Is God’s Selection Arbitrary?

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

 

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

 

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:

 

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

 

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

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

 

#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

 

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.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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

in Christ,

Bob

 

Very true Amy.

Good point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

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.

Romans 2:13-16 anyone?

 

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 .

 

Rippon:

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.

 

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