Romans 9 Isn't What You Think It Is

[JD731]

I owe you an apology!

I read your post and responded to it thinking it was kyredneck who had written it.

That's a product of being in too big of a rush, which is not excuse just a bit of an explanation. I'll reread your post with fresh eyes and try to pay closer attention in the future.

Thank you and bless you CJP69. You say very little I do not agree with.

A little background that will help you and others. I have been saved since 1962. I am and have been in a fundamental independent Baptist church which is dispensational, pre-trib pre mil for most of my adult life. I think one of the greatest gifts I have received was from my pastor when I was 23 years old, an Old Scofield, simply because reading it forced me to consider the biblical teaching and the imporatance of the covenants that God has made with his own nation and people, Israel, beginning with the fathers of the nation, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

 

[CJP69]

Individual vessels predestinated and elected from both the Jews and the Gentiles is not eisegeses, it's good reading comprehension, evidently something you lack.

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.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
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 m an, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
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? Ro 9

Said in the context of a whole passage that is speaking about the NATION of Israel and how it has been cut off - as a nation. The believing Jews weren't cut off nor is every gentile in existence going to be saved. It is talking about Jews as a group and Gentiles as a group. Thus Paul can warn us Gentiles that we could very well suffer the same fate as the Jews....

Romans 11:19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.​

You, as a Calvinist, are forced to ignore the context and thereby read your doctrine into these texts.

 

[CJP69]

That post was a direct quote from Owen.

Yes! And yet you seem unable to see the contradiction.

You have developed a straw man argument based on what you wished Owen had said.

No, I'm not! I'm taking his own words and applying HIS doctrine to them!

How is it my problem if he contradicts his own doctrine?

The fact is Calvinists like Owen believe God accomplishes his purpose and plan without violating the free will of men.

Some believe that aliens built the pyramids.

You won't get the point of that so let me explain. People can believe anything that they decide to believe. It doesn't mean that their beliefs are not self-contradictory nonsense.

Actually I do. It revolves around your concept of what "free will" is.

My concept? Since when was I put into the position to determine the meaning of commonly understood concepts? Nobody ever came around asking me what the term "free will" should mean. It means what it means. You don't get to redefine the term because it contradicts your doctrine.

And this is in agreement with Calvinists like Owen and top Arminian theologians too. There is more common ground than you think. I am not a Calvinist. I do not believe in limited atonement and I believe grace is resisted but I would not give up the benefits of reading Owen and the Puritans for the world. Or Wesley, for that matter.

There are LOTS of things that Calvinists have said, written, preached, etc that are quite true and very valuable and very much worth one's time to read. That doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to their errors or to when what they say that is true contradicts the things they they believe that aren't true, like the silly notion that God saves people without regard to their will and other similar doctrines that are totally foreign to scripture.

 

[CJP69]

Thank you and bless you CJP69. You say very little I do not agree with.

A little background that will help you and others. I have been saved since 1962. I am and have been in a fundamental independent Baptist church which is dispensational, pre-trib pre mil for most of my adult life. I think one of the greatest gifts I have received was from my pastor when I was 23 years old, an Old Scofield, simply because reading it forced me to consider the biblical teaching and the imporatance of the covenants that God has made with his own nation and people, Israel, beginning with the fathers of the nation, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

You should read The Plot, by Bob Enyart. (It isn't about Open Theism)

 

[CJP69]

God says no such thing.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Van!

I've directly quoted it multiple times.

The two boys came out of her womb, and from the two boys came in the future, two nations. Esau came first, then Jacob, and so the nation from Esau (the older) did serve the nation from Jacob (the younger).

But the elder boy never served the younger boy, thus the prophecy was about the nations in her womb and NOT the two boys. Thank you for proving the point.

You can claim nothing is said about the boys, such as the older will serve the young till the cows come home, but you cannot nullify God's word. The nation from the older boy Esau will serve the nation from the younger boy Jacob.

Nowhere is God word does God say Romans 9 is not talking about the nations from the two BOYS!!!!

You are losing your mind, Van.

Romans 9 is in every bible ever published and is available in nearly every language on Earth for free on the internet. It isn't me just showing up here to randomly claim that Paul was referring to Genesis 25 when he mentions Jacob and Esau! No one with a mind could even make such a claim without proving that they've lost all semblance of rational thought and are desperate to find any sort of way to preserve Romans 9 as a proof-text for their blasphemous doctrine that teaches that God picks and chooses who goes to Heaven or Hell for no reason other than his arbitrary whim.

 

[Silverhair]

I say at the same time or right after you believe. Owen said at the same time.

Why does the concept that God is allowed to decide something in the future and then accomplish it bother you so much? If God says something will happen just because it really will happen does not mean that it didn't happen in reality. The people that come to faith in Christ are elect. It doesn't ruin anything except your own control over the situation if election was before you believed. You are not the captain of your own fate. Although I will say that indeed I believe you can possibly mess this all up and in the negative sense maybe you are. But even though I am not a Calvinist to that extent I have to admit that if God's grace is necessary then you could say if you are saved it was indeed "effectual" in you. Then the door is open to all the rest. It's just not as simple as you want to make it.

Why do you need God to determine all those that will believe? Why does the biblical view of man choosing to trust in God bother you so much? God does not say who will be saved but He does say why they will be saved. Those that freely trust in Him will be saved by His grace. Eph 2:8 That is something that the calvinist can not or rather will not accept.

If you can not see the difference between one being considered elect before or after they believe then you need to spend more time reading the bible rather than Owen etc. How many verses do you need to tell you that it is through faith that one is saved? Eph 1:13, Rom 10:9-10, Joh 3:16

We are the captain of our fate, if by fate you are referring to our eternal destiny. Those that reject God are condemned those that trust in Him are saved. Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. But for the calvinist this verse means nothing as they just discount it as you seem to have done.

You do not seem to be able to get past your calvinist blinded vision. Think what you are saying. Of course if one is saved then God's grace has been effectual but we only have the grace of God for salvation if we believe. Faith is the God required condition that must be met prior to salvation. By grace one is saved through faith not unto faith as calvinist would have it.

There are really only two options,
1} one is saved because they believe [bible]
or
2} one is saved so they will believe. [calvinism]

No matter how short the time frame one has to precede the other.

 

[DaveXR650]

No, I'm not! I'm taking his own words and applying HIS doctrine to them!

My quote is real. You are not replying to my real quote of his doctrine, rather you are responding to what you wish to.

Some believe that aliens built the pyramids.

That makes about as much sense as the post with the Covid masks and tooth fairy. Coming up with a ridiculous analogy does not make your point.

My concept? Since when was I put into the position to determine the meaning of commonly understood concepts?

If you read much you would know that this is not a commonly understood concept. That reply explains a lot.

That doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to their errors or to when what they say that is true contradicts the things they they believe that aren't true, like the silly notion that God saves people without regard to their will and other similar doctrines that are totally foreign to scripture.

That's true. And I myself reject the higher levels of determinism that some Calvinists go with. But there is a range of determinism, and a range of the areas that determinism applies to even within Calvinism. And there is the fact that the other levels of non-determinism all have their own logical problems. I find it an interesting subject. But I can't really see why you come bringing such a level of animosity. Can you really engage this subject or do you just throw out insults?

 

[DaveXR650]

There are really only two options,
1} one is saved because they believe [bible]
or
2} one is saved so they will believe. [calvinism]

No matter how short the time frame one has to precede the other.

I'm OK with no. 1 above. The thing is, I don't believe that man tends to come by faith because his own natural free will causes him to think it's all foolishness (bible). But we always go round and round with this so no sense rehashing it again. All I can say is that all Calvinists, all classical Arminians, all Wesleyans, and most semi-Pelagians agree with me on that. Which is why I try to convince your colleague that it is indeed all about your concept of man's free will, specifically how much it is damaged and what precisely it means.
So I'll say it once more. If you are in any of the groups above, where the action of the Holy Spirit is involved in a direct way in your coming to faith, then that opens the possibility that it may be sovereign, effectual, and specific. And thus there is the possibility that Calvinism has something to it, like it or not.

 

[Silverhair]

I'm OK with no. 1 above. The thing is, I don't believe that man tends to come by faith because his own natural free will causes him to think it's all foolishness (bible). But we always go round and round with this so no sense rehashing it again. All I can say is that all Calvinists, all classical Arminians, all Wesleyans, and most semi-Pelagians agree with me on that. Which is why I try to convince your colleague that it is indeed all about your concept of man's free will, specifically how much it is damaged and what precisely it means.
So I'll say it once more. If you are in any of the groups above, where the action of the Holy Spirit is involved in a direct way in your coming to faith, then that opens the possibility that it may be sovereign, effectual, and specific. And thus there is the possibility that Calvinism has something to it, like it or not.

I agree that man tends to reject coming to God in faith but that requires a choice just as coming to God in faith requires a choice. That is free will in action. You do not seem to grasp the truth that even when the Holy Spirit influences someone they still have too make a choice. The Holy Spirit is involved in a direct way He convicts the world of sin but even though He does that not everyone comes to faith do they. So you have to answer the question of why not? The answer which you refuse to accept is free will.

You do not seem to be able to get past the reality that the person has to do something, believe. The way you present it faith is forced on the person even though you agreed with "one is saved because they believe [bible]". Dave no matter how must influence the Holy Spirit has on the person if the person does not use their free will to make the choice to trust then you fall back to determinism or forced belief. Forced belief is not biblical.

Why do you struggle so much with just trusting scripture? You seem to value what Owen, Edwards etc say over the bible. Calvinism either agrees with scripture or it is error and since it does not agree with scripture it is error. Scripture supports man's free will and actually expects it and holds them responsible for the choices they make.

Look at what you said in regard to Owen "He concludes that refusing to believe is the greatest sin and insult to God that man is capable of." How is that possible without free will? And further since God holds man responsible for rejecting Him would you not conclude that God expects man to be able to exercise this same free will and trust in Him? The bible is clear that He does. You say mans' free will is damaged but God in His bible shows that man actually can use that damaged free will to turn and trust in Him.

Why would you hold to something that may possibly have something to it when you can hold to something that we know is true, the bible?

I do find it strange that you agree that one is saved because they believe [bible] and then turn around and say man can't do it because his free will is damaged. If it is not the person believing then who does it for them?

 

[DaveXR650]

You do not seem to grasp the truth that even when the Holy Spirit influences someone they still have too make a choice.

You do. But the point is that the Holy Spirit caused you to change your free will. Then you made the choice. Now, you can say you believe it was an influence/response rather than a cause/effect situation and I would agree. But the fact still is that you, according to your free will had been of one opinion but then after the work of the Holy Spirit you were of the other opinion. That is a deciding influence or else it was not necessary. If it was the deciding factor and the deciding factor was of God then it was known by God and election in a time past would definitely be possible. I don't say you have to agree with this. It has nothing to do with our orthodoxy or salvation. I just say that it is reasonable and possible.

Why do you struggle so much with just trusting scripture? You seem to value what Owen, Edwards etc say over the bible.

I wish you wouldn't keep saying that. If you are any kind of a Christian you attend the hearing of sermons at least once a week. These are the types of things I do to and I read additional sermons by those old guys too. What is wrong with that. I am currently reading through the Bible, and attend a church that focuses on expository preaching most of the time. While I freely admit that those guys can and are sometimes wrong I submit to you that it's far more likely that you and I are going to get it wrong just doing our own private interpretations of scripture.

 

[CJP69]

My quote is real. You are not replying to my real quote of his doctrine, rather you are responding to what you wish to.

You are lying to yourself.

That makes about as much sense as the post with the Covid masks and tooth fairy. Coming up with a ridiculous analogy does not make your point.

If it doesn't make sense then instead of simply claiming that it doesn't make sense, why don't you make an argument that demonstrates that it doesn't make sense?

Is there anyone here capable of doing anything more substantive than showing up to state that I'm wrong and they're right?

If you read much you would know that this is not a commonly understood concept. That reply explains a lot.

It is a totally well understood concept by practically everyone, Dave. You have to educated away from understanding it. The concept is intuitive. FREE and WILL. It isn't hard!

That's true. And I myself reject the higher levels of determinism that some Calvinists go with. But there is a range of determinism, and a range of the areas that determinism applies to even within Calvinism. And there is the fact that the other levels of non-determinism all have their own logical problems. I find it an interesting subject.

There are definitely some things that God has predestined but none of them have to do with which individuals are going to believe in Him or which He is going to send to Hell. They have to do with things that have to do with God's own actions. Things like the glorification of Jesus Christ and those of us who are in the Body of Christ, the destruction of Satan and his followers, the uplifting of the law, the creation of a new Earth and new Heaven, etc. These things will happen because God has decided that He wants them to happen and no one can stop Him from making them happen. Their happening is not contingent on anyone's else choices, whether for good or bad and so cannot imply any injustice on God's part for bringing such things to pass.

Also, God is perfectly within His rights to work with His allies and to manipulate His enemies. God does such things repeatedly throughout scripture and for good reason. Notice - for GOOD reason. God is not arbitrary and God cannot do just any old wild-eyed thing and remain righteous. God acts rightly. He does good. He loves others and seeks their best even at His own expense. He does not hate unborn babies and He does not create people for the purpose of punishing them forever in a burning Hell.

But I can't really see why you come bringing such a level of animosity.

I despise Calvinism, or any other form of Augustinian doctrine including large swaths of Catholicism that teaches that God is arbitrary. It is blasphemy and it makes my blood boil to hear someone talk about it being God's plan that their child drowned in a swimming pool or that their daughter was molested by her youth pastor or that their house was saved from the flames that burned down their whole neighborhood killing half a dozen people. It's disgusting and it is rank stupidity and outright blasphemy.

Can you really engage this subject or do you just throw out insults?[/QUOTE]
I insult people who deserve to be insulted. I do not tolerate stupidity and and cannot stand blasphemy and I get quite impatient with people who intentionally waste my time and I respond in kind. It is most often me that gets insulted first. I'm just not afraid to state the insult outright where most everyone else wants to hide their insults under the cover of sarcasm and snark.

 

[DaveXR650]

If it doesn't make sense then instead of simply claiming that it doesn't make sense, why don't you make an argument that demonstrates that it doesn't make sense?

Well, I agree on the tooth fairy, I think the Covid masks had a pore size that inhibited droplets which carried the virus, and I haven't really thought much about whether aliens built the pyramids.

Is there anyone here capable of doing anything more substantive than showing up to state that I'm wrong and they're right?

On the OP, I don't think Romans 9 is a proof text for Calvinism, although the case is not as ridiculous as you might think. I tend to think it is about individuals because Paul is trying to show the Jews that salvation has always been about individuals because not even all Israelites are saved. And so they are going to have to get used to the fact that gentiles are going to be part of it too.

Regarding election in general, it is well taught in other portions of scripture and it is taught in a way that God seems sovereign in salvation. And yet the invitation is to all who hear the gospel and it is real. Calvinists believe that and so do Arminians, with the exception that they seem to have a slightly different view on how the Holy Spirit works.

I insult people who deserve to be insulted. I do not tolerate stupidity and and cannot stand blasphemy and I get quite impatient with people who intentionally waste my time and I respond in kind. It is most often me that gets insulted first. I'm just not afraid to state the insult outright where most everyone else wants to hide their insults under the cover of sarcasm and snark.

Well I don't want to be accused of snark so let me just say you are the biggest jackass I have ever seen on here.

 

[kyredneck]

Well I don't want to be accused of snark so let me just say you are the biggest jackass I have ever seen on here.

Lol! Even a bigger one than me? Lol...

 

[kyredneck]

You, as a Calvinist, are forced to ignore the context and thereby read your doctrine into these texts.

I'm no Calvinist and this IS the context. Individual vessels predestinated and elected from both the Jews and the Gentiles.

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.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
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 m an, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
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? Ro 9

 

[DaveXR650]

Lol! Even a bigger one than me? Lol...

I think you may have lost your crown. Actually there used to be a couple of staunch Calvinists on here who had everybody beat but I think they got kicked off, or maybe went to the Puritan Board.

 

[Silverhair]

You do. But the point is that the Holy Spirit caused you to change your free will. Then you made the choice. Now, you can say you believe it was an influence/response rather than a cause/effect situation and I would agree. But the fact still is that you, according to your free will had been of one opinion but then after the work of the Holy Spirit you were of the other opinion. That is a deciding influence or else it was not necessary. If it was the deciding factor and the deciding factor was of God then it was known by God and election in a time past would definitely be possible. I don't say you have to agree with this. It has nothing to do with our orthodoxy or salvation. I just say that it is reasonable and possible.

I wish you wouldn't keep saying that. If you are any kind of a Christian you attend the hearing of sermons at least once a week. These are the types of things I do to and I read additional sermons by those old guys too. What is wrong with that. I am currently reading through the Bible, and attend a church that focuses on expository preaching most of the time. While I freely admit that those guys can and are sometimes wrong I submit to you that it's far more likely that you and I are going to get it wrong just doing our own private interpretations of scripture.

Dave that is an illogical statement. "the Holy Spirit caused you to change your free will." If one is caused to change then it is not their free will. The persons free will was not changed, they used their free will to change their view based on the information they have been presented.

Dave even when you try to support your no free will view you end up supporting free will. Note what you said "according to your free will had been of one opinion but then after the work of the Holy Spirit you were of the other opinion." Did the Holy Spirit cause/force the person to change their opinion or did He just provide the information, convict them of sin etc. for them to evaluate and freely choose what to do?

After all is said and done either God forces the person to choose one way or the other or the person freely chooses one way or the other. Conviction of sin just means conviction of sin. One can be convicted of their sin and not care and just carry on sinning. So while the Holy Spirit can and does influence ones life and choices He does not control them.

God being omniscient knows all that will happen but knowing what will happen does not cause it to happen. Knowing who will freely choose to trust in Him does not cause them to trust in Him. To say that election in the past is possible does not mean it is necessary and the bible does not support such a hypothesis. Actually it presents the opposite view, man has to respond to the various influences that God provides, be it the gospel, creation, conviction of sin etc. So based on what we see in scripture while any view is possible the view you present is not reasonable. Why come up with a view the is contrary to scripture?
A theory may sound reasonable and possible but is it biblical, that is the standard.

I am not claiming that I know the bible infallibly but I can be sure that I know the means of salvation as the bible is clear in that. By His grace we are saved through faith in Him.

 

[DaveXR650]

After all is said and done either God forces the person to choose one way or the other or the person freely chooses one way or the other. Conviction of sin just means conviction of sin. One can be convicted of their sin and not care and just carry on sinning. So while the Holy Spirit can and does influence ones life and choices He does not control them.

It really does come down to that. If you believe that men are perfectly capable of hearing the gospel message and then can on their own either decide to believe and obey the message or reject it then you should reject Calvinism in all it's forms.

If you believe that men are naturally in such a state as that a truly creative act of the Holy Spirit, directly upon the soul of men, more than moral persuasion, is needed before they will believe then you will have to be some type of Calvinist.

An in between, there are many, maybe a majority, who believe that the conviction of the Holy Spirit is essential, but are not sure as to whether this is overcoming and even of a creative nature, or if it is just persuasive and enlightening and they are not sure how this works in a given individual.

I tend to think it is essential, yet persuasive, and the enlightening part I think Calvinism has right, yet I think it can be resisted. That is probably closer to a classic Arminian position I guess. It's also the message that many of my favorite Puritans actually seemed to preach, regardless of what confession they signed on to.

For people who really want to know which of the "isms" they fit in best (even though it's not really that important) I think looking into these questions is of more use than debating proof texts. And that is because, you can make a proof text fit your position as we all observe. I read Lennox, and like him, and if you notice he uses the same proof texts the Calvinists use.

 

[JD731]

[

You should read The Plot, by Bob Enyart. (It isn't about Open Theism)

I dropped commentaries a long time ago because I believe the scriptures are written to explain themselves and the Holy Spirit indwells all believers and is our teacher. If the Holy Spirit taught Bob Enyart valuable truth I think he can and will teach me the same truth if I have the same Bible. Jesus said, "sanctify them through thy truth, thy (God the Father's) word is truth." Jesus said again

Joh 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

I do not know when we decided the words of God were not from heaven but most have.

One of the main themes of scriptures is God's kingdom over the earth and the preaching of it by Jesus Christ caused his own nation to crucify him.

Mt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Ps 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men.

 

[Silverhair]

It really does come down to that. If you believe that men are perfectly capable of hearing the gospel message and then can on their own either decide to believe and obey the message or reject it then you should reject Calvinism in all it's forms.

I agree that is the dividing line. One can either hear the gospel and respond in faith or they can not.

If you believe that men are naturally in such a state as that a truly creative act of the Holy Spirit, directly upon the soul of men, more than moral persuasion, is needed before they will believe then you will have to be some type of Calvinist.

This I see as the main reason I reject Calvinism. If God desires all to come to faith and the Holy Spirit has to act directly on a persons soul for them to believe then we have a conflict in the Godhead if all do not believe. Why does the Holy Spirit not cause all to believe if that is God's desire.

An in between, there are many, maybe a majority, who believe that the conviction of the Holy Spirit is essential, but are not sure as to whether this is overcoming and even of a creative nature, or if it is just persuasive and enlightening and they are not sure how this works in a given individual.

Actually I think the majority just accept that some believe and others do not. Some will respond to the various means that God uses to draw people to Himself but not all.

I tend to think it is essential, yet persuasive, and the enlightening part I think Calvinism has right, yet I think it can be resisted. That is probably closer to a classic Arminian position I guess. It's also the message that many of my favorite Puritans actually seemed to preach, regardless of what confession they signed on to.

I do not think that I would say those are just calvinist views. No one can be persuaded of and come to trust in something they have never been informed about. That is just what Paul did in all his missionary journeys. The information that Paul provided had to be evaluated by the people.
As you indicate it is not a matter of what you call you theological position as long as you present the gospel message.
I trust God to do what only God can do, save lost people.

For people who really want to know which of the "isms" they fit in best (even though it's not really that important) I think looking into these questions is of more use than debating proof texts. And that is because, you can make a proof text fit your position as we all observe. I read Lennox, and like him, and if you notice he uses the same proof texts the Calvinists use.

At the end of the day we are all Christians and desire more that more will turn to God in faith for their salvation.

 

[CJP69]

Well, I agree on the tooth fairy, I think the Covid masks had a pore size that inhibited droplets which carried the virus, and I haven't really thought much about whether aliens built the pyramids.

Even if the pore size that would inhibit droplets (which most of them don't and didn't) your nose and mouth are only two of the six holes in your head through which viruses can enter your system and even that completely ignores the fact that even n95 rated masks are only good for about 45 minutes to an hour and that's assuming your haven't touched it with your hands. If you have touched it with your hands it serves as a virus concentration device making it far easier to transfer to your hands and then to your eyes or ears.

There are only several decades of studies from all over the world that demonstrate without any doubt whatsoever that mask usage is USELESS in an effort to prevent the spread of upper respiratory diseases. It doesn't work and they knew that when they forced everyone to wear them for two years.

On the OP, I don't think Romans 9 is a proof text for Calvinism, although the case is not as ridiculous as you might think. I tend to think it is about individuals because Paul is trying to show the Jews that salvation has always been about individuals because not even all Israelites are saved. And so they are going to have to get used to the fact that gentiles are going to be part of it too.

Sounds nice except that the text doesn't support such an interpretation. The entire Old Testament would not permit such an interpretation, for that matter, not to mention Jesus' own actions and words...

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”​

....nor would such an interpretation fit with the fact that Peter, James and John agreed to stay in Jerusalem and minister only to "the circumcision" while Paul went to "the uncircumcision" (i.e. the Gentiles) (Gal. 2:7-9)

Regarding election in general, it is well taught in other portions of scripture and it is taught in a way that God seems sovereign in salvation.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

There is not one single passage of scripture in the bible that teaches any point of Calvinism. It is universally a case of the Calvinist reading their doctrine into the text. I have never once been shown a single exception.

And yet the invitation is to all who hear the gospel and it is real. Calvinists believe that and so do Arminians, with the exception that they seem to have a slightly different view on how the Holy Spirit works.

Calvinist's beliefs in this regard amount to lip service. They know that it contradicts the rest of their doctrine and intentionally ignore the contradiction and count their willingness to do so as piety. When pressed, however, they always fall on the side that says that we have no ability to choose.

Well I don't want to be accused of snark so let me just say you are the biggest jackass I have ever seen on here.

Thank you!

My enemies should despise me if I am having the desired effect.