If "Any Man" Thirst

I just skimmed through this all. I have to say, that to honestly believe that only a certain few get to be saved is sad. I go door to door soul winning on Sundays, I have to say that the vast majority of Christians that attend reformed (Calvinist Churches) have no idea or should I say grasp about this. The first question we ask is if you go to church somewhere, that way we know how to approach them doctrine wise. When we start showing them the Bible and telling them what all that it means to be a Calvinist that will back off being one extremely fast or start to question it. It's just not logical and lots of time they don't understand what it fully means. 99% of people reading the Bible with out a bunch of interference will walk about believing that anyone can go to heaven if they call on the Lord and believe.

 

Calvinists believe that anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will escape condemnation.

 

No, sir. I see no reason to conclude that. I see where it is used as "companion" or "acquaintance" but not "imposter" (with the possible exception of Mat. 22:12).

Yes, sir. I really don't see where this word is used as "imposter" here in this passage. I do see the other renderings as a fulfillment of the prophecy in Psalm 55:13, "But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance."

I'll be the first to stand and say that I am no where near where I want to be in my understanding of the Word of God. The closer I get to the light, the less impressed I am with myself and my feeble abilities. However, friend (acquaintance, not imposter), I do not feel that I missed this one this time. I've swung and missed many times before, I assure you.

Appearing scholarly in my posts is way down on my priority list. My main objective is to post nothing that would bring dishonor to the Lord. My second objective here is to have fun. When it ceases to be fun and enjoyable, I stay away. Sadly, I've have to take several sabbaticals to keep from getting in the flesh at times. Trust me, I'm not super spiritual; I just want to do my best to keep my testimony intact.

God bless you, my Brother.

 

...and not a doubt in my mind that the young man was heavenly born.

 

So...dead lazarus believed first....then came to life?.is that what you are saying.....dead people do things physically. ...then good things happen to them?
I am not sure I follow what you are saying..

 

Bob,

I am late to this thread, so I do not have time to read all of the responses. However, I have encountered your type of argument before and want to respond.

I believe many Synergists have a basic misunderstanding of the Monergist (and may I daresay the biblical view election/predestination and how it displays itself in time. God does not wave a wand over his elect and justify them when He believes the time is right. The Elect go through life like anyone else. The experience heartache, joy, pain, happiness, and anger. Hopelessness and hopefullness are part of the common human experience. God uses all these things and all circumstances to bring His elect to the point where they hear the Gospel and respond in repentance and faith. Nothing that you wrote is some novel idea. For the matter, nothing I am writing is novel. The same Spurgeon you quoted will take you to task on your incorrect conclusion.

I will write later about why men thirst for God, but I don't have the time right now.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

No, the point of the passage is that Christ Holds the Power over Death. You are eisegeting the text when you say He's talking about spiritual resurrection. We were "made alive" when we were placed in Spiritual Union with Christ (Romans 6). We are partakers of Christ's Life and death...we identify with them. The Bodily Resurrection is a Result of Christ--He is the Life and Resurrection.

Do miracles have spiritual implications? Sure. But the choosing of what spiritual implications they represent based on YOUR Theology is doing "Violence to the Text."

I do pray you have a fruitful day for the Lord Jesus. :)

 

They don't sin either.
That analogy has always proved too much.
It floors me that Calvinists use it.

 

Amen, i've always said the same thing.

 

Your welcome.

Here is a bit of why I stated the matter as the word "friend" used as an imposter.

It resolves about the use in Matthew. In every occasion it is used as such, so for consistency would it not be in this reference, also?

Here is a link to Strongs: hetairos - Strong's Greek: 2083. ἑταῖρος (hetairos) -- a companion

Here is what Mounce states: hetairos - ἑταῖρος | billmounce.com

Note that both acknowledge the use of "friend" can be companion, but they also show that the companion is one who is an imposter of true friendship.

 

Thank you for your thoughts, Brother. I fully understand that there are misconceptions and even intentional misrepresentations on both sides of the debate. I hope to never fall in the latter category. I have purchased books dealing with both sides of the argument and have read them all. I even asked my friends here on the BB for their suggestions in this thread: Sincere Question

I have a very sincere question for you based upon the quote below.

My question is, do they have to respond? Is their election based upon their response? What if they do not respond? Does that mean they were not actually one of the elect? That is why I made a comment to a good brother and friend in another thread that much of this, the way I see it, is circular reasoning. That wasn't a statement of "desperation" on my part; it was a very real conclusion from my perspective.

 

Good, so "anyone" can all on the Lord and be saved. I'm glad we can agree that salvation is for all.

 

Bob, I have a better question. What if they call on the name of the Lord and they are not one of the elect? I hate misusing the word elect like that, but I think yall all know what I mean.

 

No, that's not how it works in Calvinism. Anyone can call on the Lord, but if they do that's evidence they were part of the Elect. If they are the Elect, they will call on the name of the Lord. So, to review:

Who can call on the Lord? Anyone.
Who is Anyone? The Elect.

Round and round we go...circular reasoning to and fro...

 

I just don't understand how they come up with this all. I have graduated with my BRS and MTS from Liberty and am working on my DMin. I have an extremely open mind when it comes to trying to understand others theological positions. No matter how I try I can not understand this line of thought. It's just not in the Bible. They always seem to try to rely on man to prove the doctrine. It's a very frustrating thing, because they have to make some huge theological leaps to fit it together.

Like I said, when I go soul winning, I ask Calvinist these questions and the vast majority disagree with their own doctrine.

 

The Elect respond because they are predestined to respond.

Ephesians 1:11 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, (c.f. Eph. 1:4).

Both the foreseen faith and corporate election views are attempts to circumvent the Bible's clear teaching on predestination and election. God does not elect based on whether someone will respond. A person responds because God has elected them. God has also ordained the means by which His elect are called in time; i.e. the preaching of the Gospel. And yes, if a person does not respond to the Gospel in this life it is because they were not elect.

 

Which is it, brother, physical death or spiritual death? You seems to be switching back and forth.