Election before Time?

[webdog]

He said he wasn't a scholar on Greek.

So? Are you? I'm not a scholar on the human heart, but know enough on how it works.

 

[Van]

The premise that a person needs to be a Greek scholar to know what Greek scholars say is the meaning of "apo" is without merit. Gossiping about Van's flaws is just a dodge to evade discussion anything specific about the false doctrines of Calvinism.

 

[jbh28]

So? Are you? I'm not a scholar on the human heart, but know enough on how it works.

No, but that's why you don't see me pretending that I do. I don't say I'm not a scholar and then go around and act like I am.

 

[jbh28]

The premise that a person needs to be a Greek scholar to know what Greek scholars say is the meaning of "apo" is without merit. Gossiping about Van's flaws is just a dodge to evade discussion anything specific about the false doctrines of Calvinism.

Get over yourself van. You were shown the grammar and Strongs showing that "before" was a proper translation of the term. The translators said it could be translated as before. But you said it couldn't. So who should I believe. Someone that has studied Greek or someone that has said they are not a Greek Scholar. I know a little Greek. I can look things up, but I'm not a scholar. Greek isn't English and doesn't work like English, which you know.

 

[jbh28]

Thanks Webdog, my character and qualifications are constantly brought up to shift the discussion away from the unbiblical assertions of Calvinism. There want to be able to say apo means before, so they can support Calvinism by redefining the meaning of words.

James 2:5 says God chose the poor to the world, which precludes individual election before time. To avoid this obvious truth, they say the verse does not say they were poor when they were chosen!!! So God chose the poor does not mean God chose the poor. The TULI of Calvinism is false doctrine and cannot be defended by any scripture contextually considered.

The people were poor at the time that James spoke it and pointed out that they had been chosen. You are reading into the text to say that they were poor when they were chosen, something the text doesn't say.

 

[webdog]

No, but that's why you don't see me pretending that I do. I don't say I'm not a scholar and then go around and act like I am.

Where did this occur? Quoting scholars and showing how they differ on translations means you are now pretending to be a scholar?!

 

[Van]

God chose the poor to the world is how it reads, not God chose those who became poor.
Calvinism rewrites verse after verse because Calvinism is unbiblical. And note this, not one Calvinist posting on this board had the integrety to say, yes James 2:5 does say God chose the poor to the world.

 

[jbh28]

God chose the poor to the world is how it reads, not God chose those who became poor.
Calvinism rewrites verse after verse because Calvinism is unbiblical. And note this, not one Calvinist posting on this board had the integrety[sic] to say, yes James 2:5 does say God chose the poor to the world.

It doesn't say they were poor when God chose them. The whole point of the passage as I have given many times is that being poor is unimportant even though there were some making it important. James points out that these poor people that were being mistreated have been chosen by God. It doesn't say, nor even hint, that they were poor at the time of the choosing. That's a major assumption and flies in the face of the whole point of the passage. The passage isn't about the timing of election but that those that are poor have been chosen by God and we shouldn't treat them badly because they are poor. To put into the passage anything about the timing of election is major eisegesis.

Now there is no need to go after the integrity of Calvinist. I'm not rewriting the verse. It doesn't say when they were chosen. The only one that is rewriting the verse is you because you are inserting the timing of the election which isn't there. And I did say that God chose the poor in the world. Where did I ever deny that? I just said that they were not necessarily poor (at least according to this passage ) when they were chosen.

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.

You are the only one rewriting the verse. Why add to god's word to support your view of the timing of election.

It does not say God chose individuals that became the poor to the world.

I sure doesn't say that they were poor at the time of the choosing.

 

[Van]

It says God chose the poor. It does not say God chose them and they they became poor. It also says they loved God. And it says there were chosen as "rich in faith."

Calvinism is defended by rewriting scripture, redefining the meaning of words and so forth.

It does not matter to God that they were poor to the world, i.e the world thought they were poor according to the world's value system. But they were poor to the world when chosen. To say God chose the poor means God did not choose the poor is rewriting scripture to fit man-made doctrines.

 

[jbh28]

But they were poor to the world when chosen.

Please quote the portion of the passage that says that they were poor when God chose them. All you seem to post is that they were chosen, but not the timing of when god chose them. Again, please quote. Don't just quote that God chose them but the portion about when.

To say God chose the poor means God did not choose the poor is rewriting scripture to fit man-made doctrines.

nobody has said that God didn't choose the poor in this world. Nice straw man.


I also find it interesting that you can't have a response to my post but just repeat yourself. Very telling.

 

[Van]

God chose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs...

Therefore, the timing was during their lifetime when they were poor, and the election was conditioned on their characteristics, i.e rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

 

[jbh28]

God chose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs...

Therefore, the timing was during their lifetime when they were poor, and the election was conditioned on their characteristics, i.e rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

Again, nothing about WHEN God chose them. All we have is that they were poor when James wrote the passage, but nothing about them being poor when God chose them. You just assume it because your theology says that's how it should be.

An example.

Some players on the basketball team start treating the injured players poorly. One of the players says, "has not Coach chosen those who are injured" to be on this team.

Now, were the players injured when the Coach chose them. Well, that statement sure doesn't suggest it at all.

 

[Van]

God chose the poor, therefore they had to be poor when chosen.

The coach did not chose injured players, they became injured after being chosen. Rewriting the text does not alter the text.

 

[jbh28]

God chose the poor, therefore they had to be poor when chosen.

Sorry, just simply not true. I showed you why(you didn't respond) and I gave another example(you didn't respond). Just repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.

 

[Van]

Did not God choose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs.... That is how it reads. Your view is God did not choose the poor. He chose and then they became poor. Not what it says, not even close. Calvinism depends on rewriting scripture because it is unbiblical.

 

[jbh28]

Did not God choose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs.... That is how it reads. Your view is God did not choose the poor. He chose and then they became poor. Not what it says, not even close. Calvinism depends on rewriting scripture because it is unbiblical.

Again, you fail to address my arguments. Either that or you have the reading comprehension of an elementary child. I'll let you pick.

 

[jbh28]

God chose the poor, therefore they had to be poor when chosen.

The coach did not chose injured players, they became injured after being chosen. Rewriting the text does not alter the text.

I didn't rewrite the text. I quoted it except for changing the subject. they were not poor when chosen. The language is that they are poor when James wrote it.
Chosen is past tense. Poor is current.

 

[Skandelon]

Sorry to interupt, but isn't it really less about when and more about why?

"Many were called but few were chosen." If you read the parable of the banquet it is clear that EVERYONE without distinction was invited to the wedding, but only those clothed in the proper garments (ref to the righteousness of Christ which is applied through faith) are chosen. Clearly they are chosen based upon their being clothed through faith and not the other way around.

 

[jbh28]

Sorry to interupt, but isn't it really less about when and more about why?

"Many were called but few were chosen." If you read the parable of the banquet it is clear that EVERYONE without distinction was invited to the wedding, but only those clothed in the proper garments (ref to the righteousness of Christ which is applied through faith) are chosen. Clearly they are chosen based upon their being clothed through faith and not the other way around.

But that's not what Van is attempting to say. He's trying to say that God elects you during your lifetime and not "before the foundation of the world" as the Scriptures say.

 

[Skandelon]

But that's not what Van is attempting to say. He's trying to say that God elects you during your lifetime and not "before the foundation of the world" as the Scriptures say.

Let's look at the text in question: "4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will."

Notice something about this text: We, believers, are not yet completely holy and blameless, nor have we been fully adopted. As Paul explains in Rom 8, we are still "eagerly awaiting our adoption."

God has predestined US (those who believe) to be adopted. He chose for US (all those who believe IN HIM) to become holy and blameless (sanctified). Nothing here is conclusively saying that God chose certain lost people to believe, it is ONLY saying what God has chosen and predetermined for believers to become. He has predetermined what his followers will look like, but that doesn't mean he has predetermined who will and who won't be his followers.

He makes an appeal to the entire world to be reconciled to him. If they perish it is because they REFUSED the truth, not because God didn't elect them.