User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 58

Thread: One on One: Calvinism and the immutability of God.

  1. #31
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston
    That's correct. The change occurred in God's actions, not His plan.
    Did God act against His plan?

    Or were His actions perfectly following His predetermined plan?
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  2. #32
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1706
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Did God act against His plan?

    Or were His actions perfectly following His predetermined plan?
    God never acts against His plan. For example, God's plan was to make "known unto us (individuals) the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed (i.e. determined) in himself: ... [Eph 1:9]

    Paul describes God's actions in accordance with that set purpose:

    Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: ...

    Paul goes on to describe the dynamics by which God, by His actions, by His active working, brings His plan to fruition:

    Eph 1:11 In whom also we (plural pronoun = individuals) have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated (i.e. determined in advance) according to the purpose (same Greek word as v. 9, that which He has determined) of him who worketh (Greek = energeo, the energy, active working of God) all things after the counsel of his own will.

    God's actions toward mankind changed when the dispensation of the Kingdom was set in abeyance and the dispensation of the Body of Christ, The Mystery, the Uncircumcision Gospel, was inaugurated.

    That said, I remind the reader of the purpose of this thread as stated by Knight:
    "This thread is dedicated to allowing Hilston to straighten [Knight] out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism."

    I further remind the reader of where things stand regarding Knight's willful misrepresentation of Calvinists and Calvinism, as well as Knight's public refusal to confront his mentors' misrepresentation in this same area:

    Point 1: Knight earlier noted that his poking and prodding of Mormons revealed that, despite their claims of believing in grace, the Mormons do not REALLY believe in grace.
    Point 2: Knight also claimed that his poking and prodding of Calvinists revealed that, despite their claims of (what you perceive as) unqualified immutability, Calvinists do not really believe in unqualified immutability.

    Corollary to Point 1:If one were to read Mormon writings, one would probably discover that they do not believe in grace.
    Corollary to Point 2:Just as, if one were to read Calvin and Augustine, one would discover that they do not believe in unqualified immutability.

    Conclusion to Point 1: Given the above, I would hope that Knight would not go around telling people that Mormons believe in grace.
    Conclusion to Point 2: Given the above, I would hope that Knight would not go around telling people that Calvinists believe in unqualified immutability.

    But this is exactly what Knight has done, and by now, by his own words, WILL CONTINUE TO DO. Knight has done the very thing his analogy argues against, and in so doing, he has violated his own logic. Not only that, but he has publicly manifested himself as arbitrary in his reasoning.

    Knight has confessed to misrepresenting Calvinism, yet he says he will "absolutely not" recant his accusations. Knight has confessed that he and Bob Hill and Bob Enyart and Clete Pfeiffer accuse Calvinists of a view that Calvinists don't REALLY hold, yet Knight will not set his colleagues straight on this matter so they will cease and desist from this misrepresentation.

  3. #33
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston
    God never acts against His plan.
    If so... where is the change?

    If God planned that Israel disobey and also planned that He would withdraw His support for them isn't that exactly what happened?

    Where is the change in that?
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  4. #34
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1706
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    If so... where is the change?
    The change is in God's actions and in His relationship to Israel. God is a living God. He has real interactions with His creation and His creatures in time. At one point in time, God's actions and relations were a certain way. At a later point in time, God's actions and relations were another way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    If God planned that Israel disobey and also planned that He would withdraw His support for them isn't that exactly what happened?
    Yes. Very good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Where is the change in that?
    The change is in God's actions and in His relationship to Israel. God is a living God. He has real interactions with His creation and His creatures in time. At one point in time, God's actions and relations were a certain way. At a later point in time, God's actions and relations were another way.

    That said, I remind the reader of the purpose of this thread as stated by Knight:
    "This thread is dedicated to allowing Hilston to straighten [Knight] out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism."

    I further remind the reader of where things stand regarding Knight's willful misrepresentation of Calvinists and Calvinism, as well as Knight's public refusal to confront his mentors' misrepresentation in this same area:

    Point 1: Knight earlier noted that his poking and prodding of Mormons revealed that, despite their claims of believing in grace, the Mormons do not REALLY believe in grace.
    Point 2: Knight also claimed that his poking and prodding of Calvinists revealed that, despite their claims of (what you perceive as) unqualified immutability, Calvinists do not really believe in unqualified immutability.

    Corollary to Point 1:If one were to read Mormon writings, one would probably discover that they do not believe in grace.
    Corollary to Point 2:Just as, if one were to read Calvin and Augustine, one would discover that they do not believe in unqualified immutability.

    Conclusion to Point 1: Given the above, I would hope that Knight would not go around telling people that Mormons believe in grace.
    Conclusion to Point 2: Given the above, I would hope that Knight would not go around telling people that Calvinists believe in unqualified immutability.

    But this is exactly what Knight has done, and by now, by his own words, WILL CONTINUE TO DO. Knight has done the very thing his analogy argues against, and in so doing, he has violated his own logic. Not only that, but he has publicly manifested himself as arbitrary in his reasoning.

    Knight has confessed to misrepresenting Calvinism, yet he says he will "absolutely not" recant his accusations. Knight has confessed that he and Bob Hill and Bob Enyart and Clete Pfeiffer accuse Calvinists of a view that Calvinists don't REALLY hold, yet Knight will not set his colleagues straight on this matter so they will cease and desist from this misrepresentation.

  5. #35
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston
    God is a living God. He has real interactions with His creation and His creatures in time.
    How can God truly interact with creation if every action, every event, every thought, everything is predetermined by God in advance? You are asserting that there is a two way interaction between God and creation.

    Yet...

    If EVERYTHING is decreed in advance by God (as you say) there is no real two way interaction taking place. Only the fulfillment of God's pre-witten script is taking place... nothing else.

    Would you agree that REAL TWO WAY INTERACTION requires the acts of at least two agents and not just one?
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  6. #36
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1706
    Here is the purpose of this thread as stated by Knight:
    "This thread is dedicated to allowing Hilston to straighten [Knight] out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism."

    Let's recap:

    First, Knight complains about Calvinists saying that God cannot change in anyway whatsoever.

    Then Knight concedes that Calvinists really do believe God can change.

    Now Knight wants to somehow prove that Calvinists really do not believe God can change.

    And how does he go about this? By questioning a non-Calvinist's view of immutability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    How can God truly interact with creation if every action, every event, every thought, everything is predetermined by God in advance? You are asserting that there is a two way interaction between God and creation.
    It doesn't matter. Call it one-way action if you want. Either way, God's actions change. That's the relevant point. It has been established that the Calvinist believes that God can change, thus the goal of this thread is completed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Yet...

    If EVERYTHING is decreed in advance by God (as you say) there is no real two way interaction taking place. Only the fulfillment of God's pre-witten script is taking place... nothing else.
    There are actions that are decreed in advance as well. Those actions change according to the pre-written script. Does anyone in their right mind believe that no REAL change in action takes place simply because it is all written down in advance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Would you agree that REAL TWO WAY INTERACTION requires the acts of at least two agents and not just one?
    Call it one-way action if you want. Either way, God's actions change. With respect to this discussion, it is an irrelevant question. The relevant question is: Does the Calvinist believe God can change? The answer is yes. This has been established. If you want to know my personal views of these questions, see the links in my signature.

    That said, I again remind the reader of the purpose of this thread as stated by Knight:
    "This thread is dedicated to allowing Hilston to straighten [Knight] out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism."

    I further remind the reader of where things stand regarding Knight's willful misrepresentation of Calvinists and Calvinism, as well as Knight's public refusal to confront his mentors' misrepresentation in this same area:

    Point 1: Knight earlier noted that his poking and prodding of Mormons revealed that, despite their claims of believing in grace, the Mormons do not REALLY believe in grace.
    Point 2: Knight also claimed that his poking and prodding of Calvinists revealed that, despite their claims of (what you perceive as) unqualified immutability, Calvinists do not really believe in unqualified immutability.

    Corollary to Point 1:If one were to read Mormon writings, one would probably discover that they do not believe in grace.
    Corollary to Point 2:Just as, if one were to read Calvin and Augustine, one would discover that they do not believe in unqualified immutability.

    Conclusion to Point 1: Given the above, I would hope that Knight would not go around telling people that Mormons believe in grace.
    Conclusion to Point 2: Given the above, I would hope that Knight would not go around telling people that Calvinists believe in unqualified immutability.

    But this is exactly what Knight has done, and by now, by his own words, WILL CONTINUE TO DO. Knight has done the very thing his analogy argues against, and in so doing, he has violated his own logic. Not only that, but he has publicly manifested himself as arbitrary in his reasoning.

    Knight has confessed to misrepresenting Calvinism, yet he says he will "absolutely not" recant his accusations. Knight has confessed that he and Bob Hill and Bob Enyart and Clete Pfeiffer falsely accuse Calvinists of a view that Calvinists don't REALLY hold, yet Knight will not set his colleagues straight on this matter so they will cease and desist from this misrepresentation.

    Knight can continue to ignore this public indictment against him, and when it all boils down, it matters very little what I or anyone else thinks of him. But God sees what he is doing. Knight should be ashamed of himself.

  7. #37
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston
    It doesn't matter.
    It matters to me.
    There are actions that are decreed in advance as well.
    I thought they all were???

    Are there some actions that ARE NOT decreed in advance?

    Can you give me some examples?


    Does anyone in their right mind believe that no REAL change in action takes place simply because it is all written down in advance?
    Yes.

    I believe that if EVERYTHING is decreed in advance then no real CHANGE can be possible. After all.... words have meaning and change means: To cause to be different.

    How could a rational God cause His plan to be different yet still have that plan happen as planned?
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  8. #38
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1706
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    It matters to me.
    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    I thought they all were???
    They are. All actions and changes in action are decreed in advance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    [b]
    Are there some actions that ARE NOT decreed in advance?
    No.

    Hilston asked: Does anyone in their right mind believe that no REAL change in action takes place simply because it is all written down in advance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Yes.
    Based on Knight's assertion, all the actions in a playwright's script that change are not really changes in action. Based on Knight's assertion, the change in action determined by the architects plans, from building the foundation to erecting the walls of a building, are not really changes in action. According to Knight's assertion, the sifting of flour and the measuring of sugar according to a pre-written recipe is not really a change in action.

    In case it isn't already painfully, abundantly and unequivocally clear to you by now, you are witnessing in Knight the complete breakdown of rational thought into aimless and desperate mental meanderings. Knight has completely lost the focus of this discussion. There is no connection between what he insists on discussing and what the stated purpose of this thread is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    I believe that if EVERYTHING is decreed in advance then no real CHANGE can be possible. After all.... words have meaning and change means: To cause to be different.
    God creates according to His predetermination. God ceases from creating according to His predetermination. He caused His actions to change from that of creating to that of no longer creating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    How could a rational God cause His plan to be different yet still have that plan happen as planned?
    He doesn't. Can anyone help Knight out? Please PM him and tell him what is wrong with his last question. While you're at it, if you care about him, please find out if he is sick, tired, or drunk. Because, seriously, if this equivocation is deliberate, I fear for his soul.

    Knight has confessed to misrepresenting Calvinism, yet he says he will "absolutely not" recant his accusations. Knight has confessed that he and Bob Hill and Bob Enyart and Clete Pfeiffer falsely accuse Calvinists of a view that Calvinists don't REALLY hold, yet Knight will not set his colleagues straight on this matter so they will cease and desist from this misrepresentation.

    Knight can continue to ignore this public indictment against him, and when it all boils down, it matters very little what I or anyone else thinks of him. But God sees what he is doing. Is the Open Theist capable of shame?

  9. #39
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston
    All actions and changes in action are decreed in advance.
    Thanks for the clarification.

    According to Knight's assertion, the sifting of flour and the measuring of sugar according to a pre-written recipe is not really a change in action.
    Of course it's NOT a CHANGE in action, it's just an ACTION!

    If you were to change your pre-planned action you would have to decide to add sugar instead or flour or decide to add only one cup instead of two.

    Hilston you can mock me and insult me all day long. Frankly I really don't care. I am more interested in the topic at hand and I believe it is you who is missing the obvious logical conclusions of your assertions and I also feel you are being a bit hasty and sloppy and not fully thinking through some of what you are saying.

    Will you admit that if a baker PRE-PLANS to add two cups of flour to his recipe and when he gets around to adding those two cups of flour he is not CHANGING his action? Instead... he is simply acting. There is no change.... just action.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  10. #40
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1706
    In my previous post, I asked: Can anyone help Knight out? Please PM him and tell him what is wrong with his last question.

    Apparently, no one has stepped up. This is unfortunate and doesn't bode well for Knight.

    Hilston cogently wrote: According to Knight's assertion, the sifting of flour and the measuring of sugar according to a pre-written recipe is not really a change in action.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Of course it's NOT a CHANGE in action, it's just an ACTION!

    If you were to change your pre-planned action you would have to decide to add sugar instead or flour or decide to add only one cup instead of two.
    No. Try to keep up. What you've described is a change in recipe. The recipe is not the same as the actions and changes of actions that it dictates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Hilston you can mock me and insult me all day long.
    Yes, I can, but I chose rather to treat you as a rational and honest human being. But for some reason, it comes as no surprise that your title "brutally honest judge" no longer applies when your lunch is being handed to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Frankly I really don't care. I am more interested in the topic at hand and I believe it is you who is missing the obvious logical conclusions of your assertions and I also feel you are being a bit hasty and sloppy and not fully thinking through some of what you are saying.
    Riiiiiight. And you thought I was the one having a bad day?

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Will you admit that if a baker PRE-PLANS to add two cups of flour to his recipe and when he gets around to adding those two cups of flour he is not CHANGING his action? Instead... he is simply acting. There is no change.... just action.
    I'll try to spell this out for you, despite the apparent futility of this effort. Please take notes if you have to. I'll go slow:

    The recipe says to acquire a measuring cup of a certain size.
    Action 1: The baker picks up the measuring cup.
    The recipe says to fill that measuring cup with flour.
    Action 2: The baker walks over to an adjacent counter. Note that this is a different action from action 1. Thus, the baker's actions changed from Action 1 to Action 2. Note further that the recipe itself is unchanged.
    Action 3: The baker stops walking. Note that the baker's prior action was that of walking toward the adjacent counter. He has not reached the adjacent counter and has stopped walking. This is a change of action from Action 2.
    Action 4: The baker opens the flour canister. Note how dissimilar Action 4 is from Actions 1 and 2. They look nothing alike. That means they are indeed different. If they were the same action, they would look the same. Since they are not the same action and do not have the same appearance, they are therefore different actions.
    Action 5: The baker places the measuring cup into the flour canister. Now, don't let this confuse you simply because the same measuring cup mentioned in Action 1 is also in Action 5. They are only similar in regard to the presence of the cup. The actions are dissimilar in that Action 1 involved picking UP the measuring cup, whereas Action 5 involves placing the measuring cup INTO the flour canister.

    Note also that despite all of these actions, and all the change of actions, that the recipe itself still has not changed! As mind-blowing as this may be, this is not merely theoretical. I have actually seen this take place. If I can find a video clip of this astounding phenomenon, I will post a link.

    This is probably enough for now. We can continue in the next post if necessary.

    In the meantime, for the readers who have come here to actually read about the topic stated in the OP, I offer the following summary:

    Knight, the resident "brutally honest judge," has confessed to misrepresenting Calvinism, yet Knight, the resident "brutally honest judge," says he will "absolutely not" recant his accusations. Knight, the resident "brutally honest judge," has confessed that he and Bob Hill and Bob Enyart and Clete Pfeiffer falsely accuse Calvinists of a view that Calvinists don't REALLY hold, yet Knight, the resident "brutally honest judge," will not set his colleagues straight on this matter so they will cease and desist from this misrepresentation.

  11. #41
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston
    The recipe says to acquire a measuring cup of a certain size.
    Action 1: The baker picks up the measuring cup.
    The recipe says to fill that measuring cup with flour.
    Action 2: The baker walks over to an adjacent counter. Note that this is a different action from action 1. Thus, the baker's actions changed from Action 1 to Action 2. Note further that the recipe itself is unchanged.
    Action 3: The baker stops walking. Note that the baker's prior action was that of walking toward the adjacent counter. He has not reached the adjacent counter and has stopped walking. This is a change of action from Action 2.
    Action 4: The baker opens the flour canister. Note how dissimilar Action 4 is from Actions 1 and 2. They look nothing alike. That means they are indeed different. If they were the same action, they would look the same. Since they are not the same action and do not have the same appearance, they are therefore different actions.
    Action 5: The baker places the measuring cup into the flour canister. Now, don't let this confuse you simply because the same measuring cup mentioned in Action 1 is also in Action 5. They are only similar in regard to the presence of the cup. The actions are dissimilar in that Action 1 involved picking UP the measuring cup, whereas Action 5 involves placing the measuring cup INTO the flour canister.
    None of those actions are a CHANGE in action as related to this discussion. Yes the baker may have moved his arms and moved his feet around the kitchen but he never CHANGED the recipe or CHANGED an action "To cause to be different.". The baker never caused anything to be different than what it was going to be. Maybe you would like to redifine how you think God changes and limit it to "God can move". Would that be more accurate?

    Let me describe a CHANGE in action for you....

    Action 5: The baker was going to place the measuring cup into the flour canister but CHANGED his mind and placed the measuring cup into the dish-washing machine.

    That would be a change in action not just an act.

    Jim, when actors in a play act out the script they do not CHANGE the ACT, instead they simply ACT the PART.

    I asked you early in this thread to describe how God could CHANGE. I.e., "To cause to be different."

    Going through the motions of a predetrmined script that has been in place for all of time could not possibly fall into the definition of "To cause to be different." For even God's movements were part of the plan that has existed for all of eternity (according to you).Yet maybe you are describing the type of change that is just limited to simple motion. Like a clock or a machine. The hands of a clock move all day long in a pre-determined direction and speed. Any change from that pre-determined motion and speed would cause the clock to be broken. I.e. if the hands moved faster or slower or stopped or moved backwards the clock would be a "broken clock".

    In other words....
    The definition of a functioning clock is.... a machine who's hands move at an exact pre-determined direction and speed which helps us to determine what time it is. The hands of the clock change positions but only according to that pre-determined direction and speed. Is this the type of limited "change" that you believe God possesses?

    Or can He change in other ways besides predetermined motion?


    Last edited by Knight; March 18th, 2006 at 03:57 PM.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  12. #42
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1706
    After my last post, I truly thought it would be the end of this puerile and absolutely sophomoric attempt by Knight to pursue an utterly inept line of (non)reasoning. In his most recent post, Knight has actually tried to get us to forget that the Bible, and common sense, makes a distinction between God's inexorable plan and God's changing actions. Knight has taken on the unbelievably bone-headed task of somehow showing that a plan cannot involve a change in actions. Contrary to every common sense notion of the differences between plans and actions, Knight has sewn together a Frankenstein monster of irrational pseudo-theological concepts, void of reason, void of life. It's a Frankenstein monster that never got up off the table. And despite the obvious and embarrassing lack of coherence in his arguments, he continues to apply the electro-shock paddles to its dead, rotting carcass, pathetically hoping for a spark of life. It's been four days and it stinketh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    None of those actions are a CHANGE in action as related to this discussion.
    God's plan involved initially fighting for Israel, and later not fighting for Israel. If God fought for Israel (Action 1), then ceased from fighting for Israel (Action 2), then there is a definite change in action. Action 1 is not anything like Action 2. They are different. One action changed into another, all in accordance with God's predetermination. God changes His actions right on schedule with His plan to do so. That has been the claim from the start. You now have taken on the absolutely indefensible task of trying to prove that God does not change His actions if the actions are planned in advance. It is laughable. We all make plans. Go to the grocery store, stop by the bank, pick up the kids, get gas. All that involves changes in actions according to a script.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Yes the baker may have moved his arms and moved his feet around the kitchen but he never CHANGED the recipe or CHANGED an action "To cause to be different.".
    The recipe is not supposed change, just as God's plan does not change. The baker's actions changed, just as God's actions change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    The baker never caused anything to be different than what it was going to be.
    Correct. Nor does he have to in order to experience change in his own actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Maybe you would like to redifine how you think God changes and limit it to "God can move". Would that be more accurate?
    It doesn't matter. As long as God experiences change, the point is made, the case is proven. You, The Bobs and Clete have all misrepresented Calvinism, by your own admission. You absolutely refuse to recant, retract or to confront your mentors about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Let me describe a CHANGE in action for you....

    Action 5: The baker was going to place the measuring cup into the flour canister but CHANGED his mind and placed the measuring cup into the dish-washing machine.
    No, that is a change of mind, not a change in action, and no longer has anything to do with the recipe. This is absolute desperation we're all witnessing, and it's ludicrous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    That would be a change in action not just an act.
    No, it would be a change of mind. You said so yourself. And it would be a complete disconnect from the plan (the recipe), so any semblance of correspondence to God's planned changes of action has been lost entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Jim, when actors in a play act out the script they do not CHANGE the ACT, instead they simply ACT the PART.
    The script doesn't change, the actions acted by the actors do, just as God's plan doesn't change, but the actions acted by God do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    I asked you early in this thread to describe how God could CHANGE. I.e., "To cause to be different."

    Going through the motions of a predetrmined script that has been in place for all of time could not possibly fall into the definition of "To cause to be different."
    On the contrary, God caused His actions to be different, just as His script decreed it would.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    For even God's movements were part of the plan that has existed for all of eternity (according to you).Yet maybe you are describing the type of change that is just limited to simple motion. Like a clock or a machine.
    It doesn't matter. Motion is change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    The hands of a clock move all day long in a pre-determined direction and speed. Any change from that pre-determined motion and speed would cause the clock to be broken. I.e. if the hands moved faster or slower or stopped or moved backwards the clock would be a "broken clock".
    Irrelevant. As long as the clock moves, despite being locked into a predetermined direction and speed, it is undergoing change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    In other words....
    The definition of a functioning clock is.... a machine who's hands move at an exact pre-determined direction and speed which helps us to determine what time it is. The hands of the clock change positions but only according to that pre-determined direction and speed. Is this the type of limited "change" that you believe God possesses?
    No, but it doesn't matter. As long as there is movement, there is change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Or can He change in other ways besides predetermined motion?
    It doesn't matter. He experiences change, just as Calvin and Augustine said centuries ago. Despite all of this wasted and irrelevant arm-waving, you're still faced with the embarrassing position of refusing to recant and retract false charges, which you and your cronies, by your own public admission, have lobbed against Calvinists.

    For the readers who have come here to actually read about the topic stated in the OP, I again offer the following summary, which can be checked against previous posts for accuracy:

    Knight, the resident "brutally honest judge," has publicly confessed to misrepresenting Calvinism, yet Knight, the resident "brutally honest judge," says he will "absolutely not" recant his accusations. Knight, the resident "brutally honest judge," has publicly confessed that he and Bob Hill and Bob Enyart and Clete Pfeiffer falsely accuse Calvinists of a view that Calvinists don't REALLY hold, yet Knight, the resident "brutally honest judge," will not set his colleagues straight on this matter so they will cease and desist from this misrepresentation.


  13. #43
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilston
    After my last post, I truly thought it would be the end of this puerile and absolutely sophomoric attempt by Knight to pursue an utterly inept line of (non)reasoning. In his most recent post, Knight has actually tried to get us to forget that the Bible, and common sense, makes a distinction between God's inexorable plan and God's changing actions. Knight has taken on the unbelievably bone-headed task of somehow showing that a plan cannot involve a change in actions. Contrary to every common sense notion of the differences between plans and actions, Knight has sewn together a Frankenstein monster of irrational pseudo-theological concepts, void of reason, void of life. It's a Frankenstein monster that never got up off the table. And despite the obvious and embarrassing lack of coherence in his arguments, he continues to apply the electro-shock paddles to its dead, rotting carcass, pathetically hoping for a spark of life. It's been four days and it stinketh.
    Jim couldn't you have squeezed a few more adjectives into that paragraph?

    I realize this thread is waaaaaaay below you and your superior intellect is very likely being insulted simply discussing this issue with a mere amateur such as myself.

    On the bright side you did refer to me as "sophomoric" which is certainly a step up from "freshmoric". Eventually (if I am lucky) I might move all the way up to "seniormoric" and possible even graduate and get my masters as you have.

    Until then I will continue groveling at your feet o' wise one.

    Jim, truth be told I am merely trying to get my mind around your "qualifications" for immutability. I haven't been trying to win any points or trap you in any arguments. I am truly interested in what you have to say.

    Now back to the show....

    You stated...
    It doesn't matter. Motion is change.
    I agree. And would you agree that is the extent of your "qualification" for God's immutability?

    Jim's qualified immutablilty: God can move.

    Are there any other qualifications? And do you believe your "qualification" is similar to what true Calvinism would adhere to?
    Last edited by Knight; March 20th, 2006 at 03:21 PM.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  14. #44
    ...then I woke up. Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    26,925
    Thanks
    389
    Thanked 2,335 Times in 1,100 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    128 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1097775
    Jim?
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  15. #45
    Over 1000 post club Hilston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    1706
    I. The Purpose of This Thread
    This thread has reached a conclusion. It's purpose has been served. The stated purpose of this thread, according to Knight's own words, was "allowing Hilston to straighten [Knight] out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism."

    II. What This Thread Was Not About
    Knight also stated that he did not intend this as a debate. He wrote:
    It is not my intention to use this thread as a debate thread but instead I would rather just let Jim explain his position to me so I have a more clear understanding of it. That doesn't mean I wont make an objection here or there but for the most part I have made a commitment to myself to keep my guns in my holsters and simply learn from Jim whom I have a great deal of respect for.
    The purpose and method were clear at the onset. I was to explain the Calvinist view (not my own view, which I clarified in my opening post). Knight said he would offer objections, but refrain from turning this into a debate.

    In his most recent posts, Knight has all but insisted on steering this discussion off-topic, by pursuing my own beliefs as if it has anything to do with his fallacious accusations against Calvinism. Knight thus demonstrates that not only an unwillingness to acknowledge the purpose of this thread (to understand the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism) but goes against his own word by turning this into a debate about my beliefs, and not Calvinism.

    III. Divine Change Is All That Matters In This Discussion
    Whether or not Knight can "get [his] mind around" the qualifiers of immutability that Calvinism espouses is irrelevant to the purposes of this discussion. All that matters is that Calvinism teaches divine mutability, contrary to Knight's, Bob Hill's, and Bob Enyart's accusations and misrepresentations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Jim, truth be told I am merely trying to get my mind around your "qualifications" for immutability.
    Let's suppose, for the sake of simplicity in the discussion, that the only way a Calvinist qualifies God's immutability is that God changes in His actions, i.e. He moves. That alone suffices to demonstrate that Knight has misrepresented Calvinism and has made false accusations against them publicly. By his own admission, Knight has falsely slandered Calvinism by erroneously making the accusation that it teaches unqualified immutability.

    IV. Knight's Contradictory Behavior
    Here is the evidence and necessary logic of the case against Knight's behavior:

    Point 1: Knight earlier noted that his poking and prodding of Mormons revealed that, despite their claims of believing in grace, the Mormons do NOT REALLY believe in grace.
    Point 2: Knight also claimed that his poking and prodding of Calvinists revealed that, despite their claims of (what you perceive as) unqualified immutability, Calvinists do NOT REALLY believe in unqualified immutability.

    Corollary to Point 1: If one were to read Mormon writings, one would probably discover that they do not believe in grace.
    Corollary to Point 2: Just as, if one were to read Calvin and Augustine, one would discover that they do not believe in unqualified immutability.

    Conclusion to Point 1: Given the above, One would expect that Knight would NOT go around telling people that Mormons believe in grace.
    Conclusion to Point 2: Given the above, One would expect that Knight would NOT go around telling people that Calvinists believe in unqualified immutability.

    Here is a summary of the points of the case demonstrated against Knight's behavior:
    ~Knight, Bob Hill and Bob Enyarthave mischaracterized Calvinism, QED.
    ~Knight openly and publicly admits to doing so willfully, even knowing that his charges were false, QED.
    ~Knight openly and publicly refuses to, and will "absolutely not", retract his false accusations, QED.
    ~Knight openly and publicly refuses to, and will "absolutely not", say anything to correct Bob Enyart or Bob Hill of their likewise egregious distortions and slander, QED.

    Knight has confessed to misrepresenting Calvinism, yet he says he will "absolutely not" recant his accusations. Knight has confessed that he and Bob Hill and Bob Enyart accuse Calvinists of a view that they don't REALLY hold, yet he will not set his colleagues straight on this matter so they will cease and desist from this misrepresentation.

    V. Indictment Summary: Knight's Double Standard And His Deliberate Bearing of False Witness
    Knight is guilty for having knowingly and deliberately, by his own admission, mischaracterized, misrepresented and distorted the teachings of Calvinism on divine immutability. He baldly states that he refuses to, and will 'absolutely not' retract his distortions and mischaracterizations. As if that were not bad enough in its opposition to biblical teaching, disregard for the Body of Christ, and of bearing false witness, Knight is also guilty of special pleading. Note the following:

    In September of 2004, Knight wrote the following:
    Quote Originally Posted by Knight
    Jim... it is you who is missing the point! Do you know how many times here on TOL I have been told God cannot, and does not change in ANY way?

    I wish I had a dime for every time that has been typed here on this forum. Therefore it is irrelevant what you or Calvin say, the point is that the people who follow Calvinistic theology seem to believe that God cannot change so that is where the argument lies. If you and Calvin think otherwise... GREAT!!! Now help us convince everyone else of that!
    Note that, by Knight's own admission, Calvinists really do NOT, when poked and prodded, believe in unqualified immutability. Knight now knows, having read the excerpts provided in this discussion, that Calvinism does not teach unqualified immutability. Knight also knows that his cohorts, Hill and Enyart, continue to bear false witness against Calvinism, but, by his own public declaration, he will "absolutely not" do anything to correct them. Yet, over a year ago, Knight asked that I do the very thing he himself refuses to do, to wit, "Now help us convince everyone else of that!" Knight knows the truth. He knows that he and his cronies misrepresent Calvinism; he knows what Calvinism really teaches. Every point of the case I've presented, the misrepresentation, the true beliefs of Calvinism, and now we see concerning the matter of setting "our own people" straight, Knight has affirmed and agreed. Yet, despite having stated elsewhere that I should set other Settled Viewers straight, he will "absolutely not" do that which he himself urged me to do over a year ago.

    Having said all this, did anyone really expect a different outcome? I know I didn't. I've led about a dozen horses to this same watering hole. The horses just stand there and look at each other, hooves firmly embedded in the mud, refusing to drink, telling each other what the water tastes like, refusing to bend their necks to taste it for themselves. Soon, here comes Hilston, with yet another Open Theist horse in tow. The horse takes his place amid the other horses, but before he can drink, the other horses start telling him what the water tastes like. Before long, his hooves are stuck in the mud as well.

    Knight has done -- and by his own words, will continue to do -- the very thing his own examples and analogy argue against. Not only that, but Knight has not followed his own reasoning and advice when it comes to setting his own people straight. In all of this, at least a few things are clear: Knight has violated his own logic, and has done violence to logic itself. Knight has shown that he does not practice what he preaches and has publicly manifested himself as arbitrary in his reasoning. Claiming for oneself the title "brutally honest judge" infers that one has a firm grasp of logic and is able to judge rightly. By Knight's own admissions, he has disqualified himself from wearing that title. QED.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us