Thanks for your reply. I am familiar with Romans 9:16-21 and I understand that my questions to William place me in a non-favorable analogy to those verses, especially verses 19 and 20. I am teachable and am willing to hear reasonable explainations for those searching questions that I am asking concerning the predestination aspects of Calvinism.
Also, I apologize for using Calvinism as a label. I don't like man-made labels for systems of faith because they are limiting and demeaning, placing people into categories like insect specimens. I would prefer Biblical labels because at least they are foundational and have firm backing in God's word. Let me know if another label is more appropriate to use than Calvinism or Arminianism.
But on the other hand, labels are handy in theological discussions because they help us to concisely transmit our meanings to each other.
I would think that this passage in Romans is a showcase for Calvinistic doctrine. I am surprised that it is not used more often by Calvinists as a defense for that position. I don't think that election is specifically referred to although Paul is discussing it in the chapter immediately preceeding, that is, in regards to predestination and God's calling.
I would assume then, that most on this site would have problems with Billy Graham for instance because he preaches to "all" the lost and pleads for them to accept salvation in Christ Jesus. Problems I say, because his audience would certainly include the reprobate, i.e. other than favored elect. You surely consider evangelicals like Graham in a kind and respectful light although I would suspect that you might consider their preaching to be inefficient since so many of the hearers are not the elect unto salvation.
Consider this verse:
1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
We know that this is NOT saying that all men will be saved but is not Paul telling Timothy that God wants all men to be saved? All my life I have been taught that the LORD would be very pleased if all men would seek His face; was this untruth?
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I would desire that Peter would have phrased the above to be: “not willing that any of the elect shall perish, but that all of the elect should come to repentance.” Then we could know of a certainty that God calls unto Himself only a pre-chosen, privileged elect.
Let me state it this way: if 1 Timothy 2:4 only applies to the elect, then why the urgency for their salvation if they are already the elect, chosen of God? Yes, they were born into the sin nature inherited from Adam and there is the issue of imputed guilt for Adam’s sin that pervaded the human race. Salvation effectively deals with this problem.
Finally, with respect to “freewill” and what the Arminianist believes to be man’s part in all this:
Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
God’s righteousness (of which we are told that no man has or can ever muster in himself, with this I whole-heartedly agree) was imputed to Abraham, “funneled” into his prior empty “righteousness account” because Abraham believed God. Do you agree that this transaction of righteousness would never have occurred if Abraham had not believed?
And does not one “believe” unto salvation?
Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
God’s sovereignty has not been compromised, He does the saving. But in my upbringing, we do the believing to appropriate this miracle on one’s soul. We add nothing to salvation beyond child-like simple, believing faith. None of our works would suffice, they are filthy rags, we possess no inherent righteousness. We start out totally depraved. Even the faith required to believe God is a gift from Him.
You perhaps might say that it was God who woke up this desire to seek Him out and find Him because He does this for the elect.
Could not God in His sovereignty choose to give men free will, even to violate; not His sovereignty; but His will? And violation of His will He can and must punish. The creature has free will to choose, but he suffers the consequences of wrong decisions. His choice to do evil for a season bring about God’s chastening for the believer. During this moment before he repents according to 1 John 1:9, he is violating God’s will by sinning. But the word of God and the Holy Spirit convict him of his sin and he turns and repents. God receives him and the violation of God’s will ends for that particular sin because the man has been brought under the obedience of the gospel. There are conditional things that we must do, very simple acts of faith and then God responds; very much how it is between parents and their children.
If the jailor had not beleved in Acts 16:31 above, then no further response would have occurred at that time from God on behalf of the jailor’s salvation. And, of course the Holy Spirit could continue to convict his heart and draw him from that point on until he chose to finally believe. I contend that this is not manipulating God. He encourages us to ask, seek, knock and the door of blessing will be opened. And I am not advocating “bless me” dogma. We know that if we ask anything ACCORDING TO HIS WILL, he heareth us, etc. Has not God offered men salvation and as an act of His own sovereign will, chosen to make the efficacy of salvation dependent upon the choice to believe that He will do this upon the believing faith of the one who chose to receive this divine intervention?
I think that Calvinists will fault me in this assertion because they will probably say that He only does this for the elect and that even then, it was not their initiation but God’s that effected salvation’s goal?
