Is unconditional election biblical?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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)

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

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.

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...

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."

Its time to whip this one out again: