What does God's Sovereignty mean?

[Imalive]

Does it? I think that would mean that he's chosen his elect for whatever reason and that the others are going to be judged in the absence of such a preference. They will, therefore, be eternally lost, but not because God dictated their fate (as would be the case with double predestination) but, rather, on their own record.

If they go to hell for rejecting Him, the others go to heaven for not rejecting Him, which is accepting.
If this is a sinking ship and I pick here 3 ppl to save, Snerf, otherwise he gets mad, meluckycharms cuz he has such a nice avatar and ehm I'll throw a lot for the third and the rest can drown. I dont know hear, but its arbitrary, partial and then the others just drown cuz i dont pick em, which is quite hateful, not because they reject me. its pick or choose. single predestination makes no sense to me except when its on the basis of knowing their hearts that they will listen to Him.

 

[atpollard]

Agreed. Which is why we need to seriously take a look at the genre. Is it historical narrative, poetic allegory, ect...? We also have to ask ourselves who is witnessing the conversation between God and the satan to have recorded it? Why was the dialogue in poetic form? Also, why is the book of Job almost identical to the Babylonian Theodicy (see link)?

http://www.etana.org/node/582

I once read an analysis of Genesis 1 that compared it to Sumerian, Babylonian and Egyptian creation myths ... the usual suspects that Bible critics claim it was copied from ... and he compared the differences rather than the similarities. An interesting patern emerged in which God appeared to have structured his creation account as a polemic refuting the existance of all other deities and proclaiming their stories lies. As a quick example, all of the other creation myths start with when and how the 'gods' were created, but Genesis starts with a God who just exists, before anything else exists.

I wonder if Job might be part of God setting the record straight on another universal human question and the similarity to the Babylonian Theodicy is not an accident, but a polemic shot across the Babylonian bow by the true God.

 

[MennoSota]

But if choosing is just for a task it does. The Bible says 2 opposites if you take Romans 9 as predestination. You have to ignore one set or the other or make em fit.

I don't understand what you are talking about.
What does the text say?
Paul tells us that not all Israel is through the ancestral line of Abraham, but instead Israel comes through the promise given to Abraham and all that would be given the gift of faith by God's choosing.
The author in your link has missed the meaning almost entirely, which may explain why you are also missing the meaning in Romans 9.
Arminians really can't get around Romans 9 without butchering the passage.

 

[MennoSota]

If they go to hell for rejecting Him, the others go to heaven for not rejecting Him, which is accepting.

You have created salvation by works apart from grace, which is not the gospel.
In your comment, salvation is not by the grace of God, at his choosing, but instead it is all about humans accepting or rejecting. It is entirely human centered.

 

[meluckycharms]

I don't understand what you are talking about.
What does the text say?
Paul tells us that not all Israel is through the ancestral line of Abraham, but instead Israel comes through the promise given to Abraham and all that would be given the gift of faith by God's choosing.
The author in your link has missed the meaning almost entirely, which may explain why you are also missing the meaning in Romans 9.
Arminians really can't get around Romans 9 without butchering the passage.

Well...Romans 9 is clearly describing the nation of Israel and not intended to be normative for all people.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[atpollard]

Well...Romans 9 is clearly describing the nation of Israel and not intended to be normative for all people.

... are you sure?

Romans 9:6-8 NKJV But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Romans 9:22-26 NKJV What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
As He says also in Hosea:
​
​​“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
​​And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
​​“And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
​‘​You are not My people,’
​​There they shall be called sons of the living God."


It sure sounds like it applies to gentiles as well as Jews and Paul even uses "they" in verse 6 (excluding himself from Jews, his brothers) and uses "us" in verse 24, including himself with the gentiles. The distinction seems to be between the people of Faith and those not of faith. Historic Israel is just the example given for a universal lesson.

 

[Imalive]

... are you sure?

Romans 9:6-8 NKJV But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Romans 9:22-26 NKJV What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
As He says also in Hosea:
​
​​“I will call them My people, who were not My people,
​​And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
​​“And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
​‘​You are not My people,’
​​There they shall be called sons of the living God."


It sure sounds like it applies to gentiles as well as Jews and Paul even uses "they" in verse 6 (excluding himself from Jews, his brothers) and uses "us" in verse 24, including himself with the gentiles. The distinction seems to be between the people of Faith and those not of faith. Historic Israel is just the example given for a universal lesson.

No, go read those links. That guy is fabulous. One pot wasnt willing in his hands and such. Lol he explains it better than me though.

 

[atpollard]

No, go read those links. That guy is fabulous. One pot wasnt willing in his hands and such. Lol he explains it better than me though.

Those links are likely arguing the "people get to choose" position against the hardline "election" position. I have no dog in that fight. I like Arminianism, I just can never accept it as true based on my personal salvation experience.
It just seemed odd for someone to claim that Paun, apostle to the Gentiles, included a chapter directed exclusively at National Jews in the middle of a letter written to the gentile saints in Rome. I am only challenging the claim that it is not "universally applicable".

I do get that the OT events quoted are first and foremost about historic Israel, I just think that God is no less soverign when it comes to His Church than he was over His Nation. If anything, God is even MORE in control ... now he is giving new hearts and the Holy Spirit is taking up permanent residence.

... but I will read them.

 

[Josiah]

But single predestination makes no sense. What is that? He chooses a bunch He likes. That means He hates the rest.

"Like" has nothing to do with anything. God loves all.

With all due respect, I could not possibly care less what does or does not "make sense" to some fallen, sinful, broken, limited, largely ignorant human being.... what matters is what God STATES about divine matters, and God says the Elect are justified and that He loves all unconditionally, that Christ died for all. If some fallen, limited, largely ignorant person can't fully wrap their puny brain about all that (given what God has wisely chosen to tell us and not tell us), well.... that just confirms that God is bigger than man, that God knows more about the things of God than some person does, that God is not subject to man and man's sense of what is and is not possible, what is and is not humanly "logical." IF we were to go by the rubric that God MUST submit to man's brain, then we must reject the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, inspiration.... indeed God Himself. God did not command us to be the Corrector of God or to make God make sense, He commanded us to faith and love. Accepting the sovereignty of God includes accepting what God proclaims - whether our fallen human brains can wrap itself around such or not.



- Josiah




.

 

[Imalive]

"Like" has nothing to do with anything. God loves all.

With all due respect, I could not possibly care less what does or does not "make sense" to some fallen, sinful, broken, limited, largely ignorant human being.... what matters is what God STATES about divine matters, and God says the Elect are justified and that He loves all unconditionally, that Christ died for all. If some fallen, limited, largely ignorant person can't fully wrap their puny brain about all that (given what God has wisely chosen to tell us and not tell us), well.... that just confirms that God is bigger than man, that God knows more about the things of God than some person does, that God is not subject to man and man's sense of what is and is not possible, what is and is not humanly "logical." IF we were to go by the rubric that God MUST submit to man's brain, then we must reject the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, inspiration.... indeed God Himself. God did not command us to be the Corrector of God or to make God make sense, He commanded us to faith and love. Accepting the sovereignty of God includes accepting what God proclaims - whether our fallen human brains can wrap itself around such or not.



- Josiah




.

God states a lot that doesnt make it true that He predestined only some to get saved because of some mysterious will. That can only be if its because He knows their hearts and foreknew them. It doesnt matter if something makes no sense to me. It matters if it doesnt make sense to the everything He said.

 

[Imalive]

I don't understand what you are talking about.
What does the text say?
Paul tells us that not all Israel is through the ancestral line of Abraham, but instead Israel comes through the promise given to Abraham and all that would be given the gift of faith by God's choosing.
The author in your link has missed the meaning almost entirely, which may explain why you are also missing the meaning in Romans 9.
Arminians really can't get around Romans 9 without butchering the passage.

Romans 9 to 11 is about that He elected Israel to save the world. When most rejected Him He used them as vessels like Pharao to still save the world and then later those chosen elected whatever to be cut off from the vine, the not good pot from the potter, got grafted in again because He chose the Jews and gentiles who did accept Him to make them jealous and save them. He wants to save all.
You could just read those links, but I explain it fantastic too if I may say so. I should become a theology professor.
I cant even cut meat. I can only cut soya beans lol. That guy.

 

[MennoSota]

Romans 9 to 11 is about that He elected Israel to save the world. When most rejected Him He used them as vessels like Pharao to still save the world and then later those chosen elected whatever to be cut off from the vine, the not good pot from the potter, got grafted in again because He chose the Jews and gentiles who did accept Him to make them jealous and save them. He wants to save all.
You could just read those links, but I explain it fantastic too if I may say so. I should become a theology professor.
I cant even cut meat. I can only cut soya beans lol. That guy.

No Romans 9 - 11 is not about electing Israel to save the world. The world is saved only by God. Paul tells us that not all Israel is Israel in chapter 9. You are amazingly off the mark, which means the person you are referencing is entirely wrong. I suggest you throw their material away and read Romans 9 - 11 yourself. Observe, question, interpret and apply.
You will not find the term "accept Him" anywhere in there. You are presenting a false narrative.

 

[Imalive]

No Romans 9 - 11 is not about electing Israel to save the world. The world is saved only by God. Paul tells us that not all Israel is Israel in chapter 9. You are amazingly off the mark, which means the person you are referencing is entirely wrong. I suggest you throw their material away and read Romans 9 - 11 yourself. Observe, question, interpret and apply.
You will not find the term "accept Him" anywhere in there. You are presenting a false narrative.

I made some stuff bold, for if you don't want to read it all.


Does Romans 9 Teach Calvinist Predestination?
Posted on February 6, 2015 by Jack Cottrell
DOES ROMANS 9 TEACH CALVINIST PREDESTINATION?
Jack Cottrell – February 2015

QUESTION: I have a friend who argues that the story of Jacob and Esau supports the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. But Genesis 25:27-34 says that Esau forfeited his birthright by selling it to Jacob.Thus it seems plain that it was not by God’s election but by Esau’s choice. How is this text so misinterpreted by those who teach this view of predestination?

ANSWER: The use of Jacob and Esau to support the Calvinist view of election (or predestination) is based not on the Genesis account, but on a false interpretation of Romans 9:10-14, which says: “And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.’ Just as it is written, ‘JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED’” (NASB).

Calvinists think this whole chapter teaches the doctrine of unconditional election to salvation. Just as God chose Abraham, so he chose Abraham’s son Isaac, rather than Ishmael—for salvation (9:7-9). Likewise God chose Jacob rather than Esau—for salvation (9:10-14). In the same way God chose to have mercy on Moses but to harden Pharaoh (9:15-18).

Interpreted this way, the ninth chapter of Romans becomes one of Calvinism’s main proof-texts for their doctrine of unconditional predestination. The problem, however, is that this is a complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the entire chapter, and of the whole section of Romans 9-11.

It is a fact that in Romans 9 Paul is affirming unconditional election. I.e., God has indeed unconditionally chosen Abraham and no other as the founding father of Israel. He has indeed unconditionally chosen Isaac rather than Ishmael, and Jacob rather than Esau. Moses and Pharaoh are a further illustration of God’s sovereignty in choosing whomever he wills.

The problem with the Calvinist view, though, is this: Romans 9 is NOT talking about election to salvation, but election to service. The issue is not personal salvation, but roles of service in carrying out God’s plan for bringing about redemption for this sinful world. The bottom line is that God has the right to choose and use whomever he desires in order to carry out his purposes. This is meant to apply specifically to the nation of Israel.

Why does Paul (under the Spirit’s influence) see fit to discuss this issue at this point in the letter to the Romans? He has just explained, in chapters 1-8, that God’s way of salvation is by grace through faith, and not by works of law (3:28), i.e., not by how well one keeps his or her law code. This is just as true of Jews as it is of Gentiles. Regarding the way of salvation, God makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles (see especially chapters 2 and 3).

The content of Romans up through chapter 8 is a direct challenge to the belief commonly held by the Jews of Paul’s day, that they had a special inside track to salvation After all, were they not God’s chosen people? If so, does that not mean that somehow, every circumcised Jew who holds high the Law of Moses will be saved (2:17-29)?

This assumption, says Paul, is absolutely false. The problem is that the Jews were confusing election to service with election to salvation. They assumed that because God chose them as the means by which “all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 12:3), he also chose them, simply as Jews, for salvation. But now they hear Paul saying, “No! Jews do not have a unique path to heaven; on Judgment Day they will be treated like everyone else.” So now they are thinking, “That’s not fair! God has just been leading us on, giving us promises he never meant to keep. He is going back on his word! Where is the justice?”

So in Romans 9 Paul is defending God’s righteousness in his dealings with the Jews. The Word of God has not failed (9:6a). When God says that only those Jews will be saved who trust God’s promises, like their father Abraham did, he is not going back on his original promises to Israel. His choice of the nation as a whole was not a guarantee of any individual Jew’s salvation. God was simply choosing the nation as such to be the means for bringing the Savior into the world (9:5). And God certainly has the sovereign right to use any individual or group that he chooses for such a purpose, without any promise of personal salvation being attached.

This is the point of the crucial passage, 9:14-18: “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, ‘I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.’ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.’ So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”

The language of mercy and compassion that is used here is never limited in the Bible to saving mercy. It is often used to refer to the temporal blessings and privileges which God bestows upon individuals. (E.g., Paul says God has shown mercy on him by choosing him to be an apostle: 1 Cor. 7:25; 2 Cor. 4:1.) Here in Romans 9, the prime example Paul uses of God’s choosing someone for service without also choosing him for salvation is none other than Pharaoh (9:17). God both “had mercy” on him by choosing him for a crucial role in birthing the nation of Israel, and also “hardened” him in order to accomplish the same purpose.

For the exegetical evidence establishing the above view, see my commentary on Romans as published by College Press; and see also my essay, “Pharaoh as a Paradigm for Israel in Romans 9:18,” found online in several places including http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Cottrell.-Romans-9.18.pdf . I especially urge you to read the latter.

Just as many Israelites were guilty of misinterpreting God’s purpose for unconditionally calling their nation to be his special people, so are Calvinists guilty of misinterpreting God’s Word here in Romans 9. There is absolutely no support in this chapter for the false doctrine of unconditional predestination to salvation.

Be Sociable, Share!:;-D:

http://jackcottrell.com/uncategorized/does-romans-9-teach-calvinist-predestination/

 

[MennoSota]

Does Romans 9 Teach Calvinist Predestination?
Posted on February 6, 2015 by Jack Cottrell
DOES ROMANS 9 TEACH CALVINIST PREDESTINATION?
Jack Cottrell – February 2015

QUESTION: I have a friend who argues that the story of Jacob and Esau supports the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. But Genesis 25:27-34 says that Esau forfeited his birthright by selling it to Jacob. Thus it seems plain that it was not by God’s election but by Esau’s choice. How is this text so misinterpreted by those who teach this view of predestination?

ANSWER: The use of Jacob and Esau to support the Calvinist view of election (or predestination) is based not on the Genesis account, but on a false interpretation of Romans 9:10-14, which says: “And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, ‘THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.’ Just as it is written, ‘JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED’” (NASB).

Calvinists think this whole chapter teaches the doctrine of unconditional election to salvation. Just as God chose Abraham, so he chose Abraham’s son Isaac, rather than Ishmael—for salvation (9:7-9). Likewise God chose Jacob rather than Esau—for salvation (9:10-14). In the same way God chose to have mercy on Moses but to harden Pharaoh (9:15-18).

Interpreted this way, the ninth chapter of Romans becomes one of Calvinism’s main proof-texts for their doctrine of unconditional predestination. The problem, however, is that this is a complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the entire chapter, and of the whole section of Romans 9-11.

It is a fact that in Romans 9 Paul is affirming unconditional election. I.e., God has indeed unconditionally chosen Abraham and no other as the founding father of Israel. He has indeed unconditionally chosen Isaac rather than Ishmael, and Jacob rather than Esau. Moses and Pharaoh are a further illustration of God’s sovereignty in choosing whomever he wills.

The problem with the Calvinist view, though, is this: Romans 9 is NOT talking about election to salvation, but election to service. The issue is not personal salvation, but roles of service in carrying out God’s plan for bringing about redemption for this sinful world. The bottom line is that God has the right to choose and use whomever he desires in order to carry out his purposes. This is meant to apply specifically to the nation of Israel.

Why does Paul (under the Spirit’s influence) see fit to discuss this issue at this point in the letter to the Romans? He has just explained, in chapters 1-8, that God’s way of salvation is by grace through faith, and not by works of law (3:28), i.e., not by how well one keeps his or her law code. This is just as true of Jews as it is of Gentiles. Regarding the way of salvation, God makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles (see especially chapters 2 and 3).

The content of Romans up through chapter 8 is a direct challenge to the belief commonly held by the Jews of Paul’s day, that they had a special inside track to salvation After all, were they not God’s chosen people? If so, does that not mean that somehow, every circumcised Jew who holds high the Law of Moses will be saved (2:17-29)?

This assumption, says Paul, is absolutely false. The problem is that the Jews were confusing election to service with election to salvation. They assumed that because God chose them as the means by which “all the families of the earth will be blessed” (Gen. 12:3), he also chose them, simply as Jews, for salvation. But now they hear Paul saying, “No! Jews do not have a unique path to heaven; on Judgment Day they will be treated like everyone else.” So now they are thinking, “That’s not fair! God has just been leading us on, giving us promises he never meant to keep. He is going back on his word! Where is the justice?”

So in Romans 9 Paul is defending God’s righteousness in his dealings with the Jews. The Word of God has not failed (9:6a). When God says that only those Jews will be saved who trust God’s promises, like their father Abraham did, he is not going back on his original promises to Israel. His choice of the nation as a whole was not a guarantee of any individual Jew’s salvation. God was simply choosing the nation as such to be the means for bringing the Savior into the world (9:5). And God certainly has the sovereign right to use any individual or group that he chooses for such a purpose, without any promise of personal salvation being attached.

This is the point of the crucial passage, 9:14-18: “What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, ‘I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.’ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.’ So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.”

The language of mercy and compassion that is used here is never limited in the Bible to saving mercy. It is often used to refer to the temporal blessings and privileges which God bestows upon individuals. (E.g., Paul says God has shown mercy on him by choosing him to be an apostle: 1 Cor. 7:25; 2 Cor. 4:1.) Here in Romans 9, the prime example Paul uses of God’s choosing someone for service without also choosing him for salvation is none other than Pharaoh (9:17). God both “had mercy” on him by choosing him for a crucial role in birthing the nation of Israel, and also “hardened” him in order to accomplish the same purpose.

For the exegetical evidence establishing the above view, see my commentary on Romans as published by College Press; and see also my essay, “Pharaoh as a Paradigm for Israel in Romans 9:18,” found online in several places including http://evangelicalarminians.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Cottrell.-Romans-9.18.pdf . I especially urge you to read the latter.

Just as many Israelites were guilty of misinterpreting God’s purpose for unconditionally calling their nation to be his special people, so are Calvinists guilty of misinterpreting God’s Word here in Romans 9. There is absolutely no support in this chapter for the false doctrine of unconditional predestination to salvation.

Be Sociable, Share!:;-D:

http://jackcottrell.com/uncategorized/does-romans-9-teach-calvinist-predestination/

What does Romans 9 teach? The answer is: Read Romans 9. Observe, question, interpret and apply what you read. Stop going outside of scripture to find your answer. Go into the scripture and see what it says.
Had Calvin, Luther and all others cease to exist yet God's word was available, we could read Romans 9 and understand what it says. I point you to God's word. What does Romans 9 actually say?

 

[MennoSota]

Romans 9:1-33
[1]With Christ as my witness, I speak with utter truthfulness. My conscience and the Holy Spirit confirm it.
[2]My heart is filled with bitter sorrow and unending grief
[3]for my people, my Jewish brothers and sisters. I would be willing to be forever cursed—cut off from Christ!—if that would save them.
[4]They are the people of Israel, chosen to be God’s adopted children. God revealed his glory to them. He made covenants with them and gave them his law. He gave them the privilege of worshiping him and receiving his wonderful promises.
[5]Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are their ancestors, and Christ himself was an Israelite as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, the one who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.
[6]Well then, has God failed to fulfill his promise to Israel? No, for not all who are born into the nation of Israel are truly members of God’s people!
[7]Being descendants of Abraham doesn’t make them truly Abraham’s children. For the Scriptures say, “Isaac is the son through whom your descendants will be counted,” though Abraham had other children, too.
[8]This means that Abraham’s physical descendants are not necessarily children of God. Only the children of the promise are considered to be Abraham’s children.
[9]For God had promised, “I will return about this time next year, and Sarah will have a son.”
[10]This son was our ancestor Isaac. When he married Rebekah, she gave birth to twins.
[11]But before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad, she received a message from God. (This message shows that God chooses people according to his own purposes;
[12]he calls people, but not according to their good or bad works.) She was told, “Your older son will serve your younger son.”
[13]In the words of the Scriptures, “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau.”
[14]Are we saying, then, that God was unfair? Of course not!
[15]For God said to Moses, “I will show mercy to anyone I choose, *** and I will show compassion to anyone I choose.”
[16]So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.
[17]For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth.”
[18]So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.
[19]Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”
[20]No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?”
[21]When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?
[22]In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction.
[23]He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory.
[24]And we are among those whom he selected, both from the Jews and from the Gentiles.
[25]Concerning the Gentiles, God says in the prophecy of Hosea, “Those who were not my people, *** I will now call my people. And I will love those *** whom I did not love before.”
[26]And, “Then, at the place where they were told, *** ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called *** ‘children of the living God.’”
[27]And concerning Israel, Isaiah the prophet cried out, “Though the people of Israel are as numerous as the sand of the seashore, *** only a remnant will be saved.
[28]For the lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth *** quickly and with finality.”
[29]And Isaiah said the same thing in another place: “If the lord of Heaven’s Armies *** had not spared a few of our children, we would have been wiped out like Sodom, *** destroyed like Gomorrah.”
[30]What does all this mean? Even though the Gentiles were not trying to follow God’s standards, they were made right with God. And it was by faith that this took place.
[31]But the people of Israel, who tried so hard to get right with God by keeping the law, never succeeded.
[32]Why not? Because they were trying to get right with God by keeping the law instead of by trusting in him. They stumbled over the great rock in their path.
[33]God warned them of this in the Scriptures when he said, “I am placing a stone in Jerusalem that makes people stumble, *** a rock that makes them fall. But anyone who trusts in him *** will never be disgraced.”

 

[Imalive]

What does Romans 9 teach? The answer is: Read Romans 9. Observe, question, interpret and apply what you read. Stop going outside of scripture to find your answer. Go into the scripture and see what it says.
Had Calvin, Luther and all others cease to exist yet God's word was available, we could read Romans 9 and understand what it says. I point you to God's word. What does Romans 9 actually say?

I just did. Read whole Romans in context and also with the O.T.
In the O.T. God chooses Jacob. The oldest will serve the youngest He told Rebecca. That was not about his personal salvation. He chose Jacob, Israel to bring forth Jesus to save the world.

 

[Imalive]

If you agree with me I will cook you something nice and Bill, cause he loves lamb.

 

[MennoSota]

I just did. Read whole Romans in context and also with the O.T.
In the O.T. God chooses Jacob. The oldest will serve the youngest He told Rebecca. That was not about his personal salvation. He chose Jacob, Israel to bring forth Jesus to save the world.

Reference?

God's sovereign choice is not a Calvinist opinion, it's a Biblical fact. Even you point it out in commenting about the Old Testament. From Genesis to Malachi we see God's Sovereign choice and election. This continues to the book of Revelation.

What you will not find is the term "accept Him." It's not in the Bible. Humans do not get sovereign rights over God.

 

[Imalive]

Romans 9:1-33
[1]With Christ as my witness, I speak with utter truthfulness. My conscience and the Holy Spirit confirm it.
[2]My heart is filled with bitter sorrow and unending grief
[3]for my people, my Jewish brothers and sisters. I would be willing to be forever cursed—cut off from Christ!—if that would save them.
[4]They are the people of Israel, chosen to be God’s adopted children. God revealed his glory to them. He made covenants with them and gave them his law. He gave them the privilege of worshiping him and receiving his wonderful promises.
[5]Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are their ancestors, and Christ himself was an Israelite as far as his human nature is concerned. And he is God, the one who rules over everything and is worthy of eternal praise! Amen.
[6]Well then, has God failed to fulfill his promise to Israel? No, for not all who are born into the nation of Israel are truly members of God’s people!
[7]Being descendants of Abraham doesn’t make them truly Abraham’s children. For the Scriptures say, “Isaac is the son through whom your descendants will be counted,” though Abraham had other children, too.
[8]This means that Abraham’s physical descendants are not necessarily children of God. Only the children of the promise are considered to be Abraham’s children.
[9]For God had promised, “I will return about this time next year, and Sarah will have a son.”
[10]This son was our ancestor Isaac. When he married Rebekah, she gave birth to twins.
[11]But before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad, she received a message from God. (This message shows that God chooses people according to his own purposes;
[12]he calls people, but not according to their good or bad works.) She was told, “Your older son will serve your younger son.”
[13]In the words of the Scriptures, “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau.”
[14]Are we saying, then, that God was unfair? Of course not!
[15]For God said to Moses, “I will show mercy to anyone I choose, *** and I will show compassion to anyone I choose.”
[16]So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.
[17]For the Scriptures say that God told Pharaoh, “I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you and to spread my fame throughout the earth.”
[18]So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.
[19]Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”
[20]No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?”
[21]When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?
[22]In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction.
[23]He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory.
[24]And we are among those whom he selected, both from the Jews and from the Gentiles.
[25]Concerning the Gentiles, God says in the prophecy of Hosea, “Those who were not my people, *** I will now call my people. And I will love those *** whom I did not love before.”
[26]And, “Then, at the place where they were told, *** ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called *** ‘children of the living God.’”
[27]And concerning Israel, Isaiah the prophet cried out, “Though the people of Israel are as numerous as the sand of the seashore, *** only a remnant will be saved.
[28]For the lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth *** quickly and with finality.”
[29]And Isaiah said the same thing in another place: “If the lord of Heaven’s Armies *** had not spared a few of our children, we would have been wiped out like Sodom, *** destroyed like Gomorrah.”
[30]What does all this mean? Even though the Gentiles were not trying to follow God’s standards, they were made right with God. And it was by faith that this took place.
[31]But the people of Israel, who tried so hard to get right with God by keeping the law, never succeeded.
[32]Why not? Because they were trying to get right with God by keeping the law instead of by trusting in him. They stumbled over the great rock in their path.
[33]God warned them of this in the Scriptures when he said, “I am placing a stone in Jerusalem that makes people stumble, *** a rock that makes them fall. But anyone who trusts in him *** will never be disgraced.”

They are the people of Israel, chosen to be God’s adopted children.

Why were most not saved? Because they were not elected?

But the people of Israel, who tried so hard to get right with God by keeping the law, never succeeded.
[32]Why not? Because they were trying to get right with God by keeping the law instead of by trusting in him.

So they were chosen, Paul says, but they weren't saved because they didn't trust Him, not because of some mysterious election reason not based on what they did.

Romans 9 first seems to say whom He elects get saved, doesnt matter what they do. Then it says the exact opposite. He rejected them for not trusting Him.

 

[MennoSota]

They are the people of Israel, chosen to be God’s adopted children.

Why were most not saved? Because they were not elected?

But the people of Israel, who tried so hard to get right with God by keeping the law, never succeeded.
[32]Why not? Because they were trying to get right with God by keeping the law instead of by trusting in him.

So they were chosen, Paul says, but they weren't saved because they didn't trust Him, not because of some mysterious election reason not based on what they did.

Romans 9 first seems to say whom He elects get saved, doesnt matter what they do. Then it says the exact opposite. He rejected them for not trusting Him.

Election is not even mentioned in Romans 9. You have to read Romans 8 for that. What we read in Romans 9 is God Sovereignly chooses.