I had written:

I would say that God's "electing people on the basis of how they react to the light" has two problems with it:

1. It would not be the election of a truly sovereign God. It would be the divine rubber stamp on what man has decided.
2. It puts the spotlight not on the election at all, but on the previous "reacting to the light".

You answered;

My problem here is that I am still not clear on exactly *how* a "truly sovereign God" (a description with which I completely concur) chooses who will be saved. He either does so 1) in a completely capricious manner (as if I were to allow a tremor or muscle spasm to "determine" what shape I'm going to draw on a piece of paper), 2) in a purposeful, but amoral/nonsensical manner (as if I were to rescue only those drowning children whose last names start with "L"), or 3) in a purposeful manner which is at the same time consistent with and even an expression of His perfect moral nature. IF these three are the available options for understanding the nature of God's decision to elect people to salvation, the last seems to me most consistent with God's character.

I believe that the third choice comes closest.

Any discussion of this topic must be preambled with the realization that none of us deserves to be saved. He has a perfect right to judge all of us. That he chooses any is a cause for thankfulness and not censure. There are those who, when confronted with this hard subject, automatically say, "My God would not be so unfair as to....". Such people need to look seriously at "their god", and consider the possibility that what they have is an idol, carved out of their wishes and fears, and not the God of the bible that the Holy Spirit is trying to reveal. 2nd Cor. 10:5 seems appropriate here:

"We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

Anyhow, we both agree that #3 is the best way to understand how a sovereign God chooses the elect. I hope to build on this later on.

...

To me (and my simple--or is it simplistic?--mind) God is not "forced" to do anything (as if our repentance took Him by surprise and He was forced to forgive us as a result). Nevertheless, the very concept of moral character is that there is a consistency and dependability about it. We can expect certain results from a morally mature person. Isn't it true that the more "Christlike" a person is/becomes, the less he/she has to _think_ about the ethical/moral nature of certain things ?

So far so good. As we become more Christlike we walk more and more in the Spirit of Christ. We find that His burden is light. The path of the righteous gets brighter every day (I forget the verse).

Would you really have to stop and _think_ about whether to save any of those drowning children? Would you only try to save a few? Wouldn't every fiber of your moral/Christlike being expend all its energy to save every one of those children whom you don't even know, simply because they are creations in the image of God? And wouldn't you do so, not merely because God told you to do it, but because you know that God is pleased when He sees His perfect moral character increasingly reflected in us? (Or does the Bible defend the selectivity of _our_ rescuing others ?)

I see a problem here. In becoming Christlike we have to distinguish between His communicable and incommunicable attributes. We are to be godly, but we cannot be godlike. As far as choosing is concerned (choosing who we are to "save", who we are to be merciful to) we do not have either the moral perfection of God or His perfect knowledge. We are told to be kind to all, precisely because we do -not- know who the elect are. After awhile, however, we begin to recognize hard soil in some. With these we do best to cut bait in order to use our energies elsewhere. (I have left email groups for this very reason.) "A factious person after one or two admonitions reject." See also Acts 19: 8 - 9, where Paul cut bait after three months.

All of this is just to say that we cannot use the fact that we are obligated to (initially) be kind or evangelistic to all, to demand that God, of necessity, is under the same constraint to treat in the same way all of mankind. God's ways are higher than our ways (Isaiah 55:8 - 9). They are in fact past finding out (Romans 11:33 - 34). The -fact- that he chooses some and others is defendable doctrine. -Why- He chooses who He chooses is mystery. Our conditions and limitations cannot help us pierce this mystery at all. Our situation is not analogous. The Holy Spirit fills in some of the gaps here, but, ultimately, we are back at "the secret things belong to God" and Romans 11:33.

We are told (Eph. 5.1) to be imitators of God precisely in a textual context where Paul is discussing love and forgiveness. Since I, too, want to have perfect love operating in me, I naturally want to imitate the very Source/Ground/Locus/Eternal Possessor of that love. Does that mean he (Paul) wanted the Ephesians to be selective in whom they loved and forgave (assuming that Paul believed that God "wants" to forgive all, but "chooses" to save some)? If love--our love--is to be of such a kind that it loves unconditionally ( no sin against us is to be unforgiven by us and we are to seek always and to the best of our ability to "heap burning coals upon the head" of _all_ those who offended/sinned against us so that there might _be_ reconciliation), then aren't we _at those times_ fulfilling Paul's command to be like God ? ---Unless we say that God's love _is_ conditional and selective, in which case, to be imitators of God, our love should be, too. It should then be a compliment to God to be a parent who loves one child while choosing, in imitation of the "perfect" love of God, not to love the other(s). Does the Bible support such a selective love on our part?

Much of this is addressed above. At least, I hope, that I was coherent enough to show a connection. A minor quibble I have is that Ephesians 5:1 is better understood as connected to the previous verse (the forgiveness of 32:1). That is why he said "Therefore". It is unfortunate that chapter divisions often obscure connections. The "walk in love" of verse 2 is certainly related, but forgiveness is the stronger aspect of Christlikeness IMO that Paul points to. At any rate the same faith and grace that teaches us and enables us to obey God (in forgiving And loving others), teaches us that we are ourselves unlovable - and forgivable only because God made us such.

It seems to me that we have a problem if we say that God's love, precisely as perfect love, is *not* "selective," while His election--completely dependent upon the same God's will--*is* selective. The reliability/dependability of God's perfect moral character is no longer there, is it? At the risk of sounding derogatory (I don't mean it to sound so) God seems kind of schizophrenic: motivated by His love, He wants all to come to a knowledge of the Truth _and_ has the ability to effect such reconciliation as the expression of His sovereignty, while something other than His perfect moral nature of love apparently intervenes and is the determining factor regarding which specific individuals are actually chosen. What is that something else? His sovereignty?

You seem to pit one attribute of God's being against another, Scott, as if they are all held in (potentially explosive) tension. But wouldn't you agree that everything God is has to be in perfect balance with everything else God is? I believe it is part of the awesomeness of God that He is so totally unified in Himself.This is proven, ISTM, by His mutability. None of His judgments are ad hoc. I cringe when I think of some sermons I preached years ago as if God was dialoguing with Himself, deciding which attribute to stifle in order to adjust to an unforeseen situation that our faith - or our sin - put Him in.

I think I understand what you are talking about when you use the word "schizophrenic" in this connection. My answer would still be that God is sovereign.

A: Your rejection of unconditional election makes _mankind_ the determining factor in God's election.

No, my texts are:
1. "Many are called. Few are chosen" (showing God's election is directed to some, not all)
2. "Salvation is of the LORD." (Thus mankind is not a factor at all. While we were yet in our sins, God said to us, "Live!")

B: Then what is the determining factor?
A: God's sovereignty
B: But what does God's sovereignty do?
A: Chooses some to be saved
B: But how are they chosen?
A: According to God's will
B: But whom does God will to choose?
A: Those whom He mercifully decides to save.
B: On the basis of what?
A: God's sovereignty etc., etc. etc.

Doesn't this come from asking too much of why? and not enough of what? I have had to put some things on hold (these past 27 years), while I concentrated on merely believing and acting upon other things that I -did- know.

It seems to me that in discussions of this issue (TULIP, esp. the U and the L), God's sovereignty is sometimes appealed to to explain the locus, grounds, basis (or whatever) of election as if it (God's sovereignty) was itself some motive or purpose in that choosing.

The TULIP is only a reaction against the "Remonstrance" of the original Arminians. They stated 5 points so the Council of Dort formulated these 5 points as a response. It is a misunderstanding for some (not necessarily you, Scott) to say that TULIP is the definitive statement of Reform theology. There is much more than that. I don't even like the L in TULIP, because I believe that both Arminians and Calvinist limit the Atonement, one does so laterally, the other in depth. But that would be for another post, if you are interested. At any rate, I would rather call it "Directed Atonement" or "Thorough Atonement", but that would wilt our man-made TULIP.