The "Arbitrary" Objection to Unconditional Election

[justbyfaith]

By the way, I reject the ESV.

I adhere to the kjv and the nlt (for future reference, if you want to have power with me then quote from those versions).

 

[Josheb]

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

Yes, and some are drawn to Jesus in judgment, not salvation. Every knee will bow and confess him as Lord (Phil. 2), but not every knee will bow and confess him as Savior. Most, in fact will not.

Revelation 20:11-15
Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

EVERYONE stands before Jesus in judgment.

Hebrews 9:27
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment...

All die and face judgment.

The ones building one Christ will be saved.

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.

They may leave empty-handed, charred, and covered in soot but they will be saved. Nonbelievers do not build on Christ. Nonbelievers are nonbelievers, not believers. They will, nonetheless, be dragged (probably kicking and screaming against their will) to Jesus.

Revelation 20:15
And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

They'll be believers by then. All the way down to the bottom of the fiery lake they will believe Jesus is Lord. He will not be their Savior. Do not assume Jesus is saying all will be drawn to him in salvation.

Matthew 25:31-46
But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him; and he will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and he will put the sheep on his right, and the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world........... Then he will also say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite me in; naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit me................ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Everyone is drawn to Christ, but not all are drawn in salvation. The exact same cross that saves is the exact same cross that judges. The exact same Jesus who went silently to the cross will return in wrath with a sword in his mouth.

 

[Josheb]

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.

Argumentum ad nauseam

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, and some are drawn to Jesus in judgment, not salvation.

I agree; and now, apparently, you agree with me.

Because it has been my contention all along that not everyone who is drawn to Christ is necessarily given to Christ.

 

[justbyfaith]

Everyone is drawn to Christ, but not all are drawn in salvation.

Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[justbyfaith]

Argumentum ad nauseam

Argumentum ad nauseum works.

Especially if the opponent never had an answer for it the first time.

 

[Josheb]

I agree; and now, apparently, you agree with me.

Yep. So do not read "salvation" into John 12:32. John 12:32 does not state all will be drawn to him in salvation so do not read the verse that way.

Because it has been my contention all along that not everyone who is drawn to Christ is necessarily given to Christ.

What's the topic of this op?

The entire thread is about the premise of God being arbitrary when He elects a person. In these last few posts you have posted single verses that were taken from their larger passages and made to say things they do not actually state. Entire doctrines are attempted from posting one single verse, a single verse removed from its text and context. This is called proof-texting. It is common but, despite its commonness, it is always bad practice. When these verses are read in their entirety, along with all the other verses surrounding them, in the context stated in the passage from which the single verse was removed they CANNOT be made to say what you've tried to make them say. The "thou" in Romans 10:9 is the saints, those called of Jesus Christ. They are already saved. Similarly, nothing in John 12:32 states all men are drawn to Jesus in salvation. The verse cannot be made to say salvation is predicated on the action or quality of the sinful flesh of the nonbeliever.

This op is about the fallacious argument Unconditional Election is equivalent to arbitrariness. All men would ALL be drawn to Jesus in condemnation and sentenced to destruction were it not for God's grace. From the lot of all humanity headed as a whole to its destruction God chose some to be saved. He did not condemn the rest; they were all already condemned.

John 3:16-21 NIV
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

We speak of "judgment day" but the truth is the judgment has already been rendered: men love darkness. What we are really talking about is "sentencing day," the day when the just recompense for sin is meted out. Those who do not believe in Christ are already condemned. That's what the text actually states. Blessedly, for those in Christ there is NOW no condemnation (Romans 8:1). Furthermore, the John 3 passage actually states those who love darkness will not come into the light. They do not confess. They do not believe. They hide. They fear their deeds will be seen for what they are. The nonbeliever cannot even see the kingdom unless he is born anew from above (John 3:3).

 

[Josheb]

Argumentum ad nauseum works.

ROTFLMBO!!!!! No, it does not.

Thank you for your time.

 

[justbyfaith]

ROTFLMBO!!!!! No, it does not.

Thank you for your time.

It does when the argument was never adequately answered the first time or subsequently after that.

To repeat an undefeated argument is to rub it in the face of your opponent that his position has no value.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yep. So do not read "salvation" into John 12:32. John 12:32 does not state all will be drawn to him in salvation so do not read the verse that way.

I don't. That would be Universalism. I have been trying to tell some of these Calvinists that if being drawn = being given, then all are given, i.e. Universalism, because all are drawn.

But not all who are drawn are necessarily given. Being drawn only enables a person to come to Christ, it does not guarantee a decision to be made to believe in, receive, and follow Christ.

Furthermore, the John 3 passage actually states those who love darkness will not come into the light. They do not confess. They do not believe. They hide. They fear their deeds will be seen for what they are. The nonbeliever cannot even see the kingdom unless he is born anew from above (John 3:3).

In John 3, those who love darkness rather than light is every unbeliever, whether of the elect or non-elect.

An unbeliever can be brought from darkness to light when the Holy Spirit draws him to Christ...he is then enabled to make a decision for or against Christ that is unhindered by the fleshly or demonic influences that keep most people from receiving Christ when they are not being drawn to Christ.

He is brought to the light whether he wants to be in the light or not; and also given motivation to stay in the light. Some stay in the light; others return to darkness. This is based on the free will of man when being drawn by the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17).

 

[His clay]

Hopefully, tomorrow I can get some writing done. I apologize for my absence in a thread I started. I'm one of the caregivers for my mom, who has Alzheimers. She has been recovering from a health issue that set her mind back significantly. Also, some relatives came to visit. These are a few reasons why this thread got placed on the back burner.

 

[justbyfaith]

Hopefully, tomorrow I can get some writing done. I apologize for my absence in a thread I started. I'm one of the caregivers for my mom, who has Alzheimers. She has been recovering from a health issue that set her mind back significantly. Also, some relatives came to visit. These are a few reasons why this thread got placed on the back burner.

No worries. I will be praying for your mom.

 

[justbyfaith]

The "thou" in Romans 10:9 is the saints, those called of Jesus Christ. They are already saved.

Clearly, it says specifically in Romans 10:9 that they shall be saved as the result of confessing the Lord Jesus with their mouth and believing in their hearts that God hath raised Him from the dead.

The context of a verse will never nullify the plain meaning of a verse.

Therefore, if your context does that, chances are you are not looking at the right context.

 

[Arial]

"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.

Romans 10:13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Romans 10:10-12 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in Him will not be put to shame. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing His riches on all who call on Him.

It is you who through your interpretation create a contradiction. Roman 10:13 is one of the most misinterpreted and misused scriptures in the entire Bible. And it is done so in order to support the heresy of choice resulting in salvation, and undermine the doctrine of election. Here is how it goes, provided any would even bother to see if and where they are creating contradictions, but since you named one, we will go with that; Eph 2:8-9 clearly says it is by grace and not works, so what we will do is simply insist that choosing Christ is not a work. And everywhere the Bible says predestination, election, etc. we will move what it is referring to, individuals, and say no, no, it is election in some other way or for some other reason than God doing it, or applied to something else. It is exactly what you do even though you also say you were saved because you did what you needed to do to be saved. If God won't save you until you meet certain requirements, and so you do those requirements, you have earned God's love and you have earned your salvation. Saying that is not not a work will not change the fact that it is. There is nothing is that set of verses that remotely mentions anything about choosing Christ first. It says believe. Confesses with the mouth is not an avenue of salvation as the altar call promotes, but something we do because we have been saved, and can only truly do when we are saved. If calling on Him meant that was all it took for Him to redeem, then there would be a great many people that called on Him when they were desperate, (atheists often do irony of irony) or even as an expletive, but believe nothing of Christ, in the kingdom.


Eph 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast,
Eph 2:4-7 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ---by grace you have been saved---and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Whose grace?
Who does the doing?
Who has the gift to give and gives it?
Who loved and who did He love?
When did He do this?
What did He do?
Why did He do it?

 

[Josheb]

It does when the argument was never adequately answered the first time or subsequently after that.

No, it doesn't.

To repeat an undefeated argument is to rub it in the face of your opponent that his position has no value.

I incorrectly imagine anything was rubbed in anyone's face is delusion. The texts do not state what you say they say and when the surrounding text is considered it precludes the agency of sinful flesh.

By the way, I reject the ESV.

I adhere to the kjv and the nlt (for future reference, if you want to have power with me then quote from those versions).

That's too bad. The NAS and ESV are among the most literal, formal translations we have in English. The KJV isn't bad, but it uses antiquated language like "thou." The NLT is a horrible translation and sits on the dynamic (conceptual) end of the spectrum. It takes PILES of liberties with the text of scripture. On any occasion where there is ever any question in your mind the Greek transliteration is a mouse click or three away.

Romans 10:9 Greek transliteration
that if you confess the saying with the mouth of you lord jesus and believe in the heart of you that God him raised from the dead you will be saved

Romans 10:9 NAS
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Romans 10:9 ESV
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:9 KJV
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.

Romans 10:9 NLT
If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

It is very clear the NLT is not the most accurate translation of the Greek. It's not bad, but it has clearly both added to and subtracted from the Greek. I understand the affinity. When that translation came out I read through Matthew in the store and liked it so much I bought an expensive leather-bound hard copy. I am currently reading through it from cover to cover in my daily reading. Because of my familiarity with scripture in other translations, I have found scores of places where liberties are taken with the text.



More importantly, the "thou" and "you" are already-regenerate believers and not unregenerate nonbelievers. It does not matter what translation one uses; they all prove Paul was writing to saints, the called of Christ. The dissent can be repeated as often as you like but scripture speaks for itself and scripture itself defines the readership of Romans as the saints. There's nothing in chapter 10 indicating a shift in Paul's application. There's nothing there to indicate he is talking about their prior life as nonbelievers and their conversion from death to life or the moment of their being born anew from above. There is nothing in the text indicating he isn't talking about saints and his reference is regenerate people denying God's existence suddenly becoming believers and confessing Jesus as Lord from their still unregenerate sinful flesh. There is nothing there stating God depends on the sinful flesh.

 

[Josheb]

Part 2: There is nothing there stating God depends on the sinful flesh.

In fact, in the narrative leading up to Romans 10:9 Paul has stated God has mercy on whom He has mercy and he has explicitly and unequivocally stated God's mercy does NOT stand on how a person acts or chooses (vs. 9:16). The volitional interpretation of 10:9 was excluded long before chapter 10 began. As an example proving the truthfulness of what Paul wrote, he used the example of Jacob and Esau, reporting one was hated before he was even born and the other was loved before he was born. It did not have anything to do with how either man walked or how either man willed. God's decision precluded either man's life.

Romans 9:16
So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

Note Paul has also stated "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." Paul then gives another example, that of Pharoah, AND Paul also provides another reason for God's will and purpose: it isn't always salvation; sometimes it is God simply showing His power. In the case of Pharoah it was God's power over the strongest earthly rule and the destruction of its ruler.

It would not have mattered how much Esau confessed Christ. God hated him. It's an assumption Esau had the ability to confess Christ, but that's too confrontational to our sensibilities. Certainly, everyone has that capability. Not according to Romans. The power of God has been evident in creation since creation's inception. Sin has reigned since before the law was given. The mind of flesh is hostile to God and it does not and CANNOT please God. God has mercy on whom He has mercy and if Esau and Jacob are the precedent then His will and purpose were decided before you and I were born. The clay cannot protest to the Potter.

Paul is sad for his kinsman. He'd willingly be cursed if it would bring them to salvation (implying he knows not even that would work). With the opening of chapter 10 Paul asks the saints in Rome to pray for his kinsman. They do not know God's righteousness; they seek their own righteousness (see Lk. 18:9-14; Rom. 2:8; Phil. 3:8-9). Paul appeals to the Mosaic Law to show its witness to faith explaining that it is with the heart (not the mind) that one believes. Israel had a heart of stone. They needed a circumcised heart, a heart of flesh and only God can circumcise the heart and replace the heart of stone with one of flesh (Eze. 36:26).

Colossians 2:9-12
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

That circumcision is not by hands; it occurs in the removal of the flesh, not from the confession of the sinful flesh's mouth! In his epistle to the Romans Paul was writing to a group of people who had already had their body of flesh removed by Christ. They were saints, the called of Christ. Paul is asking them to pray for his kinsman who live by the law with a heart of stone in need of a circumcision only God can provide, one that does not come from the Law-abiding, stone-hearted confession of sinful, unregenerate flesh.

 

[Josheb]

Part 3: Paul is asking them to pray for his kinsman....

God has called those kinsmen for centuries and found....

Romans 10:21 KJV
But to Israel he saith, "All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."

For centuries God has held out his hand to Paul's kinsman but they are a disobedient and obstinate people. Paul knows. He had to get knocked off his donkey, struck blind, healed, and then filled with the Holy Spirit before he confessed Christ. Paul did not know it was going to happen. He did not know beforehand he'd been chosen. He didn't know he'd been called beforehand. He wasn't given a choice when God chose him, he wasn't given a choice when God called him, and he was not given a choice when God commanded him. Paul's own precedent defies the interpretation you have given to Romans 10:9.

Acts 9:15-19
But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake." So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened.

Paul had been prepared his entire life to serve God's purpose. He was a chosen instrument of God's and he didn't even know it. Regeneration preceded faith and God's mercy did not depend on how Paul worked or how he willed. It depended on God's will and God's purpose.

Paul was not telling the saints in Rome anything different than what he himself had experienced.

Paul's Romans 9-11 narrative started out expressing his sadness noting not all Israel is Israel, and the narrative continues past chapter 10 where Paul states not all who are descended from Abraham are Abraham's descendants. He appeals to the prophets throughout this narrative to highlight the prophetic force bearing down on Israel's entire history, and despite stating all Israel will be saved he concludes,

Romans 11:7
What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened.

So when we look at the text of Romans 9-11 and then the text of Romans as a whole, we find the sinful volitional agency interpretation fails repeatedly.

Romans 9:16
So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

Note Paul has also stated "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." Paul then gives another example, that of Pharoah, AND Paul also provides another reason for God's will and purpose: it isn't always salvation; sometimes it is God simply showing His power. In the case of Pharoah it was God's power over the strongest earthly rule and the destruction of its ruler.

It would not have mattered how much Esau confessed Christ. God hated him. It's an assumption Esau had the ability to confess Christ, but that's too confrontational to our sensibilities. Certainly, everyone has that capability. Not according to Romans. The power of God has been evident in creation since creation's inception. Sin has reigned since before the law was given. The mind of flesh is hostile to God and it does not and CANNOT please God. God has mercy on whom He has mercy and if Esau and Jacob are the precedent then His will and purpose were decided before you and I were born. The clay cannot protest to the Potter.

Paul is sad for his kinsman. He'd willingly be cursed if it would bring them to salvation (implying he knows not even that would work). With the opening of chapter 10 Paul asks the saints in Rome to pray for his kinsman. They do not know God's righteousness; they seek their own righteousness (see Lk. 18:9-14; Rom. 2:8; Phil. 3:8-9). Paul appeals to the Mosaic Law to show its witness to faith explaining that it is with the heart (not the mind) that one believes. Israel had a heart of stone. They needed a circumcised heart, a heart of flesh and only God can circumcise the heart and replace the heart of stone with one of flesh (Eze. 36:26).

Colossians 2:9-12
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
That circumcision is not by hands; it occurs in the removal of the flesh, not from the confession of the sinful flesh's mouth! In his epistle to the Romans Paul was writing to a group of people who had already had their body of flesh removed by Christ. They were saints, the called of Christ. Paul is asking them to pray for his kinsman who live by the law with a heart of stone in need of a circumcision only God can provide, one that does not come from the Law-abiding, stone-hearted confession of sinful, unregenerate flesh.

Romans 10:21 KJV
But to Israel he saith, "All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."

For centuries God has held out his hand to Paul's kinsman but they are a disobedient and obstinate people. Paul knows. He had to get knocked off his donkey, struck blind, healed, and then filled with the Holy Spirit before he confessed Christ. Paul did not know it was going to happen. He did not know beforehand he'd been chosen. He didn't know he'd been called beforehand. He wasn't given a choice when God chose him, he wasn't given a choice when God called him, and he was not given a choice when God commanded him. Paul's own precedent defies the interpretation you have given to Romans 10:9.

Acts 9:15-19
But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake." So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened.

Paul had been prepared his entire life to serve God's purpose. He was a chosen instrument of God's and he didn't even know it. Regeneration preceded faith and God's mercy did not depend on how Paul worked or how he willed. It depended on God's will and God's purpose.

Paul was not telling the saints in Rome anything different than what he himself had experienced.

Paul's Romans 9-11 narrative started out expressing his sadness noting not all Israel is Israel, and the narrative continues past chapter 10 where Paul states not all who are descended from Abraham are Abraham's descendants. He appeals to the prophets throughout this narrative to highlight the prophetic force bearing down on Israel's entire history, and despite stating all Israel will be saved he concludes,

Romans 11:7
What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened.

So when we look at the text of Romans 9-11 and then the text of Romans as a whole, we find the sinful volitional agency interpretation fails repeatedly.
There is nothing there stating God depends on the sinful flesh, or that the confession of still-sinful still-unregenerate body of flesh is salvific. There is, alternative, a plethora of information actively precluding such a reading.

Do not proof-text the verse.

 

[His clay]

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)

 

[Arial]

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

Does confess with your mouth in these verses mean that all we have to do is say those words, and we will be saved?

 

[Arial]

I don't. That would be Universalism. I have been trying to tell some of these Calvinists that if being drawn = being given, then all are given, i.e. Universalism, because all are drawn.

No Calvinist said that in the first place. It is you who quoted the scripture, When I am raised up I will draw all men to myself, and used it to say all men as in every individual was drawn to Christ, and then had to make a choice. The question in that instance was not about the word draw but rather the word "all." Keep the story straight.