Featured The LORD: "HATES all workers of iniquity"??

I think it is an emotion. How would you act on a hate you don't emotionalize? The emotion is the basis for the action.

 

It's odd that now many professors are bogged down in "free will" vs "predetermination or predestination".

 

I am not understanding the difficulty.

God is immutable.

The Son is both Himself and God. God is not His Son.

 

I think the best ones.
Mohler
Macarthur

 

They are about my speed. I have too much Adult A.D.D. to get much out of many of the others.

 

There are no passages that say that God does not change in any way whatsoever, as the doctrine of immutability asserts.

I've proven otherwise. You have now proven that you are a lair.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I've proven otherwise.

The doctrine of immutability is not a tautology as this blatantly idiotic rendering of it clearly is.

Define "nature".


Prediction: Jon, in so far as he is even able, will be willing to do so.

Define "God's being" as apposed to "God's nature".

Again, Jon will not do so.

Both of these aspects that Jon has now brought up violate the doctrine of divine simplicity which many prominent theologians, not the least of which is Aquinas, use as a premise to argue that God is absolutely (ontologically) immutable.

Saying it doesn't make it so and repeating the same stupid claim doesn't make it so either.

I have, in fact, proven otherwise, as you well know. Liar!

If that we so, you would have responded direct to my rebuttal and demonstrated that this is the case. Instead, you simply restate your position and pretend like my rebuttal doesn't exist.

Of course you do. Don't compound one lie on top of another.

And it isn't an ad hominem. Please do at least try to look up multi-syllabic words before using them.

It isn't even evidence against my argument, much less proof. Do you even know how to think properly or do you just go through life believing any random thing you decide to let fall out of your mouth?

People who hold to the doctrine would never use the term "stagnant" but that is, in fact, what the doctrine means.

The doctrine does, in fact, teach that God does not change AT ALL. Not accidentally nor essentially; not in mind nor mood; not in intent nor in practice. No part nor aspect of God changes in anyway whatsoever - period. That IS the doctrine of divine, as I have proven by providing multiple sources and can provide many more.

 

Cite your source.

No such source exists.

There are countless Calvinists that would laugh in your face and tell you that God is not be effected at all, even by love.

[W]e (correctly) deny that God has passions; The passion of love is something that happens to us, as "getting ' happes to a body: and God is exempt from the 'passion' in the same way the the water is exempt from 'getting wet'. He cannot be affected with love, because He is love." C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: HarperOne, 1996), page 148​

The above citation related directly to the specific doctrines of Divine impassibility and divine simplicity, both of which are derivatives of divine immutability.

This, in three nearly synonymous sentences, is the biblical teaching about God not changing. IT IS NOT what the doctrine of immutability teaches. It's not even 1% of what it teaches.

"The immutability of God is that perfection of God by which He is devoid of all change, not only in His Being, but also in His perfections, and in His purposes and promises... there is no change possible in God in any respect; God is free from all variation, not only in His essence and attributes, but also in His knowledge and will. This excludes not only all quantitative and qualitative change, but also all change of place, and all succession of time in God." (Systematic Theology, pp. 58-59, emphasis added).​

Saying doesn't make it so.