We Are Saved By Works

TheSeabass said:

Again, who has argued that God requires perfect, flawless, sinlessness for one to be saved?

Click to expand...

Ummm, Scripture...

"Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing." —Hab. 1:13
"You are not a God who is pleased with wickedness; with you, evil people are not welcome. The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong." —Ps. 5:4

Notice it doesn't say, "You cannot tolerate the 'worst' wrongdoing," or, "You hate only those who are 'mostly' evil."

Good luck with being justified by your works!

DeaconDean said:

Another thought just comes to mind.

Lets say your in church, a young individual comes up and repents, asks God to save him believing on Jesus Christ.

After church is over, the young person is driving home when suddenly they are in a wreck. The young person dies.

Is he saved and going to heaven?

Or is he not going to heaven because "obedience definitely plays a role in his salvation" and he hasn't had time to provide obedience?

Click to expand...

One is required to believe repent confess and be baptized to be saved, John 8:24; Luke 13:3, Mt 10:32-33 Mark 16;16. And one is not saved until he does all that God has required of him and no 'hard circumstance' changes God's requirements. Salvation is today (Hebrews 3:13) for no one has the promise of tomorrow.

DeaconDean said:

It is sad that some people have no assurance of their salvation unless it is reflecked in something they do.

"Finally, people often lack assurance because they have erroneously been taught that they should look to themselves and their works as the primary proof of their salvation. This is a major issue today. Robert Lightner writes:

Those who think the sinner must make Christ Lord of his life, or at least promise to do so, before he can be saved make assurance rest on the evidence of a surrendered walk. MacArthur cites this as the only way a believer can be assured of his or her salvation. ‘Genuine assurance comes from seeing the Holy Spirit’s transforming work in one’s life, not from clinging to the memory of some experience."

Source

Click to expand...

The DOING (Mt 7:21) that is required to be saved is doing the will of the Father. What is sad is people who think they do not have to do the Father's will to be saved but be saved in thier rebellioin, disobedience to the Father's will.

DeaconDean said:

The idea that "obedience definitely plays a role in his salvation" makes a mockery of Jesus' own words:

"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." -Jn. 3:36 (KJV)

Click to expand...

1) believing is obedience...John 3:36 ASV "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."

Note how "believeth" is contrasted from "obeyeth not" hence believing is obedience.



2) Jesus never said one must believe only to be saved but also required obedience repentance confession and baptism.

DeaconDean said:

And in another place, we read:

"Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?,?" -Mt. 19:16 (KJV)

Jesus replied:

"Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." -Mt. 19:18-19 (KJV)

And the persons reply:

"All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?" (vs. 20)

Apparently, this person had "obeyed".

But Jesus rebuked him saying:

"If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." (vs. 21)

Why did this person fail so miserably?

He did not have the right kind of faith!

He had obedience, but he had faith in his riches and not in God. This is evident by:

"But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (vs. 22-24)

Click to expand...

1) The man asked "what shall I "DO" Note that Jesus did NOT say "DO NOTHING but have faith only and thou shalt be saved".

2) Jesus asked the man about his OBEDIENCE to the law " but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." and Jesus names commands to be kept in vs 18,19. So obedience to the law was necessary for the man to be saved yet Jesus knew the hearts of men and Jesus knew this man would allow his wealth keep him from being "perfect". The man would have to OBEY Jesus in selling his possessions and obey Jesus when Jesus said "come and follow me".

So obedience is all over the context and that obedience was necessary for the man to be saved: obedience to the law.
obedience to Christ to sell his possessions.
obedience to come and follow Christ.

DEACONDEAN said:

There is another place where we read:

"So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do." -Lk. 17:10 (KJV)

As I said previously, the ultimate act of righteousness and obedience was done by the Lord Jesus Christ. Anything less, don't cut it.

Even if you were to do all that is asked of you, what good is it? According to the scripture above, nothing. You have only done what you were expected to do. Even your "obedience" would be counted as "unprofitable". And those are not my words, as provided, they are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ!

But I also don't want to be misunderstood.

Click to expand...

Jesus said "when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you"???

So obedience is required to be a servant of Christ. The problem is no one will be perfectly flawless in doing all things

DeaconDean said:

Faith, also produces.

As I wrote also in my paper:

"Professing to be a Christian when one is not may secure a standing before men, it may improve his moral and social prestige, he may be able to join a church, and help promote his commercial interests, but can it save him? What is the use to fein to be charitable when works of charity are withheld? What good does it bring to calling oneself a Christian when empty stomachs are met with good words? How can a person claim to be a Christian and clothe the naked by good wishes? What does it profit to profess to be a believer when there is no true piety?

Neither can a person be saved by a mere empty hollow confession of the Gospel. To say that I am a Christian and am unable to appeal to any good works and spiritual fruits as proof of it, profits neither the person nor those who listen. Without the essential element of “faith worketh by love” (cf. Gal. 5:6), no matter how much reading or studying, no amount of head knowledge, no amount of preaching and teaching one can do, they are no more than “sounding brass and tinkling symbol.” Without love, those professors will be the ones pleading their works but will be told: “Depart, I never knew ye.”

Ibid

I thank God that my salvation is not dependent on my obedience.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Click to expand...

WHAT??? So if salvation is not dependent upon one's obedience then is it dependent upon one's rebellion, disobedience, unrighteousness? Where does the bible teach God will save the disobedient?

TaylorSexton said:

Yes, by virtue of Christ, the "reality" of the "shadows" which were the Old Testament sacrificial system (Heb. 10:1-4).

Click to expand...

Faithful obedience to that system is why they could receive forgiveness.

TaylorSexton said:

Ummm, Scripture...

"Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing." —Hab. 1:13
"You are not a God who is pleased with wickedness; with you, evil people are not welcome. The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong." —Ps. 5:4

Notice it doesn't say, "You cannot tolerate the 'worst' wrongdoing," or, "You hate only those who are 'mostly' evil."

Good luck with being justified by your works!

Click to expand...

But where does the bible say God requires sinless, flawless perfection for man to be saved?

He does not.

What God does require of man is faithful obedience. Faithful obedience is what puts one and keeps one "in Christ" thereby clothed in Christ's perfect righteousness/obedience. Hence God sees Christians that are in Christ as perfect though Christ's perfection.

TheSeabass said:

Faithful obedience to that system is why they could receive forgiveness.

Click to expand...

Yes, because to be obedient to that system is to use it rightly; when used rightly, it pointed forward to faith in the Messiah.

TheSeabass said:

He does not.

Click to expand...

If you ignore passages like the two I quoted, sure.

Obviously someone has never read the first promise or preaching of the Gospel of Christ found in Gen. 3:15 or the clear statement of perfection required by God to be justified found in Ps. 24:3-4. If they had they would not be arguing for a works righteousness.

TheSeabass said:

Man's obedience definitely plays a role in his salvation:
Hebrews 5:9
2 Thessalonians 1:8


1 Jn 3:10 whosoever continues to not do righteousness continues to not be of God. No verse teaches man is saved by doing nothing, then does something after he is saved.

Click to expand...

Proof texting is not a legitimate manner by which to interpret Scripture. You take the passages completely out of their context in order to prove your point. That is neither dealing honestly with men or the Scriptures. You obviously make verses say what you want them to say without regard for context or the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole.

There is no point in debating with you because you are not willing to be honest with the Scriptures. All heresy is founded in such practice.

TheSeabass said:

One is required to believe repent confess and be baptized to be saved, John 8:24; Luke 13:3, Mt 10:32-33 Mark 16;16. And one is not saved until he does all that God has required of him and no 'hard circumstance' changes God's requirements. Salvation is today (Hebrews 3:13) for no one has the promise of tomorrow.



The DOING (Mt 7:21) that is required to be saved is doing the will of the Father. What is sad is people who think they do not have to do the Father's will to be saved but be saved in thier rebellioin, disobedience to the Father's will.




1) believing is obedience...John 3:36 ASV "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."

Note how "believeth" is contrasted from "obeyeth not" hence believing is obedience.



2) Jesus never said one must believe only to be saved but also required obedience repentance confession and baptism.




1) The man asked "what shall I "DO" Note that Jesus did NOT say "DO NOTHING but have faith only and thou shalt be saved".

2) Jesus asked the man about his OBEDIENCE to the law " but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." and Jesus names commands to be kept in vs 18,19. So obedience to the law was necessary for the man to be saved yet Jesus knew the hearts of men and Jesus knew this man would allow his wealth keep him from being "perfect". The man would have to OBEY Jesus in selling his possessions and obey Jesus when Jesus said "come and follow me".

So obedience is all over the context and that obedience was necessary for the man to be saved: obedience to the law.
obedience to Christ to sell his possessions.
obedience to come and follow Christ.




Jesus said "when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you"???

So obedience is required to be a servant of Christ. The problem is no one will be perfectly flawless in doing all things




WHAT??? So if salvation is not dependent upon one's obedience then is it dependent upon one's rebellion, disobedience, unrighteousness? Where does the bible teach God will save the disobedient?

Click to expand...

I want to answer your last statement because the rest of your post is just the same nonsense as the last statement.

The one thing that qualifies someone to be saved is being a sinner. If you are obedient then you don't need to be saved.

twin1954 said:

Proof texting is not a legitimate manner by which to interpret Scripture. You take the passages completely out of their context in order to prove your point. That is neither dealing honestly with men or the Scriptures. You obviously make verses say what you want them to say without regard for context or the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole.

There is no point in debating with you because you are not willing to be honest with the Scriptures. All heresy is founded in such practice.

Click to expand...

Amen!

I have sufficiently given correct answers, and shown where his personal interpretation of scriptures are wrong.

Lets follow their example and take text out of context.

If any person who ever called themselves a "Christian" and has committed one sin, one single solitary sin, then they are not a Christian, were never saved to begin with.

"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him...He that committeth sin is of the devil;..Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." -1 Jn. 3:6, 8, 9 (KJV)

Peter, even though he one of the original 12 disciples, sinned in disobeying God (cf. Acts 9), then, was also guilty of being a hypocrite. (cf. Gal. 2)

If we pull scripture out of context to mean what we want it to mean, ergo: Peter sinned, and according to the scriptures above, he was never saved, was of the devil, does not know God, because he sinned, and those born again cannot sin.

Lets go another step in that direction.

The Apostle Paul was guilty of nearly the same things. Paul knowing the law, rebuked a high priest which is a sin in the Torah. (cf. Acts 23) Disobeyed God when he was told not to go to Jerusalem, not one, but twice. (cf. Acts 21)

Following the example set before us, and the example given by another member, using 1 Jn. 3:6, 8, 9, as our proof texts, ergo: Paul was not saved, did not know God, was of the devil, he sinned and because he sinned it proved he wasn't saved because those saved cannot sin.



I'm done with this member. It does no good to proceed any further. A person is so intent on proving Reformed theology wrong, that they would resort to tactics like you have shown shows not only are they willing to have an honest conversation/debate, that they will totally ignore everything said to the point of proving Reformed theology wrong.

This happened so many years ago in the Soteriology section. It got to the point that the Anti-Calvinist crowd was so bad...I just hardly go there any more.

This thread has run its course.

All we are doing now is .

I'm done, and outta here.

I guess another person just made my ignore list.

God Bless

Till all are one.

twin1954 said:

I want to answer your last statement because the rest of your post is just the same nonsense as the last statement.

The one thing that qualifies someone to be saved is being a sinner. If you are obedient then you don't need to be saved.

Click to expand...

Men are disobedient to God until they are obedient. Therefore disobedient men must first be obedient to God's will in believing repenting confession and being baptized then they can be saved. Then as long as he remains faithful unto death Rev 2:10 he will be saved.

Nowhere EVER does the bible teach that disobedient, rebellious, unrighteous men are saved while remaining is such a state.

It does NOT work where God arbitrarily unconditionally picks a few disobedient rebellious men to save THEN those men obey.

No verse in Christ's NT puts salvation BEFORE obedience.

1 John 3:10 the present tense of the verbs of this verse has it saying: whosoever continues to not do righteousness continues to not be of God. Peter says those that work righteousness are accepted with God Acts 10:35. So man must FIRST work God's righteousness THEN man will be accepted with God. Again, no verse says God arbitrarily picks disobedient, rebellious men, save them in their disobedient rebellious state, then those men obey God's righteousness.

twin1954 said:

Proof texting is not a legitimate manner by which to interpret Scripture. You take the passages completely out of their context in order to prove your point. That is neither dealing honestly with men or the Scriptures. You obviously make verses say what you want them to say without regard for context or the teaching of the Scriptures as a whole.

There is no point in debating with you because you are not willing to be honest with the Scriptures. All heresy is founded in such practice.

Click to expand...

You did not prove I took any verse out of context but just made the claim I did and then made a personal attack against me. If you are against "proof texting" then you must be for the idea that people can make up any thing they want to and add it to the bible with no proof to back up that idea.

God requires that man FIRST believes, repents confesses and submits to being baptized THEN one is saved.

So one FIRST obeys by dong these things THEN he is saved.

Not doing these things is disobedience rebellion to the will of God.

So can you show me from Christ's NT gospel an example of God FIRST saving one who was disobedient, that is, God FIRST saved one who has NOT believed repented confessed and been baptized, THEN after that person was saved he believed repented confessed and was baptized?

TheSeabass said:

It does NOT work where God arbitrarily unconditionally picks a few...

Click to expand...

When are you going to stop caricaturing Reformed theology? How many times do we have to tell you that you are misrepresenting us? Are you interested at all in fairness?

TaylorSexton said:

When are you going to stop caricaturing Reformed theology? How many times do we have to tell you that you are misrepresenting us? Are you interested at all in fairness?

Click to expand...

Some people are so caught up in trying to prove Calvinism to be so wrong, that it blinds them.

We had several members like that in both the Baptist area, and Soteriology.

One would get frustrated and leave, two would take their place.

It got so bad at one time, that quite a few of us from Soteriology left. It was always the same thing, over-and-over.

When it gets to that point again, (taking scripture out of context, not listening, misrepresenting) its time to do what scriptures says about people and groups like that.

"And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." -Lk. 9:5 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

All o

TheSeabass said:

You did not prove I took any verse out of context but just made the claim I did and then made a personal attack against me. If you are against "proof texting" then you must be for the idea that people can make up any thing they want to and add it to the bible with no proof to back up that idea.

God requires that man FIRST believes, repents confesses and submits to being baptized THEN one is saved.

So one FIRST obeys by dong these things THEN he is saved.

Not doing these things is disobedience rebellion to the will of God.

So can you show me from Christ's NT gospel an example of God FIRST saving one who was disobedient, that is, God FIRST saved one who has NOT believed repented confessed and been baptized, THEN after that person was saved he believed repented confessed and was baptized?

Click to expand...

ne need do is look at the passages you use as proof texts in their context and it is clear what you are doing. The passage are themselves proof enough that you are ripping them out of their context as though they stand alone.

Not that you will accept it but the Lord said very clearly that you must be born again before you can even see the kingdom of God. Moreover He told Nicodemus that it is the Spitit that gives life to whom He will. I am sure you know the verses.

Again John clearly tells us in 1John 5:1 that those who believe have been, past tense, born of God. You must be born from above in order to have life and believe.

twin1954 said:

All o

ne need do is look at the passages you use as proof texts in their context and it is clear what you are doing. The passage are themselves proof enough that you are ripping them out of their context as though they stand alone.

Not that you will accept it but the Lord said very clearly that you must be born again before you can even see the kingdom of God. Moreover He told Nicodemus that it is the Spitit that gives life to whom He will. I am sure you know the verses.

Again John clearly tells us in 1John 5:1 that those who believe have been, past tense, born of God. You must be born from above in order to have life and believe.

Click to expand...

We see that it is actually you that is taking verses/words out of context:

1 John 5:1 "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."

Did Jesus say "whosoever believeth only...is born of God"? No, yet people take the word 'believeth"out of context and ADD the word "only' to it changing the meaning of the verse. It causes a contradiction among the words spoken by Christ when Christ equally required repentance confession and baptism to being saved. So does John get rid of the necessity of repentance confession and baptism thereby contradicting Christ?

TaylorSexton said:

When are you going to stop caricaturing Reformed theology? How many times do we have to tell you that you are misrepresenting us? Are you interested at all in fairness?

Click to expand...

Not misrepresenting, maybe you are unable to defend it.

Point out what I supposedly misrepresented.

You were given MULTIPLE chances to give a basis as to why God has mercy upon some and not others, but you never gave a basis but skated around it time and again. Your argument fails you when you say God's choices were not random but then you cannot give a basis.

Reformed theology may not have a basis but the bible does give a basis.

TheSeabass said:

Not misrepresenting, maybe you are unable to defend it.

Click to expand...

Why would I endeavor to defend what I do not believe? That is the whole problem of misrepresentation. It is a convenient weapon for you, because you know that if you tear down a position which we do not affirm, you make it seem as if you are tearing our theology down, when in reality you are only tearing down a straw man. Furthermore, when we do not defend what you present (not because we can't, but because we won't defend a position contrary to our actual belief), you have more ammo.

Of course, all of this is merely a smokescreen for the ignorant and unlearned, which is the majority of the Christian population. Legitimate debate does not involve these tactics.

TheSeabass said:

Point out what I supposedly misrepresented.

Click to expand...

I quoted for you one out of many statements where you misrepresent our view:

"It does NOT work where God arbitrarily unconditionally picks a few..."

I would challenge you to find even one statement in Reformed writings that makes such a claim. If you cannot, then you have sinned against us by misrepresenting (i.e., bearing false witness against) us. Arbitrary and unconditionally are entirely exclusive matters. Reformed theology teaches that election is unconditional, but it at no point teaches that it is arbitrary.

TheSeabass said:

You were given MULTIPLE chances to give a basis as to why God has mercy upon some and not others, but you never gave a basis but skated around it time and again. Your argument fails you when you say God's choices were not random but then you cannot give a basis.

Reformed theology may not have a basis but the bible does give a basis.

Click to expand...

Reformed theology only speaks where and as far as Scripture speaks, no more and no further. Scripture declares plainly that election is according to the pleasure and will of God (Eph. 1; Rom. 9). Again, if this is not a good enough reason for you (or not a reason at all), then your complaint is with God, not with us. Take it up with him.

TaylorSexton said:

Why would I endeavor to defend what I do not believe? That is the whole problem of misrepresentation. It is a convenient weapon for you, because you know that if you tear down a position which we do not affirm, you make it seem as if you are tearing our theology down, when in reality you are only tearing down a straw man. Furthermore, when we do not defend what you present (not because we can't, but because we won't defend a position contrary to our actual belief), you have more ammo.

Of course, all of this is merely a smokescreen for the ignorant and unlearned, which is the majority of the Christian population. Legitimate debate does not involve these tactics.



I quoted for you one out of many statements where you misrepresent our view:

"It does NOT work where God arbitrarily unconditionally picks a few..."

I would challenge you to find even one statement in Reformed writings that makes such a claim. If you cannot, then you have sinned against us by misrepresenting (i.e., bearing false witness against) us. Arbitrary and unconditionally are entirely exclusive matters. Reformed theology teaches that election is unconditional, but it at no point teaches that it is arbitrary.



Reformed theology only speaks where and as far as Scripture speaks, no more and no further. Scripture declares plainly that election is according to the pleasure and will of God (Eph. 1; Rom. 9). Again, if this is not a good enough reason for you (or not a reason at all), then your complaint is with God, not with us. Take it up with him.

Click to expand...

Logically, if there is no basis then God must be choosing at random. Reformed theology--yourself have not given a basis. No basis = randomness.

You can keep saying that God chooses according to His pleasure but that continues to fail to give a basis. Does God's pleasure have a basis or does it operate on pure randomness?

Above you posted "Reformed theology teaches that election is unconditional, but it at no point teaches that it is arbitrary."

Unconditional means not having any basis, unqualified, unlimited. If a person does not have to meet any condition/qualifications then what is the difference between one person and the next that God would chose one over the other?

TheSeabass said:

Logically, if there is no basis then God must be choosing at random. Reformed theology--yourself have not given a basis. No basis = randomness.

Click to expand...

No, as I will argue below, even randomness has a basis, which is the pure whim (not purpose) of the one choosing. When a will is involved, there is no such thing as pure randomness, because a will is involved, and wills choose, and choice always has an impetus.

You are illegitimately equating unconditionality with baselessness which, as I will argue below, has no basis (no pun intended) in word or in logic.

TheSeabass said:

You can keep saying that God chooses according to His pleasure but that continues to fail to give a basis. Does God's pleasure have a basis or does it operate on pure randomness?

Click to expand...

Again, if Scriptures teaching that God's purpose, pleasure, and will are not sufficient for you, then please take it up with God, not me. Your quarrel is with him. Good luck.

TheSeabass said:

Unconditional means not having any basis, unqualified, unlimited. If a person does not have to meet any condition/qualifications then what is the difference between one person and the next that God would chose one over the other?

Click to expand...

You are badly confused on the definitions of several words. In saying that election is unconditional, this means that it is unconditional on our end. Of course election is conditional ultimately, because without the condition of God's electing, then the result of person's election is nonexistent. However, when referring to the human end, then salvation is absolutely unconditional, otherwise it is by works.

In terms of "arbitrary," even arbitrariness has a basis, and that basis is a person's whim or decision to choose at random. That is it's basis. For some reason you have equated "unconditional" and "baseless," and even equated "arbitrary" with "baseless," each without any lexical or philosophical warrant whatsoever.

I really wish you would read my posts and word choices (which are quite deliberate) more carefully, and at least try to be fair and thoughtful when responding. Having to constantly correct you and point out ways in which you refuse to deal with the terminology correctly is tiresome and absolutely inhibits profitable discussion.

TaylorSexton said:

No, as I will argue below, even randomness has a basis, which is the pure whim (not purpose) of the one choosing. When a will is involved, there is no such thing as pure randomness, because a will is involved, and wills choose, and choice always has an impetus.

You are illegitimately equating unconditionality with baselessness which, as I will argue below, has no basis (no pun intended) in word or in logic.

Click to expand...

Randomness would not have a basis.

TaylorSexton said:

Again, if Scriptures teaching that God's purpose, pleasure, and will are not sufficient for you, then please take it up with God, not me. Your quarrel is with him. Good luck.

Click to expand...

The bible says God basis His choices upon obedience to His will, shows mercy unto them that obey Him.

Why is it Reformed Theology does not have answer for this when the bible does?

TaylorSexton said:

You are badly confused on the definitions of several words. In saying that election is unconditional, this means that it is unconditional on our end. Of course election is conditional ultimately, because without the condition of God's electing, then the result of person's election is nonexistent. However, when referring to the human end, then salvation is absolutely unconditional, otherwise it is by works.

In terms of "arbitrary," even arbitrariness has a basis, and that basis is a person's whim or decision to choose at random. That is it's basis. For some reason you have equated "unconditional" and "baseless," and even equated "arbitrary" with "baseless," each without any lexical or philosophical warrant whatsoever.

I really wish you would read my posts and word choices (which are quite deliberate) more carefully, and at least try to be fair and thoughtful when responding. Having to constantly correct you and point out ways in which you refuse to deal with the terminology correctly is tiresome and absolutely inhibits profitable discussion.

Click to expand...

If a basis is used to make the choice then it is not arbitrary.

So God has a "whim" to choose at random?
And a "whim" is a basis?
This is your argument. Really?

It's a mutually exclusive proposition:

Either a light is off or it is on, cannot be both at the same time
Either a line is straight or crooked, cannot be both at the same time,
Either a choice is made randomly or made on a basis, cannot be both at the same time.