Featured Calvinists help me understand

Actually, Jesus didn't write any Scripture, the Holy Spirit moved men to write it down. Go back and place your snippit into your own context of our conversation and you will see, as all can see, you believe Calvinism writings are Divine Truth, thus is why you accused me of mocking Divine Truth. I think that would be showing it was you who was "out of bullets". :tongue3:

 

Seems that way. But we are told they "believed in God"

I gave some examples of this phrase in a previous post. I don't know of anywhere this phrase is used in any other sense than justification.

The city was a 3 day journey across. Jonah had gone 1 day into the city when the king made the decree.

 

I genuinely do not understand the difficulty you are having with this. This is a narrative that gives the prophet's point of view of things that occurred, not a teaching passage about the order of salvation. It's like going to Acts 16 to say that the jailor was repentant w/o any influence from God's grace. Just because it isn't in the account, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Sometimes the text shows just the human side, sometimes it shows only the divine, sometimes both.

Of course from the human side salvation always looks like we repent or believe, we take the initiative step, and God responds to us by turning away his wrath. But the teaching passages which give the God point of view on this topic, John 6 for example, show that God is the author of it all, even of our turning to him.

 

Good point.

This passage came to mind though there are obviously some key differences:

Jas 2:19 NASB You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.​

Also, some translations say "believe God", others say "believe in God":

Believed God:
KJV
NKJV
NIV
ESV

Believed in God:
HCSB
NASB
YLT

So the question is did they believe God in that they believed the message, or did they believe in God in a justifying way? I think the text is pretty ambiguous here and we are only making educated (or not) guesses.

I doubt the city was a 3 day journey across. That would be absurdly large. I think the ESV really biffed it here by saying it was a 3 day journey in breadth. Also, just don't see why we should assume that Jonah preached and the entire city repented, including the king making a decree, all in one day. It seems to me that verse 4 is saying that Jonah went into the city and from the very first day there he was declaring the judgment against it. The KJV actually makes it sound like he traveled into the city for a day before he even started to preach.

 

I agree that we all import our doctrine into passages like this. We can't help it, I guess. Cognitive dissonance, maybe.

The Septuagint reads "believed the God".

I'm also under the firm conviction that we shouldn't build elaborate doctrines out of ambiguous passages. The message preached sounds like an earthly destruction is coming, much like what actually happened 150 years later.

It's been a while since I've looked into Assyrian life. Would be helpful to know how they carried themselves over the next 50-60 years, if this "repentance" lasted for a whole generation

Absurdly large, indeed. A day's journey was 20 miles. That would make this city 60 mile across. That's an awful lot of city wall to build

 

:thumbsup: The bolded above would be interesting to discover as well.

Yeah. Not likely.

 

.

let me clarify.....Calvinists understand divine truth of the scripture, they write about it and help teach on it. It is the scripture rightly understood that is now adays called Calvinism.

Anyone who is a Christian believes some of it, and will grow in truth.
Some will not admit to it, and play word games trying to avoid the label.
Some are never going to believe in the truth.

 

I had a thread in the past. It dealt with the question of how many non-Calvinists actually agree with the majority of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It turns out that many non-Calvinists do, in fact agree with over 75% of it because it is biblically based. Of course if those same folks would do a real study of the 1689 London Confession the percentages would increase even more.

I am looking for honest people to really put an effort forth. Don't just continually bash something you call Calvinism. Is that a Christain attitude? Why make a habit of disparaging what you call Calvinism without doing a truthful examination.

 

What makes it annoying is....there are many people who have real questions that are seeking real answers that get pushed aside by the few that only disrupt each and every thread. We could all make progress and grow '

In this thread...Reformed very carefully walks Steaver through his questions
provides answers, and steaver as his objections are shot down,tries to circle around and play word games.

 

You know the answer to that....it does not mesh with their POV. You are now asking for someone to make strides to study the Confessions, when they dont "think" the confessions are relevant. This is why we differ in our theological positions. And that my dear Rippon is the situation that presents itself.

 

But that is not a reason to give up presenting the truth. I made the point to steaver that most Calvinistic and Reformed Baptists are former Arminian/Semi-Pelagian Baptists. The vast majority of those that embraced Calvinism did so after being convinced by scripture; often as presented by cogent and logical arguments. You may never know how many "quiet" people are reading these threads. I've said before that these debates are not really for the anti-Calvinist protagonists. They are mainly for intrepid "lurkers" who read but seldom respond.

 

Think that there are also many like me, who are reformed in the area of salvation, but who do not embrace the entire Covenant theology...

And I came to holding to the Doctrines of grace by reading and thinking thru what the scriptures teach, and by reading theology books from BOTH the cal/non cal positions regarding salvation issues, and never even read any confessions until after changed my views!

 

And I agree with you 100% but you have to realize it is simply a matter that their priori presupposition does not include a sovereign God. In that, I can only come to one conclusion -- they are yet in rebellion against holy God. We see a similar a priori presupposition in the case of atheistic naturalists concerning creation -- it just cannot be, for there is no First Cause that supernaturally spoke the cosmos into being by fiat, ex nihilo. Here, their presupposition is that God ALWAYS gives humans the final word in their own fate -- and in a sense He does, for left to our own devices, we will ALWAYS choose to spend eternity in hell! It is into that presupposition that God breaks, giving us (John 3:16-20) LIFE and more so, graciously and mercifully, ABUNDANT life!

And in truth, I don't even have these discussions to dialog with anyone but the "Silent Observer" who attempts to understand & I personally don't even consider myself a Calvinist---Rather, a Christian Radical (always striving for truth) & sometimes God's Truth is far afield of our own desires.

Lastly I find most of my hearts desires in the Beatitudes...... Funny huh! :godisgood:

 

The reason so many Arminians would agree with Westminster is that both are essentially the same view.

I've said it over and over, that if we concoct any scenario of a man's faith and works, both Calvinists and Arminians will agree as to his eternal destiny. And that is every instance, every scenario, without any exceptions.

 

Amen! :thumbsup:

 

You are asking a question that has stumped minds since time began. How can we hope to get a bead on the Mind of God--When we cannot fathom His motivations? What was it again that answer to Job's questions when God finally addressed him?