Questions and Answers

[Van]

Q1) Since God decreed in eternity past those that would be saved and those that would not, then all who are the elect will be saved. If this is true, then why should I (not knowing whether I am of the elect or not) even care? If I am, he will save me. If I am not, then it really doesn’t matter anyway for there is, nor has there ever been, any hope for me. Am I not, “fated for evil”?

A1) If God decreed in eternity past those individually that would be saved, and therefore by default, that all the rest would not, then all the preselected individuals will be saved. But if the foregoing premise does not reflect reality, then the observation is pointless. If the false premise were true, then it logically follows that we need not care, nothing we can do will alter our final destination. If the premise were true, then everyone not chosen for mercy would be fated for perfect justice in the afterlife.

Q2) If all things are decreed by God to happen, then how is any man responsible for his actions? It seems to me that if predestination is true then none of us are actually responsible for our actions because we don't choose who we are and can only experience existence, rather than control it or even influence it. It is the existence we continually experience that dictates who we are and how we act. In this sense, I am simply a robot - I do what I was programmed to do. How can God fault me for doing what he decreed in eternity past that I would do?

A2) If all things are decreed by God to happen, exhaustive determinism, then our life choices are an illusion, and it would not be logical to punish us for doing what we are compelled to do with no alternate possibility. However if God has created a purview within which we can make autonomous decisions, except that God sometimes invades that purview and influences some limited specific outcomes, then to the extent we make our choices, we can be logically held accountable for those choices.

Q3) By virtue of the assumption that all things happen because they are predetermined to do so, does not my sin actually become the will of God? Because of predestination, is not everything I do actually the decretive will of God - whether good or bad?

A3) Yes, if our decisions are compelled because they have been specifically predestined, then whatever we do is meaningless because we do nothing. However, if we make decisions, then the outcome of our lives is not predestined, unless God intervenes at some point in our lives and causes us to be hardened against God. In that case, at the point of intervention, it is the same as if we had died, with our opportunity to obtain approval through faith being terminated.

Q4) Does God totally impose His will on man? That is, are there things that God wants, such as that all men would be saved, but which He does not force to happen? If God does not desire the salvation of all men and if God does not love all men, then what hope is there for me? Do I hope against hope that somehow, someday God might decide to grant me faith?

A4) No, God does not totally impose His decretive will on man, because the outcome of our individual lives is not totally foreordained. The concept that God desires all men to be saved is inconsistent with exhaustive determinism. However, if God desires all men to be saved according to His purpose and plan – which provides those that hear the gospel an opportunity to trust in Christ – then giving His Son as a propitiation for all reflects God’s love for the world – fallen mankind in general. Certainly no one comes to Christ unless granted by the Father, so we should hope that we are not among those limited few that scripture describes were precluded like Pharaoh, Judas and the unbelieving Jews, to facilitate God’s redemptive plan.

Q5) I have been told that the reason I do not come to Christ is not that I cannot, but that I will not. However, if God wants me to come to Him, I will. If God wants me to want to come to Him, I would want such things. I could not want, or come without His direct action in my life. And God, being omnipotent, if He wanted me to come, or to want to come, cannot be gainsaid. So it’s clear to me that the reason I do not want to come is because God does not want me to.

A5) Yes the statement is true, see John 5:40, but it does not reflect what Calvinism teaches. Their view is the lost will not because they are unable, being unregenerate and suffering from the total inability to trust in Christ. Yes, if the Reformed view were true, and it is not, then it would be clear that if you never during your life want to come to Jesus, the reason is God has foreordained that you will not come to Jesus. However, it this view is mistaken, then if you are not so blinded by a love of darkness that you cannot understand the gospel, you do indeed still have a slight opportunity to trust in Christ. But it is slight, because if you have been enlightened (you have heard and understood the gospel) but have rejected Christ, unless something happens to alter your core character, it is impossible to bring you to repentance again.

Q6) The man, who is faced with two paths, picks one, and the man, faced with only one path and one impassable path, goes down the only one he can. In the first, free will is actually being used. I have a choice between two paths, and I pick one. In the second, I have no free will. The blocked, impassable path might as well have not existed for me. Why would God give me a choice if I cannot choose?

A6) He would not! God sets before us a choice and exhorts us to choose life. Reformed thinking says this is not true, that we do not make decisions, or that we are unable to make some decisions (yes, reformed theology is logically inconsistent) but scripture is crystal. What must you do to be saved? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. What does God do with our faith? See Romans 4:5 and 4:24. He accepts our faith, with no mention of the faith being supernaturally given to us, and reckons or credits it as righteousness. Jesus says the work or action God requires of us is to believe in the One God sent, the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed One, the Lamb of God, and the King of Kings.

 

[DeaconDean]

Oh God, not this again!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[nobdysfool]

Oh God, not this again!

God Bless

Till all are one.

My thought, exactly. Here we go again...

 

[Van]

Q1) If God chooses individuals who are poor in the eyes of the work, but who are rich in faith and love God, then election unto salvation must occur during our physical lives.
A1) Yes, but if you rewrite James 2:5 and make it of no effect, then you can cling to your false doctrine, but you also must rewrite 1 Peter 2:9-10, and 1 Corinthians 1:26-30.

 

[nobdysfool]

Q1) If God chooses individuals who are poor in the eyes of the work, but who are rich in faith and love God, then election unto salvation must occur during our physical lives.
A1) Yes, but if you rewrite James 2:5 and make it of no effect, then you can cling to your false doctrine, but you also must rewrite 1 Peter 2:9-10, and 1 Corinthians 1:26-30.

It's a bogus question,. because you're the only one teaching such a distortion of scripture. You base it on a faulty interpretation of James 2:5. You are the one who has re-written James 2:5, in contravention of nearly every translator and biblical scholar.

Those who are rich in faith and love God are those who have been chosen, and the richness of faith and love of God is the result of His choice, not the basis of His choice of them.

The mistaken view being ignored is the idea that God's choice of people unto salvation immediately results in their salvation. Election is not salvation, it is intent to save, and nothing logically prevents the election of individuals from before creation to be saved at the time God has appointed for them, and does not negate that until such time as His election of them is manifested, (i.e. when He brings about their salvation), they live as those without mercy. There is no conflict in this, despite Van's insistence to the contrary.

 

[Van]

Anyone reading James 2:5 and understanding James point that God was not partial to rich people because He chose poor people, know that James 2:5 teaches election during our physical lives.

No conflict? Give me a break. 1 Peter 2:9-10 indicates we live without mercy before we are chosen. This verse precludes the possibility of being chosen individually before creation.

And finally do not be distracted by the logical fallacy of saying since a lot of people do not agree with me, my view must be in error. Nonsense.

 

[nobdysfool]

Anyone reading James 2:5 and understanding James point that God was not partial to rich people because He chose poor people, know that James 2:5 teaches election during our physical lives.

Simply re-stating your false premise does not prove anything. Deal with what I said.

No conflict? Give me a break. 1 Peter 2:9-10 indicates we live without mercy before we are chosen. This verse precludes the possibility of being chosen individually before creation.

Only if you accept the idea that election = salvation. Again, you are simply re-stating your false views, and not dealing with what I said.

And finally do not be distracted by the logical fallacy of saying since a lot of people do not agree with me, my view must be in error. Nonsense.

The translators and biblical scholars are much more educated and qualified to speak to these things than Van, and Van has in the past used the very same argument (unnamed others agree with him) as proof for his own false views. Now, suddenly, he believes the opposite, when it suits his purpose. Logically, it is more likely that the translators and biblical scholars are correct, than it is that Van is correct.

Van has done nothing more than restate his view, and avoided addressing the specific things I said.

 

[Van]

. Read James 2:5, it says God chose the poor, and therefore we should not be partial to the rich, because God is not partial to the rich.
It does not say God chose folks that turned out to be poor, that would not advance the argument James is making.

When God chooses someone and sets them apart in Christ, they are saved forever. No charge can be brought against God's elect. Therefore the elect must be "in Christ" where they are holy and blameless, otherwise a charge could be brought. The Calvinist view is both unbibical and illogical.

 

[nobdysfool]

NBF has said nothing but falsehoods, as I have demonstrated from scripture. Read James 2:5, it says God chose the poor, and therefore we should not be partial to the rich, because God is not partial to the rich.
It does not say God chose folks that turned out to be poor, that would not advance the argument James is making.

Folks, that is not what I said. Van knows this, but chooses to try and fog the issue. Notice how he immediately tries to attack my character by accusing that I tell falsehoods. Notice also that he tries to put words in my mouth that I never said. Don't be fooled by such sophistry. Here is the exact quote again, which Van refuses to address:

Those who are rich in faith and love God are those who have been chosen, and the richness of faith and love of God is the result of His choice, not the basis of His choice of them. - NBF

When God chooses someone and sets them apart in Christ, they are saved forever. No charge can be brought against God's elect. Therefore the elect must be "in Christ" where they are holy and blameless, otherwise a charge could be brought. The Calvinist view is both unbibical and illogical.

Again, Van avoids the question. Van equates election with salvation. Yet he has provided no scripture to support this assumption. He has just decided that this is the way it must be, and shaped the rest of his view to fit with an assumed view. The Calvinist view is very logical, and it is biblical.

The term"Elect" is used in several different ways in scripture. It can refer to those who are already saved, and it can also refer to those who will be saved, who have been chosen, but have not yet received Christ. Van can't stand this idea, because it removes the choice of salvation from man, and places it where scripture does, with God. Also Van has demonstrated in the past that he confuses God's actions and is forced to enmesh God in temporal time, so that God cannot choose someone unless they have chosen Him, and God cannot choose someone without them being immediately saved. Part of the reason for that is the unbiblical notions Van holds regarding God's knowledge of what is, to us, future events.

 

[Van]

Read James 2:5, it says God chose the poor, and therefore we should not be partial to the rich, because God is not partial to the rich.
It does not say God chose folks that turned out to be poor, that would not advance the argument James is making. But rather than address God choosing the poor not because they are poor in the eyes of world but because they are rich in faith, he says that they were not rich in faith when they were chosen. But that is what the text says in Greek. The "to be" is an uninspired addition, and that is why the NASB puts the words in italics.

And note that NBF claims to know the eternal perspective of God, but since he is as finite as can be, his claims are pure invention and not based on the word of God. He is enmeshed in time and for him to proclaim God does this and that outside of time is an invention to nullify scripture.
When God chooses someone and sets them apart in Christ, they are saved forever. No charge can be brought against God's elect. Therefore the elect must be "in Christ" where they are holy and blameless, otherwise a charge could be brought. The Calvinist view is both unbibical and illogical.


When God chooses someone and sets them apart in Christ, they are saved forever. No charge can be brought against God's elect. Therefore the elect must be "in Christ" where they are holy and blameless, otherwise a charge could be brought. The Calvinist view is both unbibical and illogical.

 

[nobdysfool]

Read James 2:5, it says God chose the poor, and therefore we should not be partial to the rich, because God is not partial to the rich.

Fine as far as it goes. Nor argument on this point.

It does not say God chose folks that turned out to be poor, that would not advance the argument James is making.

You are the only one saying that. I have never said such a thing. You're making up a straw man.

But rather than address God choosing the poor not because they are poor in the eyes of world but because they are rich in faith, he says that they were not rich in faith when they were chosen. But that is what the text says in Greek. The "to be" is an uninspired addition, and that is why the NASB puts the words in italics.

Using that same idea, we should go through the Bible then, and eliminate any word(s) in italics because they weren't in the original language. What Van fails to take into account is that Greek does not transliterate into English, they are not word-for-word equivalent languages. In translation, English words are added where they are needed to make the translation read well, and to complete the idea and thought being expressed by the original. In most cases, such words are implied. Van thinks that they are unnecessary. That's because he doesn't know languages and how they are translated.

"God has chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith" fits perfectly with God "choosing the foolish things of this world to confound the wise, the weak things of this world to bring down the strong". These ideas go together like hand in glove. It is God who causes these things to come about. The poor are not automatically rich in faith, nor are the foolish automatically wise in the things of God, or the weak automatically strong in the power of God. It is God who brings about those conditions and situations, not the poor weak, foolish one themselves.

And note that NBF claims to know the eternal perspective of God, but since he is as finite as can be, his claims are pure invention and not based on the word of God. He is enmeshed in time and for him to proclaim God does this and that outside of time is an invention to nullify scripture.

Another attempt to make my character an issue when it is not what is in play here. Where scripture speaks to what God does outside of time, we can speak.

When God chooses someone and sets them apart in Christ, they are saved forever.

Notice that there are two actions here: choosing, and setting apart. Van believes they are simultaneous. However,Van is the one limiting what God does, by not allowing that God can choose beforehand, and set apart in actual fact at a later time. Van says that God's act of choosing also sets the one chosen apart.

Since God foreknows all, including all individuals, He can choose the individuals He wants to choose, well before they are even born, and then during their lifetime, set them apart at the time He has ordained that they be saved. The moment they were saved is not the moment God chose them, it is the moment He acts in their lives to bring them to Him. Van confuses God's election and sanctification. Van thinks election is salvation. It is not.

No charge can be brought against God's elect. Therefore the elect must be "in Christ" where they are holy and blameless, otherwise a charge could be brought. The Calvinist view is both unbibical and illogical.

When would the charge be brought? At the Judgment, not before. What would the charge be? That of sin against God. This principle does not apply in this matter. Those whom God has chosen, until the time He has ordained for them to come to Him and be saved, live as those without mercy. There is no conflict with this and election. Van makes a distinction where none is needed.

To then follow his statement with the non-sequitor, "Calvinism is both unbiblical and illogical", shows that he doesn't believe that the reader is smart enough to see the holes in his arguments.

Folks, notice that Van has not directly addressed several statements I have made. I have pointedly asked him to deal with them, and he has not. I have addressed the false statements he has made concerning me, the attempts to call my character into question, rather than stick to the subject. He has produced smoke and mirrors, and put up straw men.

 

[Van]

When will the charge be brought, at the end times judgment? Give me a break, sinners are piling up wrath day by day. Calvinism is built on a house of cards, but under the weight of God's word, it collapses.

God chose the poor for a purpose according to James, a conditional election.

Sometimes words added by the translators correctly convey the authors intend more clearly. But sometimes the additions are unnecessary, and infrequently the additions alter the text in a way the misrepresents the authors intended message. Such a case is "to be" in James 2:5.

Yes, when something is chosen, it is set apart from the unchosen. Otherwise would not be chosen. When God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, He then chooses us individually by spiritually placing us in Christ to be His own possession.

 

[nobdysfool]

When will the charge be brought, at the end times judgment? Give me a break, sinners are piling up wrath day by day.

True, but when will they pay the price? You're avoiding dealing with what I said.

Calvinism is built on a house of cards, but under the weight of God's word, it collapses.

An opinion which you are free to hold, including the consequences of it. Stating it does not make it true, correct, or in any way establish it as anything other than opinion, Opinions vary.

God chose the poor for a purpose according to James, a conditional election.

What purpose would that be Van? And why is it a conditional election? What is the condition?

Sometimes words added by the translators correctly convey the authors intend more clearly. But sometimes the additions are unnecessary, and infrequently the additions alter the text in a way the misrepresents the authors intended message. Such a case is "to be" in James 2:5.

Again, this is your opinion. Many scholars don't share that opinion. Most theologians don't. So, it is incumbent on you to show why they are wrong. Just saying what you believe does not make it so, or make it true. It takes more than your say-so to establish truth. So far, that's all we've seen from you, is 'because I say so'. Also, the inference in most of the screeds against Calvinism that you post is, 'Calvinism is wrong, so therefore I am right.' The illogic of such tactics is astounding as well as transparent.

Yes, when something is chosen, it is set apart from the unchosen. Otherwise would not be chosen. When God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, He then chooses us individually by spiritually placing us in Christ to be His own possession.

Again, an opinion, one that is not shared by everyone. What you are preaching is a reward-based election, God rewarding right actions on the part of man, by then choosing him and saving him. Scripture does not teach this. Your doctrine is contradictory, not only internally, but also scripturally.

 

[Van]

Note the effort to make this discussion about me - you are avoiding dealing with what I said. LOL The charge is brought before the judgment, so once again Calvinism is shown to be unbiblical.

Truth matters and it is not only a matter of opinion and opinions vary. LOL

I say God chose the poor, and NBF asks what is the condition. LOL See the cards scattered about the forum?

I do not need to show that "to be" is an addition in James 2:5, the NASB puts it in italics. QED All the scholars supporting the critical text agree.
Am I preaching a reward based election? No I am presenting conditional election as per the Word of God, James 2:5. God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble. You deny that God chooses the poor, giving grace to the humble.

 

[nobdysfool]

Note the effort to make this discussion about me - you are avoiding dealing with what I said. LOL The charge is brought before the judgment, so once again Calvinism is shown to be unbiblical.

NBF seems to have no regard for truth, it is only a matter of opinion and opinions vary according to him. LOL

I say God choose the poor, and NBF asks what is the condition. LOL See the cards scattered about the forum?

I do not need to show that "to be" is an addition in James 2:5, the NASB puts it in italics. QED All the scholars supporting the critical text agree.

Next, NBF says I am preaching a reward based election. No I am presenting conditional election as per the Word of God, James 2:5. God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble. You deny that God chooses the poor, giving grace to the humble.

So what does Van do? He tries to make the discussion about me, about my supposed character flaws, after negatively accusing me of the same. That is hypocrisy. To ask that a person address what I have actually said, is not making it personal.. He wants his opinions accepted as fact without question, and then tries to darken my character for pointing out the fault in such reasoning. Claiming I have no regard for truth is an egregiously false judgment of my character, brought against me simply because I disagree with him. Van hasn't answered what I have written, and apparently cannot, so he attacks me. Folks, don't be fooled by such sophistry.

The claim has been made that "to be" shouldn't be in the text of James 2:5, but nearly every English translation has it there. So who's agreeing with whom? Van is the one holding the odd position, not the translators and scholars, who put the words there because they should be there to render the sense of the original. Van doesn't have the theological credentials, education, or even a persuasive argument to set aside that which has been decided by careful consideration and intimate knowledge of the original languages, and their nuances, by translators and scholars who are much more qualified, educated and experienced. As I have said before, if "to be" should not be in the English translation of the text, then the same principle should be applied throughout the English translation of the Bible. Any italicized words should be eliminated, because they are not in the original language. See where that gets you.

Notice how what I have actually said is not being addressed? How about the fact that God choosing the poor of this world to be rich in faith fits perfectly with God choosing the foolish to confound the wise, and God choosing the weak to bring down the strong? Will that be addressed? It has yet to be!

He then tries to deflect by accusing me of denying that God chooses the poor and gives grace to the humble. That is a flat-out lie, as well as a distortion of what scripture says, that God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. I do not deny that God gives grace to the humble. But I do deny that God chooses the poor, solely because they are poor, as is being implied by this sophistry being passed off as truth.

Hatred of Calvinism is evident in his posts. He makes irrational attempts to refute it. Not a single tenet of Calvinism has been refuted, try though he might. Much of the time, he is talking to himself, because many others tire of the constant negative refrain in his posts, against Calvinism. Nearly everything he posts in some fashion takes a swipe at Calvinism and/or Calvinists. He defines his doctrines by their opposition to Calvinism.

 

[DeaconDean]

So what does Van do? He tries to make the discussion about me, about my supposed character flaws, after negatively accusing me of the same. That is hypocrisy. To ask that a person address what I have actually said, is not making it personal.. He wants his opinions accepted as fact without question, and then tries to darken my character for pointing out the fault in such reasoning. Claiming I have no regard for truth is an egregiously false judgment of my character, brought against me simply because I disagree with him. Van hasn't answered what I have written, and apparently cannot, so he attacks me. Folks, don't be fooled by such sophistry.

The claim has been made that "to be" shouldn't be in the text of James 2:5, but nearly every English translation has it there. So who's agreeing with whom? Van is the one holding the odd position, not the translators and scholars, who put the words there because they should be there to render the sense of the original. Van doesn't have the theological credentials, education, or even a persuasive argument to set aside that which has been decided by careful consideration and intimate knowledge of the original languages, and their nuances, by translators and scholars who are much more qualified, educated and experienced. As I have said before, if "to be" should not be in the English translation of the text, then the same principle should be applied throughout the English translation of the Bible. Any italicized words should be eliminated, because they are not in the original language. See where that gets you.

Notice how what I have actually said is not being addressed? How about the fact that God choosing the poor of this world to be rich in faith fits perfectly with God choosing the foolish to confound the wise, and God choosing the weak to bring down the strong? Will that be addressed? It has yet to be!

He then tries to deflect by accusing me of denying that God chooses the poor and gives grace to the humble. That is a flat-out lie, as well as a distortion of what scripture says, that God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. I do not deny that God gives grace to the humble. But I do deny that God chooses the poor, solely because they are poor, as is being implied by this sophistry being passed off as truth.

Hatred of Calvinism is evident in his posts. He makes irrational attempts to refute it. Not a single tenet of Calvinism has been refuted, try though he might. Much of the time, he is talking to himself, because many others tire of the constant negative refrain in his posts, against Calvinism. Nearly everything he posts in some fashion takes a swipe at Calvinism and/or Calvinists. He defines his doctrines by their opposition to Calvinism.

Excellent!

Precise!

And more than that, its to the point and correct.

This member has 11 threads here in the Soterology room. And what is the purpose of them? To slander Calvinism.

This member isn't here to edify the body, he's here to defeat Calvinism at any costs.

Whereas Calvinism deals mainly with the Sovereignty of God, and let God make all the decisions, the Arminian and synergist like to take credit for something they have done in their salvation.

I have been a member of this forum for four years, and in all that time, the op has always done this. Will it stop? Not likely.

It just plain old gets tiring.

That is the primary reason NBF, why i haven't taken part in these discussions of Van's.

Its just like Gordon's, the same thing over and over again, it does not change. Day in, day out, week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out. It does not change. I'm tired of it, thats why i don't post here much.

Keep the faith NBF.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Van]

Again, some Calvinists post falsehoods to obscure the truth. God chooses the poor, which is conditional. The very verse (James 2:5) also includes other factors such as they are rich in faith and they love God. God gives grace to the humble.

Calvinism must be defended with unbiblical positions because it is unbiblical. God giving grace to the poor is a conditional choice by God. God opposes the proud. A conditional choice by God.

And to repeat "to be" is a translators addition to James 2:5, it is not part of the inspired text, and all scholars who accept the critical text agree. QED. To defend a doctrine not by scripture but by the inventions of men is unsound. So why is Calvinism defended this way? Go figure.

 

[nobdysfool]

Again, the Calvinists post falsehoods to obscure the truth.

A baseless charge with no proof.

NBF denies God chooses the poor solely because they are poor. Well DUH. That position is his invention to avoid that God chooses the poor, which is conditional. The very verse (James 2:5) also includes other factors such as they are rich in faith and they love God. God gives grace to the humble.

So, we can infer from this ridiculous defense, that Van believes that God chooses the poor, because by the very fact of being poor they are naturally rich in faith and love God. Apparently poverty produces great faith, and love of God, according to Van. And, according to Van, God chooses these poor folk because they had great faith and loved God, before they were chosen by God. According to Van, God chose them because they had great faith and loved Him, meaning that God chooses those who choose Him first, for how could someone love God and yet not have chosen Him? How can someone love or have great faith (rich faith) in that which they do not know?

Calvinism must be defended with unbiblical positions because it is unbiblical.

That little gem of "logic" is circular, and therefore meaningless. It proves nothing, and it establishes nothing.

God giving grace to the poor is a conditional choice by God. God opposes the proud. A conditional choice by God.

What is the condition? Because they're poor? Or is it because they supposedly possess qualities which induce God to choose them, based on those qualities? If they possess those qualities intrinsically, how can those qualities be acceptable to God, seeing they come from a fallen and corrupt nature? No bad tree can bring forth good fruit, yet this is what you are arguing happens in the case of the poor who are rich in faith and love God intrinsically. They supposedly have good fruit which God then chooses them for having, making God a respecter of persons. This is completely unbiblical.

And to repeat "to be" is a translators addition to James 2:5, it is not part of the inspired text, and all scholars who accept the critical text agree. QED. To defend a doctrine not by scripture but by the inventions of men is unsound. So why is Calvinism defended this way? Go figure.

What they agree on is that there are no Greek analogs for the words "to be", but the fact that they put them in the text as translated, shows that they understand that the words belong there, even though the Greek does not contain those words, in order to render the intent and thought of the passage. The Greek language cannot be forced to abide by the rules of English grammar. But that is what Van is trying to insist on.

Van still has not provided any answer to my observation that the inclusion of the words "to be" in James 2:5 shows that the idea that God chooses the poor of this world to be rich in faith, dovetails perfectly with God choosing the foolish things of this world to confound the wise, and the weak things of this world to bring down the strong.

Notice how Van has avoided this repeatedly? He hasn't answered it because he cannot answer it. Instead, he engages in name-calling and false accusations against Calvinism and Calvinists, not to mention nonsensical "logic".

 

[Van]

More strawmen, more misdirection, more useless defense of the indefensible. He says we can infer then makes a baseless charge. He says poverty produces great faith. What a ludicrous position. His inferences always attribute to others positions they do not hold. Misdirection, evasion, falsehoods. We can infer Calvinism cannot be defended with truth. James 2:5, not Van, says God chooses the poor.

God gives grace to the humble. Scripture does not say God chooses folks, then makes them humble, then gives grace them. That reverses the order and turns the verse into God gives grace to the proud to make them humble. Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Unbiblical nonsense.

Next, if a view is false, to say it cannot be portrayed as truth with truth, is called circular. Nonsense. Utter nonsense

Next, NBF asks yet another question, what is a condition. He types in English, responds in English, yet constantly says he does not understand English. What we have here is sidestepping folks. What is a condition? LOL In one breath, Calvinists say God's choice is unconditional, but in the next they have no idea what a condition is. Give me a break.

Calvinist say God is no respecter of persons but they have no idea what attribute is being applied to God. God chooses the poor. God gives grace to the humble. Can they square that with their made up and utterly unbiblical invention as to the meaning? Nope.

Next they claim that if God blesses something unclean, it cannot be clean. Utter nonsense. One after the other. Scripture, not Van, says God credits our faith as righteousness. It has no intrinsic value, God gives it value.

Next, and here is quote for the ages, "there are no Greek analogs for the words "to be." This absolute proves the insertion is an invention of the translators. Calvinists say the idea is "to become" rich in faith, but there are Greek analogs for that, and James did not use them. If you want to misconstrue the Grammar of James 2:5, you could throw in "they are" but the Calvinists will not address that choice. And as I have often posted the correct translation, consistent with the Greek grammar is God chose the poor, rich in faith with poor being the object and rich being the compliment.

Next, NBF repeats for the third time his idea that "to become" somehow relates to the idea of "to confound." Utter nonsense, and he seems not to know it. He can say white is black till the cows come home. The only point scripture is making is it is providing in part God purpose for His action. And it has nothing to do with the topic. It is like saying the sky is blue, and therefore the idea of being in a blue mood somehow relates. These disconnected assertions are both unbiblical and illogical. Now what can be observed is God choosing the foolish things of this world shows yet again God's use of a conditional to satisfy is purpose. God gives grace to the humble so He chooses the humble to bless. Similarly, to confound or to bring down shows God opposing the proud, yet another conditional, God chooses to proud to confound and bring down. So the very scriptures cited by NBF demonstrate his argument is baseless, and supports my position.

Notice how Van discusses NBF positions, even while refusing to be drawn down the constant bunny trails invented one after the other to change the subject. James 2:5 says God chooses the poor, rich in faith which is a conditional election, keeping His covenant of love, to those who love Him. All the rest, I do not respond, ad nauseum, is simply trying to avoid the verse.

 

[AndOne]

Let's do a word comparison of James 2:5 -

Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?

Listen, my beloved brothers, has not the poor in the world, rich in faith chosen God and are heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?

Which is right? Which is recorded in scripture?