Here is another objection. It is an objection based on the impossibility of God changing his mind.
Though it is not truly a parallel, and even turns Paul’s argument the other way round, we may apply this to nominal believers. They claim to have believed, and they understand that God blesses faith. They might therefore argue, ‘How can I be judged when I have met the conditions of salvation? I have believed as God requires. How can he condemn me?’ Well, the Jews were trying to hold God to a promise that he had not made, and in a sense the nominal believer is trying to do the same. God has not promised to bless nominal faith, but to bless real faith. In judging a nominal believer, he would not be breaking any promise he has made, for he never promised to save such. The two cases are not quite the same, for the Jew appealed to a promise of God to save on the basis of descent from Abraham, and the nominal believer appeals to a promise to save on the basis of nominal faith. But both hold God to a promise he has not made, and that is something we cannot do. Let us take care to understand exactly what God has promised, and to align ourselves with what he has are the conditions of salvation.