And I am not "proof texting" I included this passage with many others, all with references so they can be read in context. I have provided 5 separate examples of conditional election being taught. [\QUOTE]
What I said was . . . "you are using [Romans 11:3-6] as 'proof text,' offering that it, even when read in isolation, demonstrates that God chose the 7000 because of what they did/didnt do. Sorry, neither one of us could use it as proof text." As is not unusual, you get all riled up over the use of a term like proof text, and try to divert attention to what you offer as a misrepresentation of facts. In this case I made it clear that you what you are attempting to support with a text that simply does not make the point you are trying to demonstrate. Again, if the text in I Kings, to which Romans 11:3-6 is making reference, contains evidence that God preserved the 7000 BECAUSE they had remained faithful - direct our attention to it. But you cannot say that the fact that the 7000 were preserved by God, and the 7000 had remained faithful, that their remaining faithful is the cause for God's choice.
You have not provided any examples of unconditional election. James 2:5 says God is keeping His promise to those who love Him. A conditional Election. 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 says God chooses folks to shame other folks, a conditional election. Romans 11:3-6 says folks chosen in Paul's time were chosen in the same way as folks chosen in Elijah's time. A conditional election based on faith. And lets not skip the fact that the text says there has come to be at the present time. Thus we are not talking about a choice before creation, but a choice in the present (Paul's lifetime).
James 2:5 does NOT say what you say it says.
1 Cor 1:26-31 - Here you have what is likely your best argument for a "conditional election" of sorts. It would be literally inconsistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith's explanation of the doctrine. However, I suspect that the author's were focusing upon conditions that might be considered meritorious. They likely didn't consider that some might try to undermine the biblical doctrine of election absent any meritorious condition by proving that God chose to save a significant number of dullards and weaklings.
Lets see, it is a "cryptic reference" to say God credits our faith as righteousness, Romans 4:5. LOL And you want that explained. Let see. God does it, we do not do it. Hopefully this is not too cryptic. God bestows righteousness, we are not righteous nor do we bestow righteousness upon our faith or ourselves. Hopefully this is not too cryptic. When God counts, reckons, credits our faith as righteousness, He is accepting our faith as "from the heart" and "whole-hearted." He knows our heart, so He can do this. He is sovereign so He can do this. When God credits our faith as righteousness, He bestows righteousness upon our faith, declaring it acceptable to Him. Hopefully this is not too cryptic. God said, whoever believes in Him (and here is the cryptic reference to John 3:16) shall not perish. But who decides whether we "believe in Him?" God does, He is the one who credits or counts or reckons our faith (believing in Christ) as righteousness. Am I going to fast? Am I being too cryptic?
Caustic - yes. Cryptic - no.
It seems then that you include within the act/concept of God crediting faith as righteousness . . .
God does it - 'God crediting' is an act of God. Got it - Not very heady.
God bestows righteousness - God credits faith as righteousness. I'm still with you.
He is accepting our faith as "from the heart" - OK
He bestows righteousness upon our faith, declaring it acceptable to Him. Hopefully this is not too cryptic.
- The concept of 'bestowing righteousness upon faith' defies any logical explanation. However your explanation of what you mean when you say it [declaring our faith acceptable] brings clarity.
- Clearly faith would only be credited if it were acceptable - Acceptable for the purpose of what is not yet clear.
Now get ready for another cryptic reference, this time to 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Now if you are in Romans, turn to the right past Corinthians, and God Eats Pop Corn (how is that for a cryptic help to remember the order of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians) to the second book of Thessalonians. Now go right past the first chapter to the second, and viola, you will find encoded in English alphabet soup, a verse that reads, paraphrased in part "we are chosen through faith in the truth." So who decides if we have faith in the truth before He chooses us for salvation? Hum. Lets see. I do not want to be too cryptic here. God decides who has faith in the truth, Romans 4:5, and then chooses us for salvation. Please do not tell me I have gone too fast. My little fingers are so tired of putting all the extra verbiage into this post to avoid the charge of being cryptic.
You could have spared your fingers by simply answering the questions asked. You could also have saved them by pasting the text that you are saying that you are applying.
2 Thess 2:13-14
But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, NKJV
I don't hold out much hope that you will see what I am trying to point out, but I suspect that many 3rd parties will. The text does not teach that the choice is made though sanctification. What is says is that those what were chosen to be saved were chosen to be saved through the sanctification of the Spirit.
Yes we have here the chosen to be chosen argument from Calvinism. Since the bible says we are chosen during our lifetime to be saved, the Calvinists, say this refers to God choosing us again. He chose us as foreseen individuals before creation, and then, to confuse us tells us He chooses us during our lifetime, but is really choosing those already chosen and already in Christ to be placed in Christ. Yes it all hangs together very nicely don't you think.
I am sorry, but you'll have to help out again. I read the post that you were responding to and couldn't find anything related to a "chosen to be chosen" concept.
I certainly agree with you there.
A person cannot receive the benefits of reconciliation until after the reconciliation has occurred. A person cannot receive the benefits of justification to all men, until after what resulted in the justification to all men occurred. Now just hold that thought.
Holding.
How were the OT saints justified? Before Christ died, right.
Assuming that by "How" you meant "when," I believe you are correct.
So were we wrong when we agreed " Logically speaking we do not receive the benefits of reconciliation until AFTER being justified." I think not.
You see Msortwell, it is impossible to defend Calvinism logically.
What 'clearly logical inference' am I missing? What is the incongruity that your observations point to?
This is a prime example of the puzzling expressions you are prone to make. You believe you are being clear, but this is not clear to me. Explain - as you would to a child.
To repeat, or three peat, Romans 4:5 does not say "a person is somehow credited righteousness because of manifested faith." Why do you continue to misrepresent scripture.
Yep that's me. I misrepresent the text. Just like virtually every legitimate Bible translation team botches the meaning of James 2:5 - leaving you alone to be the only one with a correct grasp on their meaning. These reflect profound confusion on your part.