Featured The Objector in Romans 9 is an Arminian

No, we see that that's actually just Paul summarizing the whole point....
It's Paul explaining (yet again) that it isn't individuals he's even talking about per-se....but nations, and how individuals fit into them on a whole....

It was always about "not Jews only, but also Gentiles"....it's his whole point.
see vs. 25:

Rom 9:25
As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

It's about Gentiles v. Jews...not individuals.

 

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,
24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?

At the very least 'the vessels of mercy afore prepared for glory' in Ro 9 include Gentiles, the text does NOT exclusively concern Jews.

There's really nothing new presented here, it's worded another way in 2 Cor 4:

4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.
6 Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

 

Lol:

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Ro 8

 

SOOO very true.

I was in Cross Examination Debate throughout High School and College. One of the skills that was drilled into us for over 8 years was the ability to equally defend both the Negative and Affirmative side of any argument. Our teacher continually reminded us that debaters who are not knowledgable of their opponent's position cannot really know their own.

After fully embracing the Calvinistic framework as my own when I was a freshman in college I became a strong defender and promoter of my new found "Doctrines Of Grace." I devoured any and every book I could get my hands on from men like MacArthur, Sproul, Packer, Piper, Hodge, Pink and even jumped in deep to the esteemed heroes of the faith such as Owens, Gill, Shedd, Hodge, Spurgeon and Calvin's Institutes of course. For ten formative years I was not only a card holding member of a cool new club, but I was one of their greatest recruiters, doing my part to spread the 'truth' to anyone and everyone who was not as blessed as I was to have figured it all out yet.

When I was about 30 years old (year 10 of my Calvinistic journey), I was reading through scripture and I stumbled onto a passage that didn't seem to fit my system at first glance. "No big deal," I thought, "I'm sure there is a rational and easy to understand explanation." As I was looking up answers I learned that there were some very intelligent men like CS Lewis and AW Tozer who did not share in my views. This perturbed me. "Why on earth wouldn't these two intelligent Christian men agree with what is so obviously taught in scripture," I inquired to myself? I began to read their and other scholars views on this subject which brought with it a host of unanswered questions. At that point it dawned on me that I had never practiced what I had been taught in all my years as a debater. I had never objectively took on the other side of this debate. I was not able to give fair and objective presentation of the scholarly views held those I so vehemently apposed all those years.

In my mind at that point all Arminians were "Joel Osteens" who believed in some weird "foresight faith view" of election, if they held to any view at all. I learned quickly that I was very much mistaken. That day began a journey of in-depth OBJECTIVE consideration of the differing views associated with the doctrines of predestination and election.

So, I commend you in your efforts to objectively vet your opponents views...it is a good practice IMHO.

You are always more than welcome. Never apologize for that!

 

The only perspective needed for Ro 9 is the text itself.

 

LOL :laugh::laugh::laugh:
I've read the whole chapter too:

Now I'll prove how I'm right and you are mistaken by simply reposting the entire passage in my own color and I'll also randomly emphasize words I like too.

See how I'll prove my point?
Rom 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?


Rom 9:29
And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
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.

So, now I'm ahead......
but, I suppose in your thinking, if you repost those passages again in a different color ( I suggest this charming green thing) and also bold different Pronouns... YOU'LL BE AHEAD!!!! :thumbs:..................
Don't worry...I'll let you be the last one to simply copy/paste those passages and therefore prove your entire Theological System to be accurate. I'll let you take it.

 

You've proven that you don't understand basic grammer when it comes to pronouns.

 

Indeed - it is all based on foreknowledge.

In the chapter God has mercy and indeed long suffering "on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction".

God's foreknowledge informs Him at all times.

Even in Pharaoh's case - it is the goodness of God in relenting in the case of plague after plague that causes Pharaoh to become more bold in his rebellion.

No wonder then the Bible says "Pharaoh hardened his heart".

And God starts him off with minor plagues that even his magicians can duplicate through the help of Satan.

And the case of "Jacob have I loved and Esau have a hated" - we have a statement from the book of Malachi - spoken long after both Esua and Jacob have died - and the nations of Israel and Edom are being contrasted.

 

james states to us that NONE are enticed/caused/forced by God to depart and sin, but they ALL do such willingly, as its part of our very sin natures!

And God has ALWAYS reserved unto himself a faithful remnant of jews, those whom HE kept.preserved saved out from among national isreal, saved by Election and will of God, so NO special hardening needed, as ALL sinners hard towards God by birth/choice!

Remember , ALL of us deserve death, and God's predestined applied to saving the elect, NOT to damning the lost!

 

You didn't correctly understand. Paul is using a diatribe by which he anticipates an objection from his reader. That objection would be one coming from a hardened jew, one being 'cut off', one who has stumbled. That is not to say that no one else was reading the letter, or that Paul wasn't intending any others to read the letter. Do you understand?

 

yes, as the Spirit wrote thru paul unto us the closest book to a Biblical Systematic theology, and that was addressed to BOTh the saved jews/gentiles in Rome, as the lord wanted the jews see that yeshua saviour for BOTh them and the gentiles, and the gentiles to realise that they are in debt to Him, and to love the jewish peoples... keep the unity of the faith, One Body now in christ!

 

Biblicist, look up the term 'diatribe.' It is about anticipating a objection of one of your readers...and in this case the person who would be making this objection would be a hardened Jew who had stumbled and been 'cut off.'

I'm NOT saying that a hardened Jew was the only intended audience. Please attempt to meet me half way and understand me before jumping on any point I make as if it just has to be in error because I hold to it. We don't have to disagree about everything and this is one of those points we can agree upon.

 

Do you actually believe he is really interested in that?

 

As I've explained a few times now, I didn't mean to suggest the hardened jew was the ONLY reader, but that he would have been the reader with this particular diatribe objection. Now, can we deal with that instead of saying the same thing over and over as if it hasn't been addressed?