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

[ebenz47037]

So, what do you guys think of the conversation?

I thought that the point of the qualified nature of Calvinistic/Augustinian doctrine of immutability was established.

Okay. I listened to it. Now, without getting shouted down by anyone, I have a question. Did anyone actually listen to it without a "Bob's right" or a "Jim's right" attitude at the beginning?

I did. I noticed something about this recording. Bob and Jim actually agree on quite a bit. Their disagreements were mainly semantical. It seemed to me that each of them has a difference of opinion on what certain words mean.

 

[Shalom]

Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Carribean, so I've always imagined that voice for him.

You're right! He totally looks like Captain Jack Sparrow. :chuckle: Now every time I read a Hilston post I'll be reading it with Johnny Depps pirate voice. :chuckle:

I've only heard the first part of the show so far. It was great! I dont have time right now but I'm gonna listen to the rest tomorrow.

 

[sentientsynth]

Hey Ebenz.

Okay. I listened to it. Now, without getting shouted down by anyone, I have a question. Did anyone actually listen to it without a "Bob's right" or a "Jim's right" attitude at the beginning?

I expected an awesome conversation and that's what we all got. It would have been better had they about 3 more hours to talk.

I did. I noticed something about this recording. Bob and Jim actually agree on quite a bit. Their disagreements were mainly semantical. It seemed to me that each of them has a difference of opinion on what certain words mean.

I thought that also, Ebenz. Understanding one another's vocabulary is merely the foundation of communication. You say their disagreements are semantic, and you're right. But a semantic difference can be a colossal difference.

For instance, take the difference between saying "God *can not* become unrighteous" and saying "God *will not* become unrighteous." Purely semantic. But it's a huge difference. I hope that makes sense.


SS

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Okay. I listened to it. Now, without getting shouted down by anyone, I have a question. Did anyone actually listen to it without a "Bob's right" or a "Jim's right" attitude at the beginning?

Sure, I always try to give everyone a fair chance.

I did. I noticed something about this recording. Bob and Jim actually agree on quite a bit. Their disagreements were mainly semantical. It seemed to me that each of them has a difference of opinion on what certain words mean.

True but there were some major differences towards the end of the show. Both Bob and Jim were being very cordial to one another so maybe some of the big differences went unnoticed by some.

For instance I really liked when Bob pointed out to Jim that if Christ didn't have the will to do otherwise what would be the point of Satan trying to thwart God's righteous plans?

That point is at the heart of the gospel and its amazing that Jim is forced to openly reject it to maintain his theology.

 

[sentientsynth]

I think the problem with this was pointed out in Knight's one-on-one with Hilston. Qualified immutability to the Calvinist means that God can change, like the hands on a clock change, but to the OV'er that's not real change.

Hence the qualifier at the OPENING of the show, that being, that there is a difference in the CLAIMS of a system of thought and the supposed LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS of a system of thought.

However, not everyone around town has been maintaining this sharp distinction, as one ought expect that they would, especially those who AGREE that this distinction ought to be maintained.

Funny world we live in, with funny people too. What ya gonna do man? What ya gonna do?

 

[sentientsynth]

For instance I really liked when Bob pointed out to Jim that if Christ didn't have the will to do otherwise what would be the point of Satan trying to thwart God's righteous plans?

Yo Knight. Careful saying stuff like that, especially if Clete's around. He'd be calling "argument from incredulity" in no time flat.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It blew me away when Jim agreed with Bob that "thousands" of Calvinists misrepresent immutability. When I argued that point online Jim basically said he has never seen ONE Calvinist misrepresent immutability. :hammer:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

From Feb 2006....

In past discussions, I asked Clete to provide me the names of Calvinists who affirm such a view of immutability. I contacted every one of them and they denied it. I asked him for others and he couldn't give any. I will ask the same thing of Knight. If he (or anyone) can point me to a Calvinist who believes in unqualified immutability, I will happily interview him or her to find out why they believe such a fallacy, and do my best to set them straight.

Jim

I am glad Jim now agrees that there are "thousands" of Calvinists that misrepresent Calvinism.

 

[Yorzhik]

Great show.

 

[sentientsynth]

The OP has been editted.

Wordz up.

 

[Vaquero45]

Hey Ebenz.


I expected an awesome conversation and that's what we all got. It would have been better had they about 3 more hours to talk.

Right at the end Bob asked Jim to call back, I hope he does. Very interesting conversation.

I thought that also, Ebenz. Understanding one another's vocabulary is merely the foundation of communication. You say their disagreements are semantic, and you're right. But a semantic difference can be a colossal difference.

For instance, take the difference between saying "God *can not* become unrighteous" and saying "God *will not* become unrighteous." Purely semantic. But it's a huge difference. I hope that makes sense.

SS

This is true, their disagreements are pretty strong, but I don't think they come through real obviously yet. Again, I hope they continue with it and hit other related topics. I'm hoping individual vs corporate election/predestination comes up.

 

[Saintopher]

I just got done listening to the show and all I can say is that it is discussions of these nature that almost drive me to agnosticism.

My analysis of the conversation leads me to these conclusions-

From what Bob says, God can and does change. According to him the Bible contains several instances of where this can be seen. However, I am not exactly sure what all types of change that Bob is talking about.

I have to agree with the caller that it seems to me that even though God might change his approach or execution of something that he wishes to carry out, he himself does not change in essense. I believe that this is evident throughout all of the Bible. I believe that Bob's argument in using Christ becoming flesh is a very bad example. The only thing that changed in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection was how God chose to meet his demands of reconciliation with man. His "need" for reconciliation through the shedding of blood did not change.How it was shed and whose it was did...but that is only a change in execution.

Yes, it happened once and for all, and yet God's unchanging demands are still being met through the one time work of his Son. One of the major problems with Bob's way of thinking is that everything is looked at in an all to linear view of things. It seems to remove some of the overriding eternal aspects of what God has done and is doing.

But let's take it further- We are able, to some extent, go back and look at history and formulate ideas and opinions in our minds as to what has happened. We do this with the Bible all of the time, yet are we entirely certain that what the Bible contains isn't at times, nothing more than just the understanding that a particular author has at the given time of the writing? The uses of the way "God changed his mind." Did God really change his mind? Or did it just seem that way to the author as he is penning the narritive? There is absolutely no complete confidence that we can have that all of the Scriptures are without error regarding the perspective of the authors who wrote them.

Even if there were, the problem that the Open View puts on the table is that from a historical perspective is that the only amount of "history" that they have is from the Creation up to the First Century CE. So since they only date the age of the earth at around 6000 years old, then what they have is 4000 years of records [with many of the other details missing] before/up to and just after Christ, and virtually nothing accounting for the last 2000 years since Christ. What that leaves for today and the past 2000 years is nothing but pure speculation.

There is no written and agreeable record of what all God has truly done over the last 2000 years. It is all conjecture and opinion at best. So when it comes to the future being "open" my question is open to what? What is it open compared to? How is God going to change his mind? How do we know that God, in his power, hasn't chosen to change some of his "essential" qualities?

I just find it to have God all over the place, not knowing what he is going to do, and man in the middle only guessing what the future holds...and potentially being wrong about the whole thing anyways.

Then you have Jim's position that seems to have God willfully putting himself in the corner. I do believe in a God who is powereful enough to be able to put limitations on himself; but I also am not quite sure that I can believe the line that states that since God is perfect and decides to change, that he then becomes imperfect. To me that would mean that God is just as limited as the Open Theist says he is.

Jim's view seems to paint the picture of God as a being who statically exists out there somewhere and can still communicate with us, but uses such a very narrow means by which he accomplishes his will and desires.

I do not, however believe that man is entirely a free moral agent like God. I believe that to a very large extent that God can and often does manipulate the actions of man in such a way that appears to man as though man's will actually exists to a greater degree than it really does. Take the example of a father and their child. Take a look at me and my daughter- There are times in which I give my daughter "options" in decisions that she can make. The reality is that she doesn't really have any other options than what I give her. So she is still not a free agent with regards to which directions she can go; but she thinks that she has more ability than she really does. It is probably often the same with us. God is ultimately the one calling the shots and giving us the perception that we have more to do with it than we really do. No, it doesn't make us robots. Even when I do this with my daughter we still have a relationship.

The long and the short of it is that even though Bob and Jim had a nice dialogue, I still felt like both views that were presented were still lacking answers to more critical questions.

 

[GuySmiley]

I have to agree with the caller that it seems to me that even though God might change his approach or execution of something that he wishes to carry out, he himself does not change in essense.

Both Hilston and Bob will agree that God does not change in His essense. Eventually they will (hopefully) get to the point where we will see that Hilston believes God can change His actions, such as He might do one thing at one time, then do another afterward, like the hands on a clock can change. Bob believes God can not only change His actions, but His intentions and plans, all the while His essense is unchanged.

 

[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!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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

Yes.

 

[Hilston]

Let me try again:

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

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Jim,

After listening to the show, I hope you understand that you're forced to argue that God is unable to make a choice. You seem to argue that God is forced to follow his script that He authored from before the foundation of the world.

You seem to argue that Jesus did not have the ability / choice to reject God and accept satan's temptations. To restate Bob's quesion... If Christ did not have the ability to give in to satan's temptations, was He truly tempted? If Christ could not freely choose to follow satan, then the cross is pointless.

Jesus Christ was tempted in every way that we are tempted, was totally obedient to the Father, and truly rejected satan's offers. Jesus Christ demonstrated His love towards us, not because He could not choose otherwise, but rather, because He freely chose to shed His blood for the sin of the world.

Do you really believe that God forced / predestined Jesus to die on the cross and that Christ did not have a choice in the matter?

--Jeremy Finkenbinder

 

[Hilston]

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

Why would I have to hear the show again to understand that? I was fully aware of every point Bob was making while he was making them. I'm hoping that Bob will go back and listen to the show and realize that he refuses to acknowledge the very definition of "essential attributes" by trying to claim lesser and greater attributes of God. I'm hoping Bob will go back and listen to the show and realize that his take on Hebrews 6:17,18 and 2Ti 2:13 are eisegetically horrific distortions of what the text unambiguously states.

As to your question, can you see how your question only makes sense if someone has a humanistic Open-View conception of God? Open Theists do not recognize God's infinitude and transcendence and thus refuse to conceive of God as truly free and truly sovereign. 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.

You seem to argue that God is forced to follow his script that He authored from before the foundation of the world.

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.

You seem to argue that Jesus did not have the ability / choice to reject God and accept satan's temptations.

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.

To restate Bob's quesion ... If Christ did not have the ability to give in to satan's temptations, was He truly tempted?

Yes, He was.

If Christ could not freely choose to follow satan, then the cross is pointless.

This is false. 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.

Jesus Christ was tempted in every way that we are tempted, was totally obedient to the Father, and truly rejected satan's offers.

I agree.

Jesus Christ demonstrated His love towards us, not because He could not choose otherwise, ...

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.

... but rather, because He freely chose to shed His blood for the sin of the world.

I agree. He freely chose this when it was decreed from the foundation of the world.

Do you really believe that God forced / predestined Jesus to die on the cross and that Christ did not have a choice in the matter?

Jesus' will was one with the Father's. What you suggest is irrational and logically inconceiveable. Jesus was not forced, because the immutable counsel of God was decreed, and the Son participated in that counsel. All of your questions are fraught with existentialist concepts and humanism, Jeremy. You measure God according to man's experience, and thus attempt to invoke such terms as "forced" and "had no choice." What the Bible states in a figurative sense (time limitations, space limitations, emotional outbursts, changes of mind, etc.) Open Theists take to represent the full extent of God's true nature. Open Theists do not believe God is transcendent. Open Theists do not believe God is infinite. You may claim you do (or you may not), but the logical conclusions of your beliefs amount to a God who is finite and only immanent.

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

Jim
Hear Hilston's latest musical release!

 

[koban]

You seem to argue that Jesus did not have the ability / choice to reject God and accept satan's temptations.

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.

To restate Bob's quesion ... If Christ did not have the ability to give in to satan's temptations, was He truly tempted?

Yes, He was.

:darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm: :darwinsm:

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

He seems to be unable to move the one between your ears, Jimmy-boy. :chuckle:

 

[*Acts9_12Out*]

Why would I have to hear the show again to understand that? I was fully aware of every point Bob was making while he was making them. I'm hoping that Bob will go back and listen to the show and realize that he refuses to acknowledge the very definition of "essential attributes" by trying to claim lesser and greater attributes of God. I'm hoping Bob will go back and listen to the show and realize that his take on Hebrews 6:17,18 and 2Ti 2:13 are eisegetically horrific distortions of what the text unambiguously states.

Jim,

Let's handle the topic at hand. If you would like to discuss Hebrews 6 and 2 Tim 2, I would be glad to. Let me know if you want to take that path, and we will. For now, I'll respond to the points you've raised.

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.

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...

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 mine

Jim, you would be hard pressed to prove that time is a created thing. Another discussion at a later time I guess... Secondly, how are we to determine what God's decrees are? 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. 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? 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?

Exodus 32 clearly states God's decree in this instance. God's desire was that Moses leave Him alone so that His wrath could burn hot against Israel and consume them. 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. 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?

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

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. 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. However, Christ was in perfect harmony with the Father. Not because He could not choose otherwise, but rather, because of His tremendous love for His Father and the sinners He would save.

Yes, He was

That's an antinomy Jim. Christ could not truly be tempted if He could only choose not to be tempted...

This is false. 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.

I agree.

I'm shocked! LOL :bannana:

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.

And you claim that OVer's are illogical. We never make that claim. Another strawman...

I agree. He freely chose this when it was decreed from the foundation of the world.

Scripture please...

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

Then why was His prayer contrary?

Jesus was not forced, because the immutable counsel of God was decreed, and the Son participated in that counsel. All of your questions are fraught with existentialist concepts and humanism, Jeremy. You measure God according to man's experience, and thus attempt to invoke such terms as "forced" and "had no choice." What the Bible states in a figurative sense (time limitations, space limitations, emotional outbursts, changes of mind, etc.) Open Theists take to represent the full extent of God's true nature. Open Theists do not believe God is transcendent. Open Theists do not believe God is infinite. You may claim you do (or you may not), but the logical conclusions of your beliefs amount to a God who is finite and only immanent.

I knew it would rear it's ugly head... Figurative... Just like John Calvin stated about 1 Sam 15:11 & 35, right? However, according to Calvin, verse 29 should be taken literally, right?... Jeez...

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

No, that's illogical. Next you'll ask if I think God can make a square circle... :sigh:

--Jeremy Finkenbinder