Is unconditional election biblical?

Yes it is. As is the faith we are given to believe. That is precisely what the verse says.

The only common denominator for all people is "belief" and all people have been given some truth according to Romans 1 but some choose to suppress that truth in unrighteousness.

Our belief in no way diminishes God's sovereignty

Truth is different than faith.

Many have disputed this ...but unfortunately that is what is generally believed..... so be it.

I mean that's what it says. We are also left with the question, if the faith ISN'T a gift from God, then where does it come from?

Mr PennEd you are so funny, we have discussed this soooo many times, and not only that, I have made a very compelling case!!

But I noticed ya didn't answer the question.....

Besides, 62.5% of the vote is a Trump=like landslide for election! Yea!

But I have answered so many times....did you forget what I stated?

I would like for you to explain with scripture why you say that eternal salvation is conditional.

Then how do you deal with Psalms 53:2?

Hmmmm, good point...🤔

Is this with regards to election or is that reading into the text?

I don't believe it is conditional. I believe it is unconditional, if you are talking about unconditional election. I hold a Reformed view, and I believe God elects individuals unconditionally. He regenerates the elect, and causes them to believe and to repent through the liberation resulting from being born again.

I presented the opposite view, though, for comparison purposes. And, the opposite view claims that God elects based on foreseen faith. They believe that the person, in essence, elects himself through his free-will choice to believe and repent.

This would, in essence, mean that God does not choose. And this is a view I reject.

Good question.

By the way, I hate the word Calvinism and hardly ever use it to refer to myself.

The obvious charge will be that its adherents follow a man. I didn't even know Calvin's name when I began to understand predestination. My Arminian pastor told me about him when I brought up what I was learning from Romans back then.

And, then, there's always the bogus claims regarding John Calvin and Michael Servetus, which are highly distorted. Unfortunately guys like Dave Hunt have spread a lot of misinformation in the church.

By the way, i heard a great podcast that displays the historical nonsense regarding Calvin and Servetus by Tyler Vela.

He does a lot of good podcasts, some of which are related to Reformed theology:

https://thefreedthinker.podbean.com...story-matters-calvin-and-the-servetus-affair/

Good morning from here..or should dI say Buenos días desde aquí?
No offense taken, although I never make typo's or spelling errors….lol

Im not sure about the trems "" "" becasue I ahve not found the terms directly, so I don't know 100% what the pertain to, but I know Jesus says this:

John 5:28-29, " 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

John 12:47-48, " 47 If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.

Don't worry. Only Calvinism thinks this is rocket science. Hence all the theological jargon.

When you get involved in any sports, etcetera, it requires that you learn its' language. The same is true with regards to Christianity. For instance, some new believers don't even know that "the nations" can refer to Gentiles alone, or can refer to Gentiles AND Israel.

Same with the phrase "the peoples".

So, no matter what, there is a learning curve.

In the case of "general call" versus "effectual call", the difference is that believers preach the gospel to everyone, yet they know that only the elect will respond, and this response is because they are one of the "sheep" that Jesus says listen to his voice (John 6, 10) and have been given to him by the Father.

To deny this distinction, between the elect and the non-elect, and two different kinds of calling is really to entertain confusion.

There are reasons for theological language, and regardless of theological language, biblical language needs to be clarified, too, such as my example about "the nations", "the peoples". One can't even read Psalms with a decent level of comprehension until they know how the Bible uses phrases, etcetera.

I learned this trying to teach people in a parachurch ministry. Their eyes may have been running across the pages, but they didn't understand the meaning of the text.

Someone asked me how much Bible I read a day. I told them, two chapters. He bragged and told me that was nothing; he reads like ten chapters a day, in order to make himself appear to be the authority. Well, it was obvious from our conversation that he wasn't reading it in depth and was only letting his eyes glance over the page. I doubt if he understood phrases like "the nations", especially since he claimed Israelites were all black, latino or Native American tribes.

He also wanted everyone to use Yehoshua or something like that to refer to Jesus.

He became so angry with me for pointing out the problems with his claims, that he called me the F word, because I didn't accept them. Then he blamed me for making him cuss. I'm laughing right now thinking about that.

I think about anyone here is a girl scout compared to some of the guys I dealt with there.