ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Psalm 139 clearly refutes ov as unscriptural.
"Yahweh you examine me and know me,
you know if I am standing or sitting,
you read my thoughts from far away,
whether I walk or lie down, you are watching,
you know every detail of my conduct."
(The above passage shows exhaustive knowledge.)
"The word is not even on my tongue,
Yahweh, before you know all about it.
(This passage show foreknowledge and with passage above it is exhaustive foreknowledge).
Such knowledge is beyond my understanding,
a height at which my mind cannot attend.
(Just because human reason doesn't understand it does not mean it isn't true).
You have scrutinized my every action,
all were recorded in your book,
my days listed and determined
EVEN BEFORE the first of them occured.
This passage and psalm CLEARLY refutes ov.
There is no use saying that we must read the psalm in light of Scripture as the psalm is a song/prayer to God. If anything it summerizes the Old Testament view on omniscience of God.
"Yahweh you examine me and know me,
you know if I am standing or sitting,
you read my thoughts from far away,
whether I walk or lie down, you are watching,
you know every detail of my conduct."
(The above passage shows exhaustive knowledge.)
"The word is not even on my tongue,
Yahweh, before you know all about it.
(This passage show foreknowledge and with passage above it is exhaustive foreknowledge).
Such knowledge is beyond my understanding,
a height at which my mind cannot attend.
(Just because human reason doesn't understand it does not mean it isn't true).
You have scrutinized my every action,
all were recorded in your book,
my days listed and determined
EVEN BEFORE the first of them occured.
This passage and psalm CLEARLY refutes ov.
There is no use saying that we must read the psalm in light of Scripture as the psalm is a song/prayer to God. If anything it summerizes the Old Testament view on omniscience of God.
themuzicman
Well-known member
LOL.. first you have to consider the genre of the Psalms. They are poetry. Poetry uses hyperbole and symbolic language to communicate truth. They weren't intended to be read as direct doctrine, but understood in the emotional impact it conveys.
So, a plain reading of the Psalms, given their intent, doesn't refute OVT at all.
Second, OVT claims "exhaustive knowledge". It just doesn't claim exhaustive definite foreknowledge of every moment of the future, which it defines as unknowable.
The last objection, when you read a modern translation, seems to refer to God's will and desire for the author's life, not the predetermination of everything the author does.
Nice try, tho.
Muz
So, a plain reading of the Psalms, given their intent, doesn't refute OVT at all.
Second, OVT claims "exhaustive knowledge". It just doesn't claim exhaustive definite foreknowledge of every moment of the future, which it defines as unknowable.
The last objection, when you read a modern translation, seems to refer to God's will and desire for the author's life, not the predetermination of everything the author does.
Nice try, tho.
Muz
:yawn:
themuzicman
Well-known member
The words are also clearly understood by those who understand the genre of poetry, and how it is properly understood.
You're imposing what you want the text to read upon a genre that doesn't support your assertions.
Sorry.
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
Umm.. Psalms are poetry. All of them.
Is God literally "afar" from the haughty? Of course not. This is symbolic language.
Is this direct doctrine? Does everyone who fears the Lord have a fruitful wife? Does everyone who fears the Lord have children like olive plants?
OF course not. Psalms aren't direct doctrine. They are poetry. You don't need to read far to find many examples of statements that, if not taken poetically, just aren't true, as we see here.
(There are plenty of other examples, here.)
Thus, your error is one of improper hermeneutics.
The Psalmist IS speaking of God's greatness and God's influence in his life, but isn't intending to make a statement on exhaustive definite foreknowledge, as you claim.
Muz
Ps 138:6 For though the Lord is exalted, Yet He regards the lowly, But the haughty He knows from afar.
Is God literally "afar" from the haughty? Of course not. This is symbolic language.
Psalm 128:1 How blessed is everyone who fears the Lord, Who walks in His ways. 2 When you shall eat of the fruit of your hands, You will be happy and it will be well with you. 3 Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine Within your house, Your children like olive plants Around your table.
Is this direct doctrine? Does everyone who fears the Lord have a fruitful wife? Does everyone who fears the Lord have children like olive plants?
OF course not. Psalms aren't direct doctrine. They are poetry. You don't need to read far to find many examples of statements that, if not taken poetically, just aren't true, as we see here.
(There are plenty of other examples, here.)
Thus, your error is one of improper hermeneutics.
The Psalmist IS speaking of God's greatness and God's influence in his life, but isn't intending to make a statement on exhaustive definite foreknowledge, as you claim.
Muz
Philetus
New member
No I really couldn't. I have honestly tried. I'm not clever and don't think more highly of myself than I ought. And thank you again for telling me how God sees me. (Another Calvinistic 'secret' known only to you?) Your whole theology likes to tell people how diminished they are in God's eyes. So I really can't drop the anti-Calvinist vitriol ... I simply hate Calvinism (probably as much as you hate Open Theism) ... and I'm not at all sorry that offends you or ruffles your feathers anymore than I am that my style (or lack of it) is different than yours. You can continue to ignore me and pretend it doesn't, or you can deal with the challenge to your position. I don't like your smugness ... but I don't let it keep me from the exchange.
Your whole system depends on redefining simple words.
Deny denying it all you want. God hears and responds and adjusts. God often changes His short term plans in response to humans. It's that simple.
Yes, BUT!
The freedom that God has given creatures requires that God (as dynamic Persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit) respond to their free choices. Agreed, that doesn't change WHO God is but it sometimes changes what God does and doesn't do WITHOUT changing God's ultimate goal for creation. One variable that remains for many is whether they will or won't respond to the grace of God in His offer of salvation. Nang and you have made it quite clear that you think that issue was settled in Adam, and that God has already decided for every human being. That's the essential difference in our views.
I'm convinced that God has created an environment that will sustain physical life (for a limited time at least) without any further involvement or control on His part. We call it earth. Of course we are dependent on God for every breath … He PROVIDED the air we breath. In fact, God has given us everything we need to live. But, we also have the freedom to not continue breathing if we so choose. It’s called suicide. We also have the freedom, ability and the help of Holy Spirit to not only continue breathing, but also respond to God, repent and live. God has PROVIDED everything we need to live forever and continues to make provision by preparing a place for us and preparing us for that place. To reject His provision is self-destruction. To accept that provision is to live by grace through faith.
It is far different to say, “If you sin, I will kill you.” And say, “If you sin, you will die.”
God isn't a 'pillar' we relate to; God is a Person who relates to and with us.
This one? Emphasis mine.
Sorry AMR. You are just not as cleaver as you think you are. There is no separating our 'bias toward Calvinism' from what you are saying. You are right: in Calvinism there is no freedom. You really have described god as a post we dance around at his behest when the scripture clearly describes Him as the God who goes to the cross for others and draws us to Himself.
Muz the words explain themselves. If the lord is exalted, obviously the psalm refers to afar as distant from his supreme being.
Obviously fruitful as in bearing children and children numerous LIKE an olive.
The passage in psalm 139 "my days listed and determined even before the first of them occured" has no analagous language whatso ever.
You find the same kind of terminology all through the Old Testament and your verses tghat you try to defend OV with.
You want us to totally ignore this psalm. I'll give you a chance. Explain to us what the passages in the psalm refers to and I'll refute your arguments.
If you had it your way, we wouldn't be able to read anything into Scripture at all.
Obviously fruitful as in bearing children and children numerous LIKE an olive.
The passage in psalm 139 "my days listed and determined even before the first of them occured" has no analagous language whatso ever.
You find the same kind of terminology all through the Old Testament and your verses tghat you try to defend OV with.
You want us to totally ignore this psalm. I'll give you a chance. Explain to us what the passages in the psalm refers to and I'll refute your arguments.
If you had it your way, we wouldn't be able to read anything into Scripture at all.
Philetus
New member
:rotfl: :thumb:
Will there be mayo and mustard with that baloney?
I do miss the popcorn and butter, though.
Maybe, Johnnyboy will bring some.
Philetus
New member
Well, they don't need your help then, do they?
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Oh, the pain.
Only a little mayo and mustard, maybe.
Philetus
New member
The obvious doesn't need refuting; just ridiculing.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
They are inspired poetry, then, and verified doctrinally by the Lord Jesus Christ when He said the Psalms all teach concerning Him. (Luke 24:44)
"Man shall live by EVERY word that proceeds from the mouth of God," and the Psalms proceed from the Spirit of God without a doubt. If the Psalms were not Holy Scripture, meant to edify the saints, they would not be in our Bibles.
The "haughty" exist outside of Christ.
No it isn't. Every single soul is either existing for a temporal time, outside of Christ and outside of God's favor, due to sinfulness . . .or one has been redeemed and positioned spiritually IN Christ, due to grace. The "haughty" are the proud of this world, who love and practice lies. (See that they are "afar" from the Lord in Rev. 22:15)
These promises apply to God's Covenant children, and yes, this is predominantly the blessed state of Christian marriages. Maybe you do not know too many Covenant saints? Or you would not question this Scripture.
You seriously, err, Muz. You are attempting to take away from the inspired Word of God, and there is severe warning against doing so. The Psalms teach about the Savior. Can't get more doctrinal than that. The lyrical poetry is just form, that contains great substance . . .just as the Song of Solomon describes Christ's relationship with His Church, so the Psalms reveal the Person of Jesus Christ and all His attributes.
You are robbing yourself if you do not read the Psalms to learn the essence of the Triune God, and you rob others of great blessing, by down-playing Scripture just because it opposes your theories and presuppositions.
Nang
I concur, but it does not fully explain how omnipotence and absolute immutability are incompatible. I think Mr. Religion thinks there is a loop hole to affirm both. If we say God's character does not change, then His unchanging attribute of omnipotence could be compatible. Omnipotence when exercised does seem to introduce change in circumstances, but does not make God more or less changed per se.
Perhaps semantics will keep us from debating your question properly (I side with you, I think).
i.e. God is omnicompetent, not omnicausal. Exhaustive foreknowledge is not necessary if one has ability and intelligence to respond to any unknown contingency. The settled view wrongly looks at God through human eyes and attributes limitations to His ability and a need to control and know in order to not be 'surprised' or to know what to do. The Open View is more faithful to Scripture and exalting of God's greatness (free from philosophical assumptions).
themuzicman
Well-known member
I didn't say it was uninspired. It just said that the genre was poetry, and should be understood in that context.
Never denied any of that. But we do have to read Scripture as it was intended to be read and in the genre it was written.
So, "afar" symbolizes "outside".. you sure this isn't direct doctrine?
Symbolically. If we were to take this literally, there would have to be some literal, physical distance between the haughty and God.
So, if we see a couple who does not have children, then they must not be saved?
They also communicate in a particular genre. To be honest, any devoutly Christian couple who is unable to have children should be deeply offended at your interpretation of the previous verse, and rightly so.
Answer me this: Is Jesus a worm? (See Psalm 22)
The fact that various parts of the bible have different genres which are interpreted in the way that genre intends to mean isn't a new idea. Ever read Proverbs? Do you condemn parents who have children that have gone astray as not having raised them in the way they should go?
I haven't played down anything. I'm simply saying that we need to read the Psalms as God intends for us to read the Psalms, and that is as the genre of Poetry. If that were not the case, Psalms wouldn't BE poetry.
Muz
- Status