ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[themuzicman]

It is so blatantly obvious that Psalms 22 prophesizes the crucifixion in great detail. Yet you want to dismiss the verses in chp 22 that are repeated verbatim in the Gospels and instead concentrate on one verse that is not repeated verbatim.

If Psalm 22 is a direct prophecy, then we should see clear evidence that all the details specified are completed.

What we know from Roman crucifixion is that it does not put all the joints out of place, nor does it emaciate the individual in question.

Remember Muz, just because something is not said, does not mean it didn’t happen, and you can’t prove a negative.For example if I asked you if you ever read Robinson Crusoe, you can prove that you did, but it would be impossible for you to prove that you did not read the book.

However, if you're going to claim that this is fulfilled prophecy, then you need to demonstrate that all the details were fulfilled. Otherwise, you fail.

“All my bones were out of joint” is stated in Psalms 22, but not in the Gospels. However this does not mean that Christ’s bones were not out of joint. You can’t prove they weren’t.

I can look to historical evidence of what crucifixions were like and state that they did not put all the bones out of joint. Thus, were you to prove this, you'd have to show that something unusual happened.

Where there is proof, such as the following, you chose to ignore.

(Psalms 22:14) I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint;

John 19:34) But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

That has to be the worst proposed prophetic reference I've seen in a long time. The author of Psalms is clearly not referring to water coming out of his body, but is analogizing water pouring out to his ability to act, to respond. The imagery is clear to all except those with another agenda.

So, no, I disagree entirely, here.

AND

(Psalms 22:18) They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

(Matthew 27:35) And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.

AND

(Psalms 22:16) For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet

(John 20:25) The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

AND

(Psalms 22:1) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

(Matt 27:46) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

So, you're about 50/50. Is a half fulfilled "prophecy" good enough for you?

This is a Messianic Psalm, not a prophecy. The evidence points against you.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

How about being the uncreated creator and a creature at the same time? Jesus Christ.

Can someone who's uncreated be the created at the same time? Logical?

The incarnation is not a contradiction. 2+2=4 and 5 at the same time is a contradiction.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

The incarnation is not a contradiction. 2+2=4 and 5 at the same time is a contradiction.

The creator of all things is a creature at the same time. Quite a mysterious thing.

 

[godrulz]

The creator of all things is a creature at the same time. Quite a mysterious thing.

It is still not illogical, but it is mind-blowing. There are many logical absurdities. Just using the name of God does not make illogical things logical. The wonders of God are ascertained through revelation/reason. Just because we cannot understand them fully does not make them illogical or absurd.

Saying God is triune (3 persons) and 7 persons is a contradiction. Saying He is uncreated, incarnated, one God with 3 persons is not a contradiction nor illogical/absurd (2+2=5 is absurd, even for God; God's math is not different and contradictory to our math; reality is objective, not subjectively different for God and us...though His knowledge/perception, etc. vastly exceeds our limited view).

A mystery is something hidden, not absurd. Why God created when He did is a mystery as is what He did before creation. God has given us revelation about who He is, what He is like, creation, etc. It can be demonstrated, based on revelation and reason, that EDF and free will are incompatible. We cannot affirm both. We can affirm determinism and EDF or free will and dynamic omniscience, but both cannot be true paradigms.

 

[Lighthouse]

Does this mean you are Jewish?

Talk about cherry-picking.

If you go back to the thread from which you got that second quote you will see that I later posted that it had been brought to my attention that it was for Israel and therefore my name is not in the Book.

(Phil 4:3) And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

Is Paul talking about Israel here?

:think:

I shall have to discuss this with the one who brought it up to me.

This is made up, and has no Biblical basis. Where exactly does this chance to believe or not believe take place for these babies? Purgatory?

Abraham's Bosom.

Let me give you something to think about. In the USA and other western “Christian” countries the infant mortality rate is around 2%. In third world Godless countries, and Muslim countries the infant mortality rate is 12% to 20%.

And? Relevance?

Makes me laugh every time you do this, thanks.

I laugh every time you post something stupid. Which means I laugh quite a lot throughout the day.

 

[Bright Raven]

If you understood his point, you would see its wisdom and truth. We should not cling to traditional views that are philosophically vs biblically influenced if they are not defensible and incoherent.

Using your logic, we could uncritically accept falsehoods about God and His ways.

Just because you do not see it, does not mean Muz is wrong.

godrulz, with all due respect. I do understand what you and Muz are postulating. I serve an immutable God. Your liberal construct/model of a God who learns from His mistakes is not the God I serve. If He were to make mistakes, He could not be trusted to give me a future and a hope. The Bible tells me that Jesus died for my sin. Maybe an imperfect sacrifice? Was it a truth or a mistake? How many changes do you have to make for Him to fit in your box?

 

[Bright Raven]

It's not actually my construct (this problem has been know since before Christ)

And it's not actually about God. It's about the nature of creation and what God created.

Muz

:jawdrop: Actually, it's all about God. Where is creation without God?

 

[themuzicman]

godrulz, with all due respect. I do understand what you and Muz are postulating. I serve an immutable God. Your liberal construct/model of a God who learns from His mistakes is not the God I serve.

Not postulating that.

If He were to make mistakes, He could not be trusted to give me a future and a hope.

Not saying that.

The Bible tells me that Jesus died for my sin. Maybe an imperfect sacrifice? Was it a truth or a mistake? How many changes do you have to make for Him to fit in your box?

We're looking at God from a biblical perspective, and more specifically from what God says about Himself and creation, and coming to a conclusion.

In a sense, we're looking outside the Reformed/Augustinian box that God has been in for so long, and finding that the bible has issues with it.

I think you're either taking some critic's invalid criticism of OVT, or making some leaps from your own view that aren't accurate. OVT doesn't say that God makes mistakes in that His actions are the result of misinformation or are incorrect.

Now, if we look at Jeremiah 3:6-7, we see that God expects Israel to respond to His actions and return to Him, but Israel does not. However, that is Israel's failing, not Gods. However, God's expectation of Israel is not fulfilled. There are some who then say that God makes mistakes, but I think that's a poor way to express what really happened. God did what was righteous and good in offering mercy and love to Israel, and Israel did not respond. The error is Israel's, not God's.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

:jawdrop: Actually, it's all about God. Where is creation without God?

LOL... The point is that the discussion is really about the nature of what God created.

I do believe that God is able to create a world where He foreknows (and by extension determines) all things.

However, I also believe that God is able to create a world with free will agents that are free from prior causality, thus making their future decisions unknowable. Furthermore, only in this kind of environ could God engage in truly loving relationship with His creation, which is the kind of creation that I see God creating.

Thus, I draw the conclusion that God created a universe where the future decisions of free will agents are unknowable, even if all the possible courses of the future are.

(This also solves the problem of evil, something that Reformed theologians and those who embrace EDF are stuck with.)

Muz

 

[tetelestai]

Thus, I draw the conclusion that God created a universe where the future decisions of free will agents are unknowable, even if all the possible courses of the future are.

And you claim to be logical and consistent?

 

[themuzicman]

And you claim to be logical and consistent?

Absolutely.

Muz

 

[tetelestai]

Talk about cherry-picking.

If you go back to the thread from which you got that second quote you will see that I later posted that it had been brought to my attention that it was for Israel and therefore my name is not in the Book.

Ok, LH I went back and looked. I didn't see that this morning when I made the post, had I seen it, I obviously wouldn't have asked if you were Jewish.

I shall have to discuss this with the one who brought it up to me.

That is good. I am not MAD so therefore I believe that believers in the Body of Christ are in the evolving Book of Life, and will end up in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Abraham's Bosom.

I believe Christ “emptied” Abraham’s bosom when He descended, and took the OT believers with Him to Heaven when He ascended. Therefore every believer who died since then has gone to Heaven. I know this conflicts with MAD doctrine because you guys have to keep Abraham’s bosom active in order to show where the Kingdom believers who died between the ascension and Acts 28 went.

So is it my understanding that you believe that only babies go to Abraham’s bosom now?

And? Relevance?

It means that the “world” is always trying to fix everything. Peace, poverty, sickness, etc. exists, and human good is always trying to make the world a perfect place.

The Bible is clear that this is satan’s planet right now. Jesus promised there would be wars and rumors of wars until His return. Yet every human do gooder is always trying to achieve world peace, and then there are the environmentalists who try to save the planet. Feeding the poor in Africa and in Muslim countries sounds like a very good moral Christian thing to do also.

In a Muslim country where the infant mortality rate is 18%, that means that 18% of the population will have eternal life, whereas if we feed them, give them health care, medicine, etc and lower the infant mortality rate to say 3%, that means that these kids who would have died and had eternal life, will now grow up and be Muslims, and then go to hell.

Sounds mean and cruel, but the bottom line is that we, as Christians have the sole responsibility to evangelize to these countries, not to feed them and give them medicine. There is nothing wrong with feeding and giving medicine to fellow Christians however.

Obtaining world peace, feeding the poor, and saving the planet are humanistic good works that mean nothing to God.

The point is that feeding the poor, and providing medicine is sending more people to hell than if we did nothing at all. This is why I believe babies who die go to Heaven, and how God provides salvation to all.

I laugh every time you post something stupid. Which means I laugh quite a lot throughout the day

That's good, maybe if I make even more posts, you can give up comic books.

 

[Bright Raven]

LOL... The point is that the discussion is really about the nature of what God created.

I do believe that God is able to create a world where He foreknows (and by extension determines) all things.

However, I also believe that God is able to create a world with free will agents that are free from prior causality, thus making their future decisions unknowable. Furthermore, only in this kind of environ could God engage in truly loving relationship with His creation, which is the kind of creation that I see God creating.

Thus, I draw the conclusion that God created a universe where the future decisions of free will agents are unknowable, even if all the possible courses of the future are.

(This also solves the problem of evil, something that Reformed theologians and those who embrace EDF are stuck with.)

Muz

Muz, Be serious. With all respect, what you are speaking about is not laughable (Galatians 6:7-8).

You have it backwards. The first question is not about the universe that God created. The first question is what do you believe about the God who did the creating. The true God doesn't fit in your box.

 

[tetelestai]

The true God doesn't fit in your box.

Yes, Muz' God is always changing, didn't know the names of animals, couldn't find Adam and Eve, gets angry, repents, second guesses Himself, makes false prophecies, and has no idea what the future holds.

Muz' God only knows what's knowable, but "what's knowable" is defined by Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Muz, Be serious. With all respect, what you are speaking about is not laughable (Galatians 6:7-8).

You have it backwards. The first question is not about the universe that God created. The first question is what do you believe about the God who did the creating. The true God doesn't fit in your box.

Actually, I don't have any problem at all calling God omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. I also call him just, righteous, holy, merciful and all the things that the historical church has attributed to God. It is true that the question of immutability and impassibility comes up, but even Reformed theologians in recent decades have come to question the absolute nature of these two.

I have no problem with saying that God is immutable in His nature, but to say that God cannot change in any respect is simply unscriptural, and theologians have come to embrace that more recently.

The real question comes in the nature of creation. Did God create a universe where the future is exhaustively knowable?

So, when you're done looking down your nose, we can have a reasonable discussion about this. Galatians 6:7-8 is nothing more than an attempt to smear me personally, rather than deal with the real elements of what I am saying.



Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Yes, Muz' God is always changing, didn't know the names of animals, couldn't find Adam and Eve, gets angry, repents, second guesses Himself, makes false prophecies, and has no idea what the future holds.

Muz' God only knows what's knowable, but what's knowable is defined by Muz

Wow.. more ad hominem.

Well, I always say that this kind of thing is the most begrudging (and satisfying) admission of defeat.

Muz

 

[tetelestai]

Well, I always say that this kind of thing is the most begrudging (and satisfying) admission of defeat.

No, not defeat, the realization that no matter what is presented to you, you are going to give answers like this:

This is a Messianic Psalm, not a prophecy. The evidence points against you.

In Psalm 22:6 Christ says, “But I am a worm.” There are many different Hebrew words for worms, but this is the rarest of them all. This was a special type of worm whose blood was gathered and used in making the crimson dye of the ancient world. This most valuable dye was used for the robes of kings.

Psalm 22:6 pictures Jesus Christ as the worm, crushed on the cross by our sins; and as a result of His being crushed, we now wear the robes of kings. The first six verses of Psalm 22 actually constitute a picture of expiation, but you will never see it because to you it's just a Messianic Psalm, and not prophecy.

 

[Bright Raven]

Actually, I don't have any problem at all calling God omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. I also call him just, righteous, holy, merciful and all the things that the historical church has attributed to God. It is true that the question of immutability and impassibility comes up, but even Reformed theologians in recent decades have come to question the absolute nature of these two.

I have no problem with saying that God is immutable in His nature, but to say that God cannot change in any respect is simply unscriptural, and theologians have come to embrace that more recently.

The real question comes in the nature of creation. Did God create a universe where the future is exhaustively knowable?

So, when you're done looking down your nose, we can have a reasonable discussion about this. Galatians 6:7-8 is nothing more than an attempt to smear me personally, rather than deal with the real elements of what I am saying.



Muz

It isn't about you and it is not about me. It's about God and His nature. If you would have read the post properly you may have discerned the concern for a brother rather than a smear.

 

[godrulz]

godrulz, with all due respect. I do understand what you and Muz are postulating. I serve an immutable God. Your liberal construct/model of a God who learns from His mistakes is not the God I serve. If He were to make mistakes, He could not be trusted to give me a future and a hope. The Bible tells me that Jesus died for my sin. Maybe an imperfect sacrifice? Was it a truth or a mistake? How many changes do you have to make for Him to fit in your box?

Strawman. We also affirm immutability in a biblical vs Platonic sense.

Who says God learns from mistakes? Not most OVTs I know (and I have studied them for 30 years). God is fully trustworthy because of His character and attributes. He is not fickle nor fallible. The weak link is man and fallen angels, not God who is perfect and glorious (don't confuse OVT with the errors of Process Thought).

 

[Bright Raven]

Strawman. We also affirm immutability in a biblical vs Platonic sense.

Who says God learns from mistakes? Not most OVTs I know (and I have studied them for 30 years). God is fully trustworthy because of His character and attributes. He is not fickle nor fallible. The weak link is man and fallen angels, not God who is perfect and glorious (don't confuse OVT with the errors of Process Thought).

Your quote below from "Misunderstandings of Open Theism."

"Must I remind you that I am not omniscient and do not have a photographic memory or detailed catologue system of other's posts like you do? I can barely remember where I put my wallet and keys, let alone keep track of 1300 threads and hundreds of posters and 1000s of posts!? It also does not help if I am sleep deprived and getting older.

I did read your post in the link that you just requoted. It still did not shed light for me. You have internalized it for decades, but this is the first time I have heart the concept (and yes, I still don't get infra/supra straight...I had to review my Ventricular Fibrillation Advanced Life Support guidelines last night because I forgot the new guidelines that are always changing and someone's life could be at stake if the next call was a cardiac arrest...so go easy on me...the guideline is simple compared to your pontifications, trust me).

My paradigm says that God is personal with a will and can act and intervene in history. I don't see a decretal system in Scripture, at least as described by Calvinism (and you guys can't agree on the order anyway). I do not see how immutability is causal vs will/mind. Is this more Aquinas or Edwards philosophy vs biblical exegesis?

God is unchanging in His character and attributes. You affirm strong immutability and other baggage (timeless, aseity, simplicity, impassible, etc.). I affirm weak immutability which agrees that God is unchanging in His essential character and attributes, but not in His knowledge (dynamic as reality changes), relations, experiences, actions, thoughts, feelings (He is personal and Living, not static and impersonal). This is how He reveals Himself in Scripture, even if it does not fit your Platonic philosophy.

I want to understand your view, but you are going to have to throw me a bone. What does immutability have to do with God acting? He acts consistent with His character and out of His attributes, but He is not mechanistic. Change is not always bad, you know."

Weak Immutability. What's that! You have a pretty big box.