Knight's pick 7-24-2007

[Nathon Detroit]

The Scriptures tell us that God is indeed immutable, but that He nevertheless notices and is affected by the obedience, plight or sin of His creatures. Why else, then, would Christ have wept at the tomb of Lazarus?

Then He is not immutable. Unless you are arguing that God's feelings are only external - in which case you agree with the pagan Greek concept of Immutability you just said to reject. If Gods feelings are INTERNAL, as one would expect, then God is not immutable when He grieves at the plight of sin or death.

The scriptures do not use the word "immutable", in fact that term came from the pagan Greek concept you want to divorce from and yet that is exactly how that term made it's way into the church. The word itself is absent from the Bible, so to say that "scriptures tell us" is a bit of hyperbole.

For a moral being like ourselves to change means that it is necessary to change in one of two directions- from better to worse, or from worse to better.

That's laughable and certainly not true. If I change my hair color did I change from better to worse or vice versa? If I changed my voice - same question? If I changed my mind on what watch I was going to wear - did I go from better to worse or vice versa?

That Calvinists are still putting out the pagan Aristotle's poorly thought out position that all change must be either better or worse, shows how much the idea is dying in it's own refusal to self-examine. Of course co-equal choices exist. If you chose one way and then change for another, if the choices were co-equal, then you did not get either better or worse.

To argue that a man saving a child would be any greater deed if he were white or black; would be disgusting.

It would help if the Calvinist had the courage to abandoned the failed and trumped logic of the pagans and join the Bible and it's wisdom. (Deuteronomy 14:26 - notice the coequal choices given here.)

:BRAVO: :first:

 

[Clete]

Great argument AJ!

I might point out on a technical note that your argument, while just fine the way it is, actually applies even more directly to the more specific issue of God's impassibility.

I wonder if that subtle difference in wording would have caused a significant difference in the way AMR responded? As yet, I do not recall having seen him comment on the specific issue of impassibility, although I'd be very much surprised if he denies impassibility in spite of his almost constant contradiction of the doctrine. How in the world could Jesus have wept (never mind suffered on the cross) if He was impassible?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

As yet, I do not recall having seen him comment on the specific issue of impassibility, although I'd be very much surprised if he denies impassibility in spite of his almost constant contradiction of the doctrine. How in the world could Jesus have wept (never mind suffered on the cross) if He was impassible?

Resting in Him,
Clete

AMR would go on and on about God's essence and righteous character not changing, insinuating that Open Theists disagreed with that. :chuckle:

 

[Clete]

I was wrong about AMR not having talked much about impassibility, I had just forgotten. Actually he's repeated himself over and over again without substantiation about how "passion implies desire for what one does not have". I wonder which Calvinist lexicon of the English language he got that silly nonsense from? Even if that were an accurate understanding of the word "passion" I wonder how he deals with the dozens of passages where the Bible talks about God longing for Israel to repent (not to mention the rest of the world)?

Oh wait! I know, surely they must be figures of speech that are merely accommodations to our inability to understand God. Funny how such figures of speech not only mean the exact opposite of what they say but that AMR and other Calvinists are perfectly able to understand them! Go figure!

 

[Servo]

Great pick!
Argument destroyed.