Conditional Election

As a note: Since this is my final argument, I will be summarizing things and countering your points due to you having the last say. Throughout this debate, There have been misunderstandings on both sides, But I think it's good to say that we both respect each other and each other's positions. This has not been a perfect debate (especially from my side) and therefore should not be taken as a perfect (or even good) defense of my side. I have made some mistakes that you have pointed out and used some ambiguous arguments. As you said at the beginning, This has been hopefully a chance to learn more of the other's sides. I hope to do my best in this last round and answer effectively. If God can create how He wants to and save how He wants (within His attributes) to then you should have no problem believing in conditional election. Not exactly, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to convey there. I meant that, if it is revealed by scripture, if God chose to save a certain way, That He could do that. I have a problem with conditional election because mainly I don't think it's scriptural, And along with that not logical as well. The former takes place over the latter; I hoped this has cleared some things up. You do not have an answer as to why God elected based on unconditional election. I think ultimately He did so for His glory. It's not partial and isn't based on something we did (even if a choice isn't a work, It's still based on something we did; if conditional election is true, We were better choice-makers, I guess). It's based on His perfect choice and His reasons. I'm okay with not knowing every aspect about it. Sure, You can give a more detailed answer, But I don't think this means you're right. You haven't really shown a biblical reason why God wants to give every man a choice (if you have, Please excuse me, I would ask that you would show it again. Calvinism is not inferior because I can't give you a detailed explanation on every reason and whim He has in salvation. reduces your argument to "we"ll that"s just how God wanted to do it" without any explanation as to why. See above. The reason I have said that phrase is because I was responding to some of your earlier arguments. You said the process of salvation is without free will. , Forgive me for mischaracterizing your. . . Forgive me for mischaracterizing your. . . I'll try to clear this up. I meant without your version of free will, Where we can choose to accept a gift while we're in bondage to sin, And somehow love God more than our sin. Somehow, Before we have a changed spirit to where we're free from sin. Somehow, Like you used in an analogy, We, As toys without batteries, Can respond to something when we don't have the power ("dead" in our sins). God is not obligated to give anyone of us grace, So I don't have a problem with Him giving grace to some. I'd rather He'd give to some than none! It is called grace for a reason. It's unmerited by us. If I had a say in the matter, Then I wouldn't choose God. I wouldn't want Him to change me. God knows best, So this idea of "the toy didn't have a say in the matter" is a flawed argument. He is loving them because He knows they would choose otherwise (if they were in bondage to sin). Why would it make sense for God to pursue someone, And then let them not choose Him, Especially if He wants them to be saved? I think its more loving to overlook that they don't want Him and save them (grace/mercy). If the passage in Luke about Jesus weeping over Jerusalem is brought up, Then this website (the answer) will explain that passage: https://christianity. Stackexchange. Com/questions/40834/how-do-calvinists-explain-luke-1941-44 Even Adam and Eve, Who were able to make a perfect, Free choice (without being dead in their sins) didn't choose God! How much more can we, Being affected by being dead in our sins and the world, Not choose God! That is what doesn't make sense to me. We are able to make a better choice than Adam and Eve, Why? And they walked with Him! This is another reason I think God changes our nature, To where we are NOT in bondage to sin, To where we can respond to the gospel, And we can freely make the choice to believe! We are able to freely put our faith in Him, And we will because we want to love Him! This is why I wouldn't call a choice before regeneration "free" will because it's not. It's a "partially" free will. We choose to sin. I believe biblically that God elects unconditionally who he is going to regenerate and free from their sins, And in summary, This is okay, Because He is not obligated to save anyone in the first place. He doesn't make us believe, He enables us to, And we want to! Sure, You believe in prevenient grace, But our nature is still not changed, And we are still in bondage to sin. The argument that, Well, People of this world still do good things, Doesn't hold. They still ultimately do it for themselves, And their benefit. Anyway, Salvation is a lot different than choosing to do good things. Salvation would be a one-time choice that impacts you eternally, While other things are made multiple times! Also, God has an influence on the world as well. Sorry for the large paragraph! You actually use this argument on me quite often. . . [Paragraph]Good point, And I apologize for doing so, I was wrong. However, I think the analogy works well here still. The difference would be that I don't think everyone can receive it. You have helped me understand this difference, And I again apologize for this mischaracterization/straw man, And I think I've learned more on what we disagree on. You believe that Jesus spoke in parables so that those not elect could not understand what he was saying. . . [paragraph]There may be (yet) another problem with how I phrased something. Here will be my final answer. The truths of the kingdom are precious. He gives the reason for speaking in parables in order to hide the secrets of the kingdom from some and reveal them to others (Matt. 13:12–15). Matthew Henry says parables make the things of God “more plain and easy” to those willing to be taught, And “at the same time more difficult and obscure to those who [are] willfully ignorant. ” God does not want to reveal these glorious things to the rebellious, His disciples inquire further to learn more. He speaks in parables to hide the secrets of the kingdom from some and reveal them to others (Matt. 13:12–15). This does not mean His parables are full of esoteric information that only a select few can grasp with their minds. Christ’s enemies often understand exactly what His parables mean (see 21:33–46); the problem is their refusal to trust His teaching about Himself and God’s kingdom. The difficulty the Pharisees have is moral and thus volitional, Not intellectual. They choose not to believe our Savior’s words. Those who take up their cross gain more access to kingdom truth; those who reject Him lose whatever insight they had (13:12). We are always free to do what we want, But apart from God’s grace we do not want to love Jesus. Then why did Jesus try to keep His message concealed and secret from them if they are dead in their sin and won"t respond to it anyway? [Hopefully] answered above. This has been an interesting debate, And I have definitely learned from it, And hope you have too. I am sorry for limiting your time to respond on some occasions, So your round above would have been better. I had to rush a bit on this one due to time constraints of my own. Thanks for accepting though! Soli Deo Gloria