Conditional Election

[jbh28]

I would like to see you back that up from the Greek as the same word and structure is used in Eph 2:9. You are trying to change a noun into a adjective.

I didn't change any noun into any adjective. "Work" is a noun. I wasn't saying that it wasn't.

Please perform for us a faith and let us see how you do that. Oh wait. Faith isn't a work we perform now is it.

Now, please perform for us a work of faith or a work that is produced from faith.

 

[Van]

Individual election for salvation has be demonstrated from scripture, as occuring during our lifetime, and conditioned on God crediting our faith as righteousness. We have 5 pages of evasion, strawman, bickering over word usage, and the kitchen sink. But Condition Election stands firm in the Word of the Lord. James 2:5 says it all.

 

[jbh28]

Individual election for salvation has be demonstrated from scripture, as occuring[sic] during our lifetime, and conditioned on God crediting our faith as righteousness. We have 5 pages of evasion, strawman[sic], bickering over word usage, and the kitchen sink. But Condition Election stands firm in the Word of the Lord. James 2:5 says it all.

James 2 is nothing about the timing nor the condition for election. To say it's conditional based on James 2 is to totally miss the point of James. James point was that it's NOT about being rich or poor. The people treated people badly because they were poor and that was wrong. To suggest that God did the same thing by picking the poor would make God doing wrong.

 

[Van]

It says everything about the timing of individual election to salvation. You can deny the inspired Word of God, but you cannot change what it says, God chose the poor to the world requires that they were living in the world and they were poor in the eyes of the world.

Nobody is saying God chose them because they were poor in the eyes of the world or rich in the eyes of the World, that is your strawman invention. a work of fiction.

 

[jbh28]

It says everything about the timing of individual election to salvation. You can deny the inspired Word of God, but you cannot change what it says, God chose the poor to the world requires that they were living in the world and they were poor in the eyes of the world.

No it doesn't. Not to an eternal God.

Nobody is saying God chose them because they were poor in the eyes of the world or rich in the eyes of the World, that is your strawman[sic] invention. a work of fiction.

I didn't say that did I? Still missing the point. Why don't you explain what "poor in the world" means in regards to the passage.

 

[Van]

James 2:5 says we were chosen during our lifetime, same as 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 2:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 1:26-30.

God chose the poor to the world, and so the world had to view them as poor. Our individual election for salvation occurs during our lifetime, after we hear and respond to the gospel, because God basis His election on faith in the truth.

 

[jbh28]

James 2:5 says we were chosen during our lifetime,

Please quote the portion that says that we were alive when God did the choosing.

God chose the poor to the world, and so the world had to view them as poor.

DUH! But that doesn't mean that is when God choose them. Remember, God didn't choose them because they were poor. We consider them poor but that is important to God. That's the point of the "poo" portion of the passage. Nothing about the timing. The fact that "poor" has no condition of being choosing is evident enough of that.

Our individual election for salvation occurs during our lifetime, after we hear and respond to the gospel, because God basis His election on faith in the truth.

Not according to the Bible. Election was "before the foundation of the world." Not one passage says that it happened in our lifetime. Whether you interpret them as conditional, they all happened before we were born.

 

[Van]

God chose the poor to the world rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. So those chosen loved God, and that means they were alive, they were rich in faith, so that means they were alive, and they were poor to the world and that means they were alive.

 

[jbh28]

God chose the poor to the world rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. So those chosen loved God, and that means they were alive, they were rich in faith, so that means they were alive, and they were poor to the world and that means they were alive.

Nothing in the passage says that they were alive when God chose them.

Since you like the NASB, I'll quote from there.

Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

 

[freeatlast]

I didn't change any noun into any adjective. "Work" is a noun. I wasn't saying that it wasn't.

Please perform for us a faith and let us see how you do that. Oh wait. Faith isn't a work we perform now is it.

Now, please perform for us a work of faith or a work that is produced from faith.

Only if you bnelieve the bible.

Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of [this] calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of [his] goodness, and the work of faith with power:

 

[Van]

If you are going to quote the NASB, why not quote it? The "to be" is in italics, meaning it was added by the non-inspired translators to help out. The Greek construction of the double accusative makes "rich in faith" the compliment to "poor" and thus, while poor to the world, they were rich in faith when chosen. Note also that they loved God because they were chosen as heirs to the kingdom promised to those that love God.

God's choice of individuals to place in Christ is conditioned on Him crediting their faith as righteousness, just as 2 Thessalonians 2:13, James 2:5, and 1 Peter 1:1-2 all proclaim.

 

[Van]

Folks, notice the problem with saying they were not alive when they were rich in faith, were poor to the world, loved God so they were heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love Him. Scripture means what it says, not the opposite of what it says.

Lets follow the absurdity that God choose them and they just happened to turn out poor to the world but rich in faith with a love of God in their heart. Did James get it wrong.

Do let the clever stories of men make scripture to no effect. If the straightforward sense makes sense, seek no other sense. God choosing the poor to the world demonstrates He is not partial to the rich to the world. To say God did not choose the poor to the world, not only nullifies the very words of scripture, it nullifies the whole line of reasoning in his argument that they should not be biased in favor of those rich in the eyes of the world.

 

[jbh28]

If you are going to quote the NASB, why not quote it? The "to be" is in italics, meaning it was added by the non-inspired translators to help out.

Actually, all the English words were put there by non-inspired translators. The "to be" was put there because they felt it was understood in the Greek to mean that.

bla bla bla

You have admitted you don't know Greek. I'll take the NASB translators over you.

 

[jbh28]

Folks, notice the problem with saying they were not alive when they were rich in faith, were poor to the world, loved God so they were heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love Him. Scripture means what it says, not the opposite of what it says.

I didn't say they were not alive when they were rich in faith. You love twisting words around. I guess this is what people do when they are wrong. I said they were not alive when God chose them.

Lets follow the absurdity that God choose them and they just happened to turn out poor to the world but rich in faith with a love of God in their heart. Did James get it wrong.

No, you keep missing James' point.

Do let the clever stories of men make scripture to no effect. If the straightforward sense makes sense, seek no other sense. God choosing the poor to the world demonstrates He is not partial to the rich to the world. To say God did not choose the poor to the world, not only nullifies the very words of scripture, it nullifies the whole line of reasoning in his argument that they should not be biased in favor of those rich in the eyes of the world.

Did I say that? This is the second post today that you have twisted my words around. You just love straw men don't you?

 

[Van]

Folks, James 2:5 says God chose the poor to the world, it does not say God choose forseen individuals that became poor. No about of "blah, blah, blah" will hide that truth.

 

[jbh28]

Folks, James 2:5 says God chose the poor to the world, it does not say God choose forseen[sic] individuals that became poor. No about of "blah, blah, blah" will hide that truth.

It doesn't say they were poor when he chose them either.

 

[Van]

No amount of rewriting James 2:5 can change what it actually says, God chose the poor to the world. It does not say God chose individuals that became the poor to the world. Why nullify God's word to support the traditions of men? Scriptural alone is our authority.