Tastes Great or Less Filling

I can easily see how Calvinists derive their interpretation of Romans 9.

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?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

It is easy to see how a Calvinist believes this passage is saying God like a potter created some men to honor, and some to dishonor. But we are told to study and "rightly divide the word". Paul here is refering to OT scripture, which the Jews who were listening to him would know and understand, and has nothing to do with unconditional election whatsoever.

Jer 18:1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

The Jews Paul was addressing would have known this passage in Jeremiah speaking of "the potter". Is this passage saying God has unconditionally elected some men to salvation, and chosen to pass other men by? No. It is speaking of nations, and God says that if a nation he has determined to pluck up and destroy, if that nation turns from it's evil, he will repent of the evil he intended toward that nation. He likewise says that if he has chosen to build and plant a nation, if that nation does evil in his sight and will not listen to his voice, he will repent of the good he had said he would do unto them.

So, there is nothing unconditional about this whatsoever, a nation that does good will be blessed, and a nation that does evil will be punished.

And this is what Paul is refering to in Romans 9. He is speaking of the Jews who had rejected Jesus, and now they will be rejected. And the Gentile nations who had heard and believed the gospel will be blessed.

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.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
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;
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.

So, Calvinism misinterprets Romans 9 because they do not know OT scripture well. Paul in no way is speaking of unconditional election in Romans 9. He is saying that God is rejecting Israel because they have rejected the gospel, and that he is now blessing the Gentile nations because they have heard and believed the gospel.

 

I'm not certain that I totally agree.

If one were to use the "potter" as the only part of Romans 9, then you might be accurate.

And, certainly, Paul is making a case of rejection and selection.

BUT, earlier in that same chapter, Paul states,

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."​

Now it would seem that the statement "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" indicates a point of support for the Calvinist view.

The children of the flesh are not the same as the children of the promise. Only the children of promise are counted for the seed.

The chapter goes on with Paul using multiple examples of the principle.

To further reinforce the disagreement of your statement, the very next chapter continues the same line of reasoning as Romans 9 with a discussion of salvation.

 

The people who espouse Calvinism, do not do so because it is superficially easy to understand or because it is a natural or innate point of view. They do so rather, because the Bible clearly teaches it.

If scripture so clearly and obviously teaches these principles, why such a raging debate for so many centuries? Many in the ranks of Calvinism are excellent and talented scholars...True.

Is what Calvinism teaches "anti-biblical" in anyway.....I really don't know

Calvinism, like any other template for scripture interpretation and exegesis is mankinds attempt to classify and categorize, which by the way, seems to be somewhat of an innate (created) desire.

The men and women who have contributed to the cause of Calvinism throughout history are no doubt great people, strong and steadfast in their faith and wonderful examples to emulate.

 

It seems there reaches a point in most believer's maturity, with enough exposure to scripture, that they start seeing something there that they never

I understand (intellectually) the intent of this, but one must be EXTREMELY cautious here, as pride can so easily slip in. There can be a fine line between confidence and out right self aggrandizing pride.

 

I heard a few years ago, that a tanker full of Miller Lite, wrecked and the beverage spilled out into a river. The chemists took samples of the water and tested it to see if it harmed the water. They fought over their findings. One said the water "tastes great", the other said "less fishing". :laugh:


I heard a comedian say this one time.

 

that God is ultimately sovereign over all the affairs of men, even extending to those who are born again and those or not, did not engender some internal crisis within me, something I was not psychologically able to deal with. I intuitively understood that this attribute of God did not change what God himself commanded in scripture to man, to spread the gospel and so forth. For whatever reason, then in my late 20's, I was not traumatized by it - in a way I was exhilirated and with maybe a certain degree of pride that I now understood something about God that for whatever reason a lot of people in the church apparently didn't.

Have you heard (seen) anyone in BB land espouse that God is NOT sovereign over all, ALL of creation including mankind? Both sides of the theological debate have the "hot button" issues and phrases that they jump on with their own set of talking points. Sovereignty happens to be one of them

Person A: You don't believe God is sovereign
Person B: Yes I do
Person A: No you don't
Person B: Yes I do

ad nauseum