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

[Alcon]

You will have to define the "doctrine of immutability," but please do soon a new thread.

Definition
http://www.google.com/search?q=doctrine+of+immutability

Supplementary material
http://www.answers.com/immutability

Antecedents
Hopefully not completely incomprehensible!!!

[J. J.]

No.

The characteristics of God are usually given as:

Omnipotent

Omnipresent

Omniscient

Immutably is not one of those. 

[Alcon]

OK, then.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of the concept of Immutability.  I've never been a practicing Christian but I hear it referenced all of the time.  You're a Presbyterian, right?  Is it not a Presbyterian thing?

And what do you make of the Biblical citations used to defend it?  Google indicates that it certainly is a common Protestant thing, at least.

Also, remind me why we needed a new topic for you to answer this.

[J. J.]

OK, then.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of the concept of Immutability.  I've never been a practicing Christian but I hear it referenced all of the time.  You're a Presbyterian, right?  Is it not a Presbyterian thing?

And what do you make of the Biblical citations used to defend it?  Google indicates that it certainly is a common Protestant thing, at least.

Also, remind me why we needed a new topic for you to answer this.

What parts of "These are the characteristic of God: Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, " don't you understand. 

I frankly do not recall anyone ever suggesting God was immutable.

[Alcon]

OK, then.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of the concept of Immutability.  I've never been a practicing Christian but I hear it referenced all of the time.  You're a Presbyterian, right?  Is it not a Presbyterian thing?

And what do you make of the Biblical citations used to defend it?  Google indicates that it certainly is a common Protestant thing, at least.

Also, remind me why we needed a new topic for you to answer this.

What parts of "These are the characteristic of God: Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, " don't you understand. 

I frankly do not recall anyone ever suggesting God was immutable.

I understand all of those parts, but my questions were if it's not a Presbyterian thing, and what the core disagreements of scriptural interpretation are that lead some sects and people to belief in Immutability, but not yours.

Plus unless God can have no characteristics beyond those three, that's even more of a non-answer.  You wanted the thread.  I'm getting my money's worth since I have permission to ask questions about a topic that's hard to thresh out on Google

[J. J.]

OK, then.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of the concept of Immutability.  I've never been a practicing Christian but I hear it referenced all of the time.  You're a Presbyterian, right?  Is it not a Presbyterian thing?

And what do you make of the Biblical citations used to defend it?  Google indicates that it certainly is a common Protestant thing, at least.

Also, remind me why we needed a new topic for you to answer this.

What parts of "These are the characteristic of God: Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, " don't you understand. 

I frankly do not recall anyone ever suggesting God was immutable.

I understand all of those parts, but my questions were if it's not a Presbyterian thing, and what the core disagreements of scriptural interpretation are that lead some sects and people to belief in Immutability, but not yours.

Plus unless God can have no characteristics beyond those three, that's even more of a non-answer.  You wanted the thread.  I'm getting my money's worth since I have permission to ask questions about a topic that's hard to thresh out on Google

Frankly, Alcon, in numerous philosophical and theological discussions I've had in the last 40 years, immutability has never come up.  I would not be too surprised if even biblical literalist would not concede that God has changed.

[Alcon]

This is why I'm confused:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone have any insight on the whole thing?

[J. J.]

This is why I'm confused:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyone have any insight on the whole thing?

In looking at the Nicene Creed, Christ is described as "eternally begotten from the Father," and "begotten, not made."  The Holy Spirit is described as "the giver of live, who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

The Holy Spirit itself kind of argues against immutability.

[Alcon]

Yeah, but that doesn't really change God's nature or necessarily his fundamental being; it may just be a conditional manifestation of that underlying nature.

In either case, I understand why a Christian could and would reject the Doctrine, so I'm more interested in the history and the scripture.  What do you make of Malachi 3:6?

[J. J.]

Yeah, but that doesn't really change God's nature or necessarily his fundamental being; it may just be a conditional manifestation of that underlying nature.

In either case, I understand why a Christian could and would reject the Doctrine, so I'm more interested in the history and the scripture.  What do you make of Malachi 3:6?

Nothing, since I don't recall reading it.

I would argue that the nature of God certainly did change, in the Christian view.

[Alcon]

Yeah, but that doesn't really change God's nature or necessarily his fundamental being; it may just be a conditional manifestation of that underlying nature.

In either case, I understand why a Christian could and would reject the Doctrine, so I'm more interested in the history and the scripture.  What do you make of Malachi 3:6?

Nothing, since I don't recall reading it.

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.

[Lunar]

I'm not J.J.

[J. J.]

Yeah, but that doesn't really change God's nature or necessarily his fundamental being; it may just be a conditional manifestation of that underlying nature.

In either case, I understand why a Christian could and would reject the Doctrine, so I'm more interested in the history and the scripture.  What do you make of Malachi 3:6?

Nothing, since I don't recall reading it.

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.

[Alcon]

Yea, but God even had foreknowledge that he'd create a New Covenant, so that doesn't necessarily involve changing His fundamental nature, knowledge, anything.  That just involves changing his actions.  A change in action can easily be defined out of being a "change."  Do you believe that God's fundamental nature changes, then?

And (not that scripture is very interesting to me in this sort of argument, but) how do you interpret Malachi 3:6?

[J. J.]

Yea, but God even had foreknowledge that he'd create a New Covenant, so that doesn't necessarily involve changing His fundamental nature, knowledge, anything.  That just involves changing his actions.  A change in action can easily be defined out of being a "change."  Do you believe that God's fundamental nature changes, then?

Now you are flipping back to the other thread.   This thread deals with the sole purpose of the doctrine of immutability. 

"For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." -  Malachi 3:6?

And (not that scripture is very interesting to me in this sort of argument, but) how do you interpret Malachi 3:6?

Referring to the conditions at the time Malachi was written.  In the Christian context, there was a change after that.

[Alcon]

Dude, I'm really just going wherever my thoughts take me.  I didn't agree that the threads needed separation in the first place -- although this one is more about history and scripture than philosophical constructs.  The definition of "changing" is perfectly relevant to the scriptural interpretation.  Reflexive compartmentalization serves no use of clarity here, it just is boring and stifling.

So God was unchanging until he changed, is what you're saying?  Trippy.  So God's static nature was dependent on the Covenant?  Where do you arrive at that belief?

[Keystone Phil]

I love how badly J.J. gets under Alcon's skin. Now Mr. Maturity has to stoop to BRTD levels and make polls about him! Classic.

[Alcon]

I love how badly J.J. gets under Alcon's skin. Now Mr. Maturity has to stoop to BRTD levels and make polls about him! Classic.

No, dude, he asked me to start a new topic.  The poll was just absurdist and kind of to point out how I thought the new topic was a bad idea.  Although now I think it was a good one, so forget that .

J. J. has definitely gotten under my skin a few times, although not in this interchange.  I think he's being completely reasonable, although I felt he wasn't paying attention to what I was saying earlier, but it's easy to misinterpret miscommunication as willful ignorance.  In fact, I really appreciate the fact that he's willing to entertain me just aimlessly bouncing questions off him right now.

(J. J.: Thanks.)

[J. J.]

Dude, I'm really just going wherever my thoughts take me.  I didn't agree that the threads needed separation in the first place -- although this one is more about history and scripture than philosophical constructs.  The definition of "changing" is perfectly relevant to the scriptural interpretation.  Reflexive compartmentalization serves no use of clarity here, it just is boring and stifling.

So God was unchanging until he changed, is what you're saying?  Trippy.  So God's static nature was dependent on the Covenant?  Where do you arrive at that belief?

Dud, possibly through ignorance, you are throwing around different concepts that are not related.  

Now, if your purpose is to create mass confusion of the issue, fine, but you won't find any answers that way.

And Alcon, anything, is unchanged until it is changed.  I don't interpret Malachi the way you do.  Mainstream Christianity doesn't interpret Malachi the way you do.  

You are free to think "Be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28)," means that Judeo-Christians shouldn't do long division, but most Judeo-Christians will not agree with you.

[Alcon]

How is the possibility of interpreting Malachi 3:6 as pertaining to God's fundamental nature -- which could eventually manifest itself in a Covenant change depending on human free will -- irrelevant to the topic?  That's the freakin' foundation of the interpretation of Immutability by those groups that espouse it, whatever they are!  It's critical to the definition.

I wasn't literally going to limit this topic to just asking if you believed in Immutability or not.  I was hoping to go somewhere.  Here, topic changed accordingly so you don't have to worry .

[J. J.]

How is the possibility of interpreting Malachi 3:6 as pertaining to God's fundamental nature -- which could eventually manifest itself in a Covenant change depending on human free will -- irrelevant to the topic?  That's the freakin' foundation of the interpretation of Immutability by those groups that espouse it, whatever they are!

I wasn't literally going to limit this topic to just asking if you believed in Immutability or not.  I was hoping to go somewhere.  Here, topic changed accordingly so you don't have to worry .

Alcon, you are first asking if I believe in doctrine of immutability. I said no.  I've also indicated that it is not a mainstream Christian doctrine.

You then threw up Malachi 3:6.  I've indicated that your interpretation of Malachi 3:6 is not a mainstream Christian and cited several sources, both liturgical and scriptural to demonstrate that.

Now, you are trying to ask why this doctrine of the Church of Alcon, Reformed (and that's the only place that I've seen it) should not apply to free will.  Sorry, if you think it does, go elect yourself Grand High Archbishop of the Church of Alcon, Reformed , but it doesn't apply to the rest of us.  You can wear a straw miter, since it's a strawman argument.

[Alcon]

OK, now I think you're being unreasonable.

1. Where did I say I agree with the doctrine?  Quote it.

2. Where did I claim you have a belief that you did not, after you denied having that belief (strawman fallacy)?  Quote it.

3. Where have I expressed an opinion on the superiority of other people's interpretations of Malachi 3:6, over yours?  Quote it.  (I'm sure you'll agree that asking you how you respond to alternative interpretations, is reasonable, and is not the same thing.)

Otherwise I do believe you just strawman'ed me.  You're right; that's not fun.  And right after I thanked you, too, tsk.

[J. J.]

OK, now I think you're being unreasonable.

1. Where did I say I agree with the doctrine?  Quote it.

Where did I say you did?  Quote it.

2. Where did I claim you have a belief that you did not, after you denied having that belief (strawman fallacy)?  Quote it.

Where did I say you did?  Quote it.

I said, bluntly, that it is not a mainstream Christian doctrine.

3. Where have I expressed an opinion on the superiority of other people's interpretations of Malachi 3:6, over yours?  Quote it.  (I'm sure you'll agree that asking you how you respond to alternative interpretations, is reasonable, and is not the same thing.)

Where did I say you did?  Quote it.

I said that your interpretation is not a mainstream Christian interpretation, and cited some evidence (i.e. the Nicene Creed).

Where did I say you did?  Quote it.

Otherwise I do believe you just strawman'ed me.  You're right; that's not fun.  And right after I thanked you, too, tsk.

Just demonstrated:  Alcon = Strawman.

[Alcon]

1. "Now, you are trying to ask why this doctrine of the Church of Alcon, Reformed (and that's the only place that I've seen it) should not apply to free will.  Sorry, if you think it does, go elect yourself Grand High Archbishop of the Church of Alcon, Reformed , but it doesn't apply to the rest of us.  You can wear a straw miter, since it's a strawman argument."  Unless "this" referred to something other than the Doctrine of Immutability, in which case ANTECEDENTS.

2. You cannot make a strawman argument without arguing against someone else's belief, which I haven't done in this topic that I know of.  If I did, quote it.

3. "I don't interpret Malachi the way you do."

And did you just call me a Strawman?  That doesn't make any sense.

[J. J.]

1. "Now, you are trying to ask why this doctrine of the Church of Alcon, Reformed (and that's the only place that I've seen it) should not apply to free will.  Sorry, if you think it does, go elect yourself Grand High Archbishop of the Church of Alcon, Reformed , but it doesn't apply to the rest of us.  You can wear a straw miter, since it's a strawman argument."  Unless "this" referred to something other than the Doctrine of Immutability, in which case ANTECEDENTS.

Alcon, you have tried to argue that that immutably is a Christian doctrine.  It isn't, as has been shown.

Alcon=Strawman

2. You cannot make a strawman argument without arguing against someone else's belief, which I haven't done in this topic that I know of.  If I did, quote it.

Just demonstrated.

Alcon=Strawman

3. "I don't interpret Malachi the way you do."

And did you just call me a Strawman?  That doesn't make any sense.

You've just tried, and failed, to make the argument that the doctrine of immutability should be involved with free will.  I've said two things about it.  One, I don't believe it.  Two, in what you've misquoted:

You then threw up Malachi 3:6.  I've indicated that your interpretation of Malachi 3:6 is not a mainstream Christian and cited several sources, both liturgical and scriptural to demonstrate that.

Alcon=Strawman