<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This creates fewer problems than the alternative. If God is as you say, then he is at the mercy of man. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is just the way Calvinists portray it. No non-Calvinist ever says this, but Calvinists always try to force the issue into "either you believe God determined all the evil men do or he is 'at their mercy'".
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He could not have guaranteed the sacrifice of his son because in “free will” the soldiers may have refused to sacrifice him; or Pilate may have refused to turn him over; or Herod may have released him; or the Jews may have accepted him. Indeed, to cede his authority would open up the universe to endless possibilities and leave God forever chasing after the whims of man. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It was obvious by man's nature that those things woulf happen. This does not address the issue of whether God was the one who CAUSED people to be evil or not. It stands that they were, and they did all those things that fulfilled God's plan.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I will be the first to admit that I cannot reconcile the infinite perfections of God in my mind. I am perfectly willing to allow God to be God. I do not feel compelled to figure it all out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think the limited atonement/reprobation postulation is an attempt to "figure it all out" (i.e. how God's sovereignty over man and the reality of man's sin and evil fit together). Then Calvinists admit "it is above our comprehension", but still after maintaining such a scandalous idea, to have the last word. But such a position is the result of crossing into what is above our comprehension.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That is a potential problem. However, some make a distinction between predestination and election and if you read my post, I said election. Predestination deals with all things that come to pass; election deals with salvation in technical terms. In general terms predestination deals with both. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought that was a typo, but still,
"double-election" would carry a similar implication, and "double-predestination" is simply the more common term.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Suffice it to say that the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction are a part of God’s sovereign decree. However, we know from revelation that they have freely and voluntarily rejected God. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This chapter is still talking about Israel as a national entity, with Pharaoh and Esau as examples of God's purpose. It is not talking about the eternal damnation of individuals, but rather temporal, hnece the reference to Paharaoh and Esau. A big proof of this that I just realize is that taking this chapter to mean eternal judgment contradicts what Calvinists always say: They accuse the Arminian sentiment of "why God causes them to sin to punish them" to assume man starts out "neutral" when in fact he starts out bad. But Romans 9 is using the analogy of "clay vessels"-- which suggests neutrality! The neutral items are then assigned for "good" or "bad" purposes. It's precisely the use of this passage that raises the sentiment of the "poor neutral vessel" in the non-Calvinist questioner in the first place. But if man is not neutral then this passage cannot be describing man in the sense that he is a fallen sinner. It is describing a neutral aspect of humanity, namely a particular group that was "raised" by God (chosen) at first, but now punished while the gentiles [in the Church] are now "chosen" to fulfil the plan of God. [i.e. "vessels of honor"]
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I do not see where that is contradictory to anything I have said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
God is still electing/predestinating (whatever) some to destruction, by the process of omission, even though you now deny thiss