ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

PPUUULLLEAse!

The language is as direct as it gets. All the psalms do is pull verses or concepts from Scripture and define them in prayer to God. This is a prayer to God's omniscience.

The words are plain for anyone to see.

God's past and present knowledge is exhaustive. Knowing hairs on head is knowable in the present. It cannot be extrapolated to mean that God knew the number of hairs on every person's head for all eternity at any given moment in space/time history. The Psalmist describes available past or present knowledge, consistent with the Open View. God's intentions for a person's life does not mean they will be fulfilled unless you negate freedom in favor of raw determinism.

You are proof texting while ignoring the context and genre, as muz pointed out.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Unresponsive/red herring.

AMR,

If Lighthouse's question 'begs the question' then how does your belief that "God exists outside the bounds of time.", not do the same thing?

Does not the concept of existence presuppose duration?

Please answer the question directly.

Please read it again. I clearly answered your question. Existence presupposes duration only for God's creatures, not the atemporal, necessary being, God. I also pointed out the implications of your assumption that God somehow exists in time. You are equivocating with this response (probably to go figure out a way around these implications).

 

[godrulz]

Endless time vs timelessness is the biblical model of eternity (Ps. 90:2; Ps. 102:23-27; Rev. 1:4).

He is from everlasting to everlasting (endless duration/sequence/succession).

His years have no end.

Tensed expressions are used of Him (past, present, future).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You just contradicted yourself.

First, there is no "before" or "after" with God, but then there must be a "nothing" before the universe can be created out of it, thus, for God, there is a "before creation" in a temporal sense.

Which only continues to expose the logical contradiction between atemporality and ex nihilo creation.

You are not making sense here. Just because God created the universe out of Himself (which is not really "nothing" per se), in no way implies God existed temporally. Please make some cogent argument that would support your assertion that ex nihilo implies the temporal existence of God.

There is no temporal "before creation" in God's mind. There is plenty of intuitition, but that is not temporal. God just knows past, present, future equally vividly.

Once the universe was created, time existed, not before.

 

[baloney]

Godrulz, The beginning of the psalm "you know every detail of my conduct." describes exhaustive knowledge.

the verses "You scrutinized my every action,
all were recorded in your book,
my days, LISTED AND DETERMINED,
EVEN BEFORE THE FIRST OF THEM OCCURED.

This describes knowing your future actions before they occur.

Hence, it refutes open theism.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

God's past and present knowledge is exhaustive. Knowing hairs on head is knowable in the present. It cannot be extrapolated to mean that God knew the number of hairs on every person's head for all eternity at any given moment in space/time history. The Psalmist describes available past or present knowledge, consistent with the Open View. God's intentions for a person's life does not mean they will be fulfilled unless you negate freedom in favor of raw determinism.

You are proof texting while ignoring the context and genre, as muz pointed out.

genre is irrelevant...still means what it says (I know symbolism is used).

 

[themuzicman]

Later translations don't use "determined."

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

You are not making sense here. Just because God created the universe out of Himself (which is not really "nothing" per se), in no way implies God existed temporally. Please make some cogent argument that would support your assertion that ex nihilo implies the temporal existence of God.

There is no temporal "before creation" in God's mind. There is plenty of intuitition, but that is not temporal. God just knows past, present, future equally vividly.

Once the universe was created, time existed, not before.

1) Ex nihilo literally mean "from nothing."
2) In order for something to come from nothing, the state of nothingness must first exist.
3) At some time AFTER nothingness exists, creation comes into being.
4) First, God is aware that nothing exists, and then God is aware that He has created.
5) A succession of events requires a temporal existence.
5) Nothing existing followed by creation existing is a succession of events.
6) Therefore, God is temporal.

QED.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

genre is irrelevant...still means what it says (I know symbolism is used).

Genre is not irrelevant. All one needs to do is read Proverbs for a short time to find one that is not universally true (like 'raise a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not stray far from it.' We all know parents who raised their kids right, and the kid went wrong anyway.)

Thus, the genre of Proverbs is very important to understanding them properly.

The same goes for Psalms. Psalms are poetry. The language is poetic, and should be understood with a poetic mindset.

I'll ask you what I asked Nang:

Is Jesus a worm? (See Psalm 22:6)

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Genre is not irrelevant. All one needs to do is read Proverbs for a short time to find one that is not universally true (like 'raise a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not stray far from it.' We all know parents who raised their kids right, and the kid went wrong anyway.)

Thus, the genre of Proverbs is very important to understanding them properly.

The same goes for Psalms. Psalms are poetry. The language is poetic, and should be understood with a poetic mindset.

I'll ask you what I asked Nang:

Is Jesus a worm? (See Psalm 22:6)

Muz

I guess he was a worm as much as he is a door or bread.

 

[themuzicman]

I guess he was a worm as much as he is a door or bread.

Welcome to the dark side. You just expressed interpretation using genre.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

This really deserved to be here:

Actually, Psalm 139 doesn't say that "determined."

The Hebrew is less clear. Literally:

"Your eyes saw my embryo.
Upon your book the whole is written, days are fashioned
when not one of them was."

So, the translator has taken some translational liberty, which is not unusual for Psalms, but if you're going to dig into the language, you should at least deal with the original.

Muz

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

It is simple for those that would re-define a transcendent God into something more like what man wants a god to be versus what God told us He is in His special revelation.

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.

God does not change His mind. God is exhaustively omniscient. Anyone that can refuse God's grace makes Christ's atonement necessary, but not sufficient. A hobbled atonement is not possible with the God of the scriptures. You can make painful strained interpretations of Scripture to force that intepretation, but it is not proper. That is 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.

This god is a watchmaker who wound up the universe and then lets it run. The scriptures deny your statement. Nothing happens in this world without God's direct involvement and providential control. If He can know when a bird falls to the ground or the numbers of the hairs on my head, assuming He is not always moving to keep His creation together denies the plain meaning of the scriptures. "And I also have withholden the rain from you, when there were yet three months before the harvest; and I caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon another city," Amos 4:7. "He gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, filling your heart with food and gladness," Acts 14:17.

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.

Again, you assume far more than the revelations in the scriptures demonstrate. Ever notice in the scriptures that you don't read, say, "it rains"? Instead we read of God sending the rain. Even the possibilities of accident and chance are not excluded from God's direct control and even "the lot was an accepted means of obtaining the decision of God (Joshua 7:16; 14:2; 18:6; 1 Samuel 10:19; Jonah 1:7). All things without exception, indeed, are disposed by God, and His will is the ultimate account of all that occurs (Amos 3:5, 6; Lamentations 3:33-38; Isaiah 47:7; Ecclesiastes 7:14; Isaiah 54:16). Your so-called "freedom" is to seek autonomy from God. That was the very first sin.

God isn't a 'pillar' we relate to; God is a Person who relates to and with us.

Again, you are not reading my words carefully. You are filtering them all through your anti-Calvinism strainer. Please state where I have said that God does not respond to His creatures, does not love them, does not remain long-suffering for them.

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.

More vitriol. Less substance. I have freedom, the kind of freedom to be the creature God wants me to be. Anyone saying that Calvinists do not enjoy freedom are wallowing in unlearned sophistry. Nothing that I am aware of constrains me, yet I remain supremely comforted that God is in charge and cannot, will not, ever, be thwarted in His purposes.

 

[baloney]

It says "the days were fashioned for me as yet there was none."

Exactly the same as the days determined before they occured.

God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future.

ov is refuted, Your digging your hole deeper.

Do you think the words we use in English best describe what the Hebrew terminology is. If not you might as throw the OT out the window.

 

[themuzicman]

It says "the days were fashioned for me as yet there was none."

Exactly the same as the days determined before they occured.

God has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future.

Not really. Again, there is still the genre issue. The sense of the Psalm isn't that everything that the author does has been pre-determined by God, but, rather, that God's hand leads him through his days.

Your imposition of EDF on this verse simply isn't justified.

ov is refuted, Your digging your hole deeper.

Do you think the words we use in English best describe what the Hebrew terminology is. If not you might as throw the OT out the window.

Why? Most people don't know Hebrew, and the translation is pretty good, if you use it for reading and not to pick out individual words from which to make a hobby horse.

If you're going to do in depth theology, you really ought to know the original language.

Muz

 

[Nang]

I didn't say it was uninspired. It just said that the genre was poetry, and should be understood in that context.

So you agree the Psalms are inspired by God; even though they are in the form of poetry, which means the Psalms should be read as the inspired Word of God, in the form of poetry. Which means that the Psalms, being inspired, qualify as:

" . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." II Timothy 3:16

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.

You are agreeing with me. Scripture was intended to be read as inspired and therefore considered: " . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Even when Scripture is presented in poetic, figurative, metaphorical, or parabolic form.

So, "afar" symbolizes "outside".. you sure this isn't direct doctrine?

"Afar" is not a symbolism.

"Afar" literally means "remoteness." Jesus Christ is remote from the haughty; they have no part in Him. They are spiritually outside Him because of their unrepentant sin of pride.

Symbolically. If we were to take this literally, there would have to be some literal, physical distance between the haughty and God.

Not symbolically. Reprobates are literally and spiritually outside (remote) of Jesus Christ. There will be physical separation between the lake of fire and the heavenly kingdom.

Answer me this: Is Jesus a worm? (See Psalm 22)

This is not symbolism, either. This Psalm is literally prophetic. Jesus Christ bore the sins of men on the cross, reducing him in the eyes of God to the level of dust and the least of creatures . . .a worm.

Ever read Proverbs?

Uh, yes, and I have garnered good doctrine from them, for they too, are inspired Scripture, qualifying as: " . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Do you condemn parents who have children that have gone astray as not having raised them in the way they should go?

It is not my role to condemn others. My role is to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God and apply what I learn therefrom faithfully to my own life.

I haven't played down anything.

You most certainly have. You are discounting the Godly revelations in Psalm 139 as being mere poetry and therefore not worthy revelation of the foreknowledge and sovereignty of Creator God. Just because this Godly revelation opposes the theories of OV.

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

Jesus Christ told us how to read the Psalms. He said they were written "concerning" Him. We are to read Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets looking for revelation of Him. We are not to neglect a single inspired word of God in our quest to intimately know our Savior and His sufferings on our behalf.

Nang

 

[themuzicman]

So you agree the Psalms are inspired by God; even though they are in the form of poetry, which means the Psalms should be read as the inspired Word of God, in the form of poetry. Which means that the Psalms, being inspired, qualify as:

" . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." II Timothy 3:16

Absolutely. When rightly divided.

You are agreeing with me. Scripture was intended to be read as inspired and therefore considered: " . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Even when Scripture is presented in poetic, figurative, metaphorical, or parabolic form.

Sure, when rightly divided.

"Afar" is not a symbolism.

It means distance between.

\"Afar" literally means "remoteness." Jesus Christ is remote from the haughty; they have no part in Him. They are spiritually outside Him because of their unrepentant sin of pride.

OK, but you've just turned a distance apart into "spiritually outside". You've made it symbolic.

Not symbolically. Reprobates are literally and spiritually outside (remote) of Jesus Christ. There will be physical separation between the lake of fire and the heavenly kingdom.

But "afar" refers to distance, not spiritual condition.

This is not symbolism, either. This Psalm is literally prophetic. Jesus Christ bore the sins of men on the cross, reducing him in the eyes of God to the level of dust and the least of creatures . . .a worm.

So, you think that Jesus is literally a worm?

Uh, yes, and I have garnered good doctrine from them, for they too, are inspired Scripture, qualifying as: " . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

That's fine.

It is not my role to condemn others. My role is to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God and apply what I learn therefrom faithfully to my own life.

Great.

You most certainly have. You are discounting the Godly revelations in Psalm 139 as being mere poetry and therefore not worthy revelation of the foreknowledge and sovereignty of Creator God. Just because this Godly revelation opposes the theories of OV.

Actually, I'm reading Psalm 139 as it was intended to be read: As poetry. YOU'RE the one taking Poetry and applying different genre to it.

Do you take Proverbs as literal doctrine?

Jesus Christ told us how to read the Psalms. He said they were written "concerning" Him. We are to read Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets looking for revelation of Him. We are not to neglect a single inspired word of God in our quest to intimately know our Savior and His sufferings on our behalf.

I've not neglected a single word. Each word has meaning in its context. The context includes the genre. The genre of Psalms does not include direct doctrine.

Thus, we are to read Psalms as Psalms and not as an epistle.

Muz

 

[baloney]

And of course Muz knows the original language. he's keepiong the meaning secret from us.

You show how in any sense this psalm does not specifically speak of exhaustive foreknowledge of events.

 

[Nang]

Thus, we are to read Psalms as Psalms and not as an epistle.

Muz

Well, do as you must, but God will hold you accountable for taking away from His Word by giving such advice and instruction.

" . . What is the thing that the LORD hath said unto thee? I pray thee hide it not from me: God do so to thee, and more also, if thou hide any thing from me of all the things that he said unto thee." I Samuel 3:17

The Psalms (and every other book in the Canon) are to be read as Godly revelation of Jesus Christ, inspired by the Holy Spirit, regardless of form.

 

[Clete]

Please read it again. I clearly answered your question.

You didn't answer my question at all AMR. I am not stupid.

Existence presupposes duration only for God's creatures, not the atemporal, necessary being, God.

This doesn't answer the question. I didn't ask you whether you thought duration presupposed duration, I know that it does and you opinion is perfectly meaningless to me concerning the definition of simple to understand words. What I asked you was HOW does your belief that "God exists outside the bounds of time.", not 'beg the question'?

You see AMR, there is a rational argument implied (heavily implied) in my question and I am asking you to respond to that argument; to refute it, not to simply spout your personal opinion as though what you think matters to anyone other than yourself.

I also pointed out the implications of your assumption that God somehow exists in time. You are equivocating with this response (probably to go figure out a way around these implications).

I never equivocate - at least not intentionally. It is you who obfuscated the argument by bringing up additional issues which are irrelevant to the argument which I have presented in refutation of your position. I agree that the issue you bring up is a valid issue concerning the open view but it is not relevant to whether or not your believe that God exists outside of time begs the question. Further, the form of your argument is fallacious anyway. It is an appeal to consequences fallacy. The consequences of a truth claim to do not speak to its validity. In any case, I am prepared to live with the consequences of the truth whatever they might be. Are you?

Now please answer my question.

Given that existence presupposes duration, HOW does your belief that God exists outside of time not beg the question?

Here, let me help you and save us some time...

You want effectively to challenge the premise that existence presupposes duration. I support that premise with every known usage of the word. I submit that you cannot use the word exist or existence without implying duration. To have no duration is to not exist.

Main Entry: du·ra·tion

Function: noun
1 : continuance in time
2 : the time during which something exists or last​

And there are dozens of passages which speak of God's duration being forever.

1 Chronicles 16:34 Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for He is good!For His mercy endures forever.

2 Chronicles 5:13 indeed it came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard in praising and thanking the LORD, and when they lifted up their voice with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and praised the LORD, saying:“For He is good, For His mercy endures forever,” that the house, the house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud,

Psalm 9:6 O enemy, destructions are finished forever!
And you have destroyed cities;
Even their memory has perished.
7 But the LORD shall endure forever;
He has prepared His throne for judgment.
8 He shall judge the world in righteousness,
And He shall administer judgment for the peoples in uprightness.

Psalm 52:1 Why do you boast in evil, O mighty man?The goodness of God endures continually.

Psalm 111:3 His work is honorable and glorious,And His righteousness endures forever.​

Now AMR, please respond to the actual argument. If you would like to discuss how the open view deals with Einstein's theories then we can do that later. For now, let's keep our eye on the ball and tackle one issue at a time.

The burden is now on you to provide some evidence, some rational argument, which allows for the concept of existence to not imply duration and to explain why the Bible is willing to speak about God in terms of duration while you are not.

Resting in Him,
Clete