin first and deny Christ? Why wouldn't he be able to react to the sin that Peter commits and decide to teach Peter about himself?

Then I'm not sure what your point was. If, as you say, it must take place. Did God ordain it, or just know it?

You think it's if not impossible, then improbable that God knew Peters heart, and when he uttered those fateful words and said that he "wouldn't deny Christ", that God couldn't already know where the Sanhedrin was going to bring Jesus, (it was probably already settled) could not have made sure there were people hanging around (that may have been normal, do you know?) Prompted someone to question Peter. Could not have made a rooster crow whenever He wanted it to happen???

So, you place limits on what God is capable of? Are you sure that's a wise position to take?

Really? Having three people approach Peter? Asking him the same thing, before a certain hour? Sure, I see it with foreknowledge, not otherwise.

[Littlejoe]

OK

Joe, I am very familiar with the texts. But we are back to the point above. Since most peoples have not heard the gospel, you would have to hold to second chances after death. And I see no Biblical justification for that. And you know how the Calvinist would look at the "all" texts - not all individuals, but all classes and groups. Not just Jews, but any or all ethnic groups.

And how would you go about proving that "most peoples have not heard the Gospel"? How do you know that Jesus doesn't show up EVERY time someone is about to die? How do you know that some people don't received some sort of a vision or visit from Christ or....whatever? Again, it's interesting that if God doesn't do it the way you imagine, then you place limits on the Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent God... and say it can't be done

If you limit the words world or all then there is no problem. I'm not saying that they are right.

Then I'm not sure what your point was. If, as you say, it must take place. Did God ordain it, or just know it?

Well, I don't KNOW it had to take place...so, just spitballing. Again, OVT has the most explanations for all the verses that can be troublesome as OVT let's God do whatever He needs to do in order to accomplish what He plans to do.

Really? Having three people approach Peter? Asking him the same thing, before a certain hour? Sure, I see it with foreknowledge, not otherwise.

Then, ISTM, that you see God as a very small and weak God since He can only do things with Omniscience and not with His Omnipotence... The Bible is sufficiently muddy in regards to Omniscience (by that I mean the Classical definition of Omniscience and not how OVT would define it)...but it's not in regards to His Omnipotence.

[seer]

And how would you go about proving that "most peoples have not heard the Gospel"? How do you know that Jesus doesn't show up EVERY time someone is about to die? How do you know that some people don't received some sort of a vision or visit from Christ or....whatever? Again, it's interesting that if God doesn't do it the way you imagine, then you place limits on the Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent God... and say it can't be done

But I see no evidence that that is so, and no Biblical justification for that view

why would you limit them? What Biblical justification do you have for the limit? How do you KNOW that God doesn't give every dying person a vision/choice just before the point of death? I agree there's no hard Biblical mandate for an after death conversion, but there are proponents of that view, the most notable one off the top of my head is C.S. Lewis. Again, I'm not sure why you can appeal to mystery for once theological beliefs but not another...

I'm a fan of Lewis, so I'm not sure what you are speaking about. Or I could have forgot...

OK

Well, I don't KNOW it had to take place...so, just spitballing. Again, OVT has the most explanations for all the verses that can be troublesome as OVT let's God do whatever He needs to do in order to accomplish what He plans to do.

Then, ISTM, that you see God as a very small and weak God since He can only do things with Omniscience and not with His Omnipotence... The Bible is sufficiently muddy in regards to Omniscience (by that I mean the Classical definition of Omniscience and not how OVT would define it)...but it's not in regards to His Omnipotence.

Except I believe God is both Omniscient and Omnipotent, it is not either or. You believe there is a lot of stuff He just doesn't know. Literally ignorant on many matters...

[Littlejoe]

But I see no evidence that that is so, and no Biblical justification for that view

Except for the fact Scripture says that Salvation is for all men... If it in in fact not for all men but only for those selected to receive it, the Scripture lies does it not?

I'm a fan of Lewis, so I'm not sure what you are speaking about. Or I could have forgot...

The Great Divorce and The Last Battle (last book in the Narnia series) are the two that spring to mind...there's probably more I'm forgetting.

OK
Except I believe God is both Omniscient and Omnipotent, it is not either or. You believe there is a lot of stuff He just doesn't know. Literally ignorant on many matters...

I believe He is both as well. But, you assume facts not in evidence. I believe (as most OVT's do) that God knows everything that it is possible to know. Now, you need to prove that the future already exists, FROM SCRIPTURE, in order for God to know it. Logically, if the future does not exist then God would only know for certain what He is going to do. Because He is Omnipotent, He can make it happen. Because He is infinitely more intelligent than us, He can certainly know how many things will turn out because of His knowledge of us and our world. That statement lines up with Scripture. If you read Boyd's book, you know that he cites multiple verses from Scripture that show God being surprised at peoples choices...or thinking they would do one thing and they do another.

Absolute foreknowledge of all future events does not line up with Scripture...it is a Pagan, Greek metaphysical construct of Plato that was grafted into Christian theology.

Just as with Omniscience, there are limits to Omnipotence, C.S. Lewis said it very well in "The Problem of Pain"

[seer]

Except for the fact Scripture says that Salvation is for all men... If it in in fact not for all men but only for those selected to receive it, the Scripture lies does it not?

It all depends on how you define all or world. For instance:

Colossians 1:23: And do not move from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

In Paul's time the Gospel has been proclaimed to every creature? Sound like hyperbole.

The Great Divorce and The Last Battle (last book in the Narnia series) are the two that spring to mind...there's probably more I'm forgetting.

I don't think Lewis was saying that men could travel from hell to heaven literally. You are correct about the Muslim in the last chapter of The Last Battle.

I believe He is both as well. But, you assume facts not in evidence. I believe (as most OVT's do) that God knows everything that it is possible to know. Now, you need to prove that the future already exists, FROM SCRIPTURE, in order for God to know it. Logically, if the future does not exist then God would only know for certain what He is going to do. Because He is Omnipotent, He can make it happen. Because He is infinitely more intelligent than us, He can certainly know how many things will turn out because of His knowledge of us and our world. That statement lines up with Scripture. If you read Boyd's book, you know that he cites multiple verses from Scripture that show God being surprised at peoples choices...or thinking they would do one thing and they do another.

Again, I don't not believe that God is constrained or limited by the temporal, you do. He exists outside of time. And why would God be surprised by peoples choices, since he knows us so well in your view. Would you be surprised if your son chose that Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream?

Just as with Omniscience, there are limits to Omnipotence, C.S. Lewis said it very well in "The Problem of Pain"

Except Lewis wrote a lot about God being outside of time and that he saw all events past present and future at once. That is not an intrinsic impossibility to God.

[rogue06]

It all depends on how you define all or world. For instance:



In Paul's time the Gospel has been proclaimed to every creature? Sound like hyperbole.

Interestingly several Church Fathers (including Augustine) held that it was impossible for humans to be living on the opposite side of the world based on Paul's remarks here and elsewhere (Rom. 1:8; 10:18; 16:25-26; Col. 1:6, 23; cf. I Tim. 3:16). They held that since none of the Apostles or their associates traveled to the antipodes then there couldn't be anyone there. Its the problem associated with taking some things overly literal.

[Littlejoe]

It all depends on how you define all or world. For instance:

In Paul's time the Gospel has been proclaimed to every creature? Sound like hyperbole.

I don't think Lewis was saying that men could travel from hell to heaven literally. You are correct about the Muslim in the last chapter of The Last Battle.

I know C.S. Lewis believed in a Purgatory so, I'm not so sure if it was Purgatory or hell he was describing in The Great Divorce...what was the point of the story in your opinion. FYI, the original working title Lewis came up with was "Who is going home?"

Again, I don't not believe that God is constrained or limited by the temporal, you do. He exists outside of time.

stop avoiding the question and answer me then. Why from Scripture

And why would God be surprised by peoples choices, since he knows us so well in your view. Would you be surprised if your son chose that Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream?

No, but I would be surprised if he chose the broccoli...and that's what seems to happen in Scripture. i.e. Isa. 5:3,7, Jer. 3:67; Jer. 3:19,20

Except Lewis wrote a lot about God being outside of time and that he saw all events past present and future at once. That is not an intrinsic impossibility to God.

[seer]

Hyperbole is certainly possible.

I'm glad we agree that it could be possible.

Now, answer this for me. If you redefine ALL or World, (or all men or whole world or all of creation) HOW do YOU define it?

I mentioned this before, all or whole world could be used in contrast with the idea that the Jews alone were God's people, only they enjoyed God's favor. Now even gentiles could be included.

I know C.S. Lewis believed in a Purgatory so, I'm not so sure if it was Purgatory or hell he was describing in The Great Divorce...what was the point of the story in your opinion. FYI, the original working title Lewis came up with was "Who is going home?"

I think a lot of it was about contrasting the attitude of the saved and the damned.

stop avoiding the question and answer me then. Why from Scripture you believe that. You do realize that the human authors of Scripture most likely would disagree with you? Hebrew/Jewish concepts of time were very different from the Greeks concepts. Which you view is based on. A pagan Greek philosopher name Plato. There's a direct line from Plato to Augustine for this concept being grafted into the church.
Consider this, we see in the Greek that God is:
timeless, in an eternal now, without sequence or succession, without moment or duration, atemporal and outside of time, not was, nor will be, but only is, has no past, has no future....but, NOT ONE of these phrases is from Scripture. I dare you to find one of these phrases in the Bible.

You do know that Greeks like Aristotle did not believe that God had absolute foreknowledge, and neither did Augustine. And BTW - the Trinity is also a pagan concept, so do you also deny the Trinity because the word is not found in scripture? Again, the bottom line is that you believe God is ignorant in many cases, I don't. And of course God is outside of time, unless you think there are clocks in eternity.

No, but I would be surprised if he chose the broccoli...and that's what seems to happen in Scripture. i.e. Isa. 5:3,7, Jer. 3:67; Jer. 3:19,20

That makes no sense Joe, if God knew Peter so well that he could predict His denial, as you claimed, then where is the surprise? And after Adam sinned, God, in the garden, asked Adam where he was. Was God ignorant of Adam's whereabouts? Or is God merely condescending using terms and concepts that we can understand.

No, he was quite confident.

[Littlejoe]

I'm glad we agree that it could be possible.

I mentioned this before, all or whole world could be used in contrast with the idea that the Jews alone were God's people, only they enjoyed God's favor. Now even gentiles could be included.

but only those He chooses right? "All" only pertains to "all" He chooses to save. If you believe all pertains only to people groups, why then do you not see the people groups in Romans 9?

You do know that Greeks like Aristotle did not believe that God had absolute foreknowledge, and neither did Augustine. And BTW - the Trinity is also a pagan concept, so do you also deny the Trinity because the word is not found in scripture? Again, the bottom line is that you believe God is ignorant in many cases, I don't. And of course God is outside of time, unless you think there are clocks in eternity.

Now God foreknew everything, and therefore could not have been unaware that man would sin.

Bold Emphasis Mine

That makes no sense Joe, if God knew Peter so well that he could predict His denial, as you claimed, then where is the surprise?

I never claimed God was surprised at Peters denial... You seem to have a hard time thinking through this logically. It seems to me, you don't really want to. You are locked into an all or nothing hermenuetic. The Bible is much more nuanced than that. It would behoove you to read some books on exegesis and hermenuetics. If you already have, you need to re-read them.

And after Adam sinned, God, in the garden, asked Adam where he was. Was God ignorant of Adam's whereabouts? Or is God merely condescending using terms and concepts that we can understand. No, he was quite confident.

Strawman point if I ever saw one.... God knows everything in the here and now, this is an example of a parental, type leading question....context Seer, CONTEXT!!! You seem to be dangerously in short supply of it.

Seer, contrary to you're earlier statement, you are quite convinced of Calvinist theology, and no amount of answering you will help that. I'm not trying to change your mind or your faith, I just know that from my years of study, my training, that you're assuming a theology without evidence (God outside of time) because that's what you were taught early on, it made sense, so you believe it. That's ok for you, but not for me. You're ok with the Greek style immutable, impassible, unfeeling, meticulously controlling everything type God...unfortunately for you, that's not the God described in Scripture.

[seer]

but only those He chooses right? "All" only pertains to "all" He chooses to save. If you believe all pertains only to people groups, why then do you not see the people groups in Romans 9?

I didn't say what I thought of Romans 9...

Well, Aristotle broke from Plato in several areas, but Plato was considered by most to be the master. Plato believed not only did God know everything, He was unchanging (constant state of not moving to move meant change and therefore imperfection) , impassible, immutable. God cannot feel your pain, that involves change.

Do you think God can change, morally? That He could decide to lie for instance?

Now God foreknew everything, and therefore could not have been unaware that man would sin.

Bold Emphasis Mine

OK, re-reading this link it looks like they were splitting hairs. https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vanc...eknowledge.pdf

I never claimed God was surprised at Peters denial... You seem to have a hard time thinking through this logically. It seems to me, you don't really want to. You are locked into an all or nothing hermenuetic. The Bible is much more nuanced than that. It would behoove you to read some books on exegesis and hermenuetics. If you already have, you need to re-read them.
Strawman point if I ever saw one.... God knows everything in the here and now, this is an example of a parental, type leading question....context Seer, CONTEXT!!! You seem to be dangerously in short supply of it.

Hey wait Joe, you are the one referencing texts stating that God was surprised. If He knows us so well, then in what sense could He be surprised?

Seer, contrary to you're earlier statement, you are quite convinced of Calvinist theology, and no amount of answering you will help that. I'm not trying to change your mind or your faith, I just know that from my years of study, my training, that you're assuming a theology without evidence (God outside of time) because that's what you were taught early on, it made sense, so you believe it. That's ok for you, but not for me. You're ok with the Greek style immutable, impassible, unfeeling, meticulously controlling everything type God...unfortunately for you, that's not the God described in Scripture.

So you think there is time in eternity? What does that look like?

[Littlejoe]

I didn't say what I thought of Romans 9...

Ok, you started this line of discussion by suggesting you had never heard a good explanation of Romans 9 by arminian/OVT. That meant to me that you definitely lean(ed) toward the Calvinist/Reformed explanation was that wrong?

Do you think God can change, morally? That He could decide to lie for instance?

I would say I believe Scripture, not man made ideas. Change can be change without it being a moral change. The Bible clearly says "God does not lie". So, I believe God does not lie. The Bible says that God is always morally good, so I believe God is always morally good. I ALSO believe it also clearly says that God has changed His mind, that God can get angry/upset, experiences grief/sorrowful and of course Love.

Hey wait Joe, you are the one referencing texts stating that God was surprised. If He knows us so well, then in what sense could He be surprised?

God's only surprised when it seems He is, Peter doesn't seem to be one of those times... There are times that He does seem to be surprised or at least incredulous....that tell a different story. Though, I'm still not sure "surprised" is the right word...Is He "surprised" in Jer. 3:6 - 7 or Jer. 3:19 - 20. Isa. 5:3-7?

So you think there is time in eternity? What does that look like?

an unending procession of time...what does it look like from an outside of time/timelessness standpoint?


Again, seriously Seer, you arguments seem to be right out of the Calvinist Playbook. You seem pretty locked in to me, and not really open to at least considering my proposals...

[seer]

Ok, you started this line of discussion by suggesting you had never heard a good explanation of Romans 9 by arminian/OVT. That meant to me that you definitely lean(ed) toward the Calvinist/Reformed explanation was that wrong?

No it doesn't, I think there are a number of texts (many of which you posted) that I don't believe Calvinists have a good answer for.

I would say I believe Scripture, not man made ideas. Change can be change without it being a moral change. The Bible clearly says "God does not lie". So, I believe God does not lie. The Bible says that God is always morally good, so I believe God is always morally good. I ALSO believe it also clearly says that God has changed His mind, that God can get angry/upset, experiences grief/sorrowful and of course Love.

No Scripture actually says that God can not lie. I believe that God's moral nature is immutable, but I do not believe in impassibility, in the emotional sense. I also believe that God is perfect and infinite knowledge. Nothing takes Him by surprise.

God's only surprised when it seems He is, Peter doesn't seem to be one of those times... There are times that He does seem to be surprised or at least incredulous....that tell a different story. Though, I'm still not sure "surprised" is the right word...Is He "surprised" in Jer. 3:6 - 7 or Jer. 3:19 - 20. Isa. 5:3-7?
an unending procession of time...what does it look like from an outside of time/timelessness standpoint?

No person would be any less open to God in real time than Peter. Like you said, God knew Peter better than Peter knew Himself, so no surprise. You do realize that time is an abstract, it is not something you taste, feel or see. Time depends on a physical universe. So I do believe that God is outside of time since God existed before the universe/time existed.

Again, seriously Seer, you arguments seem to be right out of the Calvinist Playbook. You seem pretty locked in to me, and not really open to at least considering my proposals...

No Joe, I'm just presenting what they would say about certain Scriptures. Like the "all" and "world" passages. They make a lot of good arguments, as the Arminian does. That is why I said early on that I am a Cal-minian - meaning I don't know who is right.

[Littlejoe]

No it doesn't, I think there are a number of texts (many of which you posted) that I don't believe Calvinists have a good answer for.

Ok, my mistake.

No Scripture actually says that God can not lie.

Well, that depends on which version you are using. ESV says: "...God, who never lies..." NIV says: "...God, who does not lie..." I was going from memory but it has a semantic range apparently.
[quoe]I believe that God's moral nature is immutable, but I do not believe in impassibility, in the emotional sense. I also believe that God is perfect and infinite knowledge. Nothing takes Him by surprise. [/quote]So, we are pretty close to the same here.

No person would be any less open to God in real time than Peter. Like you said, God knew Peter better than Peter knew Himself, so no surprise.

agreed.

You do realize that time is an abstract, it is not something you taste, feel or see. Time depends on a physical universe. So I do believe that God is outside of time since God existed before the universe/time existed.

completely unproven theory and assumes God did not willingly enter into time when he created it with no evidence. The Scriptural evidence says He did.

No Joe, I'm just presenting what they would say about certain Scriptures. Like the "all" and "world" passages. They make a lot of good arguments, as the Arminian does. That is why I said early on that I am a Cal-minian - meaning I don't know who is right.

OVT is really Cal-Minian at it's core. It posits that the future is as open as God wants it to be. That lets God meticulously control what He wants and needs to while giving man pretty much free will at all other times. ISTM it's the only explanation for every verse in the Bible whether it suggests God is ordaining something or letting man do the driving and sometimes being "surprised", dismayed etc at the decisions of man. It allows for a true testing of individuals without God lying (which we both believe God does not/cannot do)