Romans2 (and predestination)

[frumanchu]

There is no "synergism" if there is only one choice; can a "sovereignly-regenerated-man" resist God's grace, or not? Can a "non-regenerated man" resist his own depravity, or not?

I believe Cygnus was careful to make a clear distinction between the grace of regeneration and the grace which follows in sanctification. So he clearly stated that the God's grace in regeneration is monergistic, and it is the grace which follows in the life of the believer that is synergistic.

What Calvinists maintain, is as stated here. Grace is irresistible, condemnation is equally irresistible; and that removes man's responsibility.

Calvinists maintain that God's grace in regeneration is irresistible. There is no active "grace" by which men are condemned. Men are born depraved and incapable of choosing Him by virtue of the depth of their depravity in their desire for self over God. It's not as though men would be willing to accept God but for God's active restraint of that will. Men in their natural fallen state do not want to believe. God need not actively place them in a state of condemnation for they are already there.

 

[Ben johnson]

Yes , man does participate in saving faith , I already told you man has faith in God , man exercises faith ........ ahhhhhh but you don't like it even when we agree!!!!!!

I don't think we do agree. In Eph2:8, do you take "THAT", to mean "that faith"?

In 2Tim2:25, do you take "grant repentance", to mean "repentance as a gift from God"?

secondly , false dichotomy ....... ben thinks if someone is given faith they have no need to use it ...... for if they use it it cannot be given ! false!

It's a question of "have they any other choice?"

Asked another way --- how many of those God sovereignly regenerates, do NOT have saving-faith?

Yes , God has it in His power to grant men repentance , just as it says. but man still does the repenting , not God.

Which way does repentance flow? Man-to-God, or God-to-man?

Asked another way, how many of those God sovereignly regenerates, do NOT walk in repentance (and how many unregenerated CAN truly repent)?

You ask is God the first cause of man's faith and repentance and humility ..... YES! For from Him and through Him and unto Him are all things .... Romans 11

This makes man's destiny 100% God's choice. Please explain how there can be any responsibility for man, if man's destiny is fully God's sovereign choice; and if so, how is that "just"?

A Sovereignly regenerated man has obviosly not resisted God grace ....

Quite. Now help me understand why much time is spent rebuking those who DO resist? John5:39-47, Matt23:13, Matt7:24-27 for instance...

..... the question needs rephrasing , methinks.

Is it phrased right now?

also One choice indicates that there is choice, just think about that one for a few mins

"One choice IS A CHOICE"? "Choice" is defined with the word "alternative". What alternatives have those who are "sovereignly elected"? They can believe, or what? They can repent, or what?

Calvinism never denies man's choice , it merely recognises no choice exists in a vacuum. There are reasons why we choose the things we choose.

What choice is there, without alternative?

and here we have it , ample proof should proof be required that Ben is NOT listening to anyone but himself

Ben is listening fine.

you ask questions

Questions asked with Scripture citations --- mostly, with respect, ignored.

you get answers , you don't like the answers

I don't get answers to the pointed Scriptures I cite.

PARTLY because you don't even understand the answers , so you resort , out of desporation and a need to be right , to falsifying and defaming what Calvinist believe

I make statements like "Calvinism is parallel to fatalism" --- of course no Calvinist believes that, but it is an accurate description of the position, if not describing what Calvinists profess.

and you hope to carry this off as "refutation" instead of what it is , pitiful putting words into other fellow believers mouths .... ben , REPENT!

Repent of what? Tell me why Paul condemns men for stubborn unrepentance, which makes God MAD, if God "sovereignly chooses men to NOT repent".

 

[CCWoody]

No one said God is responsible for mans sin , even if you wish to always argue God is not responsible for man's salvation!

Actually, it is a part of the Supralapsarian position that in some way God forced the fall. Arminius took this and insinuated that it is all of Calvinism and thus, created a Strawman to slander Calvinism. He did this while professing publically the Calvinist position in order to keep his job, but, then secretly behind closed doors taught his students other things. This is the pattern instintuted by Arminius. It is a shame that we Calvinists were such nice people and didn't remove him immediately to try and quelch what the Canons of Dordt later condemned as false and near the heresy of Pelagianism (at least that is how I remember it described -- Dordt might have called it the lie of Pelagianism. I'd have to looke it up to be sure).

Why should it shock anyone that Arminians today continue to attempt to use this Straw dummy argument? It simply reveals thatwe are debating against those who are simply woefully ignorant of what Calvinism really teaches and what we believe....

God made man upright, but he sought out many inventions. (The word of God believed by Calvinists to be true).

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[Rick Otto]

"Tell me why Paul condemns men for stubborn unrepentance, which makes God MAD, if God "sovereignly chooses men to NOT repent".

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

 

[Ben johnson]

Tell me why Paul condemns men for stubborn unrepentance, which makes God MAD, if God "sovereignly chooses men to NOT repent".

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Hi, Rick. I'm sure you remember that the verse you just quoted, was "a hypothetical response by someone objecting to "Gentiles also being saved". It does not describe God's attitude.

So --- why does Paul condemn "stubborn unrepentance", saying "it makes God mad", if they really have no choice in the matter (if it's really all God's choice)?

How does that make sense to you?

 

[cygnusx1]

Hi, Rick. I'm sure you remember that the verse you just quoted, was "a hypothetical response by someone objecting to "Gentiles also being saved". It does not describe God's attitude.

So --- why does Paul condemn "stubborn unrepentance", saying "it makes God mad", if they really have no choice in the matter (if it's really all God's choice)?

How does that make sense to you?

Divine Sovereignty cannot be measured by human responsibility ben.


also can you think of anyone who might find it difficult to be saved ....... why !

 

[heymikey80]

Sooo --- if Heaven or Hell is God's choice, why would He get mad?

And why would He hold a "Final Judgment", at all?

The really, really obvious reason? Redemption is good.

And why would Jesus rebuke so many for NOT believing (Matt11:21-24 for instance)?

For unbelief is not good. Why rebuke everyone for not doing the Law?

Your position nevertheless stands on "salvation by God's faith"...

No. And quit accusing people of positions they don't hold. It's inanity to do so. It simply means you want to tar those you are in conflict with.

Feel tarred? Good. I'm tired of your stupidity. You know better than this. Quit it.

That is how Calvanism/Reformed-Theology perceives; but why would God get mad at what He decreed, and why would He hold a "Judgment", at all? Men will be judged for what God DECIDED???

A Lie. Dordt condemned this in the 1600's. The Reformed hold nothing of the sort. God ordains means as well as ends.

Please show me anywhere that "regeneration precedes faith". In Titus3:5-6, can anyone deny that "regeneration is by the poured Spirit"? And if that's not denied, then can we deny that "poured" is "received" is "by belief"?

1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God

What is your understanding of Titus3:5-6? Does it reflect one of the views I just listed?

Where does Titus 3 actually position faith? Let's see. Where it pistis even mentioned in Titus 3? maybe Titus 3:9-11 is more appropriate to this kind of injection of your theology into a text?

How is the credible, Mike? Does God suffer fractures in His nature? Why would God's moral satisfaction, be at odds with His sovereign decree?

Re-demp-tion.

What if His redemption, is universal?

Then everyone is redeemed.

As everyone can tell, God isn't in the business of satisfying Himself. He's about a very different purpose. You and I, we may want to decree the ultimate Barcalounger. But thankfully, we aren't like God. We don't take our ease as paramount.

You disagree? Then to you, is God in the business of satisfying Himself?

You who have kids: do you do everything for your own ease? If so, how are those kids turning out? If you begin to redeem those kids, what's it take from you? Do you need to have wrath sometimes, and intentionally so? Do you think you could redeem your kids and never have wrath?

In John1:12, whoever believes and receives Jesus, become adopted children.

Adoption into the family of God appears to follow faith; but keep in mind we're working with an implication of John 1:12; John 1:12 essentially says adoption is on the same ones who believe.

Still have same questions as above embedded.

In Heb12, whoever REFUSES God's discipline is illegitimate and NOT a child; hence, "SHALL we not much rather BE subject to the Father of spirits, AND live?"

Guess everyone's dead then. For everyone has refused God's discipline.

And why WOULD He do that, if salvation was God's decree ANYWAY?

Because God ordains means as well as ends. Did you know that God ordains means as well as ends? God ordains means as well as ends. How's that going for you?

Maybe this point from a high schooler will help you remember it:
"God ordains the trends AND the ends." God's Creation, and His actions in Creation, are organized to accomplish His goals how, when and where He wants them accomplished. Not when you do. Not in some static happy-place Perfect Land. And not purely by Divine fiat.

Of course He did; but it is "universal atonement" --- it is received by belief, or rejected. Man's decision, not God's.

Were that true it's clearly not universal. It's limited by a corrupted human being. Hardly universal. And how is that fair? How is God God, if He can't reach through that corruption and provide the Spirit's clarity?

So --- shall WE "lie back in comfort", or are we "charged with diligence"?

Think about it --- if only God's sovereign decreed elect WILL be saved, and nothing can THWART that decreed-will, then diligence is GOD'S responsibility.

...and I don't see diligence as anything but "admonished to US"...

Can you do some thing other than lie about those positions you've been told about over & over again?

God ordains means as well as ends. Nothing thwarts those means. Those means include diligence at a number of levels. There's the external admonishment to be diligent because it's right. There's the objective examination of our conversion to see if it's true. There's the activity of God-with-us, Who has transformed us from the inside out to seek Him. Rom 12:2, 2 Cor 5:17, Pp 2:12-13, Rom 8.

You do understand that "katartizo" in Rom9:22 is "passive perfect participle", and is MIDDLE-passive? "They fitted THEMSELVES for destruction".

Why? Why pick middle voice instead of passive voice?

Hm? Could it be your desire to do so?

I bet no Calvinist here will profess that "GOD fitted them for destruction (caused their sin)".

"Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, " Rom 2:20
It takes little effort to agree with what Paul says.

 

[Rick Otto]

Hi, Rick. I'm sure you remember that the verse you just quoted, was "a hypothetical response by someone objecting to "Gentiles also being saved". It does not describe God's attitude.

So --- why does Paul condemn "stubborn unrepentance", saying "it makes God mad", if they really have no choice in the matter (if it's really all God's choice)?

How does that make sense to you?

It doesn't, because it wasn't a response to the objection over Gentiles, but to the objection over ANY CONDEMNATION AT ALL. If all are predestined, why does He get mad at any?
You're right, it doesn't describe God's attitude, it describes His sovereignity.
And you can't get past that question, even though it is plainly resolved in Acts:
Ac 2:23 - Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

God planned it, the men are still considered wicked.
Wrestle with it, Ben!

 

[Ben johnson]

It doesn't, because it wasn't a response to the objection over Gentiles, but to the objection over ANY CONDEMNATION AT ALL.

Actually, Rom9:10-21, has as its focus, "also Gentiles". The entire passage, conspicuously stated in verse 23.

If all are predestined, why does He get mad at any?

If any are NOT predestined, then why does He get mad at the UNpredestined for NOT believing?

That bears repeating; God gets mad at those who are unrepentant and unbelieving --- why get mad at what He Himself DECREED?

You're right, it doesn't describe God's attitude, it describes His sovereignity.

God has internal conflict???

And you can't get past that question, even though it is plainly resolved in Acts:
Ac 2:23 - Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

JESUS (His birth, and death) was predestined (1Pet1:20-21); show me where MAN is predestined to die, perish, or have eternal life.

God planned it, the men are still considered wicked.
Wrestle with it, Ben

It seems to me the wrestling is inherent in Calvinism.

 

[Ben johnson]

The really, really obvious reason? Redemption is good.

If men have no choice in redemption, on what are they judged?

For unbelief is not good. Why rebuke everyone for not doing the Law?

Why rebuke those who CANNOT change?

1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God

Right --- and was born of God WHEN he first believed. Look at John1:12 --- "believing/receiving Jesus gives men the right to become children of God".

Conversely, Heb12:7-9 says "if we resist His discipline, then we are illegitimate and not sons".

Where does Titus 3 actually position faith? Let's see. Where it pistis even mentioned in Titus 3? maybe Titus 3:9-11 is more appropriate to this kind of injection of your theology into a text?

If "regeneration is by the poured Spirit", and if "the Spirit is poured through OUR Savior Jesus", then "our Savior", denotes "belief".

Re-demp-tion.

What if His redemption, is universal?

Then everyone is redeemed.

Yes, Mike, everyone is redeemed. It must be that way, else infants and mentally handicapped people are doomed.

Suppose everyone is redeemed, until the moment they DISBELIEVE. Thus, they reject the redemption that they had. Make sense?

Only "disbelief" is condemned; see 1Jn5:10.

You disagree? Then to you, is God in the business of satisfying Himself?

The word "propitiation", means "appeasement" --- "satisfying the penalty of sin". Per 1Jn2:2, not only believers are propitated, but also the entire world.

Adoption into the family of God appears to follow faith; but keep in mind we're working with an implication of John 1:12; John 1:12 essentially says adoption is on the same ones who believe.

Exactly. And if "redemption precedes faith", then adoption does NOT follow faith, faith follows sovereign adoption. Make sense?

Still have same questions as above embedded.

Which same questions? "Saving-faith" is either causal, or consequential. In 2Tim3:16, it's consequential to learning from Scripture, and causal to salvation.

Guess everyone's dead then. For everyone has refused God's discipline.

No they haven't; you, for instance, have not. You are a "saved believer".

Because God ordains means as well as ends. Did you know that God ordains means as well as ends? God ordains means as well as ends. How's that going for you?

If God ordains means AND ends, so that salvation is entirely HIM (faith being but the consequence of His sovereign choice), then the Final Judgment is a "pageant", a "kangaroo court". And Paul says (Rom2:6-8) "we will be judged for what we do".

Salvation is active, Mike (Matt7:24-27, responsibility), not passive (sovereignly predestined).

Maybe this point from a high schooler will help you remember it:
"God ordains the trends AND the ends." God's Creation, and His actions in Creation, are organized to accomplish His goals how, when and where He wants them accomplished. Not when you do. Not in some static happy-place Perfect Land. And not purely by Divine fiat.

Which part of that is not "pure divine fiat"? Which part is not "ordained by God" --- if He ordains the ends AND the means, then all is HIS choice, it has nothing to do with "just".

"God is just, and justifier of he who believes". Rom3:26

Calvinism asserts that "he believes whom God has ordained".

Of course He did; but it is "universal atonement" --- it is received by belief, or rejected. Man's decision, not God's.

Were that true it's clearly not universal. It's limited by a corrupted human being. Hardly universal. And how is that fair? How is God God, if He can't reach through that corruption and provide the Spirit's clarity?

He can, and does; that's why man is responsible. Redemption is universal, AND man can choose to reject it.

God ordains means as well as ends. Nothing thwarts those means.

Where in Scripture does "God ordain the means"? I read of many admonishmenst TO persevere in faith, TO be diligent in Christ.

Those means include diligence at a number of levels. There's the external admonishment to be diligent because it's right.

What need is there of "diligence", if God "ordains the means and the end"? If the end is already ordained, then it's HIM who is diligent FOR (and in) us. Does that make sense?

There's the objective examination of our conversion to see if it's true.

In 2Cor13:5, it's not "to see if it was true"; it's "to see if we are still IN Christ".

There's the activity of God-with-us, Who has transformed us from the inside out to seek Him. Rom 12:2, 2 Cor 5:17, Pp 2:12-13, Rom 8.

Each of those verses you quoted convey personal action. Philip says "WORK out your salvation with fear and trembling". Rom8 says "We are under obligation, not to walk after the flesh --- if you DO you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the flesh, you will LIVE."

Why? Why pick middle voice instead of passive voice?

Hm? Could it be your desire to do so?

Because if they're passive in their sinful condemnation, then God is unjust. It was their choice...

"Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, " Rom 2:20
It takes little effort to agree with what Paul says.

I see two possibilities here:

1. Being "on the Potter's wheel", conveys belief; as NASV translates, "vessels for both honor and common, on His wheel, will be used as He wills"; the wrath-fitted-destruction vessels aren't on His wheel.

2. All vessels are on His wheel; some He shapes for salvation, the other He willfully forms to be sinful and condemned.

Do you hold to the second?



Mike, I perceive an "angry tone" in your post; please accept my apology for making you angry; it was never my intention, and I ask your forgiveness.

 

[frumanchu]

If any are NOT predestined, then why does He get mad at the UNpredestined for NOT believing?

That bears repeating; God gets mad at those who are unrepentant and unbelieving --- why get mad at what He Himself DECREED?

Because God is not the author of their sin, He is fully within rights to be "mad" about their sin. It's not as though He said, "I'm going to work evil in these people's hearts and make them sin, and then I'm going to be mad at them for it." He chose to leave them in their sin and turned them over to their corruption. His ordination of their sin (by virtue of His allowing it) does not preclude His righteous anger at it.

God is not the author of their unrepentance or unbelief. That proceeds from their depravity.

 

[CCWoody]

...and I don't see diligence as anything but "admonished to US"...
You do understand that "katartizo" in Rom9:22 is "passive perfect participle", and is MIDDLE-passive? "They fitted THEMSELVES for destruction".

Hey, Ben, would you do me a favor and cite for me from a single credible teaching source what this "middle-passive" voice is cause I was evidently NEVER taught that as I continue to learn Greek.

I was taught that there is a middle voice.
I was taught that there is a passive voice.
And the two are VERY different voices, even if they have the same form.

But, I don't recognize this "middle-passive" voice.

And, while you are looking for the non-existent, please show me a single undisputed word in the entire NT which translates a Perfect tense as a middle voice. (Hint: YOU CAN'T)

Perhaps you should quit translating to suit what you think the Holy Spirit should have said instead of what he actually inspired men to write.

I did, which is why I abandoned theologies which try and rewrite the Bible or read anthroprocentric ideas into Scripture.

Just a thought.

But, to wrap this up in the unambiguous: You are 100% wrong about the reflexive nature of this passage. It is passive: "They were fitted [by God] for destruction." This IS what the Greek voice is; it is what the Bible teaches; and quite frankly, you should be ashamed for teaching contrary to that which is NOT EVEN IN DISPUTE IN ANY MAJOR TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE.

In short, you are wrong: it is passive voice. PERIOD!!! And if you think that you are not wrong, then you need to go back and relearn Greek.

The correct parsing of it is that this is a Perfect, Passive, Participle in the Accusative case and Plural number. This is how EVERY major Bible renders it, which is why you don't find a single translation that adds the reflexive phrase "the fitted themselves."

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[frumanchu]

I see two possibilities here:

1. Being "on the Potter's wheel", conveys belief; as NASV translates, "vessels for both honor and common, on His wheel, will be used as He wills"; the wrath-fitted-destruction vessels aren't on His wheel.

2. All vessels are on His wheel; some He shapes for salvation, the other He willfully forms to be sinful and condemned.

Do you hold to the second?

There is no mention of a potter's wheel, Ben. There is however a clear parallel structure here. The vessels of honor in v21 are the vessels of mercy in v23, and the those for "common use" in v21 are the vessels of wrath in v22. As Matthew Henry puts it, you have the comparison (vessels of honor and common use) and then the application of the comparison (vessels of mercy and wrath).

Two sorts of vessels God forms out of the great lump of fallen mankind: ​

[1.] Vessels of wrath— In these God is willing to show his wrath, that is, his punishing justice, and his enmity to sin. The eternal damnation of sinners will be an abundant demonstration of the power of God; for he will act in it himself immediately, his wrath preying as it were upon guilty consciences, and his arm stretched out totally to destroy their well-being, and yet at the same instant wonderfully to preserve the being of the creature. In order to this, God endured them with much long-suffering—exercised a great deal of patience towards them, let them alone to fill up the measure of sin, to grow till they were ripe for ruin, and so they became fitted for destruction.​

[2.] Vessels of mercy—filled with mercy. The happiness bestowed upon the saved remnant is the fruit, not of their merit, but of God’s mercy. The spring of all the joy and glory of heaven is that mercy of God which endures for ever. And would you know who these vessels of mercy are? Those whom he hath called (v. 24); for whom he did predestinate those he also called with an effectual call: and these not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles; for, the partition-wall being taken down, the world was laid in common, and not (as it had been) God’s favour appropriated to the Jews, and they put a degree nearer his acceptance than the rest of the world. They now stood upon the same level with the Gentiles; and the question is not now whether of the seed of Abraham or no, that is neither here nor there, but whether or no called according to his purpose.​

Henry, M. (1996, c1991). Matthew Henry's commentary : On the whole Bible (Ro 9:14-24). Peabody: Hendrickson. [edited for brevity]​

 

[CCWoody]

Can I assume by your silence, Ben, that you concede that you are 100% wrong with your middle voice assertion regarding Romans 9:22????

Or, are you still trying to find imaginary scholars to back your claim?

BTW, there are middle voice verb forms in the new Testament. Can you point out any of them?

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[Ben johnson]

Can I assume by your silence, Ben, that you concede that you are 100% wrong with your middle voice assertion regarding Romans 9:22????

No, Woody. Context alone, and the reality that "God causes no sin", make it clear that it was not God's fault they were "vessels prepared for destruction".

It's the same argument as Acts12:48; there was a discussion a few years back (link). Context also supports; "Jews considered themselves unworthy, so Gentiles were positioned". Did GOD consider the Jews unworthy (so God unelected them)? So on what basis does context support "GOD elected the Gentiles"? Consistency requires that "the mechanism for unelection, is equivalent to the mechanism for election".

Or, are you still trying to find imaginary scholars to back your claim?

You seem to be referring to the visit I made with a local university Greek professor; because he prefers anonymity, you call him "imaginary"?

If you think I really did not visit him (and I have never questioned anything like that which you have said, have I?), and he graciously gave me several hours, then why don't you contact a Greek professor in YOUR region.

I'm betting he will say the exact same thing as mine did.

He, or she.

 

[Ben johnson]

I would still like to hear why God gets mad, at stubborn unrepentance, if repentance is something GOD decides.

And why would His kindness be MEANT to lead to repentance, if the leading of His kindness is subordinate to sovereign election?

 

[frumanchu]

Explained five posts ago.

 

[Ben johnson]

Paul's words were written for a purpose; if Paul had believed in "sovereign predestination", there would be no purpose.

"When you condemn another, but DO the SAME, do you think you will escape the judgment of God? Do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing the kindness of God leads to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up WRATH for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each man according to his deeds; to those who BY doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation."

I wager that we all agree on "wrath-indignation", meaning "Hell".


There is nothing in here that relfects "sovereign predestination". But everything about "willful unrepentance, you SHOULD be repenting but you're being rebuked for HYPOCRISY."

Man's independant choice is the theme of Paul's words; those who SEEK righteousness, will receive eternal life. But those who seek unrighteousness, who are hypocritically judging, stubborn and refusing to repent, will receive the opposite of eternal life ("wrath").

There is zero of "gifted repentance and gifted faith", and all of "choice-repentance, or choice-stubborn refusal and pursuit of unrighteousness."

Simply stated, Paul's words cannot accommodate RT, but completely harmonize with RG.

It is an admonishment TO repent, not a lamentation of how, due to God's sovereignty, they CANNOT repent. God does not get mad at them for what He Himself decrees. Under "sovereign election", no one can avoid pursuing sin; Him being well aware of that makes no sense towards Him "getting mad over it".

 

[cygnusx1]

Explained five posts ago.

yes I noticed that too , a very clear and precise post , no difficult hard to grasp mystery , a good post , methinks it will need a number of re-posts

 

[frumanchu]

There is nothing in here that relfects "sovereign predestination". But everything about "willful unrepentance, you SHOULD be repenting but you're being rebuked for HYPOCRISY."

Man's independant choice is the theme of Paul's words; those who SEEK righteousness, will receive eternal life. But those who seek unrighteousness, who are hypocritically judging, stubborn and refusing to repent, will receive the opposite of eternal life ("wrath").

There is zero of "gifted repentance and gifted faith", and all of "choice-repentance, or choice-stubborn refusal and pursuit of unrighteousness."

Who is it that seeks righteousness, and more importantly WHY? Why did Augustine seek righteousness while Joseph Stalin did not?

Simply stated, Paul's words cannot accommodate RT, but completely harmonize with RG.

They harmonize with Reformed Theology just fine, Ben. Always have, always will. You readily recognize different aspects of causality several posts back, but suddenly this vanishes when applied to passages like this. Tell me why it is not possible to understand such passages as both rightly rebuking the unrepentance which proceeds from the sinful hearts of the reprobate and being the instrumental means by which the elect are brought to repentance.

I submit that there is no reason at all, save a preconceived notion, that precludes such an understanding.

It is an admonishment TO repent, not a lamentation of how, due to God's sovereignty, they CANNOT repent. God does not get mad at them for what He Himself decrees. Under "sovereign election", no one can avoid pursuing sin; Him being well aware of that makes no sense towards Him "getting mad over it".

You act as though His ordination of their sin (which is an inescapable fact given God's omniscience and omnipotence) means He was the author of it. That is not at all the case, and as such His ordination of it does not preclude His righteous anger over it.

To state it rather imperfectly, His ordination of their sin includes provision for His anger over it.

To use your rationale here, why did God get angry with Adam and Eve when He knew full well before He even created them that they would fall? How can God be angry about something He knew ahead of time would happen and chose not to prevent?