One on One: Calvinism and the immutability of God.

[Nathon Detroit]

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?

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

:vomit:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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. :bow:

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?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jim?

 

[Hilston]

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.

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:

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.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jim, why waste our time?

Your last post was entirely pointless. It was filled with nothing but a copy and paste job of your last few posts with no new content or response to my last post whatsoever. How am I going to understand your qualifications of God's immutability if you are unresponsive and evasive?

Granted you have a great talent for using derogatory terms and hurling insults. I wont challenge you in that arena. (U D Man!)

However, in my last post I asked a perfectly legitimate follow up question.

If you rather not to answer it just say so and we can close this thread and I will focus my energy elsewhere.

You stated...

It doesn't matter. Motion is change.

To which I responded...

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?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jim... now is your chance to go straighten two folks out.

Both Apologist and Jobeth arguing that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. I even gave then one of your examples to see if I was misrepresenting them.

It was no surprise to me that I wasn't.

JoBeth
Apologist (starting at my post)

 

[Hilston]

Jim... now is your chance to go straighten two folks out.

Both Apologist and Jobeth arguing that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. I even gave then one of your examples to see if I was misrepresenting them.

It was no surprise to me that I wasn't.

JoBeth
Apologist (starting at my post)

They're not Calvinists!

I've been corresponding with Jobeth. She's not a Calvinist. Ask her yourself. Apologist is not a Calvinist, according to the following link: Click here.

This is what absolutely staggers the mind: Open Theism actually affects the way its adherents think. I'm not making this up. I see it all the time, and this current discussion with Knight is no exception. Knight knows that the purpose of this thread is for me to show him what divine immutability is according to Calvinism. It has been shown repeatedly. Knight has gone as far as admitting that Calvinists really do NOT believe in unqualified immutability. So whatever Calvinist he finds who says they believe in unqualified immutability really does NOT believe in unqualified immutability, by Knight's own admission.

But even given that concession, what does Knight do? He still tries to find anyone who believes in unqualified immutability. But here's the thing: They're not Calvinists! How could Knight forget that as a key component to this discussion? How does that happen to a person's mind? What is it that prevents Knight from following a straight-line course of discursive thought? I suspect it is the effects of the poison of Open Theism upon the mind that has left him in such an addled state.

... To be continued ...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

They're not Calvinists!

Of course not, who is???

Knight knows that the purpose of this thread is for me to show him what divine immutability is according to Calvinism. It has been shown repeatedly.

So far... from what I can tell, you believe that God can change to the extent that He can move in a predetermined motion - like a clock or a machine.

That type of change is very narrow and confined, I normally use that argument with Calvinists as my EXTREME example just to see how far they have thought through what they are saying.

However, I am glad you at least employ any qualification.

I wish more folks wouldn't waste our time by arguing against that qualification.

ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD....
This thread is dedicated to allowing Hilston to straighten me out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism.

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.

And that is what I am trying to get from you Jim (a clear understanding).

OK, so here we are...
Jim has affirmed that he believes that God can change in a predetermined way (as in motion).

I will ask this for the 4th time:

Is that your ONLY qualification for immutability or are there other qualifications?

If there are no other qualifications we can wrap this thread up, right? Yet if there are other qualifications we should probably start discussing them so we can keep moving forward.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jim, no big deal but the whole idea of these One on Ones is to be more like a normal TOL thread except limited to just a couple participants. The One on One is not meant to be a Battle Royale style, take three days to compose a response kind of deal.

If this thread slows down too much or one participant is spending too much time composing their posts the thread becomes boring and doesn't make for good "internet".

This thread should be more as if me and you are just talking at a diner or on the phone.

So, while I am not trying to rush you I would also like to remind you that we normally put a two week limit on these One on One threads to keep them moving and then cut them off before they get off track and boring.

At this point you have given us one "qualification" for God's immutability (God can move). Are there any other qualifications you would like to "hip" us to?

Would like like to add anything further to the discussion?

 

[Hilston]

Hi Knight,

I. Huge Waste of Time, Or Deliberate Obfuscatory Arm-Waving?

Jim... now is your chance to go straighten two folks out.

Both Apologist and Jobeth arguing that God cannot change in any way whatsoever. I even gave then one of your examples to see if I was misrepresenting them.

It was no surprise to me that I wasn't.

Hilston wrote: They're not Calvinists!

Of course not, who is???

Why would you ask me to straighten out two folks who aren't even Calvinists? This is nothing but disingenuous, evasive, arm-waving distraction. This has all the appearance of blind desperation in an effort to prove that you're not crazy, like you're no longer sure whether your claims are real or imagined. All these thousands upon thousands of posts and you can't find a single Calvinist who espouses unqualified immutability? So desperate that one of your cohorts had to go outside of TOL in an effort to find one, and to no avail!? It appears that you've resorted to calling everyone who is not an Open Theist a Calvinist. That's psychotic, Knight. That's a grave disconnect from reality. Seriously, did you even think before you wrote that post? Or was it all knee-jerk?

II. Double Standard (AGAIN)
Note also the double standard (again). Knight wants me to straighten out two people who aren't even Calvinists. Yet he will not practice what he preaches and straighten out Bob Enyart and Bob Hill, two people who are the quintessential Open Theists on this forum! How does he look in the mirror? How does he sleep at night knowing that he has been shown to be absolutely arbitrary in his reasoning IN PUBLIC, NO LESS!?!? Seriously, if I had done this, I would be losing sleep until I came clean and admitted to the readers and my fans that I had let them down by having committed such a blatant faux pas.

III. Missing The Point (AGAIN)
Hilston wrote: Knight knows that the purpose of this thread is for me to show him what divine immutability is according to Calvinism. It has been shown repeatedly.

So far... from what I can tell, you believe that God can change to the extent that He can move in a predetermined motion - like a clock or a machine.

What I believe is irrelevant. Don't you see that? What is with your psycho-ex-girlfriend-esque fixation on MY beliefs? This is about YOUR distortions and false accusations, TO WHICH YOU'VE AGREED!

I believe God can change His actions, even as a non-corporeal Being, quite unlike a clock or a machine. God can change in His relationship to people as well. God can change in His manifestations amid creation. God can change in the expressions of His glory and wrath and love. None of these constitute a change in His essential nature or character, which are immutable.

The Open View, on the other hand, espouses a God who, by bringing its theology to its logical conclusion, is less than God, being subject to the whims and wills of finite man, unable to lift a finger to accomplish anything in the world, impotent to answer prayer, aloof from the workings of His creation, and utterly blind in the purposeless randomness of the universe. It is the picture of a God created in the image of man, Opposable Thumb Theism, who is really less than man, having been stripped of His essential attributes that define Him as God (omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent, immutable and impassible) and assigned instead the attributes of "good, living, personal, loving and relational," all attributes that could just as well describe a bassett hound. Open Theists are wont to say, "God ways are higher than our ways, but they're not lower." Well, by Open Theists' own descriptions and the logical conclusions to which they run, God is indeed lower.

But this is all irrelevant to THIS discussion. My position on THIS matter has been clear from the start. There is no deficit in your understanding, Knight. There is only a deficit in your honesty and integrity. Prove me wrong.

IV. Do Calvinists Really Exist?

That type of change is very narrow and confined, I normally use that argument with Calvinists ...

What Calvinists? Do you mean Arminians? They're not Calvinists. Do you mean Amyraldians? They're not Calvinists either. Do you even know the differences between them? I already know you don't care, by your own admission, but do you even know that they're vastly different?

However, I am glad you at least employ any qualification.

Everyone does when poked and prodded, right? You admitted so yourself, which is why you need to have a talk with Bob Enyart and Bob Hill so they will cease from their slander.

I wish more folks wouldn't waste our time by arguing against that qualification.

You're the one to blame, Knight. You waste time accusing them of something they do not REALLY believe. You've said so yourself. Maybe if instead of chasing your fabricated wild goose, you had more people helping you out, like Bob Enyart and Bob Hill, you could make more headway on the matter. But as long as you allow them to continue falsely accusing Calvinists of that which they do not believe, you're going to continue wasting your time.

V. My Position, For Those Who Have Not Been Paying Attention

ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD....
This thread is dedicated to allowing Hilston to straighten me out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism.

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.

My position is, and has been since the start of this thread, that you and Bob Hill and Bob Enyart misrepresent Calvinism. I have explained my position, given proof to support it, and have found that you fully agree with my position. You have publicly agreed that you three, Knight and the Bobs, misrepresent Calvinism. Yet, you refuse to retract your false accusations, and you refuse to correct The Bobs for their distortions.

And that is what I am trying to get from you Jim (a clear understanding).

What don't you understand about my position? You've agreed with my position since the first page of this discussion. The problem still lies in your stubborn refusal to follow through by doing the right thing and correcting what you and the Bobs have falsely claimed about Calvinism.

VI. Answering The Irrelevant Question (AGAIN)

OK, so here we are ...

Jim has affirmed that he believes that God can change in a predetermined way (as in motion).

I will ask this for the 4th time:

Is that your ONLY qualification for immutability or are there other qualifications?

Obession. Fixation. Obfuscation. Strategem. Distraction. The question is utterly irrelevant. Besides, you already know the answer to this question. You asked this on the first page of this discussion, and despite the absolute irrelevance of my personal beliefs to this discussion, I answered the question when it was asked. So why are you asking me this again? Are you even following the discussion? Do you remember anything that has preceded? Are you so heck-bent on forgetting your flawed Mormon Grace Analogy that you've forgotten everything else as well?

Yet since you assert that God isn't entirely immutable (yet is limited to "qualified" immutability) would you feel comfortable making the general claim ... God is not immutable?

I replied on March 15th: "Not without qualification. God is immutable in His essence and character, but He is not immutable in His actions or His manifestations."

Would you feel comfortable making the general claim God is NOT immutable?

I replied on March 15th: "If I were speaking or writing regarding God's essence and character, no. If I were speaking or writing concerning God's actions or manifestations, yes."

VII. Do Mormons Believe In Grace?
Knight, do you go around telling people that Mormons believe in grace? If you had friends that went around saying that, wouldn't you be concerned and urge them to stop saying that?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I believe God can change His actions, even as a non-corporeal Being, quite unlike a clock or a machine.

Yet only if the action is part of God's eternal unchanging plan. Therefore any "change" is in appearance only.

God can change in His relationship to people as well.

Yet according to you both man and God's actions are predetermined in every detail a millennia in advance. Therefore any "change" is in appearance only.

God can change in His manifestations amid creation.

These "changes" in manifestation occur precisely the way God predetermined an eternity in advance. Therefore they are changes in appearance only.

God can change in the expressions of His glory and wrath and love.

But only if the expressions are part of the eternal plan. Therefore they are changes in appearance only.

Jim, you believe God can "go through the motions". That is the extent that you believe God can change. Ultimately none of the changes you list are any different than a clock's hands changing in a predetermined speed and direction.

In other words... if I asked you if a clock could change you might say... "yes, it's hands move around in circles! Notice the second hand moving from the 1 to the 5?" And I might respond... can the clock change in any OTHER way? And you would respond... "YES! Now the second hand is moving from the 6 to the 12!" :doh:

Those are not descriptions of two different types of changes. The clock can only change in a predetermined way and that predetermined way never changes, which is exactly how you describe God's "qualified" immutability.

 

[Hilston]

Notice the (il)logic at work here. Both sides agree that the Second Person of the Trinity experienced change in the incarnation. But according to Knight, that change is only a REAL change if it was NOT planned. If the incarnation was planned, then it was not REALLY a change, but a change in appearance only.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Notice the (il)logic at work here. Both sides agree that the Second Person of the Trinity experienced change in the incarnation. But according to Knight, that change is only a REAL change if it was NOT planned. If the incarnation was planned, then it was not REALLY a change, but a change in appearance only.

Great point!

God does plan some changes.... like the incarnation, and I am glad that you agree that is a type of change. But what about events in the Bible where God claims a change of plan has occurred "to cause to be different than it was going to be"? Not a planned change like the incarnation but a change based on God's discretion in response to man's disobeidence or some other factor. What happens to your qualification then?

Your overall context is that EVERYTHING is a part of an exact predetermined eternal plan. You believe that events only appear to be changes (as in your example of God withdrawing support from Israel).

You believe the change is in the appearence (the fullfillment of the eternal plan).

Lets look at a specific example in the Bible and apply your qualification to it.

1 Samuel 15:10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, 11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments.

If the future is open... the above verse means exactly what it says. Saul didn't follow God's command and therefore God withdrew His support for Saul.

Yet if the future is settled... God is simply "going through the motions" of His eternal plan. God didn't REALLY repent from appointing Saul King because He planned that Saul would disobey Him and then planned that He would "act" as if He was repenting from His support of Saul. It was all an act!

The only "change" that is happening in 1st Samuel (according to you Jim) is the appearance of change that was predetermined for all eternity. No different that the change of the hands of a clock moving in a predetermined speed and direction.

So while I am glad you acknowledge that movement is a type of change it doesn't alter the debate in any meaningful way that I can see.

 

[Hilston]

Great point! God does plan some changes.... like the incarnation, and I am glad that you agree that is a type of change.

Was the incarnation a REAL change or a change in appearance only?

But what about events in the Bible where God claims a change of plan has occurred "to cause to be different than it was going to be"?

It doesn't make sense on the Open View. There is no "was going to be" in the Open View, because the future didn't exist. On the Open View it can only become what it becomes. Period. The Open Theist cannot say anything about "what was going to happen," because what ends up happening is the only thing that "was going to happen."

Not a planned change like the incarnation but a change based on God's discretion in response to man's disobeidence or some other factor. What happens to your qualification then?

Nothing. It's still a qualified scenario whether the change is unilaterally/unconditionally effected or contingently effected.

Your overall context is that EVERYTHING is a part of an exact predetermined eternal plan. You believe that events only appear to be changes (as in your example of God withdrawing support from Israel).

Incorrect. All changing events and actions of God are real changes, just like the incarnation was a real change, all in accordance with the blueprint, perfectly carried out like clockwork.

You believe the change is in the appearence (the fullfillment of the eternal plan).

Of course. Just Jesus was sent in the appearance (schema) of sinful flesh (Ro 8:3). It was in appearance, and it was real.

Lets look at a specific example in the Bible and apply your qualification to it.

1 Samuel 15:10 Then came the word of the LORD unto Samuel, saying, 11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments.

If the future is open... the above verse means exactly what it says. Saul didn't follow God's command and therefore God withdrew His support for Saul.

Note the blatant eisegesis here. In typical Open Theist fashion, Knight takes a verse that doesn't say anything about the future ~ not one thing ~ and uses it as a prooftext for the Open View. The verse says that God changed His mind (a poignantly figurative way of making emphatic reference to God's change of actions) toward Saul. He gives the reason for His change of actions: Saul's disobedience. And all according to God's inexorable decree. God's change of action perfectly carried out His decree, like clockwork. Even better than clockwork, because clocks fail; God does not.

Yet if the future is settled... God is simply "going through the motions" of His eternal plan.

Was the Son simply "going through the motions" of God's plan when He was incarnated?

God didn't REALLY repent from appointing Saul King because He planned that Saul would disobey Him and then planned that He would "act" as if He was repenting from His support of Saul. It was all an act!

By your logic, Jesus' incarnation was "all an act."

The only "change" that is happening in 1st Samuel (according to you Jim) is the appearance of change that was predetermined for all eternity. No different that the change of the hands of a clock moving in a predetermined speed and direction.

The changes of the hands of a clock are real changes. Just like the incarnation of Christ was a real change.

So while I am glad you acknowledge that movement is a type of change it doesn't alter the debate in any meaningful way that I can see.

At least not to the Open Theist, that's because Open Theism reduces the incarnation to something meaningless. Jesus' incarnation and subsequent suffering and death really don't accomplish anything because it is dormant, stagnant, impotent until Man, the Free Will Bully, comes along and adds the Power of Faith to the mix. Only then is salvation actual, according to Open Theism, thereby making Christ's death insufficient and impotent to save.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Was the incarnation a REAL change or a change in appearance only?

You tell me.

It doesn't make sense on the Open View. There is no "was going to be" in the Open View, because the future didn't exist. On the Open View it can only become what it becomes. Period. The Open Theist cannot say anything about "what was going to happen," because what ends up happening is the only thing that "was going to happen."

That isn't true.

God has plans, intentions, desires all of which can act as a "going to be". God was going to overthrow Nineveh, that plan was a "going to be"! Yet Nineveh repented so God relented. His "going to be" changed in response to man (praise the Lord!!).

The moment God had Jonah tell Nineveh...

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

Do you believe that was a actual possible version of coming events? I.e., Was the threat a real threat?

Incorrect. All changing events and actions of God are real changes, just like the incarnation was a real change, all in accordance with the blueprint, perfectly carried out like clockwork.

Clockwork? Interesting choice of words.

The changes of the hands of a clock are real changes. Just like the incarnation of Christ was a real change.

We agree! (I already stated that in my last post)

 

[Hilston]

I. The Jesus of Open Theism Merely Went Through The Motions
Hilston asked: Was the incarnation a REAL change or a change in appearance only?

You tell me.

It is a REAL change. But YOU are the one reducing God's PLANNED changes to "going through the motions" and being "all an act." So tell me, in your view was the PLANNED incarnation a REAL change or was it "all an act"? Was the Son just "going through the motions"?

Hilston wrote: It doesn't make sense on the Open View. There is no "was going to be" in the Open View, because the future didn't exist. On the Open View it can only become what it becomes. Period. The Open Theist cannot say anything about "what was going to happen," because what ends up happening is the only thing that "was going to happen."

That isn't true.

God has plans, intentions, desires all of which can act as a "going to be".

So what. So do I, but my plans, intentions and desires are not "what is going to be" merely because I wish them to be. On Open View premises, do God's wishes make them exist in the future? On the Open View, didn't God wish for Saul to be a righteous king? Was that somehow the future because God wished it?. "Going to be" is meaningless on the Open View, and is merely a God-wish according to the logic of Open Theism. The future doesn't exist for the Open Theist, remember? So there can be no "going to be."

II. The Open View's False Prophet God

God was going to overthrow Nineveh, that plan was a "going to be"! Yet Nineveh repented so God relented. His "going to be" changed in response to man (praise the Lord!!).

Open Theists refuse to acknowledge the obvious ellipsis and context of Jonah's prophecy, erroneously presuming that he was declaring the future, as opposed to giving a warning. The figure of ellipsis is one of the most powerful and pervasive linguistic devices in scripture. Add to that the numerical symbolism and the meaning of the passage and prophecy are unmistakable and ineluctable. Jonah's prophecy was warning Nineveh to repent, not announcing their future destruction, that's why they had 40 days. If Jonah were future-telling, God would have destroyed them on the spot, just like He did the sons of Korah. The plan was for the Ninevites to repent, not for God to "eventually" destroy Nineveh when He got around to it 40 days later.

Note further that somehow God The False Prophet gets a pass on failed prophecy. If God was telling the future through Jonah, Jonah should have been judged as a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13 and 18).

III. Open View Tears God Down, Raises Man Up
Please note the modus operandi of the Open Theist. bound and determined to turn God into the quintessential False Prophet. The impetus behind this goal is the Open Theist's reason for existence: To secure for themselves freedom from God, total autonomy and final authority.

How do they set about to accomplish this? The steps are as follow:
(1) Under the guise of "freeing" God from any association with evil, the Open Theist strips God of His transcendent attributes, i.e. His omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, impassibility and immutability, and in the example above, Knight turns God into a false prophet;
(2) Under the guise of extolling God's hatred of evil, the Open Theist over-emphasizes God's imminent attributes, i.e. that He is living, loving, good, personal and relational, all attributes that could just as easily apply to Snookie, my neighbor's cat.
(3) Under the guise of affirming justice, and all the while ignoring its true definition, the Open Theist makes man completely and totally autonomous by insisting that man's will must have libertarian freedom, otherwise God could not justly hold them accountable;
(4) Under the guise of affirming genuine love, and all the while ignoring its true definition, the Open Theist makes man the final authority by insisting that man must choose for himself whether or not God will save him.

What methods are used by the Open Theist to accomplish this?
(1) To sit in judgment of God by seizing upon apparent contradictions and failed prophecies in the Bible, and explain them by declaring God's ignorance;
(2) To sit in judgment of God by seizing upon apparent contradictions and failed prophecies in the Bible, and explain them by declaring God's lack of foresight;
(3) To sit in judgment of God by seizing upon finite and figurative descriptions of God as changing and emoting, and to explain them by declaring God's ignorance and lack of foresight.

This is what Knight does, just like every other Open Theist I've encountered over the past eleven years. He takes a couple passages of scripture that seem to contradict or appear, at first blush, to demonstrate a failed prophecy from God. He then eisegetically uses them as prooftext for his false theology. Does he bother to study them out to see what the verses really mean? No, there's not reason to. It says what it says. Nevermind that the linguistic device called "ellipsis" couldn't be more glaring. If the verse seems to support his view, there's no reason to check it. Instead he jumps on the apparent failed prophecy and declares: See! See! Either God is less than God and utters false prophecies, or else the Bible contradicts itself. And since the latter cannot be true, the former must be.

Such is the mission and purpose of Open Theism. If a passage seems to say that God is fickle, don't even consider that it might be a figure of speech intended to emphasize rich, poignant, and wonderfully important insights that the original audience would have readily understood. Use it to prove that God is fickle. If a passage seems to say that God is too dumb to see something coming (i.e. is surprised by something), don't even consider that it might be a figure of speech intended to emphasize rich, poignant, and wonderfully important insights that the original audience would have readily understood. Instead, use it to prove that God is a dimwit. If a passage seems to say that God is ignorant, don't even consider that it might be a figure of speech intended to emphasize rich, poignant, and wonderfully important insights that the original audience would have readily understood. Use it to prove that God is ignorant. If a passage seems to say that God uttered a false prophecy, don't even consider that there might be a figure of speech involved, intended to emphasize rich, poignant, and wonderfully important insights that the original audience would have readily understood. Use it to prove that God is a False Prophet. And so on, ad nauseum.

Here's the diffierence in approaches to such passages:
The Bible student who believes in a God who is really God sees these descriptions in the Bible and concludes, "God cannot be fickle, dimwitted, ignorant, or utter false prophecy, therefore these must be figures of speech conveying something even more emphatic and important than would appear on the surface; I'd better study this out."

The Unsettled Incidental Theist sees these descriptions and jumps immediately to the conclusion that God is less than God, just as Knight has done regarding the so-called "failed prophecy" of Jonah. God is infinite, unbounded, supreme. Nothing is greater than God, yet the Open View makes the future greater than God. God is not subordinate to anything, not time, not man, not man's judgment, not man's will. Yet the Open Theist will readily and eagerly seize upon any verse they can twist to make God subordinate to all of these. And since God's attributes of being "good, personal, living, relational and loving" (i.e., the Neighbor's Pet Attributes) take priority over everything else, then He really can't do anything, which is what has been demonstrated abundantly in my posts, abundantly evident in the inability of any Open Theist to tell me one thing that God actually, actively is doing in their lives on a daily basis. What is God actively doing in your life right this moment? The Open (Incidental) Theist has no answer.

IV. What are the results of Open Theist theology?
(1) God is reduced to an incidental being who does not know the future, cannot tell the future, and cannot really, actually, actively DO anything;
(2) Man is exalted to a level of total autonomy and final authority on all matters related his own life and eternal state.

What is the conclusion concerning Open Theism?
Open Theists have succeeded in created a God in their own image and have thereby committed the sin of Adam. They have sought to independently, on their own will, on their own judgment, authority and autonomy, to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that is, to acquire autonomous knowledge and judgment apart from God. Such a theology is powerful and compelling to the innate rebellion and sinful nature of man. This is the Broad Road, appealing to the basest level of sinful humanity. Open Theism impugns and denigrates God, thereby pulling Him down. Open Theism exalts man's freedom and autonomy from God, thereby giving man the final authority of all matters concerning his own life and eternal state. Open Theism is nothing new. It started in the Garden of Eden, and has existed in one form or another ever since. Its goal is to tear God down and to build man up, to make God less than God and to make man more than man. It is humanism with a Luciferian impetus. With man as the final authority, God has become incidental.

Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul My judgment? wilt thou condemn Me, that thou mayest be righteous?

The moment God had Jonah tell Nineveh...

"Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"

Do you believe that was a actual possible version of coming events? I.e., Was the threat a real threat?

All of God's threats are real, even for the elect prior to regeneration.

Clockwork? Interesting choice of words.

And a fitting one.

Hilston wrote: The changes of the hands of a clock are real changes. Just like the incarnation of Christ was a real change.

We agree! (I already stated that in my last post)

You CAN'T agree, because the incarnation was PLANNED, remember? By your logic, there wasn't REALLY any change. Since the Son was just "going through the motions," it was merely "all an act." With every post, Knight demonstrates in widescreen high definition, that the Open View not only poisons the mind, it also sufficiently distorts the ability to reason, perverts one's sense of honesty and integrity, and is simply unable to sustain a consistent and biblical conception of God and history.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Why do I bother?

Why do I bother?

Jim, apparently you and I cannot communicate.

You take the words I type and twist and mutilate them beyond all meaning. I make a clear statement and you say I said the exact opposite of what I have said.

Your entire last post is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what I have been saying all along. I would love to chalk this up to me not presenting my case clearly however you have proven that this is your method of operation. You have a long history of abusing your friends words.

I hope and pray that I am never so intent on winning an argument that I behave the way that you do. When I woke up this morning I fully intended to heap some compliments on you for a fun conversation and let you have the last word even though I was a bit frustrated we couldn't discuss this topic in a more friendly way. I was happy that we had reached agreement in at least a couple areas but then I read your last post and I was appalled and offended.

You have no intentions of discussing any of this in a fair and reasonable manner. I guess I should have known better from my dealing with you in the past but hey, I am the eternal optimist and I was hoping this time would be different.

Good luck in the future building up strawmen to tear down on molehill mountain.