How Do Calvinists Explain These Verses in the Story of Jonah?

[TaylorSexton]

This may help:

"Is He not represented as revealing and hiding Himself, as coming and going, as repenting and changing His intention, and as dealing differently with man before and after conversion? Cf. Ex. 32:10–14; Jonah 3:10; Prov. 11:20; 12:22; Ps. 18:26,27. The objection here implied is based to a certain extent on misunderstanding. The divine immutability should not be understood as implying immobility, as if there were no movement in God. It is even customary in theology to speak of God as actus purus, a God who is always in action. The Bible teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man and, as it were, lives their life with them. There is change round about Him, change in the relations of men to Him, but there is no change in His Being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises. The purpose to create was eternal with Him, and there was no change in Him when this purpose was realized by a single eternal act of His will. The incarnation brought no change in the Being or perfections of God, nor in His purpose, for it was His eternal good pleasure to send the Son of His love into the world. And if Scripture speaks of His repenting, changing His intention, and altering His relation to sinners when they repent, we should remember that this is only an anthropopathic way of speaking. In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man’s relations to God. It is important to maintain the immutability of God over against the Pelagian and Arminian doctrine that God is subject to change, not indeed in His Being, but in His knowledge and will, so that His decisions are to a great extent dependent on the actions of man; over against the pantheistic notion that God is an eternal becoming rather than an absolute Being, and that the unconscious Absolute is gradually developing into conscious personality in man; and over against the present tendency of some to speak of a finite, struggling, and gradually growing God."

—Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 59

If that does not satisfy you, then, frankly, I don't know what will. You asked for a Calvinist's answer, and there it is. And it seems perfectly reasonable and scriptural to me. But, for the sake of our sanity, we need to keep in mind that just because I accept something doesn't make it true, and, on the other side of the coin, just because you dismiss something doesn't make it untrue.

God bless!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Then go to the other commentaries I mentioned, or look at Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. (By the way, I don't believe that Calvin, as you said, just left the issue unaddressed; he may not have addressed it to your particular liking or satisfaction, but that is hardly the same as not even addressing it. Or, if he did truly did not address it, perhaps that's evidence that you, as many here have suggested, are reading too much into the word "relent." Perhaps what you need is a lexical study, not a theological one.)

You need to read more Reformed literature rather than getting your conception of Reformed theology from nitwits on places like Christian Forums.

Just because somebody wrote a commentary a long time ago does not mean their theology is correct. I can check what recent Calvinists believe on their websites. I have talked on various Christian forums for many years. I find it to be fruitful for me because many times I am challenged to dig deeper into God's Word and I learn a lot by the leading of the Spirit. I find a good debate to be engaging for me to always learn more in God's Word. In some cases, people do not offer anything profound with God's Word. But I contend for the faith, none the less. If you do not like the idea of learning by discussion and debate on Christian forums and or it gets you upset, then it may not be for you. But do not think that your experience is mine, my friend. The idea is to get other Christians to think. Some will just be resistant and not offer me much. But that's okay. I expect that. I don't always respond to every post or every person if I find they are not wanting to see what is true.

In any event, I say this all in love.
May you please be well;
And may God bless you.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This may help:

"Is He not represented as revealing and hiding Himself, as coming and going, as repenting and changing His intention, and as dealing differently with man before and after conversion? Cf. Ex. 32:10–14; Jonah 3:10; Prov. 11:20; 12:22; Ps. 18:26,27. The objection here implied is based to a certain extent on misunderstanding. The divine immutability should not be understood as implying immobility, as if there were no movement in God. It is even customary in theology to speak of God as actus purus, a God who is always in action. The Bible teaches us that God enters into manifold relations with man and, as it were, lives their life with them. There is change round about Him, change in the relations of men to Him, but there is no change in His Being, His attributes, His purpose, His motives of action, or His promises. The purpose to create was eternal with Him, and there was no change in Him when this purpose was realized by a single eternal act of His will. The incarnation brought no change in the Being or perfections of God, nor in His purpose, for it was His eternal good pleasure to send the Son of His love into the world. And if Scripture speaks of His repenting, changing His intention, and altering His relation to sinners when they repent, we should remember that this is only an anthropopathic way of speaking. In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man’s relations to God. It is important to maintain the immutability of God over against the Pelagian and Arminian doctrine that God is subject to change, not indeed in His Being, but in His knowledge and will, so that His decisions are to a great extent dependent on the actions of man; over against the pantheistic notion that God is an eternal becoming rather than an absolute Being, and that the unconscious Absolute is gradually developing into conscious personality in man; and over against the present tendency of some to speak of a finite, struggling, and gradually growing God."

—Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 59

If that does not satisfy you, then, frankly, I don't know what will. You asked for a Calvinist's answer, and there it is. And it seems perfectly reasonable and scriptural to me. But, for the sake of our sanity, we need to keep in mind that just because I accept something doesn't make it true, and, on the other side of the coin, just because you dismiss something doesn't make it untrue.

God bless!

Exodus 32:10-14 does appear that God can radically change His mind in regards to his people. We see this when there is a mediator sometimes. Moses was the mediator on behalf of his people. Jesus was mediator on behalf of those who crucified him. Jesus said to God the Father to not hold their crimes against them for they know not what they do. This shows us that God is loving, good, and merciful. Yes, God deals with those who are converted differently than when they were uncoverted. God can even deal differently with the unconverted if there is a mediator asking for mercy, too. But this concept is Syngerism and not Calvinism. It took a mediator to intervene on the behalf of others in Exodus 32:10-14. The same was true with Jesus speaking to the Father about those who crucified Him. Synergism or communication between God and man. This was not a decree of God's orders for Moses to ask God to intercede. Moses asked. Moses took action. Just as the Ninevites had taken action. They repented based on God's coming judgment or wrath. They did not repent based upon some kind of regeneration or special enabling. Nowhere does the story tell such a thing. Nowhere does the story even allude to it. It just doesn't fit or work.

As for God changing: Well, God acts consistently within His good, loving, and merciful character. That never changes. God acts according to His promises within His Word and God acts for the greatest good for man so as to have a relationship with Him. God desires to be with His creation man (even from the beginning). But one thing separates God from man and that is sin. The thing that does not separate God from man is some kind of "Unconditional Election / Limited Atonement" but it is sin and man's choice to choose sin instead of God. Besides Open Theists (who are wrong - BTW), it is an error to essentially say that the Syngerist believes God changes in his being. No Synergist believes God changes in knowledge or His divine good will. No Synergist believes God is growing. These are false statements made against the Synergist.

It is also an error to essentially say that God's decisions are not dependent on the actions of man, too. God sets forth His Laws for man, and man has a choice to either obey and be rewarded and or disobey and be punished. Granted, God's loving nature is to be long suffering towards man and He desires that men repent so that they do not perish. So sin may not always go punished right away. But God is not forcing people to do His bidding in regards to salvation. We are told to choose this day in whom we will serve. We are not told that God will regenerate us to choose this day in whom we will serve. God is love. God is good; And the only way true love can exist in His universe is if God allows man the free will to choose the Lord openly and freely. If not, it is not true love, but a "forced love."


...

 

[TaylorSexton]

I can check what recent Calvinists believe on their websites.

Therein lies the problem, and why you will continue to go around in fruitless never-ending circles on websites like this, rather than getting your nose into primary sources (like legitimate scholars who care about the truth do) and coming to an informed position on the things which you are desperately trying to refute, as opposed to remaining in willful, happy ignorance.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Therein lies the problem, and why you will continue to go around in fruitless never-ending circles on websites like this, rather than getting your nose into primary sources and coming to an informed position on the things which you are desperately trying to refute, as opposed to remaining in willful, happy ignorance.

I can read Calvinistis websites for myself on what they believe. They all essentially say the same thing which is confirmed by outside sources like Wikipedia, and my discussion with them over the many years, etc. Not sure why you think I am ignorant in what Calvinists believe.

Here is a quick breakdown of Calvinistic beliefs that I disagree with:

The Five Points of Calvinism, TULIP


...

 

[Marvin Knox]

Did God want evil to take place as a part of His divine will?

Permissive will = of course.

Or do you think God would have preferred man did not sin?

I have an opinion. But that hasn't been revealed to us. How would either you or I know the inner workings of the inscrutable mind of the eternal God?

But do you not believe that free will does not exist in relation to a person accepting Christ?

Free will in the sense that men make decisions for which they are held responsible = yes. Free will in the sense that they are not influenced by their nature = no.

Although I'm not a full on Calvinist - I can tell you with confidence that that's the standard Calvinist position.

That a believer needs a spiritual regeneration by God so as to respond to the Lord?

A person needs to be drawn to the Son in order to respond to the Son and needs to be so drawn because he has been given to the Son. That is the clear teaching of the Lord.

As to exactly how regeneration itself works in the spirit world - I don't know of anyone who claims to have a great deal of insight into that - including John Calvin.

Do you believe God chooses believers based on what He sees them do in the future after He regenerates them or does God just pick believers to be saved for some unknown random reason?

I believe that God justifies believers based on what they do in life - particularly believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as their hope of salvation.

They do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unless they have been given and drawn to the Lord Jesus Christ by the grace of the Father. The Lord made that crystal clear.

Nothing which God does is random. No Calvinist believes that to be true. Everything the Lord does is according to His altogether wise and perfect will. The reason for choosing Marvin and not Judas is unknown. But it is certainly not a random choice.

God knowing the future of man's free will decision in regards to the Lord is not the same as God regenerating Totally Depraved men so that they are able to accept Christ (based on the Lord's doing).

You are correct.

Omniscience and election are different doctrines as any Calvinist would tell you.

It is "Forced Salvation" because they were once wicked and depraved and could not choose the Lord of their own effort and could not repent without a regeneration from the Lord. They were changed. Salvation was forced upon the Totally Depraved individual.

No - nothing is "forced" on anyone. That is not the doctrine of the Calvinists. It is the straw man of men such as you.

The old man would have rejected the gospel and the new man believes the gospel. It was his nature to do so.

The "totally depraved individual" was not forced to do anything. He was crucified with Christ as was appropriate for such a sinner.

God gives all men the natural ability to repent as a part of their physical being. God does not need to do any kind of spiritual enabling so as to get men to repent. Yes, God can convict a person of their sin, but it is still up to the individual to repent or not because they have free will to choose God or not.

All men have a conscience and, until it is completely seared by God, it will have an effect on their actions. Fallen men will usually do what is in their best interest as they understand it.

The scriptures talk about men being given the gift of repentance by God. That is in the context of salvation. The natural man can not receive the things of God with regards to the gospel. The scripture couldn't be more clear about that.

Calvinist do not say that man cannot understand and do any good at all in their natural state. They say particularly that they cannot understand and do any good with regards to the gospel and it's demands. (I refer you again to the WCF - the most authoritative statement of Calvinistic doctrine.)

That is not what I have heard from other Calvinists before. This is also not what I see in their writings, either. Which makes me think you do not know what your fellow Calvinists actually believe.
Here are a few quotes to give you an idea:....................................................No. It appears you need to check out what other Calvinists believe.

I know exactly what they believe and teach. Some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with.

Nothing in those quotes contradicts what I have said.

You seem to be reading through anti-Calvinist glasses and hearing what you expect to hear.

So God was not aware of His saved Elect before He regenerates them?

Of course He is Do you think the Holy Spirit just closes His eyes and shots regenerating beams of light into the earth?

Where did you get that from? Was it the same "random" straw man factory you visited before?

How were they in any real danger of being a vessel of wrath beforehand if God knows they are going to be regenerated by Him at a certain point in history?

God works time and states the condition of those things in time accordingly.

God is not bound by time. But He does do things sequentially within time.

God's eternal plan will be fulfilled, including all happenings within that plan. There is no doubt about that.

But it is obvious that in the scriptures His anger burns against those who will eventually escape His wrath through repentance.

Whether that repentance is the product of their own nature or engendered by the grace of God is not of importance to the discussion at hand.

But let's say God chooses to just save people randomly in real time by regenerating them.

God does nothing "randomly".

I don't know where you are getting that. It is certainly not from the teachings of Calvinists. They believe that God has good reason for doing everything He does - even if it isn't evident to us right now.

How did this play out in the Story of Jonah? Are we to assume that God regenerated the Ninevites sometime before Jonah gave his message of judgment or sometime inbetween Jonah's judgment and the repentance of the Ninevites?

God can convict the world of sin without "regenerating" them.

He may well have "regenerated" the Ninevites (whatever "regeneration" entails).

I don't know of any Calvinist who claims to understand these things much better than you do.

They do tend to use regeneration as being the equivilent to "drawing" and being "born again". But the are not dogmatic as to how things like that work exactly.

I do agree with you that such simplistic explanations as "regeneration" for how God convicts and draws sinners muddies the waters of discussion with non-Calvinists.

If some Calvinists didn't try to be such know-it-alls - we wouldn't have such heated discussions about some areas of Calvinism.

The same could be said for the other side, of course - you included.

Be that as it may - we have no idea if the Ninevites were regenerated and "saved" or not. The scriptures just don't say. It could well be that their faith (as they experienced it) was "credited" to them as righteousness as it was to Abraham. That would be cool. I'd like to spend some time with them when I get to Heaven.

........how were the Ninevites able to understand Jonah's message being in a Totally Depraved state?

Calvinists do not teach that natural men cannot understand any threats when they are delivered. The teach that regarding things related to salvation - fallen men are unable to understand and receive. The scriptures say that - as you well know, or should know.

Can a believer live in serious sin on some level and be saved?

Sure. Been there - done that. If you haven't - more power to you. You're a better man than I.

Or is just having a belief on Jesus the only thing a person needs to be saved?.

Depends what you mean by "just having a belief".

Is this discussion suddenly about the mechanics of salvation now?

Funny how that works. I've seen it a couple of dozen times here in the forum.

First a person attacks "Calvinism". Then his presentation morphs into one which denies salvation by grace through faith.

I do not believe Calvinism is biblical........

That's not new to any of us.

That is your opinion. There are many believers over the years who do enjoy and understand many of my posts.

I have no doubt about that.

But I wouldn't be too proud of that given the nature of this forum and some of the beliefs they tolerate.

I have been talking with Calvinists for many years now. I think I have an idea of the core basics of what they are saying.

I'm sure that many or even most of them don't tolerate your straw men statements long enough to engage you in any logical way rather than just throwing a bunch of party line Calvinist dogma at you.

That's a shame. Many or even most of them behave the same as you do except they come at it from the other side.

Anyways, I hope you understand where I am coming from.

I do understand. You are just like most people from both sides of arguments.

It's a shame that people can't just ask others what they believe and then rebut what they actually say rather than try to create phony pictures of what others believe and then attack those phony pictures.

Any questions you have in the future about my beliefs of Reformed beliefs in general - just ask.

But, please, do ask. Don't tell.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Permissive will = of course.

I have an opinion. But that hasn't been revealed to us. How would either you or I know the inner workings of the inscrutable mind of the eternal God?

Free will in the sense that men make decisions for which they are held responsible = yes. Free will in the sense that they are not influenced by their nature = no.

Although I'm not a full on Calvinist - I can tell you with confidence that that's the standard Calvinist position.

A person needs to be drawn to the Son in order to respond to the Son and needs to be so drawn because he has been given to the Son. That is the clear teaching of the Lord.

As to exactly how regeneration itself works in the spirit world - I don't know of anyone who claims to have a great deal of insight into that - including John Calvin.

I believe that God justifies believers based on what they do in life - particularly believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as their hope of salvation.

They do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unless they have been given and drawn to the Lord Jesus Christ by the grace of the Father. The Lord made that crystal clear.

Nothing which God does is random. No Calvinist believes that to be true. Everything the Lord does is according to His altogether wise and perfect will. The reason for choosing Marvin and not Judas is unknown. But it is certainly not a random choice.

You are correct.

Omniscience and election are different doctrines as any Calvinist would tell you.

No - nothing is "forced" on anyone. That is not the doctrine of the Calvinists. It is the straw man of men such as you.

The old man would have rejected the gospel and the new man believes the gospel. It was his nature to do so.

The "totally depraved individual" was not forced to do anything. He was crucified with Christ as was appropriate for such a sinner.

All men have a conscience and, until it is completely seared by God, it will have an effect on their actions. Fallen men will usually do what is in their best interest as they understand it.

The scriptures talk about men being given the gift of repentance by God. That is in the context of salvation. The natural man can not receive the things of God with regards to the gospel. The scripture couldn't be more clear about that.

Calvinist do not say that man cannot understand and do any good at all in their natural state. They say particularly that they cannot understand and do any good with regards to the gospel and it's demands. (I refer you again to the WCF - the most authoritative statement of Calvinistic doctrine.)

I know exactly what they believe and teach. Some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with.

Nothing in those quotes contradicts what I have said.

You seem to be reading through anti-Calvinist glasses and hearing what you expect to hear.

Of course He is Do you think the Holy Spirit just closes His eyes and shots regenerating beams of light into the earth?

Where did you get that from? Was it the same "random" straw man factory you visited before?

God works time and states the condition of those things in time accordingly.

God is not bound by time. But He does do things sequentially within time.

God's eternal plan will be fulfilled, including all happenings within that plan. There is no doubt about that.

But it is obvious that in the scriptures His anger burns against those who will eventually escape His wrath through repentance.

Whether that repentance is the product of their own nature or engendered by the grace of God is not of importance to the discussion at hand.

God does nothing "randomly".

I don't know where you are getting that. It is certainly not from the teachings of Calvinists. They believe that God has good reason for doing everything He does - even if it isn't evident to us right now.

God can convict the world of sin without "regenerating" them.

He may well have "regenerated" the Ninevites (whatever "regeneration" entails).

I don't know of any Calvinist who claims to understand these things much better than you do.

They do tend to use regeneration as being the equivilent to "drawing" and being "born again". But the are not dogmatic as to how things like that work exactly.

I do agree with you that such simplistic explanations as "regeneration" for how God convicts and draws sinners muddies the waters of discussion with non-Calvinists.

If some Calvinists didn't try to be such know-it-alls - we wouldn't have such heated discussions about some areas of Calvinism.

The same could be said for the other side, of course - you included.

Be that as it may - we have no idea if the Ninevites were regenerated and "saved" or not. The scriptures just don't say. It could well be that their faith (as they experienced it) was "credited" to them as righteousness as it was to Abraham. That would be cool. I'd like to spend some time with them when I get to Heaven.

Calvinists do not teach that natural men cannot understand any threats when they are delivered. The teach that regarding things related to salvation - fallen men are unable to understand and receive. The scriptures say that - as you well know, or should know.

Sure. Been there - done that. If you haven't - more power to you. You're a better man than I.

Depends what you mean by "just having a belief".

Is this discussion suddenly about the mechanics of salvation now?

Funny how that works. I've seen it a couple of dozen times here in the forum.

First a person attacks "Calvinism". Then his presentation morphs into one which denies salvation by grace through faith.

That's not new to any of us.

I have no doubt about that.

But I wouldn't be too proud of that given the nature of this forum and some of the beliefs they tolerate.

I'm sure that many or even most of them don't tolerate your straw men statements long enough to engage you in any logical way rather than just throwing a bunch of party line Calvinist dogma at you.

That's a shame. Many or even most of them behave the same as you do except they come at it from the other side.

I do understand. You are just like most people from both sides of arguments.

It's a shame that people can't just ask others what they believe and then rebut what they actually say rather than try to create phony pictures of what others believe and then attack those phony pictures.

Any questions you have in the future about my beliefs of Reformed beliefs in general - just ask.

But, please, do ask. Don't tell.

Thank you for your reply.
My eyes are closing, and it is time for me to soon sleep.
I will have to get back to you post at another time (hopefully tomorrow - Lord willing).

May God bless you;
And have a good night.


...

 

[Marvin Knox]

Thank you for your reply.
My eyes are closing, and it is time for me to soon sleep.
I will have to get back to you post at another time (hopefully tomorrow - Lord willing).
May God bless you;
And have a good night....

We'll see how much time I have for this in the future.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Not sure why you think I am ignorant in what Calvinists believe.

Because you can say something like this with seeming seriousness:

I can read Calvinistis websites for myself on what they believe. They all essentially say the same thing which is confirmed by outside sources like Wikipedia...

——————————

If you have not taken the time to read primary sources rather than personal blogs and Wikipedia pages, then you have no right to say you know anything about the subject—period. That is just a rule of good scholarship.

 

[Si_monfaith]

If God enables or regenerates man so as to grant him the ability to repent (2 Timothy 2:25), then how could God threaten the city of Nineveh with Judgment and Wrath, and then change His mind on that Judgment as soon as they repented and turned from their evil and wicked ways? Was God's threat on the city of Nineveh just a useless scare tactic? What purpose did God need Jonah to preach to the city of Nineveh at all if God could just convict everyone of their sin and get them to repent? Does it not seem contradictory of God to threaten a city with Judgment if He was just going to later regenerate them so as to grant them repentance later?


...

New birth or repentance (renewed heart that is focused on Jesus) is given by Lord freely (Acts 5:31).

Threatenings of judgment is to tell the Ninevites that new birth was a free gift and not what they have planned or worked for.

 

[lesliedellow]

No. The bride calls the reader to take of the water of life freely in Revelation 22:17. The reader can be anyone.


...

Rev 22.17 says exactly nothing about who will respond to the injunction, and the answer, of course, is those whose names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. (Rev 17.8)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Permissive will = of course.

No. That is not true.
What you said here would sort of be like saying: While I allowed my son the free will choice be an adult and to make his own decisions now that he is 18, that does not mean I approve of my son in doing any kind of evil. While I may give him freedom to act, it was never my intention for my son to sin or do evil. You are saying that even in God allowing man to act freely, He wanted man to sin. This is wrong to say this ~ IMO. God never wants us to do sin or evil. But God knowing that we would sin, had a plan for saving us.

I have an opinion. But that hasn't been revealed to us. How would either you or I know the inner workings of the inscrutable mind of the eternal God?

I think you are not revealing that opinion because I think it is similar to the reply above (Which I believe is not the true and loving and good character of God).

Free will in the sense that men make decisions for which they are held responsible = yes. Free will in the sense that they are not influenced by their nature = no.

This is a failed circle of logic. That would be like creating a robot whereby it was programmed to kill, and then placing that robot on trial for killing. It would be like putting wolves on trial for eating people. It makes no sense. Judging man for something he had no real control over doing is not any kind of fair and good judgment. This kind of judgment would be a joke or a farce. Man cannot be held responsible for what he does if he cannot make a choice (or choices) to help change his fallen situation.

Although I'm not a full on Calvinist - I can tell you with confidence that that's the standard Calvinist position.

If you are referring to Unconditional Election / Limited Atonment, then this is what I am attacking. God does not choose people to be saved based on no conditions. This would be wrong and immoral of God to do this because if salvation was ultimatley up to God, and God only saves some when He can save them all, it would make it appear like He is not entirely loving, and good.

For example: If a coast guard appeared who seemed like he was going to save you, your child, and five other people and yet he did not save you or your child (and yet he had the power to do so), and only saved the five other people, would you be like, "Oh, look son, this coast guard is surely a good man. For he reminds me a lot like God who does what he pleases in regards to saving people."

But is that what you would really say if you were in that scenario?
No. You would not say that.

A person needs to be drawn to the Son in order to respond to the Son and needs to be so drawn because he has been given to the Son. That is the clear teaching of the Lord.

No. You are not reading John 6:44 correctly. John 6:44 is not in context to God the Father drawing the lost. In verse 45, we learn that verse 44 is in context to those who have been taught by the Father.... come unto Jesus.

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." (John 6:45).

Jesus and the Father are one. So they come (drawn) unto the Father and or Jesus if they are taught by the Father. Jeremiah 33:3 says we can learn or know things from God by calling upon Him.

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13).

I believe that God justifies believers based on what they do in life - particularly believing on the Lord Jesus Christ as their hope of salvation.

They do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ unless they have been given and drawn to the Lord Jesus Christ by the grace of the Father. The Lord made that crystal clear.

So in the world of Calvinism: Ultimately salvation is not really in anything man has ever done. It is all God. So then there is no real reason or purpose for a Judgment. What we do here really does not matter. If God chooses us to be saved, then we are saved. If God chooses us to be damned, then we are damned. There is nothing we can do about that. But this is not loving, and good. God desires love from His creation. True love is never forced upon people but it is always by free will choice. That is why God gave man free will to choose Him so He can make the choice to love God or not. So both parties can agree to love each other openly. For if a woman was brain washed to love you, that would not be true love. True love is when they genuinely love you out of their own free will choice. But somehow you think it is okay for God to brain wash people to love Him (When that is not how God operates).

Anyways, I have to get going.
May God's love shine upon you.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.


...

 

[Hammster]

At this point, it doesn't really even matter, as our posts are being totally ignored, apparently solely for the sake of continuing this ridiculous dialogue. I am a little appalled that people actually think this is productive, as opposed to reading original sources, educating oneself from them, and forming from them educated conclusions. I swear, I have never seen a group of people less interested in speaking from an informed position as this group of people here on Christian Forums.

This is, unfortunately, all too common. I even had a thread linking to some original sources so that opponents could make non-straw man arguments. It went pretty much as you can imagine.

 

[Hammster]

I have talked with Calvinists for many years. I have heard all kinds of different things from them. But the main core of what they believe is that man does not have free will to accept Jesus as their Savior. It takes an enabling by God for that to happen. This is why I see it as "Forced Salvation." God does the choosing and man doesn't (in regards to salvation).


...

Where do you find Jesus telling us to "accept" Him?

 

[Marvin Knox]

No. That is not true..............So in the world of Calvinism:............. ...

You have many misunderstandings about predestination and election and what Calvinists believe and teach about the subject.

There's good reason why the vast majority of theologians who write extensive systematic theologies come down more or less in the camp of so called "Reformed" theology - if not so-called full on 5 point Calvinism.

I could explain some of these things to you if you wanted me to.

But you are not after information. You are only after arguments.

There are likely plenty of others here who will gladly continue to put up with you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Where do you find Jesus telling us to "accept" Him?

The Bible has to be read as a whole.

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28).

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." (John 1:12).

"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love," (Ephesians 3:17).

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Revelation 3:20).

"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14:23).

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts of the Apostles 2:38).

"And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." (Jeremiah 29:13).

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Revelation 22:17).

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6).

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." (1 John 5:12).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You have many misunderstandings about predestination and election and what Calvinists believe and teach about the subject.

There's good reason why the vast majority of theologians who write extensive systematic theologies come down more or less in the camp of so called "Reformed" theology - if not so-called full on 5 point Calvinism.

I could explain some of these things to you if you wanted me to.

But you are not after information. You are only after arguments.

There are likely plenty of others here who will gladly continue to put up with you.

Well, you are simply deflecting, my friend. I am drawing from what Calvinists say and from their websites like this one that says this about the five points of Calvinism:

Total Depravity:

Sin has affected all parts of man. The heart, emotions, will, mind, and body are all affected by sin. We are completely sinful. We are not as sinful as we could be, but we are completely affected by sin.

The doctrine of Total Depravity is derived from scriptures that reveal human character: Man’s heart is evil (Mark 7:21-23) and sick Jer. 17:9). Man is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:20). He does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12). He cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). He is at enmity with God (Eph. 2:15). And, is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The Calvinist asks the question, "In light of the scriptures that declare man’s true nature as being utterly lost and incapable, how is it possible for anyone to choose or desire God?" The answer is, "He cannot. Therefore God must predestine."

Calvinism also maintains that because of our fallen nature we are born again not by our own will but God’s will (John 1:12-13); God grants that we believe (Phil. 1:29); faith is the work of God (John 6:28-29); God appoints people to believe (Acts 13:48); and God predestines (Eph. 1:1-11; Rom. 8:29; 9:9-23).

Unconditional Election:
God does not base His election on anything He sees in the individual. He chooses the elect according to the kind intention of His will (Eph. 1:4-8; Rom. 9:11) without any consideration of merit within the individual. Nor does God look into the future to see who would pick Him. Also, as some are elected into salvation, others are not (Rom. 9:15, 21).

Limited Atonement:
Jesus died only for the elect. Though Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all, it was not efficacious for all. Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Support for this position is drawn from such scriptures as Matt. 26:28 where Jesus died for ‘many'; John 10:11, 15 which say that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, per Matt. 25:32-33); John 17:9 where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27 which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and Isaiah 53:12 which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of many (not all).

Irresistible Grace:
When God calls his elect into salvation, they cannot resist. God offers to all people the gospel message. This is called the external call. But to the elect, God extends an internal call and it cannot be resisted. This call is by the Holy Spirit who works in the hearts and minds of the elect to bring them to repentance and regeneration whereby they willingly and freely come to God. Some of the verses used in support of this teaching are Romans 9:16 where it says that "it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy"; Philippians 2:12-13 where God is said to be the one working salvation in the individual; John 6:28-29 where faith is declared to be the work of God; Acts 13:48 where God appoints people to believe; and John 1:12-13 where being born again is not by man’s will, but by God’s.
鄭ll that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out," (John 6:37).

Perseverance of the Saints:
You cannot lose your salvation. Because the Father has elected, the Son has redeemed, and the Holy Spirit has applied salvation, those thus saved are eternally secure. They are eternally secure in Christ. Some of the verses for this position are John 10:27-28 where Jesus said His sheep will never perish; John 6:47 where salvation is described as everlasting life; Romans 8:1 where it is said we have passed out of judgment; 1 Corinthians 10:13 where God promises to never let us be tempted beyond what we can handle; and Phil. 1:6 where God is the one being faithful to perfect us until the day of Jesus’ return.

Source:
The Five Points of Calvinism, TULIP​

Of course none of these five point are in any way biblical. You act like I do not know what they are saying. But I do. So let's not throw down the "I don't know what Calvinists believe" card. It is clear in what they say right here.


...

 

[TaylorSexton]

I am drawing from what Calvinists say and from their websites...

Again, therein lies the problem. You refuse to read primary source texts from actual Reformed theologians. Websites are not the doctrinal standard for what Reformed theology teaches; the historic Reformed confessions and works of systematic theology are. Why can't you understand and accept this? I think I know why...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, therein lies the problem. You refuse to read primary source texts from actual Reformed theologians. Websites are not the doctrinal standard for what Reformed theology teaches; the historic Reformed confessions and works of systematic theology are. Why can't you understand and accept this? I think I know why...

Time does not change anything. Who is to say the early Theologians were any more right or correct? However, the reality of the matter is that Calvinism is just as much of a wrong way of thinking back in it's creation with John Calvin as it is now.

Also, I am not dealing with dead Calvinistic theologians. I am dealing with Calvinists today. So I deal with how people believe today. For I cannot argue with the error of someone who is dead and gone.

I mean, do you disagree with the five points of Calvinism as presented by the recent website I provided? What makes you think John Calvin was any more correct in his theology than his modern day followers?


...

 

[lesliedellow]

However, the reality of the matter is that Calvinism is just as much of a wrong way of thinking back in it's creation with John Calvin as it is now.

From first to last the Bible is full of people whom God predestines to fulfil his purposes, up to, and not excluding, Judas Iscariot. Without his betrayal of Jesus, there would have been no crucifixion, no ressurection and no salvation. Do you think God left that to chance? I don't think so. But Judas is not going to be winning any gold medals for his treachury, come the Last Judgement; even though his role in history had been preordained by God.