The "Arbitrary" Objection to Unconditional Election

[justbyfaith]

Once again, I've posted the evidence you have been ignoring. Are you going to keep ignoring the evidence?

Your "evidence" is unfounded argumentation.

 

[His clay]

Your "evidence" is unfounded argumentation.

Arbitrary assertion and casual dismissal fallacy. You need to demonstrate that it is unfounded by actually dealing with what was written, but you have avoided provided any link or argumentation that demonstrates what you here assert. I will provide you, again, the opportunity to actually deal with the post.

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)

Are you going to continue to avoid the evidence, or are you actually going to deal with the issues that I raised?

 

[justbyfaith]

Arbitrary assertion and casual dismissal fallacy. You need to demonstrate that it is unfounded by actually dealing with what was written, but you have avoided provided any link or argumentation that demonstrates what you here assert. I will provide you, again, the opportunity to actually deal with the post.

Are you going to continue to avoid the evidence, or are you actually going to deal with the issues that I raised?

I am going to continue to assert what I have been asserting since it is faithful and true.

You speak great swelling words and people hold you in admiration because of advantage.

 

[His clay]

I am going to continue to assert what I have been asserting since it is faithful and true.

You speak great swelling words and people hold you in admiration because of advantage.

You just called your fallacy, an error in reasoning, faithful and true; and you have done this in spite of ignoring the evidence to the contrary, and when pressed to argue your point, you have dodged dealing with the issues raised. Next, you state, "great swelling words," and this is an example of poisoning the well fallacy. Note again, you have not dealt with the post I have repeatedly pointing you to, and instead of dealing with the argumentation therein, we have seen fallacy after fallacy. Dodge after dodge. This is dishonest, and your approach is completely unbecoming of a person who claims to be a Christian. You need to deal with the evidence honestly, which you have completely failed, repeatedly, to do.

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)

 

[His clay]

The simplistic response to the arbitrary objection leveled against unconditional election is this. The removal of some reasons for God's choice of some to save, does not therefore mean that all reasons for God's choice have been removed. Thusly, the charge of arbitrary cannot stand, for God can still have a reason, even after removing man's choices, merit, and faith as a ground for His choice. Therefore, if God still has reasons, outside of man, that still have a bearing upon His decision, then by definition His choice is not arbitrary; for to be arbitrary is to have no reason at all.

Arbitrary = choice void of reason
Unconditional election = a reasonable (magnification of His grace) choice to save some void of certain man-centered reasons.

Hence, the charge of "arbitrary" is simply misguided and false. Opening posts 1-4 deal with this issue in greater detail.

 

[Mr GLee]

based on His foreknowledge of the person's decision to receive or reject Christ.

Based upon the decision of our faithful God. The one faithfull Creator or called a Potter . . He is of one mind and creates whatever his soul desires .

A New Creation. Not rebuilt or reconditioned

Job 23:12-14 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.

The key is not only does he give us the power to turn towards Him but also empowers us that has no power to do the works .

The food the disciples knew of . To will and to do .The key is both
Philippians 2:13;14 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

We have no power to do either.

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

 

[Josheb]

More disparity between Calvinists.

....and yet three Cals here agreed with each other. Post 137 is wrong, and everything built on it is a straw man - one more straw man in a so far unending list of them.

Any plausibility to the "arbitrary objection" is based on a certain dysfunctional view of God, not Calvinism. The only people who think God might be arbitrary are those who believe God can be and is fickle, whimsical, and without reason or purpose. That is the only way any arbitrariness on God's part can be held. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Calvinism and everything to do with the lazy irrational mind presupposing arbitrariness is a real divine and theological possibility. Because it has absolutely nothing to do with Calvinism (Calvinists definitely do NOT think God is arbitrary in any way) the "arbitrary objection" is a complete straw man. That argument boils down to "I will wrongly imagine an impossible, nonexistent condition and then use that nonexistent condition to measure a doctrine with which I disagree that I know does not subscribe to that nonexistent condition."

​

.

 

[Josheb]

We can continue the conversation here:

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-disparity-disunity-in-calvinism.1211/

No, we can't. I have already weighed in and contributed to that op, showing the op to be a pile of straw men and fallacy and then further revealing the furtive avoidance when valid, op-relevant inquiries still sit unanswered. That entire thread boils down to the failure on your part to recognize and acknowledge the difference between valid diversity of thought within a spectrum of orthodoxy built on core shared views and the wrongfully assumed "disunity." Monergism has never been monolithic. No doctrine is. Every thread you've authored has Cals responding with a plethora of similarity, not an absence of it.

Not once have you ever acknowledged that fact.

The biases existing in these ops prevent what is self-evident from being seen, or it is observed and deceptively ignored (hence the still unanswered questions), or the ops are all deliberate lies and therefore nothing more than trolling (hence the multiple suspensions). That particular op conflates disparity and disunity and fails to observe any form of normal and ordinary acceptable diversity that can be measured by core values within Calvinism/monergism.

 

[Reformedguy]

'Unconditional Election" = "arbitrary choice".

bottom line.

And conditional election is merit based salvation.

Bottom line

 

[His clay]

'Unconditional Election" = "arbitrary choice".

bottom line.

And this is what is called an arbitrary assertion. In spite of a mountain of evidence against this false view, and in spite of not dealing with the evidence, and in spite of having been proven false multiple times, the poster here baselessly and arbitrarily asserts, what he has never proved or demonstrated. We can learn from this that persistence in straw men and fallacious reasoning leads people, like this person, to arbitrarily assert what is in fact utterly refuted falsehood. All four parts of the opening post have thoroughly refuted this arbitrary claim.

Hypocrisy is also blatantly evident, since the poster is not arguing for the claim, but rather arbitrarily asserting the claim. With an eye on God's unconditional election, the poster slander's God and Calvinism as being arbitrary. But then turns around and decides that it's ok for himself to be arbitrary.

 

[Reformedguy]

According to foreknowledge of decisions that would be made by the potential convert (Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2)

Violation of God's aseity