Predestination. You Asked For It Here It Is.

[urroner]

"God's ultimate purpose is to display the greatness of his glory."

If he is omnipotent, what is the purpose in displaying his greatness?

Who is he trying to impress?

Why did God create anything? It seems to me that many Christians think that He did so in order to show off how powerful He was. Isn't that call pride? Some even say He created us so we could love Him. Isn't that called arrogance?

[Stone holm]

Everything is created ex nihlo, except God.

"created being" -- everybody except God.

This is terminology used by historic Christians. LDS are accused of believing that Christ was a created being, for example, since he is not "one substance" with the Father.

I see you are not discussing the Mormon position, because we do not believe that we were created beingins anymore than we believe the God or Christ were created beings.

[Rivers]

The biggest problem with predestination is the fact that it presents a God who is a complete monster. The question that we should be asking is this: Is it reasonable to believe that God is a benevolent being? Or is that something people believe because they want to believe it? For someone who is a biblical inerrantist, it doesn't matter what one wants to believe. All that matters is what is written in black and white in the scriptures. You believe something because it is true. Not what you want to be true. So what do we trust? Do we rely on our feelings and expectations of what God should be like or do we trust only what is written in the established scriptural cannon?

Edited August 11, 2013 by Rivers

[Calm]

The biggest problem with predestination is the fact that it presents a God who is a complete monster.

I think that really depends on how one defines "predestination". I think this thread is good evidence that not everyone defines it the same way.

And while my understanding of a particular Christian interpretation leads me to see that interpretation of God as a horrible being, I also know that many of those who hold these beliefs see God completely differently so at this time I suspend judgment of their actual beliefs on the basis that it just might be more my assumptions about my incomplete understanding of that interpretation than the interpretation itself that lends those attributes to God that I find so distasteful. So I wouldn't call it "a fact" at this point. Obviously others are more certain about than I am.

[danielwoods]

Of course, we don't know everything about how God thinks, but why would he do such a thing. He clearly knows what decisions the created being will make, so why not create another Gabriel rather than a Satan? What purpose does that serve.]

If the purpose of creation is praise and glory, clearly the one will serve and praise him, and the other will not.

Or is this just another of those unknowable mysteries, like the "one substance", three in one, doctrine.

My theory as to why did God go through all this trouble, I think the greatest reason is to share his love/life/relationship with others.

Then why create Satan if he knew beforehand that he'd be evil?

It's an interesting question. I think the answer lies in an attribute of his nature, that being his justice. He doesn't condemn us (or not create us) based on his foreknowledge of what we will do, or be.

There's another thing that I often think about. That is that even people who don't believe or are even hostile toward God, praise him by simply living as they were designed to. For example, people often sing and have fun enjoying life, just as God designed them to do, even though they wouldn't acknowledge that they are praising God, but yet they are doing exactly what God designed them to do, within limits of course, and to me this gives God glory.

[djholmess]

"God's ultimate purpose is to display the greatness of his glory."

If he is omnipotent, what is the purpose in displaying his greatness?

Who is he trying to impress?

I wouldn't say he is trying to impress anyone. Yet isn't it true that when you find something you really love, a new book, a film, a new scenic route near where you live or even a new girlfriend or wife isn't it just natural for you to want to share/tell people about these things you love? C.S Lewis has an interesting quote about praise. He said that before becoming a Christian the biggest hurdle for him was that he couldn't understand why God demanded that he be praised. Then he realised.

“But the most obvious fact about praise -- whether of God or anything -- strangely escaped me. I thought of it in terms of compliment, approval, or the giving of honor. I had never noticed that all enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise. ... The world rings with praise -- lovers praising their mistresses, readers their favorite poet, walkers praising the countryside, players praising their favorite game. ...I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation.”

In a sense the same is true of God. His chief delight, the source of all his joy and happiness is himself. The greatest being in existamce, the most beautiful, loving gracious and just is God and being a trinity this means this is a personal joy. A joy shared between the Father, Son ans spirit as theynbehold each other and delight in and love each other. Theologians talk about the intra-trinitarian joy.

Given that then God's purpose is clear, he simply delights so much in himself that this delight overflows into creation and redemption. It is natural for God to want to create beings who can perceive his beauties and to whom he can share his delight in himself with. As Jonathan Edwards (18th centuray theologian) says about this..it is no deficiency in a fountain that it is prone to overflow. To apply C.S Lewis's quote to God you could almost say that in a sense Gods excitement in Himself spontaneously overflowed into praising his own greatness in creation and redemption.

[MrG]

Thank you for your response. Considering the volume of responces since then, I don’t necessarily expect a response. But if you do make a responce, I wouldn’y complain .

On cleary taught in the bible being your reasons for how you came to this belief. Thanks. I would be lying if I said I found the answer satisfactory. After all the book is read by JW’s, Evs, catholics, and Calvinists, etc alike. They all view the same book differently…and for some, very differently. And having heard a number of people born-again speak about how the bible was the reason for their current beliefs, I also find that the fuller story has more nuances than they first suggest. Not that I think they’re lying, I just don’t believe the claim that the bible “alone” brought their change. No one reads the bible in a vacuum. Their history, the people they associate with, other readings, etc effect how they come to view the same text.

So, more frankly, I don’t see it in the Bible. I feel that the virtues attributed by God must somehow have balance. That He is all merciful, all just, loving, patient, temperate, no respecter of persons, etc. And in all that, He is perfect. To me, a God who leaves most of His creations fallen and lost is not love. It sounds more like a human idea of Love: partial and incomplete (it’s missing at least 5/6 of humanity). I cannot move around that.

To me, it not just about not liking the doctrine. It’s about the command to “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thes 5:21). It doesn’t fit. It solves one thing about God by placing multiple other things about God on shakey grounds. Instead of expanding my knowledge, trust, and understanding of the Lord, I feel that it leaves things shut, by making terms and mercy, love, compassion, judgment, etc based solely on a seemingly unpredictable will. The virtues, thus become a mystery at best and inert at worse.

Also, if all mankind are there to glorify God, how is the damned in anyway a means to glorify Him? I know that we technically, are all damned in a sense (all of us are fallen). But considering God’s knowledge/predestination, this seems superfluous. How is it glorious to have most of his creatures condemned to hell with Satan? I’ve gotten similar responses about this prior….and it still makes no sense. No one has explained how or why this adds to God’s glory.

With luv,

BD

Thanks for being patient with me on this.

Regarding your first paragraph I toatally understand this. I was not expecting my statement that I see it in the Bible to be in anyway persuasive, but rather just laying the foundation of why I have this view. Some people (non LDS) I find are against this view simply because they dont like it. I hear phrases like "I couldnt worship a God like that". For me you worship God like He is, as He is God and worthy of all worship regardless of whether He does things how you like, I was simply just showing that (at least in my mind) I have come to this conclusion not just because I like it etc.

Regarding your 2nd paragraph I appreciate and respect that you have come to this conclusion in a similar way.

So how does this glorify God, my favourite preacher explains it excellently here. (not an anti-Mormon site in anyway)

Romans 9:22-23 is the verses he focuses on and I will give a quick summary, here are the verses.

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.

This is heavy stuff but if you read this for what it says it says God endured the vessels or wrath prepared for destruction in order that He might make known His glory on the vessels of mercy prepared before hand for glory. Therefore God is glorified through those that are not saved, by those that are being able to see just how much they have been saved from.

I know how much you guys are gonna love this, but this appears to be what is said.

Edited August 11, 2013 by MrG

[LordUther]

My theory as to why did God go through all this trouble, I think the greatest reason is to share his love/life/relationship with others.

Then why create Satan if he knew beforehand that he'd be evil?

It's an interesting question. I think the answer lies in an attribute of his nature, that being his justice. He doesn't condemn us (or not create us) based on his foreknowledge of what we will do, or be.

There's another thing that I often think about. That is that even people who don't believe or are even hostile toward God, praise him by simply living as they were designed to. For example, people often sing and have fun enjoying life, just as God designed them to do, even though they wouldn't acknowledge that they are praising God, but yet they are doing exactly what God designed them to do, within limits of course, and to me this gives God glory.

So would you say Hitler or Stalin were praising God by being who they were designed to be?

[Rivers]

Thanks for being patient with me on this.

Some people (non LDS) I find are against this view simply because they dont like it. I hear phrases like "I couldnt worship a God like that". For me you worship God like He is, as He is God and worthy of all worship regardless of whether He does things how you like, I was simply just showing that (at least in my mind) I have come to this conclusion not just because I like it etc.

I would argue that it is reasonable to believe that God is a benevolent being. It makes sense to me that God would have the same kind of benevolence that is instilled in his most advanced creation which is humanity. Probably even more so. How could God's creations have a greater capacity of understanding good than the Creator? I can't worship a calvinistic God because I think it is unlikely that such a being exists.

[Rivers]

I think that really depends on how one defines "predestination". I think this thread is good evidence that not everyone defines it the same way.

And while my understanding of a particular Christian interpretation leads me to see that interpretation of God as a horrible being, I also know that many of those who hold these beliefs see God completely differently so at this time I suspend judgment of their actual beliefs on the basis that it just might be more my assumptions about my incomplete understanding of that interpretation than the interpretation itself that lends those attributes to God that I find so distasteful. So I wouldn't call it "a fact" at this point. Obviously others are more certain about than I am.

Good points.

[MrG]

I would argue that it is reasonable to believe that God is a benevolent being. It makes sense to me that God would have the same kind of benevolence that is instilled in his most advanced creation which is humanity. Probably even more so. How could God's creations have a greater capacity of understanding good than the Creator? I can't worship a calvinistic God because I think it is unlikely that such a being exists.

Understood, I assume you are LDS? For me this is kind of an absolutely impossible thing for Mormons to ever come close to accepting and I understand that.

In Mormonism God the Father is an exalted man who has gone through an eternal plan of salvation that now His children are going through. God is subject in the plan of salvation that He puts His children through the same as His heavenly Father and so on. For this God to decide that He is only going to save some by His choice and not some by His choice would break the laws that govern Him, and would also defy His purpose stated here:

Moses 1:39 For behold, this is my ^awork and my ^bglory—to bring to pass the ^cimmortality and ^deternal ^elife of man.

I am not trying to be disrespectful in my portrayal of the LDS view there and feel free to correct me (of course).

The Biblical God is the God most high (Psalm 57:2) and He is free to do WHATEVER he pleases. (psalm 115:3) He created us for His glory (Isaiah 43:7) therefore He can do absolutely whatever He wants with us, therefore what the Bible says about what He does in Romans 9 and other places is not a problem.

In Mormonism this is simply not possible which I think is why pretty much every Bible verse I am quoting is being ignored in this discussion and I am getting a lot of "I think" type comments. Which I understand as accepting this doctrine is an impossible scenario.

[Rivers]

Understood, I assume you are LDS? For me this is kind of an absolutely impossible thing for Mormons to ever come close to accepting and I understand that.

In Mormonism God the Father is an exalted man who has gone through an eternal plan of salvation that now His children are going through. God is subject in the plan of salvation that He puts His children through the same as His heavenly Father and so on. For this God to decide that He is only going to save some by His choice and not some by His choice would break the laws that govern Him, and would also defy His purpose stated here:

Moses 1:39 For behold, this is my ^awork and my ^bglory—to bring to pass the ^cimmortality and ^deternal ^elife of man.

I am not trying to be disrespectful in my portrayal of the LDS view there and feel free to correct me (of course).

The Biblical God is the God most high (Psalm 57:2) and He is free to do WHATEVER he pleases. (psalm 115:3) He created us for His glory (Isaiah 43:7) therefore He can do absolutely whatever He wants with us, therefore what the Bible says about what He does in Romans 9 and other places is not a problem.

In Mormonism this is simply not possible which I think is why pretty much every Bible verse I am quoting is being ignored in this discussion and I am getting a lot of "I think" type comments. Which I understand as accepting this doctrine is an impossible scenario.

Another difference in Mormonism is that we are not biblical inerrantists. Our view of scripture is a bit different which affects how we understand the verses in Romans 9.

It is true that there are laws that the God in Mormonism must follow but the important thing is that God's actions are motivated by love. Mormons put a lot of emphasis on God's character as being a loving Father in Heaven. We understand his actions to be similar to the manner in which parents here on earth behave.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Rivers

[MrG]

Another difference in Mormonism is that we are not biblical inerrantists.

yep

[Calm]

The Biblical God is the God most high (Psalm 57:2) and He is free to do WHATEVER he pleases. (psalm 115:3) He created us for His glory (Isaiah 43:7) therefore He can do absolutely whatever He wants with us,

So he can tell you he's going to give you a great life and then turn around and give you a horrible one? Because if not, then I don't see much difference between abilities, merely choice.

God according to LDS made himself subject to His Plan of Salvation...he covenanted with us as we would covenant with him, if we obey his promises, he is bound by them. Does God in your view never make any promises for his children so he can do whatever he wants to them?

Edited August 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[MrG]

So he can tell you he's going to give you a great life and then turn around and give you a horrible one? Because if not, then I don't see much difference between abilities, merely choice.

God according to LDS made himself subject to His Plan of Salvation...he covenanted with us as we would covenant with him, if we obey his promises, he is bound by them. Does God in your view never make any promises for his children so he can do whatever he wants to them?

How do you define a great life? The New Testament seems to promise not much but hardship and troubles to those that follow Christ, let me know if I have missed your point there.

God is free to make as many or as little promises to His people as He wants, and He has made plenty in the Bible, but they are just that, to His people.

My view is that all is scripture (Bible) is equally valid and works together to paint a big picture, not just the verses that support a certain view. Therefore anything in the Bible where promises are made stand, however they are made by a God that is free to do whatever He wants with His creation. However this God is still very much a God of love that sent His Son to take the punishment for the Sin of all who will trust in Him and then be clothed in His righteousness.

[Stone holm]

The biggest problem with predestination is the fact that it presents a God who is a complete monster. The question that we should be asking is this: Is it reasonable to believe that God is a benevolent being? Or is that something people believe because they want to believe it? For someone who is a biblical inerrantist, it doesn't matter what one wants to believe. All that matters is what is written in black and white in the scriptures. You believe something because it is true. Not what you want to be true. So what do we trust? Do we rely on our feelings and expectations of what God should be like or do we trust only what is written in the established scriptural cannon?

I agree with the sentiment expressed, although I would put it that I choose to believe in a benevolent God and am willing to sacrifice His omnipotence and omniscience in pursuit of that choice, because a non benevolent god would not be worthy of worship.

[LordUther]

However this God is still very much a God of love that sent His Son to take the punishment for the Sin of all who will trust in Him and then be clothed in His righteousness.

But that's the nub of the problem, in Calvinism I can turn to Christ, trust in the atonement etc and still not be saved, because in Calvinism the atonement is only for the elect few that God has chosen to save. This is the problem we LDS have, that according to Calvinism God seems to be a partial God who has selected his favourites and all the rest can go to hell...literally.

[jwhitlock]

The Biblical God is the God most high (Psalm 57:2) and He is free to do WHATEVER he pleases. (psalm 115:3) He created us for His glory (Isaiah 43:7) therefore He can do absolutely whatever He wants with us, therefore what the Bible says about what He does in Romans 9 and other places is not a problem.

In Mormonism this is simply not possible which I think is why pretty much every Bible verse I am quoting is being ignored in this discussion and I am getting a lot of "I think" type comments. Which I understand as accepting this doctrine is an impossible scenario.

This is not the Biblical God; it is God as you see Him from your interpretation of the Bible. To take the phrase "he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased" and extrapolate "He can do absolutely whatever He wants" out of it is to ignore other scriptures that limit God such as Titus 1:2 (God cannot lie) or James 1:13 (God cannot be tempted of evil). It is also to ignore some common sense aspects of what our trust in God is based on which God cannot do, such as God cannot cease to be God, God cannot be unjust or unmerciful, God cannot cease to love us, God cannot save us, etc.

In the light of the entire canon of scripture, which does not support the concept of an arbitrary God, a more accurate understanding of "pleased" in Psalm 115:3 would be that what "pleases" God is always in conformity with certain rules. And what is most pleasing to God? Per 1 John 5:3 it is the fact that we keep His commandments. He recognizes the necessity of obedience to that which is right - even in everything He does - and teaches that to us so we can become like Him (another doctrine supported by the Bible).

So what pleases God is what is right, and logical contradictions - such as creating something from nothing, abdicating responsibility for it, and then making it burn for eternity on a whim - do not fall into the category of "right".

[danielwoods]

So would you say Hitler or Stalin were praising God by being who they were designed to be?

You'll notice I put, "within limits" because when we sin, we aren't being what we were designed to be.

[jwhitlock]

You'll notice I put, "within limits" because when we sin, we aren't being what we were designed to be.

In a creatio ex nihilo scenario, it is impossible for us to do something we weren't designed to do.

[MrG]

But that's the nub of the problem, in Calvinism I can turn to Christ, trust in the atonement etc and still not be saved, because in Calvinism the atonement is only for the elect few that God has chosen to save. This is the problem we LDS have, that according to Calvinism God seems to be a partial God who has selected his favourites and all the rest can go to hell...literally.

No thats where your missing what I am saying, I am saying that the whole Bible applies here, not just the part of it that suits a certain doctrine. So therefore if this doctrine is true then,

• Those that are saved are chosen to be so.
  
• Preaching the gospel is still necessary as thats the means by which God draws people to Himself.
  
• Putting your faith in Christ is the evidence of you being among the elect.
  

By putting your faith in Christ you are saved as the Bible says, however you only put that faith in Christ because you were drawn by God to do so. (John 6:44)

God is not choosing people on the basis of anything they have done (Romans 9:10) but simply because it pleases Him to do so.

[danielwoods]

In a creatio ex nihilo scenario, it is impossible for us to do something we weren't designed to do.

fair enough, yet that is where our freedom of choice comes in. We were designed to have agency. And our wrong choices cause ourselves judgement.

[MrG]

This is not the Biblical God; it is God as you see Him from your interpretation of the Bible. To take the phrase "he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased" and extrapolate "He can do absolutely whatever He wants" out of it is to ignore other scriptures that limit God such as Titus 1:2 (God cannot lie) or James 1:13 (God cannot be tempted of evil). It is also to ignore some common sense aspects of what our trust in God is based on which God cannot do, such as God cannot cease to be God, God cannot be unjust or unmerciful, God cannot cease to love us, God cannot save us, etc.

In the light of the entire canon of scripture, which does not support the concept of an arbitrary God, a more accurate understanding of "pleased" in Psalm 115:3 would be that what "pleases" God is always in conformity with certain rules. And what is most pleasing to God? Per 1 John 5:3 it is the fact that we keep His commandments. He recognizes the necessity of obedience to that which is right - even in everything He does - and teaches that to us so we can become like Him (another doctrine supported by the Bible).

So what pleases God is what is right, and logical contradictions - such as creating something from nothing, abdicating responsibility for it, and then making it burn for eternity on a whim - do not fall into the category of "right".

Im going to ignore your "thats not the biblical God" comment, as simply saying the other person is wrong is not really helpful for discussion, however you tap into a fascinating point next in that paragraph.

I have said :He is free to do WHATEVER he pleases.

You have said I am wrong because of these verses. Titus 1:2 (God cannot lie) or James 1:13 (God cannot be tempted of evil). Your common sense is not something I will spend too much time on other than to say that this actually does not make God unjust. Justice says we have all sinned and deserve to die, Mercy is that God chooses to save any of us, we have no rights in this equation. Psalm 5:5 says that God HATEs workers of iniquity, never mind any of this God hates sin and loves sinners,. He just hates all things sin. We all deserve nothing from God so His justice and mercy are very much intact here.

So ask yourself do these verses contradict what I said? I am saying God is Holy, infinite and able to do what He pleases. Would a holy God want to lie? Would a Holy all powerful God want to give in to temptation? The answer is a massive no, it would go against His nature to do these things. Does God have the free will to go against His own nature? I would say no, therefore:

• God can do whatever He pleases
  
• God would not be pleased to lie and cannot go against His will.
  
• God cannot lie
  

Is what I am saying is going on here. I appreciate how radically different this is to your view, I am simply saying that I think this is what the Bible is saying.

Can you explain to me how your last line is true? What law of logic is broken here? Also you are creating a strawman by saying He has abdicated responsibility for it, thats not what I am saying at all, God is very much in control in the world, and doing with it whatever pleases Him, and is having mercy on whom He has mercy and hardening whom He will harden (Romans 9:14)

God can do whatever He pleases with His creation, I am simply saying this is how He wants to do it. Consider this question Paul asks:

Romans 9

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

Does the potter have this right?

[jwhitlock]

fair enough, yet that is where our freedom of choice comes in. We were designed to have agency. And our wrong choices cause ourselves judgement.

In a creatio ex nihilo scenario, our wrong choices were designed into us by the hand of God. Hence God in judging us, judges Himself. Quite a conundrum there.

[jwhitlock]

Im going to ignore your "thats not the biblical God" comment, as simply saying the other person is wrong is not really helpful for discussion, however you tap into a fascinating point next in that paragraph.

When you apply your interpretation to the BIble and then claim that your description of God is the "Biblical God", then that's not helpful for the discussion. The reality is that each of us interpret scripture based on our particular authoritative assumptions. So when you preface your comments by saying "The God of the Bible is..." you're being misleading. It's really "My interpretation of what the God of the BIble is...".

It's important to understand that in the context of your comments below because you are, in effect, applying a single interpretation of scripture to those verses in order to support your doctrine. Those verses, in many cases, can just as readily be understood differently.

I have said :He is free to do WHATEVER he pleases.

You have said I am wrong because of these verses. Titus 1:2 (God cannot lie) or James 1:13 (God cannot be tempted of evil). Your common sense is not something I will spend too much time on other than to say that this actually does not make God unjust. Justice says we have all sinned and deserve to die, Mercy is that God chooses to save any of us, we have no rights in this equation. Psalm 5:5 says that God HATEs workers of iniquity, never mind any of this God hates sin and loves sinners,. He just hates all things sin. We all deserve nothing from God so His justice and mercy are very much intact here.

So ask yourself do these verses contradict what I said? I am saying God is Holy, infinite and able to do what He pleases. Would a holy God want to lie? Would a Holy all powerful God want to give in to temptation? The answer is a massive no, it would go against His nature to do these things. Does God have the free will to go against His own nature? I would say no, therefore:

• God can do whatever He pleases
  
• God would not be pleased to lie and cannot go against His will.
  
• God cannot lie
  

Is what I am saying is going on here. I appreciate how radically different this is to your view, I am simply saying that I think this is what the Bible is saying.

You're a little convoluted here, but it appears that you're saying that God, in order to be God, must be bound by the things He can or cannot do. That's specifically the point I made, so it also appears that you agree that in principle, there are things God cannot do.

Can you explain to me how your last line is true? What law of logic is broken here? Also you are creating a strawman by saying He has abdicated responsibility for it, thats not what I am saying at all, God is very much in control in the world, and doing with it whatever pleases Him, and is having mercy on whom He has mercy and hardening whom He will harden (Romans 9:14)

God can do whatever He pleases with His creation, I am simply saying this is how He wants to do it. Consider this question Paul asks:

Romans 9

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

Does the potter have this right?

It appears that you are basically saying that God can be arbitrary in who He saves or who He damns. There doesn't need to be a reason for Him to do so, if I read you correctly. Such an arbitrary judgment would contradict God's perfect attributes of mercy and justice. The scriptures are clear that God is not an arbitrary God, as demonstrated in Luke 11:9-13 (all who ask will be given) and John 6:44-45 (God draws men, but ALL are taught to be drawn).

In reading Romans 9, context is everything, and in using it to say that Paul was in any way justifying an arbitrary God is a misinterpretation. The context Paul was writing in was to Jews who considered themselves, by birth and by obedience to the law of Moses, God's only chosen people. They considered the Gentiles to be unable to be chosen and unable (in their sense) to be heirs of salvation. Paul rather bluntly, in Romans 9, swings the pendulum all the way to the other extreme to make a point that God has a different set of criteria for salvation. In the beginning of verse 10 - after setting the ground for showing the Jews why the law of Moses doesn't save - he then reiterates rather clearly that all who believe will be saved. Indeed, Christ stands at the door and knocks for ALL people, not just those whom God has arbitrarily chosen. God only rejects those who actually choose to reject salvation; he does not make the determination in and of Him self who will reject it, though He does know in advance what the results will be.

I noticed that you really didn't address the importance of obedience in everything God tells us to do. Since we are told to be like God (Matt 5:48), then obedience is evidently an important aspect of what God is. He must obey the same principles he tells us to obey, and that includes loving all people and not arbitrarily judging others by saving or damning them based on a whim.