ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

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.

I already have.

1) Genre: The author has already used hyperbole:
3 You scrutinize my path and my lying down, (God has to scrutinize?)
8 If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. (Is God in Hell?)
15 My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, [And] skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; (were YOU made in the depths of the earth?)

and symbolism:
5 You have enclosed me behind and before, And laid Your hand upon me. (How can the author see anything?)
9 If I take the wings of the dawn, (the dawn has wings?)

So, we see that we're not talking about direct teaching regarding doctrine, here, but poetic language.

2) We have the literal translation of the Hebrew (which I provided), which doesn't say "known" or "determined." The author uses a word that means "formed" or "fashioned", and is the same word for when God formed Adam from the dust of the earth, suggesting that the context of his birth remains in view, rather than the determination of his path. We can read this to refer to the fact that his nature and the context in which he was born will have formative influence on his life. Again, this is poetry, so the meaning will be harder to nail down than a text we might find in Romans.

3) The word "days" doesn't have a definite article, nor does it have "my" attached to it, so if we're going to get technical and literal, the passage only says that (some) days are fashioned.

SO, when you're done with your death grip on an English translation that is pretty loose with respect to the original, and are ready to let go of trying to read a Psalm as you would an Epistle, you'll see the truth.

Muz

 

[Clete]

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.

baloney,

You're an idiot and so its hardly worth my time to do so but I will respond to this ridiculous argument in detail as soon as time permits.

In short, as I think as already been pointed out, Psalms 139 is talking about the days we spend in the womb, not our entire lives. It also helps if you don't fish for Bible translations that suit your needs as a Calvinist. The translation you quoted sucks. I will be responding with the use of a proper translation.

Resting in Him,
Clete

p.s. it seems muz has beaten me too it! Good work muz! :thumb:

 

[baloney]

Clete, you are a Bible blunderer and Scripture screwup.

"You have scrutinized my action,
all are recorded in your book,
my days, listed and determined
even before the first of them occured."

The book refered to in the psalm is the book of life which all our actions in life are recorded by God as the link shows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Life_(Judaism)

your abusrd comment that the actions refer to actions in a womb is laughable. What actions occur in a womb?

The womb versus just speak how God created us in entirety.

You are a liar and a known physics farce!

 

[themuzicman]

wikipedia as theological resource? ROFL!

Muz

 

[baloney]

Amazing isn't it. They know more than you!

 

[Philetus]

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.

trite! See, I told you you hated OT as much as I hate Calvinism.

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.

Stop that, or I'll get Pastor Bob Hill to post the scriptures. :crackup:
Christ's atonement is both necessary and sufficient and God's grace can be resisted.
At least both SV and OVers like to hobble and paste scriptures with painful strained interpretations ... blablabla. I guess that is the one inessential samenesses.

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.

Now who needs to read more carefully? I didn't say that God was not involved. Quite the opposite. I said that the earth COULD sustain life for a while at least if God choose to 'walk away' and leave us in our sins. Your view has God abandoning at least the part of creation he chooses not to elect to live. I guess if we use your approach to the others view that makes you half a deists.

God is good at what he makes and thankfully He is faithful to His creation.

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.

Then why don't Calvinists flip a coin to determine the will of God?
That is really an honest question. Why not? Why do you still vote on matters in your solemn assemblies? If the next President has already been chosen by God why do so many Calvinists take pride in voting and the way they vote?
Your denial in seeking autonomy from God screams out 'last sin ever committed'.

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.

Yes I am reading and yes I am filtering, because every thing you say is Calvinistic.
And you are not filtering? Give me a break.

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.

So, if God wants you to be a clever, learned, bible scholar who thinks he is saved but really isn't a member of the secret order of the elect at all, you have the freedom to do exactly what about that? If your view is true ... you simply have NO freedom to do anything about it or anything else for that matter. NO freedom at all. It isn't even your decision to make. Jesus either died for you or he only died for someone else and you have been led to believe a lie about yourself by some well meaning but misdirected Calvinist who preached a great evangelistic sermon when he didn't know who he was talking to or about. And there is no way on God's green earth you can possibility know which. Instead of preaching why not flip a coin?



You need to know the difference between vitriol and vigorous.

 

[Nang]

wikipedia as theological resource? ROFL!

Muz

Are you denying that the Lamb of God has a literal Book of Life written, and names of all those that make up His church body are already registered in heaven, and listed therein?

 

[themuzicman]

Well, the context used a perfect tense, which refers to an ongoing event in the past which has present force. Thus, the book was started before the foundation of the world, and was continually written as people believed throughout time, and at the time the list is read (in the future) the list is complete.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

That's an interesting thought. Why don't Calvinists make all their decisions by flipping a coin? Of course, if that happens, then God would first know that you were going to make decisions that way, and make the coin come up exactly as He wants it to come up, right?

Muz

 

[Nang]

Well, the context used a perfect tense, which refers to an ongoing event in the past which has present force.

Which context?

Thus, the book was started before the foundation of the world,

How was the Book "started"? Who were the "first" to be named before creation?

Did God elect only a couple for sure, and if so, on what basis?

and was continually written as people believed throughout time, and at the time the list is read (in the future) the list is complete.

Muz

You are just making things up, now . . .

The names written and registered in heaven, are taught in present tense, not future.

"To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect"
Hebrews 12:23

"Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven." Luke 10:20

 

[Clete]

Clete, you are a Bible blunderer and Scripture screwup.

"You have scrutinized my action,
all are recorded in your book,
my days, listed and determined
even before the first of them occured."

Look who's talking! This isn't even a quotation of the psalm! It's some jacked up Calvinist paraphrase maybe but it is not the psalm found in the Bible.

The book refered to in the psalm is the book of life which all our actions in life are recorded by God as the link shows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Life_(Judaism)

Wikipedia hardly counts as theologically authoritative and the article linked too does not even attempt to establish that Psalms 139 refers to the Book of Life.

your abusrd comment that the actions refer to actions in a womb is laughable. What actions occur in a womb?

I never said that the actions spoken of early in the passage refer to actions in the womb. You must have just skipped over the phrase "in short". More detail will be forth coming when time permits me to post a longer response.

The womb versus just speak how God created us in entirety.

The womb verses establish the context of the passage.

You are a liar and a known physics farce!

When have I lied?

And what the Hell is a physics farce?

Never mind. I don't care. You're an idiot and I won't lose any sleep over what the likes of you think of me. I really couldn't care less. The only reason I'm going to respond at all is for the sake of other who might read your reference to psalms 139 and think you've made some sort of good point. In other words, the point is worth responding too, you are not. My future responses on this topic will not address you directly.

Good bye! :wave2:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

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.

Cannot vs. will not. Aren't you always saying that? "His character will not change," is not the same as, "His character cannot change." If it will not, then that is compatible with omnipotence. But if it cannot, then it is not compatible.

Perhaps semantics will keep us from debating your question properly (I side with you, I think).

In this instance, you even side with Sozo.

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).

I was asking the settled viewers.

 

[Nang]

"Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." Psalm 139:16


It is impossible to rob Creator God of His foreknowledge of those He created; especially since He created all men to function as either vessels of wrath or as His vessels of mercy.

When God created, God prepared the former vessels for destruction and the latter vessels for glory. And this creation and preparation was all accomplished in the making a man from one lump of dirt: Adam, who was made federal head and representative of his wife and the entire human race.

It was determined by God exactly which of Adam & Eve's seed would be born for wrath, and which seed would be born for glory, and which Seed would be born as Savior and federal head of His people.

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." Romans 9:22&23

Christians, created in Adam, and spiritually created in Christ, are the work of God's hands:

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:10

"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:13

Again, I say it is impossible God did not know and determine the fate of all those created by His hand. All men by necessity were in the mind of God before He created; all their works were known by Him and controlled by Him, throughout history, in order to accomplish His eternal purposes:

"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Genesis 50:20
For:

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." Proverbs 16:4

The OVT'ers cannot deny or overcome these revelations of Creator God who knows who and exactly why He made every single one of us in Adam.

They can reduce the Son of God to a universal icon; the Spirit of God to an ineffectual power, and the Father to a blind dunce . . .but it is impossible to rob Creator God of His creative knowledge, His everlasting Covenant promises, or His heavenly purposes.

And who would want to?

What is to be gained?

Except the delusion that man can "be like God" and determine his own fate?

Nang

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Wikipedia hardly counts as theologically authoritative and the article linked too does not even attempt to establish that Psalms 139 refers to the Book of Life.

Better translation:
Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them. (ESV)

15-16 Even when unborn ("when I was made in the secret place," v. 15) and little more than a physical being ("my frame"; lit., "my bone") in the womb ("when I was woven together in the depths of the earth"), the Lord had a purpose for the undeveloped embryo ("my unformed body," v. 16). The idea of purpose comes more clearly to expression in v. 16. The Lord's writing in the book (cf. 51:1; 69:28) refers to God's knowledge and blessing of his child "all the days" of his life (cf. Eph 2:10). His life was written in the book of life, and each of his days was numbered. [see L.C. Allen, "Faith on Trial: An Analysis of Psalm 139," Vox Evangelica 10 [1977]: 5-23, and Expositors Commentary on the Bible, 15 volumes.] See also each of the M. Henry, Gill, Clark, Barnes commentaries, who adopt a similar view. Even the more liberal Oxford Bible Commentary agrees.

Renderings of the latter clause from the Hebrew:
"the days which were (already) formed, and there was not one among them, i.e., when none among them had as yet become a reality."

"and on your scroll all of them were written, [the] days [which] were formed, and [there was] not one among them." This "scroll" may be the "scroll of life" mentioned in Ps. 69:28. From 69:28 the phrase the scroll of the living occurs only here in the OT. It pictures a scroll or census list containing the names of the citizens of a community. When an individual died, that person's name was removed from the list. So this curse is a very vivid way of asking that the enemies die.

 

[Vaquero45]

Better translation:
Psa 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them. (ESV)

15-16 Even when unborn ("when I was made in the secret place," v. 15) and little more than a physical being ("my frame"; lit., "my bone") in the womb ("when I was woven together in the depths of the earth"), the Lord had a purpose for the undeveloped embryo ("my unformed body," v. 16). The idea of purpose comes more clearly to expression in v. 16. The Lord's writing in the book (cf. 51:1; 69:28) refers to God's knowledge and blessing of his child "all the days" of his life (cf. Eph 2:10). His life was written in the book of life, and each of his days was numbered. [see L.C. Allen, "Faith on Trial: An Analysis of Psalm 139," Vox Evangelica 10 [1977]: 5-23, and Expositors Commentary on the Bible, 15 volumes.] See also each of the M. Henry, Gill, Clark, Barnes commentaries, who adopt a similar view. Even the more liberal Oxford Bible Commentary agrees.

Renderings of the latter clause from the Hebrew:
"the days which were (already) formed, and there was not one among them, i.e., when none among them had as yet become a reality."

"and on your scroll all of them were written, [the] days [which] were formed, and [there was] not one among them." This "scroll" may be the "scroll of life" mentioned in Ps. 69:28. From 69:28 the phrase the scroll of the living occurs only here in the OT. It pictures a scroll or census list containing the names of the citizens of a community. When an individual died, that person's name was removed from the list. So this curse is a very vivid way of asking that the enemies die.

Jer 32:35 They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. (ESV)​

In this case, were every one of the days of these particular kids written in God's book? If the means of their deaths was not commanded by god and never even entered His mind, how did He record the days in His book?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Jer 32:35 They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. (ESV)​

In this case, were every one of the days of these particular kids written in God's book? If the means of their deaths was not commanded by god and never even entered His mind, how did He record the days in His book?

See also Jer. 32:31-32.
though I did not command them, nor did it enter my mind: not in my law; nor by any of the prophets; God commanded them to burn their beasts, but not their sons and daughters. The instance of Abraham offering up Isaac will not justify the act. The case of Jephthah's daughter, if sacrificed, was not by divine command. The giving of seed to Molech, and letting any pass through the fire to Him, is expressly forbidden, Lev_18:21. Note that the Hebrew renders "mind" as "heart".

So abhorrent was this practice that the Lord by a strong anthropomorphism says that it had never entered his mind (heart) that his favored people would stoop so low. It also demonstrates that the superstitious cannot plead they were only acting with "good intentions".

 

[Vaquero45]

See also Jer. 32:31-32.
though I did not command them, nor did it enter my mind: not in my law; nor by any of the prophets; God commanded them to burn their beasts, but not their sons and daughters. The instance of Abraham offering up Isaac will not justify the act. The case of Jephthah's daughter, if sacrificed, was not by divine command. The giving of seed to Molech, and letting any pass through the fire to Him, is expressly forbidden, Lev_18:21. Note that the Hebrew renders "mind" as "heart".

So abhorrent was this practice that the Lord by a strong anthropomorphism says that it had never entered his mind (heart) that his favored people would stoop so low. It also demonstrates that the superstitious cannot plead they were only acting with "good intentions".

Ok, to play along with the anthropomorphism idea and really flesh it out, here's my question. Sorry it's a horrible sentence to follow.

God used an anthropomorphism to dumb down the message to some of the audience that might not understand the fact that God really did plan and bring to pass this occurence, BUT in the context of our pretended autonomous free will, we should come away knowing we shouldn't burn children to honor false gods?

I'm honestly trying to ground that idea on the settled side. Correct me if I messed it up. (and rep if you followed my horrible sentence)


Also, in your view, is this an honestly equivalent restatement of the last part of your post?

So abhorrent was this practice that the Lord Himself planned and brought to pass for His own glory, that by a strong anthropomorphism He says that it had never entered his mind (heart) that his favored people would stoop so low. It also demonstrates that the superstitious cannot plead they were only acting with "good intentions".​

 

[Nang]

Jer 32:35 They built the high places of Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. (ESV)​

In this case, were every one of the days of these particular kids written in God's book? If the means of their deaths was not commanded by god and never even entered His mind, how did He record the days in His book?

There are many books, but these persons were not written in the Lamb's Book of Life. However, God saying their deeds "never entered His mind," means that God did not will, nor cause, nor command these to commit such abomination. God had full knowledge of their deeds, but He in His holiness remains "afar" from such sinners, who serve sin, death, and the devil instead of righteous God.

Spiritual principle: "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone." James 1:13

 

[baloney]

It's the book of life mentioned throughout the Bible from Daniel, the psalms to revelation.

My interpretation of the psalm 139 passage is correct. It talks of our actions being determined befor they occur. The Hebrews just used certain words like substance or embryo for our action and thoughts.

I'm not a Calvanist.
If you want to ignore my comments, Clete than do just that.

 

[baloney]

Clete you said specifically in your #662 post that they are days spent in the womb. Now you are changing it to try to hide your ignorance and scramble for damage control with your "need time for longer response comment."

You are a liar!