Conditional Election

My Refutations to Your Points: "Conditional election is the view that man"s "free will" decision to accept Christ as Savior is the basis for his/her election. You will need to "debunk" this idea from logic and scripture. If God chose certain people to save, Then why would He go through all the trouble of creating sin (you believe God created sin), Making sure His elect hear His Word, Giving them faith, Regenerating their hearts, Create trials for them to go through for the process of sanctification all for His glory when He could simply create the elect He desires and let them glorify Him as they would ultimately do anyway if He went through all the trouble mentioned above. Why would He go through the trouble of even inflicting pain on Himself on the cross? He does not have to do this if He could just snap His fingers and POOF! Perfect, Untainted humans are worshiping at His feet. Your belief in only election without free will is not logical. God is logical. He is the Creator of logic. Also, God did not have to give the world the Bible. He could easily snap His fingers (once more) and regenerate all the souls of His elect. I will use your Scripture references to back up my points above as well as "debunk" your other arguments. I have a few extra to give though. "Point 1. Conditional Election is in disagreement with John 10:26-27. " In the context (John 9-10), Jesus has been talking to the Pharisees which He mentions as Jews in other verses as well as the one before John 10:26. These Pharisees did not and would not believe that Jesus was the Christ, The Son of God. Jesus knew their hearts and his righteous anger was kindled against them for the yoke of bondage they placed upon his people. "The reason they believe and have faith is that they are His sheep. " Why would God select a group of people, But then subject them to the exercise of having to hear God"s word (the Bible, The gospel) to "activate" their election or make it sure? God"s word is clear that you must hear to obtain faith. Using logic and the bible what justification can you give that explains why God needs this extra step of a person "hearing" God"s Word to secure that person if he has already elected him before the foundation of the world? If you submit that "receiving a gift" of salvation is a work, Do you also submit that "hearing" is a work that is a necessary pre-requisite for salvation? "Point 2. If election is based on us, And what we do, We get the glory, Because we "chose" God. " A true Christian would never suggest their salvation is based on themselves so I dismiss the idea that conditional election leads to this view. This boils down to whether or not free will is a "work". If we take such a legalistic approach to works as you suggest here we see a development (spiraling down) into the legalistic practices of the Pharisees (which I remind you whose practices were despised of Jesus). Example/Symbolic Story: I read a book on the Sabbath day and am presented with two endings to the book, One ends in destruction and one great glory, I must choose. This mental activity of choosing which ending or "gift" to receive (which is much, Less offending than the act of reading on the Sabbath) you"re suggesting is a work for which you"ll receive heaps of glory for because of that decision? Mark 2:27 Jesus accepted working on the Sabbath as a necessary means of sustaining those disciples who were hungry and physically weak. How much more so would he allow whosoever to pluck the free gift of salvation offered in the corn-fields of life to sustain the spiritual body that will never die? "Point 3. Verses such as 1 Peter 1:1-2 and Romans 8:29-30 are not in conflict with unconditional election" "We are in agreement that God foreknows who will be saved and who will not. " Absolutely! I believe in both the foreknowledge and election of God and that is just what first Peter and Romans states. Ephesians 1:4-5 notice does not just state, "He chose us before the foundation of the world" It mentions that He chose us in Him. In Christ would be the body of Christ. God chose us in Him before the foundations of the world. Also, I do not solely believe in election just because the Bible says so. There is reasoning behind it just as there is reasoning behind free will. God has attributes and He can not violate those characteristics because He is unchanging (Hebrews 13:8). Some of His characteristics include love (1 John 4:7-8), Faithfulness (2 Timothy 2:13), Righteousness, Justice (Psalm 97:2), And holiness (Isaiah 6:3). God is holy. Even if He wanted to save everyone, He would not be able to because He would not be set apart. There would be no one or nothing to be set apart from. Lastly, I understand these passages in general to mean that God knew who would be "the elect" and before the foundations of the earth reasoned (not that he had to reason, He knows everything right? ): If I"m going to adopt children (and all those I adopt agree to be adopted), I"ll need a place to keep them, To care for them. That"s why I"m already making arrangements to have them live with me in my heavenly home" God is preparing a place for us in heaven! (John 14:1-3) "Point 4. Romans 9:11 strongly supports unconditional election" Romans 9:11 states, ". . . The children not yet being born, Nor having done any good or evil, That the purpose of God according to election might stand, Not of works but of Him who calls. " God is sovereign! In this verse He is merely stating that He chose Jacob for the lineage of Jesus instead of Esau. God's sovereignty and man's ability to choose are not in conflict. God allows man to make a choice. Here"s an interesting example: Herod was the sovereign king over Israel at the time of Jesus" ministry and he offered to give half his kingdom away to a young woman who had lewdly danced to please him. He gave her the option to choose anything she wanted up to half the kingdom and he would give it. Now we know what she chose, And the prophet John the Baptist lost his head. This illustrates a good point. Herod did not really want to take John's head off for fear of the people. Nonetheless, He vowed to give her whatever she wanted, And even though he was sovereign he abdicated his authority to that of a young girl. My Points: 1. Is salvation conditional or unconditional? You have already provided definitions. First, We must look at salvation itself. What must happen for a person to be saved? The Bible gives a quick and short answer in Romans 10:8-10 (ESV): "The word is near you, In your mouth and in your heart" (that is, The word of faith that we proclaim); because, If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, You will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, And with the mouth one confesses and is saved. " The word if, Is a condition. Also, Merriam Webster concludes that a condition is a covenant. Is salvation not a covenant? Is it not a promise? Are we not told to stand on the promises of Christ our King (its a hymn)? The word if is the beginning of a conditional clause: https://study. Com/academy/lesson/conditional-words-definition-examples. Html How then can salvation not be conditional? 2. All throughout Scripture, There are scenarios where God gives people a choice to choose to serve Him or not. Most of these are in the Old Testament, Choosing to serve God is an action of faith. God counted Abraham's faith as righteousness Genesis 15:6. I will provide a scenario below: In Joshua 24, Joshua gives the Israelites the Word of the Lord. The Lord reminds them of everything He has done for them from Abraham, To the Red Sea, To Balaam's attempt to curse them, To the crossing of the Jordan River, And to the conquering of the Canaanite land. Then, He proposes with them a covenant, A promise, A condition. He tells them that they can choose to follow Him or the god's of their fathers. If God gave the Israelites a choice why wouldn't He give the Gentiles a choice? I realize there may be some loose ends I have not explained. By all means please ask me. I can not be too lengthy in my first argument. I look forward to your rebuttal and arguments.