I don't understand Romans 9 anymore

[Jamdoc]

Romans 9 does not say that God created them to suffer forever. Go reread it for yourself. What DOES Romans 9 say?

Remember that Romans 9 is addressing TWO subjects … Jews and Gentiles; the saved and the lost.

Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) happens to be a common interpretation of scripture and, sadly, the view that I personally arrive at from verses like the fire shall never be quenched and the worm shall never die. However, that does not make it the only reasonable way to read scripture. What is clear is that the fate of the lost is permanent - no second chances. Annihilation also meets this criteria and interprets the story of Lazarus and the Rich man as a parable (not literal and eternal) and argues that the “second death” really is a death … total destruction … the lost are consumed and gone like burning the trash. It is the STATE of “destroyed” that is eternal and not the “torment” that is eternal.

This question has NOTHING to do with Calvinism, Arminianism or Romans 9. It comes down to interpretation of a small handful of verses that tend towards poetic or metaphorical language in the first place and the argument predates the Protestant Reformation (both John Calvin and Jacob Arminius).

I believe in ECT, so under Calvinism, if God did not choose a person for salvation, they are helplessly doomed for ECT.

So God created them to suffer.

It is His choice under Calvinism whether to save a sinner or not, and so if He chooses not to, He has chosen suffering for something He created.

Now I am not a card carrying Arminian, and I don't know exactly where their line is drawn for election, but as far as I do know it's based on God foreknowledge. AKA it's basically God elects those that He knows will choose Him, so He in turn knowing that, loves them first and elects them. He would elect the others but knows ahead of time that they will ultimately reject them, so He does not elect them.

That makes them not being saved still a result of their own choice, not God's decision cutting them off from salvation.

This is how God can have a will that all be saved, and yet not all are saved.

Under Calvinism God cannot will that all be saved, because it's His choice entirely and if He doesn't choose someone then it is a lie that His will is that all should be saved, He is playing favoritism.

The most untrue part of TULIP is irresistible grace, in other words. Some people believe when younger and then fall out of it, and there is a falling away. That would be impossible if grace were irresistible. Limited atonement is the other really dubious one, as throughout scripture it is treated as an open invitation. Whomsoever.. etc.

 

[Strong in Him]

I believe in ECT, so under Calvinism, if God did not choose a person for salvation, they are helplessly doomed for ECT.

So God created them to suffer.

It is His choice under Calvinism whether to save a sinner or not, and so if He chooses not to, He has chosen suffering for something He created.

Now I am not a card carrying Arminian, and I don't know exactly where their line is drawn for election, but as far as I do know it's based on God foreknowledge. AKA it's basically God elects those that He knows will choose Him, so He in turn knowing that, loves them first and elects them.

So does that make Jesus a hypocrite when he told us not to love those who only love us? Matthew 5:44-48.
He told us to love our enemies, to be perfect as God is perfect.
Paul said that Christ died for sinners. ALL have sinned, so Christ died for all.

 

[friend of]

Now I am not a card carrying Arminian, and I don't know exactly where their line is drawn for election, but as far as I do know it's based on God foreknowledge. AKA it's basically God elects those that He knows will choose Him, so He in turn knowing that, loves them first and elects them. He would elect the others but knows ahead of time that they will ultimately reject them, so He does not elect them.

I think that sums up how it works from an Arminian perspective perfectly. That's what I've come to believe anyway. Thanks Jamdoc

 

[Jamdoc]

So does that make Jesus a hypocrite when he told us not to love those who only love us? Matthew 5:44-48.
He told us to love our enemies, to be perfect as God is perfect.
Paul said that Christ died for sinners. ALL have sinned, so Christ died for all.

again the part of TULIP that is most dubious is irresistible grace. If Jesus said those who believe in Him have eternal life, then those who don't believe in Him don't. God loves the people He does not save, which does work with Arminianism I suppose I should have used different wording, God loves everyone, but not everyone is saved, but they are not saved not because God doesn't want them to be, but because they choose to reject Him.

It's under Calvinism that it's not an open invitation, that God cannot will that all be saved if the choice is entirely up to Him because not everyone gets saved.

God gave us free will and we choose to sin, and that free will can choose to reject God as well.

But under Calvinism, it's not them who reject God it's God who rejects them.

 

[Strong in Him]

again the part of TULIP that is most dubious is irresistible grace. If Jesus said those who believe in Him have eternal life, then those who don't believe in Him don't. God loves the people He does not save, which does work with Arminianism I suppose I should have used different wording, God loves everyone, but not everyone is saved, but they are not saved not because God doesn't want them to be, but because they choose to reject Him.

Agree. I may not have read the whole of your post properly; sorry.

 

[Jamdoc]

Agree. I may not have read the whole of your post properly; sorry.

It was more my poor wording, I was thinking of 1 John 4:19. Like yes, God loves first and God elects but.. it's not just "God chooses favorites and we have no choice in the matter".

Like I don't believe we will say as I dread saying "they're going to hell because God didn't choose them" but rather "They're going to hell because they rejected God"