Conditional Election vs. Unconditional Election

[Humble_Disciple]

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?

 

[HTacianas]

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?

You see now the futility of the argument. It cannot be proven either way so it bears no discussion whatever.

 

[Navair2]

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.

I think you've stated it very well...
From everything I've ever seen, read or heard voiced, that is pretty much the difference:

Man's will versus God's will,
cooperative salvation versus operative salvation,
Or God plus man versus God alone.

 

[Navair2]

What I'd like to know is why it even matters whether we accept unconditional vs. conditional election.

From my perspective,
A person's view of grace depends upon what they see the Scriptures developing on the subject.

It has been said that for salvation to be entirely of God and in no way influenced by mankind's thoughts, desires, efforts or any other method that could conceivably be used by us as sinners to gain His favor, then it must be by what is termed by many to be "Unconditional Election".

For it to be any other way, is to introduce mankind's efforts into the work of God in salvation.

 

[Navair2]

How can we claim to know that one is true and not the other?

I know which one is true based on several ways:

1) What the Scriptures outright declare in ( what should be ) no uncertain terms...
IF one believes the words on the page.

2) Which one brings more glory and credit to the Lord for saving someone from His eternal ( and well-deserved ) wrath.

3) Which one results in those who are saved forever praising Him for not getting what they deserve,
and it not involving something that a person can potentially boast in, other than His mercy and grace to them as sinners.

 

[Navair2]

And what difference does it make if both unconditional election and conditional election result in the salvation of the elect?

The difference is night and day.

"Unconditional Election" results in a person whom God has chosen, being summoned to Him of His own will and through the preached word...they were never aware of their salvation until He made them aware of His gift of eternal life that they have been given.

In other words,
God does something and it invariably results in a person coming to Him in true and heartfelt belief and trust.


"Conditional Election" results in a person whom God has "chosen" ( God's choice relying on man's choice and not strictly His choice alone ), being offered salvation and then God relying on that person's choice to determine who He will save.

In effect,
God does something, but it does not guarantee that they will come to Him.


Also, both of these viewpoints are chained together with the new birth ( John 3:3 )...
With "UE", being born again is by God's will alone and always results in that person believing the Gospel,
While with "CE", being born again hinges on whether or not the person believes the Gospel.



Essentially and in it's purest form...
Grace versus works ( Romans 11:5-6 ), but not specifically the works of the Law;
"Works" being man's efforts at trying to gain God's favor ( and a free pass out of the Lake of Fire )...any way that we can.



I hope that helps.
May God bless you in many ways.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I think that unconditional election and conditional election both teach that faith is a gift from God.

 

[friend of]

I think you summed it up succinctly. I lean towards conditional election and I do not believe it diminishes God's sovereignty in the matter. Obtaining faith is not a work.

 

[Butterball1]

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 makes God culpable for those that are lost (non-elect) and a respecter of persons when He is neither. Man choosing to become of the elect (a Christian) leaves man responsible and accontable for his own choices. I see a night and day difference between the two....one Biblical and the other unbiblical.

Man choosing in no way detracts from God's sovereignty. It's God preceptive will, ie., God's desire that all men come to repentance and be saved and those that do have done that which God wills/desires. It's God's will that those that reject what God desires for them will be punished for their choice in rejecting God. God's will remains sovereign regardless of man's choice.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Unconditional election makes God culpable for those that are lost (non-elect) and a respecter of persons when He is neither. Man choosing to become of the elect (a Christian) leaves man responsible and accontable for his own choices. I see a night and day difference between the two....one Biblical and the other unbiblical.

Man choosing in no way detracts from God's sovereignty. It's God preceptive will, ie., God's desire that all men come to repentance and be saved and those that do have done that which God wills/desires. It's God's will that those that reject what God desires for them will be punished for their choice in rejecting God. God's will remains sovereign regardless of man's choice.

Does it really matter for our salvation whether we believe in conditional or unconditional election?

 

[Butterball1]

Does it really matter for our salvation whether we believe in conditional or unconditional election?

Yes for one is Biblical and the other is not. One cannot be saved by believing falsehoods, false doctrine. 2 John 1:9-10
Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Yes for one is Biblical and the other is not. One cannot be saved by believing falsehoods, false doctrine. 2 John 1:9-10

It seems like supporters of unconditional election and conditional election both have their own Bible verses they appeal to for their specific theology.

 

[Butterball1]

It seems like supporters of unconditional election and conditional election both have their own Bible verses they appeal to for their specific theology.

It only means one side is wrong. Jesus once said "...Thy word is truth". Truth NEVER contradicts itself. Paul said there is "one faith" (Ephesians 4:4-5) only those that posssess this one faith (truth) will be saved.

 

[disciple Clint]

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?

It all comes down to what a person wants to believe.

 

[bling]

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 problem is not with who is saved, but the kind of God you are putting your trust in?

If the teacher of the nonbeliever is presenting an unjust God to be trusted, a wise nonbeliever will not trust such a God at the time.

The idea of salvation being unconditional means there is no reasonable/logical/distinguishable reason between the person being saved and the one remaining lost, which is unjust.

It all rides on the premise that the unbelieving sinner cannot do something: worthy, honorable, righteous, glorious, and holy, which is very true, but that does not mean the unbelieving sinner cannot “do” something sinfully selfish yet different, making a difference.

If the unbelieving sinner decides for sinful selfish reasons to humbly accept pure undeserved charity from his enemy (God) even while he/she is still hating God, then God will shower those individuals with unbelievable wonderful gifts.

The unbelieving sinner who remains macho, willing to take the punishment he fully deserves, pay the piper and not humble him/her self will not be showered with unbelievable wonderful undeserved gifts.

The difference is a willingness to accept or reject pure undeserved pure charity as charity for selfish reasons, nothing noble, honorable, worth, righteous, or glorious about that, nor is it “work” by the Biblical definition of work (something you could do on the Sabbath).

 

[Humble_Disciple]

What Calvinism teaches is that if you preach the Gospel to unbelievers, they will come to believe if God has elected them to do so. Since we can't predict who is elect and who isn't, they say, we should preach to all people, and then let God instill faith in those whom He's chosen to save.

 

[Bobber]

Yes for one is Biblical and the other is not. One cannot be saved by believing falsehoods, false doctrine. 2 John 1:9-10

I've always said there's some Calvinists that believe their understanding about election can determine if one's saved and nearly all Calvinists have said that's no true but here you are...one which believes that's true.

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

I think you're one who doesn't have much company with your fellow Calvinists in believing that actual understanding of election is linked to one even being saved. Are you aware that's is true what I'm saying? Do you think all Calvinists agree with you?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Something I'd like to point out is that some of the best preachers on Youtube are Calvinists and there's a lot about the Bible and Christian life on can learn from them.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

It all rides on the premise that the unbelieving sinner cannot do something: worthy, honorable, righteous, glorious, and holy, which is very true, but that does not mean the unbelieving sinner cannot “do” something sinfully selfish yet different, making a difference.

John Piper addresses the concerns you are expressing:

This does not mean that someone might really want to be saved but then be rejected because they are on the wrong list. Rather, we are all dead in sin and unwilling to seek God on our own. A true, genuine desire for salvation in Christ is in fact a mark of election, and therefore none who truly come to Christ for salvation will be turned away (John 6:37-40).
What Does Piper Mean When He Says He’s a Seven-Point Calvinist?

 

[Humble_Disciple]

One of the points made by those who believe in unconditional election is that we cannot judge God as unjust for choosing to save some people and not others, because we are in no position to understand the will of God.

Isaiah 55
"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.