ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[Clete]

The statement concerning God simplicity is understood as referring to His being and perfections (i.e., His essence/substance and nature; not His manifestations or actions).

But that isn't what the statement says Jim! Look at it again...

"God and His perfections are one. Simplicity is one of the fundamental characteristics of God. This means that He is not composed of different parts, and also that His being and attributes are one. It may be said that God's perfections are God Himself as He has revealed Himself to man. They are simply so many manifestations of the divine Being. Hence the Bible says that God is truth, life, light, love, righteousness, and so on."​

This is saying more than simply that God's perfections are simple but that God is one with those perfections. That is to say that God's perfection don't simply describe Him but that they are Him. The primary point being that God is utterly simple; that He does not have parts. God does not act lovingly, God is love. God does not emote, He is emotion. He does not express a personality, He is personality and so on. Thus the doctrine teaches that there is no motion in God of any sort. He does not love now and hate later, nor is He joyful now and sorrowful tomorrow. There is no change in God's emotional state of mind because He has no state of mind, God is "mind".

Applying this principle of simplicity Harold Felder writes...

"God is immutable in every respect and does not change in the least bit. (Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God, vol. 1 (Robert Carter & Brothers, 1853; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1996), pg. 316.) 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.

God's immutability is the center where all of the attributes unite. God is immutable in regard to knowledge. Charnock writes "God hath known from all eternity all that which he can know, so that nothing is hid from him. He knows not at present any more that he hath known from eternity: and that which he knows now he always knows."

God does not know as we know. He does not get his understanding from without, but from within His essence. Because He is simple, His understanding is His essence. His essence is infinite, so then must his understanding be infinite."​

I hope I am making the point clear here. God cannot be said to change IN ANY WAY without conceding that some part of Him changed and thus denying the simplicity of God. If God is simple then He is necessarily immutable and if He is mutable then He is not simple by the same logically necessity.


Put in yet another way, a manifestation of God is an attribute of God. To say that God is pure Spirit, for example, is to present an attribute of God and as such since God has no parts and God is immutable then God must be pure Spirit immutably. If God is pure Spirit now then He must necessarily have always been pure Spirit. Likewise, if God has ever condescended Himself to exist in time and take on flesh then He must always have been in such a condescended state because otherwise it would mean that God was not simple and therefore not immutable.

There is no error and no contradiction if one takes their words, in context, according to the normative understanding of language and vocabulary they employed. The qualifiers they provided bring clarity to their statements. Recognizing the specificity of their language avoids confusion and contradiction. Refusing to acknowledge the qualifiers and the specificity of their language not only ends in confusion, but it spawns a caricature of Reformed theology that no duly studied Reformed theologian would agree with.

There is contradiction and of course no Reformed theologian would agree with it! I am drawing the logical conclusion of the Reformed theologians own premises; taking their own logic to its inevitable conclusion, which they often do themselves but reject the notion that the contradiction falsifies their theology on the basis that such things cannot be understood with the natural mind but must be accepted by faith. The acceptance of antinomy in the Christian church is almost ubiquitous. The fact that you are having such a hard time finding anyone who acknowledges such blows my mind. Here's a link to a article I found in about 3 minutes via Google....

A Southern Baptist Looks at the Biblical Doctrine of Election

It only appears to be a contradiction if one fails or refuses to acknowledge what he means by "being and perfections".

No Jim. I don't understand why you keep saying this unless you just don't get the point of what is being said. The two statements concerning God's simplicity and God immutability are separate but equal positions in the Calvinistic worldview. They are two separate conclusions that are both supposedly logically necessary in their own right but when considered together they cannot be reconciled. The article I linked to above put it this way...

"The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines it as "a contradiction between conclusions which seem equally logical, reasonable or necessary." In the case of biblical theology we should say "an appearance of a contradiction." To put it another way - An antinomy is when we look at two different statements, both very clear and equally true, when we consider them separately, but we cannot reconcile them to each other. This is the case with God's Sovereignty and human responsibility. They are both in the Bible - both true - but humanly we cannot reconcile them with each other. "​

In short, the contradiction is not denied outright but as is indicated in this quotation the assertion that there is "an appearance of a contradiction" is made and the dogmatic statement that antinomy only exists with man and not with God is made also (as was done in that article as well) but without any substantiation. The point of it seems to be simply that these things must be accepted because the Bible teaches them and never mind that they don't make any rational sense.

Well, there is a lot more to say but I am out of time for now. Time is going to likely be a problem over the next few days and so if you could do me a favor and not respond to every sentence in this post as is your normal m/o but rather respond simply to the major points I’ve made so as to limit the size of your response, I would greatly appreciate it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

An extreme Molinism is not Open Theism. Some open theists have a moderate molinism that would be more acceptable. 'Middle Knowledge' is still exhaustive definite foreknowledge, a logically problematic presupposition.

That's why I reject middle knowledge.

Muz

 

[Hilston]

Hi Clete,

Thank you for your reply. My responses below are deliberately brief and merely aimed at showing how an understanding of God's immutability and simplicity in terms of His essential Being clarifies every alleged problem you assert. If you assume immutability and simplicity beyond God essential attributes and try to apply these concepts to His manifestations and actions, only confusion will result, which is repeatedly demonstrate in your last two posts. I hope this post will give you enough clarity on these distinctions to dissuade future attempts to use the Reformers' quotes on qualified immutability as if they were talking about unqualified immutability.

But that isn't what the statement says Jim! Look at it again...

"God and His perfections are one. Simplicity is one of the fundamental characteristics of God. This means that He is not composed of different parts, and also that His being and attributes are one. It may be said that God's perfections are God Himself as He has revealed Himself to man. They are simply so many manifestations of the divine Being. Hence the Bible says that God is truth, life, light, love, righteousness, and so on."​

This is saying more than simply that God's perfections are simple but that God is one with those perfections. That is to say that God's perfection don't simply describe Him but that they are Him.

True, in His essence.

... The primary point being that God is utterly simple; that He does not have parts.

Right; He does not have parts in His essential Being. He does, however, have parts in His actions and manifestations, i.e. the areas of God's experience in which He changes.

... God does not act lovingly, God is love. God does not emote, He is emotion. He does not express a personality, He is personality and so on. Thus the doctrine teaches that there is no motion in God of any sort.

Right, there is no motion in God of any sort in His essential being.

... He does not love now and hate later, nor is He joyful now and sorrowful tomorrow. ...

Correct, as it pertains to His essential Being, which is immutable (which is why He can swear by Himself that He cannot lie). However, in God's actions and manifestations, there are changing experiences and expressions of love, hatred, joy and sorrow.

... There is no change in God's emotional state of mind because He has no state of mind, God is "mind".

Correct, as it pertains to His essential being. Where it regards His actions or manifestations, however, God experienced changes in His emotional state of mind.

... Applying this principle of simplicity Harold Felder writes...

"God is immutable in every respect and does not change in the least bit. (Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God, vol. 1 (Robert Carter & Brothers, 1853; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1996), pg. 316.) 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.​

After skimming the article, it appears Felder understands the difference between God's essential Being and His actions/manifestations. The passage he quotes from Charnock is riddled with qualifiers. In the 52 pages Charnock writes on God's immutability, he is continually specifying "God is unchangeable in His essence." Again, I point out the remarkable consistency, even among fallible and errant men, despite being fraught with the false theology of Calvinism.

... God does not know as we know. He does not get his understanding from without, but from within His essence. Because He is simple, His understanding is His essence. His essence is infinite, so then must his understanding be infinite."

Note the qualifiers: "... within His essence;" "... His understanding is His essence;" "His essence is infinite ..."

I hope I am making the point clear here. God cannot be said to change IN ANY WAY without conceding that some part of Him changed and thus denying the simplicity of God. ...

You've apparently skipped over everything I and Felder wrote about God's essential Being, because that would clear up your confusion. To quote you, with annotation: "God cannot be said to change IN ANY WAY in His essential Being without conceding that some part of of Him change and thus denying the simplicity of God in His essential Being. It all makes sense. It is logical. It is biblical. Every quote you produce has thus far demonstrated these writers understood the distinction and made it clear, but you seem to miss it. Why is that?

... If God is simple then He is necessarily immutable and if He is mutable then He is not simple by the same logically necessity.

Again, allow me to quote you with annotation: "If God is simple in His essential Being, then He is necessarily immutable and if He is mutable in His essential Being then He is not simple in His essential Being by the same logically necessity."

Put in yet another way, a manifestation of God is an attribute of God.

Not true, Clete. Manifestations are no more God's attributes than His actions. God manifested His presence in a cloud of angels. God manifested His presence in a dove. Etc. None of these constitute His essential attributes.

... To say that God is pure Spirit, for example, is to present an attribute of God and as such since God has no parts and God is immutable then God must be pure Spirit immutably.

In regard to His essence, this is true.

... If God is pure Spirit now then He must necessarily have always been pure Spirit.

In His essence, this is true.

... Likewise, if God has ever condescended Himself to exist in time and take on flesh then He must always have been in such a condescended state because otherwise it would mean that God was not simple and therefore not immutable.

No, God's condescension to time and space are not essential attributes.

There is contradiction and of course no Reformed theologian would agree with it!

There are no contradictions here once one grasps the difference between essential attributes and God's various manifestations.

... I am drawing the logical conclusion of the Reformed theologians own premises; ...

You're not. You are missing the qualifiers that would clear all this up for you.

... The acceptance of antinomy in the Christian church is almost ubiquitous.

There is no antinomy here.

... The fact that you are having such a hard time finding anyone who acknowledges such blows my mind. Here's a link to a article I found in about 3 minutes via Google ....

Of course. I must be an incorrigible liar. Why do you waste your time with me?

In short, the contradiction is not denied outright but as is indicated in this quotation the assertion that there is "an appearance of a contradiction" is made and the dogmatic statement that antinomy only exists with man and not with God is made also (as was done in that article as well) but without any substantiation.

There is no contradiciton.

... The point of it seems to be simply that these things must be accepted because the Bible teaches them and never mind that they don't make any rational sense.

This is not my claim, nor is it the claim of any Reformed theologian I've read on divine immutability. There is no need to appeal to antinomy here, despite your special pleading. God is simple and immutable in His essential Being, but not in His manifestations and actions. If you were to read every Reformed theologian regarding immutability with these points in mind, you would not be having this problem. Before you offer any future citations, perhaps it would help if you tried to first read the excerpt with the above qualifications/distinctions in mind. That would save us from having to go through this all over again.

All according to God's decrees, of course.

Trusting the Rock,
Jim

 

[Hilston]

Jim, did you see my response to you?

I did. I will try to reply soon. Thanks for the hezzup.

:j

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I did. I will try to reply soon. Thanks for the hezzup.

:j

:up: (no rush of course)

 

[Nathon Detroit]

if you could do me a favor and not respond to every sentence in this post as is your normal m/o but rather respond simply to the major points I’ve made so as to limit the size of your response, I would greatly appreciate it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Jim, did you miss that line?

 

[Clete]

Jim,

Your post was nearly 100% unresponsive. I will ignore the entire thing aside from the single sentence, which was of some use in the discussion....

No, God's condescension to time and space are not essential attributes.

Yes it is Jim. God either exists as PURE Spirit or He has a physical body in which His Spirit dwells. That is describing one aspect of God's nature. Whether or not God possesses a physical body and a Spirit or simply exists as pure Spirit is an attribute of God, period.

We know that God did not always exist with a body and we know that He currently does have and forever will have a glorified physical body. We further know that God has not always been a man and that He became a man and is to this day a man and forever will continue to be a man. That sounds like an attribute of God Jim and there can be no denying that change has occurred in God.

Further, you agree that the author of that article makes qualifications all over the place and pretend like I'm too stupid to notice that fact and then you completely gloss over the fact that he comes right out and says that the issue of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility presents an antinomy, which means you completely missed the point of my having presented the article! The fact that the article is chocker block full of so called "qualifications" goes to my argument that your insistence that these men very narrowly focusing their comments on everything about God except His manifestations is falsified by the fact that these men see and accept the fact that their positions are contradictory. They see the contradiction and right it off as an antinomy. Their line of thinking goes as follows (and does so in the presence of what you insist are narrowly focused qualifications and an understanding of the difference between God's essense and His manisfestations)....

1. The Bible teaches A
2. The Bible teaches B
3. A and B contradict one another.
4. There must be some lack of ability in the human mind to understand how A and B are not contradictory.

There line of thinking SHOULD be as follows...

1. The Bible seems to teach A
2. The Bible seems to teach B
3. A and B are contradictory – therefore…
4. My understanding of the Bible is in error. There three possibilities. A is right and B is wrong, B is right and A is wrong or both A and B are wrong because two contradictory statements can both be false but they cannot both be true.

If the intent of these authors were to be as narrowly focused as you suggest then there would be no need for the term antinomy to exist in Christian parlance.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Any further comments like "Of course. I must be an incorrigible liar. Why do you waste your time with me?" will end our discussion. The fact of the matter is that you are a liar as you well know (as are we all) but I did not insinuate that in my post as you clearly did that I am unable to read. Now, it's up to you Jim. If you want to continue we can make every effort to have a productive conversation. It is not necessary that either of us like or even trust the other, but you will respond in a respectful manner or you can discuss this with the someone other than me.

 

[sentientsynth]

Double standard?

Double standard?

Clete,

I do not appreciate you trying to hijack this thread in order to talk about everything under the sun concerning Calvinism. This thread is not about the definition of "attribute", or whether or not Calvinists believe that God is utterly immutable. It's about Open Theism.

Can't we have a single thread that isn't polluted by your logophobia!

Boy! Ain't I a weenie!

This thread had the potential of bringing a fresh perspective to the discussion and Clete has now all but completely destroyed any chance of recovering the discussion, which is precisely the reason that rules against hijacking threads are in place to begin with.

Could it be that you're rubbing off on me Clete?

Because all I wanna do is :taoist:!!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

SS, I really don't think that post was worthwhile. lain:

 

[sentientsynth]

SS, I really don't think that post was worthwhile. lain:

What do you mean? I had a blast!

 

[RobE]

Jim,

Your post was nearly 100% unresponsive. I will ignore the entire thing aside from the single sentence, which was of some use in the discussion....


Yes it is Jim. God either exists as PURE Spirit or He has a physical body in which His Spirit dwells. That is describing one aspect of God's nature. Whether or not God possesses a physical body and a Spirit or simply exists as pure Spirit is an attribute of God, period.

We know that God did not always exist with a body and we know that He currently does have and forever will have a glorified physical body. We further know that God has not always been a man and that He became a man and is to this day a man and forever will continue to be a man. That sounds like an attribute of God Jim and there can be no denying that change has occurred in God.

Further, you agree that the author of that article makes qualifications all over the place and pretend like I'm too stupid to notice that fact and then you completely gloss over the fact that he comes right out and says that the issue of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility presents an antinomy, which means you completely missed the point of my having presented the article! The fact that the article is chocker block full of so called "qualifications" goes to my argument that your insistence that these men very narrowly focusing their comments on everything about God except His manifestations is falsified by the fact that these men see and accept the fact that their positions are contradictory. They see the contradiction and right it off as an antinomy. Their line of thinking goes as follows (and does so in the presence of what you insist are narrowly focused qualifications and an understanding of the difference between God's essense and His manisfestations)....

Clete,

Here's some more ammo for your position.....

Meister Eckhardt

This article argues that essence and action are the same.

"A. For the just man, there is no way to his just action, no purpose of goal of this action. For the action of the just man has justice as its goal, and this goal is identical with the just man. Therefore, the just man has no goal external to himself. Instead, as justice, he is his own goal."​

There is certainly a basis for this type of argument. My response would be that justice might be enacted in many different ways and that in essence justice is immutable, but might externalize itself through varied actions.

So, when we speak of God being immutably just - it is true; and when we speak of varied forms of justice this is true as well; even though an antinomy seems to exist because something which is immutable is not able by definition to be varied.

1. The Bible teaches A
2. The Bible teaches B
3. A and B contradict one another.
4. There must be some lack of ability in the human mind to understand how A and B are not contradictory.

This is the assumption that Christianity has had since its inception.

There line of thinking SHOULD be as follows...

1. The Bible seems to teach A
2. The Bible seems to teach B
3. A and B are contradictory – therefore…
4. My understanding of the Bible is in error. There three possibilities. A is right and B is wrong, B is right and A is wrong or both A and B are wrong because two contradictory statements can both be false but they cannot both be true

This thinking is correct as long as contingency doesn't exist. For example: A might be right if ....., B might be right if ....., A and B might be right if......

Then you get this situation:

1. The Bible teaches A and B
2. A and B are contradictory - therefore...
3. There must be contingencies in which A or B is true/false; or A and B are true true/false.

Also, you concluded the same thing in both examples:

4-0. My understanding of the Bible is in error. There three possibilities. A is right and B is wrong, B is right and A is wrong or both A and B are wrong because two contradictory statements can both be false but they cannot both be true

4-1. There must be some lack of ability in the human mind to understand( how A and B are not contradictory.)​

Or at least rejected the conclustion in 4-1 and re-affirmed its truth in 4-0 which is itself a contradiction. Neither can be true (since you rejected 4-0's conclusion when you rejected 4-1's conclusion) unless both are true.

Rob

 

[RobE]

Molinism says that God knows all the free will decisions that men would make in any possible world, and that God determines what 'free will' decisions He will actualize in selecting a possible world. This is AKA middle knowledge.

I think we can embrace Molinism's natural knowledge (that God knows all possible courses of the future) without embracing middle knowledge, and still be OVT. Thus, God foreknows what He will do in any possible situation.

Muz

Doesn't one naturally follow the other?

Rob

 

[Clete]

Rob,

If contingencies exist then the two may or may not be contradictory in which case the entire line of reasoning would be erronious. In other words, my statement assumes that the contradiction between A and B is a real one.

And you have to try to stay on the same page as me when reading my posts. The two conclusions are not the same. There is a difference in acknowledging the existence of error vs. accepting the existence of a fundamental lack in the laws of logic such that real contradiction does not necessarily falsify a truth claim.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Bob Hill]

Clete,

I’ve been reading your posts and the others. Keep up the good work. It seems that there are few O. V. believers on T. O. L any more. I find the arrogance displayed is quite like tintinnabulation.

I have come to see that the whole concept of God outside of time and seeing all things as an eternal now was from Greek philosophy and, in modern times, even from the theory of relativity.

Now, I understand from the Bible that God can know the future. But the Bible shows us when He does, He determines it. When He determines it, He makes sure it happens. Therefore, He can know that it will happen, but that does not mean that He knows it because He looks into the future to know it.

As you seem to know, the Hebrew word nacham, repent, is used in the Bible in reference to God about 30 times.

The passage that really affected me greatly is found in Exodus where it shows God repented of stated harm because of Moses’ prayer.

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.

Wow!! That really blew my mind when I first read that. Now, it is a treasure in my heart.

I realize that this and many other passages with that Hebrew word, nacham, relating to God, has caused me to draw this conclusion.

If God was outside of time and saw the future actions of men, God could never be wrong about predictions. I also believe this. If the future actions of men are unknowable because they have not been decided, our all knowing God would not know them. None of them actually exist, so there is nothing to know.

When I read the Bible, it shows God always working in time. But, time is no restraint to Him like it is to us.

We need to rest at times. But He doesn’t. We are growing old. He is always the same in that attribute.

Most of us have deadlines to keep and other responsibilities that are measured by time. With God, time is no burden.

I see time as the measure between two events. Since God can control every event, if He so desires, time is never a burden to Him at all. He created the universe. We haven’t even seen the star that is the farthest from us in this tremendous universe.

When God “created the heavens and the Earth”, it seems like it was instantaneous. Therefore, I do not believe the future exists.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It seems that there are few O. V. believers on T. O. L any more.

Actually there are more OV'ers on TOL than ever!

In fact, truth be told.... it's Calvinist's that are hard to find, or at least find folks that will admit to being Calvinists.

When we first started TOL - almost 10 years ago - Calvinists ran amok on TOL. Now days we can't hardly get anyone to admit they are a Calvinist. Even Calvinism's biggest defenders (like Jim Hilston) will not claim the label.

Rest assure that many OV'ers are on TOL. They just don't all post on the same threads as you might.

Keep up the great work Bob and I hope all is well with you are your family, God bless!

 

[Hilston]

Combined response (and un-response) to Knight and Clete:

if you could do me a favor and not respond to every sentence in this post as is your normal m/o but rather respond simply to the major points I’ve made so as to limit the size of your response, I would greatly appreciate it.

Jim, did you miss that line?

Naw, I saw it. Old habits ... you know.

Your post was nearly 100% unresponsive ...

Clete thinks that was unresponsive? I wonder what he'll think of this:

:wave2:​

All according to God's decrees, of course.

Trusting in the Rock,
Jim

 

[Bob Hill]

Knight,

Thank you for the happy news.

Bob Hill

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Combined response (and un-response) to Knight and Clete:
Clete thinks that was unresponsive? I wonder what he'll think of this:

:wave2:​

All according to God's decrees, of course.

Trusting in the Rock,
Jim

Impressive.

No doubt one of your more thought out responses.

 

[Bob Hill]

Since I have been lifted up about the number of Open View Theologians are on this site, I am a happy camper.

Open Theism, or whatever it may be called, is the view about God that I strongly believe.

This view is about the God of the Bible, and His ability to have feelings, passion, remorse, anger, expectations, sorrow, and as the Son, empty Himself of His heavenly position to come and die for us.

The theology of our Lord Jesus Christ is based strictly on the Bible’s statements about our glorious God and Savior, who was called Jesus.

It is biblical theology that shows God gave man enough freedom to believe God when God said he may be saved by believing in Jesus Christ as his Savior because He died for him.

Open Theism also believes God has the ability to change His mind or repent about something He said He would do. He usually does this when man has done something to cause God to either repent from harm that He said He would do, or repent from something good that He said He would do for man, but because man sinned, He changes His mind and now says He will not do it.

It is also the answer to those determinists who maintain that God predetermines everything that has happened and will happen. We have much material on this subject on our site, biblicalanswers.com.

I learned about what is called Open Theism a little over 45 years ago. At that time, I knew of no one who believed it. That has dramatically changed in the last 20 years. Praise God, and I’m ecstatic, seeing how it is growing by leaps and bounds.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[Hilston]

Hi Knight,

Here's the part of God's Script where I respond to your post, in which you wrote (according to said Script):

Impressive.

No doubt one of your more thought out responses.

Here's the part of the aforementioned Script where I write:

It's true. I pondered it for about a day. I gave careful thought to how I responded to Clete's previous posts, wondering how I could have been any more responsive. I realized that there is only two ways for Clete to view my answers as responsive: (a) Clete would need to understand the difference between God's essential attributes and His non-essential actions and manifestations, or (b) I would have disengage my brain and, against all sound logic and clear exegesis, express agreement with Clete's bald and irrational pulpit-pounding.

Here's the part of the divine decrees where I write:
After two full attempts to delineate and elucidate these obvious distinctions, it is clear to me that this is yet another pig stampede. Clete is no closer to understanding these fundamental concepts than when I first started. As I live and breathe, it becomes more and more clear to me that for those who understand the meaning and significance of these concepts, no further explanation is necessary, but for those who will not understand, no explanation will suffice (and any attempt will be deemed "unresponsive"). All according to God's decrees, of course.

Here's the part of the inexorable and unalterable blueprint authored by God where I write (all according to God's decrees):
I am not interested in letting someone with the maturity level of Biff Tannen to declare what is or is not responsive when he has yet to demonstrate even a modicum of understanding of the most basic terms of the discussion.

Here's the part of the immutable plan of God where I, of my own free will and with full responsibility, write:
If there is anyone who is truly interested in having a firm grasp of the distinctions between God's essential and immutable attributes and His non-essential and mutable actions/manifestations, and how all this relates to the biblical doctrine of divine immutability and/or simplicity, please send me a PM and I will happily (try to) explain these concepts to you.

All according to God's immutable decrees, of course.

Here's the part where I write:
Trusting the Rock,
Jim