How are men justified?

[DialecticSkeptic]

So God doesn't determine who lives and who dies according to genetics, right? He makes this decision independently of genetics?

Correct. As I said (Msg #16), we know that "God does not show favoritism. He saves the strong and the weak alike, the slave and the free alike, men and women alike, etc." And we know this from God's actions throughout redemptive history, where he has chosen the strong some times and the weak other times, a man here and a woman there, someone with much hair and another who is bald, and so on. Evidently, genes are not relevant.

We don't know the basis upon which God chooses (determines) who will live because, thankfully, he has never told us. We know what it's not, but we don't know what it is. "Secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those that are revealed belong to us and our descendants forever, so that we might obey all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29).

However, we do know the basis upon which God chooses who will die: "The soul who sins is the one who will die" (Ezekiel 18:20; cf. Romans 6:23; John 3:18).

Again, fully consistent with evolutionary science.

 

[The Barbarian]

So God doesn't determine who lives and who dies according to genetics, right? He makes this decision independently of genetics?

The race is not always to the swift. But usually the swift come in first.

 

[Suggestion Box]

Correct. As I said (Msg #16), we know that "God does not show favoritism. He saves the strong and the weak alike, the slave and the free alike, men and women alike, etc." And we know this from God's actions throughout redemptive history, where he has chosen the strong some times and the weak other times, a man here and a woman there, someone with much hair and another who is bald, and so on. Evidently, genes are not relevant.

We don't know the basis upon which God chooses (determines) who will live because, thankfully, he has never told us. We know what it's not, but we don't know what it is. "Secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those that are revealed belong to us and our descendants forever, so that we might obey all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29).

However, we do know the basis upon which God chooses who will die: "The soul who sins is the one who will die" (Ezekiel 18:20; cf. Romans 6:23; John 3:18).

Agreed, for the most part. A few qualifiers... we do know the basis upon which God chooses who will live sometimes. He promised that Abraham's children will be as numerous as the stars. He promised that he will always keep a descendant for David. Thus God designates at least one family line which will not die out completely. There will always be a "shoot" or a "branch". Jesus came from this branch. Perhaps that part is irrelevant to the conversation, but it's worth noting.

Now, back to the main topic:
Genes are not relevant.
God does not choose who will live and die according to their genetics.
May I go so far as to deduce this: that God does not, therefore, use genetic selection as the driving force behind his creative process?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

May I go so far as to deduce this: that God does not, therefore, use genetic selection as the driving force behind his creative process?

As I understood it, we were taking an excursus on salvation, namely justification (how men are justified) and election (God determining who lives and who dies). If you would like to change gears and go back to creation, we can do that—but let's be clear that we're changing gears. There is a substantive, even crucial difference between God's salvific process and his creative process.

 

[Suggestion Box]

As I understood it, we were taking an excursus on salvation, namely justification (how men are justified) and election (God determining who lives and who dies). If you would like to change gears and go back to creation, we can do that—but let's be clear that we're changing gears. There is a substantive, even crucial difference between God's salvific process and his creative process.

I went from "God determining who lives and who dies" to "God's creative process", and you said this was a change of gears. That implies that God's determination of who lives and who dies is not the driving force behind his creative process at all. If it were, then that statement would not have seemed to be a change of gears; it would have been the next logical step in the conversation.

This I can agree with, if that is what you mean. It seems clear that God's creative process is not driven by his election of some to die and others to live. Is that correct?

 

[FaithT]

People still have babies. So, obviously, it's still happening.

-CryptoLutheran

Forgive me if I’ve asked this before, but are you LCMS?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It seems clear that God's creative process is not driven by his election of some to die and others to live. Is that correct?

I would agree with that. His creative process is driven by the same thing that drives his salvific process, namely, his glory.

 

[Suggestion Box]

I would agree with that. His creative process is driven by the same thing that drives his salvific process, namely, his glory.

It seems to me that natural selection is very much a process driven by some dying and others living.

If you believe that God's creative process is not driven by his election of some to die and others to live, do you therefore believe that natural selection is not the means by which God created human life?