I prefer the term non-Calvinists. While being a non-Calvinist may cause you to lump me with Arminians in the Calvinist-Arminian paradigm, I don't agree with 100% of Arminianism. As far as synergism goes, I do believe there is a response that determines if God chooses you, but not in some sense making God's work insufficient. Man's works can't earn salvation.
Because of the erroneous mention of "chapter 30," I'm not 100% certain what you were saying, but I'm going to guess this much: I shouldn't act as though Paul asks a question in chapter 11 and answers it in chapter 9. If this is what you're saying, it's actually my point! Let's back up. In the post before your last, you asked this about Romans 11:2-6:
While the answer is obviously "God's choice," you were claiming this somehow shows that "Believers won’t fail." The only way this makes sense is if God chooses people to have faith rather than chooses them because of their faith, something verses 2-6 doesn't address. To point out that Paul neither endorses nor condemns this in verses 2-6 (but addresses the question elsewhere), I said this:
I then referenced
Romans 9:30-33, a passage which does ask and answer the question of why many Jews aren't in the chosen remnant (emphasis mine):
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written:
“Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”
So the chosen remnant is already explained here. Again, chapters 9-11 comprise Paul's section on how God's promises to Israel could be reconciled with the fact that more Gentiles were becoming Christians. As I pointed out, what we read in chapter 9 is consistent moving into chapter 11:
This seems about as clear against the once-saved-always-saved doctrine as a passage of Scripture can possibly be. Those God grafts in because they "stand by faith" may be cut off if they fail to continue. If there is a non-Calvinistic way to understand this at all, I want to know, lest I'm in error.
I'm not quite sure what the point you're making is. After Paul makes and defends the point that "the rest were hardened," he makes it clear that they haven't "stumbled that they should fall" (Rom. 11:11). But again, I'm not sure what parallel you're drawing, so I'm not sure what to reply.
If I knew what your view is of
Romans 11:16-22, I'd be better able to follow you. If you're seeing anything other than what I'm seeing, that those God grafts in on account of their faith can later be rejected, I'd like to know what you see. If you do this, I'll try as best as I can to understand how your interpretation better fits the context than mine. Again, here are the questions:
1. Are the branches in
Romans 11:16-22 individuals or groups?
2. If groups, what do the two trees represent?
3. What causes branches to be in the cultivated olive tree as opposed to the wild olive tree?
4. Can branches grafted into the cultivated tree be cut off?
5. Can branches cut off from the cultivated tree be grafted in again?
If the taking-everything-out-of-context point isn't just a smokescreen, then you should be able to answer these questions in addition to saying the context agrees with your answers.