• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

The "Arbitrary" Objection to Unconditional Election

I wouldn't trust the NASB. I consider it to be the "Not Applicable Satanic Version".
Blessedly, 1) you are not the arbiter of the matter and 2) that does nothing to address what I posted: the simple fact we live in a time when the manuscripts are a few mouse clicks away and EVERYONE can objectively verify what was written therein, objectively verify which translation has been faithful to any given passage, and the NLT did a very poor job when it comes to Romans 10:9.
I can prove out of it that Jesus is satan.
Non sequitur.


Do you know how to reasonably, rationally, and scripturally discuss Roman 10:9 or not? If so then do so. If not then we're done here. Romans 10:9 does not state what it was made to say and when the passage in which that proof-texted verse is examined the larger narrative proves the interpretation asserted impossible, not just incorrect but impossible.
 
No; because clearly, they shall be saved.
No, not "they" but "thou." The "thou" is the saints in Rome, those called of Christ.

I appreciate this post, though, because it reveals the problem to be solved at a foundational level: The "thou" was read to mean "they," when it does not.
 
Another way of looking at it is that it would be impossible for Paul to not be saved since he was already in the kingdom and eternal security is in fact a reality of the kingdom.
I already addressed that protest and I did so with other scripture demonstrating the saved are being saved and will be saved. The saved will be saved. It's a position found throughout the epistolary and Revelation.

So, NO, that is NOT "another way" of looking at it; it's just something invented in contradiction to the scriptures already posted and argued solely to justify the perverse twisting of a proof-texted verse to make it say things it does not and cannot be made to say when whole scripture is examined. The saints in Rome, those called of Christ, will be saved when they confess Jesus.

It's not something particularly challenging to scripture or reason, and the concept is found throughout scripture.
 
A statement that is in direct contradiction to what is written in Romans 10:9.
ROTFLMBO!

No, Romans 10:9 should be read in a manner consistent with what is stated elsewhere, not in contradiction with it. God alone circumcises the sin-hardened heart, without which there is only disobedience and not a confession of Christ.
 
False teaching. Clearly, they had yet to be saved; and would be saved as the result of confessing Jesus with their mouth.
Well, the facts of scripture have been posted and are in evidence. The epistle to the Romans identifies its original readership as "saints" and those "called of Christ." Every single mention of "you" or "thou" in that entire epistle therefore means "though, the saints, the called of Christ" unless and until there is something in the text stipulating some other person or group and no such caveat exists in Romans 10.
 
He certainly did have a choice.

Being faced with incontrovertible evidence, he still might have hardened his heart and rejected that evidence as a sheer act of his will.
Paul's own testimony proves otherwise. Not once in the entirety of ALL his writing did Paul ever once record anything remotely akin to, "I briefly considered the choice of ignoring what I had seen and heard, of ignoring what Christ had done throughout my entire life, on the road to Damascus, and when Ananias came to me." It is nonexistent in scripture and contradictory to what is stated. You're also ignoring 1) Paul refusing God would mean God had acted fruitlessly and the sinner over-powered God, and 2) the fact Paul's confession came after the receipt of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, this exchange is getting further and further away from the premise of the op. Despite all the disagreement you have not shown God is dependent upon the sinner, nor has it been shown God's decisions are arbitrary.
 
1) faith preceded regeneration.

2) the only reason Paul was chosen was because he became a willing vessel. If he had not been, God would have chosen someone else.

Just as in the famous quote out of the book of Esther.
Absurd. He was topped from what he was doing "persecuting Christians and obstructing Christ), forcibly and violently knocked off his donkey and struck blind and kept that way until Ananias showed up. Paul was NOT a willing vessel when Christ chose him and knocked him off his ride.

Acts 9:4
"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"

Saul was persecuting Christ. That is the antithesis of a willing servant of Christ.
 
So, in coming to Christ, Jesus would have cast him out; contrary to John 6:37.
Stop abusing my posts to make them say things they do not state. It's bad enough you do it with scripture. The fact of scripture is God hated Esau. He hated Esau and loved Jacob and His affection for Jacob and contempt for Esau existed prior to either man's birth and had nothing to do with how they walked or willed. Nowhere does scripture anywhere ever state Esau could have or would have come to God in his own sinful, unregenerate selfish flesh. That premise is an invention that denies the facts of scripture solely to justify the abuse of a proof-texted Romans 10:9.
 
Introduction
One objection I've come across over the years is the "arbitrary" objection toward unconditional election. Simply stated: If God elects unconditionally, then He elects arbitrarily. The flip side is the assumption that the same is true of those not elected. We can see one particular poster express this concern.


One can see the initial plausibility of objection; it is largely based off of the idea of unconditionality. God's choice is unconditioned by anything in the person, so then it must be arbitrary. In spite of the initial or seeming plausibility, the argument has significant and serious flaws. The flaws of the argument actually reveal the worldview and assumptions of the objector. When the assumptions are examined, this spells far more doom toward the objector than it does toward unconditional election.

We will examine the objection by expounding upon a few simple points. First, one must have a proper understanding unconditional election. The possibility of straw men is remarkably strong for those who disagree with unconditional election; thus, it is utterly important to understand the basics before ever trying to send a criticism. Second, we will examine if the reversed assumption has merit. The reversed assumption is that if people are elected to salvation unconditionally, then they are elected to damnation unconditionally. Third, the charge of "arbitrary" needs a definition. What is meant by "arbitrary?" And does unconditional election actually lead to an arbitrary decision? These two question are the subjection of the third portion. Fourth, we will look into the assumptions of the objector. (1) One assumption is that people do not have a choice when unconditionality is present in election. (2) The other assumption is that if the person is removed from a criteria for election, then God doesn't have a reason for His choice.

These four steps will lead us forward toward a conclusion stated at the end. Let's take some time to examine these important issues.

Properly Understanding Unconditional Election
The first stop on the tour is a proper understanding of what unconditional election entails. Article nine of the Canons of Dort states the following (quote taken from top of forum link; thread titled "The Reformed Faith").

By unconditional is meant that God's choice was not based upon "foreseen faith, of the obedience of faith, of holiness, or of any other good quality and disposition, as though it were based on a prerequisite cause or condition in the person chosen." Rather than these things somehow being the basis of election; election is the basis of these things. Election is the initial choice that then leads to and brings about holiness, faith, and anything good in the one chosen. Hence, the word "source" was used to describe election's relation to the "benefits of salvation."

We will consider one more source. Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is a fairly common systematic theology, and he gives the following definition. "Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure."[1] Grudem's definition shares some very important characteristics with the Canons of Dort, mentioned previously. Both definitions are specifically targeting the "foreseen faith" view of election, and they both deny such an idea as the basis of God's election. Grudem's definition summarizes with one word, "merit," what Dort elaborates upon.

One needs to note the speceficity of condition denied. Grudem eliminates "merit," and Dort eliminates a larger field. Both eliminate "foreseen faith" as a condition for God choice/election. In other words, the choice of God is unconiditional in the sense that His choice is not based upon human merit, foreseen faith, or anything good of the person.

Scripturally, the appeal is often made to Romans 9:11-13 where it says.
"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”"

Romans 11:5-6 is another passage, and the focus here is upon God's grace. Human endeavor is excluded. Note: the passage does not say "meritorious works," but rather the more general expression "works" is used. Hence, the general category of human endeavor is excluded.
"So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

2 Timothy 2:9 again points out the negation of human endeavor.
"who saved us and called us to[a] a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began"

(1) A historical appeal was made in definining unconditional election, and (2) a more current systematic theology provided the second, and the (3) third portion briefly stated a few verses that lead us to the definition of unconditional election. With the definitions given above, one can better discern what is and what is not unconditional election.

Since the definition is more clear, we can immediately note the initial objection. More specifically, we can seen how unnuanced and truncated it is. No definition is given of the meaning of "unconditional." No elaboration is given to what this may refer to. The reader is then forced to supply the content, and to the ignorant it may very well seem that "unconditional" means the absence of all reason. But ignorance does not rule the day, and "unconditional" has a very specific focus. Namely, God's choice to save some is not based upon human merit, foreseen faith, or anything good of the person. Rather, God choice to save is the source of all good and God-honoring actions among those chosen.

This is not the conclusion of the opening post, for I will continue to write after posting this initial installment. The reason is simple: post size requirements and time. Hopefully, I can average a post a day.
============================
[1] Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. p. 670.

(Opening Post 1 of 4)

The issue is quite simple. When people hear the term "elect," they often associate it with "choice," and they assume that God is actively choosing people. However, logically, God cannot "choose people" before they even exist, which leads people to believe that God is making choices in real-time. This is a mistaken conclusion based on a misunderstanding of the term "elect," but we'll clarify that shortly.

When people interpret God's election as Him making choices in real-time, it raises the question of what criteria God uses to make these choices. This is where things get complicated, especially when we say, "It's not based on anything about the person." This statement is perplexing because it doesn't explain why the selection isn't random. It just states God does it. This Begs the question again.

To avoid these inconsistencies, let's go back to the basics and redefine "election" properly. Instead of thinking of it as God "choosing" in real-time, let's consider it as God "purposing" things 👉before the world's foundation👈.

In this view, God creates individuals according to His predetermined purpose for each of them. With this understanding, there's no need to ask why God "chose" one individual over another because the Bible doesn't provide that information.

You can, however, inquire about God's purpose for each individual. Since not all individuals are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, we discover the purposes and final outcomes over time. You and I may not be specifically mentioned in the Bible, but our predetermined purposes and reasons for our ultimate destinations become clear as time unfolds.

...
 
The issue is quite simple. When people hear the term "elect," they often associate it with "choice," and they assume that God is actively choosing people. However, logically, God cannot "choose people" before they even exist, which leads people to believe that God is making choices in real-time. This is a mistaken conclusion based on a misunderstanding of the term "elect," but we'll clarify that shortly.

When people interpret God's election as Him making choices in real-time, it raises the question of what criteria God uses to make these choices. This is where things get complicated, especially when we say, "It's not based on anything about the person." This statement is perplexing because it doesn't explain why the selection isn't random. It just states God does it. This Begs the question again.

To avoid these inconsistencies, let's go back to the basics and redefine "election" properly. Instead of thinking of it as God "choosing" in real-time, let's consider it as God "purposing" things 👉before the world's foundation👈.

In this view, God creates individuals according to His predetermined purpose for each of them. With this understanding, there's no need to ask why God "chose" one individual over another because the Bible doesn't provide that information.

You can, however, inquire about God's purpose for each individual. Since not all individuals are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, we discover the purposes and final outcomes over time. You and I may not be specifically mentioned in the Bible, but our predetermined purposes and reasons for our ultimate destinations become clear as time unfolds.

...
Note my third main point. I have yet to write it. The opening post is divided into 4 parts.

I have written two of the four at the present moment.

Also note, the introduction is an introduction. The substance comes in the points afterward. The intent of the introduction is to set the stage for what follows.

Also note, in opening post #2, I address the issue of transcendent decisions.
 
Last edited:
No, not "they" but "thou." The "thou" is the saints in Rome, those called of Christ.

I appreciate this post, though, because it reveals the problem to be solved at a foundational level: The "thou" was read to mean "they," when it does not.
I believe that you are mincing words.

When I say "they" I am referring to those who would be saved as the result of calling on the name of the Lord.

If I had said "thou", I might be referring to you; yet you might already be saved.

Romans is clearly not only written to saints. It proclaims the way of salvation to those who are not yet saved.
 
ROTFLMBO!

No, Romans 10:9 should be read in a manner consistent with what is stated elsewhere, not in contradiction with it. God alone circumcises the sin-hardened heart, without which there is only disobedience and not a confession of Christ.
Rather, what is stated elsewhere should not be read in contradiction to the plain meaning of Romans 10:9.

There, in that verse, there are two things that a person must do; and the result of doing those things is salvation.
 
Well, the facts of scripture have been posted and are in evidence. The epistle to the Romans identifies its original readership as "saints" and those "called of Christ." Every single mention of "you" or "thou" in that entire epistle therefore means "though, the saints, the called of Christ" unless and until there is something in the text stipulating some other person or group and no such caveat exists in Romans 10.
Obviously, such a caveat does exist in Romans 10:9.

For the people who will confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in their heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, will not be saved until they do so. They shall be saved as the direct result of (in short) "calling on the name of the Lord".

Therefore, they are obviously not saved yet; at least not until after they do what it takes to procure salvation.
 
Paul's own testimony proves otherwise. Not once in the entirety of ALL his writing did Paul ever once record anything remotely akin to, "I briefly considered the choice of ignoring what I had seen and heard, of ignoring what Christ had done throughout my entire life, on the road to Damascus, and when Ananias came to me." It is nonexistent in scripture and contradictory to what is stated. You're also ignoring 1) Paul refusing God would mean God had acted fruitlessly and the sinner over-powered God, and 2) the fact Paul's confession came after the receipt of the Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, this exchange is getting further and further away from the premise of the op. Despite all the disagreement you have not shown God is dependent upon the sinner, nor has it been shown God's decisions are arbitrary.
Rev 22:17, And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Absurd. He was topped from what he was doing "persecuting Christians and obstructing Christ), forcibly and violently knocked off his donkey and struck blind and kept that way until Ananias showed up. Paul was NOT a willing vessel when Christ chose him and knocked him off his ride.

Acts 9:4
"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"

Saul was persecuting Christ. That is the antithesis of a willing servant of Christ.
Yes, God apprehended him. Even in that, Paul had a choice. It would not have been a wise one for him to reject Christ.

But Paul could have rejected Christ after experiencing his powerful encounter with Christ.

Because where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Corinthians 3:17).

And therefore, Paul, being drawn to Christ by the Holy Spirit, had a choice in the matter of whether he would receive or reject Christ.

Otherwise, freedom would not have been in the equation; and in such a case, his being drawn to Christ would not have been by the Spirit of the Lord.

He was not saved until he was willingly baptized.

Up till that point, he was in decision mode; and might have decided to reject Christ as being his Lord.

As to whether he would continue to persecute Christians, I think that he might have been afraid of being knocked off of his horse again.
 
Stop abusing my posts to make them say things they do not state. It's bad enough you do it with scripture. The fact of scripture is God hated Esau. He hated Esau and loved Jacob and His affection for Jacob and contempt for Esau existed prior to either man's birth and had nothing to do with how they walked or willed. Nowhere does scripture anywhere ever state Esau could have or would have come to God in his own sinful, unregenerate selfish flesh. That premise is an invention that denies the facts of scripture solely to justify the abuse of a proof-texted Romans 10:9.
Because Esau's history was written before he was even born.

It does not mean that Esau didn't have a choice.

And if Esau had made the decision to believe in God, God would have accepted him (John 6:37); and it would never have been written of him that God hated him.

Because all of these things happened, from God's perspective, from outside of time.
 
I believe that you are mincing words.
Then re-read them as many times as it takes to correctly understand them.
When I say "they" I am referring to those who would be saved as the result of calling on the name of the Lord.
ROTFLMBO!

That's mincing words. Who here thinks a person calling upon the Lord is not saved? Do you see the irony? Synergists (Pelagians, humanists, Traditionalists, Arminians, Wesleyans, etc.) would say a person calling upon the Lor dis not saved. They do not get saved until after they have called upon the Lord.
If I had said "thou", I might be referring to you; yet you might already be saved.
That might be true if the default had not already been established by the text. The text did establish the default meaning of "thou" or "you," and you have ignored it.
Romans is clearly not only written to saints.
Well..... let's see,

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.

Romans 1:7 KJV
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:7 Greek Transliteration
To all those being in Rome beloved of God called saints (hagiois) grace to you and peace from God father of us and lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:7 NLT
I am writing to all of you in Rome who are loved by God and are called to be his own holy people. May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.

So, once again, we see the NLT takes liberty with the text but, despite using "holy people" the epistle to the Romans was in fact CLEARLY written to the saints.
It proclaims the way of salvation to those who are not yet saved.
The scripture itself proves otherwise. What it proclaims is the necessity of faith and confession among the saved.
 
Rather, what is stated elsewhere should not be read in contradiction to the plain meaning of Romans 10:9.
I completely agree. The problem is you believe you have read the verse in its plain meaning but you haven't. The reason you have not done so is because the surrounding verses and the contexts stated by the scriptures itself were completely ignored and we've since learned there is a willful resistance to doing so.
There, in that verse, there are two things that a person must do; and the result of doing those things is salvation.
No, we learn to things a saint must do. The verse is not about what an unregenerate nonbeliever must do to become saved, the verse is about the necessity of confession and faith among those already saved.
 
Obviously, such a caveat does exist in Romans 10:9.

For the people who will confess with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in their heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, will not be saved until they do so. They shall be saved as the direct result of (in short) "calling on the name of the Lord".

Therefore, they are obviously not saved yet; at least not until after they do what it takes to procure salvation.
As I stated previously, proof-texting is always bad practice. So too is eisegesis. That one sentence should never be read apart from its surrounding text and that is what you've done and continue to do despite being shown how the entire Romans 10 narrative precludes the interpretation you've assigned to it under the auspices of "plain reading." Read it plainly in its stated context and it does not say what you make it say. It is about the necessity of faith and confession among the saints, NOT how an unregenerate nonbeliever becomes saved.
 
Rev 22:17, And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
So?
 
Back
Top