Questions and Answers

[nobdysfool]

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.

Folks, notice the vehemence and vitriol with which Van attacks me? Notice that he does not provide even one quote of my actual words? This is not about scripture, this about Van expressing hatred toward me, because I dare to withstand him and expose his false doctrines. This is utter hatred and misrepresentation. Many of the things he attributes to me are not things I said, not things I wrote, and you will look in vain for the quotes, because there aren't any. Van is lying about my character, and about what I say, to avoid having to deal with what I have exposed in his doctrines. He is desperately trying to deflect attention away from his doctrines and onto my supposed character flaws.

I will answer this post point by point, but I wanted to point out the content of this post of his, full of bile and hatred toward one for whom Christ has died, and has redeemed and justified. There is no excuse for such unchristian behavior.

 

[nobdysfool]

More straw men, more misdirection, more useless defense of the indefensible. He says we can infer then makes a baseless charge.

A needless sentence, written only to try and justify himself. This seems to be Van's standard mode, attack anyone who dares question him.

He says poverty produces great faith. What a ludicrous position.

Yes it is ludicrous. Why do you keep promoting it? I said that your view implies that, it is not my view. It's yours.

His inferences always attribute to others positions they do not hold.

If by that you mean I take statements to their logical conclusions, or what they appear to say behind the statement, then you show that you won't face analysis of your statements. As you're avoiding doing right now.

Misdirection, evasion, falsehoods.

Whose? So far, it's your word against mine.

We can infer Calvinism cannot be defended with truth.

We can with equal authority state that your position cannot be defended with truth.

James 2:5, not Van, says God chooses the poor.

And no one has said otherwise. The issue is, on what basis does God choose the poor? What is His criteria for the choice?

God gives grace to the humble.

Indeed He does, and I have never said otherwise.

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.

Seeing how I never said such a thing, it shows that you accuse me of that which you yourself do, which is to attribute falsehoods and false positions to others, in this case, me. I have never said what you just said, nor would I. You are erecting a straw man.

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

Your own words were: "Calvinism must be defended with unbiblical positions because it is unbiblical." That is circular reasoning. It proves nothing, because it doesn't prove that Calvinism is untrue. Why? Because to prove a position is unbiblical, you must say that it is unbiblical because of "x" and "Y", not "its unbiblical because it's defended with unbiblical positions." You haven't proven that the positions are unbiblical in this statement, you've just said they are, with no proof. Stating that does not constitute proof. Your words can be reduced to 'Calvinism is bad because it's bad.' That's the reasoning of a three year old.

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.

Funny, he didn't answer the question, did he? I asked a simple straightforward question, and he vilifies me for asking it. He claims that God's choice is conditional. I ask him, what is the condition, and I get a lecture and vilification, and no answer. Could it be because he can't answer the question?

What we have here is sidestepping folks.

Yep, that's what we have here, except it's not me doing the sidestep shuffle, it's Van.

What is a condition?

Not what I asked, I asked "what is the condition?" of God choosing the poor, since according to Van, it is a conditional choice by God A conditional choice must have a condition for making the choice. Go back and read it, folks. Notice how Van has altered what I said, so he can erect yet another straw man, and spew hatred and vilification toward me? And all the while, avoid answering the question.

Now, who's sidestepping? Not me.

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.

I'm giving you no break on this, because you have intentionally misrepresented what I said, and vilified me without cause. You are erecting straw man after straw man, trying to portray yourself as an innocent victim and me as an idiot. Neither is true. Your hatred will be your undoing. You have not answered a single question of mine, you have addressed the straw men you have set up.

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.

That is not even what is in question here, so you've erected yet another straw man, to avoid the real issue. Once again, you imply that I'm denying these things, yet you provide no quotes, nor can you. I have never said that God does not choose the poor (but that's not all whom He chooses), and I have never said that God does not give grace to the humble. No quote can be given where I have ever denied that God chooses the poor and gives grace to the humble. To say that I have said otherwise is a lie.

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.

This is nothing like what I said, and Van knows it. He is intentionally and maliciously misrepresenting my words, twisting them and making things up that I have never said. Folks, read my posts, do any of them even remotely resemble what Van is claiming I said? I quote what Van says, and address the quote. Van reinterprets what I say, provides no quote, and then addresses his distortion of what I have said as though it were my words. This is the very definition of erecting a straw man, and it is clearly Van who is doing so.

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.

Notice how Van misinterprets what I said? There is no analog in the Greek for the words "to be", but every translator, after careful consideration, added the words "to be" into the English translation of James 2:5, because they were implied by the Greek in the passage, to preserve the intent of the Greek. Van is no Greek scholar, and has shown a rather alarming lack of skill with English, and yet he wants you to believe that he is correct in eliminating words from the text solely on the basis that they have no equivalent in Greek. This is not scholarship, this is folly.

By such reasoning, every italicized word in every English translation should be similarly removed, because they don't appear in the Greek originals, either. What a mess of the bible that would make!

Calvinists say the idea is "to become" rich in faith, but there are Greek analogs for that, and James did not use them.

No, Calvinists (and by Calvinists, Van means me) do not say "to become". Yet another straw man. Next, Van will be telling us that James agrees with him.

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.

Because it is even more inaccurate than your elimination of the words "to be" which every English translation has in the English text, and with good reason.

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.

Totally missing the point of the verse, that God chooses the poor to be rich in faith, which faith is His doing, and not their own, in order that the outworking of that faith is to His glory and not to their own glorying and boasting. Van has God choosing the poor who are already rich in faith, and already love God.

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.

All this baloney to avoid the clear inference I made, that God chooses the poor to be rich in faith in the same way that God chooses the foolish to confound the wise, and God chooses the weak to bring down the strong. It's all God's doing, and not the doing of the poor, the foolish, or the weak. God does things this way, in order that man cannot boast, and that God gets all the glory for the richness of the faith, the confounding of the wise, and the collapse of the strong. Van wants the poor to get credit for their faith (although he never explains how the poor come to have that faith), the foolish to get credit for being foolish, and the weak to get credit for being weak. What else can you conclude from his false doctrinal view of James 2:5? Over and over again, Van insists that the poor are rich in faith, and that they love God. How did they get that faith, and love for God? Van doesn't answer. But he insists that they are rich in faith and love God, and that is the reason God chooses them, so it is logical to see that Van believes that the poor must automatically have rich faith, and love God, even though he cannot explain how this can be.

Notice how Van has not addressed what I actually have said, but rather tried to distort and twist what I have said so that he can avoid it?

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.

Self-Congratulation is unbecoming. I haven't invented "rabbit trails", I have asked serious questions, and made serious observations, most of which you seem to get peeved at, because they were asked. Instead of answering them, I get lectures, vilification and false accusations hurled at me. And even more if I object to such, and point out how they are false.

 

[Van]

Questions and Answers

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.

The questions and answers demonstrate Calvinism is a mistaken view of scripture, and no amount of personal attacks, and sheer nonsense will alter that fact.

 

[Hentenza]

Stop the flaming and the bickering and address the topic. If this continues, the thread will be closed for clean up.

 

[Van]

James 2:5 indicates God conditionally elects unto salvation, the poor who (1) are rich in faith, and (2) love God. What is the conditional? Not that they are poor or rich according to the world's value system, but that their treasure is in heaven, they trust in Christ and love God with all their heart.

 

[AndOne]

James 2:5 indicates God conditionally elects unto salvation, the poor who (1) are rich in faith, and (2) love God. What is the conditional? Not that they are poor or rich according to the world's value system, but that their treasure is in heaven, they trust in Christ and love God with all their heart.

Please see post #20

 

[nobdysfool]

The questions and answers demonstrate Calvinism is a mistaken view of scripture, and no amount of personal attacks, and sheer nonsense will alter that fact.
[/font]

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.

 

[Van]

I answered post #20 in post #19. Here is what I said.

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.

So the Greek grammar indicates the correct understanding is as I have presented - God chose the poor as to this world but who are rich in faith, heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him.

 

[AndOne]

I answered post #20 in post #19. Here is what I said.
So the Greek grammar indicates the correct understanding is as I have presented - God chose the poor as to this world but who are rich in faith, heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him.

Yea - but that is not what the passage says - as is clearly shown in post 20.

 

[Van]

That is exactly what it says, as shown in post 1. God chose those that love Him, that are rich in faith, that are poor as to the world. James 2:5.

Do you deny God choice kept the promise God made to those who love Him? Do you deny that God chose the poor as to this world? I understand you do not understand the Greek grammar construction which makes poor of this world the object of the verb chose, and rich in faith, the compliment (secondary object) of the same verb chose. But that is how the Greek reads.

 

[nobdysfool]

So the poster believes that God chooses those who have chosen Him first. I suppose that the poster also believes that God helps those who help themselves, too.

Completely, utterly unbiblical, and a lack of understanding. The poster is no Greek scholar, so it is ludicrous for him to try to appeal to Greek grammar to prove his views. Besides, in another post, he takes Calvinists to task for appealing to grammar as proof. What we have here is situational ethics, the end justifies the means, being employed by the poster when he can use it to his advantage, and damning it in others when it works against him. This is the way the poster supports his doctrines, with changeable standards. depending on who they benefit. These statements have been amply shown to be true, and can be seen by anyone who questions their accuracy. Just read through the threads.

 

[Van]

Van believes the word of God. God keeps His promise to those who love Him.

While it is true that I know nothing of Greek grammar, I can ask Greek grammar experts and report. Which I have done.

The ends never justifies the means.

Folks, James 2:5 teaches that God's election is conditional, and is consistent with John 3:16, whoever believes in Him shall not perish [because God credits his or her faith as righteousness and sets them apart "in Him.]

 

[nobdysfool]

Does God choose those who choose Him first?

How is it that people come to love God?

Can they do this without His prior work in their hearts?

Where does the faith come from in those who are said to have their faith credited as righteousness, before they are regenerated?

Answer the questions and quit the bobbing and weaving.

 

[AndOne]

Do you deny God choice kept the promise God made to those who love Him? Do you deny that God chose the poor as to this world? I understand you do not understand the Greek grammar construction which makes poor of this world the object of the verb chose, and rich in faith, the compliment (secondary object) of the same verb chose. But that is how the Greek reads.

Van - your the last person who should be giving us all a lesson in Greek grammar. You have proven on other posts that your own understanding of it is limited.

The bottom line - God Chose. They didn't choose Him. Regardless of their status - they were chosen by God. You are trying to work this thing to say option 2 in post #2 and is quite frankly irresponsible.

 

[nobdysfool]

God chooses the poor to be rich in faith in the same way that God chooses the foolish to confound the wise, and God chooses the weak to bring down the strong.

It's all God's doing, and not the doing of the poor, the foolish, or the weak. The ability does not reside naturally within them to do these things. they are empowered by the Spirit of God to do these things. Can anyone show scripture which would refute this? No, they cannot.

To teach that the poor have some natural gift of rich faith, and a natural love for God is unscriptural. Scripture teaches that those who love God were loved by Him first. Scripture teaches that the natural man hates God, and will not submit to Him. Scripture teaches that faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the Word of God. Those who are not of Christ's sheep cannot hear His words, and therefore cannot believe or have faith in Him, and therefore cannot love Him.

Throughout scripture, God uses the unlikely, the forgotten, the illogical choice to bring about that which He has purposed. That means using the poor, chosen by Him, to have rich faith and put to shame the rich in this world. He chooses the foolish, forgotten, laughed-at to confound and confuse the wise in their own conceits, trusting in their own intellect and their own wisdom. God uses the weak, those who have no great strength physically or emotionally, or psychologically, to bring down and destroy those who trust in their own might, their own power, their own strength. God does this in order that no man can claim credit for that which God does.

To teach that James 2:5 indicates that God chooses poor folks, who already have rich faith in Him, and already love Him, before they are regenerated and saved by Him (which is the clear implication being taught), is contradictory to scripture which clearly shows that in order to even perceive the Kingdom of God, one must be born again. How can these folks have rich faith in that which they cannot perceive, and love someone who they do not know?

If they have rich faith and love God, it is because they have already been born again, saved, and justified.

Therefore, it is not wrong to object to the words "to be" being eliminated from the passage, as some are wrongly advocating, because the whole counsel of scripture indicates that those words render the passage in its proper context and meaning, which is why the scholars and translators inserted those words, to preserve the meaning and intent of the original Greek. The amateurs who insist on the removal of these words, simply because they are not in the original, show their lack of knowledge, foolishness, and a disregard for the Word of God which is alarming.

 

[Van]

Question, Does God choose those who choose Him first? God chose the poor as to this world, rich in faith, keeping His promise to those who love Him. I have answered this question over and over and over. The tactic of saying the question has not been answered is yet another way the false doctrine of Calvinism is defended, by worldly deception. Lets consider the tricky formulation, "who choose Him first." First before what? Before God chose to reconcile the world to Himself? Nope. Before Jesus became the propitiation for the whole world? Nope. Before the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation was presented? Nope. God is stretching out His arms to us, saying "be reconciled."

How is it that people come to love God? We love God because He first loved us, He demonstrated His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us, which includes all of mankind, 1 John 2:2.

Can they do this without a prior work in their heart? What does this mean. Prior to being supernaturally altered by the Calvinist invention of irresistible grace? Yes. Prior to the convicting power of the gospel? Nope

Where does the faith come from in those who are said to have faith credited as righteousness? The body of information in which we trust comes from God. Our capacity and ability to trust in God comes from God creating us with that capacity and ability. But the conviction is ours, it is our faith in Christ that is full blown and heart-felt that is credited as righteousness. If God had instilled the faith in us, it would already be righteous.

 

[Van]

God chooses the poor to be rich in faith in the same way that God chooses the foolish to confound the wise, and God chooses the weak to bring down the strong.

Unbiblical premise. God does not choose the poor to become rich in faith. No scripture says that. Yes, translators inserted "to be" in the text, but it is uninspired. God chose those rich in faith, keeping His promise to those who love Him, James 2:5.

To teach that the poor have some natural gift of rich faith, and a natural love for God is unscriptural.

Correct. But scripture teaches that unregenerate, men in their natural fallen state, have the ability to understand the milk of the gospel. To assert otherwise, as Calvinism does, is unbiblical. 1 Corinthians 2:12-3:3.

Scripture abounds with God choosing those who believe in Him. Conditional election from A to Z, from Genesis to Revelation. People bring glory to God when they repent, and put their trust in God.

To teach that James 2:5 indicates that God chooses poor folks, who already have rich faith in Him, and already love Him, before they are regenerated and saved by Him (which is the clear implication being taught), is contradictory to scripture which clearly shows that in order to even perceive the Kingdom of God, one must be born again.

Yet another unbiblical assertion. If you study John 3:3-5 you see that to see the kingdom and to enter the kingdom are used interchangeably. Thus "to see" refers to entering and seeing what it is like. So to enter the kingdom, one must be born again as a child of God, but to be aware of God and to seek Him and His kingdom is within the capacity of fallen mankind. Seek ye first...

To defend one false premise, God does not choose the poor per James 2:5, with other false premises, such as total spiritual inability, is unsound. Matthew 13:20-22 teaches that unregenerates have the ability to seek God.

And finally "to be" is not being eliminated, I object to inserting the words in the first place. Several translations do not insert "to be." Scripture is scripture.

 

[Van]

Hi Behe's boy. You can assert that if the vast past this or that has occurred, but without specifics what have you done? Just made a claim about my behavior. My memory is that I have shown on most if not every occasion that the Calvinist position was not supported by grammar in the Greek.

 

[nobdysfool]

Question, Do God choose those who choose Him first? God choses the poor as to this world, rich in faith, keeping His promise to those who love Him. I have answered this question over and over and over.

All that has been done is to make the same statement, repeatedly, with no further explanation. It has not been answered, it has been stonewalled.

The tactic of saying the question has not been answered is yet another way the false doctrine of Calvinism is defended, by worldly deception.

This is the defense: because Calvinism is this or that, it cannot be true, therefore that which opposes Calvinism must be true. That is personal opinion being masked as Truth. It won't fly.

Lets consider the tricky formulation, who choose Him first. First before what. Before God chose to reconcile the world to Himself? Nope. Before Jesus became the propitiation for the whole world? Nope. Before the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation was presented? Nope. God is stretching out His arms to us, saying "be reconciled."

Nothing tricky about it, except in the mind of those who oppose Calvinism. It's a simple question. Did God choose the poor in this world before they were rich in faith, before they loved God, or after they did those things? The companion question, did God choose them because of these things, or in order that they would be empowered by Him to bring forth these things (rich faith and love of God)? These are not tricky questions, as is wrongly inferred. they are important, valid questions which expose the theology of the one answering them.

How is it that people come to love God? We love God because He first loved us, He demonstrated His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us, which includes all of mankind, 1 John 2:2.

The supposed answer begs the question, HOW is it that people come to love God? Does this love for God spring from the unregenerate, at-enmity-with -God heart, as a natural response, or is it something that God instills in them via regeneration, the hearing of the Word, and the faith which arises from the hearing of that Word?

Can they do this without a prior work in their heart? What does this mean. Prior to being supernaturally altered by the Calvinist invention of irresistible grace? Yes. Prior to the convicting power of the gospel? Nope

Notice how once again, the discussion is poisoned by irrational prejudice posing as fact? The only way that the doctrine being promoted can be true is if man is only spiritually sick, not spiritually dead, as scripture indicates that all men are, by nature. Spiritually dead people do not have the capacity to respond positively to spiritual things, no matter how simple or basic, without God illuminating their hearts (regeneration), bring that heart to life so that it can assimilate and recognize spiritual truth.

What is falsely railed against (Irresistible Grace) is misunderstood as coercive force. It is nothing of the kind. When the heart is illuminated by regeneration, brought to spiritual life by the power of God, the choice is clear and plain: life, or death. Life is the obvious right choice, and the newly regenerated heart naturally chooses life.

Where does the faith come from in those who are said to have faith credited as righteousness? The body of information in which we trust comes from God. Our capacity to trust in God comes from God creating us with that capacity.

One should never confuse capacity with ability, as is being done here.

But the conviction is ours, it is our faith in Christ that is full blown and heart-felt that is credited as righteousness. If God had instilled the faith in us, it would already be righteous.

Ultimately, all faith comes from God. Faith in God is of a different order of magnitude from the faith utilized in ordinary everyday living, such as faith in gravity, that the sun will rise in the morning, that life will continue. We all operate on faith to one degree or another. Faith in God is something that the natural man does not possess by reason of his existence, that was lost in the Fall. Saving faith comes from God, it is not within man to produce this kind of faith from his own corrupt, spiritually dead, God-hating heart.

I ask serious, clear and to-the-point questions, and the response is obfuscation, circular reasoning, and anything but a clear straightforward response.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I see it's time for another reminder:

You WILL address ONLY the topic of discussion.

YOU will NOT address the poster, make personal remarks, reinterpret their posts, change or modify their posts, change or modify their nicks, or any other assundry of jabs, punches, flames, insults, belittling, mocking posts!!!!

Are we crystal?​