Talk:Conditional election

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 January 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

Christianity: Theology / Arminianism / Evangelical Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Arminianism (assessed as Top-importance).
	Evangelical Christianity portal This article is supported by WikiProject Evangelical Christianity (assessed as Mid-importance).

Theology Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Started This Page - Incomplete[edit]

I started this page even though it's only a stub currently; very shortly I am going to try to expand it similar to Unlimited atonement and Conditional Preservation of the Saints. David Schroder 17:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David. I'm new to this wikipedia article contribution thing. I edited the page on conditional election. I'm actually kind of sheepish about some of the edits that I consider doing since some people have put a lot of time into their work and I also figured there would be potential for editing wars which is something I would want to avoid. I'm not so concerned about the edit on the conditional election page as it was a small edit which can easily be reversed. But I wouldn't have done it without discussing it first, and I didn't notice this discussion page until recently (I assume this is a format where the article can be discussed.

I removed your statement (unless it was from someone elses) to the effect that conditional election is really conditional from our perspective and unconditional from God's. It really looks like a conclusion that comes out of nowhere. I've read your article several times and I just don't see where this issue of different perspectives is explained in terms of election. I also suspect that most if not all major proponents of conditional election would not agree with this assesment. I could be wrong about that and if I am, I would recomend two things with regard to that statement: 1) preface it with "some advocates of conditional election hold that... 2) give some explanation as to how this difference of perspective arises. Of course we have perspectives on many things that differs from God's perspective, but that does not entail that our perspective on election is different from God's perspective in the way that you suggested. Robert Rohrs. 2:35 EST, 21 April 2006

I removed the comment "...and stands in some contrast to unlimited atonement..." If you can produce even one example of an Arminian writer/theologian who holds to conditional election yet rejects unlimited atonement as contradictory, then a statement such as "some Arminians see the two doctrines as contrasting..." might be appropriate. Otherwise, this is mere flagrantly biased rhetoric. Mike 14:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the opinions and the attempts to compare the Armenian view with the Calvinist view in order to keep the topic of the page Conditional Election. I also removed the Weasle Words note at the top because I think we've cleared that up. Lexi kate 21:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why controversial?[edit]

Why the controversiality tag on this article? It lacks citations and makes lists of defenses here and there without producing a secondary source for the syntheses made, but that is the characteristic state of stubs and premature articles. Is that controversial?

The section Biblical support is the troublesome one, because lists of motivations from a primary religious source don't suffice according to WP:PRIMARY, unless the statements are flat copied to Wikipedia. Abrahamite religions are heavy on interpretations of texts, and Wikipedia policy and culture requires us to not make interpretations here, so that we need external sources making the interpretations for us. The topic in question has three sides: those for, those against, and those neutral. Concentrating on defining the concept, adding proponent reasons and antagonist reasons should not be any problem at all for us, if we only adher to the policies. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 14:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems to be written by an angry calvinist[edit]

This really seems to be a pitch from a calvinist viewpoint on what conditional election is and how it doesn't really make any sense. If it's ok I would like to scrap most of it(since there are basically no references) and redo it in the same form as the page on Unlimited Atonement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement

Will that be alright with everyone?

This just seems to be written by an angry calvinist[edit]

This really seems to be a pitch from a calvinist viewpoint on what conditional election is and how it doesn't really make any sense. If it's ok I would like to scrap most of it(since there are basically no references) and redo it in the same form as the page on Unlimited Atonement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement

Which offers a more neutral point of view, will that be alright with everyone?

Has this issue been resolved, or are more changes needed? Aardvark92 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The parable of the sower[edit]

I am not sure how to condense this to match the other short passages, but I find the parable of the sower to be some of the best support for conditional election.

The sower sows the word. And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.”

(Mark 4:14-20 ESV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:B080:5A:75EE:2916:49B9:A922 (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing lead[edit]

". . .the belief that God chooses for eternal salvation those whom he foresees will have faith in Christ. This belief emphasizes the importance of a person's free will."
How exactly does this emphasize importance of free will when the decision was already made earlier? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]