God is not seeking to fulfill man's objective, but His own. The only time man's objective matters to God is when it is to fulfill God's objective. All other objectives are sin and idolatry. I don't think the Scriptures can make that any more clear. And God's objective, as explicated in the Scriptures provided and a plethora of others (no point has every relevant Scripture attached to it or it would overwhelm the content; but the provided Scriptures are clear enough I would think) is to bring man into a saving relationship with God for His glory. If you agree with this and mean "man's objective" as being what God intends for man to do, then your statement is a redundancy and is a change without a difference and an assent disguised as an objection.
First off: God cannot “fulfill man’s objective”, since it is man’s objective and not His.
God being Love, means He is the epitome of unselfishness (Love), so how important would it be to God to “help” humans with their objective, (To become like God Himself, in that they have Godly type Love.)
Could there be any greater demonstration of God’s willingness to do all He can to help humans fulfill their objective, than with the cross and that help is His greatest glory?
God does not need “help” fulfill God’s objective, but man needs lots of help trying to fulfill man’s objective.
God is always glorious no matter what man does, so God does not have to be in relationship with humans to be glorious. The father in the prodigal son story was fully glorious no matter if the prodigal son returned or did not return and no matter what the older son does. Why do you say “bring man into a saving relationship with God
for His glory, since He is glorious without man doing anything?
Both scripture and all the world around us shows God is doing all He can or allow to happen to help
willing individuals fulfill their objective.
Is this the God you worship?
(Foreword on this paragraph: It seems you may agree with the following, so this is intended as a brief clarification of my position) Man freely accepts God's salvation as enabled by the Holy Spirit's conviction when presented the Gospel (John 16:8-11). However, though enabled, man is able to reject the invitation and resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51, Matthew 23:37, et al., as previously presented). Therefore man's acceptance is not a demonstration of a good deed but rather the reception of the provision of a good God upon believing the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. This is no more praiseworthy than a man on the edge of a cliff reaching back to a hand that can save him from falling. This does not require anything more than recognizing what God gives us sufficient reason to believe, enables us to believe, and a desire to not perish. Hence why fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and why God appeals to our fear of Him and the sinner's desire to live (Ezekiel 18:31-32), later growing us in love in sanctification.
OK
I agree with the points you listed as 1-3. I am uncertain whether you intended this as complimentary or corrective, though it doesn't dispute anything I have written.
OK
Your closing statement is why I emphasized at the beginning of my response that the answer would be abbreviated for the sake of space (as I have written dozens of pages on the biblical doctrines and logical arguments in ministering those doctrines for this topic). For every point you see in this post I have prepared answers for common and uncommon objections to the premises of the premises of the premises. The shortness of this article was intended as a kindness to the reader who is interested in a basic and (potentially) satisfying answer, rather than being presented answers to questions about questions that they didn't have. If any further questions were asked, the answers were already prepared to any question/objection I have heard over the years (even some answers prepared to questions/objections that have never been presented but may be in the future). Also, Romans 9 is probably one of my most studied chapters in the Bible (as well as its surrounding context) due to my incessant encounter with calvinist Christians. But as aforementioned, this answer was significantly abbreviated from my comprehensive answer to this question and everything the answer itself entails.
I have frequently taught Romans and spent lots of time in Romans 9.
I like to teach by just asking questions but will give you a brief interpretation:
Romans 9
Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.
The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.
The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).
Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?
If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?
This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.
Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”
Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is written to Christians and not non-Christians)?
Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?
Is it really significant when it comes to what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in first century Rome?
Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?
The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).
How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.
Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.
Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!
The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.
If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.
Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.
To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.
That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.
