Conditional Election vs. Unconditional Election

[TedT]

Conditional election teaches that the elect are predestined by God to salvation due to God's foreknowledge that they would believe on their own free will, while unconditional election teaches that God predestines the elect according to His sovereignty alone, without regard to the elect's free will.

What I'd like to know is why it even matters whether we accept unconditional vs. conditional election. How can we claim to know that one is true and not the other? And what difference does it make if both unconditional election and conditional election result in the salvation of the elect?

Unconditional election means that the non-election of the reprobate is in fact an unconditional reprobation of some for no more reason for them to be reprobate than there is for the others to be elected to salvation.

Notwithstanding the thousands of pages of theo-babble written to show that UNconditional election can avoid the corollary of an UNconditional reprobation, they are all bogus....if one is true so is the other.

So, do you believe in a GOD who is love that for no reason at all, not even a good reason, created some to end in hell? Does John 4:24 "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." come into play here?

Thoughts on:
DOES Election to Damnation before Creation Serves HIS Purpose?

Others have suggested that GOD "before life" loved only some because this is more beneficial for HIS purposes than if HE before life loved everyone. The explanation goes something like this: The loved ones' eternal joy is directly proportional to their knowledge / appreciation of GOD and the wonderfulness of their salvation. Therefore an increase of good comes forth from the eternal damnation of some persons for by their damnation, that is, the outcome of Adam's decision to sin, and HIS "before life" decision not to love these persons, two types of eternal blessings supposedly occur for the rest.

First, a fuller appreciation of several of God's attributes is made possible, which opportunity wouldn't be possible if all lived forever, that is, if HE "before life" loved them all. These attributes are usually said to be HIS justness (retribution, wrath) holiness and omnipotence.

Secondly, the truth regarding the elect's end apart from Christ's salvation is made fully known, which full knowledge makes possible the fuller appreciation of HIS salvation, for this salvation (hence, HIS mercy too) would not be so fully appreciated without the graphic depiction of both ends.

Third, Others even go so far as to say that their damnation is absolutely necessary in order that the purpose of GOD be able to be fulfilled by HIS elect, and they offer this explanation: In order to live in eternity with GOD, we must live fully in the truth, which necessity necessitates having a perfect appreciation of GOD's attributes and HIS salvation, and that this perfect appreciation by HIS elect creatures is made possible first, only through witnessing HIS triumph over and judgement upon HIS enemies, and second, only when HIS perfection and our life in Christ are contrasted with the complete imperfections of the damned and the end we would have had, had HE not saved us.

Now, these are very hard positions to hold, for they fail on many accounts.

First, they both fail to answer or give a reasonable basis for why HE chose the particular ones HE did and why HE did not choose the rest. In other words, they both deny the faithful and unselfish character of GOD's love, in that they limit it without just cause and look on it as somewhat capricious.

Secondly, they both necessitate the unproven presupposition that it is impossible for GOD to perfect HIS creatures HIMSELF, that HE needs the presence of evil in order to bring HIS creation to its highest potential. In other words we must accept, for example, that in GOD'S world one has to first be sick in order to be healthy, or sinful in order to be faultless [and the more sinful (or sick) the better].

Third, they both fail to satisfactorily answer the question of how the damnation of millions makes us more appreciative / perfect than would be the damnation of but one, since it is the moral depravity of those in hell that is supposed to make for the increased appreciation / perfection and not the quantity of persons therein.

Fourthly, they both put a very small value on the worth of the individual creature in the eyes of GOD.

Well, since the reason for GOD's foreknowledge / forelove does not include everyone cannot be found in HIS divination of merit in some creatures (all are sinners) and since a reasonable answer has not been put forward for why GOD loves particularly, we are left with but two conclusions: We must either look for the answer elsewhere, in some area we have not looked before, or we must put the basis of HIS foreknowledge down to unreasonable chance.

This would mean that there is no reason for HIS particular "before life" love. [Aside: as I understand it, this is Calvin's failure to understand this doctrine correctly.] GOD's election / foreknowing is thus based on eenie, meenie, minie, mo, but how can you put your faith in a GOD like that? How much better to admit that we should start looking in some area we have not looked yet, and since we cannot find any of those, why not finally admit that we need a revelation from GOD to give us an infinitely loving answer to this problem?

 

[98cwitr]

As far as I know, most of the historical Reformed doctrinal confessions taught single, rather than double, predestination. Are you familiar with the difference between the two?

I at least think I am Luther's criticisms of St. Jerome are analogous to my own criticisms to single predestination; it doesn't add up logically AND Scripture explicitly refutes in (in Romans 9:22-23). Anyway...OT, I'll digress.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I at least think I am Luther's criticisms of St. Jerome are analogous to my own criticisms to single predestination; it doesn't add up logically AND Scripture explicitly refutes in (in Romans 9:22-23). Anyway...OT, I'll digress.

If you believe in double predestination, what do you mean by it?

Please consider the following...

It is important to differentiate preterition from double predestination. Double predestination teaches that God proactively elects some to heaven and proactively elects some to hell—it is a balanced predestination in that God is as equally active in choosing people for hell as He is in choosing people for heaven. The problem is that double predestination is not taught in Scripture. The Bible nowhere says that God “elects” people to go to hell; the only election mentioned in the Bible is that which sends people to heaven. Preterition, in contrast, teaches that God actively elects some to heaven and passively allows others to remain in their sin—it is an unbalanced predestination in that God is active toward some and inactive toward others. The doctrine of preterition is careful not to go beyond what the Bible teaches about predestination.
What is the doctrine of preterition? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Humble_Disciple]

It seems that most of the nationally known preachers, who aren't preaching a health and wealth Gospel or a liberal theology, are Calvinists. This includes John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Francis Chan, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Francis Chan, Paul Washer, etc.

Regardless of what their flaws might be as people, they seem to be very concerned with teaching a Bible-based theology, rather than just following the winds of the times.

 

[bling]

It seems that most of the nationally known preachers, who aren't preaching a health and wealth Gospel or a liberal theology, are Calvinists. This includes John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Francis Chan, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Francis Chan, Paul Washer, etc.

Regardless of what their flaws might be as people, they seem to be very concerned with teaching a Bible-based theology, rather than just following the winds of the times.

The truth never seems very popular.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

The truth never seems very popular.

I would imagine that if a Calvinist is willing to teach on a national stage, he might draw a lot of followers, but he will have even more haters and detractors.

The average person seems to have a natural revulsion to Calvinist theology, and I know I did when I was a teenager.

 

[TedT]

I think I should point out that if salvation is by grace alone, as the Reformation teaches, then unconditional election is the natural conclusion. If I'm wrong, please explain why.

Well, to start it either makes GOD out to be immoral or it is illogical...

UNconditional means nothing was found in them to have HIM choose them for salvation, right? This means that nothing was found in the reprobate to have HIM reject them for election. Unconditional reprobation, unconditional being passed over for election, is a necessary logic because,

if there was a reason for them to be passed over for election then the election of the others was NOT UNconditional at all as the condition for election was that the reason found in the others that caused them to be passed over was NOT found in the ones chosen for election.

So, for unconditional election to be true then so must unconditional non-election or reprobation be true. Can we really accept, believe, that the GOD who iS love, who IS righteous, who IS just would chose to damn millions for no reason???

Because if there was a reason for their reprobation which we don't know about then those chosen for election must not have had that reason found in them so their election was not UNconditional after all.

 

[TedT]

I think I should point out that if salvation is by grace alone, as the Reformation teaches, then unconditional election is the natural conclusion. If I'm wrong, please explain why.

I don't understand how salvation by grace would cause unconditional election to be necessary...this is a new thought for me.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I don't understand how salvation by grace would cause unconditional election to be necessary...this is a new thought for me.

It's a question of whether faith is solely a gift of God or if it's somehow due to a free-will effort on our part to have faith.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

So, for unconditional election to be true then so must unconditional non-election or reprobation be true. Can we really accept, believe, that the GOD who iS love, who IS righteous, who IS just would chose to damn millions for no reason???

Romans 9
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy...

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Isaiah 55
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Conditional election teaches that the elect are predestined by God to salvation due to God's foreknowledge that they would believe on their own free will, while unconditional election teaches that God predestines the elect according to His sovereignty alone, without regard to the elect's free will.

What I'd like to know is why it even matters whether we accept unconditional vs. conditional election. How can we claim to know that one is true and not the other? And what difference does it make if both unconditional election and conditional election result in the salvation of the elect?

The question is well framed. I don't feel that we can answer this question with certainty. However, I believe that biblical evidence tilts in the direction of conditional election. Two verses state that predestination/election is based on foreknowledge. I discuss this in a blog post here:

What Does the Bible Say about Predestination and Foreknowledge?

Here are two graphics from the blog post:

 

[TedT]

John 10:26 is probably one of the most convincing verses in the Gospels for unconditional election:


Just as a sheep does not choose its shepherd, we do not choose whether or not we are of God.

Not as sinners we do not, for sure.

But some angels are holy and elect, right? Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the HOLY angels. and 1 Timothy 5:21 I charge thee before GOD and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the ELECT angels.

We all accept that Satan rebelled by his free will but did these others become holy by their free will or by HIS? Is it really hoiness if you can't sin?

Since there are elect angels we can assume that the demonic angels were passed over for election or not considered for election. Angels do not presumably have any racial solidarity, ie, they all are holy or sinful by their own choice, not by anyone else's choice. So now we have to answer the question: were some elected before or after the fall of the Satanic rebellion?

IF they were elected / chosen before the fall then there is no stated reason for the non-election of the others. Unconditional, unmerited, election then also means unconditional unmerited non-election, ie, for no lack of merit or sinful condition at all some were passed over for salvation and NOT chosen to be saved if they should ever sin.

What can we make of such a supposition? Can we say it is loving? Righteous? Just? The best we can say is HE is sovereign and if HE chose this way then who are you to argue, which is not a real answer at all. Why teach us HE is loving, righteous and just if it has no meaning in the biggest question in their existence: Why were some passed over for election!!!

[ASIDE: It is entirely possible that the decision for some angels to receive unconditional unmerited election and other angels to receive unmerited rejection for election with no indication that this decision was loving, righteous or just could have precipitated the Satanic war in heaven when the non-elect were subject to a decision that was NOT loving, righteous or just so they committed themselves to war, putting their faith in the belief that YHWH was a false god and a liar, unworthy of being their GOD.]

This is what unconditional implies. It implies 'no reason', not just an 'unknown reason' because if there was a reason there would be merit to being on the side of the reason. Unconditional election means everyone was just as acceptable for election as everyone but some did not receive it....that is what 'without merit' also means! That does NOT sound like my GOD at all. IF they were passed over for a evil they did then there is a righteous reason to their being passed over and to the election of those that were not passed over but who got the promise of election because they did not do that evil!!

IF election was a response to the Satanic rebellion to reward those angels who did not rebel and to pass over those angels who did rebel and condemn them on the spot, then election by merit makes sense. Their rebellion to the command to put their faith in the Son and to love one another which they heard in the beginning is then the reason they were passed over to be HIS Bride. The choice by some to accept HIM as their GOD and to put their faith in in HIS Son was then the reason they were elected based upon the merit of this choice to obey the commandment.

Thus we probably have a precedent in the angels for election being based upon merit and proper free will decisions being the condition of being elected. And since unconditional election is apparently false in the first people elected, I strongly suggest that it is also wrongly used for sinful men who were also elected in the beginning before the foundation of the world, Ephesians 1:4.

 

[TedT]

No one can first be a sheep WITHOUT belief so John 10:26 cannot teach FIRST a sheep THEN believe.

We can first believe to become a sheep if we were there before the foundation of the world and responded to hearing the gospel by putting our faith in HIM and in the Son for salvation, thus becoming HIS flock by our free will and by HIS accepting our choice to be HIS.

IF then we sinned and lost our free will and our faith and are sown into the world to live with the tares, the weeds, until we are restored to GOD, redeemed and given the gift of faith by grace, ie we are brought back to our first faith, the true saving faith, then John 10:26 can teach FIRST a sinful sheep THEN believe.

 

[TedT]

Romans 9
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy...

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Click to expand...
Isaiah 55
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Excellent quotes for which i have no disagreement at all since my disagreement is with the wrongly decided interpretation of bible verses, not the verses themselves.

To make these verses of GOD's virtue apply to the dis-virtue of unmerited reprobation is more fitting for Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

 

[98cwitr]

If you believe in double predestination, what do you mean by it?

Please consider the following...

Start a new thread. @ me when/if you do.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Start a new thread. @ me when/if you do.

It's really the same topic, regarding what unconditional election entails.

 

[bling]

I would imagine that if a Calvinist is willing to teach on a national stage, he might draw a lot of followers, but he will have even more haters and detractors.

The average person seems to have a natural revulsion to Calvinist theology, and I know I did when I was a teenager.

They do not "hate" him or the others, they just do not care for them. They did hate Christ and the Apostles.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

It really bothers me when people judge God's sovereignty according to our own standards of justice. I used to be guilty of it and I regret it.

 

[TedT]

It's a question of whether faith is solely a gift of God or if it's somehow due to a free-will effort on our part to have faith.

Well, I am not Arminian enough to think we can affect our salvation by anything we can do...I believe totally in faith as a gift of grace but I cannot in good conscience accept unconditional election or inherited sin any longer, sigh.

BUT our election as unconditional or conditional does not change whether faith is a gift or not, does it?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Well, I am not Arminian enough to think we can affect our salvation by anything we can do...I believe totally in faith as a gift of grace but I cannot in good conscience accept unconditional election or inherited sin any longer, sigh.

What does unconditional election mean to you? I think people usually reject it because they find it scary or offensive in some way.

It's simply the teaching that God predestined you unto faith in Christ, regardless of any foreseen good works on your part or a free-willed decision on your part to believe.

Because election is unconditional, God's grace is irresistible. You might have a period of backsliding in your life, but you will come back to faith before you die, by God's irresistible grace, or else your faith was never genuine in the first place.

If Arminianism is true, I don't know how we can have assurance of salvation.