One on One: Calvinism and the immutability of God.

[Nathon Detroit]

You're the one to started it, remember?

Jim in your haste you are getting sloppy.

I didn't say "you started it". But I did say it was your assertion and it was!

You asserted...

Even more specifically, God initially fought for Israel as they were taking the Land of Caanan, but later changed His actions and ceased from fighting for them.

To which I responded...

Do you really believe this was a change in action for God?

Choose the most accurate of the following two options...

1. God's plan was to continue fighting for Israel. And when Israel disobeyed it was NOT part of God's plan. God DID NOT plan, decree or cause Israel to disobey.

Or.......

2. God planned, decreed and or caused Israel to disobey and also that He would no longer fight for Israel prior to any of these events actually taking place.

 

[Hilston]

Jim in your haste you are getting sloppy.

I didn't say "you started it". But I did say it was your assertion and it was!

Could this be any more irrelevant? I'm really interested in keeping this on topic. But now, not only have you tried to bait me into a discussion about my personal beliefs (as opposed to discussing Calvinism, which is what this thread is about), but now you want to quibble over the difference between "starting it" and "making an assertion." In the hope of getting back to the discussion topic, please note the following: When a question is asked by one party (i.e., when someone "starts it"), and the other party agrees to answer, a positive statement can be provided as a response to that question. A positive statement is what is known in linguistic parlance as an "assertion."

You asserted...To which I responded ...

Do you really believe this was a change in action for God?

Yes, despite its irrelevance to this discussion, I really believe it was a change in God's action. At first, He was fighting for Israel. Then He ceased from fighting. That was a change in action. Another example: For 6 days, God created. On the 7th, He ceased from creating. That was a change in God's action.

Choose the most accurate of the following two options...

1. God's plan was to continue fighting for Israel. And when Israel disobeyed it was NOT part of God's plan. God DID NOT plan, decree or cause Israel to disobey.

Or.......

2. God planned, decreed and or caused Israel to disobey and also that He would no longer fight for Israel prior to any of these events actually taking place.

Of the two statements, #2 contains the most accuracies.

Can we please now get back to the discussion about the widespread distortion of Calvinism by Open Theists, and your refusal to recant your false accusations against Calvinists despite your own public admission that your accusations were false?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I really believe it was a change in God's action. At first, He was fighting for Israel. Then He ceased from fighting.

Of the two statements, #2 contains the most accuracies.

So you believe that God decreed, planned and or caused Israel to disobey.

Hmmm.....

If God decreed, planned and or caused Israel to disobey and God also planned that He would cease fighting for them (i.e., the entire event was pre-planned) how could that be considered a change?

After all....

How can perfectly executing a pre-determined plan be a change in plan?

 

[Hilston]

More irrelevance. This post was a total crack-up. It's becoming quite obvious that Knight does not want to discuss the thread topic, but would rather derail the discussion to something he is apparently more comfortable with: Distorting the views and statements of his opponents.

So you believe that God decreed, planned and or caused Israel to disobey.

Hmmm.....

No. I answered your question as stated. I didn't say I agreed with the statement. I said it contained the most accuracies. In other words, it was the least inaccurate of the two statements. By the way, I saw this coming like a giant Macy's Thanksgiving Day balloon. It was so hugely obvious and predictable that it nearly put out the sun.

If God decreed, planned and or caused Israel to disobey and God also planned that He would cease fighting for them (i.e., the entire event was pre-planned) how could that be considered a change?

His original action was to fight for Israel. His later action was to not fight for Israel. What are you not getting?

After all....

How can perfectly executing a pre-determined plan be a change in plan?

I'm going to assume you're just not thinking very carefully at this late hour, because I would hate to think you were being so deliberately obtuse. NOTE: I have not said Thing One about a 'change in plan.' God's plans do not change. They are inexorably decreed. God's actions change. God's manifestations change. But His plans are settled. You should already know this.

Having now hosed the deck clear of the irrelevant and obfuscatory red herrings (stanky critters), let us now return to the topic of discussion:

• You earlier noted that your poking and prodding of Mormons revealed that, despite their claims of believing in grace, the Mormons do not really believe in grace.
• You also claimed that your poking and prodding of Calvinists revealed that, despite their claims of (what you perceive as) unqualified immutability, Calvinists do not really believe in unqualified immutability.
• If you were to read Mormon writings, you would probably discover that they do not believe in grace.
• Just as, if you were to read Calvin and Augustine, you would discover that they do not believe in unqualified immutability.

Given the above, I would hope that you would not go around telling people that Mormons believe in grace.

Also, given the above, I would hope that you would not go around telling people that Calvinists believe in unqualified immutability.

But this is exactly. What. You. DO, Knight. You do the very thing your analogy argues against. You violate your own logic, yet you irrationally refuse to recant. You irrationally refuse to correct Bob Hill and Bob Enyart. It has all the appearances of obsequious loyalty and blind sycophantism.

Will you admit that you and your Open Theist cohorts have been misrepresenting Calvinism and that you should recant the accusations of unqualified immutability?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

More irrelevance. This post was a total crack-up. It's becoming quite obvious that Knight does not want to discuss the thread topic, but would rather derail the discussion to something he is apparently more comfortable with: Distorting the views and statements of his opponents.

Jim, you couldn't be more wrong.

Jim this thread exists so that you can show me that Calvinists actually believe in qualified immutability. I am trying to narrow in on what those qualifications actually are. To do this I need to know what you think the qualifications are. It's the only way I will be able to understand where and if I have actually been misunderstanding my opponent.

No. I answered your question as stated. I didn't say I agreed with the statement. I said it contained the most accuracies. In other words, it was the least inaccurate of the two statements.

Yet you do believe that God planned, decreed and or caused Israel to reject Him.

Therefore I do not see where any actual change took place.

God planned Israel reject Him and they did (according to plan)
God decreed Israel reject Him and they did (according to His decree)
God caused Israel to reject Him and they did.

Therefore God did not CHANGE when He stopped acting on their behalf for all of this was in the plan.

The only way a true change could have happened would have been if He DIDN"T plan that Israel reject Him. Otherwise the pre-determined plan is being perfectly executed no change necessary or possible.

His original action was to fight for Israel. His later action was to not fight for Israel. What are you not getting?

You are merely inserting the word "action" in place of the word "plan" in an attempt to make it seem as if a change occurred.

After all if we take your above statement and look at it through the lens of God planning and decreeing everything without exception we would have to read your above statement like this....

"His original plan was to fight for Israel and later to not fight for Israel."

Is there anything about that statement you would object to? And if so, what?

Jim, I really need to get a handle on what your qualifications are for immutability. That's why I am pressing these issues. This issue IS the issue (helping me see what the "qualifications" are).

You continue...

NOTE: I have not said Thing One about a 'change in plan.' God's plans do not change. They are inexorably decreed. God's actions change. God's manifestations change. But His plans are settled. You should already know this.

In what way are actions different from plans?

Aren't God's actions simply the fulfillment of God's plans?

In other words...
God plans to do something, and then He acts (action) to fulfill that plan.

If everything is planned I see no real distinction between the plan and the fulfillment of it (the action). Do you?

 

[Hilston]

Hi Knight,

You write:

Jim this thread exists so that you can show me that Calvinists actually believe in qualified immutability.

Then why the snipe hunt? Why are you asking me what I believe? I'm not a Calvinist.

I am trying to narrow in on what those qualifications actually are.

This smacks of pretext, Knight. You were not only told what those qualifications are when I quoted Augustine, but you admitted to understanding them when you conceded that Calvinists really do believe in qualified immutability. So every ostensible lack of understanding you hereafter affirm has all the appearance of blatant backpedaling, obvious pretense and an affected strategem designed to divert the reader's attention away from the trap you've inadvertently set for yourself and into which you've blindly stepped with that Mormon analogy.

I remind the reader of Augustine's 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​

This suffices to show Knight that Calvinists believe in qualified immutability. Knight's public admission and concession suffice to show that he understands that Calvinists believe in qualified immutability. It no longer matters how, where, when or why God's immutability is qualified. All that matters is that it is qualified by Calvin, Augustine and those who follow that theological system. By his own words, Knight understands that Calvinists do not believe in unqualified immutability, yet, when I ask him to retract his false accusations and to approach The Bobs and Clete on the subject, he offers no response.

I remind the readers of how The Bobs misrepresent the view. I wrote:

Those who have read the Bobs' writings on immutability, impassibility, etc. should know that they selectively quote Augustine to characterize him in a way that is not supported by his own writing, to say that Augustine believed God could not change in any way, when it is clear as day that he believed otherwise.

Bob Enyart has written: "absolute immutability which denies that God can change at all, The doctrine of immutability imported into Christianity the pagan Greek conception that God is utterly unchangeable. Whereas the traditional doctrine of immutability followed the Greeks, through Augustine, in denying any change whatsoever to God, which depicted Him more like a cold stone idol than like the God of Scripture.​

So I now ask Knight once again: Based on your own public concession that Calvinists really do believe in qualified immutability, will you now retract your false accusations and ask The Bobs and Clete to do the same?

To do this I need to know what you think the qualifications are.

It suffices that the qualifications are there. It doesn't matter what I think they are. I quoted them to you from Augustine's writings. And you've admitted to discovering them after poking and prodding Calvinists. This is a red herring. A pretext. A strategem. And it's irrelevant.

It's the only way I will be able to understand where and if I have actually been misunderstanding my opponent.

That's the problem, Knight. There is no misunderstanding. You've conceded this. Besides, you're the expert, remember? You don't have an understanding problem. You have a misrepresentation problem, which you have already admitted. This is a done deal, Knight. Your admissions are public. You have openly and publicly confessed willful mispresentation. All that remains is to see whether or not you will retract your misrepresentations and urge your cohorts to do the same.

Jim, I really need to get a handle on what your qualifications are for immutability.

No, you don't, because my views are not up for examination in this discussion. Re-read your own purpose statement in the OP. All that is left is for you to retract your distortions about Calvinism and to either set The Bobs and Clete straight on this matter (they won't listen to me), or else repudiate their claims.

That's why I am pressing these issues. This issue IS the issue (helping me see what the "qualifications" are).

As I said above, you already know what they are and it only matters that they exist. You said yourself that when you poke and prod Calvinists, the qualifiers emerge.

Having now, once again, cleared the fog of the irrelevant affectations and diversions, I return to the actual topic of this discussion:

• You earlier noted that your poking and prodding of Mormons revealed that, despite their claims of believing in grace, the Mormons do not really believe in grace.
• You also claimed that your poking and prodding of Calvinists revealed that, despite their claims of (what you perceive as) unqualified immutability, Calvinists do not really believe in unqualified immutability.
• If you were to read Mormon writings, you would probably discover that they do not believe in grace.
• Just as, if you were to read Calvin and Augustine, you would discover that they do not believe in unqualified immutability.

Given the above, I would hope that you would not go around telling people that Mormons believe in grace.

Also, given the above, I would hope that you would not go around telling people that Calvinists believe in unqualified immutability.

But this is exactly what you've done, Knight. You have done the very thing your analogy argues against, and insodoing, you've violated your own logic.

Will you now admit that you and your Open Theist cohorts have been misrepresenting Calvinism and that you should recant the accusations of unqualified immutability? Will you now set your colleauges straight on this matter so they will cease and desist from this misrepresentation?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I assert that Jim himself is an example of a person that believes that God cannot change.

And it is evidenced by his earlier statements and now by his refusal to respond to my posts.

Jim you are always asking us to give you names of folks who claim God does not change, I will give you a name.... Jim Hilston.

Sure, sure... you superficially claim that God has "qualified immutability" but in practice you teach the opposite! And you have proved it on this very thread!

Which is why you are ignoring the points I am making because you know the logical conclusion is its impossible for you to offer examples of God's ability to change.

I asked you for an example of a change that God has made and you stated....

Even more specifically, God initially fought for Israel as they were taking the Land of Caanan, but later changed His actions and ceased from fighting for them.

Yet after that you affirmed that Israel only disobeyed because God planned, decreed and or caused their disobedience and therefore the entire exercise was orchestrated in advance.

Therefore no change had actually taken place, only a perfect execution of God's pre-determined plan which by definition COULD NOT be a change.

Ultimately your claim that God has "qualified immutability" is ringing hollow unless you can give me actual examples of changes God has made or is capable of.

And if you can't give me examples why should I be compelled to think that Calvin or other Calvinists could (or would even want to) give me examples of God's capabilities of change?

"Qualified immutability" (that is the topic correct?). Please give some actual examples of these "qualifications" if you can.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Knight,

Since you initially brought up the Mormon Grace Analogy, I have asked you several times over the course of 4 posts whether or not you will recant your false accusations against Calvinists and inform Bob Hill, Bob Enyart and Clete Pfeiffer of the errors you have all, by your own admission, erroneously promulgated. You have since posted 8 separate times, and not once have you addressed these paramount questions.

Knight, with each passing post that you refuse to address them, questions upon which this entire discussion is aimed, you will be seen as evasive, dishonest, disrespectful, childish and intellectually inept. I'm not saying you're any of these things, but your behavior certainly belies any denial of them.

Your persistence in asking irrelevant questions, Knight, and then your chiding me for not answering them, may seem like a good strategy for derailing this discussion and diverting attention away from your obvious dilemma. You may very well succeed in bringing this discussion to a grinding halt. You might have convinced your disciples and cronies not to look at the man behind the curtain, having hidden and overshadowed your flawed arguments and mischaracterizations by the smoke and clamor of your projected Giant Oz Head.

But for the readers who are astute, clear and logically minded, and able to think for themselves without obsequious deference to errant and fallible men, your obfuscations will do nothing but further expose what you've already tacitly admitted, Knight: You and Bob Hill and Bob Enyart and Clete Pfeiffer are guilty of misrepresenting Calvinsim.

I assert that Jim himself is an example of a person that believes that God cannot change.

Of course. Knight is also an example of someone who believes that God cannot change. Just as Bob Enyart is another example, who writes in Battle Royale X, Post 1B:

God is immutable, that is, unchanging (Mal. 3:6; Ps. 102:27; Heb. 1:12; 13:8; James 1:17), not absolutely but in His goodness. “The goodness of God endures continually” (Ps. 52:1), because of His commitment to righteousness (Jer. 9:24; Ps. 33:5). Thus His counsel (His will) is immutably good (Heb. 6:17-18) ...[Emphases added]​

Bob Enyart obviously believes in qualified immutability.

Jim you are always asking us to give you names of folks who claim God does not change, I will give you a name.... Jim Hilston.

Good grief. The apparently unabashed childishness of this behavior is truly mind-blowing. I can hardly believe what I'm reading. I sincerely mean that. I expect better reasoning from someone in gradeschool.

Out of respect for this debate, I will say it again: I'm not a Calvinist, Knight. I've asked you for the name of a Calvinist who believes in unqualified immutability. You've still not given me one single name, out of the myriad Calvinists you claim to have debated on this forum, of someone who will agree to unqualified immutability. With each passing post that you fail to produce one, Knight, the ice upon which you're skating becomes thinner and thinner.

Sure, sure... you superficially claim that God has "qualified immutability" but in practice you teach the opposite! And you, Knight, have proved it on this very thread!

It is irrelevant to this discussion what Jim Hilston teaches. What is relevant is what Calvin and Augustine taught and what Calvinists espouse.

Which is why you are ignoring the points I am making because you know the logical conclusion is its impossible for you to offer examples of God's ability to change.

Augustine gave sufficient examples, Knight. Calvin gave sufficient examples. You yourself have stated that Calvinists, when poked and prodded, are shown to believe in God's ability to change. There is no reason for me, a non-Calvinist, or a Mormon for that matter, to explain my personal view on these matters. If you're that interested in my personal, albeit irrelevant view, have a look at the following links:

• Battle Royale X Critique
• Enyart on Divine Immutability

Yet after that you affirmed that Israel only disobeyed because God planned, decreed and or caused their disobedience and therefore the entire exercise was orchestrated in advance.

Therefore no change had actually taken place, ...

A change happened in God's relationship to Israel. A change happened in God's action. A change did not happen in God's essence or character. Would you agree, Knight?

... only a perfect execution of God's pre-determined plan which by definition COULD NOT be a change.

The execution of God's unchanging plan involved changes in God's relationship with Israel and God's action. An architect has a plan. There are changes that are built into the plan. For example, the change from employing contractors who lay the foundation to employing electricians who do the wiring.

Ultimately your claim that God has "qualified immutability" is ringing hollow unless you can give me actual examples of changes God has made or is capable of.

Augustine gave you examples, Knight. So does Calvin. My views are irrelevant in this thread.

And if you can't give me examples why should I be compelled to think that Calvin or other Calvinists could (or would even want to) give me examples of God's capabilities of change?

I can give examples, but they would be irrelevant. Augustine has given examples, which I quoted for your convenience. So has Calvin, Knight. Their examples are relevant, and should suffice.

"Qualified immutability" (that is the topic correct?). Please give some actual examples of these "qualifications" if you can.

God is described in the Bible as unchanging in certain respects, i.e. He is unchanging in a qualified sense. See the references in the Enyart quote above. One area in which God is unchangeable is in His immortality "in respect of the divine nature." An area in which God is changeable is in His mortality "in respect of the infirmity which was His through participation with our nature."

So, after Knight's bombing of yet another aspirin factory, I return to the actual topic of this discussion:

• Knight earlier noted that his poking and prodding of Mormons revealed that, despite their claims of believing in grace, the Mormons do not really believe in grace.
• Knight also claimed that his poking and prodding of Calvinists revealed that, despite their claims of (what you perceive as) unqualified immutability, Calvinists do not really believe in unqualified immutability.
• If one were to read Mormon writings, one would probably discover that they do not believe in grace.
• Just as, if one were to read Calvin and Augustine, one would discover that they do not believe in unqualified immutability.

Given the above, I would hope that Knight would not go around telling people that Mormons believe in grace.

Also, given the above, I would hope that Knight would not go around telling people that Calvinists believe in unqualified immutability.

But this is exactly what Knight has done. Knight has done the very thing his analogy argues against, and insodoing, he has violated his own logic.

Knight, will you now admit that you and your Open Theist cohorts have been misrepresenting Calvinism and that you should recant the accusations of unqualified immutability? Will you now set your colleauges straight on this matter so they will cease and desist from this misrepresentation?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hi Knight,

Since you initially brought up the Mormon Grace Analogy, I have asked you several times over the course of 4 posts whether or not you will recant your false accusations against Calvinists and inform Bob Hill, Bob Enyart and Clete Pfeiffer of the errors you have all, by your own admission, erroneously promulgated. You have since posted 8 separate times, and not once have you addressed these paramount questions.

I already answered in post #12 that no I would not recant and I explained why.

Knight, with each passing post that you refuse to address them, questions upon which this entire discussion is aimed, you will be seen as evasive, dishonest, disrespectful, childish and intellectually inept. I'm not saying you're any of these things, but your behavior certainly belies any denial of them.

I answered the first time you asked so I have no idea why you are acting as if I haven't answered.

Again... my answer is "no" I will not recant a thing.

But for the readers who are astute, clear and logically minded, and able to think for themselves without obsequious deference to errant and fallible men, your obfuscations will do nothing but further expose what you've already tacitly admitted, Knight: You and Bob Hill and Bob Enyart and Clete Pfeiffer are guilty of misrepresenting Calvinsim.

Here is what I have admitted....

Calvinists wrongly state God cannot change in any way whatsoever.

But that is only stating the obvious! Even you agree with that don't you? Isn't that what you are trying to show on this thread?

Out of respect for this debate, I will say it again: I'm not a Calvinist, Knight. I've asked you for the name of a Calvinist who believes in unqualified immutability. You've still not given me one single name, out of the myriad Calvinists you claim to have debated on this forum, of someone who will agree to unqualified immutability. With each passing post that you fail to produce one, Knight, the ice upon which you're skating becomes thinner and thinner.

You asked for one name... I gave you one name but that wasn't good enough.

Here are some other names... Jobeth, Anna, Swordsman, Mr. Coffee, SOTK.

A change happened in God's relationship to Israel. A change happened in God's action.

How did a change happen if the entire event was pre-planned to happen as it did? What changed?

Please answer that question for me Jim. Please!!!!

I am seriously interested in the answer to that question.

The execution of God's unchanging plan involved changes in God's relationship with Israel and God's action. An architect has a plan. There are changes that are built into the plan. For example, the change from employing contractors who lay the foundation to employing electricians who do the wiring.

But it's only a change if a CHANGE occurred!

You assert that God PLANNED that Israel disobey and that God then withdraw His support, that was the plan (according to you). And the plan was perfectly executed, so what change took place?

If the plan transpired as planned what CHANGE took place?

 

[Hilston]

I already answered in post #12 that no I would not recant and I explained why.

You did not explain why. You just stated "No absolutely not," claimed I was missing the point, then gave the Mormon Grace Analogy:

No absolutely not!

You are missing the point.

Think of it this way....

When a Mormon comes to your door ask them if they believe they are saved by grace. They will tell you "yes!"

Yet after two hours of "discussions" with them you will be able to show them they have no idea what grace is and in fact they DO NOT believe in grace whatsoever.

This is just like your typical Calvinist or Settled Viewer. They will argue that God cannot change in any whatsoever. I usually invite them to come up with their own definition of change if they feel uncomfortable with mine but it doesn't matter because they cling to the "no change in ANY WAY" line until I can show them how they don't REALLY believe that even though they dogmatically make the claim.​

Knight has admitted that Calvinists do not REALLY believe in unqualified immutability, just as Mormons do not REALLY believe in grace. Does Knight go around telling people that Mormons believe in grace?

I answered the first time you asked so I have no idea why you are acting as if I haven't answered.

What you wrote above is self-contradictory. It's like saying, "No, I will not go to the grocery store," and then giving the reason, "Because we need milk."

You say you will "absolutely not" offer a retraction, then you proceed to give an analogy that indicates that you should do that very thing. As much as you should recant any assertions that Mormons believe in grace, you should recant any assertions that Calvinists believe in unqualified immutability, by your own admission, by your own analogy.

Again... my answer is "no" I will not recant a thing.

Fine. Thank you for proving to me -- and to everyone I send to this site -- what I thought was true all along.

Here is what I have admitted....

Calvinists wrongly state God cannot change in any way whatsoever.

You left out a major part of your concession (as I fully expected you would). Don't forget that you conceded that Calvinists, when poked and prodded, admit that they do not REALLY believe in unqualified immutability.

But that is only stating the obvious! Even you agree with that don't you?

I've never met a Calvinist who makes this as an unqualified claim. When I press Calvinists to elaborate, just as I did with the pastor of Clete's former church, they affirm qualified immutability.

Isn't that what you are trying to show on this thread?

"This thread is dedicated to allowing Hilston to straighten [Knight] out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism."

You asked for one name... I gave you one name but that wasn't good enough.

I asked you for one name of a Calvinist who believes in unqualified immutability. Z-Man isn't one who believes that.

Here are some other names... Jobeth, Anna, Swordsman, Mr. Coffee, SOTK.

I've already interviewed SOTK about this. He does not believe in unqualified immutability. He agrees with Calvin and Augustine.

I sent e-mails to Jobeth and Swordsman and I PM'd Anna, Jobeth, and Swordsman. Mr. Coffee is not accepting e-mails or PMs. Swordsman's e-mail came back "undeliverable," so I hope he gets the PM.

If Knight and I are right about Calvinists -- just like he was right about SOTK and Z-Man -- then Jobeth, Anna, Swordsman, and Mr. Coffee too will agree with Augustine and Calvin, that God's immutability is not unqualified. What this means is that Knight needs to recant his publicly confessed false accusations against Calvinists.

And now, back to Knight's irrelevant questions.

How did a change happen if the entire event was pre-planned to happen as it did? What changed?

Please answer that question for me Jim. Please!!!!

It appears that you've obviously missed some things and need to go back and read my posts wherein I gave you the answer several times. I even used analogies. I even asked if you agreed, but you must've missed that question, because I can't imagine why anyone would engage in such a discussion and deliberately avoid answering relevant questions. Here is one of several things I've said in response to your question:

I'm going to assume you're just not thinking very carefully at this late hour, because I would hate to think you were being so deliberately obtuse. NOTE: I have not said Thing One about a 'change in plan.' God's plans do not change. They are inexorably decreed. God's actions change. God's manifestations change. But His plans are settled. You should already know this.​

I answered it again when I wrote the following:

A change happened in God's relationship to Israel. A change happened in God's action. A change did not happen in God's essence or character. Would you agree, Knight?​

I answered it again when I gave this analogy:

The execution of God's unchanging plan involved changes in God's relationship with Israel and God's action. An architect has a plan. There are changes that are built into the plan. For example, the change from employing contractors who lay the foundation to employing electricians who do the wiring.​

But it's only a change if a CHANGE occurred!

That's correct. The change occurred in God's actions, not His plan. The change occurred in God's relationship to Israel, not in God's essence or character. Feel free to ask again if you're not clear on this yet. My friends and I are taking bets on how long you'll drag this out in order to avoid the direct heat of my questions.

You assert that God PLANNED that Israel disobey and that God then withdraw His support, that was the plan (according to you). And the plan was perfectly executed, so what change took place?

A change took place in God's actions and relationship toward Israel.

If the plan transpired as planned what CHANGE took place?

God's plan was that He would do one action in behalf of Israel. At a later point in that plan, He would refrain from acting in behalf of Israel. Most people on this planet view that as a change in action. Just because it is planned, does not mean there wasn't a change. I made a plan that involved fixing a broken garage door opener and eating lunch afterward. My actions changed. My plan did not. If this is still difficult for you to comprehend, I have friends in universities, and I will happily try to find a logic tutor for you in the Denver area.

So, after yet another episode of Knight's frantic arm-waving, I return to the actual topic of this discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

What more can be said? The stated purpose of this thread, according to Knight's own words, is "allowing Hilston to straighten [Knight] out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism." You can lead the proverbial horse to the proverbial water ...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That's correct. The change occurred in God's actions, not His plan.

Did God act against His plan?

Or were His actions perfectly following His predetermined plan?

 

[Hilston]

Did God act against His plan?

Or were His actions perfectly following His predetermined plan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

That said, I remind the reader of the purpose of this thread as stated by Knight:

"This thread is dedicated to allowing Hilston to straighten [Knight] out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism."​

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God never acts against His plan.

If so... where is the change?

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

Where is the change in that?

 

[Hilston]

If so... where is the change?

The change is in God's actions and in His relationship to Israel. God is a living God. He has real interactions with His creation and His creatures in time. At one point in time, God's actions and relations were a certain way. At a later point in time, God's actions and relations were another way.

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

Yes. Very good.

Where is the change in that?

The change is in God's actions and in His relationship to Israel. God is a living God. He has real interactions with His creation and His creatures in time. At one point in time, God's actions and relations were a certain way. At a later point in time, God's actions and relations were another way.

That said, I remind the reader of the purpose of this thread as stated by Knight:

"This thread is dedicated to allowing Hilston to straighten [Knight] out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism."​

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nathon Detroit]

God is a living God. He has real interactions with His creation and His creatures in time.

How can God truly interact with creation if every action, every event, every thought, everything is predetermined by God in advance? You are asserting that there is a two way interaction between God and creation.

Yet...

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

Would you agree that REAL TWO WAY INTERACTION requires the acts of at least two agents and not just one?

 

[Hilston]

Here is the purpose of this thread as stated by Knight:

"This thread is dedicated to allowing Hilston to straighten [Knight] out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism."​

Let's recap:

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

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

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

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

How can God truly interact with creation if every action, every event, every thought, everything is predetermined by God in advance? You are asserting that there is a two way interaction between God and creation.

It doesn't matter. Call it one-way action if you want. Either way, God's actions change. That's the relevant point. It has been established that the Calvinist believes that God can change, thus the goal of this thread is completed.

Yet...

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

There are actions that are decreed in advance as well. Those actions change according to the pre-written script. Does anyone in their right mind believe that no REAL change in action takes place simply because it is all written down in advance?

Would you agree that REAL TWO WAY INTERACTION requires the acts of at least two agents and not just one?

Call it one-way action if you want. Either way, God's actions change. With respect to this discussion, it is an irrelevant question. The relevant question is: Does the Calvinist believe God can change? The answer is yes. This has been established. If you want to know my personal views of these questions, see the links in my signature.

That said, I again remind the reader of the purpose of this thread as stated by Knight:

"This thread is dedicated to allowing Hilston to straighten [Knight] out on the topic of God's immutability according to Calvinism."​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It doesn't matter.

It matters to me.

There are actions that are decreed in advance as well.

I thought they all were???

Are there some actions that ARE NOT decreed in advance?

Can you give me some examples?

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

Yes.

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

How could a rational God cause His plan to be different yet still have that plan happen as planned?

 

[Hilston]

It matters to me.

Why?

I thought they all were???

They are. All actions and changes in action are decreed in advance.

Are there some actions that ARE NOT decreed in advance?

No.

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

Yes.

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

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

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

God creates according to His predetermination. God ceases from creating according to His predetermination. He caused His actions to change from that of creating to that of no longer creating.

How could a rational God cause His plan to be different yet still have that plan happen as planned?

He doesn't. Can anyone help Knight out? Please PM him and tell him what is wrong with his last question. While you're at it, if you care about him, please find out if he is sick, tired, or drunk. Because, seriously, if this equivocation is deliberate, I fear for his soul.

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

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

 

[Nathon Detroit]

All actions and changes in action are decreed in advance.

Thanks for the clarification.

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

Of course it's NOT a CHANGE in action, it's just an ACTION!

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

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

Will you admit that if a baker PRE-PLANS to add two cups of flour to his recipe and when he gets around to adding those two cups of flour he is not CHANGING his action? Instead... he is simply acting. There is no change.... just action.

 

[Hilston]

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

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

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

Of course it's NOT a CHANGE in action, it's just an ACTION!

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

No. Try to keep up. What you've described is a change in recipe. The recipe is not the same as the actions and changes of actions that it dictates.

Hilston you can mock me and insult me all day long.

Yes, I can, but I chose rather to treat you as a rational and honest human being. But for some reason, it comes as no surprise that your title "brutally honest judge" no longer applies when your lunch is being handed to you.

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

Riiiiiight. And you thought I was the one having a bad day?

Will you admit that if a baker PRE-PLANS to add two cups of flour to his recipe and when he gets around to adding those two cups of flour he is not CHANGING his action? Instead... he is simply acting. There is no change.... just action.

I'll try to spell this out for you, despite the apparent futility of this effort. Please take notes if you have to. I'll go slow:

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

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

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

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

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