The Good News/The Bad News

[Hospes]

Why do I need Wikipedia?
I quoted John Calvin.
Does John Calvin not now what calvinism is??

Why do you understand it differently than how Calvin explains it?
Does it sound too harsh?
Does it need to be sweetened up?

The passage you quoted from Calvin was not on Unconditional Election. In fact, I do not think - though I could be wrong - Calvin ever used the term "Unconditional Election". (I believe the term was possibly used for the first time in the Canons of Dort, a half-century after Calvin had died.) Of course, I am not denying he taught it.

 

[Hospes]

we all have faith except maybe atheist agnostics even in my heathen days i had faith i just reused Jesus

I agree everyone has faith. The object of faith makes all the difference. I assume the faith you write of from your heathen days did not have the Gospel as its object.

For future reference, when discussing faith in light of a specific scripture, you may assume I am using the word in the same way the scripture is using it.

 

[OzSpen]

The passage you quoted from Calvin was not on Unconditional Election. In fact, I do not think - though I could be wrong - Calvin ever used the term "Unconditional Election". (I believe the term was possibly used for the first time in the Canons of Dort, a half-century after Calvin had died.) Of course, I am not denying he taught it.

Hospes,

Historically, it seems the term, "unconditional election", was used in opposition to the Remonstrance of Arminianism and was formulated at the Synod of Dort.

However, the doctrine was taught by St Augustine. See his comments on John 15:15-16.

Oz

 

[Fastfredy0]

BTW....I found that video by Macarthur, stating that God created evil.
Here it is:

wow ... Thanks for the partial answer. I need you to filter the answer to a digestible quantity. Specifically, please tell me where in the 1 hour recording to look for a statement that shows MacArthur said "God created evil". (Maybe a 5 minute window with the SENTENCE(S) that give credence to your assertion).
Aside: It is difficult to prove a negative, so me stating your allegation is false won't mean much considering that length of the video.

As proof the MacArthur does NOT support your allegation that God created evil I quote from the URL: https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A189/is-god-responsible-for-evil

Is God Responsible for Evil?​

No. Scripture says that when God finished His creation, He saw everything and declared it "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Many Scriptures affirm that God is not the author of evil: "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (James 1:13). "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33)—and if that is true, He cannot in any way be the author of evil.
John MacArthur

 

[Fastfredy0]

scoured your [Wonderings ] post to find something I disagreed with and it's with a bit of a sense of failure I have to tell you I agreed with it all. Please do not be disappointed in me.

OH NO ... you've gone over to the "Dark Side". The apocalypses is imminent.

 

[OzSpen]

Ephesians 2:8 is often spoken of to determine what the gift of God is.
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;


It is accepted by most theologians that know Greek that the gift is SALVATION.

You have just supported this by posting Romans 3:24-25 which states that Justification is a gift. Justification = Salvation.
"They are justified by His grace as a gift".

My NASB says LEADING to the obedience of faith, instead of FOR.
To me it just means that we are to have faith in God and obey Him...the obedience of faith.
Also spoken of in Romans 1:5 referring to the teaching of obedience to the Gentiles.

wondering,

This will be a technical explanation from the Greek NT.

One of the greatest NT Greek scholars of the 20th century, Dr. A. T. Robertson, noted this of Eph. 2:8,

“Grace” is God’s part, “faith” is ours. And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine taute, and so refers not to pistis (feminine) or to charis (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part (A T Robertson 1931. Word Pictures in the New Testament: The Epistles of Paul, Vol IV. Nashville, Tennessee: Boardman Press, p. 525, emphasis in the original).

If Paul wanted “that/this” to refer to grace or faith, there was a regular Greek way of doing it. He would have used the same gender for “this/that” as for “faith” or “grace”. Paul would have written taute and not tauto for the demonstrative in this Scripture. But he did not use this grammar. Instead, by using the neuter, tauto, Paul refers to the whole process of salvation by grace through faith.

Even the Calvinist, F. F. Bruce agreed, stating this of Eph. 2:8,

But the fact that the demonstrative pronoun ‘that’ is neuter in Greek (tauto), whereas ‘faith’ is a feminine noun (pistis), combines with other considerations to suggest that it is the whole concept of salvation by grace through faith that is described as the gift of God (F F Bruce 1961. The Epistle to the Ephesians. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, p. 51.)

So Ephesians 2:8, based on the Greek grammar, does not teach that faith is an irresistible gift straight from God that a person has no say about and cannot reject. This verse says that salvation is of God (and affirmed by Eph. 2:9). But Eph 2:8 does not demonstrate that salvation is a deterministic born again (regeneration) experience that is imposed on a person without his/her consent – which the Calvinists believe (from my article: An Arminian view of faith in Christ)

Oz

 

[Fastfredy0]

This will be a technical explanation from the Greek NT.

One of the greatest NT Greek scholars of the 20th century, Dr. A. T. Robertson, noted this of Eph. 2:8,

So Ephesians 2:8, based on the Greek grammar, does not teach that faith is an irresistible gift straight from God that a person has no say about and cannot reject.

This is interesting. I don't wish to debate this verse as to which Greek scholar is correct as that is beyond my abilities. I just want to note that others use Greek interpretation and grammatical rules to show the opposite as demonstrated below.

MacArthur :
Some have objected to this interpretation, saying that faith ( pistis ) is feminine, while that ( touto ) is neuter. That poses no problem, however, as long as it is understood that that does not refer precisely to the noun faith but to the act of believing. Further, this interpretation makes the best sense of the text, since if that refers to by grace you have been saved through faith (that is, to the whole statement), the adding of and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God would be redundant, because grace is defined as an unearned act of God. If salvation is of grace, it has to be an undeserved gift of God. Faith is presented as a gift from God in 2 Peter 1:1, Philippians 1:29, and Acts 3:16.

AND

“And this is not your own doing.” The word “this” must have an antecedent, which would normally be the closest preceding noun. In this case, “this” would refer back to “faith.” Paul is not saying that grace is not our own doing. That would be redundant, because if it were our own doing, it would not be gracious at all. Rather, he says that faith is not our own doing. That does not mean that faith is not found in us; it is found in us. It does not mean that it is someone else’s faith by which we are justified. It is, properly speaking, our faith, for we are the ones who have it, the ones who are exercising it. But it is not our own doing, meaning that we are not the origin of it. It is not something that we have generated by our own power, nor does it originate in our flesh. R.C. Sproul Truths We Confess

Hmmmm.... WHAT IS TRUTH? Maybe the scholars are as biased as us.

Well, I'm not going to study Greek to try to find out (I'm still working on English)

 

[OzSpen]

All denominations agree that the JWs are not Christian and are preaching a different gospel.
I don't know about the Oneness movement and cannot spend the time to learn about them.
From what you write, it sounds like a different gospel to me.
I don't remember Jesus saying we had to speak in tongues.
Baptism in Jesus' name means HIS name and not John's.
But the FORMULA is: In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Jesus said this.

Doesn't Jesus know the Christian religion???!!!

wondering,

In brief,

The United Pentecostal Church and ‘Jesus Only’ Pentecostals (Oneness Pentecostals) are modalists, which is a heresy from the early church. For a refutation of Oneness Pentecostalism, see Jason Barker of Watchman Fellowship’s Profile article, ‘Oneness Pentecostalism’. See also ‘Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God‘. These articles expose the dangerous heresy of modalism whose early form was Sabellianism and whose modern manifestation is Oneness Pentecostalism or Jesus Only Pentecostalism.

The basic beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals are:

The "Jesus Only" movement, also known as Oneness Pentecostalism or oneness theology, teaches that there is only one God, but denies the tri-unity of God. In other words, oneness theology does not recognize the distinct persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It has various forms—some see Jesus Christ as the one God, who sometimes manifests Himself as the Father or the Holy Spirit. The core doctrine of Oneness Pentecostal / Jesus Only is that Jesus is the Father and Jesus is the Spirit. There is one God who reveals Himself in different "modes."

This teaching of the Jesus Only / Oneness Pentecostals has been around for centuries, in one form or another, as modalism. Modalism teaches that God operated in different forms or modes at different times—sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit. But passages like Matthew 3:16-17, where two or all three Persons of the Godhead are present, contradict the modalistic view. Modalism was condemned as heretical as early as the second century A.D. The early church strongly contended against the view that God is strictly a singular person who acted in different forms at different times. They argued from Scripture that the tri-unity of God is evident in that more than one Person of the Godhead is often seen simultaneously, and they often interact with one another (examples: Genesis 1:26; 3:22;11:7; Psalm 2:7; 104:30; 110:1; Matthew 28:19; John 14:16). Oneness Pentecostalism / Jesus Only doctrine is unbiblical ("What are the beliefs of Jesus only / oneness Pentecostals? - Got Questions).​

I encourage you to understand the orthodox Christian Trinity so you have ammunition to refute Oneness Pentecostals. They are around me here in Brisbane. I bought some ink-jet toner cartridges for my printer and the distributor delivered them to my house. When he saw the multitude of Christian books on my shelves, he made comments that rubbished me as a Trinitarian. See my three articles:

Problems with the Trinity

Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?

How to understand three persons in the Trinity

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

This is interesting. I don't wish to debate this verse as to which Greek scholar is correct as that is beyond my abilities. I just want to note that others use Greek interpretation and grammatical rules to show the opposite as demonstrated below.

MacArthur :
Some have objected to this interpretation, saying that faith ( pistis ) is feminine, while that ( touto ) is neuter. That poses no problem, however, as long as it is understood that that does not refer precisely to the noun faith but to the act of believing. Further, this interpretation makes the best sense of the text, since if that refers to by grace you have been saved through faith (that is, to the whole statement), the adding of and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God would be redundant, because grace is defined as an unearned act of God. If salvation is of grace, it has to be an undeserved gift of God. Faith is presented as a gift from God in 2 Peter 1:1, Philippians 1:29, and Acts 3:16.

AND

“And this is not your own doing.” The word “this” must have an antecedent, which would normally be the closest preceding noun. In this case, “this” would refer back to “faith.” Paul is not saying that grace is not our own doing. That would be redundant, because if it were our own doing, it would not be gracious at all. Rather, he says that faith is not our own doing. That does not mean that faith is not found in us; it is found in us. It does not mean that it is someone else’s faith by which we are justified. It is, properly speaking, our faith, for we are the ones who have it, the ones who are exercising it. But it is not our own doing, meaning that we are not the origin of it. It is not something that we have generated by our own power, nor does it originate in our flesh. R.C. Sproul Truths We Confess

Hmmmm.... WHAT IS TRUTH? Maybe the scholars are as biased as us.

Well, I'm not going to study Greek to try to find out (I'm still working on English)

Fastfredy0,

You have quoted 2 Calvinistic scholars - MacArthur and Sproul - who disagree on Eph 2:8-9 with the 2 Calvinistic scholars I cited - A T Robertson & F F Bruce.

I'm a student of Greek and a retired teacher of NT Greek. I'll go with the grammar and syntax I learned in my Greek classes and texts. They conclude in agreement with Robertson and Bruce.

Dr Bill Mounce is a Greek scholar who is on the NIV translation committee. Of Eph 2:8-9 he wrote:

Paul writes that For by grace (χάριτι) you have been saved through faith (πίστεως), and this (τοῦτο) is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:8-9).
This is one of the main passages used to show that salvation is not based on what we do but; rather, salvation is an unearned gift. Among other things, this means that no one can boast about deserving to be saved. More specifically, it is often used to emphasize that even our faith itself is not something we posses but rather is given to us: faith ... this not of yourselves ... the gift of God.
The problem with that exegesis of the verse is that this is a neuter pronoun and faith is a feminine noun. While a pronoun's case is determined by its function in the sentence, it gender and number are determined by its antecedent. Therefore, this cannot be referring back to faith. But grace also is feminine, so it cannot be the antecedent of τοῦτο. So what is?
If you looks backwards for an antecedent, you will look in vain. There are neuter nouns, but they make no sense as an antecedent.
The answer is to know a little Greek! When Greek wants to refer back to a general though, perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is not of yourselves does not refer specifically to πίστεως but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part. It is the entire salvific process that is God's gracious gift and is not part of our own doing. It is a gift.
We often talk about trusting god, that salvation is by faith, but I have often wondered how much people are really able to understand these words. I got to hear my nephew preach this morning, and he did a great job of explaining Eph 2:8-9 (although he never referenced it) using Isa 6. God reveals himself as a holy God. Isaiah's appropriate response was to see the great chasm between himself and God and cry out, Woe is me. Isaiah is forgiven by merely receiving God's atoning gift of the burning goals. Salvation, Dave preached, has to do with seeing God for who he is, with seeing myself for who I am, realizing that there is nothing I can do to move from being a sinner to being holy, and yet also believing that the holy God has done what only he can do in reaching out and offering forgiveness to us. Faith is believing that God has extended the fires of forgiveness.
Isaiah clearly saw that the entire process was a gracious gift received by the faith that believes God has bridged the gap and has forgiven our sins [Bill Mounce, Antecedents and Faith (Eph 2:8-9)]

I'll stick with the Greek grammarians.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hospes,

Historically, it seems the term, "unconditional election", was used in opposition to the Remonstrance of Arminianism and was formulated at the Synod of Dort.

However, the doctrine was taught by St Augustine. See his comments on John 15:15-16.

Oz

Here is a specific link on the New Advent website to St Augustine's brief essay (tractate) on John 15:15-16.

For links to the works of the various early church fathers, I highly recommend this New Advent site. I use it regularly.

 

[Hospes]

Hi OzSpen. I'm a bit confused. If I understand you correctly, you are saying faith is not a gift of God. But the Greek scholar you quote, Dr Bill Mounce, writes

When Greek wants to refer back to a general though, perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is not of yourselves does not refer specifically to πίστεως but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part. It is the entire salvific process that is God's gracious gift and is not part of our own doing. It is a gift.​

So isn't Mounce asserting that faith is a gift?

 

[OzSpen]

Hi OzSpen. I'm a bit confused. If I understand you correctly, you are saying faith is not a gift of God. But the Greek scholar you quote, Dr Bill Mounce, writes

When Greek wants to refer back to a general though, perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is not of yourselves does not refer specifically to πίστεως but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part. It is the entire salvific process that is God's gracious gift and is not part of our own doing. It is a gift.​

So isn't Mounce asserting that faith is a gift?

No, "faith" = the feminine pistis cannot refer to the antecedent touto (neuter) because the antecedent for a feminine noun, pistis, should be a feminine demonstrative, this/that. However, the demonstrative is not in the feminine.

This is what Mounce asserted:

It [Eph 2:8-9 ESV] is often used to emphasize that even our faith itself is not something we posses but rather is given to us: faith ... this not of yourselves ... the gift of God.​

​

The problem with that exegesis of the verse is that this is a neuter pronoun and faith is a feminine noun. While a pronoun's case is determined by its function in the sentence, it(s) gender and number are determined by its antecedent. Therefore, this cannot be referring back to faith. But grace also is feminine, so it cannot be the antecedent of τοῦτο. So what is?​

​

If you look backwards for an antecedent, you will look in vain. There are neuter nouns, but they make no sense as an antecedent.​

​

The answer is to know a little Greek! When Greek wants to refer back to a general though[t], perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is not of yourselves does not refer specifically to πίστεως [faith] but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part. It is the entire salvific process that is God's gracious gift and is not part of our own doing. It is a gift.​

Mounce agrees with the exegesis I provided to you.

Oz

 

[Hospes]

Dr Bill Mounce: This is not of yourselves does not refer specifically to πίστεως [faith] but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part. It is the entire salvific process that is God's gracious gift and is not part of our own doing. It is a gift.

Oz, isn't Mounce writing that "the entire salvific process" is a gift and that "faith obviously is a part" of the salvific process? Faith being a part of the process and the entire process a gift, then isn't he asserting faith is a gift?

Also, when I read FF Bruce, he is asserting the same as Mounce. Specifcally, that the entire salvific process is a gift, which is in agreement with Reformed Theology.

I realy don't intend to sound pedantic, but you seem to be asserting that faith is not a gift and yet you're quoting two Greek experts that are positing it is a gift. I'm truly confused, so what am I not getting? Am I not understanding your position?

 

[GodsGrace]

The passage you quoted from Calvin was not on Unconditional Election. In fact, I do not think - though I could be wrong - Calvin ever used the term "Unconditional Election". (I believe the term was possibly used for the first time in the Canons of Dort, a half-century after Calvin had died.) Of course, I am not denying he taught it.

What I posted is on Unconditional Election....
God elects who will be saved with no condition other than that He wants to.
The Synod of Dort came up with the acronym T.U.L.I.P. to remember the important points of Calvinism better.

I'll post it again so you could read it again and come to the realization that
it's speaking about those who will be saved and those who will be damned
and that it is GOD, according to John Calvin, that will be making that decision.

This is called Unconditional Election.
God PREDESTINED who would be SAVED and who would be DAMNED.
Who will have life and who will have death.

Can't get any clearer than the following:


By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

Source: John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
Chapter 21
Paragraph 5

 

[GodsGrace]

wow ... Thanks for the partial answer. I need you to filter the answer to a digestible quantity. Specifically, please tell me where in the 1 hour recording to look for a statement that shows MacArthur said "God created evil". (Maybe a 5 minute window with the SENTENCE(S) that give credence to your assertion).
Aside: It is difficult to prove a negative, so me stating your allegation is false won't mean much considering that length of the video.

As proof the MacArthur does NOT support your allegation that God created evil I quote from the URL: https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A189/is-god-responsible-for-evil

Actually FF, I don't really care what Macarthur thinks. I said I heard him say God created evil and you wanted proof, so I posted the video where
he clearly states that God created everythng including evil.

You really should take the time and listen to the entire talk.
If you don't care to know what he stated,,,I cannot do anything more for you than post the video.
I don't intend to go thru it word for word.
The bible is THE WORD....Not him.

Is God Responsible for Evil?​

No. Scripture says that when God finished His creation, He saw everything and declared it "very good" (Genesis 1:31). Many Scriptures affirm that God is not the author of evil: "God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone" (James 1:13). "God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33)—and if that is true, He cannot in any way be the author of evil.
John MacArthur

Very interesting. Macarthur did say all of the above and more. You really need to stop clipping out sayings of his
and listen to his ENTIRE speech and see what you come away with.
Snippets do not tell the entire story unless they CONFIRM what a poster is asserting...
Please post the source of your snippet - I've asked you this many times and it is REQUIRED by the TOS.
Not that it makes much difference to me.
I like when you use the scriptures to support your points.

 

[stovebolts]

I welcome your interruption!

I see nothing in what you wrote that indicates you and I see it differently.

Would I be clearer if I added that the "many mighty works in your name" were not works indicating "the obedience of faith" but rather works born of wrong motives rather than from knowing Christ? In essence, they were faux works.

As you wrote, what makes a good work good truly is a matter of the heart. I believe that for someone who knows Christ, the motive for obedience is their love for Christ. As Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. John 14:15 (ESV) The condition is love for Jesus, the result is obedience to His commandments. Truly, on our love for God and one another "depends all the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:40 (ESV)

If you still think we see it differently, I welcome you to explain to me further what you are seeing that I am missing. Never know, I may learn something!

Thank you! My bad, that’s what I get for jumping in mid stream.
I especially like what you said.
”The condition is love for Jesus”. It resonates with me because Jesus said, “ Where your treasure is, there your heart will follow”. Do we treasure the commandments of Jesus?
Love the Lord with all your heart, strength and soul. Sounds simple until we understand it’s to love God with our mind, love him with everything we do and love him in every feeling we have. Suddenly, it’s not so easy to live out because we often walk in our flesh, and not as Jesus walked.
Did you know in Jewish thought that the idea of sacrifice as we know it is a foreign thought? Here’s the best I can describe it. They are optimists! The cup is always half full. Sacrifice is not about what is lost. It’s about what is gained. At the altar, sacrifice is about drawing near to God.
Also, most offerings, only the fat was offered representing the abundance of the land. The rest was eaten with community.
Summary, the Altar is wher the worshipper drew near to God. The table is where that nearness was celebrated in community.
It is the cross that functions as the Alter, ant the Lords table that we celebrate.
What a treasure we have in Christ.

 

[stovebolts]

I don't believe faith is a gift.
I knew you wouldn't agree with all I said !

Sure faith is a gift. It’s not a matter of it being a gift. It’s a matter of accepting the gift.
God desires all men to be saved. Hence, the gift is offered to all.

 

[stovebolts]

Fastfredy0,

You have quoted 2 Calvinistic scholars - MacArthur and Sproul - who disagree on Eph 2:8-9 with the 2 Calvinistic scholars I cited - A T Robertson & F F Bruce.

I'm a student of Greek and a retired teacher of NT Greek. I'll go with the grammar and syntax I learned in my Greek classes and texts. They conclude in agreement with Robertson and Bruce.

Dr Bill Mounce is a Greek scholar who is on the NIV translation committee. Of Eph 2:8-9 he wrote:



I'll stick with the Greek grammarians.

Oz

Can I ask you this about Eph 2:8

through which is dia means instrument.
I was taught that faith is the instrument Grace is applied.
Does this line up with your understanding, or do you think I was taught wrong?

If faith is the instrument, is it our faith which we received from God, or is it Gods faith imposed upon us, or is it our faith void of Gods interaction. Personally, I lean to the first option.

 

[Hospes]

Did you know in Jewish thought that the idea of sacrifice as we know it is a foreign thought? Here’s the best I can describe it. They are optimists! The cup is always half full. Sacrifice is not about what is lost. It’s about what is gained. At the altar, sacrifice is about drawing near to God. Also, most offerings, only the fat was offered representing the abundance of the land. The rest was eaten with community. Summary, the Altar is where the worshipper drew near to God. The table is where that nearness was celebrated in community. It is the cross that functions as the Alter, ant the Lords table that we celebrate.
What a treasure we have in Christ.

Agreed!

I very much think we have become too enamored with our view of sacrifice as some type of ultimate Christian virtue. It is not. I believe anything we "sacrifice" does not belong to us anyway. Wrongly using the word sacrifice: sacrificing to God is like me "sacrificing" your guitar by handing it to you. "For who has given a gift to Him, that he might be repaid" Romans 11:35 (ESV) and "What do you have that you did not receive?" 1 Corinthians 4:7 (ESV) It is only in our sin-addled minds do we think something ultimately belongs to us.

Also, giving up something of lesser value to gain something of greater value doesn't fit our notion of sacrifice, but it is exactly what we do when we let go of a "possession" in order to gain Christ. I'd call it a bargain more than a sacrifice! It is only due to my unsanctified sin-deluded mind that I do not see this at all times and truly get to the place where, with Paul, I could say "I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him... Philippians 3:8–9 (ESV)

True sacrifice is not giving up something, but rather having the good sense to know when to let go of "rubbish" of relatively little value in order to gain Who is of infinite value.

I blame you, stovebolts, for this side rant. Your post triggered me. Couldn't stop myself...

 

[Hospes]

What I posted is on Unconditional Election....
God elects who will be saved with no condition other than that He wants to.
The Synod of Dort came up with the acronym T.U.L.I.P. to remember the important points of Calvinism better.

I'll post it again so you could read it again and come to the realization that
it's speaking about those who will be saved and those who will be damned
and that it is GOD, according to John Calvin, that will be making that decision.

This is called Unconditional Election.
God PREDESTINED who would be SAVED and who would be DAMNED.
Who will have life and who will have death.

Can't get any clearer than the following:

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

Source: John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion
Chapter 21
Paragraph 5

Okay, wondering, being the most patient person I know (and humble to boot!), I will do my best to explain.

The passage you use is about predestination. Predestination, like all of TULIP, is logically tied to Unconditional Election, but is not the same thing. Predestination leads to asking "Well, in predestining people, upon what criteria does God decide who is elect?" Unconditional Election is the answer to this question. And the answer is that God chooses the elect purely according to HIs own purposes and does not consider the quality, characteristics, personality, intelligence, good looks, athleticism, etc - i.e. the condition - of the person. He does not choose the elect based on the condition of the person, thus the "Unconditional" in Unconditional Election. So, yes, the passage you quote is related to Unconditional Election, but the passage does not define it.

Like much of Reformed Theology, it is an offensive belief; it posits that a person has zero reason to see themselves as deserving God's grace. Something inside of us does not like recognizing we are absolutely unworthy of God's favor. And our natural tendencey when we see another undeserving person being shown favor is to react with "That's not fair!" We somehow think that God owes us all favor, when in actuality He owes none of us anything. Pretty offensive stuff.