ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Evo, I respect your opinion. But until Clete starts respecting other people here then why shouldn't just writeoff his remarks?
Respect is earned, not given away.

Look how he started his "substantial post" by hacking me.
Hacking you?

You're an idiot. I hate you. You disgust me and I genuinely loathe the idea that I had to throw that particular pearl before a filthy swine like you.

I don't know why I have to write a huge substantial post to refute this. It's been absurd from the beginning.
My having said such a thing would have been met with accusations of cowardice.

Jewish scholars and scholars of Hebrew history all agree that the hebrews believe that God is omniscient.
You're so stupid it would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

Nang and others will aree.
Agree has a g in it moron and Nang is a bigger fool than you are.

Clete is ignorant and talks down to people here without any reprehension.
I talk down to the likes of you who are here only to waste people's time and to disrespect everything that could possibly be called intellectually honest. You are everything that is bad about internet discussion forums and the primary reason many respectable people stay away from them and doubt as well as ridicule anything of substance that might be learned from them. You do more harm than you do good and if it were up to me you would be permanently banned.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Hello...I was pondering the OV, when I ran across the book of Ruth.

Does the story of Ruth gleaning from Boaz' field present any problems for OV?
I know Ruth just "happened" to come upon his field, but in the context of the book of Ruth it seems like perhaps God desired or God knew that she would choose Boaz' field...it was important that she did choose his field. Any thoughts?

thanks

God is perfectly able to work with and through those who love Him and in spite of those who hate him. If God wanted her to go to a specific field it would not be any more difficult for Him to have gotten her to do so than it is for you to get a friend to do something you want them to do. It is not necessary for you to know the future in order to plan a vacation with friends well in advance and it is not necessary to overcome anyone's free will in order to get your friends to make their plans in accordance with yours in spite of potential hurdles that must be dealt with along the way, including employers or other family members or whomever that might cause a conflict with your getting your plans accomplished.

If we can set goals and make plans to work with, through or around other people in our lives to accomplish those goals, how much more so is God able to do the same thing? Our having free will does not mean that God is resigned to just sit back and hope for the best. He is powerful and wise and is very able to accomplish all He set His mind too.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I am do not agree with Clete or OT, in fact, I am on your side.
Evo,

I'd love to hear why you disagree with what I said in my Psalms 139 post but I think that you should be aware that the man you just took sides with is not even a Christian. Every time someone has asked him about it, he ignores or avoids the question (that I know of - I haven't actually read every post he's ever made - perhaps he'll clarify for us now but I doubt it). He is a vulgar troll, who is only here to confuse and obfuscate. He wouldn't know a substantive argument from a hole in the ground.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Evoken

New member
Evo,

I'd love to hear why you disagree with what I said in my Psalms 139 post

Sure, I'll see if I can make some time to add some comments. My time is quite limited on weekdays and I still own replies to both AMR and Philetus.

but I think that you should be aware that the man you just took sides with is not even a Christian. Every time someone has asked him about it, he ignores or avoids the question (that I know of - I haven't actually read every post he's ever made - perhaps he'll clarify for us now but I doubt it). He is a vulgar troll, who is only here to confuse and obfuscate. He wouldn't know a substantive argument from a hole in the ground.

I am not familiar with his posting history on these forums, but it says "Catholic" on his profile, so I assumed that he was.


Evo
 

baloney

BANNED
Banned
I've never avoided the question. I am Catholic.

This OV has been refuted by Scripture itself and the history of the Hebrew people.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I've never avoided the question. I am Catholic.

This OV has been refuted by Scripture itself and the history of the Hebrew people.

Very well. Like I said, I haven't read every post. I'll take your word for it. I know several Catholics; your behavior is consistent with theirs for the most part.
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Which context?

I believe you were referring to a verse from John's Revelation.

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

I certainly don't have the power to open the book.

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

God elected those who believe.

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

These writings had already happened. That's true. That doesn't imply in any way that the writing of names in the book is complete.

Muz
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
"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.

Well, that's not how it was properly exegeted in this very thread, so this point is already refuted.

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

Again, for the umpteenth time, This is about covenants not individuals. The context of Romans 9 from the beginning is the difference between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise.

Groups, not individuals.

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


When we are saved, sure.

"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.

You keep saying that, and then you fail to support it with Scripture.

John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, [even] to those who believe in His name,​

Notice that He gave them the RIGHT to BECOME children of God. We still have to walk in that right.

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

ROFL!

Grabbing two verses from completely different contexts to prooftext a point?

How about this one, Nang?

"He went and hanged himself" Matt 27:5
"He who has food should do likewise" Luke 3:11

Are you going to accept that?

(And do I really have to explain the concept of genre all over again?)

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.

LOL.. If we embraced your Calvinist systematic theology, that would be true. But since we embrace the BIBLE rather than Calvinism, we CAN and DO.

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.

Total strawman. This only exposes that Nang knows she's lost, but can't bring herself to admit it. Nothing more.

And who would want to?

Only you.

What is to be gained?

Apparently you wish to sway people away from Scripture and into Calvinism.

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

The OVT movement is about getting back to the bible, about taking off the Calvinist colored glasses and reading Scripture for what it says, not how we can make it fit a system.

Muz
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Hello...I was pondering the OV, when I ran across the book of Ruth.

Does the story of Ruth gleaning from Boaz' field present any problems for OV?
I know Ruth just "happened" to come upon his field, but in the context of the book of Ruth it seems like perhaps God desired or God knew that she would choose Boaz' field...it was important that she did choose his field. Any thoughts?

thanks

No. Naomi knew who Boaz was (he was her relative through her husband), and sent her there interntionally.

Muz
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
I've never avoided the question. I am Catholic.

This OV has been refuted by Scripture itself and the history of the Hebrew people.

That's odd. OVT is established by Scripture itself and repeatedly demonstrated in the history of the Hebrew people, starting with Abraham.

Muz
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Ruth had not seen Boaz, and just "happened" to come unto his part of the field.
She was sent to glean, not necessarily from Boaz' field.

I didn't mean that directly. Ruth wanted to "... go to the field and glean among the ears of grain after one in whose sight I may find favor." I think this indicates that Ruth wanted to look for a kinsman redeemer, and thought gleaning would give her an opportunity for contact.

The only "happened to come" was to Boaz' field, rather than some other relative.

Muz
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Even if it were by chance, wouldn't that alone refute the Settled View?

The Open View can rationally cope with the passage whether it was by chance or not.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Quoting from Clete's post:

Psalm 139:1
For the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David.
1 O LORD, You have searched me and known me.
2 You know my sitting down and my rising up;
You understand my thought afar off.
3 You comprehend my path and my lying down,
And are acquainted with all my ways.
4 For there is not a word on my tongue,
But behold, O LORD, You know it altogether.


The Psalm starts off with a brilliantly eloquent discussion of how well God knows us.

Yes, He knows our every action and our every thought, as well as all our inclinations. There is nothing we speak but that God knows what we say.

“You have hedged me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me.” Psalm 139:4

God limits and controls His children through His Person.

“Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it.” Psalm 139:6

God’s knowledge is greater than mans.


God knows us better than we know ourselves. Indeed, God knows us better than we are able to know ourselves but He does so not because He foreknows everything but because He has access to information about us and why we do the things we do that we ourselves do not have.

“Access to information?” What is the source of that information, except God’s own knowledge that is higher than ours? You say it is NOT because God foreknows the future, so this information must be inherent to something, or somebody? What or who would that be? Who has information to give to God?

Knowledge of what? The know of the fact that God places His protective hand upon His beloved? No, I don't think that is it. It seems to me that David here is amazed that he is one of those beloved!


Psalm 139:6 speaks of infinite Godly knowledge, not mans’ finite knowledge. You cannot take a verse that references God, and interpret it to be speaking of man.

It blows his mind that God would have anything to do with him, never mind protect Him by placing His hand upon Him. David knows that he is unlovable and that he deserves God's wrath and that instead God calls him 'friend' and love him dearly. Such concepts are completely bereft of meaning in a world where ever action, every event is predestined by God and where there is no choice, for love is a choice.

He designed us (as the Psalm will go on to say) and knows us in intimate ways that we cannot imagine.


God made all of us in His image, and God certainly knows Himself.

Using the above verses as teaching context, we learn that being “made in the image of God” means we are creatures that consciously think (as sentient beings), and that we willfully act (as moral agents). We have a human nature (a “way” about us) by which we function, as does the entire creation. Humans function one way, animals function their way, plant life functions its way, and the entire planet and universe is set in order to function according to how God created.

And the above verses say that God governs all our ways, as well as controls all of His creation; by the power of His “hand.”



Notice however that David talks about things we are familiar with. He talks about how God knows what we are going to say before we say it. Anyone with a half way decent marriage understands this concept very well. I finish my wifes sentences for her and she mine all the time! It isn't because I foreknew what she was going to say eons before she said it, it just means that I know my wife and she knows me.

I am sorry, but you introduce a form of mysticism into your exegesis (?). You speak of knowing about things through osmosis or transference, which is not biblical at all.
It is theosophical thought. Which is just a version of “sorcery.” So this explanation of Psalm 139 must be rejected.



The things I say, don't surprise her at all and in the same way only more so the same is true of God, the things we say and think and do, do not come as any surprise to God.

Because of exhaustive foreknowledge, not a mystical reading of our minds.

An excellent example of this is demonstrated for us when Jesus tells Peter that he will deny Him three times. It wasn't because Jesus peaked into the future and "saw" Peter denying Him, its merely because Jesus knew Peter very well and thus knew that he was not as strong as he pretended to be.

Jesus Christ prophesied that Peter would deny him three times; Jesus did not guess according to Peter’s personal quirks. I agree that Jesus did not “peak into the future.” Jesus Christ knows all things, including the future, and works all things past, present, AND future for good for those who love Him. Jesus ordained Peter would make the denials, and He recorded the fulfillment of His prophecy in the Holy Scripture, for the future learning of all His regenerated children.


Peter could have repented and if he had Jesus would have been astonished (as He had been before)

This statement does not accord with the Psalm, nor with the Scriptures at all. This is strictly from your opinion and imagination. Throughout Scripture, repentance of sinners is granted by God. Sinners, dead in their trespasses have no will to repent, and are spiritually unable to repent. Repentance, like faith must be granted from God. See II Timothy 2:25, Acts 3:26, 5:31, 11:18.


God and all of heaven would have rejoiced at Peter's repentance and interestingly the story of it in the Bible would have carried pretty much the same lesson for us that it does today, it just would have been ignored by all the Calvinists of the world, that's all.

If Peter had repented on his own, from his own spiritually-bereft powers, and Jesus was “astonished,” then all of us would live under a different gospel message than what is contained in the Holy Spriptures. Are you exegeting the Psalm, or are you enjoying speculating?



Quote:
7 Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
9 If I take the wings of the morning,
And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 Even there Your hand shall lead me,
And Your right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness shall fall on me,”
Even the night shall be light about me;
12 Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You,
But the night shines as the day;
The darkness and the light are both alike to You.
This section is easy.

If we are His, we cannot escape the immediate presence of God, no matter what. Even if we die physically, God is with us. This is, of course, not so for the unbeliever. For them, physical death (the separation of their spirit from their physical body) makes their spiritual death (their spiritual separation from God) permanent.


This passage teaches the omnipresence of God Almighty. God is present everywhere, at all times, in every part of His creation. (No, I do not suggest "pantheism.") The fact that the grave separates unrepentant sinners from God, is due to the fact that God removed Himself and hid Himself and kept His truth from them while they still lived. Physical death reflects the reality of spiritual death and being reprobate of God.

Sin makes the spiritual separation of God from man, permanent, unless and until God extends His grace and a sinner is regenerated from above by His Holy Spirit. (John 3:3)



13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

God created Adam from dust. When God created Adam, as a mature adult, able to reproduce, God created the entire human race. None of us can explain how God made all things out of nothing; it is His “secret” and unknowable to finite minds. Every child conceived, comes as a miracle from this initial creation. Dust recreating itself into living beings, made in the image of God. These are GREAT teachings and a real glimpse into the wonders and ways of God!



16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.

All men came into being from the mind of God. Those “created in Christ Jesus” came into eternal life from the heart of God. (I John 4:19)



And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.


It is my opinion that this passage completely makes the OV null and void.

God has written, what God has spoken and ordained. That is the substance of the His book called the Bible, that we all study from. In addition to the written word given in type to Moses, by the very finger of God, and the Canons of Scripture preserved throughout the history of the world, for our benefit and learning, there are other books of God mentioned.

This book, revealed in Psalm 139:16 was a book written regarding the sons of God, before creation. The lives of all believers are provided to them from God, according to Covenant made within the Godhead before creation that ordained all human history. This “agreement” between the Persons of the Godhead is revealed during the first days of creation:

“Then God said, ‘Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness . . .” Genesis 1:26a


In Proverbs 8:22-31 we receive revelation into the knowledge and purpose of God, regarding mankind even before Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created:

“I have been established from everlasting, from the beginning, before there was ever an earth . . .Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman; and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him, rejoicing in His inhabited world, and my delight was with the sons of men.” Proverbs 8:23, 30&31


Then there are the legal case histories; the judgmental books.

We will only learn what is contained in these books on Judgment Day:

“And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened . . .And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.” Rev. 20:12


“I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” Matthew 12:36

“Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.” I Cor. 4:5


The Lamb of God will break open all the seals of the books:

“You are worthy to take the scroll (book), and to open its seals, for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” Rev. 7:9

Including, two more books. There will be read the book where God has recorded all the words and conversations of the children of God:

“Then those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, and the Lord listened and heard them; so a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and who meditate on His name.” Malachi 3:16

As well as “The Book Of Life” which pertains to the legal standing of Christians, saved by God and born of His Spirit. Anyone not found recorded in this Book of pardon, will suffer everlasting punishment in the lake of fire as sentence against the charges made against them from the other books:

“Anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.” Rev. 20:15


Bob Enyart’s opinions on Psalm 139; quoted:


Yes, I believe that in His book all my days were written before there was one of them (Ps. 139:16). But the Settled View has the wrong book! This book records the days of the unrepentant too. And God is an Author who has written many books. Christians debate whether or not everyone’s name, the saved and the unsaved, appears in the Book of Life of the Lamb Slain. But regardless, David is not speaking of that book. For the Holy Spirit inspired this, not referring to the book that documents your salvation, and not referring to the book that documents your death, but the book that documents your birth.

David says this book contains the details of “all my days.” And it was written before there were any days of creation and before David was born.

So, the only book this could be, according to revelation of the Bible Book, is a recording of covenant to create made amongst the Godhead before creation. Indeed, the days of all the sons of men were known, and if Mr. Enyart wants to declare this a "Book of Birth," so be it. However, if the births of both saved and unsaved men is a result of eternal Covenant, Godly foreknowledge, and Sovereign design . . . and distinction is made according to the days and works of all men, then
Mr. Enyart has joined ranks with either those who believe that:

“For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30

. . .or Mr. Enyart is a Universalist.

For there is no other theological position. God either deals particularly to save some men, or God saves all who are born (according to his imaginary "Book of Birth").
:chuckle:





In verse 16, David is bragging about God’s extraordinary design of the development of the baby in the womb, but those who desperately look for proof-texts to prop up the Greek concept of a Settled future have wrenched this passage out of context,

But, Mr. Enyart, you said: “This book records the days of the unrepentant too.” If this book contains universal knowledge of the daily lives of every single human being that ever lived, it goes way beyond being a book about fetuses, don’t you think? Clearly, your own words say that God recorded his knowledge of the days of all men in a book, did you not? Now you try to reduce this to a study of embryology . . .written no less in a poetic genre, I suppose? That is not consistent, but it is laughable.


from the third stanza of Psalm 139 which is about the development of the fetus. The embryo goes through the trimesters of development not haphazardly but by direction from God.

The child forms in the womb by God’s intricate plan of fetal development, which we now know He recorded in the written instructions of our DNA, which contains step-by-step, day-by-day directions of the 280 days of gestation, which are the days that the Spirit inspired David to write about. By the context of Psalm 139, the days that are numbered are not the days of your life, but of your development in the womb.


Oh my gosh! This is ridiculous. This is not Scriptural exegesis, but fantasy land.



(By the way, God did not originally design human gestation to be 280 days. After Eve sinned, God announced the curse of pain in childbirth, but this was not because He was a sadist, inflicting pain on future mothers. Rather, God cursed Adam and Eve pronouncing merciful consequences. One of these effects increased gestation to nine months.

Even though He wrote a supposed "Book of Birth" spelling 280 days of trimester gestation; to which David supposedly refers, God changed the details after the fall? How can a book written in eternity, be changed in time? And what is the point of studying Psalm 139 from this context, if it no longer holds true? Mr. Enyart, you grasp at straw . . .

For, “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children,’” (Gen. 3:16).

Scripture interprets Scripture better than Mr. Enyart, for Genesis 3:16 is explained according to the promise in Genesis 3:15. Even though all persons must declare:

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5

Nevertheless, through women giving birth to children was to be the means God would produce the promised Messiah.

“A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is
delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.” John 16:21

“Nevertheless, she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.” I Timothy 2:15


Just one of many biblical examples, of God promising, overcoming, and bringing goodness and salvation, out of all that is sinful and evil.



Conception is used here as a figure for gestation, which God lengthened so that newborns would remain longer in the womb, growing stronger to survive being born into the hostile environment of the fallen world. God had already commanded them to multiply (Gen. 1:28), so this was not a reference to having more children, which is a blessing, but to a longer gestation, which leads to lower infant mortality rates and greater pain in delivery! I only mention this to illustrate that when we throw off the Greek-influenced OMNIs and IMs, we begin to realize that the Bible makes extraordinarily good sense, and that God is not arbitrary, sadistic, nor capricious, but more wonderfully obviously good and loving than we had realized!)

I can’t buy this, let alone swallow it. Mr. Enyart takes too much liberty with the word of God, and does not present proper biblical explanation for his speculations. Methinks this is mostly motivated to distract from the glories of the Psalm, than any show of respect to truth.


Even though Psalm 139:16 refers to the length of human gestation, theologians conditioned by Augustine to look for proof-texts of a settled future, so misconstrue this verse that not one Christian in 100 has been taught that the immediate context of this passage is about the development of the baby.

No, Mr. Enyart, you have it backwards. Psalm 139 teaches the settled future, and the reason that no Christians have historically taught the silliness you labor (sorry) to present, in order to uphold the OV view, is that you are wrong and badly misconstrue these verses; wrenching them from their context, and ignoring the plain sense of the teaching . . .which points to omniscient God who creates all men from the womb of women . . .not fetuses.

My practice, is to read every Psalm in the knowledge they concern Jesus Christ. Often in the Psalms, David is inspired by God, to speak in the Person of Jesus Christ. (i.e. Psalm 22) This passage speaks of God’s foreknowledge and ordination of all things created, but within Psalm 139, when we look to see how it concerns Jesus (according to His words in Luke 24:44), we see a child being conceived from the womb of woman; a God being born a Child:

“. . Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14

“. . For that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit, and she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name, Jesus.” Matthew 1:20b&21

“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given . . .” Isaiah 9:6





Psalm 139:13: For You formed my inward parts; you covered me in my mother’s womb.

God designed the process by which the baby is formed, protecting the little one (Latin, fetus) with the cover of his mother’s womb.

Psalm 139:14: I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well.

David rightly is in awe of the human body, and how “wonderfully” it is “made” in his “mother’s womb.”

Psalm 139:15: My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

David praised God, for even as he developed in the womb, God could see his frame (Hebrew, skeleton, lit., bones) being knit together, “skillfully wrought,” in “my mother’s womb.” By the way, “the lowest parts of the earth” was a common Hebrew expression for “the womb,” as you can see from the reverse use of the idiom in Job 1:21.

Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.

God saw me, who I really am, my substance, my soul-spirit interfaced to my body, all through the extraordinary DNA code which God wrote (which David had no concept of, but which as the author, God knew all about). So, from the moment of conception, “being yet unformed,” that is, just a single cell, in my mother’s womb (but not before conception!), God saw me, and knit me together, and in His book (of His instructions for my awesome development in the womb), all “the days fashioned for me,” that is, all the days which God decreed for the fashioning of a fetus, they were written and set from the very beginning, before a single day’s growth unfolded, even before the first cell divided into two, all 280 days of gestation, from that moment of fertilization!

All of this faulty handling of Scripture, takes the focus away from searching for revelation of the Christ Child, and instead, puts a humanistic slant upon the revelation. Mr. Enyart has taken a Christ-centered Psalm, and made it a man-centered Psalm. Shame!

Sam twice claimed that verse 16 seems clear that God knows “all of the days of our lives.” Let’s eliminate that possibility.

It cannot be done. And it should not be done. Scripture says God knows all the days of all lives.
You concurred with this context and premise at the first, but all your words move away from the truth in the attempt to support a false teaching about embryology instead of Christology. Shame!



Hebrew parallelism, so common in Scripture and especially in the Psalms, is the technique whereby the author repeats the same idea twice, so that we get a deeper understanding of the meaning. Parallelisms are fascinating, and there are nested parallels, and inverted parallels, but the simplest are typical couplets, as exist around the world as a standard structure of poetry (that’s why we have our English word couplet). Read Psalms through and mark the parallelisms and carefully consider them, and by the time you reach Psalm 150, you will have learned more about God than the average church member learns in a lifetime.

Psalm 139:16 is a simple Hebrew parallelism, a couplet. And Hebrew couplets, as in English, typically form a complete thought. (Rhyme however was possibly not as important in Hebrew couplets as in English, for the lines of a Hebrew couplet would “rhyme” in meaning more importantly than in sound.) We know that most chapter and verse divisions were marked by mere men, and so we can argue that some chapters or verses are poorly divided and lead to misunderstanding. But the chapter divisions in Psalms are divinely inspired. And the strong poetical “meter” and parallelism makes the Author’s verse divisions more plain, as we have here.

So now, in order to impress, Mr. Enyart adds technicality to his embryology . . .in the poetic genre, of course. ;)

I am not impressed.

Just another diversion, sent to distract the reader from glories of the Psalm
.

The two sentences of Psalm 139:16 form a couplet, speaking of the same topic, with each further explaining the other. Thus, “the days fashioned for me,” were not the days of my childhood, or my marriage, for these were the days when only God could see “my substance, being yet unformed.” For He knows what a human being is like, in the most extraordinary detail, at the moment of conception. Praise Him!

If conception is the beginning of man’s days, and death is the end of man’s days, there are no days in between that God does not know about and ordain. That is the teaching of the Psalm and the entire Bible.

From the comprehensive answer I gave to your SLQ2, our readers can now understand what drives us to opposite interpretations here. The Open View is free to accept David’s immediate context of fetology, because it is consistent with the greater context of God’s attributes of Him being relational, good, and loving, and because we are not desperate to find a passage that proves that the day of your death is already settled.

The Settled View outright ignores the immediate context of Ps. 139:16, because it is beholden to the Greek-influenced, quantitative, lesser attributes of immutability and knowledge.

IMO, the settled view grasps the immediate context of Psalm 139, and remains consistent and faithful to context, throughtout. God knew the days of all His creatures before He created them, and God designed them to reproduce . . .not only to populate and have dominion over His created world . . .but to produce a Messiah, who would be born as a Child from the womb of His mother.

What is “Greek” about that? (That “Greek” criticism is invented, BTW.)




And worse, Sam, Calvinists further embrace pagan Greek error by exaggerating power and control (above relationship, goodness and love), and teach that God had recorded the day of Conner Peterson’s death, and so He ordained Scott to an adulterous affair and thoughts of bloodshed, and finally, to murder Laci, all in obedience to God’s eternal, unchangeable decree. Sam, I know you love God, but you’ve read even murder into this delightful verse.

This is pure blasphemy, Mr. Enyart. The exhaustive foreknowledge of God does not cause sin. Scripture clearly blames and holds Adam responsible for sin. And Mr. Peterson is responsible and accountable before God for his murder.

What persons are demanding from God, every time this ignorant charge is made, is that if God had foreknowledge of Peterson’s WILLFUL acts, that God should have stopped him. Of course, that would throw you into the determinist camp, would it not. So, instead, you relieve God of these charges, by claiming that God did not know Mr. Peterson would murder. But that does not jive at all with God ordaining and recording all the days of all men in a book, written before creation, would it? But that was indeed where you started with this little exercise in deliberate distractions and speculations.


Through Augustine this Greek influence is ubiquitous. Thus the entire Body of Christ has missed out on this passage as providing biblical teaching on God’s loving care, as shown through all three trimesters of the baby’s development.

Another blasphemous statement. The “Body of Christ” has not missed out on this passage, because this passage does not teach truth as you claim. The “Body of Christ” has been promised that the Holy Spirit would “guide the sons of God into all truth, for He will not speak on His own authority. . .” (John 16:13b) And since you and only a few others, see the Psalm differently than “the entire Body of Christ” must mean that you have not been shown Godly truth.

For indeed, the Holy Spirit teaches only what He hears from heaven. His teaching is always Christ-centered and God centered and Kingdom centered. The Holy Spirit does not teach man-centered, humanistic, embryology . . .especially in a poetic genre!






And even worse, millions of believers are apathetic about the abortion holocaust. (I know, and am glad, that D. James Kennedy is not; but he’s unusual.) And so many Christians I’ve talked to in fifteen years of pro-life work (like my Calvinist aunt) tell me they’re not that concerned about abortion, because after all it’s God’s will.

Well, this fills the gamut. Mr. Enyart has introduced raw emotionalism, to blasphemy, to technicality, to embryology . . .all supposed presented as poetic lyrics to song!

And by the way, to those Arminian Settled Viewers out there, please don’t quote Psalm 139:16 to refute Openness, because you’ll be propping up Calvinism; for if you ignore the Greater Context of the pre-eminence of God’s deeper attributes, and also the immediate context of fetology, then the passage smacks of Calvinistic preordination by God “fashioning” all the days of your entire life including even the day of your death!


Indeed. This is so, for this is what Psalm 139 is teaching.

And some even use this beautiful verse, about how God carefully designed the precious development of the baby in the womb, all nine months worth, to justify a lack of concern for the killing of the baby. After all, God has decreed the day of each death, and that includes abortions. So that means, “you might not like it, but it’s His plan for those babies to be aborted today.” For He wrote that baby’s days in His book, and they just ran out.

So in one of the greatest ironies of theology, the Settled View has turned this verse of God’s plan for the baby’s birth, into a death certificate, effectively sacrificing that little one to a pagan Greek idol.

Pastor Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church


Mr. Enyart, I would not sit in one your pews for even ten minutes. This is disgraceful in substance and tactic. I am not impressed . . .but apparently some others are. They are so impressed, they will use your words to attempt to circumvent the very words of God. See the following, sad, example of your fruit (idolatry):


Thank you Bob for your insights on this awesome passage of Scripture!
All possitive rep for the above excerpt should be given Here

I would give a neg rep, if I believed that was a Christian thing to do. Instead, I took the time to reply with this post.

17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How great is the sum of them!
18 If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand;
When I awake, I am still with You.

19 Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God!
Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty men.
20 For they speak against You wickedly;
Your enemies take Your name in vain.
21 Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
22 I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies.


Amen! God knows all things, controls all things, is omnipresent, and in sovereign control of all His creation. But take pause, and again consider that Jesus taught that the Psalms are “concerning Me.” Who hates with perfect hatred? Jesus Christ alone, for He is without sin.

Clete, this Psalm does not give you liberty to hate, because you cannot hate sinlessly. You are a sinner, Clete. You are not Jesus Christ. And besides; for you to hate even those you consider enemies is anti-Scriptural. (See Luke 6:27, and the greater commandments brought by Christ in Matthew 7:12)



This portion of the passage couldn't be more ironically appropriate for consideration in this thread at this time.

David, after having just exclaimed how precious the thoughts of God are to him and how he wakes up in the morning with God on his mind, launches into biting comments concerning his deep hatred for those who are God's enemies. No doubt if David were to have posted this on TOL, AMR would accuse him of being "an angry and petulant young man".

These words should not be attributed to David, either, for David was also a sinner and incapable of “perfect hatred.” Remember, the Psalms inspired David to speak concerning Jesus Christ, and these words are revelation into His Person, not sinners. David also spoke of his souls not seeing corruption in the grave, but he was speaking of the Christ, as verified in Acts 2:27. Reading this Psalm narrowly or wrongly has caused a hatred to develop and grow in you, that is unfortunate to the extreme.

Perhaps God will yet open your eyes and grant you repentance from misapplying Godly truths to your own person, instead of seeking to learn about the Savior.





23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
Try me, and know my anxieties;
24 And see if there is any wicked way in me,
And lead me in the way everlasting.
AMEN!

Of course the Calvinist believes that any such wicked ways would only be in me if He had put them in me and so such a prayer in the mouth of a Calvinist is irrational and blasphemous nonsense.

No, God did not put these wicked ways in you. You inherited them from Adam, and only God can grant you repentance from wrong beliefs that produce hatred rather than love. Clete, keep praying this prayer, and may God relieve you of where you have been led astray. And as you pray, just put Calvinism out of your mind . . .you cannot handle those truths yet.




But if one, as Bob pointed out, reads this passage as it was intended, with God's relationship in view over and above his "sovereignty" (I put that in quotes because the Calvinist version of sovereignty is a sick joke), then the prayer is beautiful and deep with passion and meaning.

In short Psalm 139 is about the Creator God who condescends to passionately and intimately love and protect His most precious creation, which He made in His own image and likeness. It is not about predestination, it is not about foreknowledge, it does not mention the book of life and cannot in any way be rightly used as a proof text for a Calvinistic worldview. On the contrary, it is perhaps one of the most powerful expression of both God's love more His children and our love for Him. The passage is about relationship, as are virtually all of the Psalms, a concept which the Calvinist cannot rationally cope.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I read Psalm 139 rejoicing in God’s sovereignty and the revelations contained therein regarding His Son, who was born of a woman as a Child. I believe because this amazing birth was pre-ordained and designed by God, we sons of men, reflect the image of God by coming into the world in the same way.

IOW’s, the miracle of birth is centered on the birth of Christ, not the births of men. We are made in His image . . .He was not conceived, born, and lived as a Child, growing into a Man, according to our image.

He is the “firstborn of God.” Not us.

Christians are created in Him (Eph. 2:10); not vice versa.

Psalm 139 is not embryology, or “fetology,” but it is Christology.

“’I AM the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End,’ says the Lord, ‘Who is and Who was and Who is to come; the Almighty.’” Rev. 1:8

All of Holy Scripture is about Him.

Nang
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Nang has offered nothing in the way of substantiation of her idiotic position but spent hours spewing her personal opinions.

The post is entirely without intellectual merit and is not worth the time it would take for a thorough response.

I will leave it for people to read and then they can make up their own mind which position is more loyal to the plain reading of the text. Just ask yourself the following question. "If I were not a Calvinist and had never heard of Exhaustive Predestination or any other Calvinist tenet, would I get Nang's babbling post from having simply read Psalms 139 and taking it for what it plainly says.

In other words, just read the passage! It isn't difficult to understand at all. Read it methodically and take it to mean only and exactly what it says bearing in mind its immediate context.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Nang has offered nothing in the way of substantiation of her idiotic position but spent hours spewing her personal opinions.

The post is entirely without intellectual merit and is not worth the time it would take for a thorough response.

I will leave it for people to read and then they can make up their own mind which position is more loyal to the plain reading of the text. Just ask yourself the following question. "If I were not a Calvinist and had never heard of Exhaustive Predestination or any other Calvinist tenet, would I get Nang's babbling post from having simply read Psalms 139 and taking it for what it plainly says.

In other words, just read the passage! It isn't difficult to understand at all. Read it methodically and take it to mean only and exactly what it says bearing in mind its immediate context.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Bereft of ability to provide decent refutation, eh, Clete?

Nang
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Somone many posts ago implied that Open Theism was akin to Deism. It has also been wrongly associated with Process Thought.

For those who hold to a meticulous control, deterministic model of sovereignty, anything less seems like heresy. Just because God intervenes sometimes does not mean He does so all the time. I know someone who is dying of cancer who thinks God must directly tell her how much pain killer to take. I think it is reasonable to read the directions on the bottle and follow the doctor/pharmacist advice.

Open Theism believes that God can and does intervene if and when He wants to. It does not make mature children if He intervened or micro vs macromanaged. We are the pinnacle of God's creation, not automatons. It takes greater ability, power, and intelligence to providentially, responsively control the universe than to meticulously control it. Reality and Scripture supports a providential model. The existence of evil and mess this world in surely shows that free will and Satan are factors, by God's sovereign choice.

Calvinistic proof texts have alternate understanding that is more credible:noid: :box:
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Evoken's TULIP Response to AMR – Part 2

Evoken's TULIP Response to AMR – Part 2

Notes:
1. My original TULIP post is here
2. Evoken’s reply is located here
3. See here for Part 1 of my response to Evoken’s cogent observations

God's unconditional election can hold while still leaving man free to reject him. A good example of this is how God choose his disciples, yet some of them deserted him and in the case of St. Peter, even went as far as to deny him (Mark 14:66-70). Likewise, we see in the Gospels how Jesus Christ calls those who for one reason or the other, refuse to believe in him. Certainly, if those whom he was calling could not come to him unless he turned them to him first, would he not just turn them so that they believe instead of just preaching to them in vain?
Evoken,

In my previous response I noted that I do hold to the belief that the unregenerate, dead in their sin can cooperate in their salvation. I do not find any biblical support for such a belief system. I do, however, find much support in the spiritual deadness of the unregenerate (see John 1:13; 3:5; 6:44; 8:34; 15:4,5; Rom. 7:18,24; 8:7,8; 1 Cor. 2:14; II Cor. 3:5; Eph. 2:1,8-10; Heb. 11:6). So, for me to say that a person is free to reject God’s call to righteousness, is equivalent to saying that God is unable to accomplish His will for His chosen elect or, that the atonement of Christ was somehow necessary, but not sufficient.

Before going further, I must digress in order to motivate some of what will follow later. Calvinists are generally in one of two doctrinal camps with respect to the divine decrees of God: supralapsarian and infralapsarian. By divine decrees, I mean: The decrees of God are His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, whereby for His own glory He has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. The purpose of God’s decrees were for His own glory, honor, and power (see Rev. 4:11, Num. 14:21; Isa. 48:11; Ez. 20:9; 1 Cor. 1:26-31; Eph. 2:8-10).

The supralapsarian would believe that God’s ordained plan for the created world comprises His discretive decrees in the following order:

1. To elect some to salvation and to reprobate others to damnation for His glory (double predestination)
2. To create the world
3. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
4. To provide a savior for the elect in the atonement of Christ

The hyper-Calvinist position above is known as supralapsarian as it shows that election comes “before the fall” of mankind. For the hyper-Calvinist, God’s discretive will begins with predestination, and the second to fourth decrees are the means to that end. Thus, election and reprobation pertain to man as created, creation is for the sake of salvation/damnation and the fall of mankind serves God’s elective purpose. The supralapsarian doctrine of decrees would have one believe that mankind was created for the sake of election and reprobation—that God created in order to save and condemn. That sin becomes a necessary means to the fulfillment of God’s plan. That creation and the fall serve predestination.

The supralapsarian position was the work of Theodore Beza, Calvin’s son-in-law (and one of Jacob Arminius’ teachers), who formulated it after Calvin died in 1564. I don’t believe Beza would have succeeded in his efforts had Calvin been around. Unfortunately, Beza’s supralapsarianism is what most non-Calvinists think Calvinism represents. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

I do not hold to the supralapsarian position. In other words, I am not what is often called, a hyper-Calvinist. Instead, I and the majority of the members of Reformed churches agree with the infralapsarian (“subsequent to the fall”) confessional view of God’s decrees:

1. To create the world for His glory
2. Allow man to fall into sin through his own self-determination
3. To elect some to salvation in Christ
4. To pass by and leave the non-elect to their just fate and punishment

Here we see election and condemnation pertain to man as sinner. God glorifies Himself through His creation, thus redemption serves the order of creation. Moreover, the infralapsarian position is one of passive reprobation and posits a much closer relationship between Christ and election.

Now back to your point quoted above…

When you say a person may “reject” God’s call to righteousness in the context of Peter, I would argue that what we are seeing from the account is Peter’s weakness if faith, not a rejection of a call to salvation. Peter is clearly repentant afterwards, something only the elect would be when they sin. When Jesus is arrested we are told that all of Christ’s disciples deserted Him. This is not a behavior of the lost rejecting God’s call to righteousness, but the behavior of weak believers (except for the son of perdition, Judas). It is also clear from the Scriptures telling us to deliver God’s word throughout the world, that this evangelization is the predestined means by which the decreed elect are to be regenerated, then come to faith. Otherwise, as you rightfully imply, why bother with missions, evangelization, etc.? Let’s simply wait for God to reach out a tap His elect on their shoulder. We don’t know who the elect are, and therefore we must heed Christ’s command to spread the gospel message to fulfill the means to the elect’s salvation.

(On Limited Atonement)
Here you seem to be on one side of two extremes: either Christ died for all men and thus all men are saved, or Christ died only for the elect and only the elect are saved. However, Scripture states that Christ is the savior of all men (John 4:42, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10), that is, the sacrifice was made for everyone but it is effects are made actual only on those who believe (John 3:16-17, John 20:31, Mark 16:16). In other words, by the atonement Christ intended to make salvation possible for all men, but not actual for all men. St. Thomas puts it quite nicely: "Christ is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect." (Commentary on Titus, I, 2:6).
So, there is a middle ground between both extremes and it is one that is consistent with God's justice, mercy and his desire that all men be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). Your stand would have God desiring the salvation of all men when he already saved a few. The idea you are pushing forth also seems to contradict the divine commission (Matthew 28:19-20), why preach and baptize people if they are already saved after the sacrifice on the cross? Seems rather pointless don't you think? If the redemptive effects of the atonement were made actual for all of the elect at the time it took place, then the elect are already saved and there is no need to preach or even bother reading the Bible.

Yes, I am on the side that Christ’s atonement was not universal, for not all are saved, nor was it for anyone who could potentially reject Christ’s sufficient sacrifice, for the spiritually dead cannot quicken themselves to spiritual life. In short, Christ died for the elect given to Him by God the Father. The atonement meritoriously secured the application of the work of redemption to those for whom it was intended and thereby rendered their complete salvation certain.

Given the totally depraved state of the fallen, if they are to be saved, God must do the saving. But we know that not all are saved. Therefore, God only intends to save some, not all. The designs of God are always surely efficacious and cannot be frustrated by the actions of man. This applies also to the purpose of saving men through the death of Christ. If it had been God’s intention to save all men, this purpose could not have been frustrated by man’s unbelief. It admitted by all that only a limited number is saved. Consequently, they are the only ones whom God has determined to save.

Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ died in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation of the scope of the atonement. Those for whom He suffered and died are variously called “His sheep,” John 10:11,15, “His Church,” Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27, “His people,” Matt. 1:21, and “the elect,” Rom. 8:32-35.

The sacrificial work of Christ and His intercessory work are two different aspects of Christ’s atoning work, and therefore the scope of the one can be no wider than that of the other. Christ very definitely limits His intercessory work, when He says: “I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me” (John 17:9). Why should Christ limit His intercessory prayer if He had actually paid the price for all?

Some may argue that the atonement was universal, but that the application of it is particular; that Christ made salvation possible for all, but actually saves only a limited number. In response, it should be pointed out that there is an inseparable connection between the purchase and the actual bestowal of salvation. The Scriptures clearly teach that the design and effect of the atoning work of Christ is not merely to make salvation possible, but to reconcile God and man, and to put men in actual possession of eternal salvation, a salvation which many fail to obtain (see Matt. 18:11; Rom. 5:10; II Cor. 5:21; Gal. 1:4; 3:13; Eph. 1:7).

Some will assert that the design of God and of Christ was evidently conditional, contingent on the faith and obedience of man. But the Bible clearly teaches that Christ by His death purchased faith, repentance, and all the other effects of the work of the Holy Spirit, for His people. Therefore are no conditions of which the fulfillment is simply dependent on the will of man. The atonement secures the fulfillment of the conditions that must be met, in order to obtain salvation, see Rom. 2:4; Gal. 3:13,14; Eph. 1:3,4; 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II Tim. 3:5,6.

I admit that there are Scripture passages which teach that Christ died for the “world”, see, John 1:29; 3:16; 6:33,51; Rom. 11:12,15; II Cor. 5:19; I John 2:2. But your objection based on these passages proceeds on the unwarranted assumption that the word “world” as used in these passages means “all the individuals that constitute the human race.” However it is perfectly evident from Scripture that the term “world” has a variety of meanings, as a simple reading of the following passages will conclusively demonstrate: Luke 2:1; John 1:10; Acts 11:28; 19:27; 24:5; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:6.

It also appears that, when it is used of “men”, it does not always include all men (see John 7:4; 12:19; 14:22; 18:20; Rom. 11:12,15); and in some of these verses it cannot possibly denote all men. For if the word had that meaning in John 6:33,51, it would follow that Christ actually gives life to all men, that is, saves them all. And no one would agree to this interpretation. In Rom. 11:12, 15 the word “world” cannot be wholly inclusive, since the verse’s context clearly excludes Israel; and because on that supposition these passages too would prove more than is intended, namely, that the fruits of the atoning work of Christ are actually applied to all.

Nevertheless, we do find in these passages an indication of the fact that the word “world” is sometimes used to indicate that the Old Testament particularism belongs to the past, and made way for New Testament universalism. The blessings of the gospel were extended to all nations, see Matt. 24:14; Mark 16:16; Rom. 1:5; 10:18. This is probably the key to the interpretation of the word “world” in such passages as John 1:29; 6:33,51; II Cor. 5:19; I John 2:2. The word means “all nations” in such passages as Matt. 26:13; John 3:16; I Cor. 1:21; II Cor. 5:19; and I John 2:2. But in other passages the word indicates the world of believers, or the Church, see John 6:33,51; Rom. 4:13; 11:12,15.

Closely related to the passages to which I referred to above, are those in which it is said that Christ died for “all men”: Rom. 5:18; I Cor. 15:22; II Cor. 5:14; I Tim. 2:4,6; Tit. 2:11; Heb. 2:9; II Pet. 3:9. Each of these verses must be considered within the connection in which it is found. For instance, the context clearly shows that the “all” or “all men” of Rom. 5:18, and I Cor. 15:22 includes only those who are in Christ, contrasted with all who are in Adam. If the word “all” in these passages is not interpreted in a limited sense, they would teach, not only that Christ made salvation possible for all men, but that He actually saves all without exception. Thus the Arminians, etc., would be forced into the camp of the Universalist, where they do not want to be. A similar limitation must be applied in the interpretation of II Cor. 5:14, and Heb. 2:9, cf. verse 10. Otherwise they would prove too much, and therefore prove nothing. In all these verses the “all” are simply all those who are in Christ. In the case of Tit. 2:11, which speaks of the appearance of the grace of God, “bringing salvation to all men,” the context clearly shows that “all men” really means all classes of men. If the “all” is not restricted, this passage also would teach universal salvation. The verses in I Tim. 2:4-6, Heb. 2:9; II Pet. 3:9 refer to the revealed will of God that both Jews and Gentiles should be saved, but imply nothing as to the universal intent of the atonement.

A third group of verses which seem to bear against the idea of a limited atonement consists of those which are said to imply the possibility that those for whom Christ died fail to obtain salvation. For example, Rom. 14:15 and the parallel passage in I Cor. 8:11. Here the apostle simply wants to bring the uncharitable conduct of some of the stronger brethren in the Church into strong relief. The stronger brethren were likely to offend the weaker, to cause them to stumble, to override their conscience, and thus to enter upon the downward path, the natural result of which, if continued, would be destruction. While Christ paid the price to save such persons, the stronger by their conduct tended to destroy the weaker. That this destruction will not actually follow, is evident from Rom. 14:4; by God’s grace the weaker will be upheld. We have here then a supposition, for the sake of argument, of something that does not and cannot happen, as in I Cor. 13:1-3; Gal. 1:8. Another similar verse is found in II Pet. 2:1, with which Heb. 10:29 may also be grouped. The most plausible explanation of these passages is that these false teachers are described according to their own profession and the judgment of charity. They held themselves out as redeemed men, and were so accounted in the judgment of the Church while they abided in her communion.

Election does not in any way depend on the foreseen faith or good works of man, as the Arminians, etc., teach, but exclusively on the sovereign good pleasure of God, who is also the originator of faith and good works, Rom. 9:11; Acts 13:48; II Tim. 1:9; I Pet. 1:2. Since all men are sinners and have forfeited the blessings of God, there is no basis for such a distinction in them; and since even the faith and good works of the believers are the fruit of the grace of God (Eph. 2:8,10; II Tim. 2:21), even these, as foreseen by God, could not furnish such a basis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top