I believe the import of those passages is that election is unconditional. If one introduces a condition precedent to God’s act of choice, then the election is conditional, and we are no longer talking about full Calvinism.
Which raises a number of interesting questions all by itself. How much can we erode the definition of Calvinism before it stops being Calvinism? My own position is that unconditional election is critical to the definition. Everybody gives lip service to predestination, because there it is in the text. But making our choice as humans the basis of God’s choice by invoking the “look ahead” theory voids the essence of Calvinism.
Peace,
SR
I would humbly offer that the import of these verses is that God is sovereign - period.
And the only logical response is to fall on our faces and plead "mercy Father, mercy!". And while still on our faces, "Thank you Father, thank you..."
IMO- the great debt we owe Calvin is to help open our eyes to: 1) the greatness of God 2) our utter need for a Savior...
>>> I believe the import of those passages is that election is unconditional.
I’m not sure i have a full understanding of what this term is supposed to mean. Who’s election (choice) does this refer to? and who’s conditions are we talking about?