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

[fool]

I feel like a monkey in the cockpit of a jet.
What are you guys talking about?
Seems like you believe in different Gods.
You describe Him so different.
Somebody once told me about the descripion of God's character being important to something er other.

 

[sentientsynth]

I feel like a monkey in the cockpit of a jet.
What are you guys talking about?
Seems like you believe in different Gods.
You describe Him so different.

I think you're right, fool. It does seem like they're describing completely different Gods.

Somebody once told me about the descripion of God's character being important to something er other.

I agree with whoever told you that. It's very important.

 

[minuteman]

I have had many discussions with Calvinists and it seems that their commitment to the idea of immutability is tied to their view of goodness. They can't imagine any kind of being as good unless the option to do evil is taken away. So they say that God's nature is fixed to only do good without any ability to do evil.

I've offered up to Calvinists the possibility that God is good, not because He is unable to do evil, but because He freely chooses to do the right thing for its own sake. That usually sends a Calvinist into orbit, because they believe that if you have the option to do evil, then you are evil. So they then accuse me of attacking God's goodness. But what I am doing is just trying to make God's goodness meaningful.

Wayne Grudem wrote in his Systematic Theology about the importance of the doctrine of Immutability. He states that if God actually had the free will to choose between the right and wrong thing, then He would probably become completely evil and turn into the devil himself.

But, when we watch a movie where the hero is faced with some moral dilemma and they end up choosing to do what's right, we rejoice. But it seems the Calvinist should jeer, because for someone to even have the ability to choose between good and evil is intrinsically evil.

But it seems to me that mankind has an innate understanding that good character doesn't come from a fixed predisposition to only do the thing that you are able to. It's generally understood that you can't rightly judge people as good or evil based on fixed attributes of their nature like their skin color, height, or gender. We judge people based on their character which is determined by the freely chosen moral decisions that they make.

Can morality, righteousness, goodness, etc. really exist without free moral ability? Of course not.

 

[Delmar]

Great call Jim. I enjoyed the show a lot!

 

[death2impiety]

That was a great show!

 

[Delmar]

I feel like a monkey in the cockpit of a jet.
.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Did anyone think Hilston dodged a few of the issues? It's minor, but let me explain. (I apologize if someone else has already brought these points up.)

First Hilston says that he’s defending Augustine and Calvin against the mischaracterization that the OV side presents of them. His evidence was to give quotes of them where they seem to refer to the possibility that God can change in ways not specifically mentioned that they could not change. That was his main position, he said. When the topic touched on how modern Calvinist actually believe today, Hilston was quick to move the point back to “I’m only defending Calvin and Augustine, and this mischaracterization that is going on.” (to paraphrase). Okay, fine.

However, when Mr. Enyart mentions quotes from Augustine that seem to rule out any possibility that Augustine might believe God could change, even when the issue of the love of God is on the line, Hilston says he isn’t qualified to know what Augustine really believed, and that he couldn’t “read his mind”. Isn’t that a touch hypocritical?

If he’s going to accuse Open Theists of mischaracterizing people, should he at least be able to evaluate quotes from that person. And if you don’t think that’s a reasonable position, then why bring quotes in yourself? It’s like having it both ways.

 

[sentientsynth]

Did anyone think Hilston dodged a few of the issues? It's minor, but let me explain. (I apologize if someone else has already brought these points up.)

Only the irrelevant ones, I thought. But, of course, I may be a little biased.

First Hilston says that he’s defending Augustine and Calvin against the mischaracterization that the OV side presents of them. His evidence was to give quotes of them where they seem to refer to the possibility that God can change in ways not specifically mentioned that they could not change. That was his main position, he said. When the topic touched on how modern Calvinist actually believe today, Hilston was quick to move the point back to “I’m only defending Calvin and Augustine, and this mischaracterization that is going on.”

Not quite. Enyart was stating how Ware thought that the doctrine of immutability needed to be reformulated. Hilston merely said he'd be curious whether or not Ware saw the need to reformulate the Calvin/Augustine formulation or the modern formulation. It's a legitimate distinction. One that neither you nor Mr. Enyart did not (does not) care to address, apparently.

However, when Mr. Enyart mentions quotes from Augustine that seem to rule out any possibility that Augustine might believe God could change,...

This is what's so frustrating. Enyart quotes someone saying "God is absolutely immutable" and then disregards whatever qualifications the author gives elsewhere. Hilston keeps taking the discussion of classical immutability back to essential attributes, which is where Augustine, Calvin, Luther, et al took it. And then you come along and say Hilston's trying to have it both ways by focusing on the actual words of the authors. How strange.

even when the issue of the love of God is on the line, Hilston says he isn’t qualified to know what Augustine really believed, and that he couldn’t “read his mind”. Isn’t that a touch hypocritical?

Yeah. Hypocritical. Saying that you take someone's words for what they are, and that you do not attempt to impute foreign meanings to them, and then criticizing others for not doing the same; that's hypocritical? How strange.

As far as the "issue of the love of God" being "on the line", that part of the show was absolutely hilarious. Of course, it's always funny when someone begins to try to prioritize God essential attributes, but for some reason this particular episode was all the more funny. Must've been cuz it was LIVE.

If he’s going to accuse Open Theists of mischaracterizing people, should he at least be able to evaluate quotes from that person.

I don't think that making personal value judgements on those quotations was the purpose of the show. But, Jim did the right thing: he took it back to the qualified nature of immutability that said person espoused.

One ironic thing that I did notice. If you'll relisten to the show, listen to the very first question that Hilston asked Enyart, Enyart's reply, and then the very last comment that Enyart made to Hilston at the end of their discussion (excluding the "it's time to go" of course.) And you want to say that HILSTON is trying to have it both ways?

 

[Hilston]

After listening to the show, I hope you understand that you're forced to argue that God is unable to make a choice.

Hilston replied:As to your question, can you see how your question only makes sense if someone has a humanistic Open-View conception of God?

No, it makes sense because it's logical.

It only seems logical because you're an Open Theist with a conception of God as finite. You believe God is able to oppose Himself. The Bible says God's counsel, in which the Son participated in formulating, is immutable. And the Son's will is one with the Father's. The Open Theist says the Son could, if He wanted to, oppose the immutable decrees of God (in which He participated). The Bible says He does not have the ability to do that, no more than He is able to create a rock to big to move. You believe God is able to deny Himself. The Bible says God is not able to do that. God's inability to do that which is impossible is entirely logical. The Open View's conception that God can desire that which is contrary to His own desire is utterly illogical.

Hilston wrote: Open Theists do not recognize God's infinitude and transcendence and thus refuse to conceive of God as truly free and truly sovereign.

I ask that you provide Scripture for the above points. I think you'll be surprised if you try to argue that God is infinite. More on that later...

Finally, an Open Theist willing to admit that their conception is of a finite God. Does Knight and Enyart agree with you on this? As to Christ's infinitude, Col 1:16,17 says that Christ holds everything in Creation together; He controls it and has immediate, exhaustive knowledge of every part of Creation, including the created future. The scriptures say that the prophets could see the future as God showed it to them. The future therefore exists. It is settled and the prophets could see it. The future can be shown because God is infinite, outside of the time He created, and could show the prophets the future so they could write about it. He created time and holds it together. There are a whole host of similar examples, both explicit and inferred.

Hilston wrote: God cannot oppose His own decrees. That's what Hebrews 6:17,18 says. That's what 2Ti 2:13 says. God decreed what desired to ordain concerning created time, space and human history. Those decrees are the full expression of His immutable desires concerning all of creation. God freely desired to decree it all, and freely desires to bring it all to full and exact fruition in accordance with His good pleasure, which He cannot and would not oppose.

*Bold emphasis above [JF's]

Jim, you would be hard pressed to prove that time is a created thing.

Not at all. I just proved it.

Secondly, how are we to determine what God's decrees are?

We are not to determine what His decrees are apart from what He has expressly told us in His Word. His Word tells us that which is revealed concerning His decrees. But most of His decrees are held secret in the unified mind of the Godhead as His immutable counsel until they occur (De 29:29, Eph 1:11, Heb 6:17,18).

That was a question I had while listening to your discussion with Bob. For example, you argue that since Isaiah's prophesy clearly stated what would happen to our Lord on the cross, then the prophecy had to come to pass. I agree. Where I disagree is what transpired to get Him on the cross.

Of course, but Open Theism must believe in the astronomically inconceiveable notion that a God Who does not wield meticulous micro-managerial control over His universe and has no control over the evil that men do was still able to make sure every micro-second of the day of Christ's death exactly fit the schedule with absolute precision, down to every detail Isaiah 53 prophesied. Notice that Isaiah's prophecy is not limited to what happened to the Lord on the pole. It describes everything that leads up to it. God, who, according to the Open View, has no control over the wills of evil men, or over the flip of a coin, somehow made sure that Jesus would be spit upon, beaten, His beard to be ripped from His face (Isaiah 49), that He would be wounded, bruised and whipped. God somehow made sure that the Christ would be tortured enough for His bones to be pulled out of joint (Ps 22:14), but not bad enough that any of His bones would be broken (Ps 34:20). This is the irrationality of the Open View's conception of a finite God.

It's easy for you to say, "See, Isaiah foretold what would happen to Christ, therefore He had to go to the cross." How do you deal with unfulfilled prophecy then?

All prophecies are fulfilled, except for those yet to be fulfilled in the future. If any of God's prophecies were not fulfilled, then the prophets by which those prophecies were prophesied would or should have been declared false prophets. Which of the prophets in scripture will you declare to be false, Jeremy?

As I can't speak for you specifically, other calvinist's I've discussed with have lame answers like, "Oh, well God already knew He wasn't going to do what He said." For example, would you agree that one of God's decrees was that He desired for Moses to leave Him alone so that He could destroy the children of Israel who were worshipping the golden calf?

No. You don't seem to understand what divine decree entails. That which God decrees, ordains, plans is immutable according to Heb 6:17,18 and elsewhere. In hindsight, we know that whatever happens is what God absolutely, meticulously, and sub-quantum-micromanageably decreed. In futuresight, we only know what He has revealed pertaining to the long-term experience of each believer, such as the perseverance and preservation of believers, as well as what He has revealed through His prophets regarding future Israel, such as the vision of the settled and existent future that John saw in Rev 17:13 when God causes the ten kings to do an evil thing, to "have one mind, and ... give their power and strength unto the beast." How does God get these ten kings to do this evil? According to the existent and settled future that God showed John, God "put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." (Rev 17:17). The Open Theists think that some of these ten kings could possibly choose not to go along with it.

Exodus 32 clearly states God's decree in this instance.

Where? Are you trying to redefine "decree"? Not everything God says is a decree. In theological parlance, God's decrees comprise His immutable counsel, His plans, that which He ordained. The "secret things" that Deut 29:29 talks about.

God's desire was that Moses leave Him alone so that His wrath could burn hot against Israel and consume them.

God often sets people up to test them. He fakes them out. We see it all through scripture. When God asked Adam "Where are you?" it wasn't because God didn't know where Adam was. When Jesus told the woman at the well to go fetch her husband, He already knew that she was shacking up with a guy who was not her husband. God's words to Moses should not be construed as a "decree." His words were intended to move Moses to plead for his people.

I know you're familiar with the story Jim, so no need to post it here. Moses prayed on behalf of the people, and God repented of the harm He said He was going to do. Again Jim, I can't speak for you, but other calvinists have stated, "See, God foreknew that Moses would pray." That makes no sense Jim.

It makes no sense because people who say, "God foreknew that Moses would pray" seem to misunderstand the biblical teaching of foreknowledge. God doesn't foreknow because He looked into the future and saw what would happen. God foreknows because He ordained exactly, in full and detailed accordance with His exhaustively meticulous plan, every jot and iota of what was going to happen. God's foreknowledge is a figurative way of referring to His decrees.

In fact, Ambrose of Milan had to spiritualize the Scriptures for Augustine so Augustine could believe the Bible. When Augustine read that the Bible showed God repenting, Augustine could not believe it. If you'd like the quote, I'll supply it for you. Augustine likened God's repentance to "the fancies of women and children." Augustine clearly stated that he "does not worship a God who repents..." Do you worship a God who repents Jim?

Augustine was right to seek an explanation for the texts that state a change of mind in God. When examined in their contexts and in light of the rest of the teaching of scripture, the explanation becomes obvious. And yes, I do worship a God who repents, but not according to the humanistic understand of the word that Open Theist impose on scripture. When the Bible describes God's repentence, it is a figuratively emphatic way of referring to God's change of actions. It is obvious to those who recognize the scriptural teaching of the infinitude of God. It is inconceivable to those who hold a humanistic conception of a finite God.

Hilston wrote: No, God is infinite. Boundless. That means anything contrary to God's decretive will and immutable nature is utterly impossible. This is why God cannot create a rock too big to move. It would be contrary to His decretive will and immutable nature. God is not able to oppose His own desires. Does that mean God is "forced" to desire what He wants to desire? That's the way Open Theist's talk; but it's irrational because God is infinite. God decreed His plan and brings it to pass, sub-quantum-micromanaging it perfectly according to every meticulous detail of that plan.

Jim, I disagree that God is infinite.

Then He is not free. You can't have it both ways, Jeremy.

I'm floored by this admission. Why do you trust this God, Jeremy?

Infinity is an irrational concept, and God is not irrational. I'll wait for you to establish this before commenting further.

God is not infinity. God is infinite. Not finite. We are finite, limited, bounded, time-constrained, subordinated to forces beyond our control. This is not true for God. God is not limited, not bounded, not time-constrained, not subordinated to anything outside of Himself. This is why God is free. When I say that God cannot make a square circle or make a contradiction true, these are not limits on God or a restriction of God's freedom, but limits on reality, which reflects the nature of God. God cannot oppose Himself, His own will and desires. It is impossible. And reality relies upon the immutability of God for its very existence.

Hilston wrote: Jesus did not have the ability to oppose His own will. God cannot deny Himself. God cannot lie. God cannot be illogical. God cannot make a contradiction true.

Then we're back to square one. If Jesus did not have the ability to oppose His Father's will, then the cross is meaningless.

It's non sequitur, Jeremy. It doesn't follow. This is just humanistic Open-View dogma.

I ask then Jim, why did Jesus pray to His Father from the garden stating, "Not my will, but Your will be done?" Was this a joke Jim? Jesus' prayer in the garden clearly shows that He did not want to suffer, be beaten and die on the cross Jim.

Then why do you later say that Jesus was in perfect harmony with the Father? You're contradicting yourself, Jeremy.

Open Theists ignore so much of scripture in order to maintain this warped view of the Godhead. For it to be true that Jesus actually did not want to go through with it, He would have had to contradict HIS OWN WORDS when He said the following:

“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Mt 12 40)” ...

"From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day (Mt 16:21) “...

"The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. (Mt 17: 22,23 Mk 9:31 Lu 9:22) ...

"Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to stavroo him: and the third day he shall rise again (Mt 20:17-19)

"... the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again (Mk 8:31).

"... Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again (Mr 10:33,34)

"... For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation (Lu 17: 24,25).

"... Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again (Lu 18:31-33).

"... Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (Jn 2:19)

"... Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me (Jn 7: 33)

"... Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father (Joh 10:17,18).

"... Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this (Mt 26:11 Mk 14:8 Jn 12:7).

"... But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart (Jn 15:5,6).”​

Jeremy, you've made the awful mistake of assuming a false dichotomy in the text. Jesus' will was not in conflict with the Father's. Jesus was affirming His surrender to the Father's will. He was declaring for all who would read the account that He was doing nothing of Himself, that is, nothing apart from the immutable counsel of the Godhead, of which He is part. He was showing utter dependence on the Father. Note the following:

Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.​

Does Jn 6:38 say that Christ was considering doing His own will, but decided to obey the Father instead? Of course not! But that's what Open Theist reasoning leads to. Jesus' prayers in Gethsemane have been misunderstood for centuries, and all because people have this irrational humanistic Open Theist conception that He didn't want to go through with it. In His humanness, Jesus experienced the anguish, agony and troubled soul when He thought about the events that were to transpire, which He participated in orchestrating when God's immutable decrees were established. Jesus asked rhetorically:

"Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save me out of (ek, Greek) this hour:[?]'" (Jn 12:27a)

Jesus answers His own question: "[No] but for this cause came I unto this hour" (Jn 12:27b).

The Open View drives a wedge between the Father and the Son, saying that the Son could have decided not to go through with the sacrifice. The text says that God answered Jesus prayer "yes," and removed the cup from Him. Jesus said that the cup (permanent death) would be removed from Him after He would drank of it (i.e. after He was sacrificed): "Since this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. (Mt 26:42)." After He drinks it, the cup will pass.

Hebrews says that Jesus' prayer was answered "yes": Heb 5:7 "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;"

However, Christ was in perfect harmony with the Father.

You're contradicting yourself, Jeremy. Didn't you ask me above "why did Jesus pray to His Father from the garden stating, 'Not my will, but Your will be done?'" Was this a joke, Jeremy?

Not because He could not choose otherwise, but rather, because of His tremendous love for His Father and the sinners He would save.

You're contradicting yourself. What was Jesus' will when He said, "Not my will, but Your will be done"?

That's an antinomy Jim.

What's an antinomy?

Christ could not truly be tempted if He could only choose not to be tempted ...

Who said He could choose not to be tempted? He was tempted.

Hilston wrote: The Son chose death when it was decreed from the foundation of the world. When the Son took on human flesh, He was fully cognizant of His predestined death. Isaiah 53 was non-negotiable.

Please provide Scripture that Christ's death was decreed from the foundation of the world. This is another calvinistic strawman conceived out of Greek philosophy. I've already commented on Isaiah 53 above.

Gen 3:15 Ge 4:3-5; 22:2,3,6-8,13; 35:14; Ex 18:12; 25:2,3; 29:14,18,24-28,36,40-42; 30:9,10,13-15,20,28; 31:9; 35:5,16,21,22,24,29; 36:3,6; 38:1,24,29; 40:6,10,29; Le 1:2-4,6,9,10,13,14,17-2:11,13-3:3,5-9,11,12,14,16; 4:3,7,8,10,18,20,21,23-25,28-30,32-34; 5:6-13,15,16,18,19; 6:5,6,9,10,12,14,15,17,20,21,23,25,30-7:2,5,7-10,13,14,16,25,30,32,37; 8:2,14,18,21,27-29; 9:2-4,7,8,10,12-17,21,22,24; 10:12,15-17,19; 12:6,8; 14:10,12-14,17,19-22,24,25,28,31; 15:15,30; 16:3,5,6,9,11,15,24,25,27; 17:4,8; 19:21,22; 22:12,18,21-24,27; 23:8,12-16,18-20,25,27,36,37; 24:7; 27:9; Nu 4:16; 5:9,15,18,25,26; 6:11,12,14-17,20,21; 7:3,10-13,15-17,19,21-23,25,27-29,31,33-35,37,39-41,43,45-47,49,51-53,55,57-59,61,63-65,67,69-71,73,75-77,79,81-83,87; 8:8,11-13,15,21; 9:7,13; 15:3-10,13,14,19-21,24,25,27; 16:15; 18:9,11,17,24,26-29; 23:3,15,17; 28:2,3,5-15,19,20,22-24,26-28,31; 29:2,3,5,6,8,9,11,13,14,16,18,19,21,22,24,25,27,28,30,31,33,34,36-38; 31:29,41,52; De 12:11,17; 16:10; 23:23; Jos 22:23,26; Jud 6:18; 11:31; 13:16,19,23; 1Sa 2:17,29; 3:14; 6:3,4,8,14,17; 7:9,10; 13:9,10,12; 26:19; 2Sa 6:18; 1Ki 18:29,36; 2Ki 3:20,27; 5:17; 10:25; 16:13,15; 1Ch 6:49; 16:2,29,40; 21:23,26,29; 22:1; 23:29; 2Ch 4:6; 7:1; 8:13; 29:18,21,23,24,27-29,32,35; 30:22; 35:14; Ezr 1:4; 3:5; 6:17; 7:16; 8:25,28,35; Ne 10:33,34,39; 13:9,31; Job 42:8; Ps 40:6; 51:16,19; 96:8; Isa 40:16; 43:23; 53:10; 57:6; 61:8; 65:11; 66:20; Jer 11:17; 14:12; Eze 20:28; 40:38,39,42,43; 42:13; 43:19,21,22,24,25; 44:11,27,29; 45:15,17,19,22-25; 46:2,4,5,7,11-15,20; 48:8; Joe 1:9,13; 2:14; Zep 3:10; Mal 1:10,11,13; 2:12,13; 3:3,4; Lu 23:36; Ac 21:26; Ro 15:16; Eph 5:2; Heb 10:5,8,10,11,14,18

Hilston wrote: He could not deny Himself. He could not oppose His own decrees. For that to even be possible is to suggest that God could create a rock too big to move. ... He freely chose this when it was decreed from the foundation of the world.

Scripture please ...

Eph 1:11, Heb 6:17,18.

Hilston wrote: Jesus' will was one with the Father's. What you suggest is irrational and logically inconceiveable.

Then why was His prayer contrary?

You contradict yourself AGAIN, Jeremy. Which was it? Was Jesus prayer contrary? Or was it in perfect harmony with the Father's will? You can't have it both ways, Jeremy. This is the kind of irrationality that Open Theism inevitably leads to.

Hilston wrote: Jeremy, do you believe God COULD create a rock to big to move if He WANTED to?

No, that's illogical.

On the Settled View, it's illogical. But why is it illogical on the Open View? Can't you make something too big to move? Then why can't God do the same thing?

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[Hilston]

Jim, I really hope you listen back to this show.

I really hope you listen to it when you get a chance.

I think Jim should listen back to the show because sometimes it's easier to understand how things went when you listen to it later.

What are you hoping I understand better now that I've gone back and listened to the show?

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[Jefferson]

I have had many discussions with Calvinists and it seems that their commitment to the idea of immutability is tied to their view of goodness. They can't imagine any kind of being as good unless the option to do evil is taken away. So they say that God's nature is fixed to only do good without any ability to do evil.

I've offered up to Calvinists the possibility that God is good, not because He is unable to do evil, but because He freely chooses to do the right thing for its own sake. That usually sends a Calvinist into orbit, because they believe that if you have the option to do evil, then you are evil. So they then accuse me of attacking God's goodness. But what I am doing is just trying to make God's goodness meaningful.

Wayne Grudem wrote in his Systematic Theology about the importance of the doctrine of Immutability. He states that if God actually had the free will to choose between the right and wrong thing, then He would probably become completely evil and turn into the devil himself.

But, when we watch a movie where the hero is faced with some moral dilemma and they end up choosing to do what's right, we rejoice. But it seems the Calvinist should jeer, because for someone to even have the ability to choose between good and evil is intrinsically evil.

But it seems to me that mankind has an innate understanding that good character doesn't come from a fixed predisposition to only do the thing that you are able to. It's generally understood that you can't rightly judge people as good or evil based on fixed attributes of their nature like their skin color, height, or gender. We judge people based on their character which is determined by the freely chosen moral decisions that they make.

Can morality, righteousness, goodness, etc. really exist without free moral ability? Of course not.

POTD! :first:

 

[Poly]

I have had many discussions with Calvinists and it seems that their commitment to the idea of immutability is tied to their view of goodness.

This is such a great point. It's amazing that so many were/are so quick to agree with Augustine, not realizing how irrational it is to suggest that in order to be perfect, change cannot be an option. It's as if people routinely agree with him because of his status and assume he would not state anything other than truth. The idea of questioning him over anything wouldn't even enter a person's mind.

There's so many situations where imperfection occurs because change did not. Our bodes must change on a daily basis in order for us to stay healthy. If a body ceases to change, growth can stop and/or the ability to eliminate impurities ceases causing sickness, disease, and death to occur

This is just one of many cases where change is needed to avoid imperfection.

 

[Hilston]

I have had many discussions with Calvinists and it seems that their commitment to the idea of immutability is tied to their view of goodness.

Minuteman, do you agree that God is immutable in His nature and essence? It appears that you don't. Do you believe He could change His essence if He wanted to?

They can't imagine any kind of being as good unless the option to do evil is taken away.

This is Calvinism through the humanistic lenses of Open Theism. What a mess.

So they say that God's nature is fixed to only do good without any ability to do evil.

Do you believe God's nature can change?

How do you people trust this God of yours? He really could change on you, and then you'd be screwed. Why do you trust Him?

I've offered up to Calvinists the possibility that God is good, not because He is unable to do evil, but because He freely chooses to do the right thing for its own sake.

But on you view God could become evil if He wanted to, right?

That usually sends a Calvinist into orbit, because they believe that if you have the option to do evil, then you are evil. So they then accuse me of attacking God's goodness. But what I am doing is just trying to make God's goodness meaningful.

What you call "send[ing] a Calvinist into orbit" sounds to me like they probably just shake their head because you don't get it. Do you even see how you've used a humanistic standard to evaluate God, measuring Him by man's experience instead of taking Him at His own Word? You've not made God's goodness meaningful; you've made it fickle, unstable, mutable and not worthy of trust.

But, when we watch a movie where the hero is faced with some moral dilemma and they end up choosing to do what's right, we rejoice. But it seems the Calvinist should jeer, because for someone to even have the ability to choose between good and evil is intrinsically evil.

Calvinism doesn't measure God by man's experience (or by what is seen in the movies). Minuteman, do you believe Job was wrong for attributing his suffering to the work of God?

But it seems to me that mankind has an innate understanding that good character doesn't come from a fixed predisposition to only do the thing that you are able to.

Only from a humanistic perspective is the question even put in those terms. God can be trusted because He is immutable in His essential nature, which includes His goodness.

It's generally understood that you can't rightly judge people as good or evil based on fixed attributes of their nature like their skin color, height, or gender.

See what I mean? Utter humanism is at work in the mind of Open Theists. The question is not whether or not attributes are fixed. The question is whether or not attributes are essential.

We judge people based on their character which is determined by the freely chosen moral decisions that they make.

Do you judge God, minuteman?

Can morality, righteousness, goodness, etc. really exist without free moral ability? Of course not.

You don't view God's goodness as essential, do you? Are any of God's attributes essential, minuteman?

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[Hilston]

This is such a great point. It's amazing that so many were/are so quick to agree with Augustine, not realizing how irrational it is to suggest that in order to be perfect, change cannot be an option.

Do you believe God could become evil if He wanted to?

There's so many situations where imperfection occurs because change did not. Our bodes must change on a daily basis in order for us to stay healthy.

This has nothing to do with essential attributes, Poly.

If a body ceases to change, growth can stop and/or the ability to eliminate impurities ceases causing sickness, disease, and death to occur.

Do you view your body as comprising your essential attributes?

This is just one of many cases where change is needed to avoid imperfection.

This again is the humanist trying to judge God according to man's experience. That's what Adam tried to do. That's what Cain tried to do. That's what Job's friends tried to do. That's what Lucifer tried to do. And that's what Open Theists try to do.

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[Delmar]

Do you believe God could become evil if He wanted to?

I absolutely believe that the fact that he would not want to be evil is what defines his righteous character.

 

[Hilston]

I absolutely believe that the fact that he would not want to be evil is what defines his righteous character.

This isn't merely a "want" question; it's a "can" question. Can God become evil if He wants to? If so, then you have no assurance that He someday will not become evil. And the worst kind of evil is the evil that feigns righteousness. How do you know God hasn't already succumbed to evil and is playing all the believers for chumps?

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[fool]

This isn't merely a "want" question; it's a "can" question. Can God become evil if He wants to? If so, then you have no assurance that He someday will not become evil. And the worst kind of evil is the evil that feigns righteousness. How do you know God hasn't already succumbed to evil and is playing all the believers for chumps?
Jim

That is an excellent question.
I would say that serious, in-depth dialog with the Deity should be undertaken prior to taking any rash action.

 

[koban]

Do you believe God could become evil if He wanted to?

Do you believe God is absolute?

Or do you believe that "good" and "evil" exist outside of God? :think:

 

[Delmar]

This isn't merely a "want" question; it's a "can" question. Can God become evil if He wants to? If so, then you have no assurance that He someday will not become evil. And the worst kind of evil is the evil that feigns righteousness. How do you know God hasn't already succumbed to evil and is playing all the believers for chumps?

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

yes, but He won't because He choses not to.

 

[Hilston]

Do you believe God is absolute?

Or do you believe that "good" and "evil" exist outside of God? :think:

Look at that! Koban is using BIG words, and trying to act all grown-up and stuff. Awwwwwww, how cute! :baby:

Hilston wrote: This isn't merely a "want" question; it's a "can" question. Can God become evil if He wants to? If so, then you have no assurance that He someday will not become evil. And the worst kind of evil is the evil that feigns righteousness. How do you know God hasn't already succumbed to evil and is playing all the believers for chumps?

yes, but He won't because He choses not to.

How do you know He hasn't already chosen to be evil and that He's been lying to believers for quite a while?

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!