TOL's James Hilston Agrees: Yes, God Can Change!!

[Nathon Detroit]

I didn't realize I needed to get pre-approved... Sending Knight a private message now...

It's all set up. You can make your first post (create a new thread) whenever you are ready.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Do NOT tell me to shut up again.

Yeah... that's not a good idea... I have seen Poly when she is angry. :shocked:

 

[koban]

Yeah... that's not a good idea... I have seen Poly when she is angry. :shocked:

Hey, I warned him!

 

[drbrumley]

Jesus prefaced that statement with, "But I tell you the truth". How do you trust this god you've created when he says, "I tell you the truth" and then doesn't follow through? Is this where open theism leads you?

Oh you of little faith.

 

[sentientsynth]

I thought that was a joke.

Originally Posted by Hilston

Originally Posted by Knight

3. Other than specific events that He brings to pass, God leaves the future open (the best label for this belief might Open Theism)​

I can think of other labels, but I will keep them to myself. :guitar:​

That's being awfully touchy, Poly. It's clear that jab was intented playfully. If Jim wanted to have been rude, he would have shared those "other labels," in my opinion. At least, that's what I would have done, had I wanted to be rude.

Any other examples?

 

[novice]

Fallen angels kick against God's decrees. Elect angels do not.

Yet according to you even these "kicks" are by God's decree. Therefore you have said a grand total of zero. Let's review, God decree's some angels fall and some do not, God decree's that fallen angels "kick" against the decree (which means nothing) and un-fallen angels do not "kick" against God's decree's (which is all by decree of course). :dizzy:

The entire exercise means absolutely nothing.

 

[bachartsayid2]

James gets my vote for "post of the day"!

James gets my vote for "post of the day"!

Major premise:[/b] Lucifer is more aware of the extent of God's knowledge than people.
Minor premise: Lucifer behaves as if the future is open.
Conclusion:The future must be open.

I wonder if it would have taken much for him to convince you to eat some illegal fruit.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

:first: My nomination for post of the day!! :first:

 

[Johnny]

Oh you of little faith.

It appears you didn't read what I had just quoted.

 

[sentientsynth]

Hey Jim.

I was doing some thinking about the apo/pro distinction in God's elections earlier and, honestly, I'm not too sure if I get it. I mean, I understand what "apo" and "pro" mean. But what does it mean that one election was before the foundation of the world and another is from the foundation of the world?

I'm hoping you would break it down for me in easily understood terms.

You're the best... man.


SS

 

[Hilston]

But what does it mean that one election was before the foundation of the world and another is from the foundation of the world?

I'm hoping you would break it down for me in easily understood terms.

Of course I really can't break it down for you because I made the whole thing up just to avoid Jeremy's question and to annoy Poly, DoogieDuh, Kobutt and ApologeticPadawan.

I joke! I joke!

The creation is called the "kosmos" for a reason: God created it to be orderly, and He created according to a logical order in His own thinking (determinate will). The created order, according to God's election, is as follows:

1. The Body of Christ, chosen in logical order before creation
2. True (i.e. Elect) Israel, chosen in logical order after creation
3. The Elect of the Nations, chosen in logical order after creation

Curiously, the order of the revelation of their each respective gospel is reversed (the first shall be last, and the last shall be first):

1. The gospel of the Nations (the gospel of Noah) is revealed first;
2. The gospel of the Kingdom of Israel (the gospel of Moses) is revealed second;
3. The gospel of Body of Christ (the Mystery, i.e. Paul's gospel) is revealed last.

The significance of the order of their choosing relates to each dispensation's future Hope. The Hope of Israel and the Nations is to dwell on earth, worshipping YHWH in their respective lands for sempiternity. The Hope of the Body of Christ is to dwell in the heavenlies with Christ, righteously governing the angelic ranks as they administrate over the earthly affairs of Israel and her kingdom.

The fact that the Body of Christ was chosen (in logical order) BEFORE God's decision to create the earth is profoundly significant when one considers that the Body of Christ does NOT have an earthly Hope. It is fitting that God's choosing of the Body of Christ therefore secures a Hope that is not upon the earth, but rather in the heavenlies. It also follows that God's choosing of the elect of Israel and the nations should happen FROM the foundation of the world, since the Hopes of Israel and the nations are earthly in nature.

More details can be found in the link I provided in my recent post to Poly. I wonder if she's read it yet? If you have further questions, just holla.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[sentientsynth]

:up:

Thanks, Jim! That was very informative.

You sure are a kind, sweet gentleman, Jim. A highly cordial correspondent.

Take care!

 

[Hilston]

Hi Vaquero45,

It's a shame that your post got neglected amid the obfuscation and distraction of these others. You made some excellent observations and asked superb questions that deserve an answer. I'm very sorry I let your post float this long. I should not have done that. Below is my response to your post.

Hilston wrote: Planning evil it for good purposes is not the same a doing evil it for evil purposes. The former is righteous, the latter is evil.

I don't think you can have your statement above, because the "doing evil for evil purposes" part is also on God in the settled view.

It's not possible, V. Nothing can be "on God" in the sense that He is held culpable. He tells us that everything He plans is for good, even things that evil men, by His decree, intend for evil.

His plan, His idea, and His fault?

Fault implies responsibility. God is responsible to no one; God answers to no one. Culpability cannot rationally be attributed to God. Actions, yes. Plans, yes. Fault, no. Job attributed the evil that befell him to God, but did not sin in doing so because He did not try to blame God or hold Him responsible. Instead, He recognized that God uses the evil He has decreed for His good purposes. He chided his wife for thinking like an Open Theist:

Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.​

Originally Posted by Hilston: The Settled View understands that God cannot do evil, and that everything He has planned is for the good of His chosen ones. He works all things together for good for those who are the called according to His immutable purposes. He has promised to work in His chosen ones, both to will and work for His good pleasure. He says He has foreordained (predestinated, decreed) in advance good works for us to do. He says He will bring to completion the good work He has begun in us. He has planned evil to bring about many of these predestined results, and it is righteous of Him to do so.

Same as above. If God planned all evil, including the evil that men do and the evil will to do it, and only for "good", then all evil is good.

How so? What Joseph's brothers did to him (selling him into slavery) was intended for evil. But God decreed their evil for good. What they did was not good, but God designed and orchestrated their evil for His good purposes. This is why we can trust Him. And this is why the unbelieving hostile world should be terrified of Him.

Why does God get frustrated when we defy His will, if that evil is actually good?

When the scriptures describe God's emotions in human terms, it is intended to convey a prescriptive truth with emphasis. When we defy His will, it comes as no surprise because He decreed that defiance. The descriptions He gives of His emotions are designed to show how contrary man's evil is to God's prescriptions. Have you read the link to my site on the differences between God's prescriptive and decretive wills?

To me, it is necessary that our good or bad will is our fault, if God judges righteously.

I agree with you. And God's judgment is completely righteous by holding us at fault.

Originally Posted by Hilston: He cannot be unrighteous. He doesn't have the ability or a choice in the matter. He cannot deny Himself. He cannot oppose His own decrees.

I'm not 100% sure of the wording but I basically agree. I believe God's character is immutably good, but God can make free choices within His own "good" will, and would not deny Himself, as you also say. (did that make sense?).

Then would you agree that God is not free to be evil? Bob Enyart believes God could choose to hate if He wanted to. That is not being immutably good.

Originally Posted by Hilston: The Open Theist has no assurance, because their God is not righteous in character or in nature, but righteous by choice. Which means He can choose today to become unrighteous.

Why do you say the OV's God is not righteous in character or nature?

Nature/character pertains to what God is intrinsically, essentially. If God has the potential to do evil, then He is not intrinsically or essentially righteous in nature/character.

You claim that the OV'ers can't trust God to stay good, but (again from our side) your "God could be evil?" problem is much worse.

Not at all. God is immutable in His nature and character. That means God cannot do evil; He cannot go against His own decreed purposes. We can completely trust Him to be immutably good and to work all things in our behalf for good.

Hilston wrote: Not at all. We know God plans evil for good purposes and we have full confidence, unwavering assurance, unshakeable faith in God's immutable nature and character, His inability to lie or to deny Himself.

I'm confident that God could not be evil for the same reasons, ...

I'm surprised. It really is not consistent with Open Theism to think the way you do. Bob Enyart believes God can be evil if He wants to.

... but don't believe He planned all evil, including the will of men to do so.

If you don't, then you cannot really trust Him to secure your future.

To answer your question above for myself, I do not think God "can" become evil, because He "immutably" does not want to.

Why doesn't He want to? Is it because He will not desire to become evil, or because He cannot desire to become evil?

Originally Posted by Hilston: If He is not righteous by nature, intrinsically, essentially, then His goodness is not immutable.

Hmmmm... I do believe His nature is intrinsically and essentially righteous, unless I'm missing a definition. Again, I'm not sure why you say the OV God is not.

If God can choose evil, then He is not essentially good. If God is good is His very essence, then it is impossible for Him to do evil. For example, if God is essentially true, then it should be impossible for Him to lie ~ not only a desire to be true, but a total inability to be untrue. And that is in fact what the scriptures say: It is impossible for God to lie. He is without the power or strength to lie. The same Greek work is used to describe a man who was congenitally crippled. He was without the ability or power to walk. The Bible says God absolutely cannot (strong negative in the Greek) deny Himself. This means God is essentially true, not true by choice, but immutably true.

Hilston asked: Is [God's] character perfect by choice? Or is He essentially perfect by nature? It can't be both.

I don't catch the dichotomy I guess. I believe He is perfect by nature, which to me implies perfectly good character. Operating in that nature, all His choices are good. I'm not sure why God can't be free, and have perfect character.

He IS free, but not free to do that which is contrary to His own character. That is, if He is essentially perfect and good. But according to Bob Enyart, God has the capacity and ability to do evil if He wants to, which means that He is NOT essentially perfect and good.

If you want to say He is not free to deny Himself I suppose I agree, but that is like saying God can't do what God will not do. Seems obvious.

It IS obvious, but not to most Open Theists. You seem to be an exception, V. Most Open Theists I've encountered believe that God can do contrary to His will. They believe Jesus actually had a different will than the Father's in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[Yorzhik]

Sigh... I don't have time for this, but the topic is too interesting.

Then please tell us what you really believe by filling in the blanks below:

Jesus' will was ____(your answer here)_____.
The Father's will was ______(your answer here)______.​

Jesus' will was to reconcile the relationship between God and man.
The Father's will was to reconcile the relationship between God and man.

It might help to offer an example of opposing wills (or not, as the case my be). It should not be possible to have two opposing wills within the same person. But, for instance, I will readily tell you that I don't want to be fat which is something I know how to avoid. However, I'm fat. So do I have opposing wills? No, the truth of the matter is that I do want to be fat because I like too much food enough that I cannot possible lose weight. It isn't opposing wills, because a single person can only have 1 will, however, one possible will is pushed out of existence because the actual will is one that likes too much food.

This is eisegesis. The notion is neither supported by logic nor scripture. Jesus, in the form of man, divested Himself of the vast knowledge that was His before the incarnation, knowledge which the Father still had while Jesus was supposedly trying to find a better way to arrive at the same outcome. Open Theists suggest that rather than trust the Father's will to be best, Jesus was trying to find a better way. After everything He had already said about He and the Father being one, His will being completely submitted to the Father, that He does nothing of His own, but rather according to the will of the Father, etc., Open Theists claim that Jesus was trying to come up with a better plan. Amazing.

I'm not seeing how this is bad theology.

Bad theology would be God decreeing from/before the foundation of the world that Jesus would have an opposing will (understanding we are talking about God's decree and not Jesus' prayer, per se).

Hilston wrote: So, according to your view, Jesus had to be coerced into it, right? He had to be persuaded, whether by circumstances or something else. He didn't want to do it, according to your view.

Persuaded would be more appropriate, although this might be considered somewhat strong since Jesus was already going to go with the Father's solution even without the Father considering persuading. Still, I wouldn't be opposed to using the word "persuade".

Prior to Jesus submitting, according to your view, Jesus was not convinced that the Father knew what was best, otherwise, He would not have explored other options. This is classic Open Theism.

So you would say that Jesus had an opposing will to the Father's will? And I mean that in either the Open View understanding or the Settled View understanding.

Hilston wrote:For it to be true that Jesus actually did not want to go through with it, He would have had to contradict HIS OWN WORDS when He said the following:...Do you see how irrational your view is?

Oh, no, not irrational. Jesus would have been happy not to have all those things He said come to pass if He could have gotten the same result and avoided those things.

There's a difference between what the Open View espouses and what the logical conclusion to those espoused beliefs are. Rest assured that if I say something that Open Theists believe that you disagree with, it is because I've taken an Open Theist claim to its logical conclusion. You can call it a straw dummy, and I will show you how it logically follows. You can then attempt to show me how you wiggle out of it. That's how these discussions usually go.

If Jesus/God did not know the future exhaustively, then it would logically flow that Jesus could pray to do something another way than the Father without it being a contradiction of wills. Isn't that correct?

It makes sense to trust a God whose future-telling prophecies do not fail and come to pass in precise accordance with His decreed will. When the careful Bible student reads a scripture that seems to contradict the trustworthiness of God, the default assumption should be that God is never wrong, that His Word is inerrant and infallible, that one's understanding is incomplete and that the passage bears further study. The Open Theist assumes that God was in error, the logical conclusion of which is that He cannot be trusted.

Let's say a father says he is going to take his children to a movie, but they disobey, so he changes his mind and stays home to take care of some character training instead - is that father in error?

Hilston wrote: He says that to man because man does not have exhaustive knowledge and foreknowledge, which is required in order to use evil for good.

What is good and evil? Following your logic; All things are decreed God, thus all things are good.

It's a bad argument only from the standpoint of humanism, existentialism, and the Open Theist. That's why Open Theists believe God is in error with a lot of His prophecies. They don't see that exhaustive knowledge is required to secure the future. The Settled View, Logic and Scripture recognize that the only way One can know that a planned evil would certainly result in good is if One knows and controls all related circumstances and outcomes.

Some time ago, I was trying to work you through the concept of "solving a game". It shows conclusively that exhaustive knowledge is not required to secure the future.

The concept is foreign to the Open-Theist reading of the scriptures, read through Open View lenses.

This concept is foreign because your premise that:

... Every time the Bible talks about trusting God, it is in the context of God's immutability and His immutable will, which includes every meticulous quantum-sub-micromanaged detail of the future.

Cannot be true. For example, 2 Sam 22 talks a lot about trust and could be sung to either the OV or SV concept of God.

I don't; but I'm not an Open Theist. This is the Open View's attempt at a legal loophole. On Open View tenets, isn't taunting Satan by calling attention to Job tantamount to taunting an alcoholic with a bottle?

Perhaps. But let's say it definitely is. What's your point? It certainly isn't that temping an alcoholic with a bottle shows meticulous control, is it?

Are you saying that it wasn't God's plan for Satan to attack Job? Are you saying that God was actually surprised when Satan decided to do evil things to Job?

Why do you think the only response is surprise when something isn't known exhaustively? Even I won't be surprised by your response, even though I don't know what it is. Well, that isn't entirely true. If you were to sincerely say that you realized you were wrong ... I would be SHOCKED.

First; that isn't what is being described in the encounter in Job.

Second; it proves my point. Some response can be surprising, and others not surprising. If all responses that were not known exhaustively were one way or the other, then you'd have a point.

Hilston wrote: Of course Satan knows, just like all Open Theists know, deep-down. But Satan, just like every Open Theist, is in denial. Lucifer is the quintessential Open Theist.

Satan is in denial about God's foreknowledge when making a bet? That's your argument?

It's not my argument. It's what the text says. Humanists and existentialists have a severe disconnect at the foundation of their reasoning. They have trouble acknowledging that one's nature or character are essential, i.e., of their essence. It is an essential attribute of Lucifer, the proto-existentialist, to be a deceiver and to be self-deceived.

This wouldn't be self-deception, but stupidity or psychotic delusion. Self-deception is always based on irrational possibilities, but is tempered by intelligence or sanity. Some would describe self-deception as "using the best wrong argument".

Be that as it may, a matter of degree or opinion, you would also have to admit that logically according to your view that Satan was just as self deceived even as an Angel.

It only appears that way when reading God's Word through Open View lenses.

It appears that way because that's what the text says.

Fallen angels kick against God's decrees. Elect angels do not.

Then, logically according to your view, Satan was not elect even when he was an Angel.

Notice what ApologeticJedi has unwittingly betrayed, which I've been saying for quite a while: Open Theism is Luciferian. Adam came to a similar conclusion using similar reasoning. Lucifer is an angel, right? He's shiny, really smart, and he is shiny and has had personal face-time with God. Did I mention how shiny Lucifer is? So should we listen to what he says and model our thinking after his?

Major premise: Lucifer is more aware of the extent of God's knowledge than people.
Minor premise: Lucifer behaves as if the future is open.
Conclusion:The future must be open.

This is correct if we can be allowed to modify your conclusion just a bit: Yes, if we could modify your conclusion to "Lucifer adds weight to the idea the future is open". Certainly your conclusion doesn't have to be as conclusive as it's stated to be correct, right? You don't think that Satan believing the future is open is the most conclusive evidence the OV stands on, do you?

I wonder if it would have taken much for him to convince you to eat some illegal fruit.

Not sure. But probably no more than yourself.

 

[fool]

He IS free, but not free to do that which is contrary to His own character. That is, if He is essentially perfect and good. But according to Bob Enyart, God has the capacity and ability to do evil if He wants to, which means that He is NOT essentially perfect and good.

This is somthing that I'm still pondering, Bob brought that up in my debate with him.
If there is evil that God can do then a definition of evil exists beyond God's character.
Hence our definition of good and evil don't come from God, since he is unable to change them.

 

[koban]

This is somthing that I'm still pondering, Bob brought that up in my debate with him.
If there is evil that God can do then a definition of evil exists beyond God's character.
Hence our definition of good and evil don't come from God, since he is unable to change them.

I tried to engage little jimmy on just that matter, but instead of answering, he decided to play the fool. (no offense, fool)

Myabe you'll have better luck, fool. :thumb:

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Planning evil it for good purposes is not the same a doing evil it for evil purposes. The former is righteous, the latter is evil.[sic]

Osama bin Ladin would be so glad to hear that planning evil can still be considered righteous.


I know Hiltston, I know... you've already acknowledged your position doesn't have to hold to the standards of reason and logic. "God can't be held to standards of right and wrong" you said, which is code for "I don't have to falsify my position".

When you say that God can't be held to reason and logic concerning right and wrong, what you are really saying (but perhaps haven't been able to figure out) is that your understanding about God is devoid of reason and logic concerning right and wrong. That's telling.

Imagine if what you say were true. Imagine if I planned for some terrorists to slash your tires, so that I could show up and buy you new ones! Wouldn’t I be heroic? No … of course I would be a jerk. And in your understanding of God, God is a jerk. (I know, I know, your position of God isn’t subjected to human concepts of jerkiness.)

Imagine someone rapes, mutilates, and then murders a little girl. The killer is never caught, and no one ever find the little girl’s body (not exactly a stretch in America). You say God is wonderful because He planned so that maybe a hundred years later someone is blessed by digging up her body may get the thrill of a mystery to solve with her bones! And to do that, God had to plan just how rough the rapist would be with a little girl, crushing parts of her skeletal frame. He planned just how deep the knife would pierce her so that scratches would be left on her tibia. How awesome is that? Yeah … still a jerk.

I know you don’t believe that it is fair that we hold your understanding of God to basic conscience (where did we get that anyway) holdings of right and wrong, but in your ignorance, your understanding portrays our Righteous Lord as a jerk to anyone that can think through simple flows of logic.

 

[sentientsynth]

:vomit:

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Then please tell us what you really believe by filling in the blanks below:

Jesus' will was ____(your answer here)_____.
The Father's will was ______(your answer here)______.​

I've answered this three times already saying "Jesus was willing", but for the extremely slow.

In the Garden:
Jesus' will was to ask if any other means could be found.
The Father's will knew that this was the time.

At the Cross (which you seem to forget was the original setting that "Jesus went willing"):
Jesus will was to die for man's sins.
The Fathers will was that Jesus die for man's sins.

It makes sense to trust a God whose future-telling prophecies do not fail and come to pass in precise accordance with His decreed will. When the careful Bible student reads a scripture that seems to contradict the trustworthiness of God, the default assumption should be that God is never wrong, that His Word is inerrant and infallible, that one's understanding is incomplete and that the passage bears further study. The Open Theist assumes that God was in error, the logical conclusion of which is that He cannot be trusted.

That's a faulty conclusion (which may indicate how adept you are at logic after all).

People do not have to know the future exhaustively in order to be trusted. Husbands trust their wives faithfully without divine foreknowledge. Michael Jordan playing against 4 year olds can be trusted to win, every though he may not know the future exhaustively. If your argument that God cannot be trusted unless He knows the future exhaustively was logical, then it would not have been taken so completely apart in 3 sentences.

They don't see that exhaustive knowledge is required to secure the future.

I know I’ve dealt with this theme above, but I wanted to show how bad your arguments seem. Imagine saying that without knowing the future God can’t secure the win. If it were said of Michael Jordan in my basketball example, you’d be laughed out of any sports chat room. And yet you don’t even have that much faith in God’s ability to admit He could win with or without exhaustive foreknowledge.

Every time the Bible talks about trusting God, it is in the context of God's immutability and His immutable will, which includes every meticulous quantum-sub-micromanaged detail of the future.

Typical of those losing an argument … make up for lack of proof by being more emphatic.
Again, as I predicted you would - no scripture, and now you've dug yourself a hole from which there is no hope of getting scripture to support.

Say it more empatically next time, maybe we'll all forget you haven't backed anything.

On Open View tenets, isn't taunting Satan by calling attention to Job tantamount to taunting an alcoholic with a bottle?

Wow, talk about trying to wiggle your way out! Now bragging on a follower of God is equal to tempting Satan to sin! Can your pride not even admit you are wrong when it is so glaringly obvious to all?

Of course it was not God’s plan for Satan to attack Job. Although He was not surprised since Satan asked permission.

Major premise: Lucifer is more aware of the extent of God's knowledge than people.

I’m sorry, are you expecting people to believe that it is a reach that Satan might know more about God that people? Most Calvinist believe that as well. Lactantius said that Satan got his prowess because of his knowledge about the spiritual realm. Most Christians in history would probably agree that the angels know more about God than men, even the fallen angels.

Yet, in your desperation, because you feel you are losing the argument, you call this a major premise.

And yet David, Hezekiah, Abraham, and Moses all acted equally with an open view as Satan did. Are you now going to tell me that they didn’t know God either?

 

[Poly]

This is somthing that I'm still pondering, Bob brought that up in my debate with him.
If there is evil that God can do then a definition of evil exists beyond God's character.
Hence our definition of good and evil don't come from God, since he is unable to change them.

Do you feel that it's possible that one's desire for something particular could be so strong it would rendure him incapable to do anything that would damage or destroy it or so strong he would be incapable of not desiring it? Does simply having mental faculties, senses, feelings, emotions, awareness, etc., all of which are necessary to either desire or not desire something particular, make it automatically impossible to be assured that the desire will remain unchanged?

Here's what I'm getting at.

The idea that God is capable of doing evil can be compared to a loving parent being capable to hate or commit wickedness against his child. Is it possilble for a parent who dearly loves and desires to protect his child, to change his heart to hate the child and to desire to do evil against him?

And for the sake of argument it could be said that it must be possible because regretably we hear of children who are abused purposely and willingly by a parent. But one would have to agree that this is abnormal. And then we could get off into a whole other debate on what causes this abnormality but regardless of the cause, the ultimate foundation for the abnormality is one that does not apply to God and that is a frail human body, susceptible to many things such as illness, genetic abnormality, incorrect interpetation, negative influencing, great selfishness, the list goes on.

So although we have the ability to hate, a loving parent could not desire to hate his child. And though we have the physical capability to beat, torture or kill them, a loving parent could not desire do this to his child. He cannot even look upon it. He cannot be tempted to hate or act wickedly towards him.

If a frail, human parent can have a desire so strong it remains unchanged, then it shouldn't be a problem being assured that God will remain unchanged in His love. Not because He cannot change but because He will not change.

 

[Johnny]

If a frail, human parent can have a desire so strong it remains unchanged, then it shouldn't be a problem being assured that God will remain unchanged in His love. Not because He cannot change but because He will not change.

What fool is saying that if God is even free to do evil (even if He will not), means that good and evil exist outside of God's character. It means that there is some standard of good, and it is not God.

I believe that evil is not in God's nature and thus God no more has the freedom to do evil than a square can be a circle. Whatever God does is, by definition, righteous and good. Thus, if God caused Pharaoh to harden his heart and enslave hundreds of thousands of Jews--no doubt leading to many of their deaths--then what He did was righteous. If God predestined millions of Jews to die under Hitler's command, then what God did was righteous. If God so choses to create man with certain attributes and then judges that very man for his actions and condemns him to hell, then God is righteous and good.

God is not concerned with my definition of good and evil. As Paul replied, "O man, who are you to reply against God?"