I'm not a Calvinist, so your attempt to taint my credibility certainly does not work with Calvinist associations.
Forgive me, but I agreed with the post in question because the doctrine you advocate aligns with the most well-known Reformed or Calvinist doctrine, that being predestination to either salvation or damnation. This is a distinctly Reformed, Monergist doctrine heavily associated with Calvin and his followers. It represents the main point of departure between Calvinism and what is usually called Arminianism. Arminianism is something of a misnome however, and strictly speaking so is Calvinism, but these have become labels of convenience for what could be most accurately non-Pelagian Synergism, and non-Pelagian, non-Universalist Monergism.
This is simply because Calvin did not stress this doctrine as much as some of his successors, and the reaction of Arminius to Calvinism was the same as the reaction of the Eastern Orthodox to it at the Synod of Bethlehem convened by Patriarch Dositheus of 1672 regarding the apparent Calvinist confession of the Ecumemical Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lucaris several decades previously, and attended by representatives of other Orthodox churches (even including the Russian church), and the retired Patriarch Nectarius of Jerusalem, known for successfully discouraging union with the Roman Catholic Church then being promoted in Asia Minor by Franciscans, among others. And the relative importance of the doctrine to Reformed theology is in some respects overstated; likewise rejection of it was not the entire program of Arminius, still less the program of John Wesley, and neither Calvin nor Arminius originated these soteriological concepts.
What I said was Bible 101, and even quoted Scripture to support it.
Again, forgive me, but this is not really the case. While it is true that what is commonly called Calvinism can be derived from scripture, it is also true that Arminianism can be derived from scripture. My analysis of the matter suggests that neither position can be proven or disproven from Scripture, since it comes down to a difference in hermeneutics and interpretation.
Simply quoting scripture in support of a doctrine is not enough to prove it; one must rather engage in exegesis which takes into account the entirety of scriptures, and then there is the question of which exegetical technique to use and the extent to which certain verses are interpreted literally.
Now, specifically, you argue that what is commonly called Arminianism “scraps” Romans 9:17-22, but I can assure you this is not the case. An Arminian exegesis of Romans 9 is available, but it would not rest purely on this verse alone, because the “Arminian” and “Calvinist” positions both benefit from potential proof texts throughout scripture.
Also, as I recently argued in another thread, the impact of this doctrine is overstated, since Synergists acknowledge divine omniscience, which implies determinism, and Monergists and Synergists agree that the grace of the Holy Spirit enables faith.
The problem with many's lack of understanding about it is because that part of God's Word is seldom taught anymore in most Churches.
On this point we can agree, in the context of the US, because I feel the encroachment of various left-wing errors of theology, such as Liberation Theology, Womanist Theology, Queer Theology and so on, which I would argue do not deserve the title “Theology” since they represent a departure from knowledge of God, and also some other competing errors like the Prosperity Gospel, have resulted in a de-emphasis of the critical doctrine of the Incarnation of the Word.
