Doctrine of Unconditional Election

God choose direct revelation here and this was prior to the completion of the Jesus' ministry, we now have the full story to tell.

I find it interesting that in Acts Paul tells the King Agrippa
19 “So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds.

He had a choice, he was not disobedient.
He could have been.
Ananias and Sapphira were disobedient.

Yes. But their actions had no bearing on salvation.

Paul made a choice..... but agree Ananias and Sapphira, no.

You believe in luck...

The irony…a Calvinist believing in luck.😂

Just kidding papermonkey😉

It is speaking of Gentiles and Jews only in relation to being of the elect. The verses are stating that the elect through Christ,
become new people and are thereby reconciled to God.

Okay first, if I get your question correctly, maybe the confusion is that you misread two words of the verses, upon which everything hangs. Look at the below verses closely. In v21, the word is "dishonor". In v22, it is "destruction".
These are different words with different meanings and intent. Those of one lump are to dishonour insofar as they are not of the lump of elect and so not justified by Christ (it is only by Christ that no dishonour is assessed). But... instead, by their violation of John 3:19, are they fitted to destruction. In other words, dishonour is not synonymous with destruction - different situations are being described. As I tried to say in my prior post, is that we should all be of the dishonour lump, but only by God's grace and mercy are any of us (the elect) of the other non-dishonour lump. Those of the dishonour lump remain "natural man" throughout their lives, and as such, by man's nature, place trust in their works for salvation instead of fully in Christ and His offering- it is that trust in their works that makes them fitted to destruction - but that was caused by Adam and Eve, not by God. It is just because God had not chosen to make them of the elect.
At least, for whatever it's worth, that's how I understand it.

[Rom 9:21-22 KJV]
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Second, to understand who Peter is addressing in 3:9 we need to look at the salutation of 1:1. If you read 1:1 below, we can
see he is addressing "them who have obtained like precious faith" through Jesus Christ - or, said another way, the us-ward of 3:9 are only the elect of 1:1, but not everyone, so God does not desire everyone to become saved or they would be.

[2Pe 1:1 KJV] 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

[2Pe 3:9 KJV] 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

We all make choices. I usually choose to obey God. Sometimes I don't.
When I don't, I do invite the chastening hand of God into my life, but I don't lose my salvation.
If someone viewed my life at a time when I was struggling with temptation and sin, they might conclude I had no faith. Would they be right?

Actually, that comment imparted your theology necessitates you believe in luck.

I think if I was a learned elder hoping to disciple another person who was struggling with sin and temptation I would first make sure

they can clearly explain the Gospel and if I believed they had a strong testimony, I would then counsel them on walking in the Spirit,

reminding him/her of their true nature in Christ and leaning into the sanctification they have and Grace God promised to each believer.

That's a great response and thanks for it. But it was just a rhetorical question. I don't believe our works are a good barometer of faith.
I do, however, believe the work that God does in me is. While motives for apparent works can be seen only by God, works of God in me are able to be witnessed by all and can only be ascribed to God.

I understand what you are saying but even good works can be faked.

The chosen, the elect are the Jews. It's talking about how the two have become one through Christ. Those who were far away were the Gentiles but God has grafted us in. It's talking about how Gentiles are now a part of the fold and how both Jew and Gentile are one body. I don't think that is the same as you originally stated, unless I have missed something.

Yes, perhaps that is how you understand it. But I'm not sure that's how Calvin saw it, and I would say it's his POV that we are discussing. My understanding is that God chose who would be elect and who wouldn't. So then my question would make sense.

Loadship salvation/Calvinism is bondage and creates angry people.


It has a God who
refuses to grant the reprobates the ability to repent to His own appeals and then judges them for their unwillingness to repent in light of Christ’s own word.

I will keep the sovereign God of scripture who is not a hater of humanity.

Loadship salvation/Calvinism is bondage and creates angry people.


It has a God who
refuses to grant the reprobates the ability to repent to His own appeals and then judges them for their unwillingness to repent in light of Christ’s own word.

I will keep the sovereign God of scripture who is not a hater of humanity.

God divorced the nation of Israel. The Jews are now the spiritual Jews - the elect based upon God choosing of people individually, not the physical Jews - the day of their special relationship with God is long over.



We aren't talking Calvin we are talking the Bible.

Look, we are way too far apart to continue this conversation in any reasonable manner, so I don't see any benefit in continuing it.

Say so does not negate anything, the Greek of the case ca


Greek grammar makes it clear faith cannot be the gift, but you prefer the tradition of men.

"Touto" cannot refer to faith because faith is feminine.

Touto is nominative, singular and neuter.

...and I could go on but it won't change anything because we both know the entire "system" falls apart if faith is not a gift and the system must be upheld on every point to maintain its facade of harmony.

You have no understanding of Calvinism.

You might want to take time off line and commit to reading the old testament. There you will find God does hate. Much.

''“Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly. “I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts, They have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them.''


''The Lord God has sworn by Himself, the Lord God of hosts has declared: “I loathe the arrogance of Jacob, And detest his citadels; Therefore I will deliver up the city and all it contains.”


''There are six things which the Lord hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.''


'' The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.''

'' And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.''


''Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.''

Now do you deny that Grace is a Gift

Faith is a Gift out of Grace which both are feminine in Eph 2:8

Right. But patience can't. Nor can gentleness. Or any work of the Spirit.

Something I've noticed here is when we hold to what scriptures teach and without altering their message to fit our preference, we're accused of being Calvinists.

It appears to be a tactic meant to imply we're not Christian,without making that accusation outright.

And also what I've noticed is those who make the allegation dont know what Calvinism actually teaches.

Have you also noticed this?