What are your thoughts regarding the Lockman Foundation?

[Reformed1689]

Did not God choose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God?
It means God chose:
1) People poor according to the world's value system
2) People who were rich in faith when chosen
3) People who were heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

Therefore the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional election" is unbiblical.

Except when you look at the underlying Greek that is NOT what that verse means.

 

[Van]

Except when you look at the underlying Greek that is NOT what that verse means.

Taint so

 

[Reformed1689]

Taint so

No, it's not taint so, I already posted what the underlying Greek means Van. You are choosing to ignore it because it doesn't fit your view.

 

[Van]

No, it's not taint so, I already posted what the underlying Greek means Van. You are choosing to ignore it because it doesn't fit your view.

Taint so

 

[Reformed1689]

Taint so

Van, you still have yet to interact with the actual Greek text. Until you do, the only one ACTUALLY saying "Taint so" is you.

 

[Van]

Van, you still have yet to interact with the actual Greek text. Until you do, the only one ACTUALLY saying "Taint so" is you.

Saying others must do what you require is the mark of obfuscation, deflection and ignorance.

 

[Reformed1689]

Saying others must do what you require is the mark of obfuscation, deflection and ignorance.

And you continue with Taint so. So you either will not or cannot interact with the Greek. Noted.

 

[Van]

And you continue with Taint so. So you either will not or cannot interact with the Greek. Noted.

Taint so. Note this person is questioning my abilities, rather than addressing the topic. This is all they have.

Van said: ↑
Did not God choose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God? (James 2:5)
It means God chose:
1) People poor according to the world's value system
2) People who were rich in faith when chosen
3) People who were heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

Therefore the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional election" is unbiblical.

 

[Reformed1689]

Taint so. Note this person is questioning my abilities, rather than addressing the topic. This is all they have.

Van said: ↑
Did not God choose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God? (James 2:5)
It means God chose:
1) People poor according to the world's value system
2) People who were rich in faith when chosen
3) People who were heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

Therefore the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional election" is unbiblical.

Started a new thread as this route is off topic to this conversation. To Be or Not To Be: That is the question of James 2:5

 

[Van]

Thanks to the NASB, NKJV, and LEB we can see that "to be" has been added to James 2:5 because the addition is italicized. Thus with study, we come away with the true:

Did not God choose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God? (James 2:5)
It means God chose:
1) People poor according to the world's value system
2) People who were rich in faith when chosen
3) People who were heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

Therefore the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional election" is unbiblical.

 

[Reformed1689]

Thanks to the NASB, NKJV, and LEB we can see that "to be" has been added to James 2:5 because the addition is italicized. Thus with study, we come away with the true:

Did not God choose the poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God? (James 2:5)
It means God chose:
1) People poor according to the world's value system
2) People who were rich in faith when chosen
3) People who were heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

Therefore the Calvinist doctrine of "unconditional election" is unbiblical.

Van this is off topic. A thread has been started specifically to address this.

 

[Van]

Van this is off topic. A thread has been started specifically to address this.

Yet another post addressing me, and making false claims. The NASB use of italics and all that entails is on topic.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yet another post addressing me, and making false claims. The NASB use of italics and all that entails is on topic.

Interpretation of other translations of a specific passage is off-topic and has had a thread created for it.

 

[Van]

Interpretation of other translations of a specific passage is off-topic and has had a thread created for it.

Taint so The NASB use of italics and all that entails is on topic.

 

[Reformed1689]

Taint so The NASB use of italics and all that entails is on topic.

 

[rsr]

Thread closed because it has reached the "Taint so" limit.