Arminians, why are you Arminian?

[OzSpen]

Because God commands us to choose many things.
Calvinism's denial of free will flies in the face of that.

Dave,

There are verses like Joshua 24:15 where God commands people to choose. Can you name a few others?

Oz

 

[Dave-W]

There are verses like Joshua 24:15 where God commands people to choose. Can you name a few others?

Every time you see the word "repent" in the NT, (gr: metanoin) it involves a choice to turn around in our thinking and our actions.

 

[JM]

Because God commands us to choose many things.
Calvinism's denial of free will flies in the face of that.

The same reasoning used by Pelagius and the Pelagians.

When Lazarus was commanded by Christ to "come forth" he also lacked the free will to accomplish what was being commanded.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Every time you see the word "repent" in the NT, (gr: metanoin) it involves a choice to turn around in our thinking and our actions.

"And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."

The new covenant causes us, due to God's spirit, to walk according to God's command. The power to do so is a gift of God, an evangelical grace...

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Dave-W]

When Lazarus was commanded by Christ to "come forth" he also lacked the free will to accomplish what was being commanded.

Where does it say that?

 

[Dave-W]

The new covenant causes us, due to God's spirit, to walk according to God's command. The power to do so is a gift of God, an evangelical grace...

No and yes.

Yes; it gives us the ability to walk in obedience; but it does not FORCE us to do so. That choice is ours.

 

[JM]

Where does it say that?

Here "...by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days."

 

[JM]

No and yes.

Yes; it gives us the ability to walk in obedience; but it does not FORCE us to do so. That choice is ours.

"And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

The good we do is because of God. Notice, "both to will" and "to do..." the action.

 

[OzSpen]

The same reasoning used by Pelagius and the Pelagians.

When Lazarus was commanded by Christ to "come forth" he also lacked the free will to accomplish what was being commanded.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

What is the teaching of Pelagius to which you object and associate 'choose' with Pelagianism?

When the Phillipian jailer asked what he had to do to be saved, Paul & Silas commanded: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." (Acts 16:31 NIV)

Could the jailer and his household believe and act on that command? The text states:

31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus. Then you and everyone living in your house will be saved.” 32 They spoke the word of the Lord to him. They also spoke to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night, the jailer took Paul and Silas and washed their wounds. Right away he and everyone who lived with him were baptized (Acts 16:31-33 NIRV).​

Yes, they could respond and believe in the Lord Jesus, which was demonstrated by their baptism AFTER they believed.

This is based on the premise of John 6:44; 12:32: '“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day' (John 6:44 NIV). 'And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32 NIV)

Oz

 

[JM]

Tisk, tisk. Christians should not practice theology in a vacuum.

Pelagius believe that if a commandment was given the ability resided within the individual to do what was commanded. This is ridiculous and condemned numerous times over the 2,000 year history of the church.

In Acts 16.14 we read about the preparatory work of the Spirit making one able to believe.

"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul."

John 6 is speaking of salvation,

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

Raised up to what? Salvation. If all are drawn than all are saved.

"Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

John 12 is speaking about judgement. Only v.32 was quoted as if all men are drawn to Christ for salvation, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." But that isn't in sight, v.31 "Now is the judgement of this world..."

Yours in the Lord,

jm
__________________

John 6:44, 45 and Free Will

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." John 6:44, 45 (NASB)

Back in January, I posted a link to an article here by a friend of mine, Brian Bosse, on the logical conclusions of John 6:44. The article proved, I believe, that John 6:44 teaches either Calvinism or universalism (which is of course a concept the Bible negates very clearly elsewhere), but it does not allow for Arminianism.

So, how do those who boast that man's will is the determining factor in salvation get around the obvious implications of John 6:44. Well, they go to the next verse, v. 45, and read into the text a view of free will which is then used to dispel the logic of the previous verses. It is an illigitimate way to handle the text, as Dr. James White points out in a response to someone who had challenged him on his Reformed understanding of John 6:36-45. From the mail bag at www.aomin.org then, here's the interchange, starting with the person challenging Dr. White's reformed understanding of the passage:


FOLLOW-UP on Revisiting the Norman Geisler/Chosen But Free/Potter's Freedom Issue: Even you said James, "Unregenerate man is FULLY CAPABLE of UNDERSTANDING the facts of the Gospel". If a man is FULLY CAPABLE of UNDERSTANDING then unregenerate man (all men) are FULLY CAPABLE of "listening and learning" from the Father as Jn. 6:45b says. Revisiting the Norman Geisler/Chosen But Free/Potter's Freedom Issue: You say in your initial responce to Hunt "Giving is a divine act and since it PRECEDES the very existence of those so given..." No way does the context of Jn. 6:35-45 allow the eisegetical insert of the theme of eternity past when the whole context is Jesus explaining why some come to him and why some don't in the present situation confront Jesus and his audience. Why? Those who "listen and learn" (jn 6:45b; what you and other Calvinists ignore) based on God's "sole" initiative in "teaching" (teaching demands that the student make a value judgment) come to Jesus and thus through deduction, those who don't "listen and learn" don't come to Jesus. I agree with all of your exegesis up to v.45a but then you stop. I think my explanation makes the most sense based on the natural reading of the text.

Dr. James White responds: Let's take this apart point by point.

First, there is no question that an unregenerate man can read the words of the Bible and even come to a correct understanding of its contextual reading. But there is an 18 inch separation between the heart and the head, and mere knowledge has never saved anyone. But our writer once again joins the long line of "I want to try to deal with John 6 but I simply refuse to start at the beginning and follow Jesus through His teaching" would-be exegetes. John 6:45 is a follow-up to John 6:44, which, likewise, must be defined in light of what prompted the Lord to speak these words, etc. The "hop-skip-jump" method of interpretation may work for those who are not overly serious about the issue, but for those who realize you cannot hack the text up in that fashion, following a thought through from its introduction to its application is sort of important. Let's look at 6:45 again:

It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me--

First, who is "they"? The "all" is all of "them," whoever they are. Context tells us: the preceding verse speaks of the one who is drawn by the Father and who, as a result of being drawn, comes to the Son (and is raised up by Him). The being "taught by God" is not some general revelation, some peanut-butter activity that is devoid of connection with the preceding context. No, this is a restatement, an expansion, explanation, of what it means for the Father to "draw." The drawing of the Father leads those drawn to the Son. Why? Well, part of it has to do with imparting knowledge, teaching. God does the teaching. And just as the drawing of the Father brings all who are drawn to the Son (and hence to eternal life), so too He never fails in imparting the knowledge that leads to life. All who are taught "hear" (aorist) and "learn" (aorist), and as a result of this action, come to Christ (just as v. 37 and 44). Here all truly does mean all, because it has a specific delimiter in the context: all drawn, all given, all taught, all hearing, etc. In v. 45 the emphasis remains upon the Father, not upon those taught, those who, as a result, hear and learn. I may comment just in passing that in reality, man looks rather desperate when he tries to find in passages such as this the much vaunted free will of man.

Now, this is more than sufficient to answer our correspondent, however, there is more. He writes,

No way does the context of Jn. 6:35-45 allow the eisegetical insert of the theme of eternity past when the whole context is Jesus explaining why some come to him and why some don't in the present situation confront Jesus and his audience. Why? Those who "listen and learn" (jn 6:45b; what you and other Calvinists ignore) based on God's "sole" initiative in "teaching" (teaching demands that the student make a value judgment) come to Jesus and thus through deduction, those who don't "listen and learn" don't come to Jesus.

We have seen that 1) Calvinists do not "ignore" 45b; it is our writer who is eisegetically disconnecting it from 44 and 45a. 2) Just like Ergun Caner forgot Romans 9:11-12, evidently our writer forgot that all who hear and learn come to Christ. This activity of God in teaching is not a general action that some accept and some reject: nowhere does the consistent focus of Jesus' teaching break down. The same group is in view all the way through. Only by breaking the text up into portions and ignoring its consistent themes, terms, and actions, can such eisegesis be maintained. But beyond this, our writer seems to have missed the use of the perfect in the giving of the Father to the Son in vs. 39, "of all that He has given Me (perfect tense) I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." While this would only allow us to specifically assert the past tense and completed action of the giving, it is obvious, to anyone reading the entirety of the New Testament, that this is the same eternal, timeless action seen in Ephesians 1 and 2 Timothy 1.

And so once again we find the Gospel in Capernaum gloriously consistent, gloriously God-honoring, and gloriously impervious to the attempts of man at undercutting its perfect testimony to God's freedom in the salvation of men.

 

[OzSpen]

Tisk, tisk. Christians should not practice theology in a vacuum.

Pelagius believe that if a commandment was given the ability resided within the individual to do what was commanded. This is ridiculous and condemned numerous times over the 2,000 year history of the church.

In Acts 16.14 we read about the preparatory work of the Spirit making one able to believe.

"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul."

John 6 is speaking of salvation,

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

Raised up to what? Salvation. If all are drawn than all are saved.

"Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."

John 12 is speaking about judgement. Only v.32 was quoted as if all men are drawn to Christ for salvation, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." But that isn't in sight, v.31 "Now is the judgement of this world..."

Yours in the Lord,

jm
__________________

John 6:44, 45 and Free Will

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." John 6:44, 45 (NASB)

Back in January, I posted a link to an article here by a friend of mine, Brian Bosse, on the logical conclusions of John 6:44. The article proved, I believe, that John 6:44 teaches either Calvinism or universalism (which is of course a concept the Bible negates very clearly elsewhere), but it does not allow for Arminianism.

So, how do those who boast that man's will is the determining factor in salvation get around the obvious implications of John 6:44. Well, they go to the next verse, v. 45, and read into the text a view of free will which is then used to dispel the logic of the previous verses. It is an illigitimate way to handle the text, as Dr. James White points out in a response to someone who had challenged him on his Reformed understanding of John 6:36-45. From the mail bag at www.aomin.org then, here's the interchange, starting with the person challenging Dr. White's reformed understanding of the passage:


FOLLOW-UP on Revisiting the Norman Geisler/Chosen But Free/Potter's Freedom Issue: Even you said James, "Unregenerate man is FULLY CAPABLE of UNDERSTANDING the facts of the Gospel". If a man is FULLY CAPABLE of UNDERSTANDING then unregenerate man (all men) are FULLY CAPABLE of "listening and learning" from the Father as Jn. 6:45b says. Revisiting the Norman Geisler/Chosen But Free/Potter's Freedom Issue: You say in your initial responce to Hunt "Giving is a divine act and since it PRECEDES the very existence of those so given..." No way does the context of Jn. 6:35-45 allow the eisegetical insert of the theme of eternity past when the whole context is Jesus explaining why some come to him and why some don't in the present situation confront Jesus and his audience. Why? Those who "listen and learn" (jn 6:45b; what you and other Calvinists ignore) based on God's "sole" initiative in "teaching" (teaching demands that the student make a value judgment) come to Jesus and thus through deduction, those who don't "listen and learn" don't come to Jesus. I agree with all of your exegesis up to v.45a but then you stop. I think my explanation makes the most sense based on the natural reading of the text.

Dr. James White responds: Let's take this apart point by point.

First, there is no question that an unregenerate man can read the words of the Bible and even come to a correct understanding of its contextual reading. But there is an 18 inch separation between the heart and the head, and mere knowledge has never saved anyone. But our writer once again joins the long line of "I want to try to deal with John 6 but I simply refuse to start at the beginning and follow Jesus through His teaching" would-be exegetes. John 6:45 is a follow-up to John 6:44, which, likewise, must be defined in light of what prompted the Lord to speak these words, etc. The "hop-skip-jump" method of interpretation may work for those who are not overly serious about the issue, but for those who realize you cannot hack the text up in that fashion, following a thought through from its introduction to its application is sort of important. Let's look at 6:45 again:

It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me--

First, who is "they"? The "all" is all of "them," whoever they are. Context tells us: the preceding verse speaks of the one who is drawn by the Father and who, as a result of being drawn, comes to the Son (and is raised up by Him). The being "taught by God" is not some general revelation, some peanut-butter activity that is devoid of connection with the preceding context. No, this is a restatement, an expansion, explanation, of what it means for the Father to "draw." The drawing of the Father leads those drawn to the Son. Why? Well, part of it has to do with imparting knowledge, teaching. God does the teaching. And just as the drawing of the Father brings all who are drawn to the Son (and hence to eternal life), so too He never fails in imparting the knowledge that leads to life. All who are taught "hear" (aorist) and "learn" (aorist), and as a result of this action, come to Christ (just as v. 37 and 44). Here all truly does mean all, because it has a specific delimiter in the context: all drawn, all given, all taught, all hearing, etc. In v. 45 the emphasis remains upon the Father, not upon those taught, those who, as a result, hear and learn. I may comment just in passing that in reality, man looks rather desperate when he tries to find in passages such as this the much vaunted free will of man.

Now, this is more than sufficient to answer our correspondent, however, there is more. He writes,

No way does the context of Jn. 6:35-45 allow the eisegetical insert of the theme of eternity past when the whole context is Jesus explaining why some come to him and why some don't in the present situation confront Jesus and his audience. Why? Those who "listen and learn" (jn 6:45b; what you and other Calvinists ignore) based on God's "sole" initiative in "teaching" (teaching demands that the student make a value judgment) come to Jesus and thus through deduction, those who don't "listen and learn" don't come to Jesus.

We have seen that 1) Calvinists do not "ignore" 45b; it is our writer who is eisegetically disconnecting it from 44 and 45a. 2) Just like Ergun Caner forgot Romans 9:11-12, evidently our writer forgot that all who hear and learn come to Christ. This activity of God in teaching is not a general action that some accept and some reject: nowhere does the consistent focus of Jesus' teaching break down. The same group is in view all the way through. Only by breaking the text up into portions and ignoring its consistent themes, terms, and actions, can such eisegesis be maintained. But beyond this, our writer seems to have missed the use of the perfect in the giving of the Father to the Son in vs. 39, "of all that He has given Me (perfect tense) I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." While this would only allow us to specifically assert the past tense and completed action of the giving, it is obvious, to anyone reading the entirety of the New Testament, that this is the same eternal, timeless action seen in Ephesians 1 and 2 Timothy 1.

And so once again we find the Gospel in Capernaum gloriously consistent, gloriously God-honoring, and gloriously impervious to the attempts of man at undercutting its perfect testimony to God's freedom in the salvation of men.

JM,

Please provide documentation of what you stated about Pelagius's beliefs!

Interesting that you commented on John 6:44 but completely ignored John 12:32.

I note in your Avatar details that you are a
Predestinarian. Do you believe in double predestination? Did God predestine the unbelievers to be damned in Hades as well as the believers predestined to eternal life?

Oz

 

[Dave-W]

Here "...by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days."

No - that says nothing about free will one way or the other.

 

[Dave-W]

"And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them."

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

The good we do is because of God. Notice, "both to will" and "to do..." the action.

You are pulling scriptures out of the context of the whole of scripture. God always gives us a choice to obey or not.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

I had to chime in.

The act of creation is a choosing based on foreknowledge. God always knew that creating earth at a certain time would result in so many people being saved, so many people being lost. By choosing to create knowing the outcome, the outcome was chosen. The saved are chosen before time by the very act of creation. This is the macro level.

On a micro level, believe and be baptised. Flee from the wrath to come to take hold of the hope offered.

All believers have to come to terms with the fact that the two groups are chosen by creation, according to foreknowledge. Seems the Calvinist is harsh about it, but the Arminian is wrong about free will. If you go back to the same situation with all the same parameters, you will do the same thing every time. Destiny is set, as we aren't creating it as we go through life. It has already happened, God saw it already.

I am torn between the two camps and believe the bible teaches a kind of combination of the two.

Hey there,

Nice post.

I agree with you that the Bible teaches both truths, John Macarthur says, they are two twin parallel truths. Mans free will, and God's sovereignty.

But do be mindful of this (From Got Questions):
-------------------------------------------------------

Throughout Romans 9, Paul systematically shows that God’s sovereign election has been in force from the very beginning. He begins with a crucial statement: “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (Romans 9:6). This means that not all people of ethnic Israel (that is, those descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) belong to true Israel (the elect of God). Reviewing the history of Israel, Paul shows that God chose Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. Just in case anyone thinks that God was choosing these individuals based on the faith or good works they would do in the future, he adds, “Though they [Jacob and Esau] 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” (Romans 9:11).

At this point, one might be tempted to accuse God of acting unjustly. Paul anticipates this accusation in v. 14, stating plainly that God is not unjust in any way. “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (Romans 9:15). God is sovereign over His creation. He is free to choose those whom He will choose, and He is free to pass by those whom He will pass by. The creature has no right to accuse the Creator of being unjust. The very thought that the creature can stand in judgment of the Creator is absurd to Paul, and it should be so to every Christian, as well. The balance of Romans 9 substantiates this point.

 

[Obliqueness]

Thanks for replying.

I have some questions.

Does God not tell us whom he wills to have mercy on? So if God says he has mercy on the humble who believe, can we not understand this: "I will have mercy on the humble who believe..."? As opposed to proud haughty unbelievers. The objector could be someone unwilling to humble himself, unhappy with not being someone whom God said he would have mercy or compassion on, and instead of praying for faith and humility, complaining about it? The bible does say to humble yourself on numerous occasions.

It is worth mentioning Matthew 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"
If God elected some to life everlasting, and others to be destroyed in the lake of fire, why does Jesus say that the fire was "prepared for the devil and his angels"? Wouldn't he leave this out, or say "prepared for the devil, his angels and the wicked"?
That verse to me supports the idea that God's plan was never to destroy man but man rebelled and here's a fire God prepared earlier. God always knew man would rebel and considered it acceptable to go ahead with creation for reasons not yet known (by myself at least!).

With Jacob and Esau, when we read what Paul is quoting, are Jacob and Esau not unborn nations? Paul could have said it in another "original" way if he didn't intend people to understand the context of what he is quoting. Is that true? It looks from my limited view that only in the context of nations did Esau even serve Jacob (as a vassal nation). When did Esau the man serve Jacob the man?

I'll probably have more questions.

Blessings to all.

 

[OzSpen]

All believers have to come to terms with the fact that the two groups are chosen by creation, according to foreknowledge. Seems the Calvinist is harsh about it, but the Arminian is wrong about free will....

I am torn between the two camps and believe the bible teaches a kind of combination of the two.

Obliqueness,

What is Jacob Arminius's view on free-will?

Do Reformed/Classical Arminians (who support the theology, in the main, of Arminius), have a theology of election/predestination? If so, what is it?

Oz

 

[Obliqueness]

Obliqueness,

What is Jacob Arminius's view on free-will?

Do Reformed/Classical Arminians (who support the theology, in the main, of Arminius), have a theology of election/predestination? If so, what is it?

Oz

Sorry I don't know because I'm none of these things and haven't spoken to anyone who is. I'm just trying to find out what to believe.

But I see what you did there. Touché. Forgive me for saying arminians are wrong on free will

What I meant to say is libertarian or "contra causal" free will can't be true. I assumed that's what arminians believe.

Obliqueness.

 

[OzSpen]

Sorry I don't know because I'm none of these things and haven't spoken to anyone who is. I'm just trying to find out what to believe.

But I see what you did there. Touché. Forgive me for saying arminians are wrong on free will

What I meant to say is libertarian or "contra causal" free will can't be true. I assumed that's what arminians believe.

Obliqueness.

This is what Arminius stated in The Works of James Arminius, vol 1:

III. THE FREE-WILL OF MAN
This is my opinion concerning the free-will of man: In his primitive condition as he came out of the hands of his creator, man was endowed with such a portion of knowledge, holiness and power, as enabled him to understand, esteem, consider, will, and to perform the true good, according to the commandment delivered to him. Yet none of these acts could he do, except through the assistance of Divine Grace. But in his lapsed and sinful state, man is not capable, of and by himself, either to think, to will, or to do that which is really good; but it is necessary for him to be regenerated and renewed in his intellect, affections or will, and in all his powers, by God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, that he may be qualified rightly to understand, esteem, consider, will, and perform whatever is truly good. When he is made a partaker of this regeneration or renovation, I consider that, since he is delivered from sin, he is capable of thinking, willing and doing that which is good, but yet not without the continued aids of Divine Grace.​

Oz

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

Thanks for replying.

I have some questions.

Does God not tell us whom he wills to have mercy on? So if God says he has mercy on the humble who believe, can we not understand this: "I will have mercy on the humble who believe..."? As opposed to proud haughty unbelievers. The objector could be someone unwilling to humble himself, unhappy with not being someone whom God said he would have mercy or compassion on, and instead of praying for faith and humility, complaining about it? The bible does say to humble yourself on numerous occasions.

It is worth mentioning Matthew 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"
If God elected some to life everlasting, and others to be destroyed in the lake of fire, why does Jesus say that the fire was "prepared for the devil and his angels"? Wouldn't he leave this out, or say "prepared for the devil, his angels and the wicked"?
That verse to me supports the idea that God's plan was never to destroy man but man rebelled and here's a fire God prepared earlier. God always knew man would rebel and considered it acceptable to go ahead with creation for reasons not yet known (by myself at least!).

With Jacob and Esau, when we read what Paul is quoting, are Jacob and Esau not unborn nations? Paul could have said it in another "original" way if he didn't intend people to understand the context of what he is quoting. Is that true? It looks from my limited view that only in the context of nations did Esau even serve Jacob (as a vassal nation). When did Esau the man serve Jacob the man?

I'll probably have more questions.

Blessings to all.

This got me thinking for sure.

Humble and Proud:
Yes God does oppose the prideful, and gives grace to the humble - great point.

But regarding election, check this verse out:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:44. this gives all the emphasis in election to God.
----------------------------

Regarding Matthew 25
Next point you made was regarding Matthew 25, you said: God always knew man would rebel and considered it acceptable to go ahead with creation for reasons not yet known (by myself at least!).

I don't see this being a issue, Repentance and Faith, which are needed for salvation, are gifts from God, Ephesians 2
--------------------------

Regarding Romans 9
The last point you made is a great point, which i was never exposed to that view of Romans 9. However this can not be the case because:

What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory — including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:24

The election involved is not a national election, because vs. 24 states that the vessels of mercy are "us, whom He called not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles,"" (i.e. believing Christians).
-----------------------------------------------------------

Other Verses Supporting God's Election in Salvation
You did not choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain.. John 15:16

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48

 

[now faith]

Genesis 1: 26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Is God a Calvinist?