Is unconditional election biblical?

This is intriguing to me.

Can you show me in Scripture where the fruit Adam and Eve ate was grapes? Do you think Jesus' resurrected body had Blood?

How can you logically continue to disagree with Total Depravity when Romans 11:32 shows that its true?

You can't. But what you can do is create an emotional argument about how God isn't fair, according to Calvinism, and how He is mean, according to Calvinism...

Its not even according to Calvinism. Its according to someones imagination that Calvinism comes against.


According to Calvinism it is Gods Mercy that ANY are saved.

Romans 9:14 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Isn't this case closed on the whole argument?


What about when the Lord Jesus says there are none good but God? Wouldn't that be total depravity if there are NONE good?

The resurrected body of Jesus was flesh and bone but no blood.

The only fruit that we know of in scripture is the grape to the one taking the nazarite vow to be separated unto God.

Numbers 6
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord:
3 He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.
4 All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk.

Notice the grape is from a tree, a vine tree.

Comparison, Adam ate of the forbidden fruit was naked and ashamed. Noah drank of the forbidden fruit was naked and ashamed. They both had thre named boys, one was a rebel. They both were commanded to replenish the earth.

Genesis 49:11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

The juice from a grape represents blood.

Their bodies had no blood until they ate of the vine tree. Blood represents sin. Jesus bled out representing getting rid of sin. We are born in Adam, we have his blood. Jesus was not born of Adam, He had God’s blood. He was begotten by the Father.

So much more to add...

Good stuff about free will. Nevertheless, let say what Christ says.

John 16:7-15 King James Version (KJV)

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

The work of the Holy Spirit is very crucial to understand whether it is a conditional or unconditional thing. The context shows that the Holy Spirit as Christ says is that ‘he will guide’, he shall testify of Christ. His will is to guide which is to lead or shew. IOW, to reveal, to make it plain, allowed to be seen, to make evident clear. This indicates the Holy Spirit only shows, leads sinners into believing for salvation. The sinner, on the other hand, has his ‘will’ to choose either to reject or accept it. If he believes, he is not condemned but if not the wrath of God is still in him. That harmonizes the scripture in John 3:16-18

Grapes are grouped together botanically into the genus Vitis, which comprises 65 species native to woodlands and thickets across temperate zones of the Northern Hemisphere. They are woody, deciduous vines or climbing shrubs, but often attached themselves to trees.

they are not growing on trees

never heard this explanation before

Good stuff there.
Really, free will cannot be proven to not exist. The old aphorism, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,"
People exercise free will which includes choice, and they also exercise personal discretion.


Free will. Probably the most common definition of free will is the "ability to make choices without any prior prejudice, inclination, or disposition,"^[1]^ and specifically that these "free will" choices are not ultimately predestined by God. " Theopedia, Free Will

I am not responsible for your thoughts.
You introduced the verse from Romans. It is your responsibility to show how it applies to the subject you're responding to, the quoted member you're responding to.
Cherry picking verses because they contain a word you think defends Calvinism doesn't actually demonstrate good exegesis on the topic. And all that stuff I wrote is Biblical. As are the many posts where I've cited scripture that firmly refutes Calvinism.

Those are Adam's words in, the Book of Genesis chapter 2 and verses 23 through 25. You just missed God's words in verse 22.
The Book of Genesis chapter 2 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

I think the argument that says man has not free will forgets the fall in the garden. Adam exercised free will, choice, when he was persuaded to eat of the fruit, which is never identified in scripture but is commonly thought to be an apple, which Eve offered him.
And Eve made a free will choice when she was persuaded by the serpent to eat of that tree first, knowing God had forbidden it to them, and after hearing the serpents argument for eating thereof, which countered God's command, the first law of God, not to eat.

Sadly, it appears only Calvinists and certain , if not all, of the Reformed Doctrinaires believe they have no free will.
Which can be understood when they accept the tenets in the TULIP formula. All five points of TULIP refute man having free will. And all things that happen to man, under TULIP, is God's doing.
So really, it is a part of their agreement with the doctrine they've accepted as truth, when they state they have no free will.

Refuting"Total Depravity" in Calvinism

How Calvinists Perversed "Total Depravity"
The Evil of Calvinism
See also:
Calvinism's "Sovereignty of God": Praising and Blaspheming God With One Fell Breath

Is that argument suppose to sustain or prove the validity of the "I" in TULIP, Irresistible Grace?

Scripture says a vine tree. Google images, you’ll see.

Ok, still no blood. Btw, ribs are bones...

Sadly, and I do mean sadly, they do not talk about Scripture, handle Scripture correctly, look at the Scriptural arguments proving our position, glorifying God &c. The continuance of name calling the doctrines, ridicule, malice, shameful responses, ignorance? That's what is concentrated on in the many responses against said biblical truths. That is the fruit I'm seeing.

Yes, I know. Bones, have blood vessels. Which means they have a blood supply.

They do now😉

According to your idea of the garden and creation. You cannot prove your point with scripture.
And saying the fruit of the forbidden tree was grapes, doesn't actually comport with scripture either. The fruit of that tree is never identified in scripture.
To say it was grapes is an enormous interpolation on your part. I don't think you realize that if that were the fruit, and all that you've said as pertains to the grape, then what of Jesus when, as His first miracle recorded in the Book of John, He turned casks of water into wine during the wedding at caanan?

Whether grace or mercy takes faith "whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed"

Romans 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Tragically, you ignore the verse Posthuman shared that has no particular point in the discussion if we're to attribute right context to an argument concerning Election and all of its points.
Proper exegesis, just so that you are aware, does not cherry pick scriptures in order to extract a word or sentence from said cherry picked verse thinking that sustains the argument.
Ignorance? Oh, yes. Deep, centuries old ignorance. John Calvin is responsible for countless souls going to Hell. As are all the patriarchs of old who promoted TULIP, and made the God of the Christians into the Satan of the totally depraved reformers.

In truth, if you wish to criticize name calling in these discussions, you should first chastise the Calvinists and the Reformed Theology adherents in these threads. Right after you commit to very serious introspection as to your conduct.

To be very clear, calling a Devil a Devil, which is what John Calvin was, is not name calling! We are told to exercise righteous judgment when we judge not appearances but acts. John Calvin's acts are deplorable. He sought to murder those who did not agree, concede, to his theology.
Thou shalt not murder!

A man of God does not see to it that opponents of his theology, those who stand with the scriptures rightly preached, are to be burned alive so as to silence truth. John Calvin was not of God.
And if one of these threads concerning the particulars of his heresy against God's holy teaching reaches one person reading so that they renounce Calvinism, or commit with the knowledge we've parsed out , to searching deeper in the scriptures for the Truth of God in Christ, thank GOD!
That's one less soul to have to answer for following Calvin, while demeaning God, and Jesus' work on the cross.

here is what Romans 11:32 has to do with "man can't be depraved because an Omni-benevolent & omniscient God created him after His image and likeness"

we'll call that statement A

A presumes that it is not good that man is concluded under sin.
the scripture says, God concluded all under sin.
if A is true then Romans 11:32 either isn't true, or it doesn't mean anything like what it literally says.
that 's what it has to do with your remarks.

the scripture says God concluded us all in sin, in unbelief. and it says why He did so: in order that He might have mercy on us all.

Jesus Christ is the righteousness and the demonstration of the mercy of God:

scripture says why He concluded all under sin, and it is good: in order that He might show mercy to all. in order demonstrate His righteousness. in order that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Him. in order that boasting be excluded. in order that all things be to His glory.

consider the situation when Adam and the woman became poisoned by sin. He could have destroyed them in condemnation immediately, and be just. but in His mercy He pronounced the judgement of The Seed and cursed the ground for Adam's sake. and Adam understood, and changed her name to Eve.
God allowed you and i to have existence.
in order to have mercy on us.
in order to demonstrate His righteousness.
in order to be just and The Justifier of us whosoever has faith in Him.
in order to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels He created for His mercy.
in order to make His great power and patience known.
in order that boasting be excluded.
in order to work all things together for His good.
because it is His good pleasure.
because everything He does is good.
because He does all His will.
because He knows and declares the end from the beginning.
because His word doesn't go out without accomplishing its purpose.
because He is the Beginning and the End.

i hope that makes sense now?

would you mind telling me what you think Romans 11:32 means?

thanks