Is God’s Selection Arbitrary?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Rippon
BR , you really need to get a grip . No one , least of all Christ was "randomly selected ."

"...no matter what God tried to do to reach them." What kind of Christians are saying this ? Do you believe God attempts things , but fails to achieve what He desires ? If so you have a mountain of biblical weight against you .

HP: How so? Scripture states that it is God’s will that all should come to repentance. It also states tha there will be multitudes that will never repent. In this God obviously does not see accomplished what He desires.

Rippon: God is obviously omniscient . Calvinists have never maintained that God doesn't know everything and everyone in an infinite sense . It is just that His love is set on some from eternity past -- that's His foreknowledge . He will indeed say to a great number on that Day : "I have never known you ." That is , He has never set His love on them .

HP: For God so loved THE WORLD……. That should be sufficient to silence any thoughts to the contrary.

Rippon: Those whom He has predestinated are indeed the very same individuals that He foreknew -- no other group is in view in Romans 8:29,30 .

HP: The question remains as to how does God foreknow them? I say by knowing the choices they will make in repenting and exercising faith. He clearly predestines those that He foreknows will be obedient to the conditions He sets forth. There is nothing about predestination or foreknowledge that suggests arbitrary selection or force or coercion on God’s part in the salvation of sinful man.

Rippon: Foreknowledge is not some mere knowledge of the future . This nonsense of God knowing who will choose and after absorbing that data determining their destiny is rubbish .

HP: Call it whatever you so desire, but the fact remains that God calls upon man to exercise his will in repentance and faith, and apart from that voluntary obedience no man shall see the lord.

Rippon: Obviously since God foreknows some -- it means that He did not set His love on others . He did not "know" the reprobate .

HP: That has been debunked clearly by Scripture. “For God so loved the world.”

Rippon: God has not failed in any way . Tell me what Calvinist has said that reprobates would have the unmitigated gall to tell God in the Great Judgment -- that it wasn't their fault ? Of course God will hold them accountable for their sin --- that is what sends anyone to hell .

HP:I believe you speak the truth with this statement. That is a far cry from what we usually hear on this list in that most would say that the rejection of Jesus Christ is the damning sin…………..or is that what you really believe?

Rippon: The LORD has indeed decided to love some out of the mass of human history .

HP: God is love. I believe that God even loves those in hell.

Rippon: He has the perfect right to choose as few or as many as He so desires . He is God .

HP: Again, you fail to address why He chooses some and rejects others? It is not according to some arbitrary selection as your argument seems to indicate.

Rippon: You are not the Most High . He doesn't need your approval . He is under obligation to no one .

HP: God is under obligation to act in accordance to his own character. He is unchanging. If He says He is Just, then every act of His is in accordance with justice. God is not some cosmic tyrant that operates willy-nill or abitrarily. God operates on steadfast immutable principles, some of which He has aptly shared with man both intuitively as well as in Scripture. God desires that we know Him and His character, and that it is unchanging and we can take that knowledge of Him to the bank.

 

[trustitl]

I Tim. 5:21 "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels".

"Let's make angels" said God the Father.

"Yeah, only love some of them so the rest of them will end up rebelling" said Jesus. "Then how can we show the rebels who is in charge?"

The Holy Spirit chimes in "Make a few billion humans, and only love some of them too. Then they will all rebel and I can go make some of them love us."

Jesus says, "Then I can go suffer and die for a few of them to show them that we love them all. But, let's tell them I died for all of them."

The Holy spirit says "OK I will have one of them write if down, we want them to know we are love."

And this is God's good pleasure?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustiL. what are some core beleifs that would lead one down such a nonsensical path?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Let’s add for a minute to the scenarios TrustitL proposes. What if God says I am going to send the wicked sinners to eternal torment for theirs sin, but if in fact I have granted others chosen by Me a pardon, I will allow them to commit the same things subsequent to granting them a pardon and will not hold them eternally accountable.
And this is a Just God’s own loving pleasure?

 

[trustitl]

TrustiL. what are some core beliefs that would lead one down such a nonsensical path?

At the risk of being verbally scourged by my Calvinist brothers and sister I would say it starts with "T" and ends with "ULIP".

Out of a desire to protect the sovereignty of God, which he doesn't need help with, and a false premise of faith being a good work, one is logically led to this false conclusion.

You added the the "P" in your additional comment.

I think this is an example of the philosophy that Paul warns about in Colossians 2:8. It is a sound philosphical treatise, but is untrue because it begins with a false premise, that being "total depravity". Did you hear the guns cock? :laugh:

The notion that Adam "died spiritually" and passed this trait on to us is where it starts. If followed to it's natural conclusion it ends with people waiting for their election to be made known to them. This is an actual teaching of some. Not all Calvinists would hold this position, just the ones consistent with the logic do. It is sad and I take no joy in stating this because it is my background and I know the effect it has had over the years.

 

[BobRyan]

I Tim. 5:21 "I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels".

"Let's make angels" said God the Father.

"Yeah, only love some of them so the rest of them will end up rebelling" said Jesus. "Then how can we show the rebels who is in charge?"

The Holy Spirit chimes in "Make a few billion humans, and only love some of them too. Then they will all rebel and I can go make some of them love us."

Jesus says, "Then I can go suffer and die for a few of them to show them that we love them all. But, let's tell them I died for all of them."

The Holy spirit says "OK I will have one of them write if down, we want them to know we are love."

And this is God's good pleasure?

Good point - the arbitrary selection model of Calvinism does not stand the test of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rippon]

Good point - the arbitrary selection model of Calvinism does not stand the test of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

A lot of nonsense has been spewed forth by some non-Cals here .

Can you non-Cals agree that no one here thinks that God does anything on a whim , a fancy , at random ? You are not gaining any points by repeating that trash . Why do you insist on claiming something that no one here would dare to dream about ? God is a God of order . He does not do things on a lark .

The Lord has the sovereign right do do whatsoever He wants with whomsoever He wants . He does not have mercy on all for salvation . In fact , He hardens the non-elect .

I think that some of you are confused about God's justice . You get it mixed up with His mercy . All of us deserve condemnation . It would be perfectly just/fair for God to consign all of the human race to eternal misery . He has all the fallen angels under that sentence of the 2nd death . But I hear no one here complaining that the Lord is unfair/unjust in doing so . I've said it before and I'll say it again . God is not an equal opportunity God . He doesn't give everyone an equal 'chance' at salvation . If He wants to be merciful to a few , a remnant that is his privilege . You have no ground to stand on to dispute God's reckonings . Some of you remind me of the imaginary opponents that Paul dealt with in Romans 9 . Paraphrased " Who in the world do you think you are -- mere creature of the dust -- to backtalk to God ? BTW , try to put a non-Cal spin on Romans 9 and the 'objector' would turn into one who readily agrees with the Paul of your mischaracterization .

Since the Lord does not 'know' some some , He does not love them . The ones He knows He has specifically laid down his life for -- to redeem them . Does He love those He does not know ? That's an absurdity .

To deny Total Depravity is really an departure from biblical truth . Does it really need to be spelled out for you a million times ? The Word of God isn't good enough for you ?

To deny the federal headship of Adam and Christ's Headship in Romans 5:12-19 is foolhardy .

 

[Eliyahu]

Only if you think that foreknowledge and predestine mean the same thing, which they do not.
Can you post the definitions of both words? The we can see what they mean.

Good points. God can foreknow but still can give the freedom of choice to the mankind without hurting His Sovereignty.

Elect is limited to the Foreknowledge.

Strange to read the posts without Bible references on this thread so much !

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: Can you non-Cals agree that no one here thinks that God does anything on a whim , a fancy , at random ? You are not gaining any points by repeating that trash . Why do you insist on claiming something that no one here would dare to dream about ? God is a God of order . He does not do things on a lark .

HP: I do not know much about larks, but I do know something about justice. God has instilled in the heart of every moral agent some principles, some first truths of reason concerning justice. It is a first truth of reason, universally accepted by all men of reason that in order to anything blameworthy or praiseworthy man must have choice. Not choice merely to do, for freedom does not exist in the relationship that exist between the choosing of the intent and the doing. The doing sustains to the will the realtionship of necessity not freedom. One can ONLY do as he wills.

If freedom exist at all it must lie antecedent to the doing in the formation of intents. If man, as you obviously would have us believe, is born into such a state that the only possibility is to sin and that continually, he is a sinner by necessity and sin is thereby defined in that context as the product of necessity. Scripture and reason tells us quite the contrary. Sin is the transgression of a law, and where no law is sin is not imputed.

In your scheme of things, you have sin imputed to men before the first choice is ever made, and have God punishing man eternally for a fate impossible to avoid. You have men created by God with no other destiny than damnation, making God the author of sin. What utter absurdity. What a blight upon the character of God you weave, and then you have the audacity to label those that would not accept such absurdities as being foolhardy? Oh please.

 

[Rippon]

HP: I do not know much about larks, but I do know something about justice. God has instilled in the heart of every moral agent some principles, some first truths of reason concerning justice. It is a first truth of reason, universally accepted by all men of reason that in order to anything blameworthy or praiseworthy man must have choice. Not choice merely to do, for freedom does not exist in the relationship that exist between the choosing of the intent and the doing. The doing sustains to the will the realtionship of necessity not freedom. One can ONLY do as he wills.

If freedom exist at all it must lie antecedent to the doing in the formation of intents. If man, as you obviously would have us believe, is born into such a state that the only possibility is to sin and that continually, he is a sinner by necessity and sin is thereby defined in that context as the product of necessity. Scripture and reason tells us quite the contrary. Sin is the transgression of a law, and where no law is sin is not imputed.

In your scheme of things, you have sin imputed to men before the first choice is ever made, and have God punishing man eternally for a fate impossible to avoid. You have men created by God with no other destiny than damnation, making God the author of sin. What utter absurdity. What a blight upon the character of God you weave, and then you have the audacity to label those that would not accept such absurdities as being foolhardy? Oh please.

I specifically said it was foolhardy to deny the truth of Romans 5:12-19 .

For the majority of your post you speak in a high-sounding philosphical way . Bottom line -- everyone comes into this world as a sinner with the wrath of God bearing down on them . God does not force anyone to sin -- it is quite natural to do so . God is not responsible for saving everyone -- for opening their hearts to the claims of the Gospel . Scripture will not alow you to get anyone off-the-hook as far as their sin accountability is concerned -- Your philosphical and sentimental meanderings notwithstanding .

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: God does not force anyone to sin

HP: The picture you paint is just that. Man is created by God able only to sin and that of necessity with no hope whatsoever for the damned having been created for the sole purpose by God to sin and be damned. I would see your position not a little inconsistent to say that God does not force anyone to sin. What else could sinful man do, overcome necessitated fate, a feat not even God can accomplish?

 

[Rippon]

HP: The picture you paint is just that. Man is created by God able only to sin and that of necessity with no hope whatsoever for the damned having been created for the sole purpose by God to sin and be damned. I would see your position not a little inconsistent to say that God does not force anyone to sin. What else could sinful man do, overcome necessitated fate, a feat not even God can accomplish?

Again , God does not force anyone to sin . People are accountable -- they want to sin , it comes naturally to them . God can't be faulted . Do you think people should get a reprieve or something ? Because they can't help sinning then that is an excuse for clemency ? Sorry, it doesn't work that way . More and more you sound like one of those objectors in Romans 9 .

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: Again , God does not force anyone to sin . People are accountable -- they want to sin , it comes naturally to them . God can't be faulted . Do you think people should get a reprieve or something ? Because they can't help sinning then that is an excuse for clemency ? Sorry, it doesn't work that way . More and more you sound like one of those objectors in Romans 9 .

HP: I ask you again, what other than to sin can one do who was created to sin and to be damned? What do you mean not forced to sin??

Follow the logic Rippon. You say that some were created to be the elect and some are created to be the damned. Can any of the damned be anything other than what they are? Can any of the elect be anything other than what they are created to be? That is iron clad logic Rippon. You cannot deny, coming from your position, that some are created by God as sinners to be damned and others are created by God as the elect to be saved. Both groups are BY NECESSITY created as they are, and could not be anything other than what they are. If you cannot grasp the necessity of your position and the picture you paint of God’s character, you are in trouble.

Play the man Rippon. If you want to take such a position take it, but do not deny the logical consequences of the double predestination and fatalistic necessity you and your stated position cannot logically avoid.

 

[Rippon]

Again , God does not force anyone to sin . People are accountable -- they want to sin , it comes naturally to them . God can't be faulted . Do you think people should get a reprieve or something ? Because they can't help sinning then that is an excuse for clemency ? Sorry, it doesn't work that way . More and more you sound like one of those objectors in Romans 9 .

Deal with the above first HP . If you disagree tell me why and get specific .

 

[Andre]

Some of you remind me of the imaginary opponents that Paul dealt with in Romans 9 . Paraphrased " Who in the world do you think you are -- mere creature of the dust -- to backtalk to God ? BTW , try to put a non-Cal spin on Romans 9 and the 'objector' would turn into one who readily agrees with the Paul of your mischaracterization.

Based on the post context, I assume that you believe that Romans 9 addresses God's treatment of individual persons.

It is easy to show that Romans 9 has nothing whatsoever to do with the election of individual persons to salvation or to loss. Romans 9 is about the election of Israel, and like the potter with his pot, God has the right to use Israel to serve a specific role in his redemptive purposes. There is no issue of "election" of individuals at all in Romans 9.

I am more than happy to make that case.

 

[Andre]

Follow the logic Rippon. You say that some were created to be the elect and some are created to be the damned. Can any of the damned be anything other than what they are? Can any of the elect be anything other than what they are created to be? That is iron clad logic Rippon. You cannot deny, coming from your position, that some are created by God as sinners to be damned and others are created by God as the elect to be saved. Both groups are BY NECESSITY created as they are, and could not be anything other than what they are. If you cannot grasp the necessity of your position and the picture you paint of God’s character, you are in trouble.

Play the man Rippon. If you want to take such a position take it, but do not deny the logical consequences of the double predestination and fatalistic necessity you and your stated position cannot logically avoid.

I have not read all of Rippon's posts, but I heartily agree with your reasoning here. If someone, say Fred, enters the world in a state such that he has been elected to be damned, then there is no avoiding that end. And, by the terms of the position you appear to be critiquing, Fred, as an agent, plays no role in his fate.

With this in mind it is simply conceptually incoherent to assert that Fred is in any way "accountable" or "morally culpable". To assert otherwise results in a logical inconsistency like saying "This triangle has four sides". This statement cannot be correct. Likewise, it cannot be the case that someone "elect" to damnation is in any sense "accountable", since the very notion of accountability has free will moral agency bundled into it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thank you Andre. It is good to see that at least some can indeed follow the logic and say it far better than I. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: Deal with the above first HP. If you disagree tell me why and get specific .

HP: I dealt directly with your reasoning Rippon. I told you why and was very specific, although Andre said it much better.

 

[webdog]

Based on the post context, I assume that you believe that Romans 9 addresses God's treatment of individual persons.

It is easy to show that Romans 9 has nothing whatsoever to do with the election of individual persons to salvation or to loss. Romans 9 is about the election of Israel, and like the potter with his pot, God has the right to use Israel to serve a specific role in his redemptive purposes. There is no issue of "election" of individuals at all in Romans 9.

I am more than happy to make that case.

Amen! :thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

I have not read all of Rippon's posts, but I heartily agree with your reasoning here. If someone, say Fred, enters the world in a state such that he has been elected to be damned, then there is no avoiding that end. And, by the terms of the position you appear to be critiquing, Fred, as an agent, plays no role in his fate.

With this in mind it is simply conceptually incoherent to assert that Fred is in any way "accountable" or "morally culpable". To assert otherwise results in a logical inconsistency like saying "This triangle has four sides". This statement cannot be correct. Likewise, it cannot be the case that someone "elect" to damnation is in any sense "accountable", since the very notion of accountability has free will moral agency bundled into it.

HP still hasn't rtesponded to my request yet . but I will briefly address your post . First , the Bible never refers to the reprobate as elect unto damnation .

But you conveniently do not address the sinfulness of 'Fred' . Fred is held to be blamless somehow ? That does not scripturally wash . Sin is an affront to God's holiness . How can God allow such a person He has not chosen for salvation to absolved for his crimes against God ? Fred has willfully sinned , of his own accord . No one was pulling his strings . He most certainly "plays a role in his fate" . He is the sinful culprit who must be punished for the sins he definitely is responsible for .

Andre , you have your personal philosophy as your guiding principle .