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

[JonC]

You've made this "immutability" means "mutable" argument up, haven't you?

No. Immutability refers to God's being and nature (ontological). This means that God is relationally mutable.

Because God is immutable and does not change He responds to sin and repentance in a manner consistent with His nature.

God will never become unrighteousness. He will never become unholy. And His actions will always reflect His immutable nature.

You simply do not understand the term.

 

[Reynolds]

I think "love and hate" here is an action rather than an emotion.

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.

 

[Scarlett O.]

MOD NOTE: Words like "idiot", "liar", "lunatic", and other rudeness will stop now.

 

[JonC]

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

I'm not sure (I can see it both ways).

In John 3:16 love is an action. But perhaps it also conveys an emotion.

When I entered seminary we were told the free-will debate was an undergrad topic. Our main topic as grad students? The love of God.

I found the topic difficult. God is love. We can say a lot about this, but if we drill down it gets difficult (for me at least.....but you know me, I'm from SC ).

 

[Reynolds]

I'm not sure (I can see it both ways).

In John 3:16 love is an action. But perhaps it also conveys an emotion.

When I entered seminary we were told the free-will debate was an undergrad topic. Our main topic as grad students? The love of God.

I found the topic difficult. God is love. We can say a lot about this, but if we drill down it gets difficult (for me at least.....but you know me, I'm from SC ).

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

 

[JonC]

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

Not the good ones.

 

[37818]

I am not understanding the difficulty.

God is immutable.

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

 

[Reynolds]

Not the good ones.

I think the best ones.
Mohler
Macarthur

 

[JonC]

I think the best ones.
Mohler
Macarthur

I don't think they are the best ones. But I like them.

 

[Reynolds]

I don't think they are the best ones. But I like them.

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

 

[JonC]

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

At least your A.D.D. grew into adulthood.

 

[CJP69]

You mean all of those passages that states God does not change?

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

Your error is you do not understand immutability.

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

The doctrine of divine immutability is that God cannot change in accidental property.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

I've proven otherwise.

God is always God.

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

God's nature does not change.

Define "nature".


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

God's being does not change.

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.

You simply do not understand divine immutability.

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!

This is proven in your rebuttal.

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.

I don't mean the ad hominem,

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.

...although that is proof against your argument.

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?

I mean your confusion that divine immutability means God is stagnant. You are confused.

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.

 

[CJP69]

No. Immutability refers to God's being and nature (ontological). This means that God is relationally mutable.

Cite your source.

No such source exists.

Because God is immutable and does not change He responds to sin and repentance in a manner consistent with His nature.

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.

God will never become unrighteousness. He will never become unholy. And His actions will always reflect His immutable nature.

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).​

You simply do not understand the term.

Saying doesn't make it so.

 

[Scarlett O.]

MOD NOTE: I said yesteday for the name-calling to stop. It has not. And in another thread - claiming someone is not saved.

My banning hammer is coming out. Member has already received warnings for the past year.

And thread closed.

 

[JonC]

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.

I did cite my source.

I'm not a Calvinist. I'm used to them laughing in my face. I'm just glad I make them smile.

 

[JonC]

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.

Immutability does not mean God does not change in any way.

The term means God does not change (like the verses I posted state).

God, if immutable, changes to show wrath against wickedness, mercy to those who repent. If God was not immutable these things would not happen.

God became flesh. Jesus is God.

Immutability refers to God's being, His nature.

You add "in any way" to the passage where Hod says "I do not change".

You have confused immutability with impassibility.