Election from the foundation of the world is the condition .God is of one mind and always does whatsoever his soul desires .'Unconditional Election" = "arbitrary choice".
bottom line.
According to foreknowledge of decisions that would be made by the potential convert (Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2)Election from the foundation of the world is the condition .God is of one mind and always does whatsoever his soul desires .
"Arbitrary" signifies choices made without a "clear reason", while "random" pertains to outcomes lacking predictability or pattern.
The decision is made by God according to the law of faith.According to foreknowledge of decisions that would be made by the potential convert (Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2)
Your view has already been proven false, bottom line. You need to address the four part opening post; otherwise, you will be living in blatant, irrational denial. The evidence presented says that your argument is nothing less than a complete fallacy. You can continue to live in logical fallacy land, or you can address the issues and try to demonstrate your view. Your habit is to completely turn a blind eye to the evidence presented against your views. When are you going to begin reading with comprehension and deal with the evidence and reality?'Unconditional Election" = "arbitrary choice".
bottom line.
I'm going to repost the four part opening post because another poster has extreme reading comprehension problems.Introduction
One objection I've come across over the years is the "arbitrary" objection toward unconditional election. Simply stated: If God elects unconditionally, then He elects arbitrarily. The flip side is the assumption that the same is true of those not elected. We can see one particular poster express this concern.
One can see the initial plausibility of objection; it is largely based off of the idea of unconditionality. God's choice is unconditioned by anything in the person, so then it must be arbitrary. In spite of the initial or seeming plausibility, the argument has significant and serious flaws. The flaws of the argument actually reveal the worldview and assumptions of the objector. When the assumptions are examined, this spells far more doom toward the objector than it does toward unconditional election.
We will examine the objection by expounding upon a few simple points. First, one must have a proper understanding unconditional election. The possibility of straw men is remarkably strong for those who disagree with unconditional election; thus, it is utterly important to understand the basics before ever trying to send a criticism. Second, we will examine if the reversed assumption has merit. The reversed assumption is that if people are elected to salvation unconditionally, then they are elected to damnation unconditionally. Third, the charge of "arbitrary" needs a definition. What is meant by "arbitrary?" And does unconditional election actually lead to an arbitrary decision? These two question are the subjection of the third portion. Fourth, we will look into the assumptions of the objector. (1) One assumption is that people do not have a choice when unconditionality is present in election. (2) The other assumption is that if the person is removed from a criteria for election, then God doesn't have a reason for His choice.
These four steps will lead us forward toward a conclusion stated at the end. Let's take some time to examine these important issues.
Properly Understanding Unconditional Election
The first stop on the tour is a proper understanding of what unconditional election entails. Article nine of the Canons of Dort states the following (quote taken from top of forum link; thread titled "The Reformed Faith").
By unconditional is meant that God's choice was not based upon "foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person chosen." Rather than these things somehow being the basis of election; election is the basis of these things. Election is the initial choice that then leads to and brings about holiness, faith, and anything good in the one chosen. Hence, the word "source" was used to describe election's relation to the "benefits of salvation."
We will consider one more source. Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is a fairly common systematic theology, and he gives the following definition. "Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure."[1] Grudem's definition shares some very important characteristics with the Canons of Dort, mentioned previously. Both definitions are specifically targeting the "foreseen faith" view of election, and they both deny such an idea as the basis of God's election. Grudem's definition summarizes with one word, "merit," what Dort elaborates upon.
One needs to note the speceficity of condition denied. Grudem eliminates "merit," and Dort eliminates a larger field. Both eliminate "foreseen faith" as a condition for God choice/election. In other words, the choice of God is unconiditional in the sense that His choice is not based upon human merit, foreseen faith, or anything good of the person.
Scripturally, the appeal is often made to Romans 9:11-13 where it says.
"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”"
Romans 11:5-6 is another passage, and the focus here is upon God's grace. Human endeavor is excluded. Note: the passage does not say "meritorious works," but rather the more general expression "works" is used. Hence, the general category of human endeavor is excluded.
"So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."
2 Timothy 2:9 again points out the negation of human endeavor.
"who saved us and called us to[a] a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began"
(1) A historical appeal was made in definining unconditional election, and (2) a more current systematic theology provided the second, and the (3) third portion briefly stated a few verses that lead us to the definition of unconditional election. With the definitions given above, one can better discern what is and what is not unconditional election.
Since the definition is more clear, we can immediately note the initial objection. More specifically, we can seen how unnuanced and truncated it is. No definition is given of the meaning of "unconditional." No elaboration is given to what this may refer to. The reader is then forced to supply the content, and to the ignorant it may very well seem that "unconditional" means the absence of all reason. But ignorance does not rule the day, and "unconditional" has a very specific focus. Namely, God's choice to save some is not based upon human merit, foreseen faith, or anything good of the person. Rather, God choice to save is the source of all good and God-honoring actions among those chosen.
This is not the conclusion of the opening post, for I will continue to write after posting this initial installment. The reason is simple: post size requirements and time. Hopefully, I can average a post a day.
============================
[1] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. p. 670.
(Opening Post 1 of 4)
Part 2 reposted.Does the Reverse of Unconditional Election Represent Calvinism?
In the first opening post, I listed out the main points. Having already covered the definition of unconditional election (first main point), the subject matter now turns to the second. Earlier I stated, "Second, we will examine if the reversed assumption has merit. The reversed assumption is that if people are elected to salvation unconditionally, then they are elected to damnation unconditionally." At the outset, I must mention that not all Calvinists are agreed on the issue. It is obviously a difficult issue to address. Some Calvinists hold to a "passing over" of the non-elect, which means that God just simply leaves them to their own deserved demise. Other Calvinists perceive that God has a more active role in relation to the non-elect.
(1) In relation to the above, one group of Calvinists, who hold to the "passing over" view, will not fit the reversed assumption. Since their view of God's involvement is more a passive view, where God simply leaves the depraved person in their natural state of sin and just condemnation, God's involvement is less active. This view simply does not parallel unconditional election.
(2) However, the second view, where God is more involved, definitely could be viewed as unconditional. The following material presents the strengths and weaknesses of these two views (points 3 & 4).
(3) The strengths of the "passing over" view. Romans 1 uses the Greek word "παρέδωκεν" three times (1:24, 26, 28). The ESV translates it as either "He gave them over" or "He gave the up." We should also note that it is aorist, active, indicative. Simply put, God has revealed Himself through the things that He has made. Depraved people see this revelation and suppress it. As judgment, God "gave them over" to their own reprobate desires.
Several verses also deal with God's hardening of people in sin. In both types of passages, one can see God is responding to man's actions (to a degree), and thusly the unconditional element simply does not fit.
Finally, one could probably appeal to Romans 2:4-5. "Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed." (ESV) Here, God is shown to be kindly and patiently withholding His wrath. But depraved people are presuming upon God's kindness and thusly they are unrepentant and storing up wrath that will be revealed one day.
These types of verses lend some credence to the "passing over" view. By simply withholding His grace, God passes over the non-elect, and they inevitably (by virtue of their corrupt natures) heap upon themselves justly deserved wrath.
The main weakness of this view is that it simply does not account for all the relevant passages.
(4) Other Calvinists hold to a more active view, where God does unconditionally determine the eternal destinies of the non-elect. The strengths of this view comes from the following passages of scripture.[1]
"In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will," (Eph. 1:11 ESV) In particular, the subordinate clause, describing God, is directly relavent. He works all things according to the counsel of his will.
"The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." (Prov. 16:4 ESV)
"So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,"
8 and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."
(1Pet. 2:7-8 ESV) The key word is "destined," as it connects to their stumbling and disobedience.
"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad-- in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls" (Rom. 9:11 ESV) Their badness was not a consideration of God's election; this is reiterated by the statement "not because of works." Note, this is not dealing with meritoriousness but rather dealing with the more general "works," whether good or bad.
"What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" (Rom. 9:22-23 ESV)
The weakness of this view is nearly the same as point three. All of these verses focus in upon God and His sovereignty over the wicked, and thusly one may get a distorted picture of God's response to man's wickedness in time. This leads to my concluding thoughts in the next point.
(5) I take a both/and view. Both views may be weak in that they don't give the full picture. But by taking both into consideration, a fuller picture is presented. God reacts to people in time, and God is also sovereign over the time. God's providence is multifaceted. The imminent/transcendent distinction is helpful here. God is both transcendent (above and beyond His creation, like an author is above and beyond his book), and God is imminent (He is within His creation and interactive with people). The transcendent approach deals with point #4 and the imment approach deals with the verses in point #3. They are complementary.
However, I do take issue with ever viewing God as ultimately passive when dealing with any aspect of creation. They key word here is "ultimately." God's transcendence functions as the foundation of creation. Such is the case when we read that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." God alone is eternal. He alone is the foundation of all else. Further, God is not just the creator of all things, but He is also the sustainer. Heb 1:3, Col 1:16-17, Acts 17:24-25, 1 Cor 8:6, Rom 11:36 all point to God sustaining causal sovereignty. Hence, nothing in creation is independent or autonomous from Him. Thusly, there is absolutely no such thing as an ultimate passivity with respect to His creation, for that would suppose an autonomous entitity apart from Him. Rather, we can view God's "allowing," "give them up," "hardening" as an imminent view of God's activity in creation.
With respect to the issue of choice and responsibility, I will address these issues in main point #4. For now, I will simply say that people make choices for which they are accountable, even if they cannot do otherwise. Accountability does not presuppose libertarian freedom.
However, the most critical text has yet to be mentioned. Paul quotes it is Romans 9:15. "For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."" (Rom 9:15 ESV) Exodus 33:19 spells out, in God's own words, that God is utterly free with repsect to His own mercying. The wording construction points to God's absolute freedom and thus ultimacy with reiteration. "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." Paul makes it clear that this applies to hardening in Romans 9:18. "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." (ESV)
These elements lead me to the conclusion that while people make choices of which they will be held accountable (Rom 1 & 2), nevertheless God is ultimate with respect to His creation and the fate of both the elect and non-elect. God's immenent actions differ with respect to the elct and non-elect. God effectively works to bring about salvation in the elect leading to their actions of belief, sanctification, persevereance, etc. God imminently responds to unbelieving truth suppression by giving them up to their own corrupt desires, and He patiently works with them as they heap up wrath upon themselves in response to His kindness and forebearnance. The most critical point to note is that God's own word leads me in this direction. Certainly, people differ with respect to interpretation, but this is what I believe scripture states, and my interaction in internet forums for over 20+ years demonstrates that I have been seeking to listen to alternative intrepretations.
=====================
[1] I wish to give credit to two articles on the desiringgod website (John Piper is the key figure on this website, and he personally produced the two titles). Two different but related articles are "Does God Predestine People to Hell?" and "Is Double Predestination Biblical?". In particular, the list of verses following this end-note comes from the former title. I have chosen to omit passages that I saw as weak examples. Also helpful, Piper addresses 1 Timothy 2:4 in the later article. The point is that both understandings (Arm & Cal) hold to the fact that God values something greater than His desire to save all. Raising the verse only brings to bear the fact that not all are saved. So the ultimate answer is that God must value something greater than that particular desire. The Calvinist and Arminian give two different answers to what God values higher.
(Opening Post 2 of 4)
Part 3 reposted.Opening Post (3 of 4)
In post #1, I stated the following.
In this third installment of the opening post, I'll be focused upon the word itself; and I will examine whether or not unconditional election actually leads to the conclusion of an arbitrary decision. For those who may wish to catch up on the different installments of the opening post, feel free to read post #1 (1 of 4) and post #58 (2 of 4).
Examining the Charge of "Arbitrary"
This may very well be the most significant section of the four, since it deals with the objection most directly. The main points of this section are are really rather simple: (1) definition, and (2) is the charge legitimate. So let us jump into it.
First, the definition of the word "arbitrary" needs to be considered. Like many words, the term "arbitrary" has a semantic range. This just means that several different nuances or meanings are attached to the word. I will be utilizing the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary website.[1]
The third definition of the term relates to law. The website says, "depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law." If this definition were pursued. Then the objection would be trying to connect the unconditional nature of God's choice to being up to God's personal discretion. This route would make a rather poor argument, since all Calvinists and Calvinism as a system holds God to be perfect in knowledge. Thusly, it would not be a problem for God to exercise the best and most competent personal discretion when making a decision that does not take into account a person's faith, good deeds, or merit into the equation. This could hardly be called a criticism of Calvinism, if this nuance of the term were used.
The second definition of the term relates to absoluteness. The website says, "not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority". The second definition also has a secondary nuance that focuses in upon the reality that often various dictators and governing bodies have functioned absolutely. Sometimes this results in tyranny. This is one of the reasons why the US government utilizes checks and balances (or at least this was the ideal) where the judicial, legislative, and executive branches all limit one another. In this case, then the argument would be that because God does not take into account a person's faith, good deeds, or merit into His consideration when choosing whom to save, then God's choice would be absolute and unrestrained in authority and power.
The first definition of the term seems most likely to fit the context of those who employ the objection. The website says, "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will." If we follow this definition, then the argument would be as follows. God does not take into account a person's faith, good deeds, or merit into His consideration when choosing whom to same; this would mean that His choice would be reasonless, capricious, and seemingly random. This would be a much more substantial accusation in comparison to the other three. If true, then the argument would be saying that Calvinistic unconditional election amounts to an attack upon the character of God, in the form of attacking His perfect wisdom.
Second, we need to examine if the charge is legitimate. At the outset, I'll state it plainly. The charge is not legitimate, and unconditional election does not result in capricious, seemingly random choices in God. Unconditional election does not result in the sinful tyranny we see from dictatorial monarchs. And the third definition does not seem worth mentioning. However, with all that stated, what has led to that conclusion? The following are some reasons why I believe it is a non-sequitur fallacy to leap from unconditional election to the conclusion of arbitrariness on God's part.
The first reason concerns the second definition of arbitrary. I have personally encountered a poster who tried desperately to salvage his argument by appealing to this nuance of the term "arbitrary." However, this response is rather rare. I've only encountered it once. The reason here is simple. Certainly, God is absolute. He is the ultimate being of the universe. His is the ruler over all. The Bible affirms these. The Bible also affirms that God is holy. On account of these simple considerations of God's character--considerations which all Calvinists hold--God's absolute power does not mean that He is the same as a sinful human. God is holy. God is not going to be tyrannical. Hence, the only persuasive power this version of the "arbitrary" argument can hold is from a guilt by association fallacy. The comparison might be made to human dictators who were clearly evil and unrestrained; however, God is not a man. And God is holy. Thus, His absoluteness is not a blight upon Him.
The second reason pertains to the natures of humans and God. We have a massive category difference. Human beings can be negatively accused of playing god; this usually takes place when a human decides to take the life of another. However, God is actually God. He doesn't play God; rather, He is God. Thusly, He has certain rights and privileges as the Creator and judge of all. In Romans 12, for example, God tells us to not take vengeance precisely because God Himself has said, "Vengeance is mine." Since God is God, He sets up the rules. God Himself is the ultimate standard and the ultimate judge. It is a blight upon sinful men to be called tyrants, but it is not a blight upon God to be God.
The third reason addresses the first definition of "arbitrary." The persuasive power of the objection comes from the fact that certain considerations are removed from grounding God's choice/election of certain people to salvation. Simply wording the previous sentence in the way it was almost already answers the issue. Note, "certain considerations" does not mean "all considerations." Just because certain considerations (a person's faith, good deeds, or merit) are removed as a reason for God's choice does not mean that all considerations are removed as a ground for God's choice. The negation of those considerations does not mean then that God has abosolutely no reason whatsoever for His choice to save certain individuals. The magnification of His grace is one such reason. Note what has already been stated in the first and second installment regarding grace and God's nature (post #1 & #58).
Finally, this leads me to conclude that the false accusation of "arbitrary," in any deragatory way, is nothing less than a non-sequitur fallacy. The nature of unconditional election does not lead to the conclusion of "arbitrary". The charge of "arbitrary" simply does not follow. Thusly, it is a non-sequitur fallacy.
In the final installment, I'll be addressing the assumptions of the accusation back to the one who sent it, for it reveals a great deal about the objector.
================================
[1] One can easily access this website through a simple google search, so the link has not been provided. Please feel free to fact check me by going to the website.
(Opening Post 3 of 4)
Part 4a reposted.(Opening Post 4 of 4)
In post #1, the fourth main point was stated in the following way. “Fourth, we will look into the assumptions of the objector. (1) One assumption is that people do not have a choice when unconditionality is present in election. (2) The other assumption is that if the person is removed from a criteria for election, then God doesn't have a reason for His choice.” These assumptions can be observed by the following quotations.
“Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter, how is God's decision to cast them into hell not arbitrary.” (original quote in post #1)
“As for the arbitrary objection, I find that God's decision to save or condemn is arbitrary if it is not based specifically on the faith of the individual (or lack thereof).” (taken from post #128)
The Interpretive Grid of False Assumptions
Introduction: When one learns from books dealing with interpretation, he finds a crucial concept. It is called distanciation. The concept is not difficult to comprehend; the main problem is actually practicing it. The concept refers to a modern reader’s ideas and assumptions, which are often read into various passages of scripture. The main idea is for the modern reader to “distance” himself from those assumptions in the interpretation of scripture. However, the most dangerous assumptions are those assumptions the interpreter does not realize he brings to the text.
A critical element of interpretation concerns “authorial intent.” This means that the original author intended a meaning during his time, culture, and audience. This means that the authorial intent of a biblical text (written before AD 100 and earlier) does not possess the assumptions that often modern interpreters impose upon it.
This small introduction of hermeneutics leads to a simple application of the same principle to discussions between Calvinists and those who employ the “arbitrary” objection. Those who utilize the objection often give away key assumptions that are being used to argue. Arguments are built upon certain foundations; but if those foundations are faulty, then it follows that the argument collapses with the faulty foundation.
As stated previously, the two key assumptions involve (1) the nature of choice-making, and (2) being overly focused upon human element in salvation.
Assumptions Regarding the Nature of Choice-making: I’ll be very candid and straightforward. I reject libertarian freedom and thusly the conception of choice-making that goes along with it. Often, this is informally called “free will.” Such a statement (free will) suffers from an extreme oversimplification of the real issue. Two critical elements will be addressed in light of their biblical contradiction. One assumption is that human choice-making is autonomous from God. The other is that human choice-making involves the ability to do otherwise.
The assumption that human choice-making is autonomous from God comes from the idea that if God causes a choice to be a certain way, then it isn’t really a choice. This is evidence by the fact that the objection says, “Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter”. The only way this statement could be true or make sense, is if one assumes that libertarian choice is the only possible way of viewing choice. In particular, if God makes a person’s destiny certain, then the person had no choice.
Let’s explore the issue a bit more. In Calvinism, the person who goes to hell makes accountable decisions based upon an enslaved, corrupt will. The nature of choice-making is such that a person always chooses in accord with their highest motive or preference. This doesn’t mean that choices are simple, since there are often various motives in competition within the individual. It just means that at the end of the day, regardless of the competition of various motivations, the person ultimately chooses based upon whatever option is most preferred. As Jonathan Edwards stated, “to choose is to prefer.” One option seems best to the individual. That is why it was chosen. What this means is that choices aren’t made in a causal vacuum. Choices have causal reasons.
“A person chooses because . . .” is a reality that describes everyday life and the reality present in the heart of sinful men in Scripture. Jesus tells people who cannot bear to hear Him, “But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.” (John 8:45 ESV) Earlier Jesus tells them, “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.” (John 8:43 ESV) Here Jesus, the God-man, tells his opponents why they are having problems with His words. They cannot understand Him because they cannot bear to hear His word. The next verse points out their negative moral character, from a morally corrupt lineage (your will is to do your father's desires), which brings about their opposition toward the truth Jesus is presenting before them. Hence, precisely because Jesus tells them the truth, they do not believe. Note that their choice to reject is given a causal reason, their motivation and character is opposed to the truth.
Earlier in the book of John we see that another causal reason is given by Jesus for people’s choices. “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” (John 3:19-20 ESV) Once again, one can see that people love darkness rather than light; and people hate the light because it exposes their evil deeds (evil choices).
We can ask the obvious now. Why would a person choose to follow Jesus if he hates the exposure of the light, and he hates the truth while preferring a lie? The obvious answer is that a person will not choose to believe what they believe to be a lie and hate.
We see the causal impact of preferences upon choice-making evidenced practically every single day by those who oppose Calvinism. They absolutely cannot choose otherwise than what they believe to be true. Their persistence against Calvinism demonstrates the fact that the libertarian view of human choice-making is false.
But there is yet another reason in Scripture that argues against the idea of autonomy from God. By “autonomy from God” is meant that people view their choices as uncaused with reference to God. They are their own ultimate cause of the choice that they make. Scripture simply demonstrates that this assumption is catastrophically mistaken.[1] We are told that God “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3). We are told that “God gives to all men, life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:24-25). We are told that “in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). We are told “from him and through him and to him are all things.” (Rom. 11:36 ESV) We are told something rather similar in 1 Corinthians 8. “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1Cor. 8:6 ESV) The idea of human ultimacy, with reference to God, is simply mistaken. Autonomy from God does not exist in God’s universe. Consequently, the idea that choices can be ultimate or autonomous from God is simply mistaken. Hence, it is proven that the view of choice-making, where the choice could be otherwise and/or ultimate is simply mistaken.
In conclusion, choices do not take place in a causal vacuum. They are caused by a person’s highest preference. For sinful human beings, this means that their moral corruption precludes their choice to believe in Christ. They prefer their sin, unless God acts graciously upon them to given them a preference for Christ and His work on the cross. Those whom God has not chosen to save do make choices. They are responsible for their choices, and their choices are sinfully precluded from choosing Christ because of their corrupt nature and corrupt preferences. Therefore, we must conclude that the statement, “Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter,” is simply false and mistaken. The statement only evidences false assumptions about choice-making and thusly misreads Calvinism.
(cont in next post)
Part 4b reposted.The Assumption of Man-Centered Interpretation: As stated earlier, the focus is upon this particular quote. “As for the arbitrary objection, I find that God's decision to save or condemn is arbitrary if it is not based specifically on the faith of the individual (or lack thereof).” The reader should take note of the context of this quote. The words come after, not before, a very explicit and thorough exposition of the fact that eliminating one set of reasons does not mean that all sets of reasons are excluded from God’s choice. Thusly, the charge of arbitrariness cannot be sustained.
However, the quote above apparently does not care if God has other reasons. The objector still wants to use the term “arbitrary” because God’s non-arbitrary reasons for His choice do not fit with the man-centered interpretive grid of the objector. Since God’s choice is not based upon man’s choice, then God can’t possibly be considered to have a legitimate reason. Thusly, His choice is considered arbitrary.
Contrary to the objection and objector, this only shows a huge degree of man-centeredness. The assumption of man-centeredness is clearly guiding this objection. A person’s faith is the only consideration allowed to guide the “arbitrary” objection. If this is removed, then God’s choice is arbitrary. Again, this type of bias only demonstrates the interpretive grid of the objector. It completely fails to substantiate the charge of arbitrariness. This is much like the person who cannot see past their own self-centered attitude. This is truly an evidence of a sinful mindset: self-centeredness. The fact that reality exists outside of one’s choices and preferences is enough to dispel this obvious, biased assumption. Furthermore, since God is God; and He is the ultimate ground of reality (not man), then it follows that God’s reasons (outside of man) are truly, real reasons. The charge of “arbitrary” simply cannot compete. The charge is blatantly false.
Conclusion: The conclusion seems unavoidable. The “arbitrary” objection suffers from false assumptions that function as an interpretive grid. Libertarian freedom is simply unbiblical, false to reality, and practically impossible. Thusly, people who are not elected do make morally corrupt choices, of which they will be held accountable. Furthermore, reasons outside of the man-centered assumption do exist; therefore, the arbitrary charge utterly fails. The real question is how the objector will respond. Will the objector be able to deal with the truth, or will the objector not be able to bear the truth just like Jesus’ opponents in John 8. If all of the evidence points to the fact that the “arbitrary” objection is false at multiple levels, will the objector be able to realize the falsity of the objection? Or will the objector persist in an utterly disproven endeavor?
(For those who may wish to catch up on the different installments of the opening post, feel free to read post #1 (part 1 of 4) and post #58 (2 of 4) and post #123 (part 3 of 4).
[1] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003), 270–71. Highly competent, non-Calvinist authors are giving a definition of libertarian freedom. Part of their definition says, “When an agent acts freely, he is a first or unmoved mover; no event or efficient cause causes him to act.” Their definition directly impacts the wording of my prior sentence where I state, “They are their own ultimate cause of the choice that they make.” For those who may cry out that I am presenting a straw man, I am getting my definition of libertarian freedom from this source. I can also present quite the litany of different sources that say nearly the same.
based on His foreknowledge of the person's decision to receive or reject Christ.The decision is made by God according to the law of faith.
Nope.Your view has already been proven false, bottom line.
I'm going to repost the four part opening post because another poster has extreme reading comprehension problems.
Part 1 reposted.
Part 2 reposted.
Part 3 reposted.
Part 4a reposted.
Since I have answered all of these arguments throughout many posts on these forums, I do not find the need to answer them again here.Part 4b reposted.
Kindly present the link and/or quote your posts which have done so.Since I have answered all of these arguments throughout many posts on these forums, I do not find the need to answer them again here.
Nope.
Still ignoring the evidence?Opening Post (3 of 4)
In post #1, I stated the following.
In this third installment of the opening post, I'll be focused upon the word itself; and I will examine whether or not unconditional election actually leads to the conclusion of an arbitrary decision. For those who may wish to catch up on the different installments of the opening post, feel free to read post #1 (1 of 4) and post #58 (2 of 4).
Examining the Charge of "Arbitrary"
This may very well be the most significant section of the four, since it deals with the objection most directly. The main points of this section are are really rather simple: (1) definition, and (2) is the charge legitimate. So let us jump into it.
First, the definition of the word "arbitrary" needs to be considered. Like many words, the term "arbitrary" has a semantic range. This just means that several different nuances or meanings are attached to the word. I will be utilizing the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary website.[1]
The third definition of the term relates to law. The website says, "depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law." If this definition were pursued. Then the objection would be trying to connect the unconditional nature of God's choice to being up to God's personal discretion. This route would make a rather poor argument, since all Calvinists and Calvinism as a system holds God to be perfect in knowledge. Thusly, it would not be a problem for God to exercise the best and most competent personal discretion when making a decision that does not take into account a person's faith, good deeds, or merit into the equation. This could hardly be called a criticism of Calvinism, if this nuance of the term were used.
The second definition of the term relates to absoluteness. The website says, "not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority". The second definition also has a secondary nuance that focuses in upon the reality that often various dictators and governing bodies have functioned absolutely. Sometimes this results in tyranny. This is one of the reasons why the US government utilizes checks and balances (or at least this was the ideal) where the judicial, legislative, and executive branches all limit one another. In this case, then the argument would be that because God does not take into account a person's faith, good deeds, or merit into His consideration when choosing whom to save, then God's choice would be absolute and unrestrained in authority and power.
The first definition of the term seems most likely to fit the context of those who employ the objection. The website says, "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will." If we follow this definition, then the argument would be as follows. God does not take into account a person's faith, good deeds, or merit into His consideration when choosing whom to same; this would mean that His choice would be reasonless, capricious, and seemingly random. This would be a much more substantial accusation in comparison to the other three. If true, then the argument would be saying that Calvinistic unconditional election amounts to an attack upon the character of God, in the form of attacking His perfect wisdom.
Second, we need to examine if the charge is legitimate. At the outset, I'll state it plainly. The charge is not legitimate, and unconditional election does not result in capricious, seemingly random choices in God. Unconditional election does not result in the sinful tyranny we see from dictatorial monarchs. And the third definition does not seem worth mentioning. However, with all that stated, what has led to that conclusion? The following are some reasons why I believe it is a non-sequitur fallacy to leap from unconditional election to the conclusion of arbitrariness on God's part.
The first reason concerns the second definition of arbitrary. I have personally encountered a poster who tried desperately to salvage his argument by appealing to this nuance of the term "arbitrary." However, this response is rather rare. I've only encountered it once. The reason here is simple. Certainly, God is absolute. He is the ultimate being of the universe. His is the ruler over all. The Bible affirms these. The Bible also affirms that God is holy. On account of these simple considerations of God's character--considerations which all Calvinists hold--God's absolute power does not mean that He is the same as a sinful human. God is holy. God is not going to be tyrannical. Hence, the only persuasive power this version of the "arbitrary" argument can hold is from a guilt by association fallacy. The comparison might be made to human dictators who were clearly evil and unrestrained; however, God is not a man. And God is holy. Thus, His absoluteness is not a blight upon Him.
The second reason pertains to the natures of humans and God. We have a massive category difference. Human beings can be negatively accused of playing god; this usually takes place when a human decides to take the life of another. However, God is actually God. He doesn't play God; rather, He is God. Thusly, He has certain rights and privileges as the Creator and judge of all. In Romans 12, for example, God tells us to not take vengeance precisely because God Himself has said, "Vengeance is mine." Since God is God, He sets up the rules. God Himself is the ultimate standard and the ultimate judge. It is a blight upon sinful men to be called tyrants, but it is not a blight upon God to be God.
The third reason addresses the first definition of "arbitrary." The persuasive power of the objection comes from the fact that certain considerations are removed from grounding God's choice/election of certain people to salvation. Simply wording the previous sentence in the way it was almost already answers the issue. Note, "certain considerations" does not mean "all considerations." Just because certain considerations (a person's faith, good deeds, or merit) are removed as a reason for God's choice does not mean that all considerations are removed as a ground for God's choice. The negation of those considerations does not mean then that God has abosolutely no reason whatsoever for His choice to save certain individuals. The magnification of His grace is one such reason. Note what has already been stated in the first and second installment regarding grace and God's nature (post #1 & #58).
Finally, this leads me to conclude that the false accusation of "arbitrary," in any deragatory way, is nothing less than a non-sequitur fallacy. The nature of unconditional election does not lead to the conclusion of "arbitrary". The charge of "arbitrary" simply does not follow. Thusly, it is a non-sequitur fallacy.
In the final installment, I'll be addressing the assumptions of the accusation back to the one who sent it, for it reveals a great deal about the objector.
================================
[1] One can easily access this website through a simple google search, so the link has not been provided. Please feel free to fact check me by going to the website.
(Opening Post 3 of 4)
I don't feel the need to do that either.Kindly present the link and/or quote your posts which have done so.
As expected, you have completely failed to back up your assertion. Your bluff was called.I don't feel the need to do that either.
(since you people have been accusing me left and right of being a troll, I might as well act like a troll).
"Unconditional Election" = "Arbitrary choosing"As expected, you have completely failed to back up your assertion. Your bluff was called.
"Unconditional Election" = "Arbitrary choosing"
bottom line.
You can try to finagle around that truth with argumentation of words but it will not avail you anything.
Also, the reason why you take issue with the idea of arbitrary choosing is because it presents an indictment on the god of Calvinism.
I have noticed that when I put it in nicer words no issue is made about it.
The evidence proves otherwise. Are you going to keep on ignoring the evidence? The charge of "arbitrary" with respect to unconditional election is logically bankrupt, as the evidence demonstrates. The evidence isn't going away, no matter how much you want to ignore it.Opening Post (3 of 4)
In post #1, I stated the following.
In this third installment of the opening post, I'll be focused upon the word itself; and I will examine whether or not unconditional election actually leads to the conclusion of an arbitrary decision. For those who may wish to catch up on the different installments of the opening post, feel free to read post #1 (1 of 4) and post #58 (2 of 4).
Examining the Charge of "Arbitrary"
This may very well be the most significant section of the four, since it deals with the objection most directly. The main points of this section are are really rather simple: (1) definition, and (2) is the charge legitimate. So let us jump into it.
First, the definition of the word "arbitrary" needs to be considered. Like many words, the term "arbitrary" has a semantic range. This just means that several different nuances or meanings are attached to the word. I will be utilizing the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary website.[1]
The third definition of the term relates to law. The website says, "depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law." If this definition were pursued. Then the objection would be trying to connect the unconditional nature of God's choice to being up to God's personal discretion. This route would make a rather poor argument, since all Calvinists and Calvinism as a system holds God to be perfect in knowledge. Thusly, it would not be a problem for God to exercise the best and most competent personal discretion when making a decision that does not take into account a person's faith, good deeds, or merit into the equation. This could hardly be called a criticism of Calvinism, if this nuance of the term were used.
The second definition of the term relates to absoluteness. The website says, "not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority". The second definition also has a secondary nuance that focuses in upon the reality that often various dictators and governing bodies have functioned absolutely. Sometimes this results in tyranny. This is one of the reasons why the US government utilizes checks and balances (or at least this was the ideal) where the judicial, legislative, and executive branches all limit one another. In this case, then the argument would be that because God does not take into account a person's faith, good deeds, or merit into His consideration when choosing whom to save, then God's choice would be absolute and unrestrained in authority and power.
The first definition of the term seems most likely to fit the context of those who employ the objection. The website says, "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will." If we follow this definition, then the argument would be as follows. God does not take into account a person's faith, good deeds, or merit into His consideration when choosing whom to same; this would mean that His choice would be reasonless, capricious, and seemingly random. This would be a much more substantial accusation in comparison to the other three. If true, then the argument would be saying that Calvinistic unconditional election amounts to an attack upon the character of God, in the form of attacking His perfect wisdom.
Second, we need to examine if the charge is legitimate. At the outset, I'll state it plainly. The charge is not legitimate, and unconditional election does not result in capricious, seemingly random choices in God. Unconditional election does not result in the sinful tyranny we see from dictatorial monarchs. And the third definition does not seem worth mentioning. However, with all that stated, what has led to that conclusion? The following are some reasons why I believe it is a non-sequitur fallacy to leap from unconditional election to the conclusion of arbitrariness on God's part.
The first reason concerns the second definition of arbitrary. I have personally encountered a poster who tried desperately to salvage his argument by appealing to this nuance of the term "arbitrary." However, this response is rather rare. I've only encountered it once. The reason here is simple. Certainly, God is absolute. He is the ultimate being of the universe. His is the ruler over all. The Bible affirms these. The Bible also affirms that God is holy. On account of these simple considerations of God's character--considerations which all Calvinists hold--God's absolute power does not mean that He is the same as a sinful human. God is holy. God is not going to be tyrannical. Hence, the only persuasive power this version of the "arbitrary" argument can hold is from a guilt by association fallacy. The comparison might be made to human dictators who were clearly evil and unrestrained; however, God is not a man. And God is holy. Thus, His absoluteness is not a blight upon Him.
The second reason pertains to the natures of humans and God. We have a massive category difference. Human beings can be negatively accused of playing god; this usually takes place when a human decides to take the life of another. However, God is actually God. He doesn't play God; rather, He is God. Thusly, He has certain rights and privileges as the Creator and judge of all. In Romans 12, for example, God tells us to not take vengeance precisely because God Himself has said, "Vengeance is mine." Since God is God, He sets up the rules. God Himself is the ultimate standard and the ultimate judge. It is a blight upon sinful men to be called tyrants, but it is not a blight upon God to be God.
The third reason addresses the first definition of "arbitrary." The persuasive power of the objection comes from the fact that certain considerations are removed from grounding God's choice/election of certain people to salvation. Simply wording the previous sentence in the way it was almost already answers the issue. Note, "certain considerations" does not mean "all considerations." Just because certain considerations (a person's faith, good deeds, or merit) are removed as a reason for God's choice does not mean that all considerations are removed as a ground for God's choice. The negation of those considerations does not mean then that God has abosolutely no reason whatsoever for His choice to save certain individuals. The magnification of His grace is one such reason. Note what has already been stated in the first and second installment regarding grace and God's nature (post #1 & #58).
Finally, this leads me to conclude that the false accusation of "arbitrary," in any deragatory way, is nothing less than a non-sequitur fallacy. The nature of unconditional election does not lead to the conclusion of "arbitrary". The charge of "arbitrary" simply does not follow. Thusly, it is a non-sequitur fallacy.
In the final installment, I'll be addressing the assumptions of the accusation back to the one who sent it, for it reveals a great deal about the objector.
================================
[1] One can easily access this website through a simple google search, so the link has not been provided. Please feel free to fact check me by going to the website.
(Opening Post 3 of 4)
You are simply coming up with argumentation that has no basis in reality.The evidence proves otherwise. Are you going to keep on ignoring the evidence? The charge of "arbitrary" with respect to unconditional election is logically bankrupt, as the evidence demonstrates. The evidence isn't going away, no matter how much you want to ignore it.
You are simply coming up with argumentation that has no basis in reality.
"Unconditional Election" = "Arbitrary Choosing".
Bottom line.
Once again, I've posted the evidence you have been ignoring. Are you going to keep ignoring the evidence?Opening Post (3 of 4)
In post #1, I stated the following.
In this third installment of the opening post, I'll be focused upon the word itself; and I will examine whether or not unconditional election actually leads to the conclusion of an arbitrary decision. For those who may wish to catch up on the different installments of the opening post, feel free to read post #1 (1 of 4) and post #58 (2 of 4).
Examining the Charge of "Arbitrary"
This may very well be the most significant section of the four, since it deals with the objection most directly. The main points of this section are are really rather simple: (1) definition, and (2) is the charge legitimate. So let us jump into it.
First, the definition of the word "arbitrary" needs to be considered. Like many words, the term "arbitrary" has a semantic range. This just means that several different nuances or meanings are attached to the word. I will be utilizing the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary website.[1]
The third definition of the term relates to law. The website says, "depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law." If this definition were pursued. Then the objection would be trying to connect the unconditional nature of God's choice to being up to God's personal discretion. This route would make a rather poor argument, since all Calvinists and Calvinism as a system holds God to be perfect in knowledge. Thusly, it would not be a problem for God to exercise the best and most competent personal discretion when making a decision that does not take into account a person's faith, good deeds, or merit into the equation. This could hardly be called a criticism of Calvinism, if this nuance of the term were used.
The second definition of the term relates to absoluteness. The website says, "not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority". The second definition also has a secondary nuance that focuses in upon the reality that often various dictators and governing bodies have functioned absolutely. Sometimes this results in tyranny. This is one of the reasons why the US government utilizes checks and balances (or at least this was the ideal) where the judicial, legislative, and executive branches all limit one another. In this case, then the argument would be that because God does not take into account a person's faith, good deeds, or merit into His consideration when choosing whom to save, then God's choice would be absolute and unrestrained in authority and power.
The first definition of the term seems most likely to fit the context of those who employ the objection. The website says, "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will." If we follow this definition, then the argument would be as follows. God does not take into account a person's faith, good deeds, or merit into His consideration when choosing whom to same; this would mean that His choice would be reasonless, capricious, and seemingly random. This would be a much more substantial accusation in comparison to the other three. If true, then the argument would be saying that Calvinistic unconditional election amounts to an attack upon the character of God, in the form of attacking His perfect wisdom.
Second, we need to examine if the charge is legitimate. At the outset, I'll state it plainly. The charge is not legitimate, and unconditional election does not result in capricious, seemingly random choices in God. Unconditional election does not result in the sinful tyranny we see from dictatorial monarchs. And the third definition does not seem worth mentioning. However, with all that stated, what has led to that conclusion? The following are some reasons why I believe it is a non-sequitur fallacy to leap from unconditional election to the conclusion of arbitrariness on God's part.
The first reason concerns the second definition of arbitrary. I have personally encountered a poster who tried desperately to salvage his argument by appealing to this nuance of the term "arbitrary." However, this response is rather rare. I've only encountered it once. The reason here is simple. Certainly, God is absolute. He is the ultimate being of the universe. His is the ruler over all. The Bible affirms these. The Bible also affirms that God is holy. On account of these simple considerations of God's character--considerations which all Calvinists hold--God's absolute power does not mean that He is the same as a sinful human. God is holy. God is not going to be tyrannical. Hence, the only persuasive power this version of the "arbitrary" argument can hold is from a guilt by association fallacy. The comparison might be made to human dictators who were clearly evil and unrestrained; however, God is not a man. And God is holy. Thus, His absoluteness is not a blight upon Him.
The second reason pertains to the natures of humans and God. We have a massive category difference. Human beings can be negatively accused of playing god; this usually takes place when a human decides to take the life of another. However, God is actually God. He doesn't play God; rather, He is God. Thusly, He has certain rights and privileges as the Creator and judge of all. In Romans 12, for example, God tells us to not take vengeance precisely because God Himself has said, "Vengeance is mine." Since God is God, He sets up the rules. God Himself is the ultimate standard and the ultimate judge. It is a blight upon sinful men to be called tyrants, but it is not a blight upon God to be God.
The third reason addresses the first definition of "arbitrary." The persuasive power of the objection comes from the fact that certain considerations are removed from grounding God's choice/election of certain people to salvation. Simply wording the previous sentence in the way it was almost already answers the issue. Note, "certain considerations" does not mean "all considerations." Just because certain considerations (a person's faith, good deeds, or merit) are removed as a reason for God's choice does not mean that all considerations are removed as a ground for God's choice. The negation of those considerations does not mean then that God has abosolutely no reason whatsoever for His choice to save certain individuals. The magnification of His grace is one such reason. Note what has already been stated in the first and second installment regarding grace and God's nature (post #1 & #58).
Finally, this leads me to conclude that the false accusation of "arbitrary," in any deragatory way, is nothing less than a non-sequitur fallacy. The nature of unconditional election does not lead to the conclusion of "arbitrary". The charge of "arbitrary" simply does not follow. Thusly, it is a non-sequitur fallacy.
In the final installment, I'll be addressing the assumptions of the accusation back to the one who sent it, for it reveals a great deal about the objector.
================================
[1] One can easily access this website through a simple google search, so the link has not been provided. Please feel free to fact check me by going to the website.
(Opening Post 3 of 4)
