Choose The Best: More on a failed Arminian argument

Hot on the heals of of me presenting Dan these defeaters:

1. Some of the top libertarian action theorists in the world disagree with him.

2. The empirical evidence suggests that not all "common men" are libertarians.

3. About a dozen of the most respected dictionaries define "choose" in terms wholly compatible (!) with compatibilism.

4. Dan's ad hoc definition of "common men" (i.e., all the members of Israel and the Church from all time) allows some of the world's most uncommon men to be "common men".

5. Dan's position implies that one needs to be a libertarian in order to be saved---so much for the uber love of Arminianism!

I now bring Dan another defeater.

2 Kings 10:

1 Now there were in Samaria seventy sons of the house of Ahab. So Jehu wrote letters and sent them to Samaria: to the officials of Jezreel, [a] to the elders and to the guardians of Ahab's children. He said, 2 "As soon as this letter reaches you, since your master's sons are with you and you have chariots and horses, a fortified city and weapons, 3 choose the best and most worthy of your master's sons and set him on his father's throne. Then fight for your master's house."


Notice the very common conception of "choosing the best." The best, by definition(!), implies no other alternative. So, out of the mass of 70 sons, the guardians were to choose the best and most worthy. Say they lined the group up, 1 - 70, and chose number 10. To the question "was it a live option for you to pick number 22?" is the answer, "No." Why not? Well, he wasn't the best. "The best" implies one out of a group, with the rest not being live options as they are the second, third, fourth, and so on "best." So, 1 - 9 and 11-70 were not live options. But the Bible calls this a choice. In fact, the understanding used here is consistent with the majority of dictionaries out there: select one or more from out of a larger number.

I would also go as far as to say that out of the 70 there was at least one who was obviously not the best or most worthy. Maybe he was ugly, weak, had a bad leg, dumb, and just smelled bad too. So, he was obviously not "the best" yet he was inculded among the choices, or ones to choose from! On Dan's assumptiuons he would have to be a possible "best," but the problem is that he obviously wans't!

Oh, and I also note the Arminian "yes men" at Dan's blog complaining that I have admitted that my arguments defeat Dan (I guess they'd rather have me admit that Dan's arguments beat mine?). They complain about this but have not bothered to defend Dan's argument. If any of them think they can respond to my arguments, let them use this combox. Here's the resolution:

[R] Dan says that "the dictionary" defines "choose" with "possible alternative" as an essential element to it. This point is CRITICAL to Dan's argument going through. I cite numerous well-respected dictionaries which say otherwise. How did I not destroy Dan's (bad) argument?

Got a defense for Dan?