Is Election totally random?

Well, if you find a reason within the person chosen then it is NOT unconditional. How in the world can you argue that statement? And if you find a reason within the person chosen, then God is showing partiallity, is he not? He would be choosing one person over the other because they have "this or that attribute" or because they are different in some way from those standing next to them, wouldn't He? Wouldn't that make God a "respector of persons"?

And so my conclusion stated that BASED on having NO indicator AT ALL (as a human) for predicting that God actually "CARES" about one human rather than another - you have no basis at all (even if you are saved) to claim "I know God cares about my precious child". (At least not if you are a consistent 4 or 5 point Calvinist). "Family ties" would be "a reason KNOWN to humans" as well as "an attribute OF the person".

God's "Purpose" in selecting arbitrarily may well be that this "proves" it "has NOTHING to do with some quality or attribute of the one SELECTED".

Calvinism argues that "He has one" but does not argue that "we know it" - so the "purpose" I list above is as likely as any other - AND it fully supports the term "Arbitrary selection". Which refutes the argument that "if a purpose exists at all - it is not arbitrary". The "purpose" of "Using arbitrary selection to emphasize the LACK of any attribute about the PERSON making any difference at all" - would refute that Calvinist claim that starts with "IF a purpose exists at all - the selection can not be arbitrary".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Jacob and Esau; These may be individuals, but what were they being used to illustrate? Step back a few verses: "not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed." (v.8) Paul argues that simply being "Abraham's children" does not make one a child of promise, because for one thing, Abraham had other children beside just the Jews. But God had declared that "In Isaac shall your Seed be called." (v.7) Being from Isaac also wasn't enough, because Esau also was his child. But God had still unconditionally chosen Jacob (v.12, 13), not because of any righteousness of his (Jews thought that their forefathers must have been chosen because of being more righteous, thus "works", rather than "Him that calleth"), for they were not even yet born when God made this decision.(v.11) So the whole point here is that it must be more than physical lineage from Abraham. The next step is that even being of Jacob's physical lineage is not enough.
This all has nothing to do with God choosing some individuals over others. after all, the elect are from "all peoples, tongues, kindred and nations" as you said. Neither does it say that God giving people a choice is having them being elected by "doing good" or by "works". It would not seem like people were cutting verses out of the Bible if some weren't here pasting things into it

 

God's election is rooted in his love and foreknowledge. I believe his foreknowledge is active and not passive, but that is another debate. The bottom line is that it is definitely not random.

 

Oh goody - Romans 9!!


6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;
7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.”
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.


Really good save on Paul's part for the Arminian idea - but utter failure for Calvinists - Since Calvinst presume that that are no changes - God's sovereign predestined will is being unfolded in history right on schedule. No failures, no changes to the arbitrary selection process of election. By this statement above - that would mean that spiritual jews are the only ones God was/is concerned about from the Start. By that logic then (since this still continues to be the case after the cross) then there would be NO CHANGE from the OT to NT system! Given the Calvinist model - this is simply THE system as given by God - "working as designed" so "no change needed" at the cross. (Unless of course Calvinists want to argue that God was designing the failure of his "Chosen" even though they are the "children of the promise" from day one)!!

So how does the Arminian view fare by comparison in this case? Very well indeed since The Arminian view anticipates/allows "changes" based on the failure of God's own elect/chosen/established church dues to free will. Adam and Eve - failed, and there was "a change" to what God had sovereignly started. Then Israel (the Hebrew nation church sovereignly started by God) "failed" and there was "another change". Yet it is the "faithful" - those that choose belief in God and faith in His promises that remain in all the systems.


9 For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.”

Really good example of foreknowledge here - but a real Calvinist problem since God willed Sarah to have a child and was apparently ALSO willing Sarah to laugh at God over it at the time. Obviously Sarah did NOT of her own free will choose such a thing in the model of Calvinism - since she never had free will to begin with (according to Calvin). At each turn so far - Cavlinism is frustrated by the points highlighted.

Good example of God knowing the future. Although I am sure some Calvinists would point this out as God arbitrarily picking Jacob without any reference to the actual choices for obedience vs rebellion in the two men. However the text itself only deals with relationship between the two brothers - not good vs evil or love-vs-hate. The mother is told which Son will be dominant - which one will have the blessing.

13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

Interesting quote of Malachi AFTER both Jacob and Esau were dead and the history of Rebellion was fully manifest in Esau's descendants (and referenced in that chapter).

Would have worked MUCH better for Calvinism if that quote had come from something said before the twins were born, as if God has ALREADY decided to hate Esau arbitrarily (instead of not wishing for any to perish but for ALL to come to repentance). But that is not the source of the quote.

Instead of quoting a pre-birth event for Esau in the book of Genesis - Paul is speaking of the case in Malachi regarding the DESCENDANTS of Esau and Jacob - EDOM and Israel. He shows who each of them has played out their own rebellion or obedience toward God - and then how that has translated into their history. Rather than a pre-birth condemnation of Esau - this is a post-Nation evaluation of the History of two nations in Malachi 1:1-5

Paul appeals to the nature of the fact that God showed past-tense his actions toward the descendants of Esau who were in constant rebellion - and the descendants of Jacob.

In Christ,

Bob

 

But - then Romans 9 contiues now doesn't it?...

 

Great point, and one that could certainly stand more emphasis. I myself had said on my page:

 

Arbitary means for no reason. Calvinist believe God has reason for his choice, that reason just has nothing to do with anything within the person being elected. </font>[/QUOTE]In light of all the scriptures that tell us what God likes "in us" and what He doesn't like "in us", your statement seems somewhat arbitrary.

Which of the several definitions of "the Elect" do you believe supports the Calvinist "Doctrine of Election"?

David was God's "Elect" for the King of the Jews.

Samson was God's "Elect" against the Philistines.

Noah was God's "Elect" against the sinful society of his day.

Abraham is the father of "The Elect of God"

Mary was God's "Elect" for His incarnation.

Peter was God's "Elect" to be the leader of the first Church, the "Father of the church" if you will.

All believers in Jesus are "The Elect"

The Apostles were "The Elect"

There are many more examples of "the Elect" throughout the bible that are not specifically identifiable under Calvinisms understanding of "The Elect"

If you say "all of them" then you make my point that the Doctrine of Election is not definitive, as opposed to the Doctrine of Salvation by Faith alone, which is ALL inclusive. That is, that anyone who believes, has faith in God, is Saved inspite of "Election".