Is unconditional election biblical?

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

i also saw the link between gnosticism and calvinism. all early church fathers belief in free will. all of them battle for it against gnostics who believed as calvinists on free will thats why they pressed it so much

pelagianism is made up that doesnt exist anymore. nobody believes like he did. and on many things he was even right and behaved better than the state roman church and augustine.
this is again same, all calvinists speak about is calvinism arminianism pelagianism semi-pelagianism and we the normal believers dont mention those unless talking with calvinists. because we dont care about pidgeon holing us to these heresy camps.

why does God have to send strong delusion to people who refuse the truth if they are already unable to hear and believe? its a stupid doctrine. really stupid.

Clement of Rome:

“This blessedness comes upon those that are chosen of God by Jesus Christ our Lord,” (Epist. ad Corinth. 1: Pg 114).

“All therefore are glorified and magnified, not by themselves or their own works of righteous actions, which they have wrought out, but by his will,” (Clement, Ep. 1, ad. Corinth. p. 72.).

“God hath chosen the Lord Jesus Christ, and us by him,” (Episi. ad Corinth. p. 130, 114.).

Barnabas:

Speaking of Christ, “I see that I shall thus offer my flesh, for the sins of the new people; meaning a special and peculiar people that should be taken out from among the Gentiles under the New Testament dispensation, called a new people, to distinguish them from God’s ancient people the Jews,” (Part 1, s. 6, p. 224).


Ignatius:

In predestination, “…there was such a difference between the infidels and the elect,” (Apud. ib. 50:4, c. 15, p. 134.)

Justin Martyr:

Jesus died for men of every kind, not all men. “As Jacob served Laban for the cattle that were spotted, and of various forms, so Christ served even to the cross, for men of every kind, of many and various shapes, procuring them by his blood, and the mystery of the cross,” (Dialog. cum Tryph, p. 364.).

Tertullian:

But thine order and thy magistracy, and the name of thy court is the church of Christ: thou art his, written in the books of life,” (De Corona, c. 13, p. 129; ed. Paris, 1634.).

“Yea, in that body in which he could die through the flesh, he died, not through the church, but verily for the church, by changing body for body, and that which is fleshly for that which is spiritual,” (Adv. Marcion. 1. 5, c. 19, p, 613.).


These quotes from the ECF’s were copied and pasted from...

https://www.apuritansmind.com/armin...-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/


So the ECF’s taught the TULIP before it was labeled TULIP. I am sure not all did, but several did. So saying it started with Augustine of Hippo is a bald faced lie.

 

[posthuman]

The T in TULIP's Total Depravity doctrine says it.
As does the U and the I.

so, that's you accusing them of not preaching the gospel.
not them saying "we shouldn't preach the gospel"

i'm wondering if it's more than just an accusation. i listen to about a dozen sermons every week, some reformed, some not. i've never heard anyone say 'we shouldn't bother preaching the gospel' except people like you, who are attacking this TULIP business. i've never heard anyone who believes it say anything like that.

can you point me to someone who does believe all that, and actually says what you accuse them of saying?

 

[posthuman]

Of course you did. When you posted the scripture thinking it a source for the answer to why Calvinists believe their children are elect through them.

you quoted an article. i recognized the phrasing in it because i have read 1 Corinthians. i retrieved the verse and posted it and asked what you thought of it.
that's not me saying "i believe this means such and such"
that's me saying, "this is a passage that idea is based on, how would you interpret it?"

Immaterial to the discussion. The passage you shared pertained to unbeliever wedded to a believer. Not two unbelievers wedded to one another.

your interpretation, which you stated, is that the presence of at least one believer in a marriage makes it 'legitimate' and makes the children 'legitimate'
your own words.

the opposite of legitimate is illegitimate. you seem to be saying, in fact you said, without a believer in a marriage, the marriage is illegitimate and the children are illegitimate. i.e. all children of two unbelieving parents are bastards. all marriages where neither partner is a believer are adultery. illegitimate vs. legitimate.
it's a direct implication of what you said. it's what you literally said.
do you not believe that? did you misspeak?

this is what you said:

In that passage of 1 Corinthians 7. what is being said is, if one spouse is a believer and there are children in the household, the relationship is made legitimate, sanctified, because one unbeliever is yoked with one partner who has faith . And this in turn makes the children sanctified of that union, legitimate, rather than as illegitimate children.

do you stand behind it or not?

 

[IFOLLOWHIM]

i, like a whole lot of other people you'll meet here, had ever even heard of 'reformed theology' or a person named John Calvin. i just read the Bible and believed what i read. i found out about that man & his theology after i came to CC by reading threads about how much some people hate it. i found out that it was all very close to what i already believed - straight from the Bible.
like John 6, for example, as i was trying to introduce earlier, tho you wouldn't hear it -- much of this stuff is found right there, if you'd just pay attention to what's written, and ask questions about what it means. all of it is based in scripture.

i learned here on CC about a man named Arminius who also hated the theology that Calvin taught. had never heard of him before. the church considered all his theology, and rejected it as heresy - that's something i learned from reading threads on this forum, too. threads that, ironically, were written by people who agree with him, mostly. i didn't agree with them. i already didn't agree with them before i ever heard of him or what he taught - Arminianism is a set of beliefs that contradict principles i had already seen in the Bible.

i know that you feel antagonistic to me because in the gargantuan not-by-works thread where we met, you said something that was wrong, and i shot 2 dozen holes in it that you couldn't patch. but i'm not your enemy. i'm not 7's enemy either, tho she treats me like it, too. i'm telling you this so that maybe you'll understand that i don't write the things i write because i'm trying to be 'against' anyone and i don't believe the things i believe because i get them from any human. i believed them before i had any idea that any other human believed them, and i believe them because it's what i see in scripture, because i believe God and i believe the scripture is His revelation of Himself to us.

i write the things i write because they are what i see the scripture saying. i can back them up from the Bible. i believe that, if you can't back up what you aver with the scripture, there's a high probability that it's wrong. so it's not an evil thing to 'break it down' for each other - it's a good thing: it's how we know if things are true or not. if all you or i can do to justify our opinion about something is say it's 'common sense' or 'everybody knows' or 'because i said so' -- then what you or i are saying is worthless. but if we can show that this is what the scripture says, then we have firm ground to stand on. that's why it's important to break these things down, and look at the Bible, and see what it really says. that's why i post scripture and ask questions about it. posts that just say 'so and so is wrong' are complete rubbish to me. posts that say 'that must be wrong, because God says this and this and this' are treasure.

if that makes sense? i'm glad you're here and i'm glad that you're taking part in discussion. i just want the discussion to be more fruitful; i'm not trying to condescend or anything. none of us need human ideas. we need God's truth. we don't get there by just giving out opinions that we don't have a basis for in the Word. we don't get there by clinging to things the scripture contradicts. so when i post a verse and ask about it or quote something someone has said and examine it against the Bible i'm not trying to pick at a person. i'm doing it for the sake of the truth.

I feel no animosity toward anyone! I love my enemies as instructed by Jesus!
The truth,guided by the Holy Spirit is how I live!
Discussion is an OPEN TWO WAY COMMUNICATION!
If people do not listen ( there is a difference between this and hearing) then there is no engaging!
God is the understanding, the wisdom and the truth I choose to live by!
People can become like little annoying " ankle biters"but it doesn't mean I do not love them!

 

[fredoheaven]

Again, pre or post-cross, none can be saved without knowing about the Christ. Pre-cross saved folk looked towards the cross, post-cross saved folk look back to the cross. The cross is central to the gospel, for w/o it, none of us would be saved.

Hi Sackcloth, could you quote /cite/find me a verse that Abraham looked towards the cross? perhaps we can discuss.

Thank you.

Romans 4:3-5 King James Version (KJV)
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

 

[posthuman]

Hi Sackcloth, could you quote /cite/find me a verse that Abraham looked towards the cross? perhaps we can discuss.

Thank you.

Romans 4:3-5 King James Version (KJV)
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

"the LORD shall provide a Lamb"

 

[PennEd]

Hi Sackcloth, could you quote /cite/find me a verse that Abraham looked towards the cross? perhaps we can discuss.

Thank you.

Romans 4:3-5 King James Version (KJV)
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Abraham even prophetically names the place "Jehova jireh"

Genesis 22:14 New King James Version (NKJV)
14 And Abraham called the name of the place, [a]The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”

 

[preacher4truth]

Notice he said he owed them nothing. Hmmmm, Cain acted the exact same way when he asked God, “A.m. I my brother’s keeper?” Well, yes, he was. It’s a flippant attitude directed at both Abel(whom Cain murdered), and @IFOLLOWHIM directed at his fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

The saddest fact about all this is those who believe they were elected based on meeting some condition are teaching salvation and grace are merited rewards.

 

[Melach]

Clement of Rome:

“This blessedness comes upon those that are chosen of God by Jesus Christ our Lord,” (Epist. ad Corinth. 1: Pg 114).

“All therefore are glorified and magnified, not by themselves or their own works of righteous actions, which they have wrought out, but by his will,” (Clement, Ep. 1, ad. Corinth. p. 72.).

“God hath chosen the Lord Jesus Christ, and us by him,” (Episi. ad Corinth. p. 130, 114.).

Barnabas:

Speaking of Christ, “I see that I shall thus offer my flesh, for the sins of the new people; meaning a special and peculiar people that should be taken out from among the Gentiles under the New Testament dispensation, called a new people, to distinguish them from God’s ancient people the Jews,” (Part 1, s. 6, p. 224).


Ignatius:

In predestination, “…there was such a difference between the infidels and the elect,” (Apud. ib. 50:4, c. 15, p. 134.)

Justin Martyr:

Jesus died for men of every kind, not all men. “As Jacob served Laban for the cattle that were spotted, and of various forms, so Christ served even to the cross, for men of every kind, of many and various shapes, procuring them by his blood, and the mystery of the cross,” (Dialog. cum Tryph, p. 364.).

Tertullian:

But thine order and thy magistracy, and the name of thy court is the church of Christ: thou art his, written in the books of life,” (De Corona, c. 13, p. 129; ed. Paris, 1634.).

“Yea, in that body in which he could die through the flesh, he died, not through the church, but verily for the church, by changing body for body, and that which is fleshly for that which is spiritual,” (Adv. Marcion. 1. 5, c. 19, p, 613.).


These quotes from the ECF’s were copied and pasted from...

https://www.apuritansmind.com/armin...-of-grace-taught-by-the-early-church-fathers/


So the ECF’s taught the TULIP before it was labeled TULIP. I am sure not all did, but several did. So saying it started with Augustine of Hippo is a bald faced lie.

they didnt teach tulip that was the biggest nosedive i have seen anyone take on this forum.hahahha. you quoted justin martyr to say they teach tulip? hahahaha.

does this sound like calvinism or total depravity, inability to you? justin martyr says:

"We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for." (Justin First Apology chap. 43)"

thats it. no calvinism for justin martyr, same for all the others you quoted. im just too lazy to look up the quotes. you are trying to prove the earth is hamburger thats how crazy of task it is. cant be done. no matter how out of context it is.

 

[Melach]

Another lie made by non-Calvinists on what we believe. You are making God’s gracious choice of saving undeserving, God-hating, rebellious ppl, into nothing more than a lottery.

not a misrepresentation nor a lie. just truth that calvinists hate. its true. God chose to save some and not others, and to us its completely random we dont know who is elect. you can never really know you are elect. im sure judas thought he was elect right?

 

[posthuman]

The LOCAL CHURCH DID NOT SAVE ME FROM SIN ! I owe them nothing but to love as Jesus does! Jesus is who I owe EVERYTHING too!

And how does Jesus love?

By forsaking?

 

[posthuman]

The saddest fact about all this is those who believe they were elected based on meeting some condition are teaching salvation and grace are merited rewards.

They believe this because they think it would be unfair for the Potter to have right over the clay, and this belief is rooted in the belief that the clay is inherently deserving. It struck me - even when i was young and had never heard anyone talk about such things - as being vain, and mixing up the proper station of God and man. No matter what God chooses to do, i am never in a position to judge Him.

 

[Grandpa]

Abraham even prophetically names the place "Jehova jireh"

Genesis And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.22:14 New King James Version (NKJV)

Genesis 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.

I always thought Jehova Jireh meant God will provide. But the King James shows it as "In God it is seen".

I suppose it is pretty close to the same thing...


You have to see it before you realize it has been provided...

 

[preacher4truth]

thats it. no calvinism for justin martyr, same for all the others you quoted. im just too lazy to look up the quotes.

The above is the epitome of why there is so much ignorance in the church. "You're wrong, all you said is wrong. I haven't even looked at what you said." It is the logical fallacy of Alleged Certainty. It is utterly foolish.

Oh, the other thing is, this poster @Melach hasn't read or understood the quote of Martyr. It concisely shows he was certainly what others call "Calvinistic."

 

[calibob]

They believe this because they think it would be unfair for the Potter to have right over the clay, and this belief is rooted in the belief that the clay is inherently deserving. It struck me - even when i was young and had never heard anyone talk about such things - as being vain, and mixing up the proper station of God and man. No matter what God chooses to do, i am never in a position to judge Him.

Amen. Nor question his methods or motives.

the potter.jpg

• calibob
• Jan 21, 2019

blacksmith.png

• calibob
• Jan 21, 2019

Iron comes from the earth It takes a skilled craftsman with fire and a big hammer to forge it...

 

[calibob]

Who's Justin the Martyr? I've never seen him in the Bible. Nor Calvin either.

 

[PennEd]

Genesis 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.

I always thought Jehova Jireh meant God will provide. But the King James shows it as "In God it is seen".

I suppose it is pretty close to the same thing...


You have to see it before you realize it has been provided...

What is being provided is His Son, the Lamb of God, slain for our sin debt, on the very spot Isaac was told to sacrifice his ONLY son.

 

[Melach]

The above is the epitome of why there is so much ignorance in the church. "You're wrong, all you said is wrong. I haven't even looked at what you quoted." It is the logical fallacy of Alleged Certainty. It is utterly foolish.

Oh, the other thing is, this poster @Melach hasn't read or understood the quote of Martyr. It concisely shows he was certainly what others call "Calvinistic."

i did read the quote and understood the quote and disproved what he said by quoting just one from justin martyr i dont need to go back and look up quotes from each of them this isnt a moderated debate, ive read the quotes before already. i read it in context as well. these guys are arguing in favor of free choice because otherwise nobody can be rewarded for works thats it. i dont care about your parroting.

all you calvinists are like clones of each other, its like a cult. all talk the same, use the same words, behave the same. its sickening. i think it maybe because you are trying to copy/mimic/pretend to be james whitelie and other debate idols. thats what you love is debate. debate is preaching the gospel in calvinism in practical terms.

you got too excited about my honesty and didnt read what i said. unlucky

 

[Hevosmies]

Its time to whip this one out again:

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Its time to whip this one out again:

Love it!