Unconditional election is the U in TULIP. The term refers to the belief that God, for no apparent reason, has chosen or "elected" some people for eternal life, whilst rejecting others or passing them by. His choice was "unconditional" in the sense that nothing about the individual selected (or rejected for that matter) had any influence on God's decision.
One of the creeds has this to say...
"Those of mankind who are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto".
There are a number of things to consider with regard to this idea of unconditional election.
God's Secret Counsel Revealed
In Calvinistic thought, the reason that God chose some and rejected others is hidden in "the secret counsel" of God. No exterior cause or condition (such as any quality in a person) impinged upon that secret counsel to influence the divine purpose and election.
Calvinists hold that God was not bound in any way.
His will is "sovereign", so God is accountable to nobody, and we must accept without question whatever he determined.
His purpose is "immutable" so there is nothing we can do to change God's mind about how he regards us.
His grace and love are "free", not bound by any law, so God does what he likes, bestowing his grace on whom he pleases regardless of what they think or say or do.
He loves some, and doesn't love others, and nobody can ask him why.
Perhaps we can put this another way, by connecting it with the first point of Calvinism which we have already studied. That was the T in the TULIP, namely "Total Depravity". If human beings are by nature totally depraved, in other words completely incapable of loving God, then God has no reason to love them, does he? So if God does not love somebody, who can object? On the other hand, God is free to love somebody without reason if he wants to, isn't he? So if God does happen to love somebody, who can object?
God's Counsel Made Manifest
All this sounds very well, until we remember that the only time the scripture mentions "secret" counsel, it says that this has "now been manifested and made known" (Rom 16:25). Where Paul says that "we have been predestined according to his purpose who works all things after the counsel of his will" he also says, "In all wisdom and insight [God] made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his kind intention which he purposed in [Christ]" (Eph 1:11,9). Paul had no concept of a "secret counsel" of God --quite the contrary.
Election is Not Arbitrary
You might well be saying to yourself, "If Calvinists say that election to grace is unconditional, then surely they are saying it is arbitrary." Yes, they are, but they won't admit it. By all appearances "Unconditional Election" is arbitrary election and tantamount to unfair election. However the Calvinists hold that in God's "secret counsel" there is some hidden reason that stops God's decision from being arbitrary or unfair, whilst allowing it to remain unconditional.
Keep in mind that God's decision, according to Calvinistic theory, takes no account whatever of anything in the one whom God elects or rejects --not even something in the person that is known only to God. The creed is clear that God "hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto".
The Narrow Gate and the Road to Life
In Matthew 7:13-14 we have a picture of conditional election...
There is a wide gate opening on to a broad and easy way which leads to destruction.
There is a narrow gate opening on to a difficult way that leads to life.
It appears that one may choose which gate to enter. Jesus counsels us to enter by the narrow gate and to walk the difficult road because of where it leads. The message is clear. The way to eternal life is open to everybody, and you are predestined to eternal life on the condition that you walk the road that leads there and walk it to the end. The Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional predestination does not fit this picture.
Making Your Election Sure
In 2Peter 1:2-12, we have an exhortation that is incomprehensible in terms of unconditional election. Peter concludes, "Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". Peter goes on to say that this exhortation is necessary even for people who are established in the truth.
If election is unconditional, then we can do nothing to make it any more or less certain than it is. Peter says, "Make your calling and election sure." How can you make something sure when it is unconditional? If election is "according to His eternal and immutable purpose"... if election is "of His mere free grace and love"... if election is God's decision alone "without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto"... then nothing "the creature" does can make that election any more certain than it is, can it?
Why would Peter say "make it sure" if God had done everything required to make it absolutely and unconditionally sure already? Peter's exhortation to "make it sure" implies that our calling and election is sure only so long as we do what God requires to make and keep it sure. If we don't, then it isn't sure at all.
The Important Word "IF"
The word "if" in Peter's exhortation is incomprehensible if Calvinism is true. How can there be a condition in the unconditional? Peter says, "if you do these things" you will enter everlasting life. That implies that if you lack these things you will not enter everlasting life. In the previous verse, that is verse nine, Peter claims that "he who lacks these things is so shortsighted as to be blind, and has forgotten that he was purged from his old sins" --which means that God had given him sanctification and atonement, but apparently he has new sins which have put his election in doubt. His election is conditional, and he is failing to fulfill those conditions.
Paul knew that we remain reconciled to God through the blood of Christ, and we remain holy (or sanctified) and blameless in his sight, only "if we continue in the faith... not moved away from the hope of the gospel" (Col 1:19-23). Paul did not hold that one is unconditionally reconciled to God and unconditionally sanctified by the blood of Jesus. Paul held that you are reconciled and sanctified by the blood "if you continue in the faith".
The Hebrew writer saw the other side. What if someone does not continue in the faith? He has "counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified an unholy thing" and he needs to know that "if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins" (Heb 10:26,29).
Two Conditional Clauses
The above passages (Col 1:23 and Heb 10:26). contain conditional clauses:
(A) "if we continue in the faith"
(B) "if we sin wilfully"
The persons who are the subject of those clauses are the same in both cases: those who are sanctified and elect. Under condition (A) election is made sure. Under condition (B) election is forfeited. You can examine the passages and their context to see that this is so. But there is no place for these conditional clauses in Calvinistic thought.
Calvinists will not accept these conditions because they take them to mean that our salvation relies partly upon ourselves rather than wholly upon God. However it is God who decreed these conditions. We never negotiated them with him. They are his commands not our demands.
Since therefore the conditions of election are part of God's decrees, and come from his own counsel --since he himself has put the "if" in election, can we not still say that election is all of God's grace, without it having to be "unconditional"? Notice too, that it's by God's grace, and not by our own power, that we keep these conditions to his satisfaction. If God, in his wisdom, wishes to give us a choice and free will, and wishes to help us exercise that free choice correctly, then who are we to argue with God?
Since therefore the conditions of election are part of God's decrees, and come from his own counsel --since he himself has put the "if" in election, can we not still say that election is all of God's grace, without it having to be "unconditional"? Notice too, that it's by God's grace, and not by our own power, that we keep these conditions to his satisfaction. If God, in his wisdom, wishes to give us a choice and free will, and wishes to help us exercise that free choice correctly, then who are we