Calvinism

OK.

I understand what you are saying, and I can agree with you to a point. By using the word "shall" we are both seeing what we want to see in that text. However, with the benefit of hindsight and what we know about Arminianism, we now know that the implication of the word "shall" is that the Holy Ghost enables us. Your point was that the original authors intended it to be vague. This is difficult to know without further historical information. I will concede that it can be considered vague, but I can't necessarily go along with it being intentionally vague on the part of the author(s).

 

HA HA HA HA!

Well played!

And welcome back!

 

Nice to be back, but that is all I can say about it in public.

 

The above post is a typical response. And presents why no actual discussion is possible.

First, my behavior is attacked, I am doing a disservice. Against the man arguments are logical fallacies, and there use indicates deflection rather than discussion.

Second is a repeat of the mantra that an advocate "found" the doctrine in scripture, but since it must be read into scripture, the claim is just more deflection.

Third nothing in Romans 9 says God chooses individuals for salvation without crediting their faith as righteousness. The very idea that God choosing babies in the womb without regard for what they had done has nothing to do with election for salvation. The argument is absurd. And certainly was not the product of study. And still the election was not unconditional, God chose so the older would serve the younger.

Fourth, both 2 Thess. 2:13 and James 2:5 teach both the basis of our individual election for salvation (faith in the truth, and rich in faith, and the love of God) and when the election occurs, during our lifetime after we have put our faith in Christ alone.

Fifth, we get a subject change to another passage which of course also provides no support whatsoever for the bogus viewpoint being advocated. Romans 8:28-30 supports my view.

Sixth, I am again charged, without a quote, with yet another behavior problem. So from start to finish, deflection, and no actual discussion of being chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, or the people chosen being rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

 

When you lead with a general insult to all Calvinists and Arminians that they have not studied scripture, that hardly signals that you have come for a discussion. You may want to work on your openings if you are really looking for discussion.

 

And the broken record continues. Those passages do not support your position in any way.

 

How do you figure?

 

And it begins, more on my behavior and nothing on scripture. All these folks post from the same playbook.

 

Yes they do.

All these "taint so" posts are the actual broken record.

 

Just read the passage David.

 

That would be because your behavior takes center stage.

What scripture would you like to discuss?
(Unless you are just looking for a game of ‘Scripture Pong’, then count me out.)

 

Let me repeat. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, a conditional election. Thus far the rebuttal has been variations of the theme of "the verses do not support your position." In other words, deflection. And this is all I expect. None of the supporters actually developed the viewpoint, and the arguments for it are repeated again and again.
James 2:5 teaches we were chosen as rich in faith and those who love God. Verse after verse can be cited and nothing but denial will be forthcoming. I have been down this road many times.

 

It's not a taint so post as you so often claim when I actually exegete the passage and blow your crazed interpretation out of the water. Which I have done many times.

I have. You are the one making the claim so you need to explain.

 

"crazed interpretation" Such rhetoric is neither true nor helpful.

 

And as usual, adding nothing to the actual topic or discussion. Just lecturing in a self-righteous manner....

 

"lecturing in a self-righteous manner"

This of course is a "tu quoque" fallacy. Again neither is it helpful.

 

Before I repeat an earlier effort by another, could you offer some insight into how davidtaylorjr failed in his exegesis to address those verses?

I do not want to waste time repeating the same information when I could spend the time building an argument from another direction not yet explored.