Water cooler online

[aikido7]

I will discuss this in an honest and open manner in some other thread. It is worthy of discussion. But it is not in keeping with this particular thread.

Dividing people into the elect and the condemned came from YOUR comment.

Such all-too-human scapegoating of others was not part of Jesus’s teachings.

It starts with de-humanization, mockery, name-calling. And can end with people being packed into crowded railroad cars and taken to the camps.

We should be aware of history by this point in time.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

When a Calvinist witnesses to the lost it isn't in vain. Is that right?

No it is not in vain. We are admonished to make ourselves a living testimony of our faith and tell all that any who call upon the Lord will be saved.

God uses these actions as but one of the means by which His ends are accomplished, for He ordained the very means for His ends. We do not know who the unregenerate elect are, so we promiscuously share the Good News to all persons of every stripe. It is God who does the saving, not ourselves. God grants faith using the means of our obedience, the foolishness of preaching, what He has commanded.

A caution is needed here, however. It is one thing to proclaim that any who call upon the Lord will be saved and not turned away. It is indeed quite another thing, and grievous error, to begin that proclamation of the Good News with "God loves YOU!" While there is sense of God's love for all mankind, in that He restrains evil, pours out the rain upon the evil and the good. Yet that love is not a saving love, a love before time wherein God has set His preference upon another, that is reserved only for those that call upon the Lord, His chosen children.

Some of the most dedicated and admired evangelists since the time of the Reformation were Calvinists (Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, etc.). And they were consistent with their doctrine. They realized that God not only ordains whomsoever will be saved; He ordains the means by which they will be saved -- namely, the preaching of the gospel. The Spirit moves the believer to spread the gospel, for that is his commission and one of the chief ends for which he was saved.

Then Arminians embrace a contradiction. And no matter how they dress it up with pithy sayings or sanctimonious platitudes, in the end it's still a contradiction. Thank goodness that logical consistency and sound reasoning aren't requisites to salvation in Christ.

Yes, the gospel is to be preached to all men and women. Moreover, it should be delivered persuasively and with conviction (Acts 18:28; 2 Cor 5:11). We do not know who the elect are, whose eyes the Spirit will open and whose stone heart God will replace. That is a secret not revealed to us (Deuteronomy 29:29).

As in the parable of the seed and the sower (Matthew 13:1-9), the evangelist is not to be a "soil sampler". Instead, he scatters the seed on all ground, preaching the good news of God's Kingdom to all men. Yet it is only the good soil that may receive the word in such a way that it takes root (c.f., Ezekiel 26:24-17 and John 3:1-12). The soil is not good in and of itself (Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-18). God makes it good (Matthew 12:33). And His word does not return to Him void, but accomplishes the purpose for which it is sent (Isaiah 55:11).

Anti-Calvinists can bash Calvinism and try to set it against evangelism, but history will sharply rebuke them. Calvinism has been and continues to be a strong motivation for preaching to the lost. I mentioned Edwards, Whitefield, and Spurgeon because they are well known (if in name only) to most Arminians. But the evangelistic zeal of Calvinism did not live and die with them. There is also William Burns, who led spiritual revival in China. Rowland Hill, who preached in England prior to Spurgeon. Robert Murray M'Cheyne of Scotland. David Brainerd, William Carey, John Flavel, Benjamin Keach, John Rippon, Christmas Evans, John Clifford, Archibald Brown, J. B. Moody, H. B. Taylor, I. M. Haldeman, Jeremiah Burroughs, George S. Bishop, T. T. Eaton, and Martin Lloyd-Jones. Latimer, Knox, Wishart, Perkins, Rutherford, Bunyan, Owen, Charnock, Goodwin, Watson, Henry, Watts and Newton.

The list goes on and on an on, completely shattering the anti-Calvinist's misguided notions about Calvinism and evangelism. The truth is that wherever Calvinism is embraced wholeheartedly, the gospel of Jesus Christ thunders forth with Spirit and conviction. Only in Arminian caricatures, wrought from warped and vain imaginations, do we find Calvinists ignoring the Great Commission.

AMR

 

[dialm]

Dividing people into the elect and the condemned came from YOUR comment.

Such all-too-human scapegoating of others was not part of Jesus’s teachings.

It starts with de-humanization, mockery, name-calling. And can end with people being packed into crowded railroad cars and taken to the camps.

We should be aware of history by this point in time.

The message of Jesus Christ is love and hope. That can only be achieve by the in filling of the Holy Spirit. We must be born again. This is when the healing can begin. When we have a right relationship with God.

We are being presented with a clear simple choice here in this thread

There is a god being offered to us that will turn his back on us.

There is another God who is being offered to us that will never turn His back on us.

Let me ask you a direct question-Which God would you choose?

 

[dialm]

Since this is a water cooler thread I'm posting random images. I don't think a purpose or subject was stated for this thread.


View attachment 20709

View attachment 20710

View attachment 20711

View attachment 20712

View attachment 20713

At the water cooler friends meet for a good time in the Lord. Let the Water and the Spirit flow Patrick Jane

 

[dialm]

No it is not in vain. We are admonished to make ourselves a living testimony of our faith and tell all that any who call upon the Lord will be saved.

God uses these actions as but one of the means by which His ends are accomplished, for He ordained the very means for His ends. We do not know who the unregenerate elect are, so we promiscuously share the Good News to all persons of every stripe. It is God who does the saving, not ourselves. God grants faith using the means of our obedience, the foolishness of preaching, what He has commanded.

A caution is needed here, however. It is one thing to proclaim that any who call upon the Lord will be saved and not turned away. It is indeed quite another thing, and grievous error, to begin that proclamation of the Good News with "God loves YOU!" While there is sense of God's love for all mankind, in that He restrains evil, pours out the rain upon the evil and the good. Yet that love is not a saving love, a love before time wherein God has set His preference upon another, that is reserved only for those that call upon the Lord, His chosen children.

Some of the most dedicated and admired evangelists since the time of the Reformation were Calvinists (Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, etc.). And they were consistent with their doctrine. They realized that God not only ordains whomsoever will be saved; He ordains the means by which they will be saved -- namely, the preaching of the gospel. The Spirit moves the believer to spread the gospel, for that is his commission and one of the chief ends for which he was saved.

Then Arminians embrace a contradiction. And no matter how they dress it up with pithy sayings or sanctimonious platitudes, in the end it's still a contradiction. Thank goodness that logical consistency and sound reasoning aren't requisites to salvation in Christ.

Yes, the gospel is to be preached to all men and women. Moreover, it should be delivered persuasively and with conviction (Acts 18:28; 2 Cor 5:11). We do not know who the elect are, whose eyes the Spirit will open and whose stone heart God will replace. That is a secret not revealed to us (Deuteronomy 29:29).

As in the parable of the seed and the sower (Matthew 13:1-9), the evangelist is not to be a "soil sampler". Instead, he scatters the seed on all ground, preaching the good news of God's Kingdom to all men. Yet it is only the good soil that may receive the word in such a way that it takes root (c.f., Ezekiel 26:24-17 and John 3:1-12). The soil is not good in and of itself (Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-18). God makes it good (Matthew 12:33). And His word does not return to Him void, but accomplishes the purpose for which it is sent (Isaiah 55:11).

Anti-Calvinists can bash Calvinism and try to set it against evangelism, but history will sharply rebuke them. Calvinism has been and continues to be a strong motivation for preaching to the lost. I mentioned Edwards, Whitefield, and Spurgeon because they are well known (if in name only) to most Arminians. But the evangelistic zeal of Calvinism did not live and die with them. There is also William Burns, who led spiritual revival in China. Rowland Hill, who preached in England prior to Spurgeon. Robert Murray M'Cheyne of Scotland. David Brainerd, William Carey, John Flavel, Benjamin Keach, John Rippon, Christmas Evans, John Clifford, Archibald Brown, J. B. Moody, H. B. Taylor, I. M. Haldeman, Jeremiah Burroughs, George S. Bishop, T. T. Eaton, and Martin Lloyd-Jones. Latimer, Knox, Wishart, Perkins, Rutherford, Bunyan, Owen, Charnock, Goodwin, Watson, Henry, Watts and Newton.

The list goes on and on an on, completely shattering the anti-Calvinist's misguided notions about Calvinism and evangelism. The truth is that wherever Calvinism is embraced wholeheartedly, the gospel of Jesus Christ thunders forth with Spirit and conviction. Only in Arminian caricatures, wrought from warped and vain imaginations, do we find Calvinists ignoring the Great Commission.

AMR

Another fine posting that bears repeating. Amen to it.

The Reformation began as an attemp to remove certain doctrines. Almost as soon as the Reformation began, the enemy started sowing chaff. There are two different products being grown in the field. One is wheat and one is not wheat. They cannot be separated until the harvest.

 

[dialm]

Let me ask you another question AMR. (Maybe it is rhetorical but maybe not so don't feel like it is necessary that you answer.)

Shouldn't the antiCalvinist receive the kind of God that they preach?

In other words, wouldn't it be fair for God to turn His back on them after all?

 

[dialm]

Don't worry. I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to the R-minimums. There are a lot of Calvinists in their ranks. Besides maybe one of them can actually earn their way if give enough time? How much should we give them? So far they have had about 2000 years. So far all losers. But the Elect are admonished to be patient. Not everyone is smart you know.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Let me ask you another question AMR. (Maybe it is rhetorical but maybe not so don't feel like it is necessary that you answer.)

Shouldn't the antiCalvinist receive the kind of God that they preach?

In other words, wouldn't it be fair for God to turn His back on them after all?

I have yet to meet an actual historic Arminian as described and condemned at Dordt. The teachings of Arminius were modified along the way such that today's "Arminian" is nothing like that described in the time of Dordt.

Instead, these average "Arminian" folks are quick to claim they are saved by faith alone, by grace alone. I believe them and do not consign them to eternal damnation, for who can know the heart of another but God? Sadly, most just stop thinking very much about the matter beyond that. In other words, if a true Arminian were to consistently hold to his Arminianism, then he would believe that man contributes to his salvation. However, not everyone who claims to be an Arminian consistently holds in the depths of their heart to Arminianism. If we could peek in at their prayers you would likely find them praying very much like a Calvinist prays. They are just not very consistent folks.

The average Arminian is but a "Calvinist in Training." Would not many of us be found in that camp before we embraced the doctrines of grace? Average Arminians are very confused Arminians with a heterodox understanding of the faith that has a very real tendency of leading them into real heresy. Why? The logical implications of any arminian/semi-palegian doctrine is "works-based salvation". If you can get the average Arminian to admit that they are born fallen in Adam and they are contributing even a teeny, tiny bit to their salvation by their "free-will", that might open the door to their studying more about what exactly this brand of Arminianism is that they claim. When and if they do, they will see rank semi-Pelagianism at best, full blown Pelagianism at worst, is actually what they have been embracing.

What worries me is when encountering the one who has had many of his misunderstandings explained time and again, yet the fellow becomes so enraged so as to exclaim "If that is the God of the Bible you worship, I would rather be in Hell" or "I could never worship the God you describe" and so on. For me, this is an attitude coming dangerously close, and perhaps passing into the sin that cannot be forgiven, meaning the claimed faith of these folks should be questioned.

AMR

 

[dialm]

I have yet to meet an actual historic Arminian as described and condemned at Dordt. The teachings of Arminius were modified along the way such that today's "Arminian" is nothing like that described in the time of Dordt.

Instead, these average "Arminian" folks are quick to claim they are saved by faith alone, by grace alone. I believe them and do not consign them to eternal damnation, for who can know the heart of another but God? Sadly, most just stop thinking very much about the matter beyond that. In other words, if a true Arminian were to consistently hold to his Arminianism, then he would believe that man contributes to his salvation. However, not everyone who claims to be an Arminian consistently holds in the depths of their heart to Arminianism. If we could peek in at their prayers you would likely find them praying very much like a Calvinist prays. They are just not very consistent folks.

The average Arminian is but a "Calvinist in Training." Would not many of us be found in that camp before we embraced the doctrines of grace? Average Arminians are very confused Arminians with a heterodox understanding of the faith that has a very real tendency of leading them into real heresy. Why? The logical implications of any arminian/semi-palegian doctrine is "works-based salvation". If you can get the average Arminian to admit that they are born fallen in Adam and they are contributing even a teeny, tiny bit to their salvation by their "free-will", that might open the door to their studying more about what exactly this brand of Arminianism is that they claim. When and if they do, they will see rank semi-Pelagianism at best, full blown Pelagianism at worst, is actually what they have been embracing.

What worries me is when encountering the one who has had many of his misunderstandings explained time and again, yet the fellow becomes so enraged so as to exclaim "If that is the God of the Bible you worship, I would rather be in Hell" or "I could never worship the God you describe" and so on. For me, this is an attitude coming dangerously close, and perhaps passing into the sin that cannot be forgiven, meaning the claimed faith of these folks should be questioned.

AMR

Excellent viewpoint.

Here is something that they always bring up

John 3:16 (Which is only one of the most important single verses in the Bible.) The argument is that since God loves everyone the Calvinist is wrong.

I'm a Christian. I really want to love everyone. I want to have compassion for everyone. I want everyone to do good.

But I only want to be married to the right person. Not just anyone. Because the relationship of marriage is different then any other relationship.

They actually expect God to have to put up with a wife not of His choosing.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The Arminian embraces contradiction easily.

They have no answer to John 3:16 other than a humanistic notion that man is able and therefore must be persuaded. And when man comes to an inner grasp of that which he is being persuaded, he will perhaps choose rightly.

The moment we start asking about "how much" God loves those people or start asking questions of decree and hidden things is when we get into trouble. We don't need to know, as creatures, how God really "feels" about people in order to be sorrowful that the wicked should perish. God, as He is in Himself, is not our example. We are creatures. It is enough to know that what has been revealed is the repentance of sinners and a desire that men would come to salvation.

Anthony Burgess, the Westminster divine agrees:

...grant the Text [Eze. 33:11] to be comprehensive of Eternal death, as many other places are; such that, God would not have any to perish, but come to the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. 2.:4. Then the answer is known, which may easily be made good, though it be not my work now, God has an approving will, and an effective or decreeing will.

God’s approving will is carried out to the objects, as good in it self; but Gods Effective will is, when He intends to bring a thing about.

God had an approving will, that Adam should stand, therefore He gave him a command, and threatened him if he did fall; yet He had not an effective will, to make him to stand, for then who could have hindered it?

Thus Christ’s tears over Jerusalem (How often would I have gathered thee, and thou wouldest not?) were not Crocodiles’ tears (as some say the Calvinists make them) for though Christ, as God, had not decreed the conversion of the Jews, yet the thing it self was approved of, and commanded, and he as the Minister of the New Testament, affectionately desired it:

So here in the Text, God by this pathetical expression, does declare, how acceptable and desireable a thing it is in itself, that the Jews should be converted; how distasteful and unpleasant their damnation was: therefore mark the expression, He does not say, I do not will the death of the wicked, but I have no pleasure in it:

And if that of the Arminians be true, that God does effectually will the conversion of all, why then are not all converted? Who hath resisted his will? but I intend grapes, and not thorns; practical not controversal matter from this Text.

Src: Spiritual Refining, Sermon 66, “Showing that the Damnation of Wicked Men is unpleasing to God, and that which He delights not in.” p. 403-408
​

Notice the distinction that Burgess makes about the kind of will it is that expresses a desire in God that is real. It is the same distinction we've been making all along about a type of love for the lost that is expressed in the manner than Calvin did - a love for the world at large, a love expressed to those who hear the Gospel, and a love specifically for the elect. Yet the first two types of love are what Burgess calls a "pathetical expression" - the thing is true in itself that the Jews should be converted. Thus, Burgess notes that it is real concern for people based on a revealed desire (that is God has revealed a call to sinners to repent).

That revealed desire that God has for men to repent is sufficient for us. It is sufficient that God has called us to preach to sinners and that He has loved the world and sinners and sent the Gospel into the world to redeem.

The difference between the Calvinist and Arminian view of general love is the realm in and extent to which it is exercised. For the Calvinist it is confined to the temporal realm, is non-saving in nature, and effects exactly what it seeks. For the Arminian general love operates in the realm of salvation and fails to effect what it seeks. By the Arminian doctrine of universal love there is no salvation offered in the gospel. There is but the possibility of salvation but not actual salvation.

God is good and doeth good. Holy Scripture teaches no such idea as ineffectual divine goodness. The only basis for sinful men to receive and rest upon Christ for salvation depends on the fact that God is effectually good, that He has mercy on whom He will have mercy.

AMR

 

[dialm]

AMR,

If it were really left for man to choose he would never choose right. Even the law of probability would not help. It would always be 100% man choosing wrong. Man is so lost that we don't even need the devil. Mankind is so locked into a lost position that he thinks it is the norm. He recoils from the truth.

 

[nikolai_42]

Excellent viewpoint.

Here is something that they always bring up

John 3:16 (Which is only one of the most important single verses in the Bible.) The argument is that since God loves everyone the Calvinist is wrong.

I'm a Christian. I really want to love everyone. I want to have compassion for everyone. I want everyone to do good.

But I only want to be married to the right person. Not just anyone. Because the relationship of marriage is different then any other relationship.

They actually expect God to have to put up with a wife not of His choosing.

The marriage parallel there is a sticky wicket. Just ask Hosea...

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR,

If it were really left for man to choose he would never choose right. Even the law of probability would not help. It would always be 100% man choosing wrong. Man is so lost that we don't even need the devil. Mankind is so locked into a lost position that he thinks it is the norm. He recoils from the truth.

I agree. Unfortunately, the contrary view starts by assuming the original sin of Adam, our federal representative, is not imputed to all his progeny. All are constituted sinners by Adam's act of disobedience.Hence, all deserve nothing but justice from God, not mercy.

Calvin is instructive here:

“because all have sinned” εφ ω παντες ημαρτον (aorist active indicative)

"Observe the order which he keeps here; for he says, that sin preceded, and that from sin death followed. There are indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam’s sin, as though we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he had sinned for us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to all who suffer its punishment: and this he afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of death; and it is even this—because we have all, he says, sinned. But to sin in this case, is to become corrupt and vicious; for the natural depravity which we bring, from our mother’s womb, though it brings not forth immediately its own fruits, is yet sin before God, and deserves his vengeance: and this is that sin which they call original. For as Adam at his creation had received for us as well as for himself the gifts of God’s favor, so by falling away from the Lord, he in himself corrupted, vitiated, depraved, and ruined our nature; for having been divested of God’s likeness, he could not have generated seed but what was like himself. Hence we have all sinned; for we are all imbued with natural corruption, and so are become sinful and wicked. Frivolous then was the gloss, by which formerly the Pelagians endeavored to elude the words of Paul, and held, that sin descended by imitation from Adam to the whole human race; for Christ would in this case become only the exemplar and not the cause of righteousness. Besides, we may easily conclude, that he speaks not here of actual sin; for if everyone for himself contracted guilt, why did Paul form a comparison between Adam and Christ? It then follows that our innate and hereditary depravity is what is here referred to."
​

The guilt and corruption of Adam's first Sin are imputed to his posterity without the person ever having acted. We are all born in Sin. Guilt implies that the person is culpable for sin and stands under wrath and, as Paul notes, all die. Corruption implies that a person is born a sinner. A person is conceived in sin. He is at enmity with God and all actual sin flows out of this corruption that is imputed. The clear symmetry of Adam and Christ in Romans 5 forms much of the reasoning behind this proper view. For if we believe that a person is not actually guilty and corrupt until they sin then it would correspond to a view of Christ's righteousness that would require some mediate action on the part of the person responding to the Gospel.

See also: http://www.the-highway.com/fall_Sproul.html

AMR

 

[George Affleck]

The Arminian embraces contradiction easily.

What a great statement!

 

[dialm]

The marriage parallel there is a sticky wicket. Just ask Hosea...

Oh really. And what is the problem?

 

[dialm]

What a great statement!

You can have some water now.

 

[nikolai_42]

Oh really. And what is the problem?

I hope this isn't a rabbit trail. I don't want to distract from AMR's meaty posts. This is just something that came to mind as I was reading.

Not so much a problem, just an observation that that phrase "the right person" takes on a different color of meaning when the Lord and His purposes are factored in. It tends to take on an understanding that there is one right person out there for everyone. But realizing who Israel was as God's chosen - how they treated Him and yet He continued with them - is a humbling thing. Hosea got to experience that rejection within the marriage relationship in a very real way.

The words of Jesus "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you..." (John 15:16) only serve to underscore the way we as sinners find ourselves redeemed by a God of love and mercy. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us..." (Romans 5:8) further hammers home the one-sided nature of Godly love - we didn't love Him but He loved us.

And bearing in mind these two facts :

1. The marriage relationship is a picture of Christ and the church (Eph 5)
2. Jesus said that Moses only granted divorce because of the hardness of man's heart (Matthew 19:8) - and the only valid excuse is for marital unfaithfulness

...shows that if we in Christ, the love we have for our spouse should be far less dependent on who they are than on who Christ is. So if there is indeed one specific person God has for marriage, then it is in spite of who they are naturally and we are called to love them regardless of how they might make us feel.

I don't know that this is anything earth shattering (to you, anyway), but I've heard the phrase "the right one" so often that I tend to read it with certain presuppositions.

Again, don't pay much heed if this is too much of a distraction from what you are discussing already. Just act as though I'm one of those annoying guys at the water cooler who likes to chime in with their opinion on everything...

 

[dialm]

I hope this isn't a rabbit trail. I don't want to distract from AMR's meaty posts. This is just something that came to mind as I was reading.

Not so much a problem, just an observation that that phrase "the right person" takes on a different color of meaning when the Lord and His purposes are factored in. It tends to take on an understanding that there is one right person out there for everyone. But realizing who Israel was as God's chosen - how they treated Him and yet He continued with them - is a humbling thing. Hosea got to experience that rejection within the marriage relationship in a very real way.

The words of Jesus "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you..." (John 15:16) only serve to underscore the way we as sinners find ourselves redeemed by a God of love and mercy. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us..." (Romans 5:8) further hammers home the one-sided nature of Godly love - we didn't love Him but He loved us.

And bearing in mind these two facts :

1. The marriage relationship is a picture of Christ and the church (Eph 5)
2. Jesus said that Moses only granted divorce because of the hardness of man's heart (Matthew 19:8) - and the only valid excuse is for marital unfaithfulness

...shows that if we in Christ, the love we have for our spouse should be far less dependent on who they are than on who Christ is. So if there is indeed one specific person God has for marriage, then it is in spite of who they are naturally and we are called to love them regardless of how they might make us feel.

I don't know that this is anything earth shattering (to you, anyway), but I've heard the phrase "the right one" so often that I tend to read it with certain presuppositions.

Again, don't pay much heed if this is too much of a distraction from what you are discussing already. Just act as though I'm one of those annoying guys at the water cooler who likes to chime in with their opinion on everything...

Maybe Calvinists are the most romantic people on earth as the Elect would represent the right bride. But don't forget that not all Israel can be classified as romantic.

 

[nikolai_42]

Maybe Calvinists are the most romantic people on earth as the Elect would represent the right bride. But don't forget that not all Israel can be classified as romantic.

How the Elect looks to God and how they look to us are two very different things. But if we can see them from God's vantage point, I suspect they are all (the Elect, that is) in that "most romantic" category...

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Ezekiel 36:26-27

 

[dialm]

How the Elect looks to God and how they look to us are two very different things. But if we can see them from God's vantage point, I suspect they are all (the Elect, that is) in that "most romantic" category...

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
Ezekiel 36:26-27

Have you noticed the love letters written by the Frenchman? (France is a lovely country. Maybe it is all the vineyards? but I suspect it is knowledge of God's true intent.)