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

sentientsynth

New member
TOL's James Hilston Agrees: Yes, God Can Change [In Certain Ways; See Show for Details]!!

Disclaimer ~

Although it may appear as if sentientsynth, that is, yours truly, worded the title of this thread, may it be forthrightly disclaimed that this thread's title was reformulated by Jefferson, the moderator of this forum, so as to match the title of the BEL show. (The above title reflects the BEL show's title only in part.) Thank you for your co-operation.
:)

________


Monday May 1st, 2006. This is show # 86.

So, what do you guys think of the conversation?

I thought that the point of the qualified nature of Calvinistic/Augustinian doctrine of immutability was established.

Summary:
* During TheologyOnline's Battle Royale X, Bob Enyart pointed out that the pagan Greek doctrine of utter immutability is the origin of the Christian view that the future is not open, but utterly settled. On this show, TOL member James Hilston basically admits what millions get stuck believing, that even God Himself is NOT free or able to change anything in the eternally pre-scripted future! (Startling!) Martin Luther argues in his Bondage of the Will that "resistless logic" demands an utterly settled future (exhaustive foreknowledge) if you accept the teaching of immutability. (That is, Luther sadly argues that foreknowledge also must be exhaustive because God is [utterly] immutable. And it is by this pagan influence that millions of Christians have tragically come to believe that the sodomite rapes a child because God decrees that he must, for God's own glory, which teaching is a grotesque perversion of God's love, and sacrifices God's goodness on the altar of immutability.) Hilston attempts to show that Bob exaggerates the common Christian belief in "utter immutability" held by Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, etc. and Bob defends his proposition. Finally, Hilston quoted from Lamerson in our own BR X as an example that Calvinists really do believe that God changes, leading me to summarize how severely Lamerson stonewalled on my question of whether or not God changes, and Hilston admitted that yes, Lamerson did dodge that question!
Today's Resource: Read Bob's debate about Open Theism against D. James Kennedy's professor Samuel Lamerson! You will absolutely love Battle Royale X, Is the Future Settled, or Open?, or your money back! Read it for free, online at TOL, or purchase the debate in its more comfortable and helpful 240-page manuscript form! You'll learn that God's qualitative attributes (of being Living, Personal, Relational, Good and Loving) take precedence over His quantitative attributes (of how much power, presence, knowledge, emotion and change God can exercise), and that in the Incarnation, God the Son emptied Himself (Phil. 2:5-11) of his quantitative but NOT his qualitative attributes and that the four Gospels fully reveal, not Christ's quantitative, but His qualitative attributes!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
sentientsynth said:
So, what do you guys think of the conversation?

I thought that the point of the qualified nature of Calvinistic/Augustinian doctrine of immutability was established.
Hilston called!!?!?!?
(I'm not sure what your second sentence means)
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
sentientsynth said:
So, what do you guys think of the conversation?

I thought that the point of the qualified nature of Calvinistic/Augustinian doctrine of immutability was established.
I have only listened to the first half so far but I thought is was really interesting.

My only complaint is... why isn't Jim always that cordial????
 

sentientsynth

New member
fool said:
Hilston called!!?!?!?
Darn skip. It was a good conversation, too, though it seemed just a hair out of focus at some points, and that only because of the brevity of the show.

(I'm not sure what your second sentence means)
It isn't for a fool to understand, I reckon. :chuckle:

Just kidding. Calvin and Augustine qualified their use of the term "immutability" in reference to God. Enyart and other Open Theists deny that they qualified that term. That, really, was the reason Jim called. But Bob and Jim got off into other interesting tangents which I really wish they could have focused more on. The cursory treatment of some of the issues left me with a somewhat murky picture of the overall discussion. But, if one pays attention, one can see that the item on the table, the qualified use of "immutability" by Augustine and Calvin (regardless what those qualifications actually are), was handled and was demonstrated.
 

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
Knight said:
I have only listened to the first half so far but I thought is was really interesting.

My only complaint is... why isn't Jim always that cordial????

Yeah, I listened just to hear how obnoxious he would be. Boy was I disappointed! I debated him a little bit a couple of years ago. I gave up when I couldn't get him to understand a single thing I was saying, or agree with the most innocent of premises. Maybe he is one of those people who is not too good with understanding the written word, but excels with the spoken word.
Anyway, I was pleasently surprised.
 

CRASH

TOL Subscriber
I just want to hear the second half. The first half went a bit slow so I want to hear the rest...
 

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
CRASH said:
I just want to hear the second half. The first half went a bit slow so I want to hear the rest...

Yes, it is somewhat disappointing and tedious to live in Colorado, and yet only get the first half "live", { on my walkman at work} and then have to go home at night, and listen all over again, to get the second half on a download.

It makes you want to move to Iowa.......uh never mind!
 

CRASH

TOL Subscriber
jeremiah said:
Yes, it is somewhat disappointing and tedious to live in Colorado, and yet only get the first half "live", { on my walkman at work} and then have to go home at night, and listen all over again, to get the second half on a download.

It makes you want to move to Iowa.......uh never mind!

Iowa....as step down....way down:bannana:
 

sentientsynth

New member
The best part was right at the end when they got into the can not / will not discussion. They could take an entire hour, if not more, just on that one issue.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Wow!!! Awesome, I am at 47 minutes right now. What a great show!!!

Jim, I really hope you listen back to this show.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Great show!

Jim, good call your attitude was fantastic. I really hope you listen to it when you get a chance.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
fool said:
Hilston's not nearly as smooth as I'd imagined.
I think Hilston is a great guy. I always have liked him. But for some reason he get's a bit wacky and rude online. As far as the show goes I think Bob made some brilliant points and I think Jim should listen back to the show because sometimes it's easier to understand how things went when you listen to it later. :up:
 

GuySmiley

Well-known member
sentientsynth said:
So, what do you guys think of the conversation?
I absolutely loved this show!! It was weird to hear Hillson's voice. In the BR, I thought the picture Jim used looked like Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Carribean, so I've always imagined that voice for him.

I thought that the point of the qualified nature of Calvinistic/Augustinian doctrine of immutability was established.
I think the problem with this was pointed out in Knight's one-on-one with Hilston. Qualified immutability to the Calvinist means that God can change, like the hands on a clock change, but to the OV'er that's not real change.
 
Top