According to Reformed Theology that many people refer to by the nickname "Calvinism", the Doctrine of Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election go hand in hand. The Atonement refers to Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross as a means to satisfy God's Divine Justice for sin, allowing Him to bestow Grace. Limited Atonement refers to the fact that this sacrifice does not apply to every single human being, and therefore explains why not everyone is saved. It is only for those that God chose to elect before ever creating any person. This choice has no conditions on the individuals chosen, but does that mean that there are also no conditions on people he passes over?
This is explored deeper starting with a Facebook post in a private group. The post starts with a quote from James White referring to the Limited Atonement. Aaron then has a comment exchange with a proponent of this Reformed Theology, and it eventually leads to a voice call to help provide more clarity in articulating precisely where the confusion is.
Below is the comment exchange, followed by the voice call:
Calvinist: the condition of condemnation is willful sin.
There is no condition man can meet to merit election.
Aaron: Is there a condition that predicts who God elects?
That's how I understood unconditional election, that who he elects is
unconditional.
Calvinist: His love is the condition. The “unconditional”
refers to our inability to merit it.
Dt 7:7-9. He loves who He loves because He loves them.
Aaron: Does that mean he doesn't have love for the unelect?
Calvinist: depends on how love is defined.
He is lawful towards all (Mt 22:36-40), but gives grace only to some (Ro
8:28-30)
Aaron: Does that mean his love is different for different
people? Is that conditional love?
Calvinist: His love is conditional based on Himself.
The Greek has about five different words for love, and often the term “know”
refers to love as well. “Foreknew” could be understood as “foreloved”
Aaron: Sorry I thought I saw somewhere that you said his
love was unconditional. So, you are saying it's conditional, I understand that
now.
But if his choice of who to elect is unconditional, I'm not sure how that
resolves my issue.
Calvinist: on our part, there’s no condition we can meet.
To assert His election is unconditional on His part would be to affirm an
arbitrary election of random chance which is antithetical to Scripture.
One of the great errors of non-Reformed theology is its inherent Indeterminism
in its attempt to resolve the supposed “problem” of God determining whatsoever
comes to pass.
Aaron: That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Sinner A
Sinner B
If God chooses to elect sinner A unconditionally and not sinner B, that must
mean there's no difference between the two sinners right? This is what I'm
struggling with. I understand you're saying it's not a random choice or
arbitrary, but I’m struggling to see the difference.
Calvinist: Because everyone meets the condition of wrath
(it is conditional) and no one meets the condition for election by grace
(unconditional) they are not the same. Does that make sense?