Is Election totally random?

I don't think there is anything random about it. I think God's gracious purposes are unknown, not random.

 

If I choose to buy item X and not buy item Y, that by definition is not random, because choice was involved. Whatever one believes about election, the word "random" cannot be applied to it unless one believes God is a mindless force, and I doubt any of us want to go there.

 

I'm asking these questions because I'm trying to figure out where I stand on Calvinism.
Don't confuse Calvinism with Hypercalvinism. Calvinism as attributed by John Calvin states that man has the free will and responsibility to choose to follow God. Hypercalvinism says that man has no free will whatsoever, and that man is a pupper creation, while Calvinism implies that, while God knows in advance who will choose Him, He created persons, not puppets.

 

The way they have explained it here from time to time, is that God preordaines thinga, and then they work out in time (often according to the natural laws of life), so then he places His elect only in places where the Gospel will reach, and anyone not reached was just not elect. On my page, I use the following scenario:

I hope the Calvinists will see this as a fair presentation of their views. I think of it as akin to a "script", rather than a "puppet show".
Primitive Baptists and some others would say that God elects people anywhere, regardless of whether they hear the Gospel.

 

I'm a Primitive Baptist you are right in what you say about us... Question explain Romans 9:11 unless you just want to cut it out of the Bible and say it doesn't apply. It is not in my Bible to take up space and it states that election is not a work of ours. It also state election is not based on anything we have done or will do both good and evil. Also and underline this in bold letters... The elect are composed of a great multitude that no man can number... of ALL NATIONS... KINDREDS... PEOPLE... and TONGUES. You Arminian brethren can have your choice or chance Salvation... Put in who you want to put in and leave out who you want to leave out... Election is the only doctrine that will get you to heaven and without it there is no heaven... Choice will get you nowhere... Adam had a choice! ... Brother Glen

 

To feed the sheep that God has made!... Three times Peter is admonished by Jesus to FEED SHEEP because only sheep will eat the food that God provides!... Those not interested in God will not partake of spiritual food until their heart is prepared to receive it... God prepares the heart to receive it and the food or holy manna to nourish the changed child of God... FEED MY SHEEP... FEED MY LAMBS!... Brother Glen

 

No, election isn't random. It just isn't based on any sort of merit within the person elected. It is based on God's purpose, and we are not privy to what that purpose is. But God always has a reason for everything He does, so "random" isn't a proper word for anything God does, nor is the word "arbitrary".

God elects His people before creation, and then works inside creation with the circumstances of their lives (including their exposure to the gospel) and the condition of their hearts so that they come to faith.

 

The word is "arbitrary". It is "arbitrary selection" without any reference to the will, actions, merit, value, family relationship, status of the person selected. So in fact - it is ALL of God.

This means you have no reason at all to think that just because God loves you - HE ALSO loves your precious child - if you are 4 or 5 point Calvinist that is and you remain consistent on that point.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

I have to admit - I did not expect "dead silence" from the 4 and 5 point Calvinists after that last post.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why?? We have corrected you many times and you haven't listened yet. Are you prepared to listen and learn this time??

 

So nothing "about that person" - not their "Status", their family ties, their "Abilities", their intelligence, their choices -- nothing "recommends one for selection instead of another".

Then "obviously" my point in the previous 2 posts - remains. Unfortunately "the obvious" is not as hard to see as some of our Calvinist bretheren had hoped.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You got it. It is based wholly on God's gracious choice.

Two posts ago was your misunderstanding of it by calling it arbitrary and you last post was complaining that no one was any longer willing to address that issue with you since you weren't trying to learn what is really believed. Obviously, neither of those have to do with this topic.

In Christ,

Bob [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

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.

 

Arbitrary means that you have no assignable reason for the action. Calvinism maintains that the choice with absolutely without condition. It is unconditional as it pertains to any attribute ABOUT the FEW that has them selected over the MANY. It claims that IF you find a reason for it - (I.E something that goes like "This person was chosen because this person has this or that attribute making them selectable by God, or differentiating them in some way from the MANY next to them that are not selected") then it is NOT unconditional.

Calvinism is NOT claiming "The FEW are selected because THEY CHOOSE life and the MANY do not - but God is not telling us that, so we can claim it is UNCONDITIONAL - even though in fact the condition is that unspoken attribute".

Again - merely stating the "obvious" AND noticing that "the obvious" is more apparent than our Calvinist bretheren would prefer to think.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And there is an assignable reason for God's election--His purpose. The reason is found within God, and not within any human being. It is "of him who calls".

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"?

I am not sure what it is you are saying here, but I have a hunch repeating my motto for the day might help:

Salvation and election are not the same. Salvation and election are not equal. Salvation is conditional, election is not.