ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Swordsman
- Start date
Hey cool!
Set the record straight for us Jim.
Does God change in any way?
P.S.
You do realize this question has been answered by folks like you (lets call them "Calvinist leaning types") on TOL about a million times. That's what we are arguing here my friend! The answers you guys have given us! Now if you think God has the ability to change then you can set yourself apart from the rest and that would be just great with me.
I've been there done that. Then I learned that Jim is good for at least 2 or 3 flame-outs per year. His bizarre and sudden rude behavior is really sad.
Yes. He changes in many ways. I've told you this before. I've quoted Calvin and Augustine to show that you Open Theists don't know what you're talking about. And now I'm saying it again. You call me rude. I call you dense. Try to get it this time. Yes, God changes. Yes. Si. Oui. Hai. Affirmative.
You have such a short memory. Or else you just don't care.
Jim... it is you who is missing the point! Do you know how many times here on TOL I have been told God cannot, and does not change in ANY way?
I wish I had a dime for every time that has been typed here on this forum. Therefore it is irrelevant what you or Calvin say, the point is that the people who follow Calvinistic theology seem to believe that God cannot change so that is where the argument lies. If you and Calvin think otherwise... GREAT!!! Now help us convince everyone else of that!
Let's put this topic to rest with the following question(s):
Jim, did you realize that most Calvinists staunchly argue that God cannot and does not change in any way?
And why do you suppose the vast majority of Calvinists think this? Where do they get this notion?
What would you tell these folks? How would you convince them they are wrong and that God can indeed change?
We need to distinguish between strong immutability (God does not change in any sense...the favored 'eternal now'/timelessness concept logically leads to this conclusion) and an immutability that includes some aspects of change in God. A study of the history of doctrinal development would show who believed what and when.
The classic doctrine of impassibility (God does not have feelings) is being modified in modern times by many theologians in both camps.
Hyper-Calvinism is not Calvinism. Not all Calvinists believe the same on every point.
The Open View is compatible with Evangelical beliefs (our understanding of omniscience, time, free will, etc. varies, but we agree on the essentials. Boyd clarified his views with his Baptist denomination. They did not agree with all his ideas, but recognized that he was still within evangelical Christianity. See his affirmations on his website for clarification. Likewise, the conservative Evangelical Theological Society had an opportunity to revoke membership for Pinnock and Sanders (see CT Jan./04). In the end, they were voted to remain members in good standing despite a rejection of their Open views (inerrancy was one of the issues clarified).
Calvinism is not Christianity. It is an attempt to reconcile the biblical evidence (as is Arminianism and Open Theism). Calvinists make the wrong assumption at times that they alone are Christians. TULIP is not the criteria for salvation.
"The Untamed God: A philosophical exploration of divine perfection, simplicity, and immutability." - Jay Wesley Richards, IVP
(I would not recommend this book before reading more straight forward ones...those in seminary or philosophy might understand it better than I did)
This book on 'essentialism' is a difficult read. I did not understand much of the intricacies of the arguments for the traditional, classical views of immutability, impassibility, simplicity, etc. vs current thinking. This is not a simplisitic subject. There are problematic issues. Previous stringent formulations were not always coherent. Richards attempted to retain the core of traditional views with clarification from Scripture and philosophy on how they should be understood.
Do we know what Sovereignty-Aseity-Conviction or modal logic is? If we do not, then we should not be dogmatic on some of our views. For the most part, most of us have uncritically accepted what we have read or heard without understanding all relevant issues.
The classic doctrine of impassibility (God does not have feelings) is being modified in modern times by many theologians in both camps.
Hyper-Calvinism is not Calvinism. Not all Calvinists believe the same on every point.
The Open View is compatible with Evangelical beliefs (our understanding of omniscience, time, free will, etc. varies, but we agree on the essentials. Boyd clarified his views with his Baptist denomination. They did not agree with all his ideas, but recognized that he was still within evangelical Christianity. See his affirmations on his website for clarification. Likewise, the conservative Evangelical Theological Society had an opportunity to revoke membership for Pinnock and Sanders (see CT Jan./04). In the end, they were voted to remain members in good standing despite a rejection of their Open views (inerrancy was one of the issues clarified).
Calvinism is not Christianity. It is an attempt to reconcile the biblical evidence (as is Arminianism and Open Theism). Calvinists make the wrong assumption at times that they alone are Christians. TULIP is not the criteria for salvation.
"The Untamed God: A philosophical exploration of divine perfection, simplicity, and immutability." - Jay Wesley Richards, IVP
(I would not recommend this book before reading more straight forward ones...those in seminary or philosophy might understand it better than I did)
This book on 'essentialism' is a difficult read. I did not understand much of the intricacies of the arguments for the traditional, classical views of immutability, impassibility, simplicity, etc. vs current thinking. This is not a simplisitic subject. There are problematic issues. Previous stringent formulations were not always coherent. Richards attempted to retain the core of traditional views with clarification from Scripture and philosophy on how they should be understood.
Do we know what Sovereignty-Aseity-Conviction or modal logic is? If we do not, then we should not be dogmatic on some of our views. For the most part, most of us have uncritically accepted what we have read or heard without understanding all relevant issues.
Then why not correct them by the very words of their espoused heroes? What could be more convincing and mouth-stopping than saying, "The man whose very name you invoke as a label to your doctrine disagrees with you. Here's what he wrote ..." But no, instead you persist with this distortion of Calvinism and confuse people, including your own camp, by not exposing it.
Then show them otherwise. Use Prov. 26:5 and knock their legs out from under them.
Coming from me, usually Calvinists will say, "Oh, is that what you mean by God changing? Then I agree." The way you guys come at them, with that distorted and goofy approach witnessed above, it's no wonder you get the kind of answers you do.
No, since I don't go around debating people about how God changes, I've not had much opportunity to explore what most Calvinists believe about this. Most Calvinists, it seems, have never read Calvin and don't know half the stuff the guy espoused. But that doesn't give you and your Open Theist cronies license to misrepresent a view that has a long-standing and well-established history just because you've encountered a bunch of theological loafers.
I think it's partly due to the way you guys frame the question, and then it ends up in a rabbit trail. Since they're theological loafers, you corner them into defending something they've never given adequate or due consideration. I do it to you guys, too. It's amazing what someone will defend when they've been backed into it.
First of all, I would avoid the fatuous arguments about "perfect oak trees" and "perfect clocks" and "perfect traffic signals" and "perfect 8-cylinder engines." No wonder you're not taken seriously on this subject. Those analogies are so far from making your case. Really, there are much better arguments that can be made. Ask them to define "change." Ask them if gaining experience is a change. Ask them if a morphological change is the same as essential change. Find out what they understand about the incarnation. Find out what they understand about God's immanence and interaction with mankind. Discuss what the scriptures say about God's essential unchanging nature in contrast to what the scriptures say about God's changing experience and interaction with mankind.
But here's my question: Where does it get you to convince a Calvinist that God can change?
It's beside the point. Calvin could have been influenced by Pittsburgh's famous weatherman, Phil Connors. The point is professing Calvinists must not know what the inimitable Phil Connors believed about immutability if they go around saying God does not change in any way.
God_Is_Truth
New member
stop using words i have to look up!
To all...... Especially open theists...
Please everyone NOTE this post of Jim Hilstons (that I have linked below). And always refer back to it when a Calvinist makes the claim God cannot change.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=593142#post593142
Apparently Calvinists should be more "open" on the topic of immutability.
Please everyone NOTE this post of Jim Hilstons (that I have linked below). And always refer back to it when a Calvinist makes the claim God cannot change.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=593142#post593142
Apparently Calvinists should be more "open" on the topic of immutability.
Where does it get me? I really don't know what that means.
If you are asking why I do it I would answer the same as I would answer regarding any debate.
A. I want to test my own arguments to better define what is true.
B. God has asked that I defend His name.
C. It's fun.
D. I would hope to help mislead individuals become closer to God.
E. etc.
Please read the post linked to below...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=594076#post594076
God bless you guys!
Resting in Him,
Clete
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=594076#post594076
God bless you guys!
Resting in Him,
Clete
godrulz,
Do you believe that OVers are not influenced by any other people outside the Bible? Why is it that many GREEK philosophers also held to a libertarian view of free will, that the Pelagians and Socinians held to much of what the OV tries to hold to. Why do Calvinists just respond to all OVers, "Well, that was the view of the Pelagians and Socinians, and they were condemned as heretical by the church"?
It seems any time that someone mentions something such as immutability, sovereignty, infinity, exhaustive foreknowledge, then the response from all OVers is, "Well, that is just a Greek idea, not a biblical idea." To me, that is simply avoidance of the issue or question. Yes, traditional theists were influenced by others outside the Bible, but so are OVers! If it is true for us, then it is true for the OV. If Calvinists always took the OV way, we would be having a debate about who was more influenced philosophy, rather than actually discussing the issues from the Bible and from an exegetical standpoint.
I am sure there are not very, very few, if any, scholars of Greek philosophy. I am not a historical theology scholar, and that is why I don't go around say stuff about how the OV is influenced by Pelagius or Socinus. I have read about them, but have never studied them in depth. Do you see my point? It seems bringing in the idea that all traditional theists were influenced by the Greeks, or whoever else, is simply a red herring; it is just a way to not discuss the issue at hand. I am not saying historical theology, etc, is useless, for I do not think it is at all, but I think it is a whole other issue. If OVers want to say those types of things, then we should discuss the ideas of the Greeks and the influences it has had on traditional theism, but we would also have to discuss the striking similarities between the OV and Pelagians and Socinians and others...
Do you agree?
Do you believe that OVers are not influenced by any other people outside the Bible? Why is it that many GREEK philosophers also held to a libertarian view of free will, that the Pelagians and Socinians held to much of what the OV tries to hold to. Why do Calvinists just respond to all OVers, "Well, that was the view of the Pelagians and Socinians, and they were condemned as heretical by the church"?
It seems any time that someone mentions something such as immutability, sovereignty, infinity, exhaustive foreknowledge, then the response from all OVers is, "Well, that is just a Greek idea, not a biblical idea." To me, that is simply avoidance of the issue or question. Yes, traditional theists were influenced by others outside the Bible, but so are OVers! If it is true for us, then it is true for the OV. If Calvinists always took the OV way, we would be having a debate about who was more influenced philosophy, rather than actually discussing the issues from the Bible and from an exegetical standpoint.
I am sure there are not very, very few, if any, scholars of Greek philosophy. I am not a historical theology scholar, and that is why I don't go around say stuff about how the OV is influenced by Pelagius or Socinus. I have read about them, but have never studied them in depth. Do you see my point? It seems bringing in the idea that all traditional theists were influenced by the Greeks, or whoever else, is simply a red herring; it is just a way to not discuss the issue at hand. I am not saying historical theology, etc, is useless, for I do not think it is at all, but I think it is a whole other issue. If OVers want to say those types of things, then we should discuss the ideas of the Greeks and the influences it has had on traditional theism, but we would also have to discuss the striking similarities between the OV and Pelagians and Socinians and others...
Do you agree?
God_Is_Truth
New member
nate,
the difference is that we see the greek philosophy regarding immutability as wrong. if it were right then there is no problem, but it's logically flawed.
now if you can show how the OV is logically wrong in regards to say libertarian free will, then please, by all means do so. i'm sure we'd be more than willing to discuss it.
the difference is that we see the greek philosophy regarding immutability as wrong. if it were right then there is no problem, but it's logically flawed.
now if you can show how the OV is logically wrong in regards to say libertarian free will, then please, by all means do so. i'm sure we'd be more than willing to discuss it.