Evolution doesn't matter anymore.

[The Barbarian]

I see your denial, but the fact remains. He said "any" without qualification.

The context qualifies it.

Your addition attempts to quality it. But it's not in the text. It's in your desire to have it so.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

The context shows 'elect'.

No, it doesn't. As you see, "elect" is not there. You added it to make it acceptable to you.

As you see, Peter said without any reservations at all, that God is unwilling that any be lost. Not "unwilling that any elect be lost." Indeed that would make no sense; if there were an elect who would be saved in any case, there would be no reason for God to be concerned.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your addition attempts to quality it. But it's not in the text. It's in your desire to have it so.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

What did I add? You add all humanity to a limited number.

No, it doesn't. As you see, "elect" is not there. You added it to make it acceptable to you.

As you see, Peter said without any reservations at all, that God is unwilling that any be lost. Not "unwilling that any elect be lost." Indeed that would make no sense; if there were an elect who would be saved in any case, there would be no reason for God to be concerned.

I do not add "elect". Peter wrote it.

If I say to my family, "Is everybody ready? Everybody get in the car!", it does not mean I am telling all 100 billion people who ever lived to get in the car.

Did I not already deal with your logic here? How do you think the elect are saved? The fact that God sees to it that it happen, doesn't mean it will happen automatically. It means he will see to it that it happen.

 

[The Barbarian]

What did I add? You add all humanity to a limited number.

When God says that He is unwilling that any be lost, I am willing to take Him at His word, without changing it.

I do not add "elect". Peter wrote it.

You added it to his statement. He didn't say that God was unwilling that {any of the elect}be lost. He says that God was unwilling that any be lost. Your insertion, notwithstanding.

If I say to my family, "Is everybody ready? Everybody get in the car!", it does not mean I am telling all 100 billion people who ever lived to get in the car.

Because you're saying it to your family. God's word is to all of humanity, according to Jesus. I'll go with Jesus.

Did I not already deal with your logic here? How do you think the elect are saved?

Let's see what Jesus says about that...

Matthew 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

That, according to God, is how He will decide if you spend eternity with him or with the devil.

I believe Him. You should, too.

They are the elect, those who had compassion for others and acted on it. The rest are lost. If His sheep are not "the elect", I don't want to be one of the elect. I would rather spend eternity with God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

When God says that He is unwilling that any be lost, I am willing to take Him at His word, without changing it.

You subtract from God's word, by ignoring context, as though it was not there. Again, the context shows he is talking to the believers. You add the rest of humanity to his intended audience, without referral but your personal preference.

You added it to his statement. He didn't say that God was unwilling that {any of the elect}be lost. He says that God was unwilling that any be lost. Your insertion, notwithstanding.

Your preferred method of interpretation then, is verse by verse, each a stand-alone. Good luck with that.

Because you're saying it to your family. God's word is to all of humanity, according to Jesus. I'll go with Jesus.

Verse by verse again. Here you are adding to God's word by adding the notion of 'all of humanity' to what was, according to context, written to believers.

Let's see what Jesus says about that...

Matthew 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:

[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

[46] And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

That, according to God, is how He will decide if you spend eternity with him or with the devil.

I believe Him. You should, too.

They are the elect, those who had compassion for others and acted on it. The rest are lost. If His sheep are not "the elect", I don't want to be one of the elect. I would rather spend eternity with God.

Your implication that I don't believe Jesus is a bit much.

WHERE do you get the notion that I think his sheep are not the elect? Is it like before, where you posit: "Indeed that would make no sense; if there were an elect who would be saved in any case, there would be no reason for God to be concerned." You ignored what I said —that what God chooses does not mean it happens automatically. God accomplishes his ends by means. It doesn't just happen in a vacuum.

For that matter, it should be no different, if his intention is that all humanity be saved. Why should he then be concerned at all?

You turn God into a power-restricted wimp of a superman. I'd rather go with the real God.

 

[The Barbarian]

You subtract from God's word, by ignoring context, as though it was not there.

You were the one who inserted "elect" into His word.

Again, the context shows he is talking to the believers.

Jesus said the Word was for all men. I believe Him. You added it to his statement. He didn't say that God was unwilling that any {of the elect}be lost. He says that God was unwilling that any be lost. Your insertion, notwithstanding.

Here you are adding to God's word by adding the notion of 'all of humanity' to what was, according to context, written to believers.

If your claim is that when one is writing to believers, one cannot make reference to humanity in general, you're just wrong. Peter doesn't say "God is unwilling that any believers be lost; he writes that God is unwilling that any be lost. This is the part of God's word that you're resisting.

(Jesus tells us that our salvation depends on our charity to others)

Your implication that I don't believe Jesus is a bit much.

So do you believe Him or not?

WHERE do you get the notion that I think his sheep are not the elect?

But His sheep are anyone who did what He expected of them. Some of them are not even His followers, or they would not have asked him what they did to deserve salvation.

You ignored what I said —that what God chooses does not mean it happens automatically. God accomplishes his ends by means. It doesn't just happen in a vacuum.

Then "elect" is merely a distinction without a difference. Just love God and love your fellow man, and act on it. "Elect" becomes a mere description of a result, and nothing more.

For that matter, it should be no different, if his intention is that all humanity be saved.

His will is that none be lost. But He has given us the freedom to chose. That is all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You were the one who inserted "elect" into His word.



Jesus said the Word was for all men. I believe Him. You added it to his statement. He didn't say that God was unwilling that any {of the elect}be lost. He says that God was unwilling that any be lost. Your insertion, notwithstanding.



If your claim is that when one is writing to believers, one cannot make reference to humanity in general, you're just wrong. Peter doesn't say "God is unwilling that any believers be lost; he writes that God is unwilling that any be lost. This is the part of God's word that you're resisting.

(Jesus tells us that our salvation depends on our charity to others)



So do you believe Him or not?



But His sheep are anyone who did what He expected of them. Some of them are not even His followers, or they would not have asked him what they did to deserve salvation.



Then "elect" is merely a distinction without a difference. Just love God and love your fellow man, and act on it. "Elect" becomes a mere description of a result, and nothing more.



His will is that none be lost. But He has given us the freedom to chose. That is all.

Alright. This has gone on long enough. Enjoy your narrative.

 

[The Barbarian]

Alright. This has gone on long enough.

Just think about it. I know those who say "if you do the works that God says justify you;

James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

then that is evidence of being of the elect." And that's a good answer. But still a distinction without a difference

Enjoy your narrative.

It's not an easy one for everyone to accept. But it is God's word.

 

[Mark Quayle]

James 2:24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

So you have whereof to boast, if there is no difference, in securing your own salvation. Notice, though, the justification mentioned in verse 24 is talking about the evidence of faith. Faith without works is dead --that is true. It WILL produce works. NIV 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

 

[The Barbarian]

So you have whereof to boast, if there is no difference, in securing your own salvation.

You still don't get it. You are justified by works, as well as by faith, but only by the grace of God. Doing good out of a heart turned to God and you fellow man will save you. Merely doing good things, say because you think it might profit you to do so, will not.

1 Corinthians 13:2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. [3] And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You still don't get it. You are justified by works, as well as by faith, but only by the grace of God. Doing good out of a heart turned to God and you fellow man will save you. Merely doing good things, say because you think it might profit you to do so, will not.

1 Corinthians 13:2 And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. [3] And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

So your works saves you 'by the grace of God'? Is that what justification means, in a different context? You think James believed in salvation by works at all? Does justification mean the same thing in every context? Another translation puts it, "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."

Your own Douay-Rheims says, (Ephesians 2:8,9) "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; Not of works, that no man may glory."

 

[The Barbarian]

So your works saves you 'by the grace of God'?

God says you are justified by works. Jesus tells us that where we spend eternity, with him or with the devil, depends on our works, or lack of them. I believe Him. You should, too.

Does justification mean the same thing in every context?

Pettifogging the issue won't do anything, given Jesus' very specific words in Matthew 25. Believe Him or don't believe Him. But don't try to say He didn't mean what He said.

You think James believed in salvation by works at all?

Luther tried to have James removed from the Bible, correctly asserting that James contradicted his new doctrine of "faith only." So Luther thought so.

Another translation puts it, "You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone."

It was changed to deal with the problem of man's new doctrines conflicting with God's word. We all get that.

 

[The Barbarian]

Your own Douay-Rheims says, (Ephesians 2:8,9) "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; Not of works, that no man may glory."

Yes. But you neglected the comma. Grace is a gift of God. We can't work out our own grace. We can't believe out our own grace. Without God's grace, we will have neither. Our salvation is a gift of God. We must only believe and act on it.

This is one of the most-frequently twisted verses in the Bible. Luther jumped on it, and ignored the sentence structure, because he hoped it would invalidate James and Matthew and all the rest. Luther accepted half of His word, but not the other half. And that's the problem.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God says you are justified by works. Jesus tells us that where we spend eternity, with him or with the devil, depends on our works, or lack of them. I believe Him. You should, too.



Pettifogging the issue won't do anything, given Jesus' very specific words in Matthew 25. Believe Him or don't believe Him. But don't try to say He didn't mean what He said.



Luther tried to have James removed from the Bible, correctly asserting that James contradicted his new doctrine of "faith only." So Luther thought so.



It was changed to deal with the problem of man's new doctrines conflicting with God's word. We all get that.

We all get that, do we? Your appeal to consensus notwithstanding, the rest of Scripture must be brought to bear, as Scripture does not contradict itself, right? And the rest of Scripture is clear, even as James said Faith without Works is dead. He doesn't say that works saves, nor by 'justified' does he mean that works removes sin from our account.

If you have whereof to boast in causing your own salvation, you have denied the Gospel.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes. But you neglected the comma. Grace is a gift of God. We can't work out our own grace. We can't believe out our own grace. Without God's grace, we will have neither. Our salvation is a gift of God. We must only believe and act on it.

This is one of the most-frequently twisted verses in the Bible. Luther jumped on it, and ignored the sentence structure, because he hoped it would invalidate James and Matthew and all the rest. Luther accepted half of His word, but not the other half. And that's the problem.

I suppose that you, being Catholic, trust the Latin more than the original Greek texts, but they didn't come with commas in your preferred spots.

But curiously, here you are making much of sentence structure, yet you ignore completely the context of 2 Peter 3:9. If language surely means anything, both are important. Each sentence is not stand-alone.

Very well, the sentence structure, then. "For by grace you are saved, through faith, and this (the grace)* not of yourselves --it is the gift of God, lest any man boast. Does the sentence structure suggest that the faith IS of yourself, since the verse only claims (*by the Greek, at least) that grace is the gift. It doesn't say whether the faith is or not. The context mentions (verse 1) that we were dead in sin. So our faith, too, is of the grace of God —not of man's strength of will. The larger context, the whole of Scripture, also agrees: The whole of the Gospel is the work of God, from first to last.

The 'cooperation' or whatever other word you want, to convey the notion that our efforts add to God's, to produce a better sum total than his efforts alone, is bunk.

 

[The Barbarian]

I suppose that you, being Catholic, trust the Latin more than the original Greek texts,

In fact, most recent translations consider both Greek and Latin texts, as well as contemporary comentary on them. Thought you knew.

but they didn't come with commas in your preferred spots.

But the Koine Greek did make that distinction. The translation accurately kept the distinction.

But curiously, here you are making much of sentence structure, yet you ignore completely the context of 2 Peter 3:9.

As you now see, the use of "any" in Peter's comment refers to all, not just some few. If he had meant "any of you to whom I am writing", he would have said so.

Does the sentence structure suggest that the faith IS of yourself

It says it's a gift of God. It's just that God says we are justified both by faith and by works. I believe Him. You should believe Him, too.

The 'cooperation' or whatever other word you want, to convey the notion that our efforts add to God's

You're back to making up stuff and insisting I have to believe it. I can see this is a difficult thing for you. If we are mere robots, performing only as God has us do, we cannot be good or evil. But the fall made us aware of good and evil, and with that, the freedom to choose as we will.

God does not create people lacking the ability to accept His grace, for the sole purpose of torturing them for an eternity. You are not a robot; you have a choice, and that choice is yours. Do not blame God.

 

[The Barbarian]

We all get that, do we? Your appeal to consensus notwithstanding, the rest of Scripture must be brought to bear, as Scripture does not contradict itself, right?

Right. So Jesus is correct when He says that what will decide your eternal place, is how you treat those in need. And James is correct when He says that one is justified by works as well as by faith, equating the two.

And Paul is correct in asserting that we choose faith and works by the grace of God, without which we would be lost.

All of these are consistent with each other. It's just that they aren't consistent with your interpretation.

Which should be a clue.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In fact, most recent translations consider both Greek and Latin texts, as well as contemporary comentary on them. Thought you knew.

I did. What's your point?

But the Koine Greek did make that distinction. The translation accurately kept the distinction.

It made the distinction but not the comma?

As you now see, the use of "any" in Peter's comment refers to all, not just some few. If he had meant "any of you to whom I am writing", he would have said so.

As I now see? What I see is that, just as anything that people say should be taken in context, this that Peter says should too. Therefore, it is speaking to believers about the elect.

It says it's a gift of God. It's just that God says we are justified both by faith and by works. I believe Him. You should believe Him, too.

You don't seem to believe Him. Or do you reject the notion that a person is saved by works? ("...not by works, lest any man boast.")

You're back to making up stuff and insisting I have to believe it. I can see this is a difficult thing for you. If we are mere robots, performing only as God has us do, we cannot be good or evil. But the fall made us aware of good and evil, and with that, the freedom to choose as we will.

Your condescension notwithstanding, Calvinism doesn't make anyone into mere robots, with no will. Your argument is against a strawman. It is YOU who are making stuff up! Calvinism, whether you believe me or not here, does not claim we do not have freedom to choose. In fact, we insist that everyone does indeed choose, and that with real effects, even eternal results.

God does not create people lacking the ability to accept His grace, for the sole purpose of torturing them for an eternity. You are not a robot; you have a choice, and that choice is yours. Do not blame God.

Where do you get the inane idea that God would make someone for the sole purpose of torturing them for an eternity? Not from Calvinism! No, I certainly am not a robot, and neither is anyone else. Calvinism teaches no such thing. Where do you get this tripe?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Right. So Jesus is correct when He says that what will decide your eternal place, is how you treat those in need. And James is correct when He says that one is justified by works as well as by faith, equating the two.

And Paul is correct in asserting that we choose faith and works by the grace of God, without which we would be lost.

They are all three correct. But that is not what they say, not to the extent you take them. But show me where they said that, to include your take on that, and maybe we can come to agreement.

All of these are consistent with each other. It's just that they aren't consistent with your interpretation.

Which should be a clue.

Of course they are consistent with each other. All scripture is. It may even be possible that your interpretation is consistent, though I doubt it, since already I've seen mere reasoning taking precedence over sentence, paragraph, and contextual structure, in what you say.

Which should be clue.

 

[The Barbarian]

Of course they are consistent with each other. All scripture is. It may even be possible that your interpretation is consistent, though I doubt it, since already I've seen mere reasoning taking precedence over sentence, paragraph, and contextual structure, in what you say.

Which should be clue.

Reason remains the key to understanding.

They are all three correct. But that is not what they say, not to the extent you take them.

I take them without any reservations or qualifiers. That's how one should take His word.

 

[The Barbarian]

Therefore, it is speaking to believers about the elect.

He doesn't say he is. That's your assumption.