The "Arbitrary" Objection to Unconditional Election

[Arial]

I have answered this question elsewhere and do not feel the need to repeat myself here.

I do not know where elsewhere is.

 

[Arial]

I have answered this question elsewhere and do not feel the need to repeat myself here.

I don't know where elsewhere is. What is the problem with just answering my question? Why did you choose Christ? I am not asking for your testimony or any long explanation. Why did you decide to choose Christ?

 

[justbyfaith]

You have made it clear that is what you believe and I have made it clear that it is not correct.

All are not drawn. Prove that by scripture.

Jhn 12:32, And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

 

[justbyfaith]

I don't know where elsewhere is. What is the problem with just answering my question? Why did you choose Christ? I am not asking for your testimony or any long explanation. Why did you decide to choose Christ?

It was not based in anything meritorious on my part.

But I chose Him because of a (sinful) sense of self-preservation, when faced with the fires of hell.

I also said to God, "I don't know if You're real; but I'm going to start reading Your word and doing what it says; and I know that if You are real, You will reveal Yourself to me."

God didn't even wait two seconds but descended on me in waves of liquid love; with an ecstatic joy unspeakable and full of glory and a peace that passes all understanding.

 

[Arial]

It was not based in anything meritorious on my part.

But I chose Him because of a (sinful) sense of self-preservation, when faced with the fires of hell.

I also said to God, "I don't know if You're real; but I'm going to start reading Your word and doing what it says; and I know that if You are real, You will reveal Yourself to me."

God didn't even wait two seconds but descended on me in waves of liquid love; with an ecstatic joy unspeakable and full of glory and a peace that passes all understanding.

It is a good testimony and I don't doubt it for a minute. However I do not see anywhere in there that you chose Christ, other than you were afraid of hell (which shows you believed there was hell.) According to what you said, you did not even know if God was real, yet you cried out to Him.

It sounds more like a rebirth to me, God coming to you, in you---and is that when you believed? After He met you right where you were?

Is the reason you believe that you chose Christ first, (and be very honest with yourself here, and contemplate it, rather than simply react) because that is what you have heard? That we must take the first step and choose something, say a prayer of invitation or obedience or repentance, and then we will be saved. That that is what is done before God will redeem us? And so now you read that concept into the scriptures? And so now you have come to trust in your own decision, rather than what God did for you, and perhaps are afraid a bit to let go of it?

Why bother with all that, fighting against Calvinism and your view of it as you do? Why not simply recognize the glory and love of what God did for you in the less than two seconds, that brought about your believing, not choosing first?

 

[Josheb]

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.

There's a little more to the lazy thinking in that fallacious argument that's worth noting. Anyone who believes faith is also gifted, whether they be Calvinist or Arminian, has the problem just cited in the op. If God's grace is predicated on a person first hearing, believing, and trusting, and those things come from God then there is a whole lot of "arbitrary" going on. Only the Pelagian, those who think something of the created order remains in the sinfully dead and enslaved flesh can escape the divine arbitrary, and that person is then left with the randomness (arbitrariness) of his own life's experience.

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.

Let's not forget the biggest problem is that of incorrectly defining Unconditional Election (UC). Most think it is the election that is conditioned. Either God conditioned His election upon fleshly faith (synergism) or He conditioned His election on some arbitrary condition (the Divine blindfolded throw at the Divine Dartboard). Either way it is a conditioned election. That election could be unconditional is incomprehensible, so the thinking never turns to the specified caveat of UC, no conditions of the sinful flesh.

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."

I would argue God's purpose precedes election but, otherwise, well done (Rom. 9:16-18).

We will consider one more source. Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is a fairly common systematic theolog......

I try to stay away from extra-biblical sources unless they are the topic of discussion. It's too easy to get into competing sources and fallacious appeals to authority. I hope everyone understands my personal reluctant to entertain the practice.

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"

It's the aforementioned Romans 9:16-18 that are critical. Those verses explicitly preclude anything human from being causal and just as explicitly places the relevant mercy solely on God, His will, and His purpose (the demonstration of His power).

(1) A historical appeal was made in defining 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)

(Aside from the extra-biblical appeal), Well done.

 

[Arial]

Jhn 12:32, And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

If that means what you say it does then it is contradicting John 6:35-40. And many other scriptures, not to mention we know from scripture that not all are saved. We also know that not all are drawn to Christ in any sense of the word. That would imply that everyone sees Him and then chooses whether to believe Him or not.

So maybe what God means by all and that they are drawn to Him is something other than every individual. Well we do know from scripture that Jesus did not die for every single person in the world, but only those who believe. And we do know that salvation through His work on the cross made salvation available to all nations and all types of people, so maybe that is what "all" means in John 12:32.

If all are drawn as in each individual, and sufficient grace to choose Him is given to every single person, as you say, then there would be no one ever who was not faced with the choice in black and white, Jesus, or not Jesus. It would mean that every single person ever heard the gospel and was offered a choice on the spot.

 

[justbyfaith]

It is a good testimony and I don't doubt it for a minute. However I do not see anywhere in there that you chose Christ, other than you were afraid of hell (which shows you believed there was hell.) According to what you said, you did not even know if God was real, yet you cried out to Him.

It sounds more like a rebirth to me, God coming to you, in you---and is that when you believed? After He met you right where you were?

Is the reason you believe that you chose Christ first, (and be very honest with yourself here, and contemplate it, rather than simply react) because that is what you have heard? That we must take the first step and choose something, say a prayer of invitation or obedience or repentance, and then we will be saved. That that is what is done before God will redeem us? And so now you read that concept into the scriptures? And so now you have come to trust in your own decision, rather than what God did for you, and perhaps are afraid a bit to let go of it?

Why bother with all that, fighting against Calvinism and your view of it as you do? Why not simply recognize the glory and love of what God did for you in the less than two seconds, that brought about your believing, not choosing first?

I believe that God came to me because I chose Him because that is what the Bible teaches.

In Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, and Acts 2:38-39, there is clearly something that we do in order to procure salvation.

 

[justbyfaith]

If that means what you say it does then it is contradicting John 6:35-40.

I don't see that. please explain further why you think that.

And many other scriptures,

such as?

not to mention we know from scripture that not all are saved. We also know that not all are drawn to Christ in any sense of the word. That would imply that everyone sees Him and then chooses whether to believe Him or not.

The reality is that not all who are drawn are necessarily given.

So maybe what God means by all and that they are drawn to Him is something other than every individual. Well we do know from scripture

What scripture? 1 John 2:2 tells me the opposite of what you are saying.

that Jesus did not die for every single person in the world, but only those who believe. And we do know that salvation through His work on the cross made salvation available to all nations and all types of people, so maybe that is what "all" means in John 12:32.

Nope. "All" means "all".

If all are drawn as in each individual, and sufficient grace to choose Him is given to every single person, as you say, then there would be no one ever who was not faced with the choice in black and white, Jesus, or not Jesus. It would mean that every single person ever heard the gospel and was offered a choice on the spot.

Actually, being drawn to Christ does not only consist of being given an opportunity to receive Him.

It may also consist of being faced with the light of creation (Romans 1) and/or the light of conscience (Romans 2); as I have mentioned previously (https://christcentered.community.fo...calvinisms-arbitrary-decision.1124/post-42498).

 

[Arial]

I don't see that. please explain further why you think that.

such as?

Will you listen or will you ignore it. Am I wasting my time if I do so? Because I do not feel like wasting my time. So let me know and redirect me to the post if you will listen.

The reality is that not all who are drawn are necessarily given.

Please explain that as it sounds like you are disagreeing with yourself.

What scripture? 1 John 2:2 tells me the opposite of what you are saying.

Let me put that sentence back together and back into it context, so it makes sense. It looks like you jumped on the first part before reading the rest of the sentence. In which case you told me I was wrong before you even knew what I was saying.

So maybe what God means by all and that they are drawn to Him is something other than every individual. Well we do know from scripture that Jesus did not die for every single person in the world, but only those who believe. And we do know that salvation through His work on the cross made salvation available to all nations and all types of people, so maybe that is what "all" means in John 12:32.

Nope. "All" means "all".

You support that with nothing. All you do is give your opinion. What if the "all" in 1 John 2:2 is the same "all" in John 12:32? Jesus certainly did not propitiate (satisfy the necessary justice for reconciliation between God and man) for all men without exception. You cannot add the caveat "but only for those who choose to believe" after the fact in order to arrive at the proper meaning of the passages.

Actually, being drawn to Christ does not only consist of being given an opportunity to receive Him.

It may also consist of being faced with the light of creation (Romans 1) and/or the light of conscience (Romans 2); as I have mentioned previously

The knowledge of God, of His existence and power and sovereignty over His creation that is spoken of in Romans 1 and 2 condemns all of mankind, but it does not provide the gospel message of salvation through faith in Christ.

 

[Josheb]

I believe that God came to me because I chose Him because that is what the Bible teaches.

So God is dependent on you? God wouldn't/couldn't/didn't save you until your sinful flesh chose Him?

In Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, and Acts 2:38-39, there is clearly something that we do in order to procure salvation.

I every single one of those texts the people getting saved were already in a God initiated covenant into which they were brought unawares. They were chosen, called, and commanded without their being asked if they wanted to be chosen, called, or commanded. Furthermore, not a single one of those texts states the "something" is done in order to procure salvation. In fact, the Acts 2 passage states at the end it was God that added to the Church's numbers, not the ones salved.

.....there is clearly something that we do in order to procure salvation.

Something done in order to procure salvation, or something done as a consequence of God monergistically saving them? In Hosea 14:2 the ability to offer the fruit of their lips is predicated on their iniquity being taken away and God's receiving them with grace. Only then can the fruit of their lips be presented.

1. Forgiveness
2. Grace
3. Lips

It would seem Hosea 14:2 states the exact opposite of what was just posted. Forgiveness and grace come first. Unless God acts nothing, they say would matter. Presumably, any statement akin to "I believe" would be "fruit of our lips." As far as Old Testament texts go, always look to see if the words of scripture are written about covenant people or not. You'll find very little is written about those outside the covenant relationship and what is written is not good.

The Romans 10 text is written to already regenerate believers and there's nothing in the text specifically about unregenerate nonbelievers. This is an error in exegesis whereby the audience to whom and about whom the text was written is neglected and verses written about regenerate believers are applied to unregenerate nonbelievers. It is the regenerate believer that confesses Jesus as Lord and believes with his heart. Unregenerate nonbelievers do not do that. Paul quotes Isaiah, who was a prophet to Israel, God's covenant people. The words Isaiah spoke, and the words Paul wrote were not said/written to people outside a God initiated covenant. Paul's words were written to the saints in Rome, people who were already saved and if they believed with their heart they would be saved. Very little in the epistolary is written about nonbelievers. It is inappropriate to apply to the unregenerate nonbeliever things written specifically about the regenerate believer. You'll find A LOT of preacher/teachers make that mistake if you listen for it.

Lastly, the Acts 2 text. The only reason any repenting and confessing happened is because God had sovereignly and monergistically poured the Holy Spirit out upon those people. Not a single one of them knew they were going to be chosen that day. Not a single one of them knew they were going to be called or commanded that day and not a single one of them were asked if they wanted any of it. God just poured out His Spirit and before any of them knew they were speaking stuff they'd never before said. Only AFTER that had happened were they commanded to repent and be baptized. The words, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand," is something that Jesus had been saying throughout for years. The prophets had been saying it for centuries. Statistically speaking, it was rarely effective. Few repented. Few saw the kingdom. Why? John 3:3 tells us one of the answer: a person MUST be born anew from above before they can see the kingdom. Repentance alone would not do it.

The simple fact is the Bible is largely a record of God's work, not human work. Its first words are "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," and its last words are, "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen." From beginning to end runs the covenant. The covenant relationship with God is aways monergistic, never synergistic. When you read Old Testament texts keep this in mind and verify it for yourself. Do not take my word for it. You will find EVERY single occasion where God asks instead of commands always occurs only after the covenant relationship has been established. Sometime no choices are offered the people until many years or even decades have transpired.


The point is the verses cited do not state what they were made to say and there is a better, more consistent, way to read them when the whole of scripture is considered. God saves based on His will and His purpose and it is only after He has worked in that individual's (or group's) life can they and do they ever do anything for God. The works of sinful flesh have no merit and they are useless in salvation.

 

[Arial]

I believe that God came to me because I chose Him because that is what the Bible teaches.

In Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, and Acts 2:38-39, there is clearly something that we do in order to procure salvation.

If that were the case, then it would not be by grace but by works. "Doing" is always a work. The things you speak of are what happens because we have been saved, and the light bulb has been turned on.

Did you believe the gospel before you asked God to reveal Himself to you or after He did. Was it the gospel that you believed when you cried out to Him as you did? Did He say to you, "Choose Christ and then will reveal Myself to you." It always looks like us. That is the way we are oriented. But that does not mean it is us.

 

[justbyfaith]

If that were the case, then it would not be by grace but by works. "Doing" is always a work. The things you speak of are what happens because we have been saved, and the light bulb has been turned on.

Did you believe the gospel before you asked God to reveal Himself to you or after He did. Was it the gospel that you believed when you cried out to Him as you did? Did He say to you, "Choose Christ and then will reveal Myself to you." It always looks like us. That is the way we are oriented. But that does not mean it is us.

So, Romans 10:9 can be effectively rendered,

Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt be saved, thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead.

Nevertheless, this is what it really says:

Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I believe that you have things in the reverse order of what is taught by holy scripture

 

[justbyfaith]

If that were the case, then it would not be by grace but by works. "Doing" is always a work. The things you speak of are what happens because we have been saved, and the light bulb has been turned on.

Did you believe the gospel before you asked God to reveal Himself to you or after He did. Was it the gospel that you believed when you cried out to Him as you did? Did He say to you, "Choose Christ and then will reveal Myself to you." It always looks like us. That is the way we are oriented. But that does not mean it is us.

"doing" is not always a work.

Obviously, salvation results when we call on the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13). That is doing something.

If doing something is always a work, then Romans 10:13 and Ephesians 2:8-9 contradict each other.

 

[Josheb]

So, Romans 10:9 can be effectively rendered,

Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt be saved, thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead.

Nevertheless, this is what it really says:

Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I believe that you have things in the reverse order of what is taught by holy scripture

Who is the "thou" in that verse? To whom is Paul referring when he says, "thou" in that verse?

 

[justbyfaith]

Who is the "thou" in that verse? To whom is Paul referring when he says, "thou" in that verse?

The person who will be saved as the result of calling on the name of the Lord.

 

[Josheb]

Who is the "thou" in that verse? To whom is Paul referring when he says, "thou" in that verse?

The person who will be saved as the result of calling on the name of the Lord.

That is not an answer to the question asked. Paul identifies his audience at the beginning of the epistle and a few places thereafter in that letter. The answer to the question identifying the "thou" is given to us! Let's try it again.


Who is the "thou" in Romans 10:9? To whom is Paul referring when he says, "thou" in Romans 10:9?

.

 

[justbyfaith]

That is not an answer to the question asked. Paul identifies his audience at the beginning of the epistle and a few places thereafter in that letter. The answer to the question identifying the "thou" is given to us! Let's try it again.


Who is the "thou" in Romans 10:9? To whom is Paul referring when he says, "thou" in Romans 10:9?

.

The person who will be saved as the result of confessing with his mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in his heart that God hath raised Him from the dead.

That is clearly what is spoken in Romans 10:9.

But apparently, it contradicts your theology so you have to find some way to have another interpretation.

 

[Josheb]

The person who will be saved as the result of confessing with his mouth the Lord Jesus and believing in his heart that God hath raised Him from the dead.

That is clearly what is spoken in Romans 10:9.

No, that is not "clearly" what is spoken.

The letter to the Romans was written TO "all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints."

Romans 1:1-7
Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The "thou" in Romans 10:9 is the saints in Rome, the called of Jesus Christ. They are people who are already saved. Nothing in the epistle was written to unregenerate nonbelievers. Romans 10:9 should therefore be read as follows:

Romans 10:6-9 ESV
But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you [the saints, the called of Jesus Christ], in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you the saints] confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you [the saints, the called of Jesus Christ] will be saved.

What? How can the already-saved saints be saved?

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

To the already saved who are being saved the cross is the power of God. To the unsaved (those who are perishing) the cross is foolishness.


1 Corinthians 3:11-15
For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

The one building on the foundation of Christ (someone who is already saved) will be saved. We are saved, and we are being saved, and we will be saved.

The plain and simple fact of the entire Bible is that nonbelievers are not believers. Nonbelievers do not call on God. When Romans 10:9 states, "if you confess with your mouth and believe..." in cannot be referring to nonbelievers because nonbelievers do not confess a Jesus they do not believe exists is Lord. They are nonbelievers!

Oh, but Josh, they have become believers by hearing the gospel. They went from being nonbelievers to being believers.

Yes, I understand that is your argument, but that is not what Romans 10:9 states. The letter was written to the saints, and it was written about the saints, not nonbelievers. Nonbelievers do not believe. Nonbelievers do not confess. They do not see a need to confess anything because they do NOT believe. They do not believe God exists. They do not believe Jesus is real. They do not believe sin is real. There is no reason in the mind of the nonbeliever to confess anything, much less that a fictional God is their Lord!​

Too much has to be added to and read into Romans 10:9 for your version to be correct. AND the fact it was written to the saints has to be ignored.

What Romans 10:9 states is that when the saints confess Jesus is Lord and believe in their heart they will be saved.

But apparently, it contradicts your theology so you have to find some way to have another interpretation.

Stow that cr@p.

I asked a single, very straight forward and simple question and I, unlike you, did not add anything to the verse. I asked "Who is the "thou" to whom Paul is referring and the scriptures - NOT my theology - answers the question. The "thou" is the saints in Rome. You are the one posting a theology contradictory to the plain reading of the text. You've made a sentence written to the saints about the saints applicable to nonbelievers.....


...and then tried to gaslight me.


Now, if you can find a verse written explicitly about nonbelievers reported to deny God's existence suddenly believing in the faculties of the sinful unregenerate flesh then I'll change my thinking. In the absence of such evidence all that has been accomplished is the abuse of Romans 10:9 to make a verse written to the saints about the saints applicable to those who are perishing.

Even if Romans 10:9 were about the confession of a nonbeliever, it would not prove God predicated His action on the sinner's action. Correlation is not causation.

 

[justbyfaith]

Rom 10:9, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Here, the person referred to as "thou" is someone who is not yet saved; because if they do what is prescribed in the verse, they shall be saved according to the verse.

Context does not ever contradict the plain meaning of a verse.

If it does, it is the wrong context and is being taken out of the proper context in order to deny what is plainly taught by the verse in question.