Does J. J. believe in the Doctrine of Immutability?

[Alcon]

I just provided you with a definition.  It's not the one that I think is better; it's just the most general one that is compatible with Christianity.

The post you quoted contains no portion where I "preclud[ed] the chance [change] in relationship" in the context of Immutability."  If it does, quote that portion.

As for:

As soon as you used the term out apart from the context I was using, and you did not provide a definition, only a range, you created the strawman fallacy.  Alcon = Strawman

I'm assuming -- and I have to assume, because you seem completely unable to avoid being hopelessly vague -- that "the term" is "Doctrine of Immutability."  You can't "use" a context, so I assume you're talking about the context in which you were using the term "Doctrine of Immutability."  And by "[not] a definition, only a range," I assume you mean that I provided several potential definitions but did not endorse one.  And by "created the Strawman Fallacy," I'll assume you mean "committed."  I did not create the Strawman Fallacy, although you certainly continue to redefine it, a re-creation of sorts (see 3 & 4 here.)

So, is your complaint, the following?

1. I asked if you subscribed to the Doctrine of Immutability.

2. You assumed a definition of "immutability" that is completely incompatible with Christian teaching.  This is despite the fact that I repeatedly noted, either directly or through linked resources that you requested, that some define Immutability as God's nature being unchanging.  (Here, here, here, and here.)

3. You now object on the grounds that it wasn't clear enough to you that "fundamental nature" does not include relationships, and that you were interpreting Immutability under the pretext that it did.  Somehow, you didn't infer that this I might not assume that from statements on related issues, like "[the New Covenant] doesn't necessarily involve changing [God's] fundamental nature...that just involves changing his actions." 

So, your assumption was that I was arguing changing relationships change God's fundamental nature?  And where did you infer that from?  After all, I had already said that new actions and information don't necessarily change God's fundamental nature.  Yet you assumed that I'd think new relationships would -- Huh?

Besides, that isn't a Strawman Fallacy or anything close to it.  It was you inferring something arbitrarily, and then complaining that you steamrolled ahead instead of thinking to ask for clarification.  The assumption that I "preclud[ed] the chance [change] in relationship" was your arbitrary, incorrect presumption -- and therefore you (perhaps unintentionally) Strawmanned me.

Which adds to a growing lists of smash hits, including:

...Your repeated claim that I said God was Immutable, when in fact I've said I don't even believe in God...

...Your claim that Presbyterians do not subscribe to Immutability, despite the fact that a two-minute Google search revealed that to be untrue...

...Your inability to understand that a Strawman Fallacy requires an attack on the position, a fact you haven't even responded to...

[J. J.]

No Alcon, in the absence of a definition, I said, in a particular context There has been a change, and I cited the context.    You don't like the context I used, perhaps, but St. Thomas, the Presbyterians and possibly jmfsct (what a combination) agreed, in that context.

Now, I asked you two questions:

1.  If what makes God God, his essence, is still the same,  has not diminished, has God changed?

2.  If what makes God God, his essence, is still the same, and there is some other characteristic, has God changed?

I'll say this, my answer will be different to both.  I will also note on those answers, there was not a truly universal answer in Christianity.

Note:  These questions refer to a different context than my first answer.

[J. J.]

And here is my original statement of the context.

There are Bible look-ups online everywhere.  Here is a link to one, and here is a link specifically to Malachi 3:6.  There are also some other passages mentioned by proponents of Immutability Doctrine.

I'm having trouble finding any Christian sources that argue against Immutability, which is confusing me.  There's a fundamental disagreement in scriptural interpretation that isn't a written-about controversy?  It makes me think that I'm missing something.

The entire concept that Christ is the "New Covenant" strongly disagrees with immutability concept.

In the Christian context, you might take a look at some of the citations here:

http://www.gotquestions.org/new-covenant.html

I think that you are taking the concept is so far out of the mainstream in Christianity, you won't find a lot on it.
[/quote]

[Alcon]

J. J.,

I provided a definition for "Doctrine of Immutability" that did not imply that a change in relationship.  You arbitrarily made the inference that I agreed with this definition (by "preclud[ing] the chance [change] in relationship), a claim you have not proven.  In response, you now claim that you "cited the context," and produced a quote where you asserted Immutability necessarily violated the New Covenant. 

By "cited the context," do you mean that you arbitrarily rejected definitions of Immutabillity that do not "preclude the chance [change] in relationship," as you claimed I had?  Because, in that case, you committed the Strawman Fallacy by arbitrarily assuming my argument precluded said change, which was wholly unsupported by anything I said or linked to.  Hah, if you used "cited the context" to mean that:  I'm starting to suspect that you're being vague to obfuscate your lack of an argument.

But, anyway:

How does any of this mean I "preclud[ed] the chance [change] in relationship," as you claimed?  (And as is required to make your objections meaningful.)

How does this demonstrate that I endorsed the Doctrine of Immutability, as you claimed?

How did this prompt you to claim that Presbyterians did not support the Doctrine of Immutability, a statement defensible only if a "chance [change] in relationship" were precluded, something which you have never demonstrated I said?

How does this explain the change in your claim that "immutability [isn't] a Christian concept," a statement defensible only if a "chance [change] in relationship" were precluded, something which you have never demonstrated I said?

How does this explain why you can't clarify your antecedents, and fail to avoid near-meaninglessly vague statements like "in a particular context" that you then predicate your arguments upon?