2 opposing questions:

Now there's some exegesis—NOT! :tongue3:

 

I now understand the misunderstanding. Yes, Paul was addressing all the people in Rome, but as I clarified in my question, I was asking about WHO was being addressed as being "hardened" or chosen for "ignoble purpose," not who the letter was addressing. If you go back and read my post with that in mind then maybe you won't be so confused.

 

It's his readers he's addressing, his intended audience, believers. The argument, "Why doth he yet find fault," is your argument. Not Esau's, not Pharoah's, not Caiaphas' or Judas'. It's yours, O man. You're at the receiving end of an apostolic smackdown. Smarts, don't it?

 

Thank you Don for your attitude on this board. It is refreshing and encouraging.

 

I'm relatively new to the Board, and I've read through all these posts, and I'm still not quite sure what all the disagreements are about....The question the poster asked regarded situations involving [in his view] a Calvinist and an Arminian [I still thought to be an Arminian only meant one didn't believe in eternal security], and the discussion has went to almost every point of TULIP.....I consider myself believing of the Calvinistic doctrine, but only because I believe it is Scriptural [I want more than anything to be considered a Bible believing Christian!]--I certainly wouldn't worship some mans doctrine, nor would any other here [I would hope].....The Scripture says clearly whosoever will may come....that's Bible! I believe it! I just happen to believe that whosoever will WILL come.The Spirit and the Bride say come....That's Bible! I believe it! ....Why don't they? When studying the doctrine of election, I think of Moses--when he met God on the mountain, he had to ask God what his name was! If God left His Church to man and mans decisions, I'm afraid we'd be non existent.......What about Esau and Jacob? What about Pharoah? Does God hate people before they are born? Does God predetermine our paths? Or does He have foreknowledge? I think the latter....I really don't understand how you can't reconcile the doctrine of election with "freewill" in view of a Sovereign God who has foreknowledge......Now before I start dodging bullets , I admit I'm not a theological Bible scholar, and I'd like to say even though there are "heated" debates going on here, it is still much more loving than the KJVO site I used to post on [it was cold dead orthodoxy!], so remember we are still commanded to love one another, even if we disagree!

Peace And Love

 

You are ignoring my point to argue you own, as has become typical with you. Is it fun debating yourself?

There are two different objections being made, whether or not your acknowledge the distinction is irrelevant. It only reveals your own lack of understanding or objectivity in the matter.

Let's look at BOTH objections side by side and then maybe you can at least acknowledge the differences so as not to further embarrass yourself:

The Objection's meaning from Your perspective:
"Why does God blame men if it is His will that some men are born predetermined to be saved and some are not?"

This is the objection you think I'm raising against Calvinism, thus you presume that Paul is "smacking me down." Therefore, you err on two counts:

1) This is not the objection I have against Calvinism. I agree, that if God wanted to unconditionally elect and irresistibly save some and condemn the rest he would be just to do so. I've explained my objection against Calvinism many times.

2) You beg the question by presuming that Paul believes your view and thus is anticipating this objection. In reality the objection Paul is anticipating is much different than you one you presume. He is anticipating the objection of judicially blinding rebellious Jews in their rebellion thus using them for ignoble purpose, while also unconditionally choosing some Jews (like Paul) for noble purposes (like apostleship) and in doing so brings mercy to the "unclean" Gentiles. The fellow Pharisee who was hardened in his rebellion, while Paul was called to apostleship (both for the Divine purpose of bringing redemption to the world) might say something like, "Why do you still blame me?" "Why did I, an elect Jew, being of the same lump as Paul, get "formed" for the "ignoble purpose" of being hardened so as to cry "crucify Him" and "make room for the Gentiles to be grafted in," while Paul got picked to be a divinely appointed messenger for the "noble purpose" of taking the Gospel to the world?"

Now, you may disagree with my view, but to dismiss it out of hand while presuming your own is just a game of "question begging" and does nothing to further our discussion.

 

Quit lying. You constantly argue that Calvinism gives men an excuse. It's your whole case. When I get time, I'll post the citations.

 

Very mature.

Yes, that is one of my many problems with Calvinism, but its far from being my "whole case."

I can't think of a better excuse for the reprobate at judgement than the one Calvinistic dogma gives them, can you? Seriously, is there any better excuse than, "God was against me from the beginning of time?" Which clearly isn't the objection Paul is addressing in Romans 9 because he plainly teaches that God wasn't against the rebellious Jew from the beginning. God "held out his hands to them all day long" (Rm. 10:21)

 

Think that NO sinner will have ANY excuse when facing judgement at the great White Throne!

God is against sin, and ALL have us are sinners, and all would deserve a gulity verdict by God...


mankind is in open rebellion towards the Lord, wants and does sinful acts against his will, so why would there be any excuse present?

 

Sinful Man's excuse at Judgment Day (if Calvinism is to be believed): "There was nothing I could do about it. God didn't choose me for salvation, so I was predestined to Hell. Oh sure, the Bible say 'whosoever may come' and 'believe and you will be saved' but God didn't pick me."

 

Actually, the calvinist proposal is that men will not be given a chance to offer excuses. The Lord will look at the book of life, and tell them: "I never knew you. Next."

Still studying. Trying to figure out if there are any major differences between what Calvin wrote, and the TULIP rebuttal that was crafted as a response to Arminius; compared to Arminius' "Sentiments." More material than I expected.

 

Would say Clavin theology not exactly modern day calvinism, more like he was the sorce material to expand upon....

Would recommend to you a theology by Millard Erickson His Systematic Theology is "moderate" calvinism, and does a good job comparing/contrasting differing viewpoints!