Is unconditional election biblical?

7seasrekeyed · Oct 21, 2019

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

posthuman · Oct 21, 2019

7seasrekeyed said:

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

Whispered · Oct 21, 2019

John146 said:

The Father was the Son.

Whispered · Oct 21, 2019

7seasrekeyed said:

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

7seasrekeyed · Oct 22, 2019

posthuman said:

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

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

7seasrekeyed · Oct 22, 2019

Whispered said:

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

right

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

posthuman · Oct 22, 2019

7seasrekeyed said:

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

Qui regnare facit hominem hypocritam

propter peccata populi.

& 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.

He makes deceitful men reign because of the sins of the people

posthuman · Oct 22, 2019

7seasrekeyed said:

yes

7seasrekeyed said:

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?

7seasrekeyed said:

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'

posthuman · Oct 22, 2019

7seasrekeyed said:

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,

In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will

(Ephesians 1:11)

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.

7seasrekeyed · Oct 22, 2019

posthuman said:

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'

ForestGreenCook · Oct 22, 2019

John146 said:

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.

ForestGreenCook · Oct 22, 2019

Gentle-Warrior said:

It all depends on whether we understand Hebrew thinking or not. Hebrew culture had the tendency to understand God as if He was the author and the finisher of every event that took place in their lives while ignoring the details that brought such events to its climax. In this case (Isa. 53:10), it was not God who put Jesus to grief but men. It was not God who crushed Him but men, yet Hebrew culture had a way of removing the details that led to its final end (in this case, men are omitted), and made it look like if God Himself was doing it. They believed in God's sovereignty.

Also, it is necessary to add that Hebrew people thought and spoke in pictures as opposed to Greek thinking that thinks in concepts. This is one of the reasons why the NT was not written in Hebrew but in Greek. The Greek or the western thinking is more exact when we describe events. The Hebrews always put God in the middle of events to relate that God was always involved in the lives of His people.

As an example, if something bad took place to the Hebrews, they went to Him wailing as to why He had done it. The psalms are filled with this idea.

We will also find this kind of thinking in the scriptures and read verses like, "God slew "someone" (KJV Gen 38:8, 10) while skipping the details as to how this particular man died. The man may have died a sickness prematurely where God was not causing this to happen. The same thing is applied to catastrophic events when the Hebrews used excessive exaggerations to make a point As an example, Joel prophesies about the last days' events which came to pass after Jesus ascended to the throne, but the things Joel said, didn't come to pass literally speaking. See Joel 2:29-31.

In the NT, Peter quoted Joel in Acts 2:17 and said in V:16, "This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel." He goes on to indicate that Joel's prophecy was being fulfilled right then and there, yet we do not see the sun turning into darkness or the moon turning into blood. Why? Because he was using Hebrew metaphors to make a point that the day of the Lord had come with great pomposity. It is interesting that no one asked why the sun was not turning into the darkness and why it wasn't the moon bleeding (an indication that the old covenant was over).

They understood that a climatic event had taken place that pointed to the forgiveness of sins which opened the door to a new era where righteousness would reign in the hearts of those who believed what the Lord had done for them (new covenant).

Finally, it is imperative to understand that God did not delight in the sufferings of His Son nor was He aloof from Him when Jesus was hanging on a tree. The Father was present to Him when men poured out their wrath on Jesus, but God did nothing to prevent it, neither did Jesus nor the Holy Spirit. God just let them according to His predetermined plan (Acts 2:23).

The "pleasing" or the "delight" was what was being accomplished, not what was taking place on the cross.

Well, that's my take anyway.

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?

Whispered · Oct 22, 2019

posthuman said:

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

Gentle-Warrior · Oct 22, 2019

ForestGreenCook said:

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

Gentle-Warrior · Oct 22, 2019

posthuman said:

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'

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.

Whispered · Oct 22, 2019

Gentle-Warrior said:

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.

Whispered · Oct 22, 2019

Gentle-Warrior said:

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

ForestGreenCook · Oct 22, 2019

Gentle-Warrior said:

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.

ForestGreenCook · Oct 22, 2019

Gentle-Warrior said:

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).

posthuman · Oct 22, 2019

Whispered said:

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.

____________________________________________________________

Is unconditional election biblical?

Is unconditional election biblical?

Yes, unconditional election is biblical.

No , unconditional election is not biblical.

I don't know.

7seasrekeyed

Guest

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

7seasrekeyed

Guest

7seasrekeyed

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

7seasrekeyed

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member