Is God’s Selection Arbitrary?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Some on the list have implied or stated that if God only allows some to hear and respond to salvations message, that God is arbitrary in His selection process. Can one think of a way that God can indeed be seen as ‘selecting’ some while rejecting others without being arbitrary in the process? Does the term ‘selection, or ‘choosing some while leaving others as they are,’ necessitate the process as being denoted an 'arbitrary process'?

 

[BobRyan]

IF God is selecing "some" because they are blonde hair blue-eyed and rejecting others - He is not arbitrary - just partial to a certain appearance.

If God selects the tallest -- then he is partial but not necessarily "arbitrary" unless He just "capriciously made up the tallest-criteria".

But there is absolutely nothing about the person that God is "selecting" then it is a purely arbitrary choice.

Obviously.

All are "X" if God selects out the FEW of Matt 7 to "BECOME Y" and if it is maintained that there must be NO DIFFERENCE between the X's chosen to become "Y" and those not selected to become "Y" -- then the choice is purely arbitrary -- in fact that is the PUREST form of an arbitrary choice that is possible.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

By contrast God argues that instead of the difference being "God selecting some and not others" in Romans 2 He states flatly "God is not partial" then Paul goes on to SHOW the DIFFERENCE by examining both the FAILING cases AND the succeeding cases.

Now let's look at Romans 2:1-16 and SEE where God places the differentiator!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[MrJim]

If you're referring to the calvinist doctrine of predestination and the election process of how God selects His elect there's one word that I've used to help me understand it.

Lottery...or maybe just crapshoot:laugh:

C'mon seven or eleven mamma needs salvationraying:

 

[BobRyan]

The idea that God merely arbitrarily selected out Noah among all other saints in Gen 5-6 to build the boat and be saved is debunked here –
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1031526&postcount=3

Romans 2 flatly denies any kind of “God whimsically selects out SOME for salvation and ignores the rest” kind of doctrine – as was pointed out here –
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1031527&postcount=4

And it was pointed out here –
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1031538&postcount=7




In the context of God’s Gospel we are given the fact that it is man that chooses to either accept and follow – or reject and rebel against God. It is not a function of God “selecting some and ignoring others” according to Romans 2 – (As was pointed out here)
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1031529&postcount=5




Paul closely examines the failing case CONTRASTED to the successful case and we note the conspicuous ABSENCE in the text of anything like “and so God SELECTED these for the Gospel presentation but these OTHERS were ignored by God and so never got a chance to be saved” as we saw here – (And in this example we also see Albert Barnes making it clear that “yes we ARE talking about salvation here”)

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1031530&postcount=6


For those who find Romans 2 – too long and tedious to actually read – the points were summarized here –

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1031539&postcount=8



Then Paul deals with the one last remaining objection to an “impartial God” – the fact that some do have access to scripture and the Gospel story found in scripture while others clearly do not – we saw Paul’s solution for that problem here –
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1031541&postcount=9

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR, I asked two specific questions in the OP. Can you give a yes or a no answer to the two specific questions? Is there a possibility that there might be a explanation out there that you have not thought about before or failed to properly consider?

 

[BobRyan]

Please clarify your question as per the response I already gave ..

there is absolutely nothing about the person that God is "selecting" then it is a purely arbitrary choice.

Obviously.

All are "X" if God selects out the FEW of Matt 7 to "BECOME Y" and if it is maintained that there must be NO DIFFERENCE between the X's chosen to become "Y" and those not selected to become "Y" -- then the choice is purely arbitrary -- in fact that is the PUREST form of an arbitrary choice that is possible.

If you are arguing for the "PUREST FORM" of arbitrary selection and asking "if it is possible that even the PUREST form of arbitrary selection is not really arbitrary selection" then I say "no" for that is a contradiction.

If you are arguing that the bible points to "something ABOUT the PERSON that predisposed God to SELECT them for access to the Gospel" then show it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: If you are arguing for the "PUREST FORM" of arbitrary selection and asking "if it is possible that even the PUREST form of arbitrary selection is not really arbitrary selection" then I say "no" for that is a contradiction.

HP: To even suggest arbitrary selection you are starting from the presupposition that if God selects, it is arbitrary. That is paramount to suggesting that if man suggests that he plays a role in his salvation, God cannot be a sovereign God, a notion you rightfully desise in Calvinism.

BR, in the case of God selecting some while leaving others to their chosen rewards, you are overlooking the question as to what the selection entails. You can readily see that God can foreknow who will be saved without necessitating the results, which is good. Why could not God select by a chosen means of selection which incorporates the free choices of man without being seen as arbitrary in those selected? Why cannot His selection be based upon the free will choices of the ones granted the task of carrying out the task of presenting His offer, as well as the freewill choices those having the gospel presented to them? Why does the selection of those to receive mercy, or those to be damned, have to be arbitrary IF in fact the selection takes into account, via His foreknowledge, the free will choices of man that would be made in the dissemination of His offer as well as in the acceptance or rejection of it?

 

[BobRyan]

#1. By definition - to have "arbitrary selection" -- one must be SELECTING something. (And in your case it is God selecting them to have access to the Gospel)

#2. IF you claim God makes His selection without ANY attribute of the PERSON predisposing God to make that selection then the selection is "by definition arbitrary". So the question is simple - do you make that claim?

If not - then show what it s about the person that predisposes God to select them.

That part is really simple.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BR, in the case of God selecting some while leaving others to their chosen rewards, you are overlooking the question as to what the selection entails. You can readily see that God can foreknow who will be saved without necessitating the results, which is good.

God provides free salvation and the Gospel to ALL then ALL choose and some choose life while other's choose death -- and God foreknows ALL.

This is not "God selecting" anything EXCEPT a free will system where ALL have REAL access to Gospel salvation.

It is God foreknowing.

Why could not God select by a chosen means of selection which incorporates the free choices of man without being seen as arbitrary in those selected? Why cannot His selection be based upon the free will choices of the ones granted the task of carrying out the task of presenting His offer

It is one thing to claim that God limits His Gospel to the free will choice of the person rejecting it - so that they are not forced to accept it.

It is quite another thing to claim that God limits the Gospel for YOU based on MY choices such that YOU do not have salvation if I DO NOT WILL it.

In that case God would have to revoke His own Claim that HE is the one that coming into the world enlightens EVERY man. Instead He would have to claim that HE AND I are the ones that coming into the world enlighten SOME of mankind as I deem necessary.

I don't see that claim in scripture.

Instead of His claiming that the Holy Spirit convicts the WORLD and the Holy Spirit moves upon the heart like the wind - He would have to say "The Holy Spirit convicts whomever Bob talks to and moves upon the heart of whomever Bob witnesses to"

I don't see that claim in scripture either.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: It is quite another thing to claim that God limits the Gospel for YOU based on MY choices such that YOU do not have salvation if I DO NOT WILL it.

HP: Gods will is that all might receive salvation period. That in no way signifies that God has not chosen a means by which that will not in actuality happen. There is obviously reasons why God decided to spread the good news by the finite menas he put into place, for reasons known clearly to Himself alone. God’s will does not necessitate the outcome. If so universalism would be right on.

BR: In that case God would have to revoke His own Claim that HE is the one that coming into the world enlightens EVERY man. Instead He would have to claim that HE AND I are the ones that coming into the world enlighten SOME of mankind as I deem necessary. I don't see that claim in scripture.

HP: Not so. Enlightening everyman, and giving the gospel to everyman is too separate notions. Just because you start from the presupposition that if God enlightens man that means He grants to everyman the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel, does not make it so. Your presuppositions clearly hinder your eyesight.

BR: Instead of His claiming that the Holy Spirit convicts the WORLD and the Holy Spirit moves upon the heart like the wind - He would have to say "The Holy Spirit convicts whomever Bob talks to and moves upon the heart of whomever Bob witnesses to"

HP: Again you have yet another unfounded presupposition that if the Holy Spirit convicts man that such conviction equates to receiving the gospel message. That is simply not true nor is it stated as such in Scripture. The heathen, who Scripture states have never even received the law let alone the gospel message, have conviction from the Holy Spirit. Your presuppositions clearly allow you to read into the text ideas of your own making, not according to revealed truth.

 

[Amy.G]

I don't understand why this subject is so hard to understand.

1 Peter 1:2
elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ:

Think of insider trading. A person receives inside information that a particular stock is going up or down and buys or sells according to this information. He has "elected" that particular stock to either buy or sell based on his inside information (foreknowledge).

God knows all and sees every possible road we might take and it's outcome. His election is based on this knowledge.

 

[Andre]

If one believes that the members of an elect are selected without reference to anything at all "about" the person elected, I maintain that this amounts to "random/arbitrary election". It is simply incoherent to claim that God elects based on "his good pleasure" in a manner that it is entirely agnostic to the properties of the person elected - either their "internal" properties (e.g. a nice person) or their "situational / relational" properties (e.g. the place the person was born or who they will meet).

Here is another way of showing that truly unconditional election really amounts to random election. I will assume the truth of unconditional election and see where it leads:

1. God elects Fred according to "His good pleasure" without reference to anything about Fred.

2. God does not elect Joe with this decision also made without reference to anything about Joe.

3. But since God's election of Fred, to serve His (God's) good pleasure has nothing to do with anything that differentiates Fred from Joe, then God's good pleasure would have been equally well met if Joe had been elected and Fred passed over. Why? Obviously because the achievement of God's good pleasure is independent of Fred's or Joe's characteristics. So electing either one would achieve the same "good pleasure" - it has to - by the very nature of the assertion that God elects unconditionally.

4. Therefore election must be random.

Of course, I am not claiming that I believe in "election" at all - at least in the sense of "God pre-determines that a subset of people will be saved". I do not actually believe this.

 

[BobRyan]

HP: Gods will is that all might receive salvation period. That in no way signifies that God has not chosen a means by which that will not in actuality happen.

Indeed "The spirit convicts the WORLD of SIN and righteousness and judgment"

The Spirit GUIDES into ALL truth.

The Spirit moves upon the human heart.

God DRAWS all mankind to Himself.

Christ STANDs at the door and knocks.

And o yes we ALSO have missionaries.

God has MANY MEANS -- not just one. You keep missing that point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
BR: In that case God would have to revoke His own Claim that HE is the one that coming into the world enlightens EVERY man. Instead He would have to claim that HE AND I are the ones that coming into the world enlighten SOME of mankind as I deem necessary. I don't see that claim in scripture.

HP: Not so. Enlightening everyman, and giving the gospel to everyman is too separate notions. Just because you start from the presupposition that if God enlightens man that means He grants to everyman the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel, does not make it so. Your presuppositions clearly hinder your eyesight.

Before you go tooo far arguing that the Gospel is NOT LIGHT -- try taking a close look at Romans 10.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

God knows all and sees every possible road we might take and it's outcome. His election is based on this knowledge.

Very true Amy.

Good point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
BR: In that case God would have to revoke His own Claim that HE is the one that coming into the world enlightens EVERY man. Instead He would have to claim that HE AND I are the ones that coming into the world enlighten SOME of mankind as I deem necessary. I don't see that claim in scripture.

HP: Not so. Enlightening everyman, and giving the gospel to everyman is too separate notions. Just because you start from the presupposition that if God enlightens man that means He grants to everyman the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel, does not make it so. Your presuppositions clearly hinder your eyesight.

Romans 2:13-16 anyone?

 

[Rippon]

Addressing Amy's Post #12

Amy , you were referencing 1 Peter 1:2 . You said you did not understand why people didn't understand the subject . Well , perhaps it's because you have misunderstood it Amy .

Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world in 1 Peter 1:20 . Do you think that just means that God knew ahead of time about Christ and/or His mediatorial role ? The short answer -- No . It goes much deeper than that , or your quite inadequate insider trading analogy !

The Lord's foreknowlege is His predetermined plan to set His love upon those of His choosing . Foreknowlege carries the meaning of choosing people ahead of time -- it's not merely a bare knowing about someone in advance . The LORD knew Abraham i.e. chose him .

God's eternal election was made by His good pleasure -- His will determining , not based on mere contingencies . God doesn't play chess and just figure out the moves that people make and therefore decides to respond accordingly .

 

[Amy.G]

Rippon:

The Lord's foreknowlege is His predetermined plan

Foreknow and predetermine are 2 different words with 2 different meanings. I can foreknow something without having predetermined it. You are trying to make them mean the same thing and they do not.

 

[Rippon]

His predetermined plan to set His love upon those of His choosing = foreknowledge .