One of the doctrines of Calvinism that has always intrigued me is that of “unconditional election”. I would define it here, but I don’t really understand it, and the Wikipedia article isn’t making it any clearer.
My original interpretation of unconditional election was that some people are the “elect,” and are thus saved, and everyone else is, well, screwed. Furthermore, there was nothing someone could do to change their status of being one of the elect. Thus, it was “random” (not really, since it’s God’s will, but from the perspective of us, random nonetheless) whether or not you could be saved. This seems to indicate one of two things:
Calvinists believed they were unconditionally elected, and there was no way anyone else could be saved; or
Some Calvinists aren’t part of the elect, and won’t be saved, and furthermore some non-Calvinists would be saved, regardless of whether they believed in any Calvinist teachings.
But reading the Wikipedia article began to give me some doubts about this. Specifically, there’s now a third interpretation running through my head:
If you were saved, it is due purely to God’s will, and not because of any actions you took. This is in contrast to “conditional election,” where your saving may be a result of your actions (or rather, God’s foreknowledge of your actions). This winds up seeming like a much more minor point than I originally thought: people get saved or don’t, but the underlying reason for it is either God’s will, or God’s foreknowledge.
So, which of these interpretations are correct? Is there a fourth one that is more correct? I’m basically just really confused.
In a nutshell, you pretty much have it. “Election” refers to the fact that God has chosen – predestined, if you will – who will be saved and who will not be. “Unconditional” means that whether or not you are one of the elect has absolutely nothing to do with your own will or actions – nothing you can do can possibly influence whether or not you are one of the elect (due to your Total Depravity).
However, I think you are on the wrong track in your second point above. If God has elected you, there is this thing called Irresistible Grace. You can’t be one of the Elect and not be a Christian (don’t know if you would necessarily be Calvinist); you can’t help it. Similarly, if you are a sincere Christian, it’s because God has chosen you to be one – you have responded to his Irresistible Grace.
So would it make sense to say that Unconditional Election and Conditional Election are sort of inverses of each other? In the former, you’re a good Christian because God chose you, in the latter, God chose you because you’re a good Christian.
Yes, basically with Conditional Election you have the idea that God chooses those who are saved based how they respond to Him by their own free will.
This also creates problems with the Calvinist teaching of Total Depravity, which asserts that the human will is completely corrupted by sin, so that not the slightest move toward God is possible apart from God’s grace.
ETA: I should add a disclaimer that I do not consider myself a Calvinist, so there may be one stopping by any minute to correct my heretical interpretation
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin) Unconditional Election Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement) Irresistible Grace Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
We’ve had some lively discussions about TULIP and Calvinism in GD. Search using “Calvinism” as your guide, if you’re so inclined.
