Theopologetics 003: Is Election Arbitrary in Calvinism? A Response to Leighton Flowers

[jacobstevens]

My pastor had defined and supported unconditional election before, but I had never seen it logically explained or defended in the way you did here. It really gave me a new appreciation for God's choice of me, and had reaffirmed something else I constantly think, namely that God has specially made each of us for the time he puts us in. Another video I really appreciate, Chris.

[brucemercerblamelessshamel]

the doctor analogy fails because the patient does not indeed cannot give himself a new heart.

[marekfoolforchrist]

It was a pleasure to help you sift through Leighton Flower's videos, this refutation of Flowers is very edifying and I'm grateful that you've made it.

[bdreinke]

Great video. Thanks for taking the time to put this presentation together. It's very helpful. 👏

[lawrencestanley]

If Flowers would only use the Biblical explanation of God's choices, then there would be no problem; that is, "after the counsel of His own will." Ephesians 1 :11.

[arthur]

"For no reason" can only mean "randomly", but it would seem that "arbitrarily" had the idea of deciding "purely by reasons internal to the decider". Sounds remarkably like, "according to the good pleasure of his will". But "according to the good pleasure of his will" doesn't sound like by "eeny meeny miny moe ...". So, Dr. Flowers is stuck on "for no reason" when the word when used meant "by no reasons external to the decider/only by reasons internal to the decider". IOW, "arbitrary choice" seems to be a purely subjective choice, while "non-arbitrary choice" would then be a choice based on objective criteria - you know, like by objective works or objective merit before the Law. In objective choices the criteria for the choice is in the object (in the case of election, in the one elected), but in a subjective choice, the criteria for the decision is in the subject (in the case of election, in the elector).

TLDR <><

[chriscalhoun]

A few issues with this video:
First, you go after Dr Flower’s character by calling him intellectually dishonest, and flat out dishonest multiple times. You even accuse him of “pretending” to use the word arbitrary as secret reasons God has, which is basically accusing him of intentional deceit. You show some clips where it does seem like his passing use of “arbitrary” is equivalent to “random”, and use those to dismiss all of the other times he intentionally clarifies what he means by “arbitrary”. That seems intellectually dishonest as well. It’s quite possible he misspoke or wasn’t being careful with his words on those instances. I agree that he should be more careful with his use of the word, since it does have multiple meanings. However, You’ve called him your friend and a Christian brother, and you know him personally, so it seems really unfair to publicly chalk it up to dishonesty or malicious intent on his part.

You cite a dictionary 5 years after Edward’s death that defines arbitrary in the capricious sense. This is actually good evidence that “arbitrary” did have the capricious meaning during Edward’s life time, as dictionaries’ descriptive definitions lag behind the words’ usage in their time, language developed more slowly then, and dictionaries were likely published less often back then.

Moving God’s election (logically or chronologically) prior to creation doesn’t avoid the charge of God’s election being arbitrary, in any sense of the word arbitrary. A smith’s choice to craft a sword a certain way is just as arbitrary as a soldier picking one out, regardless of the meaning of arbitrary. God’s will and choices are the same level of “arbitrary”. You’ve redefined arbitrary as a choice between options that must exist or will exist in a certain way, but thanks to your extensive display of the definitions of arbitrary I know that the existence of an option is not part of any definition of arbitrary. You’ve done precisely what you’re accusing Dr Flowers of, and worse, because at least he’s using a definition that’s actually in a dictionary. Even if the people don’t exist, God is still choosing between existing options: to make people as elect, non-elect, this purpose or that, etc. I don’t see how this argument is anything but a non-sequitur.

[danbreeden]

I love this episode thank you Chris well done

[patrickbarnes]

The definition that Flowers used matched the definition that the dictionaries from Edwards' time used. Pointing out that the word has another definition when that definition isn't the definition that Flowers himself claimed to be using is entirely irrelevant. Secondly, while Flowers said that election was based on no reason at all a couple of times, those times were far and away outweighed by the times he didn't say that. Lastly, there was no evidence shown that Flowers didn't try to limit his use of the word. If he truly wasn't trying, then it stands to reason he wouldn't have mentioned it at all. The fact that he did mention it more than once makes it seem more likely that he is just so used to using that word that he has trouble switching, just as a person can fail to quit smoking but that doesn't mean they aren't trying. Calling Leighton a liar was not justified by the evidence given, and made Date's claims of loving him and considering him a friend seem disengenuous. I think Chris Date failed to prove his points as regards Leighton Flowers. I hope this response did not come across as rude. I stand by the points I made but the presentation of them was at all unchristian, I apologize for that.

[EssenceofPureFlavor]

Both uses are correct based on context. The English language isn't so simple that a word is always without fail used the same way.

[flamingswordapologetics]

Sat through this live and it was very good Chris. Pondered your final conclusion and does that mean you hold to "double predestination" or similar?

[michaelfaber]

It is interesting that you chide Leighton for being prescriptive, and then you cite several YouTube videos in order to be perceptive yourself.

[jacquiclarke]

I watch all of Leighton flowers videos and I think this is unfair .., Leighton has said many times on his videos, particularly recently, that he is trying to avoid using the word arbitrary and I have seen many videos where he has corrected himself when he has used the word. We all slip up - these videos are 6 months old or more, perhaps you should look at more recent videos and you will realise that he hardly ever uses that word now because he knows how ‘upsetting’ it is to Calvanists. He has changed his vocabulary in order to stop this kind of discord, perhaps you should now credit him with trying.

[collin]

Chris, would it be safe to say that on Leighton's view, God's creation of the world was arbitrary since God was the sole arbiter? And would he feel comfortable saying God's decision to create the world was arbitrary? Or that God's decision to create the whole of humanity knowing that most would freely reject him was arbitrary?

[Jamie-Russell-CME]

I should say arbitrary has a negative stigma as it is used and we don't want to do that to God.
I think i recall Leighton explaining in a clip a similar one to this:

"Republicans define domination as subjection to arbitrary power. But what is arbitrary power? We consider three views. According to the first, championed recently by Frank Lovett, power is arbitrary insofar as it is unconstrained. According to the second, advanced most prominently by Philip Pettit in his recent work, power is arbitrary insofar as it is uncontrolled by those subject to it. According to the third, found (among other places) in Pettit’s early work, power is arbitrary insofar as it is not forced to track the interests of those subject to it. We advance several objections against each of the first two views and offer support for the third. Pettit, we might say, got it right the first time."

[michaelfaber]

So, based upon ~1:26:20, you must be supralapsarian and hold to double predestination.

[petermckenzie]

Here is the rebuttal video by Leighton Flowers

[petermckenzie]

Chris, you totally misunderstand what he is saying arbitrary means. When he says God DOES have a reason, it is an argument where he is saying that from the standpoint of his EDF/Arminian view. He is saying at the same time, that on Calvinism, God is arbitrary. Don't forget that on Arminian EDF God DOES choose non-arbitrarily. Arbitrary in the context of this discussion means for no apparent reason. I challenge you to give ONE reason that God might have for his choice, where that reason DOESN'T include information about the non-chosen one - AND relieves them of the charge that the reason that disqualifies them in a way that makes sense in an arbitrary/non-arbitrary way. The part that you are missing is that the word arbitrary ONLY matters in that it is the person that is making that accusation - from THEIR perspective. It matters not that God might have other reasons for a choice to damn a person. ANY other reason that doesn't consider persons, has NO GOOD REASON - when it pertains to PERSONS. It would be capricious. It would be whimsical. Thus the objection of non-calvinists.

In Romans 9:14 Paul says "Is God unjust?" If he were talking about unconditional election to salvation, the answer would be YES. But given that he is not talking about election to salvation - rather about the process of bringing about the birth of the Messiah, where it was NOT unjust for God to choose the lineage that would bring about the birth of Jesus. In that way of reading the text, the question makes sense and the answer is "No - God is perfectly just to do so".

[chrisharris]

I’ve been telling Leighton ever since he started using that term that he is not using it in how it’s colloquially understood and causing

[michaelfaber]

And it seems to me that ? -> Q -> E only more strongly affirms God's arbitrary election, in that it is only by God's pleasure whether anyone exists.