Introduction
One objection I've come across over the years is the "arbitrary" objection toward unconditional election. Simply stated: If God elects unconditionally, then He elects arbitrarily. The flip side is the assumption that the same is true of those not elected. We can see one particular poster express this concern.
One can see the initial plausibility of objection; it is largely based off of the idea of unconditionality. God's choice is unconditioned by anything in the person, so then it must be arbitrary. In spite of the initial or seeming plausibility, the argument has significant and serious flaws. The flaws of the argument actually reveal the worldview and assumptions of the objector. When the assumptions are examined, this spells far more doom toward the objector than it does toward unconditional election.
We will examine the objection by expounding upon a few simple points. First, one must have a proper understanding unconditional election. The possibility of straw men is remarkably strong for those who disagree with unconditional election; thus, it is utterly important to understand the basics before ever trying to send a criticism. Second, we will examine if the reversed assumption has merit. The reversed assumption is that if people are elected to salvation unconditionally, then they are elected to damnation unconditionally. Third, the charge of "arbitrary" needs a definition. What is meant by "arbitrary?" And does unconditional election actually lead to an arbitrary decision? These two question are the subjection of the third portion. Fourth, we will look into the assumptions of the objector. (1) One assumption is that people do not have a choice when unconditionality is present in election. (2) The other assumption is that if the person is removed from a criteria for election, then God doesn't have a reason for His choice.
These four steps will lead us forward toward a conclusion stated at the end. Let's take some time to examine these important issues.
Properly Understanding Unconditional Election
The first stop on the tour is a proper understanding of what unconditional election entails. Article nine of the Canons of Dort states the following (quote taken from top of forum link; thread titled "The Reformed Faith").
We will consider one more source. Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is a fairly common systematic theology, and he gives the following definition. "Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure."[1] Grudem's definition shares some very important characteristics with the Canons of Dort, mentioned previously. Both definitions are specifically targeting the "foreseen faith" view of election, and they both deny such an idea as the basis of God's election. Grudem's definition summarizes with one word, "merit," what Dort elaborates upon.
One needs to note the speceficity of condition denied. Grudem eliminates "merit," and Dort eliminates a larger field. Both eliminate "foreseen faith" as a condition for God choice/election. In other words, the choice of God is unconiditional in the sense that His choice is not based upon human merit, foreseen faith, or anything good of the person.
Scripturally, the appeal is often made to Romans 9:11-13 where it says.
"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”"
Romans 11:5-6 is another passage, and the focus here is upon God's grace. Human endeavor is excluded. Note: the passage does not say "meritorious works," but rather the more general expression "works" is used. Hence, the general category of human endeavor is excluded.
"So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."
2 Timothy 2:9 again points out the negation of human endeavor.
"who saved us and called us to[a] a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began"
(1) A historical appeal was made in definining unconditional election, and (2) a more current systematic theology provided the second, and the (3) third portion briefly stated a few verses that lead us to the definition of unconditional election. With the definitions given above, one can better discern what is and what is not unconditional election.
Since the definition is more clear, we can immediately note the initial objection. More specifically, we can seen how unnuanced and truncated it is. No definition is given of the meaning of "unconditional." No elaboration is given to what this may refer to. The reader is then forced to supply the content, and to the ignorant it may very well seem that "unconditional" means the absence of all reason. But ignorance does not rule the day, and "unconditional" has a very specific focus. Namely, God's choice to save some is not based upon human merit, foreseen faith, or anything good of the person. Rather, God choice to save is the source of all good and God-honoring actions among those chosen.
This is not the conclusion of the opening post, for I will continue to write after posting this initial installment. The reason is simple: post size requirements and time. Hopefully, I can average a post a day.
============================
[1] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. p. 670.
(Opening Post 1 of 4)
One objection I've come across over the years is the "arbitrary" objection toward unconditional election. Simply stated: If God elects unconditionally, then He elects arbitrarily. The flip side is the assumption that the same is true of those not elected. We can see one particular poster express this concern.
One can see the initial plausibility of objection; it is largely based off of the idea of unconditionality. God's choice is unconditioned by anything in the person, so then it must be arbitrary. In spite of the initial or seeming plausibility, the argument has significant and serious flaws. The flaws of the argument actually reveal the worldview and assumptions of the objector. When the assumptions are examined, this spells far more doom toward the objector than it does toward unconditional election.
We will examine the objection by expounding upon a few simple points. First, one must have a proper understanding unconditional election. The possibility of straw men is remarkably strong for those who disagree with unconditional election; thus, it is utterly important to understand the basics before ever trying to send a criticism. Second, we will examine if the reversed assumption has merit. The reversed assumption is that if people are elected to salvation unconditionally, then they are elected to damnation unconditionally. Third, the charge of "arbitrary" needs a definition. What is meant by "arbitrary?" And does unconditional election actually lead to an arbitrary decision? These two question are the subjection of the third portion. Fourth, we will look into the assumptions of the objector. (1) One assumption is that people do not have a choice when unconditionality is present in election. (2) The other assumption is that if the person is removed from a criteria for election, then God doesn't have a reason for His choice.
These four steps will lead us forward toward a conclusion stated at the end. Let's take some time to examine these important issues.
Properly Understanding Unconditional Election
The first stop on the tour is a proper understanding of what unconditional election entails. Article nine of the Canons of Dort states the following (quote taken from top of forum link; thread titled "The Reformed Faith").
By unconditional is meant that God's choice was not based upon "foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person chosen." Rather than these things somehow being the basis of election; election is the basis of these things. Election is the initial choice that then leads to and brings about holiness, faith, and anything good in the one chosen. Hence, the word "source" was used to describe election's relation to the "benefits of salvation."
We will consider one more source. Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is a fairly common systematic theology, and he gives the following definition. "Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure."[1] Grudem's definition shares some very important characteristics with the Canons of Dort, mentioned previously. Both definitions are specifically targeting the "foreseen faith" view of election, and they both deny such an idea as the basis of God's election. Grudem's definition summarizes with one word, "merit," what Dort elaborates upon.
One needs to note the speceficity of condition denied. Grudem eliminates "merit," and Dort eliminates a larger field. Both eliminate "foreseen faith" as a condition for God choice/election. In other words, the choice of God is unconiditional in the sense that His choice is not based upon human merit, foreseen faith, or anything good of the person.
Scripturally, the appeal is often made to Romans 9:11-13 where it says.
"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”"
Romans 11:5-6 is another passage, and the focus here is upon God's grace. Human endeavor is excluded. Note: the passage does not say "meritorious works," but rather the more general expression "works" is used. Hence, the general category of human endeavor is excluded.
"So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."
2 Timothy 2:9 again points out the negation of human endeavor.
"who saved us and called us to[a] a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began"
(1) A historical appeal was made in definining unconditional election, and (2) a more current systematic theology provided the second, and the (3) third portion briefly stated a few verses that lead us to the definition of unconditional election. With the definitions given above, one can better discern what is and what is not unconditional election.
Since the definition is more clear, we can immediately note the initial objection. More specifically, we can seen how unnuanced and truncated it is. No definition is given of the meaning of "unconditional." No elaboration is given to what this may refer to. The reader is then forced to supply the content, and to the ignorant it may very well seem that "unconditional" means the absence of all reason. But ignorance does not rule the day, and "unconditional" has a very specific focus. Namely, God's choice to save some is not based upon human merit, foreseen faith, or anything good of the person. Rather, God choice to save is the source of all good and God-honoring actions among those chosen.
This is not the conclusion of the opening post, for I will continue to write after posting this initial installment. The reason is simple: post size requirements and time. Hopefully, I can average a post a day.
============================
[1] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. p. 670.
(Opening Post 1 of 4)
Last edited:
