Does the call of Jonah teach us something about God?

This assumes He hasn't made His motivation known, a fallacy.

 

Yes, well you should meditate on the meaning of that last question.

That's the point.

And Jesus and Skan are not on the same level.

 

And???

I have breath of my own, too. But It is ultimately Gods and he is in total control of it.

So what's your point?

 

Did you read what I wrote?

There are places in scripture where God does reveal His motivation. In those areas where He does not reveal His motivation we engage in fruitless speculation.

 

man has self will that is bound by sin.Regerate man has self will that is now enabled to begin to submit to God in truth.He is still"able" to sin...but no longer bound by its power.

 

The point was made in the rest of my post that you failed to answer... Here I'll copy and paste it for you:

If what you claim is true your sentence should read, "God changes His will for the man however He pleases." Man doesn't have a will in your system...he has a instinctive reflexive response maybe, but not a will.

To suggest that a circumstance changed Jonah's will presupposes that Jonah had a will to be changed. And according to your system (where God is 'sovereignly in control' over Jonah's will prior to that circumstance), you have God merely changing His own will for what Jonah would desire and thus choose. He is not changing Jonah's will, because for it to be Jonah's it would have to be independent of God's...and you have rejected that, remember?

Their wills? You mean the wills that God predetermined for them to have in the first place? Those wills? So God is breaking the will that he determined to be hard, and/or strengthen the wills that he determined to be soft.

 

And I addressed the whole post by exposing the flaw of your premise- that man can't have a will of his own and God be in total control of it at the same time.

I have breath of my own but it really belongs to God and he does with it whatsoever he wills.

Jonah had his own will. God can mold it howsoever he chooses.

 

Ok, I'll play along with your limited and unrelated analogy. You would agree that every breath you are taking is God's doing. So, what would be the point in God sending you circumstance to make you breathe when he is already in control of your breathing. That is the point you are not addressing.

You are not addressing the PURPOSE or EFFECTIVENESS of the means God uniquely employes in your system. It's like a puppeteer attempting to claim that the stage props that he set up caused the puppet to do something. EVERYTHING the puppet does is caused by the puppet master, so why on earth would the puppet master attempt to misguide people to think the props that he set out caused something? It's silly. The puppet master is determining the choices of the puppet regardless of the circumstances of the stage props put in his way...the stage props are just that...PROPS for a show, just like MEANS are in your deterministic world view.

 

Another, "Why would God..." question.

I don't know why God uses gravity to hold us on the earth instead making all living creatures have suction cups on their feet?

Why would God use the sun for light and warmth when he could have hung a massive fireplace and LED bulb out there upon nothing?

Why would God _____________... is pointless.

It is this mental flaw of yours that keeps you ARminian.

When you stop worrying so much about WHY God did what he did and start concerning yourself with what the Bible SAYS he does- you'll be a Calvinist for real this time.

They DO. When the puppet sits down the chair prop holds him up. That was predetermined to happen before the show began and it is an environmental factor that causes things to happen to the puppet.

No problem there.

Why would God...

You can't go three SENTENCES without trying to use that as an argument.

A QUESTION is not an argument.

And that may be the most meaningless question in the universe.

You only ask that when the answer is already given IN THE BIBLE.

 

And no point in God "making you whine against His work" in sparing the city - only to have to "reason with you " via gourd and worm trying to get you to see the justice and mercy of God in sparing the city.

Why use strictly Arminian methods if the Calvinist "master programmer" is the real way things work? Makes no sense.


If God is causing you to think your ever thought - programming your thoughts and words direct from heaven - then what a great robot-maker but not a very good "intelligent life maker".

Furthermore - the one that makes the rifle and then shoots the rifle at people is to blame for what happens since He absolutely caused it all - you cannot blame the mindless machine being used in that scenario.

One that in the case of Calvinism cannot even think for itself let alone take ownership of what it does as if it chose something.

"He came to HIS OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1

"O Jerusalem Jerusalem who kills ... .how I wanted to spare your children ... but YOU would not!" Matt 23

in Christ,

Bob

 

Seems you conveniently forgot the point or are trying to distort it. ;)

You really think that was the point??? You haven't taken that class on Basic Logic and Critical Thinking Skills yet like I suggested, have you? :laugh:

 

Your position does not teach corporately or individually that election is to salvation but rather salvation is to election. The way you interpret the parable of the wedding clearly proves this. You make election in eternity past determinated by future events rather than future events determined by election in eternity past. You can keep denying this, or keep on trying to confuse the issues but that is the indisputable bottom line and your interpretation of the wedding parable proves it.

Why play this silly game of denial???? We are talking about cause versus consequence in relationship to election (corporate or individual) and your position is that election is consequential whereas justifying faith is causal.

It makes no difference about whether God chose Jews and gentiles in any preferrential order as that has nothing to do with election "to salvation" as salvation is ALWAYS INDIVIDUAL and NEVER CORPORATE.

There is no circular reasoning going on by either one of of us so this charge is nonsense. You are simply attempting to create confusion and divorce individual salvation from election when election is "to salvation" and salvation is NEVER CORPORATE at any level but always individual.

More nonsense! There are only two classifications of mankind since Jacob and that is Jew and Gentiles and the covenant of savation has always included both. Preverential treatment of one over the others depending upon the specific time period has nothing to do with salvation as salvation is ALWAYS INDIVIDUAL and NEVER CORPORATE at any time. Thus "election to salvation" is and must be INDIVIDUAL as there is no such thing as corporate salvation and election is "to salvation."

Why play this silly game? You are confusing election to salvation with election to preferential treatment and/or a preferential order in bringing the elect "to salvation." The parable of the Wedding does not support your view in the least! It demonstrates the worthlessness of the general call as the general call in the wedding parable produced NO ONE and NO PROPERLY DRESSED guest. Only the effectual call produced properly dressed guests or when they were sent out to "COMPEL" them to come in. This has nothing to do with any kind of CORPORATE election or salvation as neither exist except in a perverted imagination.

 

Benji, Benji, Benji.

We've already established that you don't know what logic is and that I've had more training in it than you.

 

Here is an article that I found to be quite informative on the subject of election.

http://www.douglashamp.com/why-god-...vation-and-commonly-is-a-reference-to-israel/

 

Very true! The use of outward means that are said to provoke or convince man to change their minds makes NO SENSE in a deterministic worldview. It would be like a guy with a puppet on one hand and a cattle prod on the other saying that the prod is his way to get the puppet to do what he wants. It's silly.

 

Logic is as logic does.

Proof is in the pudding.

 

Continually stating a falsehood over and over while ignoring your opponents own claims about his own view isn't helpful and doesn't make what you say true.

I don't even know what salvation to election would look like. How is one saved PRIOR to being granted entrance into the banquet? Do you really think that we believe the person attired in wedding clothes was saved prior to being chosen to enter by the king? No one believes that.

1. There is no past/present/future to an eternal/infinite being, so such finite reason becomes meaningless conjecture.

2. This argument IGNORES the point that there are more aspects to election than the choice to allow those properly clothed to enter. It ignores that there was a choice to send the invitation (i.e. graft in) first to the Jew and then the Gentile.

 

Yes, exactly. The time frame called 'before the foundation of the world' is being experienced by God right now, as is the creation week, the crucifixion, the Reformation, and whatever is happening 100, 500, 1000 years from now. There is no such thing as God "looking down the corridors of time to see who is going to be saved" and I really, really wish Calvinists would quit bringing up stuff that most non-Cals don't believe in and then smack it down as if they are winning an argument.

These sorts of arguments are full of straw.

 

:applause::applause::applause:

 

No, logic is necessary truth.

Something can't BE something and NOT be that something at the same time.

If it can then nothing anybody says means anything. There is no point in discussing anything. There is no objective truth.