Is God Arbitrary?

Dr. Leighton Flowers, Director of Evangelism and Apologetics for Texas Baptists, reads from Jonathan Edwards sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," to demonstrate that even respected Calvinistic scholars agree that God's sovereign will to save some and condemn others is "arbitrary" on the Calvinistic worldview.

[susanthroop]

I enjoy the short ones as well as the longer. Nice for the short one to address the fine points of this doctrine that were not nipped in the bud centuries ago. However in the 21st we have wonderful technologies to take a deeper look and address Calvinism and other doctrine with a fine tooth comb and bring them to the light.

[alfredjohnson]

It's not just Jonathan Edwards.
'God having, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to eternal life, did enter into a covenant of grace with them to deliver them from the estate of sin and misery and into an estate of salvation by a redeemer.' (The Shorter Westminster Catechism)
What is 'mere good pleasure' in choosing to save only a few monergistically (despite having the power to save everybody monergistically) if not arbitrary?

[ruthvansandt]

Then a charismatic Calvinist can legitimately sing “Reckless Love”

[Franci]

Beautifully said!! God bless u for all your great work!!

[kweeengtan]

God has no favorite nor any variation in him. He doesn't wants anyone one to perish or has pleasure to our dead. He wants us to choose life i.e his salvation to eternity and not dead of ever burning fire in shoel.

[waitingandwatching]

The first conversation I had with a Calinist my question to him was... Since we are all sinners what criterion does God use to chose one and not the other... from the first moment I understood the basics of Calvinism ... I said this is not the God of the Bible.. and I'm not a theologian

[flatgroundaniel]

How can a Calvinist get out of the accusation that God chose the elect for no known reason?

Easy.

Since Leighton Flowers has stated that the REASON why Adam & Eve chose to sin was because of their free will, then a Calvinist can state that the REASON why God chose the elect was because of his free will.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[zeohikari]

Hey Dr. Leighton do have a email that I can contact you through I would really love to have a talk with you

[aarongood]

Honest Question:
Is having a ministry whose main function is to refute Calvinism in favor of Provisionism promoting division in the body?

I am genuinely interested in hearing thoughts and/or biblical justification for this. If Calvinism is not an essential doctrinal issue (i.e. Calvinism is not a heresy), then one of the main purposes of Soteriology 101 is to fight against an orthodox Christian teaching. Disagreement is normal, but does operating a ministry like this become unnecessarily divisive?

[PresidentChristopher]

Here's a question for you Calvinists:

God spoke to this Christian's heart to speak to the man over there. The Christian resisted the Spirit's impression for an hour or so, and left the restaurant, after which the man over there) went into the restroom and blew his brains out.

DID GOD want that man saved on one level, but just did not elect Him on a higher level?

I don't know, maybe the man would've rejected the gospel, and God predestined Him to not have to endure as much wrath as he would have had the CHristian obeyed God and went over to speak to Him.

In August, 1987, I was at a Freddie Gage crusade, here I lived in Kinston. The evangelist was telling a story.
The guy was desperately trying to get ahold of Freddie Gage.
"Only Freddie Gage can help me!" Freddie Gage kept putting it off, until the young man was found dead, after a contract had been put out on his life.
Freddie Gage said God chastised him badly after that.
On what lever did God want this young man saved, wile at the same time NOT ELECTING HIM TO BE SAVED?

[PresidentChristopher]

To the Calvinist, God takes every nuance and smallest variable - EVERYTHING EXCEPT FREE WILL - into consideration when He elects one to be saved. I SAY to you He takes free will into account. Calvinists have a cardboard, one-dimensional view of God, His Justice, and election

[Jamie-Russell-CME]

Even though arbitrary comes from a word meaning "judge" (arbiter), that doesn't mean judges are always fair. Calling a decision-maker arbitrary is usually a negative thing, suggesting the person is making rules based on whim rather than justice. A coach who selects starting players arbitrarily isn't strictly applying a rule; he could just be picking names out of a hat.

[aarongood]

Another Honest Question:
Do you consider Calvinism vs. Provisionism to be an essential doctrinal issue?

I noticed in my last post a number of people considered this to be the case. By an essential issue, I mean that affirming Calvinism would be on par with denying the deity of Christ or the Trinity. The contrasting opinion would be that it is a secondary issue that does not separate Christians from non-Christians, and would be closer to an issue like infant baptism. I'm genuinely interested in your opinion.

[a.k.]

@1:20 Please, find a single calvinist who doesn't change the definition of at least one word to suit his or her fancy. Some of them change the definitions of multiple words.

[godesteem]

Why import a modern definition of a word into a sermon that is 300 years old? Care to provide context from any of Edwards other works?

[scottthong]

Regarding the Rauser quote, one reason that Calvinists might give that causes the forced weighty decision is the need for damned sinners in order to show God's justice.

But wouldn't even ONE SINGLE REPROBATE be enough to accomplish this as an example and object lesson? Why damn billions to eternal suffering? This seems like another abitrary decision.

[ipaporod]

I really appreciate your efforts brother Leighton to expose the ERRORS and false teachings of Calvinism!. I have learn through you videos a tone of facts about Calvinism which I didn't know before. The only thing I will NEVER ever agree with you Leighton is on your take and classification of these ERRORS and FALSE teachings in Calvinism.

It seems like to you Leighton, if someone comes PREACHING a gospel with an interpretation of salvation from another "perspective" and through another approach (the atonement and the process of salvation) and a different interpretation/perspective of man's responsibility to respond to God's appeal to reconciliation. A different interpretation and perspective of free will, spiritual condition and depraved condition.


Then to you brother Leighton even though Calvinism preach/teach a gospel through a different perspective which is non sequential then Calvinists are your brothers because they just believe in the Trinity and that Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh which by the way, both Catholics and 7th day Adventists believe also!.

To you Leighton both perspectives, world views and approaches (a Calvinistic interpretation and an apostolic/Paul interpretation) will eventually lead to the same main point of the GOSPEL of salvation which is, provision of salvation to ALL ONLY by grace through faith.

As I pointed out to you brother on ANOTHER post, the only way 2 different PERSPECTIVES on any subject/issue could be TRUE is if they BOTH at the end come to the SAME concussion!. Obviously the Calvinistic interpretation of the Gospel and the process of salvation and its perspective is CONTRARY to Jesus Christ and Paul's interpretation and perspective.please brother Leighton enlighten me, can both interpretations and perspectives coming from different world views be correct?

I know you love to use NICE words such as "perspective", "approach" and "world view" as to put a curtain of smoke to cover up the obvious by avoiding the unavoidable which is calling an heretial ERROR and a false doctrine for what it's, ANOTHER gospel brought by evil spirit entities!.

I know you love to use NICE words such as "perspective", "approach" and "world view" as to put a curtain of smoke to cover up the obvious by avoiding the unavoidable which is calling an heretial ERROR and a false doctrine for what it's, ANOTHER gospel brought by evil spirit entities!.

I know you love to use NICE words such as "perspective", "approach" and "world view" as to put a curtain of smoke to cover up the obvious by avoiding the unavoidable which is calling an heretial ERROR and a false doctrine for what it's, ANOTHER gospel brought by evil spirit entities!.

I know you love to use NICE words such as "perspective", "approach" and "world view" as to put a curtain of smoke to cover up the obvious by avoiding the unavoidable which is calling an heretial ERROR and a false doctrine for what it's, ANOTHER gospel brought by evil spirit entities!.

If Calvinists interpret the GOSPEL of salvation from a different perspective which contradicts the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ taught by Paul then please Leighton answer me, in which WAY are Calvinists your brothers???.

The main point of importance of Jesus Christ is NOT Jehovah's God sovereignty. The main point is Jehovah God provision (grace) for ALL so whoever believes (faith) in His Son will be saved!

Bother Leighton, if Jesus stated and Paul interpretation of Jesus Christ statement and Paul's perspective clearly stated that Jesus atonement was for ALL sinners and on the other hand the Calvinistic INTERPRETATION and perspective is CONTRARY to Jesus statement and Paul interpretation/perspective, how could both perspectives and interpretations be CORRECT??.

Paul clearly stated that any gospel which have a different interpretation/pespective (ERRORS) of the TRUE GOSPEL and that it contradicts the TRUE GOSPEL of Jesus Christ it is to be concidered ANOTHER gospel brought by demons.

Brother Leighton you can keep your nice sounding and intellectually enlightening words (different= approach-perspective-world view) as to cover up the big elephant in the room but I don't play games with ALL MIGHTY Jehovah God and his holy TRUE GOSPEL of salvation!


As I have pointed out before in other posts, I'll keep posting this message to you (a message meant for you to TAKE a definite SIDE of what is HERESY and what is orthodox Christianity and what side do you REALLY stand for) unless instructed other wise by the same Holy Spirit who I believe have gave me this message to be brought to you.

How you decide to handle this message on these posts it is your prerogative because at the end it is you responsabily and not that of the messenger!

God bless you brother!

[brentonstanfield]

Very disingenuous video. Leighton knows that every time he uses the word arbitrary he intends it in a pejorative way (ie random) he doesn’t intend it in the non-pejorative sense of God’s role as the ultimate arbiter of all things. So when he uses it he intends to imply that God has no purpose, not that God’s purposes are self-governed.

We agree that God’s choice to create at all is “arbitrary” in that it was not governed by a system “outside of him”. He was not forced by “external factors” to create. All of God’s purposes are sovereignty contained within him... including the purpose to save by faith.

Nobody ever argues that God’s choice of them over the millions of other “seed” that could have reached the egg first is “arbitrary” or question God’s purposes in that. Just the demand for God’s grace.

[Mrinimmini]

Few things:

1) Professor Flowers misuses one of the greatest evangelical sermons in American History by focusing on the word "arbitrary" and by bringing in his own application of the word. We had the word properly defined for us at 2:11, but then was mis-applied at 2:25 when the question was asked about salvation. I would humbly submit to the readers that the word "arbitrary" has nothing to do with the context of salvation, but rather with judgment. All the definitions of arbitrary speak to the essence of a judge carrying out justice, rather than a Father bestowing His grace.

2) Dr. Flowers conflates mercy and grace here in his question and this is further seen when he quotes Edwards ( 5:00 ). The title of the sermon is called "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". This sermon is directed at sinners, those outside of Christ; it is a prescriptive appeal to the wicked to repent of their ways. The conclusion to the sermon reads "Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come." There is little emphasis on explaining Soteriological concepts in the sermon. The sermon is about God's mercy on sinners rather than grace, and it's his mercy that Edwards explains is arbitrary - why God as a just judge does not destroy any one person the very moment they commit a sin. 6:00 - God is not "doing what he does" in a universal sense like Professor Flowers means here; again it is restricted to his just judgment on sinners. Saying God's will is arbitrary is not what Edwards says in his sermon, he says "arbitrary will" - relating to how God determines judgment on sinners. This is all about how God acts as the Arbiter/Judge in dealing with sin. You can tell Dr. Flowers is reading Edwards and assuming the word arbitrary means more about grace than it does mercy as 6:50 - 9:40 of the video clearly demonstrate.

3) 16:24 - Dustin's analogy is very common among Provisionists - it is the FALSE and HERETICAL belief that all people are children of God. I've seen Dr. Flowers do this over and over and promote analogies with this assumption. It's your standard Big Eva tactic that concludes, "because we don't know the hearts of men, let's just give everyone the benefit of the doubt and say that God loves them". The universal Fatherhood of God is Liberalism rearing its ugly head and completely ignores the doctrine of Adoption. These analogies are emotionally manipulative and neither Biblically grounded nor sustainable.

4) 17:00 - the writer of this article commits the same error that Dr. Flowers does, by using "arbitrary" in a context of everyday decisions rather than a merciful judge. It implants a human category onto a divine being and chains God to the wisdom of man. 17:55 "two kinds of acceptable arbitrary decisions". I would just simply ask - by what standard? This section is actually pretty telling of Leighton's view on God's providence or lack thereof. It would appear that he views God as setting up creation or the forces of nature and then just allowing everything to occur. God's decree is a simple windup toy, there's hardly any governance or superintendence. As he explains the flipping of a coin and the "randomness" of its outcome is attributed more to the material world than God's decree. If that were so, how would this Proverb be true - "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." (Prov. 16:33). 21:09 There you have it folks, God is limited in his creative actions only by the determinations of free creatures. You thought God was in control? Well it was really the numerous counterfactual choices of his creatures.

[jessegandy]

I don't see the problem with God's election being arbitrary. It's unconditional/arbitrary to the very core! And I'm certainly thankful God arbitrarily chose me and everyone else He chose! What a tremendous grace it is!!!