To Be or Not To Be: That is the question of James 2:5

[Reformed1689]

According to some, it is not wrong to reverse the meaning of bible text. Go figure

Nobody has argued that.

 

[Van]

James 2:5 in the 1560 Geneva Bible

Hearken my beloved brethren, hath not God chosen the poor of this world, that they should be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?

James 2:5 in Bishops' Bible

Hearken, my dear beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, that they might be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom, which he promised to them that love him?

Several translations add "to be" to the text, which reverses the actual meaning. Such corruption cannot be justified from grammar. OTOH, since 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says people are chosen for salvation through or on the basis of faith in the truth, the corrupted renderings of these two verses demonstrates conditional election based on God crediting our faith.

 

[Reformed1689]

Several translations add "to be" to the text, which reverses the actual meaning.

How so? How do you know "yet" doesn't reverse the meaning?

Such corruption cannot be justified from grammar.

Actually it is justified from the grammar as has already been shown to you and the majority of translators agree. What gives you higher credentials than them to say it is wrong?

. OTOH, since 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says people are chosen for salvation through or on the basis of faith in the truth, the corrupted renderings of these two verses demonstrates conditional election based on God crediting our faith.

That's not what that verse says. That's what Van says by adding in "or on the basis of" which is not found in the text.

 

[Van]

"To be" reverses the meaning to conform to an interpretation of another scripture, which of course is errant.

In your (wrong) OPINION

Nobody has argued that.

Quote without comment

 

[Reformed1689]

The post you had wasn't formatted correctly so I have no idea what you were trying to say. Can you reformat and post again?

 

[Van]

See the non stop posts trying to hide corruption of the text? People are chosen through faith. Faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand. We are saved by grace through faith. Verse after verse folks, whereas the opposite view has no support from scripture.

 

[Reformed1689]

See the non stop posts trying to hide corruption of the text? People are chosen through faith. Faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand. We are saved by grace through faith. Verse after verse folks, whereas the opposite view has no support from scripture.

Ah yes, and here is the disconnect. No Calvinist argues that we are not saved by faith or through faith as that is the agent God has decided to use. However, that is not reason that we are elected.

 

[Yeshua1]

See the non stop posts trying to hide corruption of the text? People are chosen through faith. Faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand. We are saved by grace through faith. Verse after verse folks, whereas the opposite view has no support from scripture.

God the Father chose us to be saved in Christ before and apart from faith in Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

Ah yes, and here is the disconnect. No Calvinist argues that we are not saved by faith or through faith as that is the agent God has decided to use. However, that is not reason that we are elected.

yes, as we as Calvinists and our non cal brethren both agree how are saved, but not on the basis of the salvation, as to the what caused our election!

 

[Van]

Ah yes, and here is the disconnect. No Calvinist argues that we are not saved by faith or through faith as that is the agent God has decided to use. However, that is not reason that we are elected.

Denial of 2 Thessalonians 2:13

 

[Van]

God the Father chose us to be saved in Christ before and apart from faith in Christ!

Second denial of 2 Thessalonians 2:13

 

[Reformed1689]

Denial of 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Second denial of 2 Thessalonians 2:13

Neither of those were denials of 2 Thessalonians 2:13. I just don't read things into the verse that are not there as you do.

 

[Van]

Neither of those were denials of 2 Thessalonians 2:13. I just don't read things into the verse that are not there as you do.

Right, you "deny" God chose for salvation through faith in the truth. Conditional Individual Election is biblical, Unconditional Individual Election for salvation is unbiblical. Saying taint so does not alter the verse.

 

[Reformed1689]

Right, you "deny" God chose for salvation through faith in the truth. Conditional Individual Election is biblical, Unconditional Individual Election for salvation is unbiblical. Saying taint so does not alter the verse.

Except there is nowhere in Scripture that says that Van, including 2 Thes. 2:13. You add that in.

 

[Van]

Except there is nowhere in Scripture that says that Van, including 2 Thes. 2:13. You add that in.

But we ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

It is a lock folks, so false doctrine must be defended by denying verse after verse.

 

[Reformed1689]

But we ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

It is a lock folks, so false doctrine must be defended by denying verse after verse.

Let me fix your problem by parsing out phrases:

But we ought to thank God always for you, Brothers and sisters / loved by the Lord / because God chose your form the beginning / for salvation / through sanctification / by the spirit / and faith in the truth.

God chose you to be saved. How was he going to do it? Through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

It in no way says God chose you forsalvation because of sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. That literally makes no sense at all.

 

[Reformed1689]

Saying taint so does not alter the verse.

Exactly, you screaming no doesn't change the verse.

 

[Van]

Let me fix your problem by parsing out phrases:

God chose you to be saved. .

Once again, the verse is rewritten by altering the grammar of the text, salvation (noun) is said to be a verb.
This corruption is for the purpose of breaking the linkage between the verb "chose" and the object "through faith in the truth."

It is a lock folks, so false doctrine must be defended by denying verse after verse.

 

[Reformed1689]

Once again, the verse is rewritten by altering the grammar of the text, salvation (noun) is said to be a verb.

Now Van I'm calling out your deception here. I did not alter a noun to be a verb. Read where I actually broke up the phrases you will see I did no such thing. What you said was a misread of what I wrote, or a flat out lie at worst. I'll choose to believe you did not understand what I wrote.

This corruption is for the purpose of breaking the linkage between the verb "chose" and the object "through faith in the truth."

It is a lock folks, so false doctrine must be defended by denying verse after verse.

The object of chose is the noun salvation.

 

[Van]

Just playing out the conclusion of one poster. If the poor are chosen because they are rich in faith....then they were also chosen because they were already heirs to the Kingdom. If we do not allow "to be" then the poor were already heirs before they were elected. If they were saved before elected, then what are they elected into? How does one possess salvation before actually being saved?

πλουσίους ἐν πίστει καὶ κληρονόμους τῆς βασιλείας
"Rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom"
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
[/b][/b]

Here the argument is that "to be" is needed because:
1) Those chosen were poor. A better translation is "poor to the world" or poor according to the world.
2) How could those chosen be heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God before they were chosen? They became "heirs" when God credited their faith (including devotion) as righteousness.
3) The view emphatically denies anyone was saved before they were chosen and transferred into Christ. Being an "heir" to the promised kingdom because they "loved God" (as determined by God) does not indicate they had been saved yet. Only when a person is transferred into Christ are they saved - made alive, made righteous, their sin burden removed by the washing of regeneration and the circumcision of Christ.