Is unconditional election biblical?

well, whispered also put a resource for what she wrote as did you...apparently did not show up in her first post so she included right below as follows:

she often includes good portions of scripture in her posts so I cannot conclude she gets her theology from memes

however, I have noticed that Calvin can really put a spin on scripture and some of the most diligent admirers of that man do no less

after reading enough of his writing, I find myself copying his style somewhat LOL! as above underlined

actually, whispered provided material from the same source you did

so???? dunno

thanks, i see that's not an exact quote either.

i just hate it when memes are passed around that are complete fabrications or deceptive misquotes. to me it's like, hey that's a lie being spread. so i fact-check them.

did you read the scripture Calvin cited when he expressed a similar sentiment? that's why i posted that one, because i found that he was backing up what he said. i don't care about Calvin; that paragraph was one of the first i ever actually read that he wrote, while i was looking to see if that meme was an accurate quote or a fabrication. i care about what scripture says.

these:

[Job 34:30, Vg.; Hos. 13:11; Isa. 3:4; 10:5; Deut. 28:29]

what do you make of those? what do they say; what does it mean? do you see how that man understood what he says from them? is he wrong about what those scriptures imply? what do those scriptures imply then? why? how?

thanks

The Father was the Son.

Meme's sometimes hold aphorism's of actual quotes, as is the case of the Calvin meme I also linked, as you mentioned. Thanks.
The actual quotes from Calvin is found in his Institutes. Institutes

Though a synopsis in the Meme, I think it rightly encapsulates what Calvin himself penned.

"that they who rule unjustly and incompetently have been raised up by him to punish the wickedness of the people; that all equally have been endowed with that holy majesty with which he has invested lawful power. I shall proceed no farther until I have added some sure testimonies of this thing. Yet, we need not labor to prove that a wicked king is the Lord’s wrath upon the earth [Job 34:30, Vg.; Hos. 13:11; Isa. 3:4; 10:5; Deut. 28:29], for I believe no man will contradict me; and thus nothing more would be said of a king than of a robber who seizes your possessions, of an adulterer who pollutes your marriage bed, or of a murderer who seeks to kill you. For Scripture reckons all such calamities among God’s curses.

"...For since a wicked prince is the Lord’s scourge to punish the sins of the people, let us remember, that it happens through our fault that this excellent blessing of God is turned into a curse. "
Source

color coded so scripture isn't mixed up


ok...let's see

I included v. 29 with Job 30 because I found the thought incomplete with only v.30, so, as follows:

29But when He remains silent, who can condemn Him?

When He hides His face, who can see Him?

Yet He watches over both man and nation,

30that godless men should not rule

or lay snares for the people. (Elihu speaking)

same with Hosea here...added context

9You are destroyed, O Israel,

because you are against Me—

against your helper.

10Where is your king now

to save you in all your cities,

and the rulers to whom you said,

“Give me a king and princes”?

11So in My anger I gave you a king,

and in My wrath I took him away.

Isaiah 3:4...is God's judgement through the prophet against Judah

4“I will make mere lads their leaders,

and children will rule over them.”

and Isaiah 10...again added context

Woe to Tyrants

1Woe to those who enact unjust statutes

and issue oppressive decrees,

2to deprive the poor of fair treatment

and withhold justice from the oppressed of My people,

to make widows their prey

and orphans their plunder.

3What will you do on the day of reckoning

when devastation comes from afar?

To whom will you flee for help?

Where will you leave your wealth?

4Nothing will remain but to crouch among the captives

or fall among the slain.

Despite all this, His anger is not turned away;

His hand is still upraised.

Judgment on Assyria

5Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger;

the staff in their hands is My wrath.

6I will send him against a godless nation;

I will dispatch him against a people destined for My rage,

to take spoils and seize plunder,

and to trample them down like clay in the streets.

and finally Deuteronomy 28:29...really the entire chaper and forgoing context (and rest of Deut for that matter) should be taken into consideration considering this is God laying out the framework for His relationship with Israel

29so that at noon you will grope about like a blind man in the darkness. You will not prosper in your ways. Day after day you will be oppressed and plundered, with no one to save you.


what I gather from the above scritures and what I understood when going through them, is that God is allowing the sins of Israel to 'take effect', that is, the consequences of the rebellious nation catching up with them

I understand what you said about Calvin...you don't care, but just want to look at the scripture quoted. (did I get that right?)

when God entered into covenant relationship with Israel, He laid out the future for them with regards to obedience and disobedience

God did NOT make evil men to rule over them; rather they incurred God's wrath and consequences were enacted

the difference there, is that Calvin is looking for something to back up his predestined beliefs with regards to just about everything, when in reality, Israel had a CHOICE

again, the entire mindset here, is predestination, when again and again people are presented with choice

particularly with reference to Job 30:30...that godless men should not rule or lay snares for the people. doesn't that just say the opposite of God sending evil rulers? seems to as far as I can see

one of the biggest problems I see with predestination is the cherry picked verses and scripture taken out of context to create a different meaning to fit into a predetermined understanding, rather than allowing scripture to speak for itself

like a constant topical study wherein one looks for what they understand and reading into scripture what one is looking for

i just hate it when memes are passed around that are complete fabrications or deceptive misquotes. to me it's like, hey that's a lie being spread. so i fact-check them.

Click to expand...

well ok, but I don't think that was actually being done here since the quote from the same source as the one you used, had not posted but was added

right

the blue above, I believe, is the key to correctly understanding what is being said

yes;
he noted the Vulgate for that particular verse, so here is that:

& here is a crude word-for-word to English, because i do actually have some Latin

qui - who / that / he
regnare - to reign
facit - makes
hominem - men
hypocritam - hypocritical / deceitful
propter - for / because of
peccata - sins
populi - of (the) people

i.e.

yes

but since those consequences and wrath include evil rulers, it does indicate that wicked leadership - however deserved - is in fact a judgement from God, doesn't it?

i wouldn't go so far as to say Calvin is "looking for something to back up his beliefs about predestination" -- free will is implicit in many places in the scripture, but predestination and purpose is explicit all over scripture. it's not 'cherry-picked verses" any more than whatever you can come up with for 'free will' could be described the same way.

i don't think Calvin is engaging in eisegesis, that is. i barely have read anything he has written, but i know that he was a very scholarly, well educated, and careful theologian, backing up what he wrote with scripture. i think that rather than trying to 'force predestination into the scripture' he found it there plain as day -- what he would probably have called 'God's sovereignty' -- and tried to make sense of all the rest of the scripture in light of this sovereign characteristic of God. this idea, that God is sovereign over all the earth and every dealing of man, is not 'new' to Calvin; it's everywhere in the Bible, and in Calvin it's echoes of what elders and church fathers before him wrote. the unchallengeable and absolute sovereignty of God is in fact, you might say, one of the main themes of the Bible - both OT & NT

what i think Calvin is trying to do is make sense of the apparent agency man has given the axiomatic, absolute truth that God is God and is therefore omniscient, omnipotent, and acts with absolute impunity, not being beholden to anyone or able to be judged by anyone. it's the tension that we see remarkably clearly in Romans 9, where after having established that God is the only truly free agent, and has mercy on whom He will, regardless of human will or effort, Paul anticipates that on hearing this the natural reaction is 'how then can God still judge us, since no one can resist His will?' --- this is a question Paul leaves pointedly unanswered, saying instead with rebuke, 'who are you to answer back to God?' --- the very same reaction Job has, saying, 'I have spoken once, but I have no answer; twice but I will say no more'

i get what you're saying -- like when someone convinces themselves that neither Jesus nor the apostles preached the gospel until Paul taught it to them & Christ's earthly ministry was a failed attempt to make Himself an earthly king. then they become blinded to what scripture really says, and make every attempt to read this into the segments their preconceptions allow them to read without skipping over, then wave away 7/8's of the Bible as 'inconsequential in this enlightened age'.
but i'm not sure that's the same thing that's going on here. the presupposition in question isn't something disputable or contradictory to the word -- it's the presupposition that God is God, all things are according to His purpose, all things work together to glorify Him, and His purpose is ultimately good, just and holy.
these are things that are hardly disputable & don't need to be worked out by implication from scripture ((tho they can also be)) -- these are things that are explicitly said in scripture, for example,

He works all things according to His own purpose after the counsel of His own will. it says it right there, plain as day.

a person really has to work in order to try and insert human free will into this verse -- which is what you are saying, the way i see it: a person who takes the idea of 'human free agency' as an axiomatic, guiding principle for who is acceptable before God and who is not might look at the Bible and constantly try to worm it in, because what they perceive as 'common sense' tells them it ought to be there. so what do they do with a verse like this one? it literally says "predestinated" -- how can i pretend that's not scriptural? such a person, i suppose, has to make for themselves a new definition for the word, so that they can accept its presence without acknowledging its meaning.

it's not about trying to escape responsibility. it's about -- for me anyhow -- trying not to blaspheme.

do you believe that some are predestined for heaven and others are predestined to go to hell?

with no choice

that is predestination according to Calvin

that is the gist of the teaching and everything else skirts the issue it would seem

I do not believe those things

you sound more reasonsable in what you are saying then did Calvin

Calvin is represented by the TULIP teaching or 5 points of Calvinism as they are referred to that have been discussed ad infinitum in this forum

There are five main points to Calvinism spelled out by the TULIP acronymn:

• Total Depravity/Inability
  • This is saying that man is hopelessly sinful. Man is incapable of being "good." Any "good" deed is truly motivated by something evil. The rest of the four points rely on this point.
• Unconditional Election
  • This is what I find outrageous. Since man is totally evil, man's salvation is completely dependant upon God. This part is somewhat biblical; God chooses who he chooses. No matter how hard man tries, his actions alone cannot get him into heaven; God is the only one who has control. However, I believe that God will save those whose hearts are totally dedicated to Him, thus granting some influence to man. Afterall, God is just. However, calvinists see it otherwise. Calvinists believe that man has no free spiritual will.
• Limited Atonement
  • Since God predestined the elect, Jesus paid only for those few elect.
• Irresistible Grace
  • The elect have no choice about being elect. The elect cannot resist God's grace.
• Perseverence of the Saints
  • Calvinists believe that once you're saved, you're always saved since God had predestined the elect and the elect have no choice about being elect.

the above explained by someone (not me) who is obviously not a Calvinist (hence the outrageous sentiment under the 'U')

a person could be OSAS I would think, without that automatically placing them in the TULIP category, but limited atonement flies in the face of 'whosoever will' and while there seem to be a good many OSASers around, I think few actually think God creates people to send them to hell WITH NO CHOICE or take them to be with Himself WITH NO CHOICE

since you say you have not read much by Calvin, I am posting the above since this is what Calvinism is and the rest is just a wardrobe change

Calvinism hinges on TULIP...not OSAS

noticed you just directed a 3rd post to me...will read it later, perhaps in the meantime we can discuss 'tulips'

The saints of old were born with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the new birth the same as we are in this day and time. Isaiah 63:11, Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of the flock? Where is he that PUT HIS HOLY SPIRIT WITHIN HIM? Moses was born again by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

It plainly states that God slew Onan. Who are you to question God? Dan 4:35, And he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

I would think the actual point of 7's observation is, Calvin and did he believe in free will?

How did God do it, did He, Himself take a knife and slew him?

Predestination can be easily explained. If we study the scriptures carefully, we will discover that the way is predestined, not the individual. God chose Christ to be the Savior of mankind so that anyone or whosoever came to Christ was immediately chosen in Him.

We are not saved by decree, but by faith. If pre-election is true, faith in Christ then is wrong.

I don't know that there is a detailed account as to how God killed Onan. However, the why is known as, Onanism.
God killed Onan on the spot. No pun intended. seriously.

And I would add, unnecessary when the doctrine that contains pre-election also stipulates that God imparts irresistible grace upon those pre-elected.

God did not tell us how he slew him, it is not for us to question God. There are a lot of thoughts in my mind as to why God does, or does not do things, but I do know and trust in the fact that God does according to his will and his will is good enough for me. One of the major things with me is why God withholds from so many of his children the revelation of the doctrine that Jesus taught and only reveals it to a few.

I do understand why so many of God's children do not understand the doctrine that Jesus taught because it is only revealed to but a few. We are the adopted children of God. God predetermined that Jesus would pay the adoption price for those (people) he choose. Jesus did not die for "a way". He died for only those that God gave him, and that was not all of mankind (John 6:38).

yeah, one might think that's the point, if what one thinks we ought to be thinking and talking about is the man, John Calvin.

____________________________________________________________