ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Philetus]

Michael,

First, let’s get the stained-glass out of the way! I know why stained-glass was first used. And I know that for the most part it has become mere decoration and camouflage, insulating a church that loves to celebrate its ‘personal relationships” with the resurrected Lord over all creation while ignoring the Christ who says “I am hungry.” The problem with stained-glass in the North American Church at least is that you can’t see through it in either direction.

Yours is a most excellent post. I mean it. And we have far more in common that either of us imagined (or maybe care to admit.) But I’m not ready to throw the baby out with the baptistery just yet. Just because there are many bad marriages in the world, we don’t throw out marriage. Just because there are many, way many, who claim a relationship with God in Christ that bears no semblance to what either of us are describing, doesn’t mean there is no such thing.

I don’t have the ability you have in saying it. That doesn’t mean I don’t have the same passion and express it in action any differently than your posts indicate you do. I spend a lot of time in Haiti. On my first trip there I ran into the same kind of crap you encountered in India. I left vowing to my Master Jesus that if He would show me a different way I would follow it. Three years later, I’m working with 12 young Haitians who are living, not in a mission compound behind stained-glass windows and locked fences with armed guards to protect the professional ‘relationship pushers’ living a life style that puts even the upper middle class to shame, driving around in their air-conditioned SUVs unable to even smell Haiti, but in their mud and cinderblock huts doing the work of the realized and present Kingdom, informing their neighbors of God’s present salvation and demonstrating His rule over their actions. When I go to Haiti now, I go alone because there aren't many who will take the risks and forgo the SUV rides. Just because you haven’t ever see a real relationship with God in Christ that informs relational living in the real world, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Seekinganswers: And yet you still put off the new order to the future for you still see God "allowing sin," and because God "allows sin" you can enjoy your "freedom" to relate to God without having to place yourself in the way of those who are in power in this world in order to protect those who have no power at all, just as my dear friends could enjoy their relationship with God (and "share" that with the poor children) without having to ask what to do about the materials they were using for that end.

That is not true. The present reality of the kingdom is all this Open Theist has. Again don’t accuse me of being all future and no present. I don’t know the ‘buddy Christ’ you speak of. The Jesus I follow is out there still doing it! He isn’t easy to keep up with but it is fun.

I appreciate the help in finding new ways to articulate the narrative of the Gospel in the context of the real world … but you ain’t the only one doing it (if you are doing it.) I’m not impressed with your rhetoric any more that you are with mine. I know what it is to face a machine gun and a machete and stand in the gap. Still, my relationship with God in Christ isn’t an occasional short term mission trip either. When not in Haiti I’m on the streets. Literally. It is everyday. Today. Where-ever I am in the world. I’m there announcing and experiencing the kingdom. I leave the convincing to the Holy Spirit. The kingdom is not future … it is here … now. I only hope my actions will be an indication of that reality. But, more importantly I go into the world to see Jesus and to experience Him … not to show him off. I follow him. I don’t take him anywhere. The body of Christ that I am a part of has no pews or stained-glass. We wouldn’t buy them if we could afford them. When we sit together and break bread we do it in the world, and I can assure you, Jesus is present. We are just as much the church as if we had all the trappings of churchianity. We are your younger brother. We are coming home and we are not coming alone. So feed the calf! We are hungry.

Seekinganswers: You can't just "experience Jesus in the wretched of the earth," you must become poor (you must have compassion) with them, and live as though they were the most important in this world (for they really are!!). The Kingdom has come, and there has been a great reversal (not in the future, but now). And that reversal is not witnessed in the world (which continues to live by the present evil age), but it is witnessed among God's people, in the church. A relationship with God outside of the church is no relationship at all, but a farse!

Thank you friend for those words of wisdom. But, you have no idea who you are talking to. To you those may be words of truth … to me they are life-style. You have no idea how poor I have become by choice in following Jesus. (Poor in every way, yet, lacking nothing.) The Kingdom is witnessed as much in the world as it is in the church. In fact, if you haven't witnessed the reign of God in the world, you would have a hard time convincing me you have seen it at all. Read the kingdom parables ... look there it is ... and there and there and there. You can hide from the modern world and remain above the mucky-muck and pretend that sin isn’t real. But, from down here in the trenches, a relationship with God that doesn’t include everybody, even the lost and the wretched in the world, is the greatest farce we have to combat! The church that God has placed me in is not invisible, but you can’t see it through your stained-glass windows. To see it you have to leave the sanctuary and your idea-guarded compound. Hiding behind words or a bush in the garden or behind stained-glass in the sanctuary or in a cave in the hills, is all about the same in my book.

Michael, thank you for pushing my buttons and forcing me to think! If the language of relationships gets in the way of the Gospel in the alley, I’ll be the first to abandon it. Right now I have to leave. We are having 'church' at the corner of Main and 6th streets in an hour. I don't have to change clothes ... but even the wretched need a shower.

Blessings and thank you.
Philetus

 

[seekinganswers]

Thank you, Philetus, for showing compassion first. My zeal gets a hold of me because I am sick of the church that claims a reality it does not have. Clearly you are not caught up in this as much as I am. I did not forget our previous conversations. I knew very well that you were not embodied in the same narrative as we find in the mainstream evangelical church (I just wish I had stressed that even more in my post). You had demonstrated that to me very well.

But you must understand that I do not see the solution of our age as being brought about through an Essene type community. I'm not ready to go out into the wilderness surrounding Jerusalem to watch God's judgment fall on the wicked hypocrits of Israel. I still love those hypocrits (and whether I like to admit it or not their witness still shaped me in a faithful way, no matter how off the mark it might have been). God has still been faithful in the midst of a faithless people to establish a faithful few, a remnant of Israel. And as long as that remnant remains, there is hope for the whole. The "church" has not been set aside for another. The tradition remains (with all its blemishes) and we cannot be a Joseph Smith type community who sets it aside for another. I don't like the idea of the Protestants (and I am horrified by what the Protestants have done in the name of "truth"). Does that mean I excuse the Catholic Church of its crimes? No. But the solution is not to separate myself from it, but to remain faithful in the midst of it (to call it back to what it really needs to be).

We need the church, and God's election has set the church as his vessel for this act of redemption he has begun in Christ. We can't be lone-ranger Christians. And the truth is I find the richness of the traditions of the church (of its teachings) to be the core of the life of worship. The sacraments are real, not in their substance, but in as much as they are done discerning the body (that is the real and particular gathering of Christians, not the bread and the wine, not the invisible union we have with Christ, but the messy sinews and ligaments that tie us together in this world).

So I thank you, once again, for hearing my words, and I thank God that I have been able to speak in a way where my words can be heard. And I thank you for your witness in the body, in your gathering, for it is what it is, and God is at work among ya'll by Christ and through his Spirit.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Bob Hill]

Hilston: Strange. There is not a religion on the planet that sits in judgment of God the way Open Theists do. The God of Open Theism is finite, bound by time, bound by logic, bound by the wap and woof and whims and wills of sinful fallen men. The God of Scripture is infinite, without limitation, completely arbitrary, in absolute total meticulous and exhaustive control of all creation without exception.

I believe God wants us to understand that He is a loving, holy, caring, passionate God. There are many figures of speech in the Bible about God. They help us feel that love toward God which He wants.

However, I believe there is a faulty emphasis of determinism that is not substantiated by scripture. Here are two selections which are representative of many more. The first is from Calvin’s Institutes v. 2, p. 206. “God . . . determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or death. [Further, in v. 2 p. 231 he continued,] Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. . . . [further, Calvin wrote] he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen.”

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

I believe it is true that God foreknows some of the future events that will happen in the world, but that’s because God determines they will happen. But there are far more things that will happen that are not predetermined as well as not foreknown to God.

Next, I want to quote from Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, pp. 58,59. “God . . . is devoid of all change, not only in His Being, but also in His perfections, and in His purposes and promises. [He further makes a case, because of this], He is . . . free from all . . . growth or decay in His Being or perfections. His knowledge and plans, His moral principles and volitions remain forever the same. Even reason teaches us that no change is possible in God, since a change is either for better or for worse.

Plato said “that to be altered and moved by something else happens least to things that are in the best condition . . . that the healthiest and strongest is least altered. . . . that those which are well made and in good condition are least liable to be changed by time and other influences. . . . But God, surely and everything that belongs to God is in every way in the best possible state. . . . Then does he change himself for the better . . . or for the worse? It must necessarily, said he, be for the worse if he is changed . . . the gods themselves are incapable of change.

Berkhof contined: there is no change in His . . . attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises. . . . His repenting, changing His intention, and altering His relation to sinners . . . is only an anthropopathic way of speaking. In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man’s relations to God.”

Is that the God of the Bible? No!

God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. In Eze 33:11, it says, “As I live,” says the Lord God, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?”

Our glorious God is touched by our afflictions as well as Israel’s.

Further, what does the Bible really say about God’s immutability. The first time we have information that God changed His mind on something was in Gen 6:4-7 “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry [repented - nacham] that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry [repent - nacham] that I have made them.”

Not only did God change His mind in Gen 6, but, because He is compassionate and gracious, God wants to repent. Here’s what it says about God in Jer 26:3,13,19 Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may repent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings. 13 Now therefore, amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; then the LORD will repent concerning the doom that He has pronounced against you. 19 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah ever put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and seek the LORD’s favor? And the Lord repented concerning the doom which He had pronounced against them. But we are doing great evil against ourselves.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

As I look at our responses to each other on theologyonline, I think all who say they are believers in Jesus Christ as our Savior are saved. As brothers in Christ, I want to show you all respect.

I believe that, at times, God repents because of His compassion. Psa 106:43-45 Many times He delivered them; But they rebelled in their counsel, And were brought low for their iniquity. 44 Nevertheless He regarded their affliction, When He heard their cry; 45 And for their sake He remembered His covenant, And repented according to the multitude of His mercies.

Joel 2:12-14 Now, therefore, says the LORD, Turn to Me with all your heart, with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning. 13 So rend your heart, and not your garments; Return to the LORD your God, for He is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness; And He repents from doing harm. 14 Who knows if He will turn and repent, And leave a blessing behind Him – A grain offering and a drink offering For the LORD your God?

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[seekinganswers]

I believe it is true that God foreknows some of the future events that will happen in the world, but that’s because God determines they will happen. But there are far more things that will happen that are not predetermined as well as not foreknown to God.

Next, I want to quote from Berkhof’s Systematic Theology, pp. 58,59. “God . . . is devoid of all change, not only in His Being, but also in His perfections, and in His purposes and promises. [He further makes a case, because of this], He is . . . free from all . . . growth or decay in His Being or perfections. His knowledge and plans, His moral principles and volitions remain forever the same. Even reason teaches us that no change is possible in God, since a change is either for better or for worse.

Plato said “that to be altered and moved by something else happens least to things that are in the best condition . . . that the healthiest and strongest is least altered. . . . that those which are well made and in good condition are least liable to be changed by time and other influences. . . . But God, surely and everything that belongs to God is in every way in the best possible state. . . . Then does he change himself for the better . . . or for the worse? It must necessarily, said he, be for the worse if he is changed . . . the gods themselves are incapable of change.

Berkhof contined: there is no change in His . . . attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises. . . . His repenting, changing His intention, and altering His relation to sinners . . . is only an anthropopathic way of speaking. In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man’s relations to God.”

Is that the God of the Bible? No!

God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. In Eze 33:11, it says, “As I live,” says the Lord God, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?”

Our glorious God is touched by our afflictions as well as Israel’s.

Further, what does the Bible really say about God’s immutability. The first time we have information that God changed His mind on something was in Gen 6:4-7 “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry [repented - nacham] that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry [repent - nacham] that I have made them.”

Not only did God change His mind in Gen 6, but, because He is compassionate and gracious, God wants to repent. Here’s what it says about God in Jer 26:3,13,19 Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may repent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings. 13 Now therefore, amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; then the LORD will repent concerning the doom that He has pronounced against you. 19 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah ever put him to death? Did he not fear the LORD and seek the LORD’s favor? And the Lord repented concerning the doom which He had pronounced against them. But we are doing great evil against ourselves.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

If you're going talk about the Hebrew in the scriptures, then don't make the stupid mistake that the translators do in using words that don't mean the same thing. The Hebrew word that we translate as "repent" merely signifies a turning. So if God can turn his actions and calls us to do the same, you can bet that God's turning tells us a lot more about what we are called to do than it tells us about God. The story of the flood is a repetition of the entire narrative of the scriptures. The world has become utter chaos in Noah's time (people did whatever was right in their own eyes, and "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and copulated with them"; men had unified themselves with the "divine" to such an extent that they had brought the creation to the only end that they could in their own will, i.e. to chaos. The slow unravelling of the Created order had been completed (the snowball effect of distortion).

Noah is a prefiguring of the eschaton (of the return of Christ). And don't accuse me of typology, or at least if you do realize that it is not my typology but Christ's own. For Christ himself equated Noah's time to the time of his second coming. Noah is an image of the end times, when God will take the faithful remnant through the waters and into a restored life in the Creation (the end of the flood narrative looks exactly like the end of the Creation itself; and the story of Noah's son is just like the story of Cain (Able being a "fleeting" member of the cast).

It is funny that you say the Lord "repented of the doom," when in fact the Lord "repented" from the first-born of his Creation (he didn't turn from his wrath in the flood, but in fact turned to wrath). The first-born right would pass to another (another who was actually first, though in the order of Creation, second). This is the theme that continues to resonate throughout Genesis. God turns from the first-born son and embraces the least of the sons (who become, in fact, the greatest). God's election is no longer upon the "created order" that has been distorted by the sinfulness of man. No, God's election falls on another people, a people who are least among the nations.

All that junk about God's repentance is just silly (and I might add is a key text for the process theologians). God turns (as the God who is quite free and in God's grace chooses to do whatever God wishes to do) from the ones who see themselves as being gods, to the lowly righteous remnant people, who are faithful to their maker, so that through that remnant the whole world might be saved.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Bob Hill]

nachavm
God used the word nacham for His own actions about 30 times. Every time it is used of God, it is in a context of changing His mind or purpose in punishing or rewarding a person or group of people. The use of this word was so appalling to Augustine, the creator of what we call Calvinism, that he wrote about it in his book, On the Morals of the Catholic Church. Augustine explained away the doctrines of the Old Testament that he thought were so absurd. He strongly disagreed with the literal interpretation of the Old Testament. Here is what he wrote about our thirty passages:

We do not worship a God who repents, or is envious, or needy . . . These and such like are the silly notions . . . the fancies of old women or of children . . . and . . . those by whom these passages are literally understood. . . . And should any one suppose that anything in God’s substance or nature can suffer change or conversion, he will be held guilty of wild profanity.

With this philosophical bias of Plato and Augustine in mind, let’s look at one of the passages that is used to answer “the silly notions . . . the fancies of old women or of children . . . and . . . those by whom these passages are literally understood.”; a passage that Calvinists say shows God doesn’t change at all.

In Numbers 23:19 it says “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” What does this mean? Does this contradict the many portions of Scripture that say God does repent? This is where they turn instead of answering our questions about God repenting in Genesis 6:5-7. Why isn’t the Numbers passage an anthropomorphism as well as Genesis 6? In order to find out what is going on here, let’s look at the context of Numbers 23:19.

Here is the Strong’s definition of the word with a concordance of the times it occurs in regards to God. The Hebrew word nacham, as it is used here, means repent or change your mind.

Repent’s Strong’s number is 5162 {naw-kham} a primitive root; TWOT, 1344; It is translated this way in the KJV - comfort 57, repent 41, comforter 9, ease 1; 108 1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted 1a) (Niphal) 1a1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion 1a2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent 1a3) to comfort oneself, be comforted 1a4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself 1b) (Piel) to comfort, console 1c) (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled 1d) (Hithpael) 1d1) to be sorry, have compassion 1d2) to rue, repent of 1d3) to comfort oneself, be comforted 1d4) to ease oneself

Here are some references which use it with men. I will use bold letters to show the translation of nacham.

Ex 13:17 Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.

Job 42:6 Therefore I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes.

Jer 8:6 I listened and heard, but they do not speak aright. No man repented of his wickedness, saying, what have I done? Everyone turned to his own course, as the horse rushes into the battle.

Jer 31:19 Surely, after my turning, I repented; And after I was instructed, I struck myself on the thigh; I was ashamed, yes, even humiliated, because I bore the reproach of my youth. 20 Is Ephraim My dear son? Is he a pleasant child? For though I spoke against him, I earnestly remember him still; Therefore My heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him, says the Lord.

Here are all the references which use it in regards to God.

Gen 6:4-9 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord repented [it repented the LORD] that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I repent that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. 9 This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.

Ex 32:9-14 And the Lord said to Moses, I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people! 10 Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation. 11 Then Moses pleaded with the Lord his God, and said: Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people whom You have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, `He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and repent from this harm to Your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants, to whom You swore by Your own self, and said to them, I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven; and all this land that I have spoken of I give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever. 14 So the Lord repented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

Jud 2:18 And when the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord repented because of their groaning because of those who oppressed them and harassed them.

1 Sa 15:11,29,35 I repent that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments. And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the Lord all night. 29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent. For He is not a man, that He should repent. 35 And Samuel went no more to see Saul until the day of his death. Nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul, and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.

2 Sa 24:16 And when the angel stretched out His hand over Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord repented from the destruction, and said to the angel who was destroying the people, It is enough; now restrain your hand.

1 Chr 21:1,15 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. 15 And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. As he was destroying, the Lord looked and repented of the disaster, and said to the angel who was destroying, It is enough; now restrain your hand. And the angel of the Lord stood by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.

Psa 90:13 Return, O Lord! How long? And [repent concerning] Your servants.

Psa 106:45 And for their sake He remembered His covenant and repented according to the multitude of His mercies.

Jer 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn and the heavens above be black because I have spoken. I have purposed and will not repent, nor will I turn back from it.

Jer 15:6 You have forsaken Me, says the Lord, You have gone backward. Therefore I will stretch out My hand against you and destroy you; I am weary of repenting!

Jer 18:7-10 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will repent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Jer 20:16 And let that man be like the cities which the Lord overthrew, and did not repent; Let him hear the cry in the morning and the shouting at noon.

Jer 26:3,13,19 Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may repent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings. 13 Now therefore, amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; then the Lord will repent concerning the doom that He has pronounced against you. 19 Did Hezekiah king of Judah and all Judah ever put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord and seek the Lords favor? And the Lord repented concerning the doom which He had pronounced against them. But we are doing great evil against ourselves.

Jer 42:10 If you will still remain in this land, then I will build you and not pull you down, and I will plant you and not pluck you up. For I repent concerning the disaster that I have brought upon you.

Eze 24:14 I, the Lord, have spoken it; It shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not hold back, Nor will I spare, Nor will I repent; According to your ways and according to your deeds they will judge you, says the Lord God.

Joel 2:13,14 So rend your heart, and not your garments; Return to the Lord your God, For He is gracious and merciful, Slow to anger, and of great kindness; And He repents from doing harm. 14 Who knows if He will turn and repent, and leave a blessing behind Him – A grain offering and a drink offering for the Lord your God?

Amos 7:3-6 So the Lord repented concerning this. It shall not be, said the Lord. 4 Thus the Lord God showed me: Behold, the Lord God called for conflict by fire, and it consumed the great deep and devoured the territory. 5 Then I said: O Lord God, cease, I pray! Oh, that Jacob may stand, For he is small! 6 So the Lord repented concerning this. This also shall not be, said the Lord God.

Jon 3:9-4:2 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that we may not perish? 10 Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. 4:1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 2 So he prayed to the Lord, and said, Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who repents from doing harm.

Zec 8:14,15 For thus says the Lord of hosts: Just as I determined to punish you when your fathers provoked Me to wrath, says the Lord of hosts, and I would not repent, 15 so again in these days I am determined to do good to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Hilston]

Dear Bob Hill,

You continue to misrepresent Augustine and Calvin.

And should any one suppose that anything in God’s substance or nature can suffer change or conversion, he will be held guilty of wild profanity. [emphases added]

Don't you agree that God cannot suffer change or conversion in His substance (essence) or nature? God is absolutely immutable in His character and essence, right? You and Augustine agree here. Why do you insist that Augustine is saying more than this? He is being very careful to specify the qualifiers for immutability. See more below.

a passage that Calvinists say shows God doesn’t change at all.

Calvinists don't say that God doesn't change at all. This is a manufactured allegation, concocted by Open Theists, repeated by Open Theists, inbred among Open Theists, and thrown at Calvinists as if it were some dirty little secret. No Calvinist I have ever known or read has asserted or affirmed the view that God does not change at all. Here are Augustine's words to the contrary:

This is contrary to Augustine's own words:

... this Word of God, I say, took to Himself, in a manner entirely different from that in which He is present to other creatures, the soul and body of a man, and made, by the union of Himself therewith, the one person Jesus Christ, Mediator between God and men, His Deity equal with the Father, in His flesh, i.e. in His human nature, inferior to the Father, unchangeably immortal in respect of the divine nature, in which He is equal with the Father, and yet changeable and mortal in respect of the infirmity which was His through participation with our nature.
~ From the Letters of Augustine, pp. 949, 950​

Please do your followers an important service and retract these false characterizations, Bob. Until you do, your disciples will continue to uncritically take your word for it, and mindlessly repeat your erroneous claims, demonstrating embarrassing ignorance when they attempt to debate Calvinists with this false charge.

"May explode or leak, causing injury."
Jim

 

[Philetus]

Michael,

The church you describe wouldn’t have me. :chuckle: I’m not angry about that; it’s just a fact. I love the church ... all of it. Especially the members like myself who are less ‘presentable’ and have been dismissed as unnecessary and at times viewed as her enemies. I’m a foot. And just because I’m a foot and not an eye ... I do not for that reason cease to be a member of the body. I’m happy being a foot in the body ... even a left foot. I do not say to the eye ... I don’t need you. I do. I’m not particularly proud of Protestants either. All we seem to have left to protest is each other. AUGH! Indeed!

( I’m letting the Joe Smith thing slide, believing your were just preaching, not telling the truth.) I’m not in an Essene community either. I live in Ziklag for now. Its not permanent. God will burn us out when the time comes. He always does. Look it up in the Bible. I’m just one of hundreds (perhaps thousands all over the country) that find it impossible to follow Jesus within the tight exclusive orthodoxy ‘the churches’ impose with their hair splitting doctrines. Rather than struggling over the question of separating yourself form the church .... why not join us and be inclusive! You don’t have to leave your church. If you get to inclusive they will show you the door. Trust me. It is better to burn at the stake for breaking bread with the wretched, than for breaking stained-glass windows. Want to really love your enemies ... break bread with them in the name of Jesus. Pass the cup to one less deserving than you . Dip in the same bowl with the one you think is betraying Christ. You will discern the Body. I find it hard to reconcile talk about voluntary poverty and the withholding of the cup and bread.

Our goal at Ziklag is not to see the destruction of any part or member of the church. We are committed to filling up every vacant seat in every sanctuary in this county every time their doors are open with people who come to recognize that God has already made every provision for their salvation and inclusion. The churches have nothing to add except fellowship and the equipping of like minded servants. I sense that you are still not reconciled to the fact that Jesus died for me and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it; that I receive the body and blood of Christ with or without your sanction.

There is a reformation coming, Michael. One that will make the last look like the average pot-lick-supper. This time it will be a reformation of unity, not division. But it will require the most difficult and perhaps violent changes we can imagine. When we lay aside our control of the Lord’s table, the baptistry and our credentials for the sake of our Lord’s great passion, His prayer for unity will be answered. We will be one in more than theory. When we quit controlling and arguing over the very things He gave us to express that unity, we will be one. Letting go of the past is a given. Letting go of our preconceived notions of God’s future, each in our own way, is but the beginning. Letting go of our grasping for equality with God in the present and becoming servants after the fashion of Christ (voluntarily) is perhaps the greatest obstacle we face. Waiting for Saul to fall on his own sword is just a matter of time. Living in the place where kings are tested requires more patients than action. Life in the Kingdom of God is a mad scramble to the bottom of a pile of servants. When we return we will return in numbers and your picnic table, your pool and your lifeguards will be overwhelmed by just how big the body of Christ really is.

The future is no longer what it once was.
Philetus

 

[Lighthouse]

Hilston-
Why did God plan to send Paul and cut off Israel, from the beginning? Why did He even choose Israel, if he was just going to cut them off?

 

[themuzicman]

Hilston-
Why did God plan to send Paul and cut off Israel, from the beginning? Why did He even choose Israel, if he was just going to cut them off?

What if God, in his wisdom, chose to make ordinary pots, prepared for destruction, and other pots, prepared for His glory? Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

Muz

 

[Lighthouse]

What if God, in his wisdom, chose to make ordinary pots, prepared for destruction, and other pots, prepared for His glory? Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

Muz

I wasn't asking God.

And anyway, you don't believe God did that, do you?

 

[Clete]

Dear Bob Hill,

You continue to misrepresent Augustine and Calvin.

Hypocrite!

Your entire argument against open theism depends almost entirely on overstatements, complete misrepresentations and outright lies. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Don't you agree that God cannot suffer change or conversion in His substance (essence) or nature? God is absolutely immutable in His character and essence, right? You and Augustine agree here. Why do you insist that Augustine is saying more than this? He is being very careful to specify the qualifiers for immutability. See more below.

I would like you to tell me in what way you believe God to be imperfect. You have already agreed (in another conversation) that Aristotle’s (and Augustine's) logic is sound. That logic being that anything perfect, if it changes, does so for the worse. And so in order for God to be mutable in any sense He must be imperfect in that sense. So which is it Jim? In what way is God imperfect?

The second most common argument that Calvinists use to argue for the absolute immutability of God is that He is atemporal. If God is outside of time then no change could be meaningfully said to take place in any sense because change implies the passage of time which God does not experience as He is not temporal but eternal. You have explicitly stated a belief that God is outside of time. So you endorse the second pillar of the Calvinist argument as well as the first and yet deny the belief! And you think I'm confused!

It is you who are misrepresenting Calvinism not Pastor Hill. Pastor Hill has about 1500 years of theological history to back him up, you have you and only you. You are the only person I have ever heard even one time deny that God is anything but utterly immutable in every respect.

Calvinists don't say that God doesn't change at all. This is a manufactured allegation, concocted by Open Theists, repeated by Open Theists, inbred among Open Theists, and thrown at Calvinists as if it were some dirty little secret. No Calvinist I have ever known or read has asserted or affirmed the view that God does not change at all.

Here's a couple I found in just the last few minutes after a brief Google search...

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...

"The doctrine of divine immutability (DDI) asserts that God cannot undergo real or intrinsic change in any respect."

"God's perfection seems to rule out many sorts of change, as we've just seen. More general arguments from perfection convinced classical theists that God cannot change in any way."

"Aquinas (like Augustine) derived DDI (Doctrine of Divine Immutability) from the deeper classical-theist doctrine of divine simplicity. If God is simple, God has no parts of any sort. Now when the turnip aged, it became partly different -- its smell and texture altered. Were this not so, no change would have occurred. But if the turnip had changed in every respect, it would not have been a case of change either. For it would have changed with respect to such properties as being a turnip and being identical with this turnip. And if first we have something identical with this turnip and then we have something not identical with this turnip, the turnip has not changed, but disappeared and been replaced by something else. So whatever changes must stay partly the same (else there was not change in one selfsame surviving thing). So only things with parts can change. If so, a simple God cannot change. DDI's connection with divine simplicity and the classical theist theory of God's perfection which centers on divine simplicity is one of the deepest reasons for DDI's broad historical appeal; one cannot fully explain what moved thinkers to accept DDI without also treating the motivation for the doctrine of divine simplicity."​

From Giving an Answer: God's Immutability

"God is immutable in every respect and does not change in the least bit. In the words of Stephen Charnock "He wants nothing; he looses nothing; but doth uniformly exist by himself, without any new nature, new thoughts, new will, new purpose, or new place." Immutability belongs to all the attributes of God. It is not the single perfection of the Divine nature, nor is it limited to specific attributes."​

This is contrary to Augustine's own words:

... this Word of God, I say, took to Himself, in a manner entirely different from that in which He is present to other creatures, the soul and body of a man, and made, by the union of Himself therewith, the one person Jesus Christ, Mediator between God and men, His Deity equal with the Father, in His flesh, i.e. in His human nature, inferior to the Father, unchangeably immortal in respect of the divine nature, in which He is equal with the Father, and yet changeable and mortal in respect of the infirmity which was His through participation with our nature.
~ From the Letters of Augustine, pp. 949, 950​

It is contrary only to your wishful thinking and misrepresentation of his beliefs.
I can find similar self-contradictory comments throughout Calvinists writings. This does not change the fact that they believe in the absolute immutability of God. Their own inconsistency is only further evidence that the theological system is wrong, not that they didn't believe what every theological historian in the world knows that Augustine both believed and taught.
The sort of argument you are making here is no more valid than it would be for me to try to argue that the Church of Christ isn't legalistic because they quote from the book of Galatians. Individual comments do not a belief system make. For you to even suggest that Augustine didn't beleive in the absolute immutability of God is laughable. The whole idea that God could change in any way whatsoever is the very reason he refused to become a Christian for so many years in spite of his mother's pleading. It wasn't until Bishop Ambrose taught him to interpret the Scripture in light of Aristotelian philosophy that Augustine would have anything to do with God or the Bible. Your argument flies in the face of well established history, Jim. It simply fails on every level.

Please do your followers an important service and retract these false characterizations, Bob. Until you do, your disciples will continue to uncritically take your word for it, and mindlessly repeat your erroneous claims, demonstrating embarrassing ignorance when they attempt to debate Calvinists with this false charge.

I have had personal experience to the exact contrary. Calvinists do not dismiss it as a false charge at all! In fact, they flatly refuse to deny it and openly embrace irrationalism rather than concede that God can change in any respect whatsoever. They commonly use the term antinomy, which is another thing which you claim that Calvinist do not do.

"Previously I had to swallow hard and accept the Calvinian antinomy that required me to believe both that God determines all things and that creaturely freedom is real." - Clark H. Pinnock

"Packer begins by presenting the concept of antinomy, which he defines as “an appearance of contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary.” An antinomy we face as believers is that of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Somehow, although God is absolutely sovereign, He has ordained that we would be responsible for our involvement in His plans. Our obedient response to this antinomy is to accept it for what it is and learn to live with it. Any other response would be to minimize something God deems important and even necessary to a godly life. We cannot see Divine sovereignty and human responsible as opposites or principles that are in conflict with each other, but rather as principles that complement each other and are equally true." - Book Review - Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer

In his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1961) J. I. Packer argues that the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man is an antinomy. He defines "antinomy" as "an appearance of contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary" (p. 18). It "is neither dispensable nor comprehensible...It is unavoidable and insoluble. We do not invent it, and we cannot explain it" (p. 21). God "orders and controls all things, human actions among them"...yet "He holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues" (p. 22). "To our finite minds this is inexplicable" (p. 23). - source

In short, your ploy has been discovered. You thought you could win the debate by simply denying that Calvinists believe this stuff but they do. The mistake you made is to make such an insane argument in the age of the internet when anyone who can type can find proof to the contrary in about 15 seconds if they know what to look for.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

If I cared enough to go to the trouble, this would most certainly get my vote for "Post of the Day". I fear that I'm starting to get rather bored with Clete. If it weren't for the challenge of turning something so vapid and lame into something of entertainment and interest (think MST3K), I might just let this go as I have Clete's previous diaper projects. If I had a tree-fitty for every time Clete has told me how he is smarter than I think he is and how I'm not as smart as I think I am (by the way, I am pretty smart ~ and sooooo good-looking), and how prideful I am because my vocabulary is so awesome (it really is awesome, by the way), etc. etc. ad nauseum, I'd have tree-fitty many times over. The funny thing (and it is really is funny), is that I've never said that Clete was not smart. And I've never, until this post, claimed to be smart myself (which I really am, by the way). In fact, I've often praised Clete and given him kudos for hanging in there when I thought it was about time to write him off.

There is part of me that is sorry to say, however, for all the (misplaced) diligence and (misguided) scholarship Clete has attempted to bring to TOL, his latest post has convinced me that he really is not as smart as he tries to sound. I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise. Anyone who goes around telling people how smart he is is probably trying to make up for and perhaps cover up a deficit of intellect. Do a search. He really says it a lot. Clete's apparent paranoia and self-esteem hang-ups perhaps drive him to offer pre-emptive strikes against anyone who would criticize or question his intellectual horsepower. But since I'm not a real psychic, I could be wrong. That said, see below for compelling evidence of Clete's egregiously pervasive and persistent ineptitude.

First of all, I would ask the reader to consider the importance of defining words properly, and making due use of them, especially when firing accusations against another individual. For example, please consider the definition and usage of the word "hypocrite":

hypocrite n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

hypocrite n : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
Source: Merriam-Webster

hypocrite one who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not; a dissembler in religion. Our Lord severely rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). "The hypocrite's hope shall perish" (Job 8:13). The Hebrew word here rendered "hypocrite" rather means the "godless" or "profane," as it is rendered in Jer. 23:11, i.e., polluted with crimes.
Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary​

With those definitions in mind, please consider the following:

Hilston wrote: Dear Bob Hill, You continue to misrepresent Augustine and Calvin.

Hypocrite!

Does anyone (excluding those infected by Open Theism), in light of the above definitions, see a problem with this accusation? What belief or opinion have I professed that I do not hold? Since when is one's appearance of virtue or religion germane to this discussion? How have I put on a mask and pretended to be what I am not?

Perhaps another definition is in order:

smart. adj. Characterized by sharp quick thought; bright (Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Your entire argument against open theism depends almost entirely on overstatements, complete misrepresentations and outright lies. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Note how the pestilence of Open Theism so thoroughly blinds its proponents and sucks rational thought right out of their brain. There is a difference between mocking and misrepresenting. I mock the mental squalor that is Open Theism, and thus my statements about it are intended to ridicule and denigrate the view. I do not take Open Theist quotes and assert that the quote really means something else, unintended by the Open Theist author. I might say that a certain quote implies something, or that, taken to its logical conclusions, inescapably infers something self-contradictory. But that is a far cry from saying that Calvinists claim unqualified divine immutability, and using quotes that say no such thing in order to prove it.

Hilston wrote to Bob Hill: Don't you agree that God cannot suffer change or conversion in His substance (essence) or nature? God is absolutely immutable in His character and essence, right? You and Augustine agree here. Why do you insist that Augustine is saying more than this? He is being very careful to specify the qualifiers for immutability. See more below.

I would like you to tell me in what way you believe God to be imperfect. You have already agreed (in another conversation) that Aristotle’s (and Augustine's) logic is sound. That logic being that anything perfect, if it changes, does so for the worse. And so in order for God to be mutable in any sense He must be imperfect in that sense. So which is it Jim? In what way is God imperfect?

Looks like another definition is in order:

intelligent. adj. Having or showing the ability to learn and understand. (Merriam-Webster).

Anyone who is paying attention, and whose mind has not been poisoned by the mephitic feculence that is the Open View, will know, both from my writings and from Calvin's and Augustine's, that the immutability argument from perfection pertains to God's substance (essence) and character. That is, if God, Who is perfect in His essence and character, were to change in His essence and/or character, He could only change for the worse. This is logic of God's immutability affirmed by Calvin and Augustine. Thus Clete's question is as relevant as his quotes below.

The second most common argument that Calvinists use to argue for the absolute immutability of God is that He is atemporal. If God is outside of time then no change could be meaningfully said to take place in any sense because change implies the passage of time which God does not experience as He is not temporal but eternal. You have explicitly stated a belief that God is outside of time. So you endorse the second pillar of the Calvinist argument as well as the first and yet deny the belief! And you think I'm confused!

Clete's desperation in this paragraph is sickening, embarrassing, and frankly, shameful. I could give a rip as to what anyone thinks of me and what I believe (obviously; evident by the fact that I stick around TOL), but what I find repugnant is disrespect for the debate. This is what sickens me about people like Clete, who, despite our years of discussion of these matters, should know better. Yet he still lobs this ignorant, gradeschool-stupid, idiotic, moronic, peurile, sophomoric playground accusation, patently ignoring our discussions about such rich topics as divine transcendence and immanence. He proves to me, now with every post he squirts out, that I truly wasted my time with him. Clearly, he is still. Without. A clue. He has proven himself to be a truly pitiful, shiftless, indolent poseur of the highest order. "Fool" would be the biblical word.

It is you who are misrepresenting Calvinism not Pastor Hill. Pastor Hill has about 1500 years of theological history to back him up, you have you and only you.

And yet Clete, despite all of my effort and patience to get him to produce for me one quote from a representative of Calvinism that supports his claim, he has failed to come up with a single one. After 1,500 years of church history, it should be a simple matter. Where are the quotes? Clete and Knight claim to have debated many people on TOL who claim unqualified immutability, yet neither has been able to produce a single name with whom I could follow up and interview. I have given piles of quotes to Clete that he chooses to conveniently and blithely ignore. Then he comes in here, spewing his noisome drivel, sputtering his irrational hatred of me, and spouting one incoherent inanity after another, trying to impress his sycophantic lamprey-like gluteal hitchhikers, all of whom are so likewise mentally hamstrung by the Open View disease that they couldn't detect a distortion of the opposing view is one were to come right up and bite them squarely on their Bob.

You are the only person I have ever heard even one time deny that God is anything but utterly immutable in every respect.

This, once again, is the fantasy world of the Open Theist mind. What colour is the sky in the Open Theist's world? Lavender? Mauve? I'm guessing it is as black as the hatred that seeks to defeat their enemies by misrepresentation and straw-man fallacies, rather than rational discourse and biblical argumentation.

Hilston wrote: Calvinists don't say that God doesn't change at all. This is a manufactured allegation, concocted by Open Theists, repeated by Open Theists, inbred among Open Theists, and thrown at Calvinists as if it were some dirty little secret. No Calvinist I have ever known or read has asserted or affirmed the view that God does not change at all.

In light of my paragraph above, please note the following excerpts of non-representatives of Calvinism provided by Clete and how utterly irrelevant they are. The conveniently disregarded challenge that has been put to Clete, and to any other Open Theist would feels up for it, is to cite a representative of Calvinism who believes in unqualified immutability. So what does Clete The Smarter do? He quotes people who are critical or hostile to Calvin. This would be like asking someone to trust J. I. Packer to authoritatively explain what Bob Enyart believes. This would be like asking someone to trust A. W. Pink to authoritatively explain what Bob Hill believes. In view of Clete's sloppy scholarship, flawed reasoning, irrational knee-jerk accusation-spitting, and childish muscle-flexing, should anything His Brainy-ness says be taken seriously? Seriously!

Here's a couple ...

If Clete really were as smart as he claims, he would have said, "Here are a couple." Sadly, Open Theism is inexorably drying up whatever intelligence Clete has left.

I found in just the last few minutes after a brief Google search:

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...
"The doctrine of divine immutability (DDI) asserts that God cannot undergo real or intrinsic change in any respect."

"God's perfection seems to rule out many sorts of change, as we've just seen. More general arguments from perfection convinced classical theists that God cannot change in any way."

This is the problem with armchair theologians who insulate themselves from a proper understanding of opposing theologies. What Clete utterly fails to appreciate is the difficulty non-biblical philosophers, such as the writers on the SEP, have when discussing real versus intrinsic change. If anyone is curious, all they have to do is keep reading the site that Clete quoted. The perfection argument, as I explained above and as Augustine affirms, but will indubitably continue to be ignored by Clete and his suckups, pertains to God's essence and character. If you read Clete's selective quoting through the same kind of disease-ridden lenses that Clete has cemented to his face, you will find yourself in the same sinking dinghy that he is in, and like Clete, you will end up just as mentally challenged and too obliviously blind to realize that you're up to your freaking necks in contradictions, self-delusions and Straw-Man Fantasies.

Clete goes on to quote an Open Theist website and others opposed to Calvin and Augustine in order to prove what Calvin and Augustine believed. :kookoo:

Hilston quoted Augustine:
... this Word of God, I say, took to Himself, in a manner entirely different from that in which He is present to other creatures, the soul and body of a man, and made, by the union of Himself therewith, the one person Jesus Christ, Mediator between God and men, His Deity equal with the Father, in His flesh, i.e. in His human nature, inferior to the Father, unchangeably immortal in respect of the divine nature, in which He is equal with the Father, and yet changeable and mortal in respect of the infirmity which was His through participation with our nature.
~ From the Letters of Augustine, pp. 949, 950

And then, as if the quote never existed, Clete The Bright writes:

It is contrary only to your wishful thinking and misrepresentation of his beliefs.

Yes! Awesome! This is what I call a theological horror show, and I love it! Clete has not only taken the rope, tied it to a branch of the Stupid Tree, formed a noose and put it around his head, but he has climbed up into said tree, and jumped from the top, hitting every branch on the way down.

I can find similar self-contradictory comments throughout Calvinists writings.

This would require for Clete to actually read Calvinist writings. We've already seen in his latest post what Clete The Mental Behemoth considers reading "Calvinist writings." And the only way Clete will read Calvinist writings is if Bob Enyart or Bob Hill reads them to him, or provides pre-interpreted quotes for him to read, which means it will only be through the polarized lenses that Bob and Bob give Clete by which to read them. I hope Clete proves me wrong, and perhaps for the first time, decides to read Calvin or Augustine for himself. I look forward to seeing the excerpts Clete will offer from Calvinists, instead of his convenient citations from hostile camps opposed to Calvinism.

This does not change the fact that they believe in the absolute immutability of God.

Only about God's essence and nature. Since Clete Of Inimitable Intellect won't read Calvin or Auggie for himself, he should go ahead and read the excerpts from the Bobs. It's there. Plain as day.

Their own inconsistency is only further evidence that the theological system is wrong, not that they didn't believe what every theological historian in the world knows that Augustine both believed and taught.

And yet Clete The Erudite Academician cannot find a single one. Are these the words of someone who should be taken seriously when he says, "I'm smarter than you think"? Can such an elaborate Straw-Man Phantasm ever be dismantled? Or is it forever established and glued together by the sticky, stanky pus that seeps from the oozing gangrenous abscess that is Open Theism?

The sort of argument you are making here is no more valid than it would be for me to try to argue that the Church of Christ isn't legalistic because they quote from the book of Galatians. Individual comments do not a belief system make. For you to even suggest that Augustine didn't beleive in the absolute immutability of God is laughable.

And yet Clete The Ermine Truthsmacker cannot produce a single quote to the contrary, refusing, irrationally and contrary to sound thinking and standard scholarly protocol, to see that "absolute immutability" pertains only to God's substance and character. The Open Theist's mind is poisoned by liberalistic irrational hatred, blind sycophantic loyalty to fallible men, and a fantasy world that has no correspondence with reality.

The whole idea that God could change in any way whatsoever is the very reason he refused to become a Christian for so many years in spite of his mother's pleading.

Actually, Augustine rightly resisted the irrational and self-refuting Luciferian notion of Open Theism that was being pushed on him.

... It wasn't until Bishop Ambrose taught him to interpret the Scripture in light of Aristotelian philosophy that Augustine would have anything to do with God or the Bible.

This is a feature, not a blight, on Augustine's thinking. The perspicuous logical aspects of Aristotelian thought happened to be biblical. And when presented for the first time with biblical argumentation and sound rational thought concerning the essence and nature of God, Augustine yielded.

Your argument flies in the face of well established history, Jim. It simply fails on every level.

And this from a man who cannot provide a single quote to support his claims; who cannot provide the name of a single person who believes what he accuses. Is this a picture of sanity? Is this a person who is operating in the real world?

Hilston wrote: Please do your followers an important service and retract these false characterizations, Bob. Until you do, your disciples will continue to uncritically take your word for it, and mindlessly repeat your erroneous claims, demonstrating embarrassing ignorance when they attempt to debate Calvinists with this false charge.

I have had personal experience to the exact contrary. Calvinists do not dismiss it as a false charge at all!

Clete really should be able to give me names. Give me quotes. Give me links. Or else he should shut his insipid, saprophytic, boredom inducing pie-hole.

In fact, they flatly refuse to deny it and openly embrace irrationalism rather than concede that God can change in any respect whatsoever. They commonly use the term antinomy, which is another thing which you claim that Calvinist do not do.

There is no such thing as an antinomy; the only way to rationally claim such a thing is to define it as an apparent or ostensible contradiction. There are no true contradictions. And I've yet to read a Calvinist who would claim such a thing. I suspect Clete has never either, except in the Straw-Man Fantasy world that is Open Theism.

"Previously I had to swallow hard and accept the Calvinian antinomy that required me to believe both that God determines all things and that creaturely freedom is real." - Clark H. Pinnock

Another hostile witness. How utterly cogent!

"Packer begins by presenting the concept of antinomy, which he defines as “an appearance of contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary.” An antinomy we face as believers is that of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Somehow, although God is absolutely sovereign, He has ordained that we would be responsible for our involvement in His plans. Our obedient response to this antinomy is to accept it for what it is and learn to live with it. Any other response would be to minimize something God deems important and even necessary to a godly life. We cannot see Divine sovereignty and human responsible as opposites or principles that are in conflict with each other, but rather as principles that complement each other and are equally true." - Book Review - Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer

And yet another hostile witness! Notice that Packer defines antinomy as "an appearance of contradiction ...", not an actual one. Will Clete appreciate that careful distinction? No. Why? Because it would require for him to think, and thinking "apparently" is not one of Clete's strong suits.

In his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (Chicago: InterVarsity Press, 1961) J. I. Packer argues that the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man is an antinomy. He defines "antinomy" as "an appearance of contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary" (p. 18). It "is neither dispensable nor comprehensible...It is unavoidable and insoluble. We do not invent it, and we cannot explain it" (p. 21). God "orders and controls all things, human actions among them"...yet "He holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues" (p. 22). "To our finite minds this is inexplicable" (p. 23). -source

And yet again, a hostile witness is cited to explain to us what the Calvinist means. Clete is a modern journalist par excellence! Look out, Jayson Blair.

In short, your ploy has been discovered. You thought you could win the debate by simply denying that Calvinists believe this stuff but they do.

The challenge still stands. I've offered quotes that disprove the Bobs' and Clete-The-Intellectual-Giant's unsupported claims. They have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary.

The mistake you made is to make such an insane argument in the age of the internet when anyone who can type can find proof to the contrary in about 15 seconds if they know what to look for.

Sadly, pathetically even, the mistake lies in the lap of the Clete-The-Enormous-Brain who cited hostile sources to prove his still unsupported claim. Will this post motivate him to get his act together and to offer something of cogent substance to this discussion? Of course not. That would require thinking, scholarship, careful analysis, and the humility to admit error in one's assumptions and in blindly trusting partisan men who don't know what they're talking about.

Here come those Santa Ana winds again,
Jim

 

[themuzicman]

I wasn't asking God.

No, it was just a convienent answer from scripture.

And anyway, you don't believe God did that, do you?

I think it was God's intent to judge all those who sought righteousness by the law and to save all those who receive righteousness by grace through faith. The pots are simply the two covenants, the Old, works based covenant, prepared for destruction, the New, grace through faith based covenant prepared for glory.

(And to answer the question about those in the Old Testament, the New Covenant was promised way back in Gen 3:15, such that those, as we see in Hebrews, that were looking foward to the promise of God to be fulfilled were living by faith and not by works, such that they are in the New Covenant, even if they were observing the rituals of the Old. This goes back to the days of the exile when sacrifice was replaced by oral tradition and living out every aspect of the law possible to the nth degree, and this was supposed to please God.)

Michael

 

[Clete]

Jim has lost. He's lost both his mind and this debate.

He asks for quotes, I give him quotes. Now he wants different quotes, which he would then twist to say something other than what they say. Jim doesn't even understand that if you accuse someone of misrepresenting something while you are misrepresenting something yourself, that makes you a hypocrite!

Can anyone give me any reason to continue this? Is Jim capable of actually keeping his eye on the ball long enough to respond to the actual points I make or has he not proven totally incapable of that? It seems all he is capable of is being evasive and insulting. I ask him to tell me which part of God is imperfect because Augustine's logic applies to all aspects of God that qualify as being perfect. Does he answer the question? NO! He ignores the question altogether and instead attempts to say that the logic would only apply to the essence of God. But that isn't how the argument goes! The argument has to do with perfection and how the perfect does not change. It doesn't address any specific attribute of God but rather perfection itself. If the logic holds for God essence then it will hold for any other "part" of God! Which is the whole reason Calvinists DO BELIEVE IN THE ABSOLUTE IMMUTABILITY OF GOD! Calvinists do not believe that there are any "parts" to God. He is utterly simple. He is One perfect whole. If any part of God changes all of Him changes and thus no change is possible because if everything about a thing changes then it ceases to be that which it was entirely. The argument is based almost as much on God's simplicity as it is His perfection. Both of which doctrines Jim himself affirms and yet he will not answer a simple question. He won't answer because he can't answer and maintain this insanity, which has exceeded the level of my tolerance.

Nothing anyone says is a valid point against his position in his mind because no word in the English language seems to mean what it means in Jim's world. Nothing Jim says is in any way falsifiable. Exceptions are insisted to be "qualifications". People who accuse others of doing what they are doing themselves are no longer hypocrites. Calvinists aren't Calvinists, no true contradictions exist, antinomy is apparently a word that I made up out of the clear blue sky, etc., etc., etc. It's utterly hopeless to have a meaningful debate or even a fruitful conversation with the likes of Jim Hilston. We don't even speak the same language!

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I have no time for editing and so any less than perfect points of grammar will, I suppose, have to serve as proof that I’m a blithering idiot. :dizzy:

 

[novice]

Can anyone give me any reason to continue this?

I can give a reason!

You should continue because you are exposing very clearly what many of us have known for some time. :up:

 

[sentientsynth]

You should continue because you are exposing very clearly what many of us have known for some time. :up:

Pray tell, Novice. What might that be?


SS

 

[Hilston]

Jim has lost. He's lost both his mind and this debate.

More wishful thinking from someone who cannot get his mind around the fact that he has invented an opponent that doesn't exist, except in his fantasy world. He's been given a chance to produce the support he needs to prove his point and to clear the charges I've brought against him. It is clearly and unequivocally in his best interest to do so and to shut my mouth. But he does not? Why? Is it because he just can't be bothered? Of course not! When has Clete The Truthsmacker ever passed up an opportunity to try to make me look dumber than he is? It must be because he cannot do so. For all his proud boasting of being able to Google the proof he needs, he finds himself, once again, insulated among the gainsayers, conveniently shielded from reality. He has painted his own sorry self into a corner from which he cannot escape except by denying reality itself and desperately quoting hostile witnesses. He is obviously at a total loss as to how to get his infected leg free from the coyote trap he has inadvertently set for himself. The worse part is, when he finally arrives at the good sense to chew his own leg off, he starts gnawing from the wrong side.

He asks for quotes, I give him quotes.

All you Open Theists out there, aren't you embarrassed by this behaviour? He has gone down like a lead zeppelin, of the non-musical sort, but his head is still in the clouds. Is there any hope for someone this far gone?

Now he wants different quotes, ...

I wonder if Clete, in his Munchkin Land of Open Theism, has ever heard the phrase: "Consider the source"? Wonder what that could possibly mean? Of course I want different quotes! Rationality requires it. Clear thinking and good faith argumentation require it. But Clete has never let the standards of rationality, clear thinking or good faith get in the way before; why should he start now? This is a man who claims to have learned Calvinism from three anti-Calvinist churches and one pro-Calvinist church, the latter of which does not teach unqualified immutability. Shall I list the names of those churches? The names of the people I talked to? And their phone numbers? Anyone could call and find out the same thing I did.

I talked to the associate pastor at Tulsa Bible Church, the only Calvinistic church on Clete's list. In our phone conversation, he, too, denied the idea that God cannot change at all in any way whatsoever. He thanked me profusely for calling to get direct clarification, rather than go on someone else's word. Moreover, he expressed grave concern that there are those out there, like Clete, misrepresenting his church's position on this.

So whom are we to believe? Clete, who claims Calvin and Augustine and Tulsa Bible Church teach this idea, but is unable to produce any quotes to support it? Or the men themselves who unequivocally claim otherwise?

... which he would then twist to say something other than what they say.

No twisting is necessary when the quotes come from hostile witnesses. I didn't even touch the ones Clete offered previously because their source suffices to discredit them. Aren't there other Open Theists who see the miserable abject desperation in Clete's behaviour, or are you all just as enormously infected by his thinking?

Jim doesn't even understand that if you accuse someone of misrepresenting something while you are misrepresenting something yourself, that makes you a hypocrite!

Only in the Open Theist Fantasy World. In the real world, that is called "Special Pleading." Look it up, those of you who can read and comprehend.

I ask him to tell me which part of God is imperfect because Augustine's logic applies to all aspects of God that qualify as being perfect.

This is precisely the point that Clete cannot prove, yet he still asks the irrelevant question. Is there some sort of psychotropic medication that has come into play here? Can someone really be this dumb?

Does he answer the question? NO! He ignores the question altogether and instead attempts to say that the logic would only apply to the essence of God. But that isn't how the argument goes! The argument has to do with perfection and how the perfect does not change.

Right, that which is perfect in essence and character, as Augustine and Calvin repeatedly qualify, which the Open Theist ought to agree with.

It doesn't address any specific attribute of God but rather perfection itself.

Oh, I see. Let's completely redirect the subject away from God's actual nature to the abstract concept of "perfection." Talk about twisting! I'll find out next that Clete hasn't really been talking about God at all, but rather the falsifiability of String Theory.

If the logic holds for God essence then it will hold for any other "part" of God!

This is Clete's existentialism speaking. Plug your ears, kids. You shouldn't see this part.

... Which is the whole reason Calvinists DO BELIEVE IN THE ABSOLUTE IMMUTABILITY OF GOD!

Only regarding His essence and character.

... Calvinists do not believe that there are any "parts" to God. He is utterly simple. He is One perfect whole.

Yes, in His essence and character. It's like a little bit of light come streaming into the blackness of Clete's cloistered Open Theist mind, but then it's suddenly too much for him to process, and he slams hard against the door to keep it out.

... If any part of God changes all of Him changes and thus no change is possible because if everything about a thing changes then it ceases to be that which it was entirely.

Yes, in His essence and character. I know Clete isn't getting this, so this is really for any Open Theist who hasn't completely succumbed to the poison.

... The argument is based almost as much on God's simplicity as it is His perfection. Both of which doctrines Jim himself affirms and yet he will not answer a simple question. He won't answer because he can't answer and maintain this insanity, ...

See above. The answer has been given many times over, regardless of how tenaciously Clete plugs his ears and shuts his eyes to it. Note that my sanity, rationality, cogency, biblicity are all intact. I'm not the one who has resorted to hostile witnesses to find support for my view. Even the slimiest lawyers know better than Clete. What does that make Clete?

... which has exceeded the level of my tolerance.

Perhaps dreams do come true.

Nothing anyone says is a valid point against his position in his mind because no word in the English language seems to mean what it means in Jim's world.

That tired argument again. This is absolute desperation, people. You can look up every word in my posts and find that their definitions align with my usage. Even "hypocrite," which Clete ludicrously redefined and pulled out of his own lexicon.

Nothing Jim says is in any way falsifiable.

This is funny. Here is Clete "Popper" trying so desperately to sound philosophical and academic and he doesn't even pause to appreciate difference between a falsifiable thesis and a nonfalsifiable one.

Exceptions are insisted to be "qualifications".

Um, yeah, Dr. Hawking, that's what a qualifier is. When one says "except," he is saying "not to include," as Augustine and Calvin do not include God's actions, manifestations, and relationships under the heading of "immutable." What kind of medication will do this to a person's mind? Perhaps the medication is contra-indicated with Open Theism?

... People who accuse others of doing what they are doing themselves are no longer hypocrites. Calvinists aren't Calvinists, no true contradictions exist, antinomy is apparently a word that I made up out of the clear blue sky, etc., etc., etc. It's utterly hopeless to have a meaningful debate or even a fruitful conversation with the likes of Jim Hilston.

The debate ended a long time ago. If Clete thinks I've been debating him in these past several posts, he is completely disconnected from reality. This is shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun, just for the sake of others who are following along and need to see what Open Theism reduces to.

We don't even speak the same language!

Thank. God.

P.S. I have no time for editing and so any less than perfect points of grammar will, I suppose, have to serve as proof that I’m a blithering idiot.

Does this mean I don't get to keep my tree-fitty?

This is the night of the Expanding Man,
Jim

 

[Clete]

First of all, I need to make a correction. I typed in my last post....

"Exceptions are insisted to be "qualifications"."

I should have typed "Examples are insisted to be "qualifications"."

I was referring to the tactic Jim employs of insisting that a less than exhaustive list of God's attributes, along with a brief description of how they are immutable aren't examples to demonstrate the application of the logic, but are instead a completely exhaustive list of the only specific ways in which God is immutable/perfect. A claim which is obviously imposed on the text and which renders it impossible to quote anything from Calvin or Augustine or virtually anyone because they almost universally employ such partial lists of various aspects of God (which they turn right around a paragraph or two later and deny exist, by the way).

I guess Jim gets his tree-fitty after all.

Secondly, I will ask Jim the question again in a slightly different way. Would anyone like to bet me whether we'll see a straight answer to this one?

Jim,

If, in your view (and presumably in the Calvinist's view as well), God is only immutable in His essence/character, in what way is He mutable?

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I have to say that this is sort of fun! I'm actually arguing as though I am a Calvinist! I'ts been more than ten years since I've done anything like that!

Oh! And incidentally, in spite of what Jim reports having been told by a pastor at Tulsa Bible Church, I was effectively kicked out of the Sunday School class because I argued from Scripture that God can and does change His mind and openly refuted every nonsense Calvinist doctrine that they were teaching during a series of lessons on the churches core beliefs (i.e. the main tenants of Calvinism). The argument over whether or not God changes His mind came up during the class on immutability. Anyone in that church that does not believe in absolute divine immutability is at odds with what I was specifically told was a "church position".

Okay! One more last point...

When you tell someone it is wrong to misrepresent someone else's position and then turn around and misrepresent someone else's position you are demonstrating that you say that you hold beliefs that you do not actually hold.

hy·poc·ri·sy Pronunciation (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.