Good question…Did God arbitrarily decide who to save and who to condemn?
October 22, 2002
Over the years I have received
several messages/communications like this one:
"I am one who for many years lived or at least tried to live as Christ would have. Now, I find myself questioning the 'wisdom' of His existence and therefore, of everything that is His character. How I wonder, does one get to such a point? (This is not my question.)
"Herewith a simple question that has undermined what foundation I thought
I had. Why am I battling with a God who would arbitrarily decide whom He will
save and whom He will condemn? For that is exactly what happens. I must confess that I am tired of 'biblical
cliches', such as "God is God and He will do and has the right to do as He
pleases". Or, "Who are we to
question god". Or, " . . .well, ad infinitum".
"Lastly, thank for your site and tho I be undermined, I certainly hope it will be the foundation others need.
This person is facing a very legitimate morale challenge, for the specter of an Infinite God deciding the eternal destiny of sensitive, conscious souls randomly (i.e., the meaning of 'arbitrary') should produce not just lack of faith or "devaluations" of His character, but sheer terror. A deity who/which operated whimsically (assuming the whimsy was not always in a positive direction, of course--that might could be tolerated I suppose) would be worse than living in a world without the predictability of natural law, without the reliability of social interaction, or without the correspondence of epistemic faculties to reality.
But, to my knowledge, none of the major Christian traditions actually espouse this position, so you might be facing a pseudo-problem, and pseudo-problems have a way of shredding the soul quite painfully…
Let me show you what I mean by this…
Given the dictionary definition of 'arbitrary'--"based on or derived from uninformed opinion or random choice"--how many branches of Christianity historically have affirmed that position?
First, let's get some
basic stats on the various Christian traditions.
From http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity, we get these groups:
Rank |
Branch |
Number of Adherents |
|
1. |
Catholic |
1,030,000,000 |
|
2. |
Orthodox/Eastern Christian |
240,000,000 |
|
3. |
African indigenous sects (AICs) |
110,000,000 |
|
4. |
Pentecostal |
105,000,000 |
|
5. |
Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United |
75,000,000 |
|
6. |
Anglican |
73,000,000 |
|
7. |
Baptist |
70,000,000 |
|
8. |
Methodist |
70,000,000 |
|
9. |
Lutheran |
64,000,000 |
Now, how many of these
groups believe that God randomly
(and actively) selected
individuals for salvation or condemnation,
before time 'began'?
[Quick note on terminology below: the alleged 'election to condemnation' is known as reprobation.]
…………………………………………………………………….
First, the Catholic
Church.
To begin with, they explicitly reject reprobation and even refer to the "Calvinist" heresy about this (more on Calvinism later):
"Heretical Predestinationism in its various forms (the Southern Gallic priest Lucidus in the 5th century ; the monk Gottschalk in the 9th century, according to reports of his opponents, which, however, find no confirmation in his recently re-discovered writings; Wycliffe, Huss, and especially Calvin), teaches a positive predetermination to sin, and an unconditional Predestination to the eternal punishment of hell, that is, without consideration of future demerits. This was rejected as false doctrine by the Particular Synods of Orange (D 200), Quiercy and Valence (D 316 322) and by the Council of Trent (D 827). Unconditioned positive Reprobation leads to a denial of the universality of the Divine Desire for salvation, and of the Redemption, and contradicts the justice and Holiness of God as well as the freedom of man." (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan:1955, p.245)
and it is de Fide (required to be believed) that
"God, by an Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejections. (De fide)." (Ott, p.245)
They clearly reject a 'random reprobation' position, explicitly linking any eternity-past decision of God to "foreseen sins". This is, of course, not arbitrary at all.
On the matter of election to glory, however, the Catholic Church is less uniform. They can assert that 'positive predestination' is NOT restrictive at all (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, "Canons concerning Justification", 17):
"If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is shared by those only who are predestined to life, but that all others who are called are called indeed but receive not grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil--anathema sit (basically, they are condemned/cursed by the Church).
But, the great theologian Ludwig Ott can point out that the Catholic church can allow positions both of 'conditional election' (e.g., Molinists) and 'unconditional election' (e.g., Augustinians, Scotists, Thomists).
[But note however, that this meaning of 'unconditional' does not actually mean 'random' per se--it only means 'not on the condition of foreseen merit from good works' (ante praevisa merita). All it actually does is exclude a certain type of condition from being a cause, reason, or sufficient influence on God's decision. So Ott: "whether…with or without consideration of the merits of the man".]
The reason the Catholic Church can hold both opinions within it, however, is that neither position can be demonstrated to be clearly superior:
"Both attempts at explanation [conditional, unconditional election to glory] are ecclesiastically permissible. The scriptural proofs are not decisive for either side…Citations from the Fathers or from the scholastics are not cogent, as the question arose in post-Tridentine Theology only. While the pre-Augustinian tradition is in favour of the Molinistic explanation, St. Augustine, at least in his later writings, is more in favour of the Thomistic explanation. The Thomist view emphasizes God's universal causality while the other view stresses the universality of the Divine salvific will, mans freedom and his cooperation in his salvation. The difficulties remaining on both sides prove that Predestination even for reason enlightened by faith, is an unfathomable mystery AOM. XI, 33 et seq.).." (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan:1955,p.243f)
But, statistically speaking, since the largest Order within the Catholic Church is the Jesuit order (who are the main proponents of Molinism, in its various flavors), we would have to argue that the majority of the Catholic church holds to 'conditional election', and we would have to say that the position of some of the rest, although perhaps espousing 'unconditional election', have only specified that it is 'unconditional with respect to merit, in all forms'.
…………………………………………………………………….
Second, the Orthodox/Eastern
Church.
This group clearly rejects both unconditional election and unconditional reprobation. One statement of this reads as follows:
"The
erroneousness of the reformers' teaching is obvious. It perverts the truly
Christian understanding of God's justice and mercy, of man's worth and purpose
as a free and rational being. God appears here not as a loving, merciful
Father, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge
of the truth" (I Timothy 2:4), but as a
cruel, unjust despot, who saves some without any merit and dooms others without
fault to perdition.
"The
Orthodox Church also recognizes
predestination, but does not consider it unconditional, that is,
independent of men's free will and based on a
groundless decision of the
divine will. According to Orthodox teaching, God, as omniscient,
knows, foresees
the moral state of men and, on the basis of this foresight, preordains,
predetermines for them a certain fate.
"But He does not preordain for anyone a definite moral
state; He does not preordain either a virtuous or a sinful life and
does not at all inhibit our freedom. Therefore, even the Apostle Paul, whom the
reformers cite, very closely connects the teaching on predestination with the
teaching on God's foresight. In the Epistle to the Romans, he explains this
thought in detail, and, incidentally, says concerning predestination: "For
whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of
his Son? Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he
called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also
glorified" (Romans 8:29-30). In this way, God predestinates to glory not
according to His groundless arbitrariness, as the
reformers think, but according to His
foreknowledge of a man's merits accomplished through his free will."
[Protopriest V. Potapov, "Orthodoxy
and Heterodoxy - Protestantism (3):The
Teaching on Predestination and the Veneration of the Saints", The Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Washington, D.C., found at http://www.stjohndc.org/homilies/9710a.htm]
[Other
statements to this effect can be found at: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_predest.htm]
So,
here is another quarter-of-a-billion people, claiming to represent a historic
Christian tradition, who do NOT hold a belief in 'arbitrary election'.
…………………………………………………………………….
Third, the African Indigenous Churches
(AIC's).
The
theology of this variegated group is difficult to assess. Most of these groups
seem to have derived from Baptist (e.g., kimbanguist) and Methodist/Anglican
missions. South Africa saw the most 'Reformed' presence (via the Dutch), but I
cannot find any indications of 'decretal theology' in any of the easily
accessible public literature.
These
AIC's are often characterized as having varying levels of 'syncretism'-- a
mixture of their 'missionary birth background' and the traditional, indigenous
belief systems. There are probably uniquely innovative elements in there
somewhere, but I suspect they are not likely going to be in the areas of
predestination and election (but I could be wrong).
So,
to the extent they reflect the theologies of the founding missions (largely
Anglican, Methodist, Baptist), they will presumably reflect the same
conclusions we reach about non-African
versions of those mission-sending traditions. And, to the extent
they do NOT reflect that background, we will assume they reflect elements from the indigenous, traditional religions.
What
this entrails, then, for our study here, is that we need to take a quick glance
at traditional, indigenous African beliefs--as to what extent they may reflect their own views on
'arbitrary election'.
As
far as I can tell, the data indicates that they have a similar view of 'fate'
held by many traditional religions. For example, Tokunboh Adeyemo can describe
something loosely as 'predestinarian':
"In
their anthropology the Yoruba discern that a human is composed of ara ("physical body"), emi ("breath" or
"spirit"), and ori
("soul" or "life principle"). They seem to be predestinarian in their theology of ori. For instance, they say: A kunle yan, ohun ladaiye ba
("whatever destiny chosen kneeling down [i.e., when the individual takes
leave of the Creator] is what one meets in this world"). An ill-fated
person is called olori buruku ("a
person with a bad head"). Luck is called ori
re ("head of goodness"). From these ideas of good and bad
"head" has come the belief that it is possible to cleanse one's luck and
change one's ill fate by ritually washing one's head.
Metaphorically, they employ the physical head to refer to what they call ori inu ("inner head")." [WR:GG:137]
Now,
if one can change
their chosen destiny by washing their head, surely this
cannot really be called an
'immutable decree of predestination' can it? [There is also the question--from
the above quote--of who actually does the 'choosing of the fate' kneeling
down--the Creator or the Creatures?]
The traditional elements also lack the hard distinction between 'good' and 'bad' final states. In fact, the fact that ancestors and all departed spirits are NOT 'gone' but are still very, very active agents within the community, certainly suggests that 'predestination to heaven or hell' has little relevance in the traditional religious base. [They sometimes also have reincarnation motifs, but these do not seem to be connected with judgment.]
So, I think all we can do here is rely on our conclusions relative to non-African 'traditional denominations' to gauge to what extent they might be reflective of AIC's. But, just to point out, it doesn't look very likely we are going to find much 'decretal theology' here…
…………………………………………………………………….
Fourth, Pentecostal
groups.
Pentecostal groups and Charismatic groups (as opposed to charismatic members of traditional groups) have their initial background in Wesleyan (and specifically, Holiness) theology--which is "mostly" Arminian (and therefore 'conditional election' types).
For example, the Assemblies of God official position is quite clear:
"Jacob (in Rom 9) was chosen before having done good or ill, but God's choice was on the basis of what he foreknew that Jacob would do…God determined beforehand the conditions on which he would show mercy. And on the basis of His foreknowledge believers are chosen in Christ…"
(Found at www.ag.org/top/beliefs/position_papers/4178_security.pdf )
Others hold to the 'corporate election' understanding:
"Election consequently is to be held in close correlation with faith. it is not because we are elected that we are able to believe (Calvinism) nor are we elected on the basis of foreseen faith (Arminianism) but that we are elected as believers. God 'chose us in him'--in Jesus Christ--'before the foundation of the world.'" [J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective, (Three Volumes in One), Zondervan: 1996, Vol 2, page 19; italics his, bold mine)
There are a growing number of Reformed Charismatics, but they are still a very small minority within the charismatic bodies.
So, here too we have a group that doesn't hold to arbitrary election.
…………………………………………………………………….
Fifth, the
Reformed/Presbyterian groups.
In spite of all the "Reformed bashing" in some of the above statements (and more below…sigh), we may be in for a surprise here…
The Reformed churches (with various degrees of bleed-over into conservative Presbyterian and Congregational groups) are traditionally associated with the phrase "unconditional election" (the "U" in "TULIP", of course). [I am excluding from this discussion the significant group of Barthians and post-Barthians, holding to a 'corporate election' (in Christ), but the reader should be aware that this "Reformed" classification is certainly not a monolithic, unified group.]
Berkhof (Systematic Theology, 1941,p115) gives a clear statement of election's unconditional nature:
"It is unconditional. Election does not in any way depend on the foreseen faith or good works of man, as the Arminians teach, but exclusively on the sovereign good pleasure of God, who is also the originator of faith and good works…Since all men are sinners and have forfeited the blessings of God, there is no basis for such a distinction in them; and since even the faith and good works of the believers are the fruit of the grace of God, even these, as foreseen by God, could not furnish such a basis."
Or Heppe [Reformed Dogmatics--Set out and Illustrated from the Sources, Baker:1950, p. 166]:
"Thus is no way may the ground of election be sought in anything that is outside of God: not in the will of man, not in the use of the means of grace, not in the foreseen faith of the twice-born, not in his persistence in faith, not in the diligence in sanctification, nor yet in the merit of Christ, but solely in the good pleasure of God."
Now, most people seem to stop reading here, discouraged, and interpret this as something very, very close to 'arbitrary'. But 'arbitrary' means 'without cause' or 'random', remember, and the old Reformed divines explicitly repudiate this. Look carefully at their word choices:
"Particular election is thus and so far not absolute, as though it were arbitrary: it rather has its moral ground (inconceivable of course to man) in God's essentiality. Cf. Walaus 385: "Although no cause outside God can be given on man's side, as we warned you earlier, why this man rather than that is elect or reprobate, as Isaac rather than Ishmael, Jacob than Esau, since in themselves they were both equals and equally unworthy of election: still we must not think that on His side God had no reasons or causes for doing- - since the divine will always conspires with His wisdom and does nothing without reason or rashly; although these reasons and causes have not been revealed to us, and accordingly they neither ought to nor can be probed by us apart from His will.-And it is this also which the chief doctors of the Reformed Church are often repelling from themselves, when they are reproached with setting up here some absolute will of God. Firstly they say it is not absolute, because it includes means by which the appointed end is achieved ; next because God also does not lack just reasons for having acted thus or thus, although these are hidden from us. Thus CALVINUS says (De occults Dei proved. P-1013 statim in initio) : " Although for me God's will is the supreme cause, yet I everywhere teach, that where in His counsels and works no cause is apparent, it is yet hidden with Him, so that He has decreed nothing save justly and wisely. Therefore the triflings of the Scholastics on absolute power I not only repudiate but also detest, because they separate His righteousness from His rule." So too speaks BEZA in Colleq. Mompelg. p.162 : " This will or this decree of His we never sever from righteousness and true right reason, and as always most orderly, although we believe it to be inscrutable even for the very angels ; and accordingly we admire and adore it and refuse to recognise any other absolute will in God". (Heppe, p165f)
This is important enough to dwell on, for as the quote noted, the "chief Doctors of the Reformed Church are often repelling from themselves…reproaches" for false positions which they do not hold.
Observations on the quote, then:
1. They explicitly reject the 'arbitrary' word.
2. It is grounded in God's morality (i.e., goodness, fairness, empathy, integrity, non-duplicity, non-favoritism, desire to expand goodness, etc.)
3. God has "causes and reasons" for His choices, though these are "internal" to God (i.e., not derived from the creature).
4. His 'will conspires with His wisdom'.
5. He 'does NOTHING without reason'.
6. He 'does NOTHING rashly'.
7. He has simply not revealed these reasons and causes to us--although they are certainly there.
8. Since they haven’t been revealed, we cannot 'probe' them (trying to figure them out).
9. It is 'uncű p Ăâ đ+p +p T˙ đÔ# đ|# đutside'), but not 'absolute' (i.e., without causes and reasons).
10. God does not 'lack just reasons' for His actions.
11. These 'just reasons' are hidden from us.
12. Even though we cannot see a cause, it is nevertheless there in "His counsels and works".
13. NONE of His decrees were done "save justly and wisely".
14. His power (in the decrees) cannot be separated from His righteousness (the moral, personal ground!)--as the Scholastics allegedly do (smile).
15. God's will or decree is never 'severed' from righteousness (which, by the way, includes compassion--cf. Prov 12.10).
16. God's will or decree is never 'severed' from 'true right reason'.
17. These reasons may indeed be even inscrutable (i.e., present, but not understandable) to angels. [So, why bother with trying to explain them to us…?]
In fact, Polan can tie this sovereign 'good pleasure of his will' to love: "…good pleasure of God founded on His gratuitous love towards us…" (Heppe, p.166)
This is very, very far from a cold, detached, arbitrary election of individuals…In the Reformed system--according to their classic documents--this decree of God in eternity past is characterized by reason, wisdom, justice, righteousness, non-rashness, and 'gratuitous love towards us'…
What this means for our study is this: the Reformed doctrine of 'unconditional election' is NOT even close to being the same as 'unCAUSED election' or 'ARBITRARY election' . It affirms only that the causes/reasons are not grounded in the deeds of humans in time. There ARE reasons and causes, and these are wise, just, righteous--and unrevealed.
Now here are two payloads from this:
1.
Just because God has not revealed His reasons, gives us absolutely no evidence/warrant to conjecture
(and then decide!) that He has none (i.e., that the decisions were
arbitrary)!
2. Just because God has not revealed His reasons, gives us absolutely no evidence/warrant to conjecture (and then decide!) that He his reasons are ignoble (i.e., that His decisions are morally inferior to what we would have done(!), or are less compassionate than what we would do, or that He is cruel in a way that we would hope never to be)!
This is the crux of the 'morale' problem here--we do NOT have any data about His reasons upon which to evaluate the situation, so how can we 'trust Him' that His decisions are 'as good as' we dare presume ours would be' (chuckle…"I speak as a fool--but you compelled me"…smile)…
In other words, in the absence of relevant data, we have NO reason whatsoever to 'assume the worse', and therefore have NO legitimate grounds for doubting the goodness of His heart. But even beyond this, we can actually draw from other data and perhaps 'retro-terpolate' into that situation (with corresponding loss of certainly, of course--all "*terpolations" have this epistemic 'dilution factor' associated with them)
For me, this is real simple…when I try to 'fathom the unfathomable' counsels of God, I look at two concrete, clearly-revealed, low-ambiguity places for 'trend data' about God's 'counsels': (1) The cross and (2) the 'historically elect' in the early church.
(1) When I look toward the Cross, at the vivid and concrete expression of beyond-the-bounds Love of God, "when I survey the wondrous Cross on which the Prince of Glory died", when I consider the 'meekness and gentleness of Christ', I find my heart trusting the goodness of His counsels, and the kindness and grace of His 'undisclosed reasons', and the tender wisdom of a Father's heart…
Luther makes the same point, but comes at it differently:
"When a man begins to discuss predestination, the temptation is like an inextinguishable fire; the more he disputes, the more he despairs. Our Lord God is opposed to this disputation and accordingly he has provided against it baptism, the Word, the sacraments, and various signs. In these we should trust and say: " I am baptized, I believe in Jesus Christ; what does it concern me, whether or not I am predestined? " He has given us ground to stand on, that is, Jesus Christ, and through him we may climb to heaven. He is the one way and the gate to the Father. But when we begin in the devil's name to build first on the roof above, scorning the ground, then we fall! . . . I forget all that Christ and God are, when I get to thinking about this matter, and come to believe that God is a villain. We ought to remain by the Word, in which God is revealed to us and salvation offered, if we believe it. Moreover in trying to understand predestination, we forget God, we cease to praise and begin to blaspheme. In Christ, however, are hid all treasures; without him none may be had. Therefore we should give no place whatever to this argument concerning predestination." [ Conversations with Luther, pp. 135, cited in A Compend of Luther's Theology, Hugh Kerr (ed), Westminster:1966, p.36]
It is in what God has revealed that we can see His heart, and thus have confidence that whatever God "decided on in eternity past", it is no doubt greater, kinder, more compassionate, wiser, more gracious, more giving, more amazing, more awesome, more love-inspiring, more hope-validating, more righteous, more other-centric than we could possibly image, being ourselves agents of pettiness, caprice, treachery, apathy, cold-heartedness, duplicity, and self-centeredness…perhaps we 'project' ourselves back onto God--it wouldn’t be the first time we accused Him of our own crimes and pettiness…[ah, but I have moved on to the "T" in the TULIP and that's not my purpose here…smile]
(2) If I take the pattern of the early church 'demographics' as a 'consequence' or 'reflection' of some allegedly timeless decree, I find something like this pattern:
"For consider your calling, brethren, that there
were not many wise according to the flesh, not
many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things
of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world
to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base
things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that
are not, that He might nullify the things that are, 29 that no man should boast
before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us
wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 that,
just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor 1.26ff)
"At that time
Jesus answered and said, “I praise Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
that Thou didst hide these things from the
wise and intelligent and didst reveal
them to babes.
(Matt 11.25)
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. (Matt 5.5)
"Listen, my
beloved brethren: did not God choose the
poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to
those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you and personally drag
you into court? 7 Do they not blaspheme the fair name by which you have been
called? (Jas
2.5)
In the ancient world, only the rich elite could hope to have a future 'with' God, or to achieve immortality--the poor, the despised, the exploited were simply without hope…salvation cost money and required 'status', if it was offered at all…That God's heart prioritized around these souls somehow, encourages me to trust His heart in matters I cannot 'fathom'…there is a revealed goodness there, a graciousness, a sensitivity that --if it is reflective of some 'unconditional election'--reveals a supremely benevolent and loving 'decision process'…
[There is, btw, for this tradition an ordo problem here…did He choose the rich in faith to be poor in this world, or vice versa--according to this verse?…"exercise is left to the reader"…smile.]
And, at a practical level, I beta-test this every week it seems! There are countless things that seem to 'intrude arbitrarily' into my life, with no clue from God as to what His 'inscrutable reasons' might be--but often, eventually, and with great surprise, delight, and comfort (and even growth sometimes…smile), I learn what those hidden reasons were…and I have an audit-trail of God's trustworthiness in non-disclosure situations…I have evidential, "statistical", and experiential grounds to 'give Him the benefit of the doubt' next time…Those that follow Christ (at least those that follow closely, trying to keep up, and 'not at a distance'…smile) know this experience all too well, and only need be reminded to apply this to 'bigger things' too…
If I have grounds to trust His heart--from the Cross, from the historical outworking of 'election', and from my personal analogical experience--and if the only 'reason' I suspect 'foul play in eternity past' is that I don’t know what went on back then(!), then it is my decision to call election "arbitrary" which is the real 'arbitrary' here! In other words, if I have no reason to call God's pre-time planning 'arbitrary', doesn't that make MY accusation blatantly 'arbitrary'? Do I not end up 'projecting' onto God what I myself am guilty of?
Summing up here, in spite of the "accidental slander" often thrown at them, in the Reformed system, (1) not only is this 'unconditional election' NOT arbitrary, and (2) not only is this decision said to be 'wise, righteous, just, loving, reasoned, caused' by the Reformed divines, but (3) the pattern of realization in history reveals a trustworthy and tender heart…the 'election of the lesser', I call it…He chose Jacob the younger (the lesser) over Esau the older (the one to whom it was 'due'…)…He chose the hurting, the despised, the helpless, over those who looked down on them…And He chose even me…
So, so far, we haven’t come up with a truly 'arbitrary' position yet…
…………………………………………………………………….
Sixth, the Anglican
Church.
Historically, the Anglican Church (and the Episcopal) has proven to be able to absorb a very wide spectrum of beliefs, from very conservative Calvinists, to very fluid Arminians, to very 'conciliatory' liberals. Their foundational document is the Thirty-Nine Articles, in which the longest article is on Predestination, but it is less important today than it was at the Reformation.
"XVII. Of Predestination and Election. Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only- begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. "
One famous expositor of this (W. H. Griffith Thomas) explicates this in fashion that clearly avoids the arbitrary label, and probably avoids the unconditional label, since he seems to be referring to a 'class election' (instead of an individual one). From W.H. Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology: An Introduction to the Thirty-nine Articles. Baker:1977:
"The Calvinistic view is an attempt to fit everything into a logical system, but the problem remains, why, if God can regenerate every sinner, He does not do it? One thing may be regarded as certain, that there is nothing arbitrary in the Divine action. We may not be able to understand the reasons, but notwithstanding this we may be sure that they are based upon wisdom, truth, and love. The three references to the Divine will are significant in this connection: first, we have 'the good pleasure of His will' which, however, does not imply anything arbitrary (Eph. i. 5); then comes 'the mystery of His will,' a fact of which we are perfectly aware (Eph. i. 9); but last of all we read of 'the counsel of His own will' (Eph. i. i i), and we are sure that God does nothing without due consideration, and, as it were, taking counsel with Himself. The Calvinistic view is doubtless open to the serious objection that it tends to make God's righteousness conflict with His love, by asserting the Divine sovereignty in too unqualified a way. But, as it has been pointed out, there is no need of this conflict if we recall the fact that election in Scripture is intended, not for exclusion, but for wider blessing to others. God's choice of Abraham and other similar men in Old Testament times was for the purpose of making them spiritual blessings to others, and when this is realised in connection both with Israel and Christ we see that election does not mean exclusion, but inclusion as the means of worldwide blessing." [p.248f; notice this election is primarily an election to service, and blessings to others.]
"In conclusion, we must, as Dr. Orr says, dismiss entirely all thought of arbitrariness and keep the Divine purpose in the closest possible connection with the history by means of which it is realized." (p.250)
"It [predestination] is associated with God's foreknowledge (Rom viii.28; 1 Pet. 1.2.). Foreknowledge is something between foresight and foreordination, knowledge with favor." (p.251)
"So we may say: (a) God elects to save; (b) God elects to save in one way (in Christ); (c) God elects to save one class (believers)." (p.251)
"The one thing to remember is that there is no favoritism with God and no injustice, nor is there any interference with the freedom of man or the u