Walt wrote: How are you able to take the immediate context of James 2:24 beyond the quoted verse and explain the intended meaning?
Now that's a stupid question. What do you think the immediate context is silly. You should really read up on those books I recommended to you on hermeneutics. After all they were written by Reformed Chrisitans.
Walt wrote: Is this not prohibited in your method of interpretation where you only explain the literal meaning? Taking the immediate context should never conflict with the intended meaning or literal sense of the Scriptures.
That's because you do not know what immediate context is.
Now how much longer are you going to make yourself look silly with this red herring?
Actually, what's fair enough is you stopping blaming others for your mistake but instead realize it, confess it like a man, and move on knowing that we all make mistakes.
The difference between you and the Word of God is that God means what he states and states what he means.
Apparently that's not the way you operate.
Walt wrote: Walt wrote: Well, I can assure you I do, and I know that God does as well. The intended meaning of any passage is always the most faithful in understanding what God means by what He says.
Like I said, the Calvinist does not believe that God states what he means and means what he states. The Bible is at the mercy of their "intended" meaning.
Well at least the reader can understand the differences of interpretation. Walt, and those of his faith, approach the Bible with a revisionist attitude. I, and those of my faith, approach it with a exegetical attitude.
Yu can read the rest of his post where he gives a very poor itchy-twitchy dance.
It's pretty hard to take that sentence out of context. Especially after the emphasis and exclamation point that you placed.
Hey, if you want to take that back, there is no shame in that. We all make mistakes. But to blame us for your mistake and then try to justify your words only creates more confusion of your position and it is disingeneous at the least.
Actually I would say that I can care less since I voted for the first one: Biblical Fundamentalism.
I agree with the rest of your post, although its a practical contradiction anyways. They state that God preordained everything but complain and act as if he did not. Goes to show you that practically they do not really believe what they theorize. In fact, for many, the only area they would practically coincide is in the area of soulwinning.
Walt wrote: This is an error. Men are not justified by faith. They are justified by Christ and His righteousness alone... People, put your faith in Christ alone, and not in the act of faith as JD teaches. Faith DOES NOT justify!
VS. WHAT THE BIBLE STATES wrote: Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
I wonder what part of "justified by faith" Walt does not understand?
Let me guess, God made a mistake in his usage of words and he did not mean what he states.
That's what I figured.
Well after being reproved he digresses just a little:
Walt wrote: There is a distinction to be made that is very important. Some people look to faith as the grounds of their justification...
Blah, blanh, blah...
To those of us who know him the best, it is called the itchy-twitchy dance. Read the entire post and you will understand what I reffer to.
Walt wrote: Do you believe in teachers of Scripture, or do you reject all teachers outside of Scripture itself?
No, we just reject teachers like you that state that man is not justified by faith at the face of Scripture stating the exact oposite.
Wayne M. wrote: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." John 15:16 This verse shows Jesus does the choosing.
Chose them to bear fruit NOT unto salvation.
It's a mental disease. As soon as they see the word "choose" their brain shuts down. The red koolaid does not allow them to even read the rest of the verse.
Seaton wrote: But your address is still spelt wrong it should be "Devastating" - NO "h" in it.
To spell it correctly is against SA policy.
Go ahead, try it.
Seaton wrote: You said "Now Walt where are the words that state that God has chosen an arbitrary few unto salvation and the rest to hell?"
Sorry. We can't give you this information, if God has not revealed it to you in the first place. I guess you're not elect.
I guess your right. But thank's for demonstrating my point that it cannot be found in the Bible. To the Calvinist, it does not matter if it's in the Bible or not. What's more important to them is if it's found in the Westminster Confession, their true Bible.