Do Calvinists believe in free will?

[arunma]

My position is that there is nothing to know, apart from that which God has specifically planned, since the future hasn't happened yet. It's only with a cyclical view of time, where what is the future to us has already happened at some point in the distant past, and therefore exists to be known. This is how all the people of the ancient world viewed time (including the classical Greeks), with the sole exception of the ancient Hebrews. Rather, their conception of time was that it was linear in nature; that it had a definite beginning and moved inexorably forward with each moment never to be repeated again.

I can't speak to the Greek and Hebrew conceptions of time (I've actually read quite a bit from the writings of the classical Greek era, but I've never encountered the point of view to which you allude). However, I can say that it is not intuitively obvious to me that a cyclic view of time is necessary in order to believe that God can know the future before it happens. Modern theologians often speak of God as existing outside of time. Perhaps it's because I'm a physicist that I am naturally attracted to this understanding (we understand time as being created along with space), or maybe it's just that there aren't very many competing views. Either way, I would respectfully disagree with the claim that "it's only with a cyclical view of time" that we can understand the future as existing before it actually happens.

Of course. Just as an Arminian sees Arminian doctrine as simply 'biblical' doctrine.

Yes this is true. However, at least one among the Calvinist and the Arminian must be incorrect, since these two theologies are mutually exclusive.

In point of fact, this passage has nothing whatever to do with my objection. Paul is here citing various OT prophetical texts (such as Isa 29.16, 45.9; with echoes of 64.8 and also of Jer 18.1-6) dealing with a stage in Israel's history when God was struggling with rebellious Israel, like a potter with clay that simply wouldn't go into the right shape. The image of potter and clay was not designed to speak in general terms about human beings as lifeless lumps of clay, over against God as the only truly living, truly thinking being; it was designed to speak very specifically about God's purpose in choosing and calling Israel, and about what would happen if Israel, like a lump of clay, failed to respond to the gentle moulding of God's hands. Paul is teaching concerning God's purposes not only with Israel but, much more importantly, through Israel.

This is an interesting view, and I must admit that I've never heard it before. However, it ultimately doesn't compel me to view the doctrine of predestination any differently. There are two specific reasons why I read the Bible to be speaking about specific individuals (i.e. humanity in general) and not the collective nation of Israel. First, verse 11 points out that neither Jacob nor Esau did anything good or bad to deserve the roles that God gave them in redemptive history. Indeed it must refer specifically to Jacob and Esau, since many of Jacob's descendants became apostate, and presumably some of Esau's descendants were saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Secondly, Romans 11 does not paint a picture of God abolishing the nation of Israel and creating a new covenant people from both Jews and Gentiles, but rather one in which the diseased branches of the tree of Israel and cut off, and foreign branches grafted in to the same root. As it says,

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." (Romans 11:1-4)
​

Paul will develop this in the following verses. For the moment though, we should simply note that the idea of a "vessel of mercy" doesn't mean so much a vessel which receives mercy, but a vessel through which God brings mercy to others.

But if this is so, then why are the vessels of mercy contrasted with vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Romans 9:22)?

Far be it from me to be lumped in with "atheistic Western society." But neither do I adhere to the doctrine of original sin (but then again, neither have Eastern Orthodox or Celtic Christians, or have the Jews). I have simply come across too many non-believers who live genuinely better lives and are far easier to get along with than are too many people I know who call themselves Christians.

A bit off topic, but citing the beliefs of the Jews doesn't bolster the case against original sin. Given that Judaism is the only religion in the world to explicitly deny the Lordship of Jesus Christ as one of its fundamental tenets (granted, this is a de facto Jewish doctrine), I would place exceedingly little trust in the ability of Judaism or practicing Jews to guide our understanding of the Scriptures.

Now in regards to the issue of the observed behavior of Christians and unbelievers, I should be careful here, having slightly over half the life experience that you do. However, I've personally found that the righteousness of non-believers is skin-deep at best. It's true that there are "nice" non-Christians and rude Christians, but in general I've found that Christians tend to be good people, and non-Christians tend to be bad people. So my experiences have demonstrated to me that there is a genuine difference between God's redeemed people and the people of the world who still belong to the devil.

Furthermore, I would also remind you that not all who confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord will be saved, since many (probably most) of these people do not believe in their hearts that God raised him from the dead. Some of the bad non-Christians I mentioned above practice the false religion of nominal Christianity.

I would also be interested to know what you make of this Scripture:

For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:19)
​

Does the Bible not teach that Adam's sin is imputed to all of his children?