As mentioned in the introduction, I have been been discussing the differences between Calvinism and Provisionalism with a fellow blogger. One particular response grabbed my attention and I am trying to understand his position, by referring to his proof texts and logic.
This is the sixth (and final) portion of his response (in red), along with the corresponding verses he referred to. I shall seek to comment on the verses and find his argument within the verses he has provided.
God is saving a people unconditionally Romans 9:11 according to election God promises to save a people and He can’t wait around for someone who has no desire or the ability to come. I will rely on scripture that he shows mercy unconditionally to whom he chooses.
Romans 9:11 – though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls–
I suppose my friends comments – “God is saving a people unconditionally Romans 9:11” is a bit confusing for me in that the verse does not speak of salvation but of election. I fear he may be equating “election” with “personal individual salvation” and in the proof text verse he has supplied through this series, I have found no convincing argument to agree with his assumption.
Paul gives us the purpose of election, and I find one of the better explanations of election to be found at Soteriology 101.
For this final response, I would like to supply a video for your viewing pleasure and consideration. It is an overview, and under 5 minutes in length.
How about you? Are you convinced that God has “determined” your salvation? Are you convinced that God has “determined” some to burn in hell, eternally, consciously and without relief? How do you see the passages we have discussed in this series?
I have offered multiple times to discuss with my friend over the phone, but without any response. If any are out there that would like to discuss one on one, I would appreciate the opportunity to understand your position.
I thank you for following this series of posts discussing a Calvinists response to an earlier post. I do hope you will join me in our next series of “Considering the Bible” and take part in the discussion.
Thanks again for coming to visit. I hope you found something of interest in this post and would appreciate a comment, to begin a discussion.
Considering the Bible 
Just to be clear
His accursed brothers after the “flesh” not his spiritual brothers in Christ
LikeLike
You are assuming a lot
The word “nation” is not in the chapter and is not referring to every individual in the “nation”
The word “nation” is not there in the sentence prior to using “the thing formed” which is referring back to the man in the verse sentence.
In addition, the Apostle is referring in the first few verses of Romans 9 to his accursed Israelite brothers, individuals, not a nation.
Since the Israelite accursed brothers after the flesh did not represent everyone in the “nation” that you say is “the thing formed” we must be talking about individuals that are being saved; since all israel is not Israel The whole “nation” of Israel is not complaining as you state in your quote below.
“I see it as the nation of Israel complaining / blaming God for thier condition.”
LikeLike
Believe whatever makes you happy
LikeLike
Did I ever say my understanding of the scripture was based on happiness? Since you hate the biblical God that determined all things from before the foundation of the world, then, I would say your belief is based on making you happy
LikeLike
Whatever you say. You are truly God’s voice.
LikeLike
I’m just reading the text I’m no ones voice
LikeLike
Of course not. You are the only one who can read the text. My apologies for having a different understanding of the Word of God
LikeLike
I’m not the only one and you already know that
LikeLike
What denomination do you belong to? What is your teaching called? You have told me many times your not a calvinist. You seem to be unable to associate with any group or teaching, I’m sure because you are the only one who can “read” the text.
LikeLike
No, I just explained and showed to you very simply that a man talking in scripture cannot and can never be a nation.
It is frustrating ( you know math) that you don’t get it; even when it is simplified and oversimplified, repeatedly. A man complaining about God unconditionally hardening and making him the way he is and finding fault and not being able to resist His Will can never be a nation. It is really weird ( I’m being kind) that you can change the wording and meaning and feel comfortable. That is unbelievable to me and the nerve you hit. I hope your readers can see the deception. Intentional or unintentional, it doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
Your assumptions that Paul is referring to an individual person when he states “the thing” is not convincing.
From my understanding, you have every freedom to believe that – but wait – you don’t have the freedom to believe that if what you speak of is true. You have no freedom at all, in either thought feeling or action.
LikeLike
Carl, I have simplified and oversimplified using nothing but what written in that scripture and you are the one changing scripture saying the man talking back to God is a nation and then accusing me of using deterministic philosophy. I’m only using scripture. I have never read the material you are accusing me of referring to. You are making up things because you hate the biblical God that determines everything.
LikeLike
Ok.
LikeLike
Touched a nerve me thinks
LikeLike
I’m using scripture when I comment to you so please don’t divert to something unrelated; man’s philosophy
LikeLike
You are the one using ancient deterministic philosophy
LikeLike
It really helps to fit the puzzle pieces together so you can eliminate your imaginary god made in your own image
Isaiah 43:7
every one who is called by My name, I have created him for My glory; I have formed him; yea, I have made him
LikeLike
You have 5 or 6 puzzle pieces and a philosophy directly from Socrates and the Manicheans.
LikeLike
This is your version
“The thing” that is answering back to God isnt a single human, “
This is the inspired by God version
“Nay, rather, O man, who are you, the one answering back to God?” Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it, Why did You make me like this?
Can the thing (man) being formed talk? Yes, “Nay, rather, O man, who are you, the one ( the one is singular) answering (talking) back to God?” then he must be a single human since he is man and can talk and answer back to God
LikeLike
Why didnt paul say the man formed instead of the thing. Your assumptions are not justified except in order to justify your deterministic philosophy
LikeLike
Man is one of the things formed and created by God and since this thing formed can talk and answer back to God, he must be a man that God formed and made in this context being referred to. Read Isaiah 43:7 slowly again
LikeLike
You have your assumptions. Sound more and more like you are trying to convince yourself.
LikeLike
You must have missed the pasted verse above because we both read “man “ not nation
Romans 9:20 Nay, rather, O man, who are you, the one answering back to God? Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it, Why did You make me like this?
LikeLike
What version have you chosen?
LikeLike
Your faith
LikeLike
In that same verse Roman 9:20 one man was complaining not a nation
LikeLike
Romans 9:20
Nay, rather, O man, who are you, the one answering back to God? Shall the thing formed say to the One forming it, Why
did You make me like this?
LikeLike
Why doesnt Paul ask ” Shall the man formed…” why does he change subject? He mentions man initially and the refers to “the thing”.
Interesting change in object of discussion.
LikeLike
Is this your interpretation?
LikeLike
It is my question
LikeLike
It was your question after my quest for your interpretation
LikeLike
? Not tracking with you. Yes I had a question to ask you, but not sure if you considered it.
LikeLike
Your question is easily answered; but I was looking for your interpretation first.
LikeLike
“The thing” that is answering back to God isnt a single human, as I believe you interpret the verse, as if each man and woman individually is referred to.
I see it as the nation of Israel complaining / blaming God for thier condition.
Of course you will argue, I expect that. But until you give a better explanation of the passage, I am persuaded by this way of looking at the passage.
BTW, simply throwing the standard prooftexts as a response will not impress or convince me. I have read them before -remember, I was a calvinist for years and was in the habit of throwing verses out, thinking my calvinistic understanding was the only way the verses could be understood.
LikeLike
Please give me your scriptural interpretation of Romans 9:20
LikeLike