TOL's James Hilston Agrees: Yes, God Can Change!!

[fool]

What fool is saying that if God is even free to do evil (even if He will not), means that good and evil exist outside of God's character.

Yup.

 

[fool]

The idea that God is capable of doing evil can be compared to a loving parent being capable to hate or commit wickedness against his child. Is it possilble for a parent who dearly loves and desires to protect his child, to change his heart to hate the child and to desire to do evil against him?

Here the definitions of "doing evil" "commit wickedness" and "do evil against him"
are all critical, without a metric outside of the actors we have no way to measure the actions.
We cannot simply say that since God is good everything he does is good.
I'm still fuzzy on why, but Bob said that sin could enter the Godhead, and I agree with that, I think that there is a correct answer to every question, and God changing his mind shouldn't change the truth. Let's say Jesus did worship Satan in the desert, and sin entered the Godhead and the trinity became evil. How would you know? Do you think that the correct answers could be made incorrect by a change in Gods' outlook?

 

[Poly]

What fool is saying that if God is even free to do evil (even if He will not), means that good and evil exist outside of God's character.

I know what he's saying by I don't see why anyone would insist that it has to mean this.

God is good because He freely chooses rightousness out of the goodness of His desire and His heart. This is what makes up God's character. It is God's character that wills good. The absence of this goodness results in evil. So both can be defined by demonstrating God's character.

 

[Poly]

Here the definitions of "doing evil" "commit wickedness" and "do evil against him"
are all critical, without a metric outside of the actors we have no way to measure the actions.
We cannot simply say that since God is good everything he does is good.
I'm still fuzzy on why, but Bob said that sin could enter the Godhead, and I agree with that, I think that there is a correct answer to every question, and God changing his mind shouldn't change the truth. Let's say Jesus did worship Satan in the desert, and sin entered the Godhead and the trinity became evil. How would you know? Do you think that the correct answers could be made incorrect by a change in Gods' outlook?

I'm about to fall over on my keyboard. I need sleep.

These are good questions and I hope to pick it up tomorrow.

 

[Hilston]

Hilston wrote: Fallen angels kick against God's decrees. Elect angels do not.

Yet according to you even these "kicks" are by God's decree.

According to the Bible, the angelic rebellion was and will be according to God's immutable will.

Therefore you have said a grand total of zero.

It only seems that way to Open Theist's who are willfully incapable of putting two and two together (they keep getting zero).

Let's review, God decree's some angels fall and some do not, God decree's that fallen angels "kick" against the decree (which means nothing)

Only according to Open Theists (2+2=0).

... and un-fallen angels do not "kick" against God's decree's (which is all by decree of course).

Of course. If God is infinite and has secured the salvation and hope of all believers, it cannot be any other way. For the Open Theist, there is no security, no assurance, no confidence, no Hope. God is capable of lying. God does not know the future. Why do you trust God when you have such a conception of Him?

The entire exercise means absolutely nothing.

Only to Open Theists does 2+2=0.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[Hilston]

We cannot simply say that since God is good everything he does is good.
I'm still fuzzy on why, but Bob said that sin could enter the Godhead, and I agree with that, I think that there is a correct answer to every question, and God changing his mind shouldn't change the truth. Let's say Jesus did worship Satan in the desert, and sin entered the Godhead and the trinity became evil. How would you know? Do you think that the correct answers could be made incorrect by a change in Gods' outlook?

It fascinates me that an atheist so clearly understands the significance of the issues pertaining to this discussion, whereas the Open Theist does not. Fool has asked some excellent questions. Can the Open Theists answer them?

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[novice]

It fascinates me that an atheist so clearly understands the significance of the issues pertaining to this discussion, whereas the Open Theist does not. Fool has asked some excellent questions. Can the Open Theists answer them?

Jim, step way from the crack pipe.

Fool stated he agreed with Bob (not you)

I'm still fuzzy on why, but Bob said that sin could enter the Godhead, and I agree with that

Furthermore, fool's post is pretty much an admission that he doesn't fully understand the significance of the issues pertaining to the discussion. Yet you read it and conclude "It fascinates me that an atheist so clearly understands the significance of the issues pertaining to this discussion" :kookoo:

Only Jim Hilston can read a post like fools and think it somehow helps his side of the argument. :rotfl:

 

[novice]

According to the Bible, the angelic rebellion was and will be according to God's immutable will.

If you really believed that why whould you have asserted "Fallen angels kick against God's decrees."? Which is it? Do the angels "kick" against God's decree or do they follow His immutable will?

Only according to Open Theists (2+2=0).

Brilliant retort, you have devestated my argument, I concede defeat.

Of course. If God is infinite and has secured the salvation and hope of all believers, it cannot be any other way. For the Open Theist, there is no security, no assurance, no confidence, no Hope. God is capable of lying. God does not know the future. Why do you trust God when you have such a conception of Him?

:chuckle: Die strawman, die!!!

Jim, is God so weak He can't keep a promise? Why is that such a stumbling block for you? God secures our salvation with His word, He is indeed that powerful and faithful. I think that's beautiful. He doesn't need to script the future to secure our salvation.

 

[Hilston]

If you really believed that why whould you have asserted "Fallen angels kick against God's decrees."? Which is it? Do the angels "kick" against God's decree or do they follow His immutable will?

Please read the following to understand the difference between divine decree and divine prescription: God's decrees and God's desires.

Jim, is God so weak He can't keep a promise?

This has nothing to do with God's strength. It has to do with His character. The Open Theist believes that God is capable of evil and lying. That means He is capable of breaking His promise. Why do you trust this God, novice?

Why is that such a stumbling block for you? God secures our salvation with His word, He is indeed that powerful and faithful.

The scriptures say that God is faithful and is absolutely without the power or strength to deny Himself (2Ti 2:13). Contrary to that verse, the Open Theists believe that God is capable of denying Himself. Therefore, He could decide today not to be faithful anymore. So why do you trust Him?

I think that's beautiful. He doesn't need to script the future to secure our salvation.

It is a necessary truth. Logic demands it. Scripture declares it. God showed the prophets the future in visions. Open Theists don't even believe the future exists. So what did God show them? A PowerPoint presentation on His iBook? (God probably uses a Macintosh).

Broken promises are not always the result of intentional neglect. They can be the result of unforeseen circumstances. According to the Biblical view, God's promises are sure because He has decreed the future and His immutable counsel has secured those promises. On the Open View, God is flying by the seat of His pants. Maybe unforeseen circumstances will cause God to renege on His promises. Or maybe God will just decide to change His mind about keeping those promises. Open Theists believe God is entirely capable of breaking promises. Why do you trust this God?

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[Hilston]

Jim, step way from the crack pipe.

Do I have to?

Fool stated he agreed with Bob (not you) ...

Yes, I'm quite comfortable with atheists NOT agreeing with me. Apparently you view this as a boon for your argument.

... Furthermore, fool's post is pretty much an admission that he doesn't fully understand the significance of the issues pertaining to the discussion.

Yes, and it is quite remarkable that Fool ~ even in his fuzziness ~ understands the issues better than Open Theists. In other words, Fool comprehends enough to ask pertinent and relevant questions. The Open Theists in this discussion still have yet to catch up with Fool.

... Yet you read it and conclude "It fascinates me that an atheist so clearly understands the significance of the issues pertaining to this discussion" :kookoo:

Imagine then, if I feel that way about an atheist, and if Open Theists' are even less capable of grasping the issues, how low must Open Theists rate then?

Only Jim Hilston can read a post like fools and think it somehow helps his side of the argument. :rotfl:

It's not my claim at all. You can remove my argument from this discussion and you're still left with Fool asking questions that the Open Theists here do not even follow.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[Yorzhik]

Jim, I brought this up before, and it was also brought up in this thread. Basically, the SV God can do what we would call evil against us, but we by your logic, would have to view it as good. So let us say that God promises us salvation, and when we get to heaven we are thrown in a fire pit to burn forever. What is your assurance that when God says anything that it means what we expect it to mean? or if the meanings change who would stand in judgement of God for changing the meanings?

 

[Yorzhik]

I didn't realize I needed to get pre-approved... Sending Knight a private message now...

It's all set up. You can make your first post (create a new thread) whenever you are ready.

Not to push, but...

 

[Hilston]

Hi Yorzhik,

Your previous post, though long, raises a lot of the issues that I think demonstrate grave encumbrances in Open Theist thought. I've been working on a reply. In the meantime, since you asked this again, I'll go ahead and post a response to your most recent post:

Jim, I brought this up before, and it was also brought up in this thread. Basically, the SV God can do what we would call evil against us, but we by your logic, would have to view it as good.

God does not do evil. He decrees it, yes. He brings it, yes. But He does not commit evil. The specious claim often lobbed by Open Theists is, if decrees evil, and if God is good, then evil must be good. But it's not sequitur because God continually makes the distinction between evil and good, even though He has made it unambiguously clear that He has decreed evil for His purposes, all according to His immutable/unchangeable counsel (BOULE):

Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

Ge 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.

Ac 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

Ac 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, 28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel (BOULE) determined before to be done.

Heb 6:17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel (BOULE), confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel (BOULE) of his own will:​

We know that the Holy Spirit works together with believers all things for good concerning their hope and salvation (Ro 8:28). We have the assurance that even the evil that befalls us is according to God's immutable counsel, that He will bring to completion the good work He has begun in us (Php 1:6), working within us, both to work and to will for His good pleasure (Php 2:13), having decreed and ordained in advance the good works we will do (Eph 3:10). None of these passages blur the distinction between good and evil. All of these passages intimate the real existence and contrary nature of evil to goodness. The logic of my position does not make evil good and good evil, as Open Theists are wont to allege. Rather, it affirms their distinction and shows that God is to be wholly and unflinchingly trusted, despite the pervasive presence and influence of evil in the world.

On the Open View, I don't see how you can trust God. How can you rest in Someone who is not good in His essence, but rather is good by choice only?

So let us say that God promises us salvation, and when we get to heaven we are thrown in a fire pit to burn forever.

On the Open View, where is your assurance that this won't happen? The Son could get upset at the Father, and just out of spite, throw every one of us into hell. What is the anchor of your soul if this is even a possibility?

... What is your assurance that when God says anything that it means what we expect it to mean? or if the meanings change who would stand in judgement of God for changing the meanings?

My assurance is in the immutability of God's essence. He cannot lie. He cannot break a promise. He cannot stop loving those He has decreed to love. He will certainly and immutably bring His decrees to pass concerning His elect. Hope is the anchor of the soul.

Where is the Hope of the Open Theist? It is no anchor, taken to its logical conclusion. It's a mere wish, and more likely, a denial of the logical conclusions of their espoused tenets. Most Open Theists, it would appear, have not given adequate thought to their position. This is why I'm accused of lying and of beating up a straw man. But no Open Theist has been able to show that the conclusions do not follow.

If the Open Theist takes his espoused notions to their logical result, he has no such assurance, because God can change. God can decide to be evil; He can decide to lie. The Father could decide to hate the Son and we'd be witnesses to the most massive domestic dispute of all eternity. This is the irrationality that OpenTheism leads to.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[fool]

OK.
I wil now try to explain what I'm trying to say. :squint:
Theisticly, right and wrong come from God.
So, you could say that what God does is right and that's that.
Which would be relative to what God was doing at any particular time, so right and wrong could change with a change in God.
Or, you could say that right and wrong come from a description of God's character, in which case morality dosen't come from God but from his description. In which case you could have an evil God cause he could get off His program.
That would be more of an absolute position, but still needing a description, and putting God in the backseat in favor of a desription of Him.
As far as the future, if there is one He could not know it and still be God.

 

[fool]

Aeh?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

fool,

The problem with what you are stating is that you are speaking in generality of a change within God, and not dealing with the specific changes that we profess. Because you don't narrow your focus, of course, you leave a realm of possibilities open. You give conclusions that are in the realm of possibility whenever you leave the door open for any type of change within God, however the conclusions are not demanded.

As you rightly put it these could cause evil within God if we start from the realm of all possibilities but there is no reason to believe that they "must". Clearly changes in God could happen without God becoming evil, just as God could get off "track" in certain ways and still not be evil.

Clearly there are types of changes that if could happen in God would affect whether we could say good and evil come from a description of Gods character. However, when we are speaking about God changing (and I would include Hilston and others who modernly have redefined Calvinistic beliefs to allow for change), those types of changes that God goes through are amoral - in the sense that He doesn't become more or less righteous.

 

[Vaquero45]

Hi Vaquero45,

It's a shame that your post got neglected amid the obfuscation and distraction of these others. You made some excellent observations and asked superb questions that deserve an answer. I'm very sorry I let your post float this long. I should not have done that. Below is my response to your post.

Thanks for the kind words and I am the last person who could complain about a slow response, no offense taken.

Hilston wrote: Planning evil it for good purposes is not the same a doing evil it for evil purposes. The former is righteous, the latter is evil.

Vaquero45 then wrote: I don't think you can have your statement above, because the "doing evil for evil purposes" part is also on God in the settled view.

It's not possible, V. Nothing can be "on God" in the sense that He is held culpable. He tells us that everything He plans is for good, even things that evil men, by His decree, intend for evil.

I agree that God will never rightly (or forcibly) be held culpable.

I do see examples in the Bible of God using men to carry out His will. I see no problem with God using the willing, including satan of course, to accomplish something for Him, such as correcting Israel, betraying Jesus, carrying out the foretold details of the crucifixion, whatever else. What is obviously wrong is to put the will to sin in man's heart and then blame him for it.

I look at Romans 2:14-15

Rom 2:14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
Rom 2:15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them);

This says that even "gentiles" can know in their hearts what is good and evil. If I go to my non-christian neighbor and say, "God planned and forces every wicked act committed by men, and then sends them to hell for those acts, want to come to church with me?", he will say to me, "that God is wicked, no thanks, you can have Him". Ask any child, "if I give you a cookie before dinner, and then spank you for having a cookie before dinner am I right to do so?".

Look at Abimelech who took Abraham's wife Sarah. God told him He was a dead man. Abimelech could have got smart and said, "Hey, I'm the king, it's good to be the king, and it is my right to take her", and he would have got crushed, hit with a hail stone, swallowed by the earth, whatever, but instead he said, "Abraham told me she was his sister!, it's not right to kill me, I didn't know!". What he said was right, and God agreed. People can know what is right, even in God's case, and God accepted the point made in Abimelech's case.

Vaquero45 wrote: His plan, His idea, and His fault?

Fault implies responsibility. God is responsible to no one; God answers to no one. Culpability cannot rationally be attributed to God. Actions, yes. Plans, yes. Fault, no. Job attributed the evil that befell him to God, but did not sin in doing so because He did not try to blame God or hold Him responsible. Instead, He recognized that God uses the evil He has decreed for His good purposes. He chided his wife for thinking like an Open Theist:
Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

God is just to take us, test us, or judge us any time He sees fit, none of these acts are evil. I don't curse God for wickedness because I know it is the will of men, not God that causes it. When God accomplishes something through wicked men, His part in it was not wicked, I agree with you there for sure.

Hilston wrote:
The Settled View understands that God cannot do evil, and that everything He has planned is for the good of His chosen ones. He works all things together for good for those who are the called according to His immutable purposes. He has promised to work in His chosen ones, both to will and work for His good pleasure. He says He has foreordained (predestinated, decreed) in advance good works for us to do. He says He will bring to completion the good work He has begun in us. He has planned evil to bring about many of these predestined results, and it is righteous of Him to do so.[/quote]

Vaquero45 then wrote:
Same as above. If God planned all evil, including the evil that men do and the evil will to do it, and only for "good", then all evil is good.

How so? What Joseph's brothers did to him (selling him into slavery) was intended for evil. But God decreed their evil for good. What they did was not good, but God designed and orchestrated their evil for His good purposes. This is why we can trust Him. And this is why the unbelieving hostile world should be terrified of Him.

God worked it out for good, yes. Joseph's brothers were willing pawns in God's hand. I'm not convinced God decreed and designed every detail of the "Joseph and his jerk brothers" story, but God did force the good outcome, there we agree. God can righteously use a willing person doing an evil deed and remain righteous in judging that person. God said He would judge Assyria and Egypt for what He would use them to accomplish, but we also know He doesn't tempt men to sin,( James 1:13-15), He desires that all men to be saved and come to the truth, (1 Tim 2:4). He deals with men according to the state He finds them in. (Psa 18: 25-26). I think we must read all accounts in the light of those scriptures. He is righteous to use a willing person for His purposes but it would be wrong to force the will to be wicked in the first place, and then judge them for being wicked. I think the Bible shows that He does not do that. I end up almost agreeing with your statement above, but with a different understanding.

Vaquero45 wrote:
Why does God get frustrated when we defy His will, if that evil is actually good?

When the scriptures describe God's emotions in human terms, it is intended to convey a prescriptive truth with emphasis. When we defy His will, it comes as no surprise because He decreed that defiance. The descriptions He gives of His emotions are designed to show how contrary man's evil is to God's prescriptions. Have you read the link to my site on the differences between God's prescriptive and decretive wills?

I have read it at least three times. I believe I see how it works in light of your view, but I don't believe that anything God decrees is wicked so my view doesn't require the explanation. I also believe that God has real emotions.

Vaquero45 wrote:
To me, it is necessary that our good or bad will is our fault, if God judges righteously.

I agree with you. And God's judgment is completely righteous by holding us at fault.

Great!

Hilston wrote: He cannot be unrighteous. He doesn't have the ability or a choice in the matter. He cannot deny Himself. He cannot oppose His own decrees.

Vaquero45 then wrote:
I'm not 100% sure of the wording but I basically agree. I believe God's character is immutably good, but God can make free choices within His own "good" will, and would not deny Himself, as you also say. (did that make sense?).

Then would you agree that God is not free to be evil? Bob Enyart believes God could choose to hate if He wanted to. That is not being immutably good.

I believe it boils down to what you say here, yes, but that is just the logical conclusion of what you said Bob believes, assuming God has immutably good character, which I believe. I think what Bob is getting at by saying "could if He wanted to" and I agree with, is that God is living and relational, and truly does make real time choices.

Hilston wrote: The Open Theist has no assurance, because their God is not righteous in character or in nature, but righteous by choice. Which means He can choose today to become unrighteous.

Vaquero45 then wrote:
Why do you say the OV's God is not righteous in character or nature?

Nature/character pertains to what God is intrinsically, essentially. If God has the potential to do evil, then He is not intrinsically or essentially righteous in nature/character.

:think: I don't believe God has the potential to do evil. If He can't be tempted by evil, how would He ever end up doing it? Of course God has the potential to do anything He desires, and we are really dealing with "what He desires".

Vaquero45 wrote:
You claim that the OV'ers can't trust God to stay good, but (again from our side) your "God could be evil?" problem is much worse.

Not at all. God is immutable in His nature and character. That means God cannot do evil; He cannot go against His own decreed purposes. We can completely trust Him to be immutably good and to work all things in our behalf for good.

Hilston wrote: Not at all. We know God plans evil for good purposes and we have full confidence, unwavering assurance, unshakeable faith in God's immutable nature and character, His inability to lie or to deny Himself.

Vaquero45 then wrote:
I'm confident that God could not be evil for the same reasons, ...

I'm surprised. It really is not consistent with Open Theism to think the way you do. Bob Enyart believes God can be evil if He wants to.

Again, I believe just what you attribute to Bob here, as long as God's character being compromised remains out of the question, and I believe it does. so again I end up saying God can't do what He will not do.

Vaquero45 wrote:
... but don't believe He planned all evil, including the will of men to do so.[/quote]

If you don't, then you cannot really trust Him to secure your future.

I believe He doesn't lie, and that He taught Paul what Paul wrote. I have no problem trusting that my future is secure. ( and I know that is not where you were going with that, what are you getting at? Interesting.)

Vaquero45 wrote:
To answer your question above for myself, I do not think God "can" become evil, because He "immutably" does not want to.

Why doesn't He want to? Is it because He will not desire to become evil, or because He cannot desire to become evil?

I almost want to say "both", because I think His good character is not negotiable. Of the two choices I guess "cannot" trumps "will not", I basically see them equally but, I'll take "cannot" because James tells us He cannot be tempted by sin.

Hilston wrote: If He is not righteous by nature, intrinsically, essentially, then His goodness is not immutable.

Vaquero45 then wrote:
Hmmmm... I do believe His nature is intrinsically and essentially righteous, unless I'm missing a definition. Again, I'm not sure why you say the OV God is not.

If God can choose evil, then He is not essentially good. If God is good is His very essence, then it is impossible for Him to do evil. For example, if God is essentially true, then it should be impossible for Him to lie ~ not only a desire to be true, but a total inability to be untrue. And that is in fact what the scriptures say: It is impossible for God to lie. He is without the power or strength to lie. The same Greek work is used to describe a man who was congenitally crippled. He was without the ability or power to walk. The Bible says God absolutely cannot (strong negative in the Greek) deny Himself. This means God is essentially true, not true by choice, but immutably true.

Hilston wrote: Is [God's] character perfect by choice? Or is He essentially perfect by nature? It can't be both.

Vaquero45 then wrote: I don't catch the dichotomy I guess. I believe He is perfect by nature, which to me implies perfectly good character. Operating in that nature, all His choices are good. I'm not sure why God can't be free, and have perfect character.

He IS free, but not free to do that which is contrary to His own character. That is, if He is essentially perfect and good. But according to Bob Enyart, God has the capacity and ability to do evil if He wants to, which means that He is NOT essentially perfect and good.

"could become evil if He wanted to" keeps coming up, and I have addressed it for myself, I don't believe it is possible. Here I will attempt to speak for Bob to the best of my ability since He is being brought up. I have heard probably "most" of Bob's teachings on Open Theism, including a live seminar, and I think He would agree that "God will never want to become evil" because of His immutable good character. It's possible I'm wrong of course, and a sure thing that Bob would explain it better than I do, but I'd be blown out of my socks hearing that Bob thinks there exists odds to bet on whether God will become evil or not.

Vaquero45 wrote:
If you want to say He is not free to deny Himself I suppose I agree, but that is like saying God can't do what God will not do. Seems obvious.

It IS obvious, but not to most Open Theists. You seem to be an exception, V. Most Open Theists I've encountered believe that God can do contrary to His will. They believe Jesus actually had a different will than the Father's in the Garden of Gethsemane.

I don't believe God can do contrary to His will. ( it freaks me out a bit to "limit" God, but because I believe God is immutably good, I can stand by that statement)

As for the Garden of Gethsemane account, Jesus did say, "not as I will, but as you will", and that must mean something. To be honest, I'm not sure how to take it all. Here are some thoughts and observations though. It is obviously OK for someone to willingly pay a penalty owed to them by others. It is obviously wrong to make an unwilling person take the punishment for something they didn't do. It is 100% understandable that Jesus in the form of a man would inquire as to a way to avoid the cross. After seemingly exploring the idea of a different plan, He conformed to the will of the Father, which is also not at all shocking seeing that He is the perfect Son of God. Jesus' will is a topic that gets deep fast. If you have it nailed, I'm all ears.


And just for the record, I loved Hilston's latest musical release. :thumb:

 

[fool]

fool,

The problem with what you are stating is that you are speaking in generality of a change within God, and not dealing with the specific changes that we profess. Because you don't narrow your focus, of course, you leave a realm of possibilities open. You give conclusions that are in the realm of possibility whenever you leave the door open for any type of change within God, however the conclusions are not demanded.

As you rightly put it these could cause evil within God if we start from the realm of all possibilities but there is no reason to believe that they "must". Clearly changes in God could happen without God becoming evil, just as God could get off "track" in certain ways and still not be evil.

Clearly there are types of changes that if could happen in God would affect whether we could say good and evil come from a description of Gods character. However, when we are speaking about God changing (and I would include Hilston and others who modernly have redefined Calvinistic beliefs to allow for change), those types of changes that God goes through are amoral - in the sense that He doesn't become more or less righteous.

I'm fuzzy on the amoral part. For there to be absolutes they must remain static. The correct answer to an ethical question would need to remain the same and be unchangable.
Otherwise it would be relative. So within that framework God could change his hair color, but if you're executing people for working on the Sabbath at one point, and not doing it at another point, then the correct answer to the question has changed and is relative. If we say that we don't execute Sabbath workers today out of mercy, then we must ask the question "where was this mercy before?"

 

[Danoh]

Can God change the future? He did just that when He revealed the Mystery.

 

[Stripe]

Holy resurrected thread, Batman!