The Tulip is broken

[msortwell]

Surly you jest. A mistranslation remains a mistranslation no matter how many times it is mistranslated. Sound hermeneutics requires we interpret scripture as written, and not as modified by a host of others.

Absolutely true. A mistranslation remains a mistranslation. However, all of the translations available fall into one of two categories. They either make no effort to clarify whether being rich in faith was merely a condition of the ones chosen, or a consequence of the their having been chosen, or the basis upon which they were chosen. The KJV provides a translation that does not commit itself to any one of those three interpretations. The remaining translations that I cited ALL indicate that their being "rich in faith" is the intent of their being chosen, not the cause for being chosen. Although I am not very enthusiastic about some of the following translations, the fact EVERY ONE OF THEM came up with the same interpretation.

But I will concede that it is possible that the collective translating staffs of the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, the American Standard Version, the New Living Translation, the New International Version, The Living Bible, the Revised Standard Version, and the 1591 Geneva might all be wrong and you are the correct one. Sure . . . it's possible . . . sure.

Next the text says God chooses some folks to shame or confound other folks. That is a conditional election. No doubt about it.

Sorry but no. The text merely teaches that the choosing of some weak and some unwise will was for the purpose of confounding some. Yet the text falls far short of making the condition of foolishness or weakness a criteria for election. Otherwise, there would be no foolish left to perish. Nor would their be any weak left to destruction.

Nowhere in the text is a cause and effect alluded to? Does "in the same way" ring a bell!

Now we're getting somewhere! Do you really see a cause/effect relationship articulated by use of the phrase "in the same way?" The text simply states that one thing is like another in some significant way. IF there was any text in I Kings that indicated that God preserved some for Himself BECAUSE of something, then the phrase that you cited would bring that principle to bear upon God's choice of NT saints. However, not such relationship was established in I Kings. Are you saying that you find such cause-and-effect language in I Kings? If so, point it out.

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/didn’t 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.

 

[nobdysfool]

Not confusion, just an agenda. Kind of like Elmer Fudd...."Shhhhh! Be vewy, vewy quiet! I'm hunting Calvinists......huhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh"

 

[nobdysfool]

duplicate

 

[Van]

Hi Bling, so folks can walk away from the Law and not be held accountable for their sins of transgression. I think you may want to rethink your argument. God is not mocked.

Next, if our hearts and minds are kept, just who is walking way. Our minds are being kept. Does the text say our minds are protected from outside intruders? Nope. The idea is that if our hearts and minds are kept, then we would not be able to try to walk away because in that case the mind would have to be free to wander, the old jail cell with the door open argument. Not how scripture reads.

Bottom line, the idea is God keeps us for our inheritance, not ineffectively keeps us so we can lose our inheritance.

 

[Van]

James 2:5 does not say people love God as a consequence of being chosen. Just read it folks. It says God choses folks rich in faith, not to be rich in faith. Every translation that inserts those words alters the meaning of the text. Greek grammar supports the idea that the verb, choose, has a direct object and a compliment. The compliment is "rich in faith" therefore the correct understanding is God choses those who are rich in faith. The verse should be translated as it is in a number of version, Did not God choose the poor of this world, rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him.

And if you agree that God did choose the poor to shame the wise, why not recognize this is an election based on the condition of the person chosen, not an unconditional election. Therefore your doctrine is false.

Yes I see cause and effect in the phrase "in the same way." The manner of the first is used in the second to effect the action.

I do not need to go to Kings, the Romans passage contains everything needed to support a conditional election based on faith. Just read it folks. It says "I [God] have kept for myself 7000 who have not bended their knee to Baal. Does this say I have kept them from bending their knees? Nope. It says He kept for Himself 7000 faithful men.

Just read James 2:5 folks, it says "Listen my beloved brethren; did not God choose the poor of this world, rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him." What does this say? That God choose those who love Him! That God choose those rich in faith. That God chose the poor of this world. Conditional election, no doubt about it. And what to the Calvinists say, "it does not mean what you say Van." Just read it folks.

James 2:5 is the best verse of the five I have referenced to support conditional election based on faith.

Next, you are correct, I do not accept your rewrite of 2 Thessalonians 2:13. I play it where it is. I said through sanctification by the spirit referred to God setting us apart (sanctification) when He spiritually baptized us into Christ. But then I said "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.

While it might be true you need help, it is far more likely you are using personal incredulity as an evasion of the truth. Since we are chosen for salvation during our lifetime, after God credits our faith as righteousness, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, we were not chosen individually beforehand. Otherwise we would be chosen to be chosen.

Yes, I liked the Star Trek send-up too. Here is the logic. You said, and I agreed with you, that "logically speaking we do not receive the benefits of reconciliation until AFTER being justified." This presents sequence something happens after something else. First we are justified, then we receive the benefits of the reconciliation. Now read this very carefully my child, the word justified and the word reconciliation are referring to Christ's death of the cross. Do I need to repeat this. Never mind if you agree, do you understand the idea? Go very slowly here. You see a very young child, below the age of about 5, believes if they do not believe something, then the something is not true. But after the school of hard knocks, where they must confront reality, they learn that saying something is not so, does not make it not so.

What happened to cause justification to all men? Romans 5:18. Gee Jesus died on the cross, the "one act of righteousness." I know this is heavy going, for such a little tyke, but bear with me. What happened to reconcile all things to God? Colossians 1:20. Gee Christ shed His blood on the cross. So to repeat, logically speaking we do not receive the benefits of the cross (note benefits of the cross substituted for benefits of reconciliation) until after being justified. Are you still with me. No one is justified or reconciled until after Christ died on the cross. So the OT saints were not justified before Christ died on the cross, therefore they had to wait to receive the promise of eternal life.

Lastly anyone can read Romans 4:5 and it says our faith is credited as righteousness, not we are made righteous. So your version misrepresented the text. And next you make the old two wrongs make a right argument. At some point in every Christians life we realize we are not supposed to compare ourselves favorable to other sinners, but to compare ourselves unfavorable to Christ so we can grow more like Christ.

But returning to your assertion that "every legitimate Bible translation team botches the meaning of James 2:5." How many versions would you like that translate it without the "to be"? (1) Young's literal translation; (2) KJV; (3)DARBY; (4) KJ21; (5) WYC; (6) WE, a paraphrase. So I am definitely not representing the majority of the translations, but to dismiss the translation teams that gave us these versions as "illegitimate" misses the mark.

 

[msortwell]

But returning to your assertion that "every legitimate Bible translation team botches the meaning of James 2:5." How many versions would you like that translate it without the "to be"? (1) Young's literal translation; (2) KJV; (3)DARBY; (4) KJ21; (5) WYC; (6) WE, a paraphrase. So I am definitely not representing the majority of the translations, but to dismiss the translation teams that gave us these versions as "illegitimate" misses the mark.

You botched the quote - and the meaning of it. I inferred that you had concluded that ". . .VIRTUALLY every legitimate Bible translation team botches the meaning of James 2:5. . ."

Words mean things Van. Try to pay attention.

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.

And as I had pointed out before, the translations that you cited do not make your case for you. They neither support nor deny your position. They are non-committal regarding what you are trying to prove. If you can make your point from another text, they would not conflict with it. But they do NOT support you position.

However, all of the translations available fall into one of two categories. They make no effort to clarify whether being rich in faith was merely a condition of the ones chosen, or a consequence of the their having been chosen, or the basis upon which they were chosen. The KJV provides a translation that does not commit itself to any one of those three interpretations. The remaining translations that I cited ALL indicate that their being "rich in faith" is the intent of their being chosen, not the cause for being chosen.

Like fish in barrel. Of course the fish don't understand what's going on either.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Van,


James 2:5 does not say people love God as a consequence of being chosen. Just read it folks. It says God choses folks rich in faith, not to be rich in faith. Every translation that inserts those words alters the meaning of the text. Greek grammar supports the idea that the verb, choose, has a direct object and a compliment. The compliment is "rich in faith" therefore the correct understanding is God choses those who are rich in faith.
You are certainly no grammarian.

A complement is a complement by virtue of the fact that it is preceded by "to be", or an inflexion thereof. This is how it differs from a direct object.

1. I am He: "He" is subjective complement.

2. They made him [to be] king: "king" is objective complement, with "to be" optionally inserted.

So in "Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom", "rich in faith" is objective complement, and is optionally preceded by "to be".

Further, "heirs of the kingdom" is identical with regard to its grammatical constituency, being of equal rank with "rich in faith" by virtue of its being joined by the co-ordinating conjunction "and". So then, we have also:

"Hath not God chosen the poor of this world heirs of the kingdom".

Just as God did not choose people because they are heirs of the kingdom, He did not choose people because they are rich in faith. Rather, both phrases are objective complements, and therefore are preceded optionally by the verb "to be".

But it must be nice to not let knowledge get in your way.

Moreover, learn to spell. It is "complement", not "compliment".

This grammar lesson is delivered to with compliments from a grammarian.





Lastly anyone can read Romans 4:5 and it says our faith is credited as righteousness
As I have pointed out, the word is "count", and indicates that what was examined, contained its own merit, and needed no additional awarding of an arbitrary grade: the grade of "righteous" was irresistible.

When one counts money, the money has value regardless of whether it is counted or not. Similarly, when one considers something to be righteous, it is because it is righteous of itself, and the one considering it has simply recognised it for what it is.

So your false dichotomy of [faith] + [the crediting of faith as righteous], is indeed, false.

 

[Van]

Msortwell,
Words do have meaning, and I understood your quote, and told you that I do not assert every team botched the translation because several translate it correctly. So now you are finding fault where no fault exists. LOL

Next you say I am alone after I provided six versions that agree with me. LOL

Next you say I did not make my point that God's election unto salvation is conditional, using other passages. Gee, 1 Cor 1:26-31, Romans 11:3-6, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and Matthew 19:23 were all used to support conditional election. LOL

Are all translators "non committal to what I am trying to prove?" First note, what I am trying to prove is not specified, so the statement is meaningless at its core. However, if one accepts my view that God's election unto salvation is conditional, then we have the WE paraphrase which reads, "5Listen, my dear brothers. God has chosen people who are poor in this world. They believe very much. They will have a place in the kingdom which he has promised to give to those who love him." Seems like whole-hearted support for my view.

 

[msortwell]

A complement is a complement by virtue of the fact that it is preceded by "to be", or an inflexion thereof. This is how it differs from a direct object.

1. I am He: "He" is subjective complement.

2. They made him [to be] king: "king" is objective complement, with "to be" optionally inserted.

So in "Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom", "rich in faith" is objective complement, and is optionally preceded by "to be".

Further, "heirs of the kingdom" is identical with regard to its grammatical constituency, being of equal rank with "rich in faith" by virtue of its being joined by the co-ordinating conjunction "and". So then, we have also:

"Hath not God chosen the poor of this world heirs of the kingdom".

Just as God did not choose people because they are heirs of the kingdom, He did not choose people because they are rich in faith. Rather, both phrases are objective complements, and therefore are preceded optionally by the verb "to be".

. . . This grammar lesson is delivered to with compliments from a grammarian.

 

[Van]

Hi RTE, the fact that I know nothing of Greek grammar does not mean I cannot present what Greek scholars say is the construction of James 2:5.

Your assertion simply demonstrates you have no idea how the verse is put together according to the experts who provided my view.


Next, the word in Romans 4:5 does indicate acceptance by God. Words have meanings and they are found in the lexicons. The word that is translated as credited, reckoned, counted is used to impute something to one's account. Thus when God credits our faith as righteousness, it is God who "imputes" the righteousness into our filthy rags faith.

RTE points out that I misspell lots of words in an effort to disparage me. Fine, I certainly may be the world's worst speller. But when a poster finds fault with another's spelling, that is shouting they have lost the debate.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

First note, what I am trying to prove is not specified, so the statement is meaningless at its core. However, if one accepts my view that God's election unto salvation is conditional, then we have the WE paraphrase which reads, "5Listen, my dear brothers. God has chosen people who are poor in this world. They believe very much. They will have a place in the kingdom which he has promised to give to those who love him." Seems like whole-hearted support for my view.
Most of the poor are going to hell, just like the rich.
So if He has chosen them because they were poor, He needs to get a better accountant.

The verse simply tells us that the poor have not been excluded from God's choosing people to be rich in faith, and that therefore those James was correcting should understand that, if God respected the poor, they should also.

Furthermore, God made them poor in the first place.


So your ideas are like clutching at straws. They really are. They are born of pedanticism and knee-jerk grammatical analysis.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Hi RTE, the fact that I know nothing of Greek grammar does not mean I cannot present what Greek scholars say is the construction of James 2:5.
The issue is English grammar, not Greek.


Your assertion simply demonstrates you have no idea how the verse is put together according to the experts who provided my view.
Rather, you demonstrate that you are not confident to even begin to understand what I have written on the grammar. A bluffer.
Appealing to grammatical ghosts will get you nowhere. The grammar is as I have stated, and you reveal you don't know anything in this area.

You shouldn't pretend to know what you don't know. You only make yourself look sillier than you already do. Knowledge is the domain of the knowledgable, not the guessers and pretenders. You simply show us that you have a contempt for knowledge.

 

[Eric_C]

But when a poster finds fault with another's spelling, that is shouting they have lost the debate.

I think its just another way of asking "do you not know how to make use of a spell checker?".

That which indicates that one has had his position trounced is when one plays the martyr, like this:

RTE points out that I misspell lots of words in an effort to disparage me. Fine, I certainly may be the world's worst speller.

 

[nobdysfool]

I think its just another way of asking "do you not know how to make use of a spell checker?".

That which indicates that one has had his position trounced is when one plays the martyr, like this:

When one complains of being disparaged, while disparaging any and all who differ with him, or oppose him, that one is hypocritical and disingenuous. If the position cannot be shown from scripture, without resorting to ad hominem attacks, disparagement, condescension, and snarky rejoinders, especially when shown that the position does not square with scripture, then it is obvious that Truth is not the goal. We have seen far too much of that here.

The TULIP stands, unbowed and unbroken.

 

[msortwell]

Msortwell,
Words do have meaning, and I understood your quote, and told you that I do not assert every team botched the translation because several translate it correctly. So now you are finding fault where no fault exists. LOL

You understood my quote? Yet, either by carelessness or intent, you misrepresented it. You extracted some words. But you excluded my use of the word 'essentially' which clearly indicated that there were some translators that had not, by your assessment, erred in their translation. You then proceeded to 'prove' that there were some translators who translated the text in a manner that would allow for your understanding of the text. That sir, is what 'essentially' (the word you omitted) indicated. Some of the "folks" that you plead to periodically might think that you intentionally misquoted me, only to make it easy to demonstrate that 'I' was wrong. And what was the quote that I said you botched? Let's look at it. The following is the sarcasm that I offered.

Me - "Yep that's me. I misrepresent the text. Just like virtually every legitimate Bible translation team botches the meaning of James 2:5 . . ."

And how did you characterize what I wrote?

Van - "But returning to your [Msortwell's] assertion that 'every legitimate Bible translation team botches the meaning of James 2:5.'"

You chose to omit the term that demonstrated that I had accurately assessed your position on the subject, making it indicate what would have been wrong (if I had actually said it) and then proceeded to prove it wrong. It was either deceitful or careless. Which was it? Carelessness is not sin. We all succumb to it occasionally.

Next you say I am alone after I provided six versions that agree with me. LOL

The versions that you cited do no such thing. Although the MAY NOT prove you wrong, neither do the cited translation of James 2:5 "agree with you." That would be like taking the position that the cited translations of James 2:5 "agree" that kittens are cuddly. The text simply does not clearly commit to a position on the subject. Therefore, I refer to the broader teaching of the Scriptures and also give consideration to the majority of relatively legitimate translations out there that clearly commit to a position, and conclude that you are mistaken.

Next you say I did not make my point that God's election unto salvation is conditional, using other passages. Gee, 1 Cor 1:26-31, Romans 11:3-6, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, and Matthew 19:23 were all used to support conditional election. LOL

Van. Van. Van. Are you getting tired? What I said next was . . .

"And as I had pointed out before, the translations that you cited do not make your case for you. They neither support nor deny your position. They are non-committal regarding what you are trying to prove. If you can make your point from another text, they would not conflict with it. But they do NOT support you position."

And this was in reference to your handling of James 2:5, considering the various translation that you cited. It clearly had nothing to do with the other Scriptures that you claim to prove "conditional election."

Are all translators "non committal to what I am trying to prove?" First note, what I am trying to prove is not specified, so the statement is meaningless at its core. However, if one accepts my view that God's election unto salvation is conditional, then we have the WE paraphrase which reads, "5Listen, my dear brothers. God has chosen people who are poor in this world. They believe very much. They will have a place in the kingdom which he has promised to give to those who love him." Seems like whole-hearted support for my view.

What you are "trying to prove" was not specified? I think most of the "folks" out there will find your claim silly. But still, my post included the following as supporting information . . .

They [the cited translations of James 2:5] make no effort to clarify whether being rich in faith was merely a condition of the ones chosen, or a consequence of the their having been chosen, or the basis upon which they were chosen. The KJV provides a translation that does not commit itself to any one of those three interpretations.

Aren't you even the least bit embarrassed to reference an obscure paraphrase as you 'best' evidence?

And even that paraphrase does not prove your case. It makes a simple statement of fact. Stating that . . .

God has chosen [i.e., in the past] people who are [in the present] poor in this world.

It carries no more "cause/effect" relationship that other truths we could observe empirically. God chose men, women, blacks, whites, rich people, poor people, intelligent people, simple people . . .

Are there other things that you see that don't actually exist? Is it limited to words/concepts on the page, or does it have a broader manifestation?

Are you allowed to drive a car?

 

[Jipsah]

And I never distort Calvinist doctrine

ROFL I reckon you might say that you never really come close enough to what Calvinists actually believe for it to be called a distortion. Maybe "fabrication" would be a better term; although I can think of some less charitable descriptions for the made-up-out-of-whole-cloth not-even-within-shouting-distance- of-reality every-word-untrue-including-the-ands-and-thes triple-distilled double-rectified aged-in-the-stump thunk-up-by-hand patent hogwash that you post here and try to pass off as what Calvinists actually believe

I present the doctrine and the Calvinists deny there own doctrine.

So let's see, you say "Calvinists believe in human sacrifice.", Calvinists reply "That's an infamous lie.", and you turn to your imaginary audience and say "See folks, they even deny their own doctrine." Yep, got it. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Lets take Total Spiritual Inability. That means a person is unable to seek after God.

Unable because unwilling. Not can't, won't. Just as the Scripture says

Romans 3
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

It doesn't say they can't, it says they don't. The total inability is the result of unwillingness to do what God wants.

(And while we're here, take a look at verses 10 and 11 again and tell me against how some folks seek and find God based on their own merits. I don't see any room for that in there. Reckon St. Paul got it wrong again?)

And then you end with this misrepresentation. "about God reading our 'capability to have faith' and basing His election on ones own ability or merit.

Best I can tell that particular misrepresentation originated with you. I never heard anyone else say anything like it.

Did I say election is based ones ability or merit?

nope, you'd never be that forthright.

Have you no respect for the truth?

Hey, try typing something true and we'll find out.

I said election is based on God crediting our faith as righteousness. I have said this perhaps 100 times.

In other words, it's faith that God finds meritorious. Thanks for clarifying your position.

 

[Van]

RTE seems to have no idea of the Greek grammar structure of James 2:5.

Msortwell, yes I am getting tired. First you say I am alone then you say I am virtually alone. Which is it?

Phrases like "what you are trying to prove" force the reader to infer a meaning, and such is the stock and trade of deceivers. If I respond with you said God does not choose the poor, rich in faith, you would respond, "I never said that."

Next you deny scripture and say James 2:5 does not say God chooses based on the condition of those chosen. Ditto for 1 Corinthians 1:26-31, Romans 11:3-6 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13. But God did choose the poor. They all demonstrate my position. Saying "taint so" does not alter the facts. Just read them, folks.

No, I am not embarrassed, you made the false charge, not me.

Does "Did not God choose the poor of this world" allow the idea that God chose them before creation? Nope. Such a view would nullify the whole argument of the passage, God is not partial to rich folks and neither should we be. The idea is God chose folks who were poor in the eyes of the world, but were rich in faith.

Here is how the Calvinists read James 2:5, Did not God choose the poor of this world, before they were the poor or in the world, to become rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom He would promise in the future to those He causes to love Him. LOL

 

[Van]

The TULIP is broken and all of Calvin's acolytes cannot put it together again.

Total Spiritual Inability is demonstrated false by Matthew 13:20-22.
Unconditional Election to salvation is demonstrated false by James 2:5
Limited Atonement is demonstrated false by 1 John 2:2
Irresistible Grace is demonstrated false by Matthew 23:13.

What has been offered in rebuttal? Denial and disparagement.

 

[heymikey80]

Vanity would attack the view of Scripture, that God chose people in the world who were poor, not because they were poor.

It's what Paul was getting at -- that God could shame the rich and confound the wise, by choosing to save many who were poor and many who were not smart.

It's vanity to assume the verse means more than this, because the context is directly pointing to this. And the reality is revealing that this is the case. God didn't choose all of the poor. God also didn't only choose the poor. So poorness isn't the point -- our humility in being chosen outside our riches -- that's the point. Not a desire on the part of one person 2000 years later to decide on some other false cause of election.

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

Van(essa),

RTE seems to have no idea of the Greek grammar structure of James 2:5.
Leave the Greek up to the KJV scholars.

Then learn English.

And then realise that many translators who have inserted the "to be" correctly before "rich in faith" are not even Calvinists.