Nice emotionally charged story, of which emotion I will not allow to detract from the fact that salvation and choosing is
not of us.
Salvation is not of us. God set up the process, I don't deny that. Where we differ is man's role in the process that God set up. It may be that we have "irreconcilable differences" that we'll have to live with.
Romans 9:16 says it is not of us. It actually shows us it is definitely not because we chose.
Not to him that
willeth, or that is,
determines, or
chooses it, but it is of Him that calleth.
God shews mercy to whom He will. Look at the context.
Absolutely, look at the context. The entirety of Romans 9 is why God first chose Isreal and then turned to the Gentiles and offered them salvation. Why was that?
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Isreal refused to exercise faith and tried instead to substitute works for faith and God said it was a stumbling block to the simplicity of the salvation He offered.
Of course we would all assume the other girl would have decided to walk with God. Our reason doesn't dictate Sovereign will. It is not based on our finite understanding, God showed His mercy on the one, the other doesn't look like that has happened. It could happen later, who knows? But this is showing us God is in charge of this, not our reason, and not our choosing.
Since we are in Romans 9, lets talk about Jacob and Easu. Did God choose Jacob over Easu for the purposes of His own? Absolutely. Does that mean that Easu couldn't have been saved? Not in the least! Easu could have accepted that his place in God's plan was different, even accepted that his place was less important than Jacob's, but HE REFUSED. His pride, like that of Cain's got in the way of his faith, but it was Easu that allowed it to happen.
I don't believe the story concerning Cain proves we have free will. But I am going to look into that.
Let me help you out. Go back and look at Gen 4:6-7. What does God Himself tell Cain?
I just feel like if someone paints an emotional sympathetic picture to illustrate something then they feel that all of those emotional feelings it lends then makes the assumption true, and Biblical. A fuzzy feeling does not mean it is Biblically accurate.
You and Luke like to poohpooh stories, but Christ used them all the time in His teachings.
I refer back to Romans 9:16, and its context.
I don't believe the interpretation of the story above is Biblically accurate whatsoever. I look at it in light of what God has said concerning whom He chooses, not at all as to what some person chooses. Salvation is all of Him.
I just think it is dangerous to use a story, and say "true story" as if that makes it then Biblically accurate, and our interpretation of if Biblically accurate, because it is a "true story."
You missed the point here and so did Luke. The story is a real life episode that illustrates the principal I was discussing. (Much as Christ did with His parables) Whether or not you believe the PRINCIPAL is Biblical says nothing of whether or not I correctly related the story. I think most folks can tell the difference between principal and episode. (my English teacher would call it theme and plot if I remember correctly)
If you say my story is untrue, then you have called me a liar. (not a nice thing to do) If you call the principal Biblically unsound, well, we are all entitled to our opinions. (even though Luke doesn't appear to think so 
)
