Replies

First, I don't think that words like "first," "second," etc. are strictly applicable to God's decision process. Those are words applicable only to people within a time-stream; God Himself does not exist within time, so His foreknowledge and decision are simultanious (insofar as we define "simultanious"--that word, too, probably doesn't quite explain God's POV, as indeed all words fall short).

What I said was that God's sovereign decisions were made based on His foreknowledge, as affirmed in the Bible, not based on some kind of whim. No sovereign, if he is worthy of love and respect, makes his decisions on the flip of a coin, but bases them on his knowledge.

Secondly, you completely miss the point of Romans 9-11 if you think Paul is talking about individual election. Paul is upholding that the nation of Israel (the physical nation, not "spiritual Israel" if you insist on the use of that term) is the elect nation of God--and indeed, if you look up and read Paul's OT allusions in their original context, it is clear that the fate of nations, not individuals, is the subject of each. God has sovereignly decided to set Israel apart from all other nations as His own. Furthermore, Paul goes on to show that the Church has no reason to be proud over Israel, though they had fallen and had many of their branches broken off, and he affirms that God would remove Israel's spiritual blindness and save the whole nation "when the fullness of the Gentiles have come in," as was proclaimed by the prophets of old.

Calvin's extreme predestination is based not on solid Biblical teaching, but on a flawed exegesis that starts with replacement theology, and then has to find some way to reconcile that theology with God's election of Israel in Romans 9-11. Thus, Calvinists hijack God's promises for Israel and twist them into a system that elevates God's sovereignty (which is not in question) over His love and His covenants.

What I find difficult to understand is how people can accept views that are modern to church theology unless they're RCCers (with all due respects). They, after all, base their faith primarily on traditions of the Church and can legitimately argue (albeit wrongly) that the Bible is only one source.

But Protestants rejected this approach. The Reformation was to go BACK to the original interpretations of the scriptures. If the church traditionally said the "blue view" was right and condemned as heresy the "red view", why would the "red view" now be correct?

Some just don't know what the historical teachings were. Others completely reject the historical teachings in favor of 18th century teachings no matter if it was built on heresy. When confronted with the historical context of scripture, it's difficult for me to understand why people would favor a heretical interpretation over a historical interpretation no matter how unappealing it may seem.