The "Arbitrary" Objection to Unconditional Election

[His clay]

The Assumption of Man-Centered Interpretation: As stated earlier, the focus is upon this particular quote. “As for the arbitrary objection, I find that God's decision to save or condemn is arbitrary if it is not based specifically on the faith of the individual (or lack thereof).” The reader should take note of the context of this quote. The words come after, not before, a very explicit and thorough exposition of the fact that eliminating one set of reasons does not mean that all sets of reasons are excluded from God’s choice. Thusly, the charge of arbitrariness cannot be sustained.

However, the quote above apparently does not care if God has other reasons. The objector still wants to use the term “arbitrary” because God’s non-arbitrary reasons for His choice do not fit with the man-centered interpretive grid of the objector. Since God’s choice is not based upon man’s choice, then God can’t possibly be considered to have a legitimate reason. Thusly, His choice is considered arbitrary.

Contrary to the objection and objector, this only shows a huge degree of man-centeredness. The assumption of man-centeredness is clearly guiding this objection. A person’s faith is the only consideration allowed to guide the “arbitrary” objection. If this is removed, then God’s choice is arbitrary. Again, this type of bias only demonstrates the interpretive grid of the objector. It completely fails to substantiate the charge of arbitrariness. This is much like the person who cannot see past their own self-centered attitude. This is truly an evidence of a sinful mindset: self-centeredness. The fact that reality exists outside of one’s choices and preferences is enough to dispel this obvious, biased assumption. Furthermore, since God is God; and He is the ultimate ground of reality (not man), then it follows that God’s reasons (outside of man) are truly, real reasons. The charge of “arbitrary” simply cannot compete. The charge is blatantly false.

Conclusion: The conclusion seems unavoidable. The “arbitrary” objection suffers from false assumptions that function as an interpretive grid. Libertarian freedom is simply unbiblical, false to reality, and practically impossible. Thusly, people who are not elected do make morally corrupt choices, of which they will be held accountable. Furthermore, reasons outside of the man-centered assumption do exist; therefore, the arbitrary charge utterly fails. The real question is how the objector will respond. Will the objector be able to deal with the truth, or will the objector not be able to bear the truth just like Jesus’ opponents in John 8. If all of the evidence points to the fact that the “arbitrary” objection is false at multiple levels, will the objector be able to realize the falsity of the objection? Or will the objector persist in an utterly disproven endeavor?

(For those who may wish to catch up on the different installments of the opening post, feel free to read post #1 (part 1 of 4) and post #58 (2 of 4) and post #123 (part 3 of 4).

---

[1] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003), 270–71. Highly competent, non-Calvinist authors are giving a definition of libertarian freedom. Part of their definition says, “When an agent acts freely, he is a first or unmoved mover; no event or efficient cause causes him to act.” Their definition directly impacts the wording of my prior sentence where I state, “They are their own ultimate cause of the choice that they make.” For those who may cry out that I am presenting a straw man, I am getting my definition of libertarian freedom from this source. I can also present quite the litany of different sources that say nearly the same.

 

[His clay]

It should be clear that there is something that we do in order to procure salvation, from the following verses.

Hos 14:2, Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

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.
Rom 10:10, For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11, For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12, For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Act 2:38, Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.



This is an assumption that is based in reality the reality of what Calvinism teaches.

For if the decision concerning my salvation or damnation is wholly God's and is none of man, then I can make a decision to receive Christ and yet not be saved if I am of the non-elect. And I can also never receive Christ and yet potentially be of the elect.

This is not the teaching of holy scripture.

And yet, it, being the teaching of Calvinism, is a teaching that man's choice in the matter of whether or not he is saved has no bearing or weight on the matter because theoretically, if I am not of the elect, I can choose Christ and yet in doing so He would cast me out; and also if I am of the elect, it doesn't matter that I have (or have not) received Christ as that has no bearing on the matter of whether or not I am saved.

The teaching of scripture, as I have quoted in scriptures above, is that there is something that we do in order to procure salvation.

Does this translate into personal merit?

I think that my decision to receive Christ was based, not in anything that can be defined as virtuous in me, but rather was based on a (sinful) sense of self-preservation; for I chose Christ when I was presented with the threat of eternal punishment and believed.

There was nothing meritorious in that;

But, when I placed my faith in Christ as the result, God honoured that faith because He says that He honours faith.

There again being nothing meritorious in that faith as I presented it to God out of fear of eternal damnation...which was again based in a sinful sense of self-preservation and yet God honoured a sinful reaction because He says in His word that He would honour such a reaction; because such a reaction is faith.

Since I have completed the 4 part opening post, I'll begin moving through some of the responses.

"This is an assumption that is based in reality the reality of what Calvinism teaches." False: it is your false assumption of libertarian freedom that leads you to think that way. Further, according to post #1, you have already been proven wrong. Unconditional election leads to and makes certain man's response of faith to the gospel. You are simply not understanding Calvinism or its teaching.

"For if the decision concerning my salvation or damnation is wholly God's and is none of man . . ." This is another straw man. Because of God's ultimate choice to save, then man chooses. Please don't fall prey to the false antithesis fallacy. It isn't either God chooses, or man chooses. It can and is a both/and viewpoint. Often, this is called compatibilism.

Further, opening post 4 of 4 (post #160 & 161) points out that the non-elect make many choices of which they are responsible. Hence, their damnation is certainly deserved, for they willingly sinned, and are thus, justly condemned.

". . . then I can make a decision to receive Christ and yet not be saved if I am of the non-elect." Empty set within Calvinism, and thusly another straw man and non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. The non-elect do not receive saving grace, and therefore they are left to their own corrupt nature and sin. They will not make a genuine "decision to receive Christ." If they are presented with the gospel, then they will reject it. If they never hear the gospel, they will suppress the general revelation Romans 1 mentions. What you are critiquing is not Calvinism. It is only a product of your own imagination.

"And I can also never receive Christ and yet potentially be of the elect." Note that the non-elect's depravity is a moral inability. It is an inability to choose Christ because of a greater love for the world, the darkness, sin, and lies. It is a moral inability built from a corrupt character, of which they are without excuse. They prefer darkness and thusly choose it over Christ.

Are you saying that you are in the non-elect category? I'm noticing the use of the first person. How is it that you know such detail that is unrevealed in Scripture?

"This is not the teaching of holy scripture." Nor is it the teaching of Calvinism. However, the teaching you are talking about is definitely interesting fiction that no one that I know of holds. I wonder where you got it from.

At this point, I'm going to stop, for the post just continues to present straw man after straw man. False rationalizations and non-sequiturs. My suggestion is that you do some actual study on the subject and read the Canons of Dort that @Carbon has posted at the top of the forum. You need to at least make a serious attempt to get your facts strait before further critique. Your post has all the elements of slander and almost no truth.

Perhaps, I'll continue through the post, quoted above. But for now, this is a good stopping point.

 

[His clay]

It should be clear that there is something that we do in order to procure salvation, from the following verses.

Hos 14:2, Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

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.
Rom 10:10, For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11, For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12, For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Act 2:38, Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.



This is an assumption that is based in reality the reality of what Calvinism teaches.

For if the decision concerning my salvation or damnation is wholly God's and is none of man, then I can make a decision to receive Christ and yet not be saved if I am of the non-elect. And I can also never receive Christ and yet potentially be of the elect.

This is not the teaching of holy scripture.

And yet, it, being the teaching of Calvinism, is a teaching that man's choice in the matter of whether or not he is saved has no bearing or weight on the matter because theoretically, if I am not of the elect, I can choose Christ and yet in doing so He would cast me out; and also if I am of the elect, it doesn't matter that I have (or have not) received Christ as that has no bearing on the matter of whether or not I am saved.

The teaching of scripture, as I have quoted in scriptures above, is that there is something that we do in order to procure salvation.

Does this translate into personal merit?

I think that my decision to receive Christ was based, not in anything that can be defined as virtuous in me, but rather was based on a (sinful) sense of self-preservation; for I chose Christ when I was presented with the threat of eternal punishment and believed.

There was nothing meritorious in that;

But, when I placed my faith in Christ as the result, God honoured that faith because He says that He honours faith.

There again being nothing meritorious in that faith as I presented it to God out of fear of eternal damnation...which was again based in a sinful sense of self-preservation and yet God honoured a sinful reaction because He says in His word that He would honour such a reaction; because such a reaction is faith.

It is time to continue where I left off.

"And yet, it, being the teaching of Calvinism, is a teaching that man's choice in the matter of whether or not he is saved has no bearing or weight on the matter because theoretically, if I am not of the elect, I can choose Christ and yet in doing so He would cast me out;"
-This only expresses an ignorance of the ramifications of total depravity. Those not elect view of the message of the cross as foolishness (1 Cor 1). They prefer their sin over Christ. Thus, they will not choose Christ in any kind of genuine way.
-The quoted statement gives the facade of depicting the teaching of Calvinism, but in the end it is only a straw man.
-With regards to choice having no bearing, the idea expressed is simply not Calvinism. The elect/chosen will believe precisely because God has chosen to save them and provide saving grace, which in turn effects countless choices. The non-elect will choose to not believe because of their moral depravity, and they go to hell precisely because of a plethora of choices to reject the gospel, or general revelation, and/or the complaints of the conscience. They also go to hell because of their many choices to sin, born from a sinfully corrupt nature.

"and also if I am of the elect, it doesn't matter that I have (or have not) received Christ as that has no bearing on the matter of whether or not I am saved." Completely false, and a total straw man. Post #1 has already proven that your comment is false. I quoted from the Council of Dort where unconditional election brings about faith and the holiness seen in believers. Did you read post #1. The very first post of the thread. Do your homework and actually study the issue because these comments are baseless straw men.

"The teaching of scripture, as I have quoted in scriptures above, is that there is something that we do in order to procure salvation." Did you not read post #1 where it stated that unconditional election brings about faith in those chosen? Hence, a believer's faith is sourced upon the ground of God's choice before the foundation of the world. Again, the quoted portion has completely failed to address real positions and reality. All Calvinists agree that faith is something that is essential to true Christians. We even appeal of Ephesians 2 to point out that God gives the gift of faith, along with everything else in the clause before "touto". Your ideas of Calvinism are completely foreign to Calvinism.

"Does this translate into personal merit?" One of my greatest fears, for those who hold to libertarian freedom, is that they make their faith an object of their trust. Long ago Spurgeon stated, "Never make a Christ out of your faith." The danger with the overemphasis upon personal action is that one can no longer see through the faith to the One who deserves all the trust. Thusly, a person may use the Christian language and gospel language, but their true faith is in their own action. Largely, this comes from not seeing their own depravity and the utter ruin this should cause for self-reliance. One's self-reliance ought to be devastated, so that Christ, and His work on the cross, is the ONLY thing that one looks to for salvation. Self is essentially removed from focus, for self only contributes sin. Christ is the only answer.

In response to the above question, and in light of what was just stated . . . if self-reliance is still up and running, then one may use the language of faith, but in the end it is personal accomplishment, and personal merit, in spite of using gospel terminology. This is what is called the equivocation fallacy. Using the term "faith" or "belief" or "believing" while perverting the very heart and soul of the words.

Once again, this is my great fear and concern for the libertarian crowd. I don't know their hearts, but they are seriously playing with eternal fire.

"I think that my decision to receive Christ was based, not in anything that can be defined as virtuous in me, but rather was based on a (sinful) sense of self-preservation; for I chose Christ when I was presented with the threat of eternal punishment and believed." While I'm not going to accuse you of being an unbeliever, I think that you need to do some serious soul searching. Pray, Bible reading . . . Consider whether you chose to get out of hell, or whether you chose to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who alone is the Savior of a sinner like you (all Christians affirm that they are sinners). Who died on the cross as a substitute for sin. Choosing to get out of hell and choosing to trust and rely on Christ as your ONLY hope are two very different things. Certainly, sin has the ultimate consequence of hell and separation from God, but what is really the object of your faith? Sadly, I see absolutely no realization or recognition on your part that you truly understood your own personal sinfulness; I only see one mention of a sinful motivation, which adds even more reason for concern.

In short, your comment here sends off lots of red flags. It doesn't mean that you are unsaved, but it gives me huge cause for concern. Only God fully knows your heart, so I recommend that you spend some serious time in introspection, bible reading, and prayer.

I'll stop here for now.

 

[justbyfaith]

Rom 8:4, That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5, For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6, For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7, Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8, So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9, But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10, And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

 

[justbyfaith]

Gal 5:16, This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5:17, For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5:18, But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5:19, Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Gal 5:22, But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5:23, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
Gal 5:24, And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

 

[His clay]

It should be clear that there is something that we do in order to procure salvation, from the following verses.

Hos 14:2, Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

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.
Rom 10:10, For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Rom 10:11, For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Rom 10:12, For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Rom 10:13, For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Act 2:38, Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.



This is an assumption that is based in reality the reality of what Calvinism teaches.

For if the decision concerning my salvation or damnation is wholly God's and is none of man, then I can make a decision to receive Christ and yet not be saved if I am of the non-elect. And I can also never receive Christ and yet potentially be of the elect.

This is not the teaching of holy scripture.

And yet, it, being the teaching of Calvinism, is a teaching that man's choice in the matter of whether or not he is saved has no bearing or weight on the matter because theoretically, if I am not of the elect, I can choose Christ and yet in doing so He would cast me out; and also if I am of the elect, it doesn't matter that I have (or have not) received Christ as that has no bearing on the matter of whether or not I am saved.

The teaching of scripture, as I have quoted in scriptures above, is that there is something that we do in order to procure salvation.

Does this translate into personal merit?

I think that my decision to receive Christ was based, not in anything that can be defined as virtuous in me, but rather was based on a (sinful) sense of self-preservation; for I chose Christ when I was presented with the threat of eternal punishment and believed.

There was nothing meritorious in that;

But, when I placed my faith in Christ as the result, God honoured that faith because He says that He honours faith.

There again being nothing meritorious in that faith as I presented it to God out of fear of eternal damnation...which was again based in a sinful sense of self-preservation and yet God honoured a sinful reaction because He says in His word that He would honour such a reaction; because such a reaction is faith.

"Does this translate into personal merit?" What I'm most concerned with is that in seeking to depart from personal merit, you have not described the gospel, by not describing biblical faith. I don't see a dependence and trust upon Jesus for everything good; rather, I see a self-focus upon negative personal qualities and self-reliant decision making. This is eternally dangerous, and so I must warn you. I hope you take this to heart.

"There was nothing meritorious in that;" Keeping up self-reliance (You chose of your own ability) is playing with eternal fire. It is the negation of biblical faith. I seen an attempt at trying to distance yourself from meritoriousness, but in the end your version of choice-making is inherently about your own ability. I suggest consistency rather than being duplicitous and equivocating over the nature of saving faith.

"But, when I placed my faith in Christ as the result, God honoured that faith because He says that He honours faith." What concerns me is the "I placed" view of your decision-making. Self-reliance is creeping in. Did you choose of your own ability, or did God cause you to believe?

You are correct in the second half. God does honor His word, and because He honors His word by keeping His promises, He does save those who believe. But beware of turning "faith" itself up on its head. The equivocation fallacy, in this case, is eternally dangerous. Faith is empty-handed not self-reliant.

"There again being nothing meritorious in that faith as I presented it to God out of fear of eternal damnation...which was again based in a sinful sense of self-preservation and yet God honoured a sinful reaction because He says in His word that He would honour such a reaction; because such a reaction is faith." There again being everything destructive of "faith" in being self-sufficient. Beware of how you see the "I presented," for this may be an expression of self-reliance and thus the perversion of the very term "faith" being used. Again, the equivocation fallacy, in this case, is eternally dangerous.

And again, the "faith" you describe is focused upon getting out of hell, and the tool to accomplish this is Jesus (as you describe, perhaps without realizing it). I don't see a desperate trust upon the only One who can save, Jesus Christ. I also don't see a repentance for sin and turning from sin. All I'm seeing is a self-focus, on your part as you describe things, that is exercising self-reliant actions (your view of human choice-making). God honors biblical faith, not the sinful actions you describe.

Again, please do some self-reflection and truly consider your spiritual condition. I would not be loving or a caring Christian if I said nothing about these issue. You like to use the term "faith," but I'm unconvinced you practically realize what the term really means. I'm not saying that your are unsaved, but I am stating the reasons why I am greatly concerned for your eternal soul. Please, please, please take these comments to heart. I hope with all my heart that we will see one another in heaven someday, and so I must express these concerns.

 

[His clay]

We can also note that none of what justbyfaith stated in post #2 actually addressed post #1's points and comments. I addressed the post because it has elements in it that are eternally significant, but with respect to the topic of the thread, it is essentially a red herring fallacy, an attempt to dodge the main topic of the thread.

As of yet, no direct response, on point, without the use of straw men, has been given to the four part opening post. This is extremely telling. This is especially telling, for I took a great deal of time between each installment of the opening post, so a great deal of time has been give for response.

Post #1 (part 1 of 4), post #58 (2 of 4), post #123 (part 3 of 4), and posts #160-161 (part 4 of 4) have completed a complete removal of the objection of "arbitrary" from unconditional election. That objection is simply false and misguided in many ways.

 

[His clay]

And it is not the teaching of Calvinism.

What determines whether one is saved or not is what it is that they believe about Jesus, not what they choose. If you believe that He is the Son of God, which means He is God come in the flesh to redeem, and believe in your heart that He was raised from the dead, and it is in Him you place your trust for life and salvation, then you are saved. And if you are saved, you are of the elect. Whether you know this, or acknowledge this or not. And no one is saved outside of hearing the gospel and believing it. The elect are certain to hear it, and they are certain to believe it, by the grace and power of God.

We are in agreement that much of what the other poster says is blatantly not Calvinism; rather, it is often a fictional straw man fallacy built often upon false premises, as the opening posts pointed out.

 

[His clay]

What kind of God would choose out certain people to be certain to hear it, and certain to believe it; when that means that others are certain not to hear and certain not to believe?

I think that you are seeing things from God's perspective in eternity and not necessarily seeing it from the perspective of time.

From time's perspective, there is a point in time where we actually receive the truth of the gospel and are saved. I would say that entering into grace is dependent on our hearing the gospel and mixing it with faith (Romans 5:2, Hebrews 4:2). In Romans 9:25-26, there are people who were not His people but are now the people of God.

What? They were not His people from before the foundations of the world?

This indicates to me that there is a point in time when people cross over from death unto life, within their lifetime.

I will say that I believe that this point in time is characterized by the convert doing what it says to do in Hosea 14:2, Romans 10:9-13, and Acts 2:38-39.

The equivocation fallacy is killer here, as well as the question framing fallacy. I'll explain.

"What kind of God would choose out certain people to be certain to hear it, and certain to believe it; when that means that others are certain not to hear and certain not to believe?"

Equivocation fallacy: The use of the term "God" was used in the question, but in reality this is a straw man version of God. The term was used, but the godness of God was removed. Instead, we see the poster elevate himself above his idea of god as a judge. The poster placed his accusation and position above the straw man god. I see atheists do this all the time when employing the problem of evil argument. The fact that both justbyfaith and atheists utilize the fallacy of equivocation does not mean that my argument is one of a guilt by association. It is an argument that both share the exact same equivocation fallacy. In contrary, God is God; and justbyfaith is not. Thus, the roles are reversed. God is the judge, and justbyfaith is the defendant. God is the ultimate ground of goodness and a proper understanding of right and wrong.

Question framing fallacy: The previous paragraph points out that the question, found in the quote above, is simply falsely framed. It asks an accusatory question, as if the objector has the position to judge. Rather, God is the judge and the ultimate standard of reality. God is gracious to some undeserving sinners, and He has chosen to leave others to the just consequences of their own sin, preference for evil and darkness, suppression of general revelation, and in many cases their rejection of the message of the cross as foolishness.

No, they cannot do otherwise, but utilizing this as a ground for objection relies upon libertarian freedom, which is not part of Calvinism, and it has been refuted in part 4 of 4's opening post.

The assumption, made by justbyfaith, in the quote above that it is "certain not to hear" is simply false with respect to those who hear the gospel and reject it, in Calvinism (thus, another straw man fallacy). The certainty of their rejection does not excuse their rejection, for their rejection is a rejection, and it was produced by an evil nature. Thus, they did exactly what they wanted, but what they wanted was corrupt.

I'll leave further critique of the full post for another time.

 

[justbyfaith]

It should be clear that if God has unconditionally elected some to salvation, that He has arbitrarily chosen out others unto condemnation by default.

I do not see how anyone can be held morally responsible for a decision that they make if they cannot make any other decision and the reason for this is because God decided from before time began to make them of the non-elect.

They can be held morally responsible if they are able to make a decision otherwise and then don't make that decision.

Thus, free will, at the time of being drawn to Christ, is a must, and scripture bears out (2 Corinthians 3:17) that at the juncture of being drawn to Christ, everyone is able to make a free will decision to either receive or reject Christ.

This last thing has never been adequately answered by the opposition. 2 Corinthians 3:17 clearly teaches us that mankind has free will at the juncture in which he is being drawn to Christ; for the man is being drawn to Christ by the Spirit of the Lord.

 

[ReverendRV]

It should be clear that if God has unconditionally elected some to salvation, that He has arbitrarily chosen out others unto condemnation by default.

Double Predestination leans Hyper...

Supralapsarian versus Infralapsarianism...

 

[His clay]

It should be clear that if God has unconditionally elected some to salvation, that He has arbitrarily chosen out others unto condemnation by default.

I do not see how anyone can be held morally responsible for a decision that they make if they cannot make any other decision and the reason for this is because God decided from before time began to make them of the non-elect.

They can be held morally responsible if they are able to make a decision otherwise and then don't make that decision.

Thus, free will, at the time of being drawn to Christ, is a must, and scripture bears out (2 Corinthians 3:17) that at the juncture of being drawn to Christ, everyone is able to make a free will decision to either receive or reject Christ.

This last thing has never been adequately answered by the opposition. 2 Corinthians 3:17 clearly teaches us that mankind has free will at the juncture in which he is being drawn to Christ; for the man is being drawn to Christ by the Spirit of the Lord.

Already refuted the ability to do otherwise objection (libertarian freedom) in post #160 (opening post part 4 of 4). I'll quote it, so that you can read it.

The Interpretive Grid of False Assumptions

Introduction: When one learns from books dealing with interpretation, he finds a crucial concept. It is called distanciation. The concept is not difficult to comprehend; the main problem is actually practicing it. The concept refers to a modern reader’s ideas and assumptions, which are often read into various passages of scripture. The main idea is for the modern reader to “distance” himself from those assumptions in the interpretation of scripture. However, the most dangerous assumptions are those assumptions the interpreter does not realize he brings to the text.

A critical element of interpretation concerns “authorial intent.” This means that the original author intended a meaning during his time, culture, and audience. This means that the authorial intent of a biblical text (written before AD 100 and earlier) does not possess the assumptions that often modern interpreters impose upon it.

This small introduction of hermeneutics leads to a simple application of the same principle to discussions between Calvinists and those who employ the “arbitrary” objection. Those who utilize the objection often give away key assumptions that are being used to argue. Arguments are built upon certain foundations; but if those foundations are faulty, then it follows that the argument collapses with the faulty foundation.

As stated previously, the two key assumptions involve (1) the nature of choice-making, and (2) being overly focused upon human element in salvation.

Assumptions Regarding the Nature of Choice-making: I’ll be very candid and straightforward. I reject libertarian freedom and thusly the conception of choice-making that goes along with it. Often, this is informally called “free will.” Such a statement (free will) suffers from an extreme oversimplification of the real issue. Two critical elements will be addressed in light of their biblical contradiction. One assumption is that human choice-making is autonomous from God. The other is that human choice-making involves the ability to do otherwise.

The assumption that human choice-making is autonomous from God comes from the idea that if God causes a choice to be a certain way, then it isn’t really a choice. This is evidence by the fact that the objection says, “Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter”. The only way this statement could be true or make sense, is if one assumes that libertarian choice is the only possible way of viewing choice. In particular, if God makes a person’s destiny certain, then the person had no choice.

Let’s explore the issue a bit more. In Calvinism, the person who goes to hell makes accountable decisions based upon an enslaved, corrupt will. The nature of choice-making is such that a person always chooses in accord with their highest motive or preference. This doesn’t mean that choices are simple, since there are often various motives in competition within the individual. It just means that at the end of the day, regardless of the competition of various motivations, the person ultimately chooses based upon whatever option is most preferred. As Jonathan Edwards stated, “to choose is to prefer.” One option seems best to the individual. That is why it was chosen. What this means is that choices aren’t made in a causal vacuum. Choices have causal reasons.

“A person chooses because . . .” is a reality that describes everyday life and the reality present in the heart of sinful men in Scripture. Jesus tells people who cannot bear to hear Him, “But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.” (John 8:45 ESV) Earlier Jesus tells them, “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.” (John 8:43 ESV) Here Jesus, the God-man, tells his opponents why they are having problems with His words. They cannot understand Him because they cannot bear to hear His word. The next verse points out their negative moral character, from a morally corrupt lineage (your will is to do your father's desires), which brings about their opposition toward the truth Jesus is presenting before them. Hence, precisely because Jesus tells them the truth, they do not believe. Note that their choice to reject is given a causal reason, their motivation and character is opposed to the truth.

Earlier in the book of John we see that another causal reason is given by Jesus for people’s choices. “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” (John 3:19-20 ESV) Once again, one can see that people love darkness rather than light; and people hate the light because it exposes their evil deeds (evil choices).

We can ask the obvious now. Why would a person choose to follow Jesus if he hates the exposure of the light, and he hates the truth while preferring a lie? The obvious answer is that a person will not choose to believe what they believe to be a lie and hate.

We see the causal impact of preferences upon choice-making evidenced practically every single day by those who oppose Calvinism. They absolutely cannot choose otherwise than what they believe to be true. Their persistence against Calvinism demonstrates the fact that the libertarian view of human choice-making is false.

But there is yet another reason in Scripture that argues against the idea of autonomy from God. By “autonomy from God” is meant that people view their choices as uncaused with reference to God. They are their own ultimate cause of the choice that they make. Scripture simply demonstrates that this assumption is catastrophically mistaken.[1] We are told that God “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3). We are told that “God gives to all men, life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:24-25). We are told that “in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). We are told “from him and through him and to him are all things.” (Rom. 11:36 ESV) We are told something rather similar in 1 Corinthians 8. “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1Cor. 8:6 ESV) The idea of human ultimacy, with reference to God, is simply mistaken. Autonomy from God does not exist in God’s universe. Consequently, the idea that choices can be ultimate or autonomous from God is simply mistaken. Hence, it is proven that the view of choice-making, where the choice could be otherwise and/or ultimate is simply mistaken.

In conclusion, choices do not take place in a causal vacuum. They are caused by a person’s highest preference. For sinful human beings, this means that their moral corruption precludes their choice to believe in Christ. They prefer their sin, unless God acts graciously upon them to given them a preference for Christ and His work on the cross. Those whom God has not chosen to save do make choices. They are responsible for their choices, and their choices are sinfully precluded from choosing Christ because of their corrupt nature and corrupt preferences. Therefore, we must conclude that the statement, “Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter,” is simply false and mistaken. The statement only evidences false assumptions about choice-making and thusly misreads Calvinism.

(cont in next post)

 

[justbyfaith]

The Interpretive Grid of False Assumptions

Introduction: When one learns from books dealing with interpretation, he finds a crucial concept. It is called distanciation. The concept is not difficult to comprehend; the main problem is actually practicing it. The concept refers to a modern reader’s ideas and assumptions, which are often read into various passages of scripture. The main idea is for the modern reader to “distance” himself from those assumptions in the interpretation of scripture. However, the most dangerous assumptions are those assumptions the interpreter does not realize he brings to the text.

A critical element of interpretation concerns “authorial intent.” This means that the original author intended a meaning during his time, culture, and audience. This means that the authorial intent of a biblical text (written before AD 100 and earlier) does not possess the assumptions that often modern interpreters impose upon it.

This small introduction of hermeneutics leads to a simple application of the same principle to discussions between Calvinists and those who employ the “arbitrary” objection. Those who utilize the objection often give away key assumptions that are being used to argue. Arguments are built upon certain foundations; but if those foundations are faulty, then it follows that the argument collapses with the faulty foundation.

As stated previously, the two key assumptions involve (1) the nature of choice-making, and (2) being overly focused upon human element in salvation.

Assumptions Regarding the Nature of Choice-making: I’ll be very candid and straightforward. I reject libertarian freedom and thusly the conception of choice-making that goes along with it. Often, this is informally called “free will.” Such a statement (free will) suffers from an extreme oversimplification of the real issue. Two critical elements will be addressed in light of their biblical contradiction. One assumption is that human choice-making is autonomous from God. The other is that human choice-making involves the ability to do otherwise.

The assumption that human choice-making is autonomous from God comes from the idea that if God causes a choice to be a certain way, then it isn’t really a choice. This is evidence by the fact that the objection says, “Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter”. The only way this statement could be true or make sense, is if one assumes that libertarian choice is the only possible way of viewing choice. In particular, if God makes a person’s destiny certain, then the person had no choice.

Let’s explore the issue a bit more. In Calvinism, the person who goes to hell makes accountable decisions based upon an enslaved, corrupt will. The nature of choice-making is such that a person always chooses in accord with their highest motive or preference. This doesn’t mean that choices are simple, since there are often various motives in competition within the individual. It just means that at the end of the day, regardless of the competition of various motivations, the person ultimately chooses based upon whatever option is most preferred. As Jonathan Edwards stated, “to choose is to prefer.” One option seems best to the individual. That is why it was chosen. What this means is that choices aren’t made in a causal vacuum. Choices have causal reasons.

“A person chooses because . . .” is a reality that describes everyday life and the reality present in the heart of sinful men in Scripture. Jesus tells people who cannot bear to hear Him, “But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.” (John 8:45 ESV) Earlier Jesus tells them, “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.” (John 8:43 ESV) Here Jesus, the God-man, tells his opponents why they are having problems with His words. They cannot understand Him because they cannot bear to hear His word. The next verse points out their negative moral character, from a morally corrupt lineage (your will is to do your father's desires), which brings about their opposition toward the truth Jesus is presenting before them. Hence, precisely because Jesus tells them the truth, they do not believe. Note that their choice to reject is given a causal reason, their motivation and character is opposed to the truth.

Earlier in the book of John we see that another causal reason is given by Jesus for people’s choices. “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” (John 3:19-20 ESV) Once again, one can see that people love darkness rather than light; and people hate the light because it exposes their evil deeds (evil choices).

We can ask the obvious now. Why would a person choose to follow Jesus if he hates the exposure of the light, and he hates the truth while preferring a lie? The obvious answer is that a person will not choose to believe what they believe to be a lie and hate.

We see the causal impact of preferences upon choice-making evidenced practically every single day by those who oppose Calvinism. They absolutely cannot choose otherwise than what they believe to be true. Their persistence against Calvinism demonstrates the fact that the libertarian view of human choice-making is false.

But there is yet another reason in Scripture that argues against the idea of autonomy from God. By “autonomy from God” is meant that people view their choices as uncaused with reference to God. They are their own ultimate cause of the choice that they make. Scripture simply demonstrates that this assumption is catastrophically mistaken.[1] We are told that God “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3). We are told that “God gives to all men, life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:24-25). We are told that “in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). We are told “from him and through him and to him are all things.” (Rom. 11:36 ESV) We are told something rather similar in 1 Corinthians 8. “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1Cor. 8:6 ESV) The idea of human ultimacy, with reference to God, is simply mistaken. Autonomy from God does not exist in God’s universe. Consequently, the idea that choices can be ultimate or autonomous from God is simply mistaken. Hence, it is proven that the view of choice-making, where the choice could be otherwise and/or ultimate is simply mistaken.

In conclusion, choices do not take place in a causal vacuum. They are caused by a person’s highest preference. For sinful human beings, this means that their moral corruption precludes their choice to believe in Christ. They prefer their sin, unless God acts graciously upon them to given them a preference for Christ and His work on the cross. Those whom God has not chosen to save do make choices. They are responsible for their choices, and their choices are sinfully precluded from choosing Christ because of their corrupt nature and corrupt preferences. Therefore, we must conclude that the statement, “Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter,” is simply false and mistaken. The statement only evidences false assumptions about choice-making and thusly misreads Calvinism.

(cont in next post)

Boring...

Try saying it in such a manner as to put the cookies on the bottom shelf...

 

[justbyfaith]

Double Predestination leans Hyper...

Supralapsarian versus Infralapsarianism...

great swelling words by which certain teachers are held in admiration because of advantage.

 

[justbyfaith]

Again, please do some self-reflection and truly consider your spiritual condition. I would not be loving or a caring Christian if I said nothing about these issue. You like to use the term "faith," but I'm unconvinced you practically realize what the term really means.

Assuming Calvinism is true and my spiritual condition is also that I am lost,

I consider that if Calvinism be true, there is nothing that I can do to save myself but I have to simply wait for God to regenerate me and thus instill within me faith for salvation; and if He does not do that, I am out of luck.

But really I'll let you in on a little secret:

Because I have repented and been baptized in Jesus' Name for the remission of sins, I am the recipient of that absolute, conditional promise in holy scripture, that I may have remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost;

And according to Luke 7:29-30, the fact that I have been baptized is a catalyst for the faith that is within me towards Jesus Christ, so that I am absolutely certain, based on certain promises of holy scripture, that I am redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and that your concern for my salvation is unfounded except in the love that you have for me (which I appreciate, brother).

I would also say that I see it to be a deep flaw in Calvinism that it teaches that regeneration precedes faith and that one might conclude therefore that faith is not necessary for regeneration; since a person is regenerated before having faith and therefore may be regenerated without faith.

 

[ReverendRV]

great swelling words by which certain teachers are held in admiration because of advantage.

Let me ask you a question; why do these words exist?

Because of Categories, right?

It's the same reason the words Calvinism and Arminianism exist; to categorize two similar but distinct Soteriologies. Likewise, Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism are similar but distinct; and exist to categorize Doctrine. Many people have thought about this stuff for a long time, and have given it names. You admit that Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism are different Categories. Isn't it true that Double Predestination is Hyper Calvinism, not Calvinism? I mean, at least according to dictionaries; it's Hyper?

What do you have against established Categories? There are Calvinists who are against Double Predestination, right? What about these people, are they closer to the truth? Shouldn't people be applauded for holding to Truth?

 

[His clay]

Boring...

Try saying it in such a manner as to put the cookies on the bottom shelf...

"Boring..." Which is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the post in question. Also, this comes across as something an apathetic teen would say.

"Try saying it in such a manner as to put the cookies on the bottom shelf..." Well, if you don't read with comprehension, then you will always be on the bottom shelf. Study, work, improve your knowledge of the subject matter. Avoidance of work is often called laziness. Further, I already did put the cookies at about a high-school to college level of comprehension. In seminary, you would see a lot more Greek and Hebrew (as well as in higher end college level). But the main problem is reading comprehension. Learn to listen.

 

[His clay]

As of yet, no direct response, on point, without the use of straw men, has been given to the four part opening post. This is extremely telling. This is especially telling, for I took a great deal of time between each installment of the opening post, so a great deal of time has been give for response.

Post #1 (part 1 of 4), post #58 (2 of 4), post #123 (part 3 of 4), and posts #160-161 (part 4 of 4) have completed a complete removal of the objection of "arbitrary" from unconditional election. That objection is simply false and misguided in many ways.

 

[Mr GLee]

It should be clear that if God has unconditionally elected some to salvation, that He has arbitrarily chosen out others unto condemnation by default.

Two kinds of mercy. Mercy seasoned with grace salvation and mercy that once a person takes their last breath the end of sufferings in these bodies of death

In that way God is subject to his own law . If he has no mercy he cannot be a merciful God

James 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

 

[justbyfaith]

As of yet, no direct response, on point, without the use of straw men, has been given to the four part opening post. This is extremely telling. This is especially telling, for I took a great deal of time between each installment of the opening post, so a great deal of time has been give for response.

Post #1 (part 1 of 4), post #58 (2 of 4), post #123 (part 3 of 4), and posts #160-161 (part 4 of 4) have completed a complete removal of the objection of "arbitrary" from unconditional election. That objection is simply false and misguided in many ways.

'Unconditional Election" = "arbitrary choice".

bottom line.