"The context of the Book of James does not support your view. If your view was correct than all the poor (not only in America, but in Mexico, India, all the third world countries) would inherit the kingdom of heaven. We know this is not true."
Hi DHK, God did not choose the poor because they were poor to the world, or the rich because they were rich to the world. But He did choose those who were poor to the world, putting election during their lifetime and not before creation. There is no escape from this verse. Calvinism is false doctrine, and can only be supported by saying verse after verse after verse does not mean what it says.
First, Van, I am not a Calvinist.
But I do look at the context of the book and see what it is teaching. The entire Book of James is Practical Christianity. The second chapter concentrates on faith as it relates to works. The genuine faith of a believer will result in works. James is comparing the poor, who often respond in faith to the Savior, to the rich, who rarely respond in faith, and in fact often persecute the poor because of their faith. They don't have works. And yet for some reason these believers were being partial, discriminatory towards the rich.
and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing, and say, Sit thou here in a good place; and ye say to the poor man, Stand thou there, or sit under my footstool; (James 2:3) [ASV]
--This was not a good example of a person of genuine faith.
Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him? (James 2:5) [ASV]
The outcome of those who were rich in faith was the Kingdom of God. The outcome of faith was good works.
This was in contrast to the rich:
But ye have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? Do not they blaspheme the honorable name by which ye are called? (James 2:6-7)
--One might ask the question:
Did God choose or elect the rich to oppress the poor and blaspheme the name of Christ? No. The topic is not about election.
What was the purpose of the believer? What did God want them to do as a practical outworking of their salvation?
Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: (James 2:8)
--This is not a works salvation. It is not keeping the law. This is practical Christianity. It is what God
has called Christians to do. It is what God has
chosen Christians to do. It is what God has
commanded Christians to do. It has nothing to do with election. These words are all synonyms with each other in a chapter dealing with practical Christianity, especially as faith relates to good works.
I provided an outside source for my view of Omniscience. Lots of folks believe as I do, it is the biblical view.
Let me give you an example. If you look at a definition of any word (such as "church" it will usually give you about five definitions. Most words have more than one definition. In the Bible context defines words. However, if the context does not directly define the word, then the next hermeneutical principle is to go with the major definition. One does not take the obscure definition of the word to fit with his theology. The primary definition of the word is normally used unless context dictates otherwise. The context of God is that his attributes are eternal as God is eternal. He is infinite as his attributes are infinite. It is we that are finite, not God. To limit God in his knowledge is to bring God down to the level of a man. How can a finite man understand an infinite God?
You cannot make an argument by defining the terms as you want and expect it to carry any weight. Lets start by defining my view as biblical and your view as unbiblical. Now what about your unbiblical view do you want others to adopt? See how weak such an argument is.
I defined my definition according to the many dictionary definitions that I found. I never once came across the definition you gave me. What you gave me is obscure.
Secondly, the definition you gave me is not biblical and cannot be for it does not define an eternal God. You have yet to explain how something limited in scope can define an infinite being.
Your argument puts God into your man-made box, so it is you who take away from His deity, whereas my view glorifies God.
How would it do that? I am not confining God in any way. I give him all the glory that is due to him. I do not take away any of his omniscience. But you do. When you subtract from the knowledge of God you make him less than who he is.
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For
who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)
--I don't think Paul agrees with you.
For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. (Psalms 139:4)
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. (Psalms 139:6)
How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! (Psalms 139:17)
--Would David agree with your view?
Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth. Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the LORD, and my judgment is passed over from my God? Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary?
there is no searching of his understanding. (Isaiah 40:26-28)
--Does Isaiah agree?
All means all, but God is not powerful enough to do as He pleases?
God does not go against his nature, nor does he go against his word.
Maybe you should rethink that one before your Calvinist friends start stacking wood and looking for matches.
But, alas, I am not a Calvinist.
(6) God does us figurative language, He is spirit and so does not have a "face, eyes, hands, wings, right arms, back and front." But when this truth is extrapolated to include what He does have, "intellect, will, and emotion" is to deny the deity of God once again. He can remember no more forever, an operation of His very real spiritual mind.
This is where you fail miserably.
What about Christ being a "door."
We being "sheep."
God having "wings."
To be adamant and take away from his omniscience by destroying a figure of speech that says "he remembers no more," when indeed he can remember," is not only to do injustice to the attributes of God but also to the English language and to other languages that use such idioms.
Have you ever "buried the hatchet"?
