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

[Hammster]

But that does not help you. It works against what you believe here because Paul is telling believers to be slaves to righteousness. They are not automatically slaves to righteousness after coming to Christ anymore than a person is a slave to sin (in the Calvinistic sense) whereby they cannot make a choice to be set free by choosing Jesus Christ. Again, you have to CHOOSE to be a slave to righteousness. We were not slaves to sin as a baby. Babies really do not sin. Babies who die go to be with the Lord.

Again, he's talking to those already regenerated. He's not telling them how to become so.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, he's talking to those already regenerated. He's not telling them how to become so.

No. He is telling them how to be slaves to righteousness. It is right there in verse 19. He says to them to yield your members (your body) to being slaves to righteousness unto holiness. Read the verse again very carefully.

 

[Hammster]

No. He is telling them how to be slaves to righteousness. It is right there in verse 19. He says to them to yield your members (your body) to being slaves to righteousness unto holiness. Read the verse again very carefully.

He's writing to the church. The assumption is that they are saved.

 

[lesliedellow]

By your fowl use of language in regards to God (in passing conversation)

I did no such thing.

and your unwillingness to see the moral argument I presented,

You did not present an argument, so I could not very easily ignore it.

it is best we do not talk from here on out.

In other words, you have lost the argument, and you now it (but don't want to admit it).

As for your false claims against me in reference to God: I also do not believe Calvinism is taught in Scripture.

You can believe what you like, but you must certainly be reading a different Bible to me.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

He's writing to the church. The assumption is that they are saved.

Judas was a disciple, that does not mean he was saved during his entire discipleship.

 

[Hammster]

Judas was a disciple, that does not mean he was saved during his entire discipleship.

Again, Paul was writing to a church.

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. - Romans 1:7

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I did no such thing.



You did not present an argument, so I could not very easily ignore it.



In other words, you have lost the argument, and you now it (but don't want to admit it).



You can believe what you like, but you must certainly be reading a different Bible to me.

First, you said the "d@$n" word in reference to the Lord. Yes, you were speaking hypothetically, but it still is not right to say the actual words an unbeliever would use. It is not appropriate.

Second, you would not know about Calvinism if you were not told about it. When you read the Bible, you read it with Calvinistic glasses. So of course you are reading a different Bible than me.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, Paul was writing to a church.

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. - Romans 1:7

And he told them to do something. To yield their members as slaves to righteousness unto holiness. You think being a slave to something is automatic (as a part of God's choosing). But Paul refutes this idea in verse 19 in Romans 6. You are just not able to see what verse 19 says plainly because you believe in Calvinism. I bolded and highlighted the portion of verse 19 for all to see what it says plainly.

 

[Hammster]

And he told them to do something. To yield their members as slaves to righteousness unto holiness. You think being a slave to something is automatic (as a part of God's choosing). But Paul refutes this idea in verse 19 in Romans 6. You are just not able to see what verse 19 says plainly because you believe in Calvinism. I bolded and highlighted the portion of verse 19 for all to see what it says plainly.

20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. - Romans 6:20-21

Paul's argument is clear. It's the same message today. We are no longer slaves to sin. So we should stop acting like it. Then he says that when we were slaves to sin, there was no good fruit. Obedience would be fruit. So one who is unregenerate cannot bear good fruit.

Reading scripture as a whole is better then deconstructing it. Understanding it as the original readers did goes a long way towards proper biblical interpretation.

 

[lesliedellow]

Second, you would not know about Calvinism if you were not told about it. When you read the Bible, you read it with Calvinistic glasses. So of course you are reading a different Bible than me.

Wrong. I spent several decades trying to ignore the references to predestination in the Bible. When I finally gave up that effort, I realised that it was implied all over the place in scripture, even when it was not explicitly being referred to.

Acts 4:27-28 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.


Acts 2:46-47 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Wrong. I spent several decades trying to ignore the references to predestination in the Bible. When I finally gave up that effort, I realised that it was implied all over the place in scripture, even when it was not explicitly being referred to.

Again, you would not know about Calvinism unless someone told you about it. So I am not wrong. If you did know Calvinism existed, there would be no references for you to to try to ignore.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. - Romans 6:20-21

Paul's argument is clear. It's the same message today. We are no longer slaves to sin. So we should stop acting like it. Then he says that when we were slaves to sin, there was no good fruit. Obedience would be fruit. So one who is unregenerate cannot bear good fruit.

Reading scripture as a whole is better then deconstructing it. Understanding it as the original readers did goes a long way towards proper biblical interpretation.

You are still not getting it. If slaves to sin means no freedom to act contrary than you cannot have slave to righteousness mean something different.

Being a slave to righteousness is something you choose to do. Unless of course you believe all Calvinists are living sinlessly or perfectly holy.

 

[lesliedellow]

Again, you would not know about Calvinism unless someone told you about it. So I am not wrong. If you did know Calvinism existed, there would be no references for you to to try to ignore.

Um, the Bible existed, and said what it said, long before Calvin came along. Calvin was hardly the first person who didn't need glasses to read what it said. You can add Luther, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas to the list.

 

[Hammster]

You are still not getting it. If slaves to sin means no freedom to act contrary than you cannot have slave to righteousness mean something different.

Being a slave to righteousness is something you choose to do. Unless of course you believe all Calvinists are living sinlessly or perfectly holy.

What you don't seem to understand is that regeneration means something. There's an actual change in a person. That they are still in the flesh and keep struggling with sin doesn't change that.

Again, you should stop deconstructing the text and try to understand it the way the original hearers would.

 

[Hammster]

Um, the Bible existed, and said what it said, long before Calvin came along. Calvin was hardly the first person who didn't need glasses to read what it said. You can add Luther, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas to the list.

And the NT and OT writers.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Um, the Bible existed, and said what it said, long before Calvin came along. Calvin was hardly the first person who didn't need glasses to read what it said. You can add Luther, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas to the list.

The point is that your chances of thinking the wrong thing in Scripture would be a lot less without these men in history helping you to think that way.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

And the NT and OT writers.

People can read all sorts of things into the Bible by a few select passages or verses, but that does not make it true. We know God is loving and good. This right here should refute Calvinism. But folks just say it is just my morality I am imposing when it is not. However, basic morality is true no matter the situation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What you don't seem to understand is that regeneration means something. There's an actual change in a person. That they are still in the flesh and keep struggling with sin doesn't change that.

Again, you should stop deconstructing the text and try to understand it the way the original hearers would.

But this is not what you did. You were influenced by Calvinistic thinkers. I did not see Calvinism in the Bible or even know what it was until I ran into Calvinists. The concept of Calvinism if foreign to the reader who is not thinking in Calvinistic terms. Calvinism has an origin. It is John Calvin; And not the Bible. Hence, the name "Calvinism."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But getting back to the Story of Jonah: We see God's free will within his creation at work. In Matthew 12:41, Jesus says the Ninevites will rise up against this generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. Now, this sounds like they are taking responsibility for something they did of which this generation is not doing. Today, we see people changing what "repentance" means. Some say it is just a change of mind about sin. But that is not what it is really saying alone. Repentance is asking God for forgiveness which is then followed by the natural fruits of repentance (i.e. forsaking one's evil ways). Yet, people today have no idea about this. It reminds me of the words of Jesus about how when He returns, shall He find faith on the Earth?

Anyways, in the story of Jonah, we see Jonah deliver a message that the city of the Ninevites was going to be destroyed. Yet, when the Ninevites cried out to God (repented) and forsaked their evil ways (fruits of repentance), the Lord then turned away from His wrath that He was going to bring upon them. But in the world of Calvinism, this makes no sense. God would not threaten His saved elect and then act like He has a double personality whereby He would regenerate them so as to repent so He could then see them turn from their evil ways. God did not do that. It makes no sense. It is illogical. The Ninevites clearly repented of their own free will whereby God then changed His mind. To believe otherwise is irrational thinking. One has to believe God acts in a way that is totally irrational (if Calvinism is true). So far, Calvinists here have not given me a valid reason or argument to explain this. So the Story of Jonah remains as a testimony against Calvinism.

 

[Hammster]

People can read all sorts of things into the Bible by a few select passages or verses, but that does not make it true. We know God is loving and good. This right here should refute Calvinism. But folks just say it is just my morality I am imposing when it is not. However, basic morality is true no matter the situation.

You are guilty of reading select few verses. So maybe a look in the mirror would be wise at this point.