If "Any Man" Thirst

[ChrisTheSaved]

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.

 

[thatbrian]

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.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

And do you not know for what reason the Christ called him “friend?”

Do you not know that the original language is not using “friend” as a helper, but as an imposter?

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).

Really?

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."

Certainly you are not so lacking in understanding as to miss this in the Scriptures?

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.

For that would not at all be the image I have of your posts.

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.

 

[kyredneck]

Scripture says of the rich young ruler, Jesus loved him.

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

 

[Iconoclast]

Good evening, brother!

First of all, I am not seeking to pit you or Brian against TC. I was simply showing that the spiritual corpse analogy doesn't hold any water and that calvinists cannot agree as to what was going on in the Lazarus passage. Before I was asked to quote examples, I figured I'd demonstrate what I was talking about by quoting you and Brian. No harm intended.

Secondly, if Lazarus is a teaching about Regeneration, then this passage shows that Belief Happens before Regeneration. Do you really want to use this passage to negate your view of Soteriology?

John 11:25

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..

 

[Reformed]

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Thirst is something that originates within each man. Jesus didn't say, "All those in whom I have placed a thirst, let him come to Me and drink."

"...for what is the use of food to a hungry man if he cannot get at it? Of what avail is the river of the water of life if one cannot drink?" All of Grace: An Earnest Word with Those Who Are Seeking Salvation by the Lord Jesus Christ - Charles Spurgeon

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

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

 

[JonShaff]

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..

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.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

The dead neither hunger nor thirst. Hunger and thirst are proof of life.

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

 

[JonShaff]

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.

 

[agedman]

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.

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.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

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.

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.

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.

 

[ChrisTheSaved]

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

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

 

[ChrisTheSaved]

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.

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.

 

[InTheLight]

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

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...

 

[ChrisTheSaved]

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.

 

[Reformed]

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.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

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

Really. You don't believe spiritually dead people sin? Have you torn Col 2:13 out of your bible? And Rev 3:1? Rev 20:12? Are you reading the Readers Digest Condensed Version of the bible?

 

[TCassidy]

I just don't understand how they come up with this all.

They don't. Beware of ITL's "theology." It will lead you far, far astray. He makes up childish fiction then claims it is what "calvinists" believe. He simply cannot be trusted.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Really? Go up to a dead man in a casket and tell him he is ugly. See how he responds. Offer to take him out to lunch. See how he responds. Offer him something to drink. See how he responds.

Really. You don't believe spiritually dead people sin?

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

 

[TCassidy]

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).

Bob, the word εταιρε (unfortunately translated "friend" in the KJV) is used in Matthew 26:50 to refer to those who came to arrest, torture, and murder the Lord.

The regular word for "friend" as we use the word is φιλος as we see in Matthew 11:19, which illustrates the old Hymn of the Faith, "What a Friend we have in Jesus."