Featured Rationalism & Antinomy

Folks, behold the endless "debate" offered in post #56 and #59. First a charge of not regarding scripture. Then a charge of taking a verse out of context. Finally a charge that I have not analyzed 2 Thessalonians 2:13 correctly. Then then the bogus implication other parts of the Bible support unconditional election.Did you see any rational analysis of 2 Thessalonians 2:13? Any explanation of why a few translations have altered the text to make it say we were saved through faith rather than what it says which is chosen through faith?

All of which proves the premise - endless debate flows from disobedience to the word, not rational analysis of scripture.

 

Folks, behold Van clinging desperately to one verse, out of context, as his basis for faulty theology.

 

Charge-O-Matic indicates I am "clinging" to one verse, when I have referenced about a dozen. Then the usual - it is taken out of context charge. This to refute it means what it says, we are chosen through faith in the truth. What is the context? How are we chosen for salvation? Why through God setting us apart in Christ based on crediting our faith in the truth as righteousness.

1) Why is it harder for a rich man (in worldly wealth) to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to go through an eye of a needle?
It would be the same if being compelled by irresistible grace, so that doctrine is bogus. God choice must be based on our individual characteristics (such as reliance on God or reliance on worldly wealth) in order for it to be harder. Matthew 19:24

2) Does God choose those poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God? Yes (James 2:5)

3) Did God prefer the wealthy, the powerful or the noble? Nope. God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. 1 Cor. 1:26-31

Folks, verse after verse demonstrate unconditional election is bogus, and election through faith in the truth valid.

 

Since you provided no commentary, I can only guess that you think this is a prooftext for regeneration prior to faith. But this is not speaking of the man who is being taught of God and drawn to Christ through the witness, revelation and conviction of the Holy Spirit. This verse speaks of the limits of the natural man, but it does not speak of any limits on God's ability to teach, reveal and communicate His truth. The natural man, left to his own understanding, does not receive the things of God; but the man whom God is drawing is not left to his own understanding, for the Spirit of God does understand spiritual things and is able to communicate what is necessary for the man to be saved. The only question is whether God is able to communicate this understanding prior to the indwelling of rebirth. Centrists and Antinomists believe that He can.

 

As Andrew Fuller said, the same ability is required to reject as to believe. It is inaccurate to say that the sinner has no ability whatsoever. They have no moral inability, but they do have the natural ability, which leaves them without excuse. Fuller explains, “It is common, both in Scripture and in conversation, to speak of a person who is under the influence of an evil bias of heart, as unable to do that which is inconsistent with it.” As an example, Fuller offers Gen. 37:4, in which it is said that Joseph’s brothers “could not speak peaceably” to Joseph. It is universally understood that such an inability was not meant in the literal, natural sense of being absolutely unable—like a mute man being unable to speak anything, but only in the figurative, moral sense of being unable to find it within their hearts to speak peaceably to him. And it is just as universally understood that the former meaning provides an excuse while the latter does not.

When it comes to the inability of sinners to believe in Christ or do what is right: they cannot find the willingness in their heart, but the ability—in the natural sense of that word—remains just the same, so that they are left without excuse. They are unable to believe, in the moral sense of that word, just as Joseph’s brothers were unable to speak peaceably to him. "If they were willing, nothing would stand in their way; and if they are not willing, therein lies their fault."

 

It is difficult to take seriously anyone who thinks that a single verse can prove or disprove any position.

 

And rational analysis of a verse to reach consensus on its apparent meaning must be taken seriously.

Would you take a person who presents two, three or a dozen verses to demonstrate Conditional Election seriously.
1) Why is it easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven? Rational analysis concludes some characteristic of the rich impacts to a degree faith in God.

2) Does not God choose those poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. Sounds like conditional election is rationally considered.

3) God credits our faith as righteousness (those that believe in Him who raised Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead.) Sounds like the basis of our conditional election, faith in the truth.

Verse after verse all teach the same rather obvious point.

 

Would you accept passages that teach unconditional election as being of greater value than a handful of verses, taken out of context to claim conditional election?
I suspect you choose the latter.

 

Yet another shoot the messager post, devoid of any support whatsoever for unconditional election.
Thus far the sum and substance of the analysis of 2 Thess. 2:13 which says we are chosen through faith has been "Taint so, and Van, you are rotten for saying so."

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we are chosen through faith in the truth.
James 2:5 says we are chosen as poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

 

LOL, there is an entire thread that shoots down your interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:13.
Gasping for your last breath, you still persist...

 

More nothing burger posts, which claim 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not say we are chosen for salvation through the sanctification (being set apart) by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Folks, note the absence of any rational analysis of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 that offers anything other than evidence for our conditional election. The Cal commentaries are ludicrous, relying on a claim of being chosen through progressive sanctification (which is absurd) and turning being chosen through faith in the truth into faith being evidence of being chosen (not how it reads).

 

Their sin nature state has them seeing God as the Enemy, and cannot submit to Him period!

 

Election is based upon God deciding to save is before we came to faith in jesus, not after!