And why, pray tell, is this?
Moreover, you still have 1Tim.2:4 and 4:10 to deal with.
And we have done so ad nauseum. The Greek language is not as precise in its use of the universal as English. Pas does not necessarily mean "Each and every single one," but can also mean "all kinds, without distinction." That is the sense in I Tim. 2:4 and 4:10.
I was wondering how long before Rom.9:20 would show up!
That's because Romans 9-11 is something the Armininan simply cannot explain. To say it speaks only of national groups is just a flight of fancy. ("God's dispensational dealings with Israel" was the line I used when I fought against Calvinism. It was crap then, and its crap now.)
Tell me, how can this speak of "God's dispensational dealings with Israel?"
5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.This speaks of individuals being elected, and thus, it cannot be held that Romans 9-11 speaks of "nations."
6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.
7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
-- Rom 11:5-7.
Volition.
The choice to choose for truth or against it.
The same reason not everyone becomes a criminal.
Moreover, you still have 1Tim.2:4 and 4:10 to deal with. And we have done so ad nauseum. The Greek language is not as precise in its use of the universal as English. Pas does not necessarily mean "Each and every single one," but can also mean "all kinds, without distinction." That is the sense in I Tim. 2:4 and 4:10.
Well, according to Spurgeon, the Calvinist brethren who attempt to make 1Tim.2:4 speak of all 'sorts of men' are going against scripture,
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they,—"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God.
Moreover, in 1Tim.4:10 you not only have the fact that Christ is the saviour of all men, but espically those who believe, pointing out that the 'all' here does not refer to all 'kind's of men, but everyman.
Now, since 'all' means everyone most of the time, it is up to you show from the context that the 'all' here is referring to all 'kinds' and not everyone, not just because your theology demands it.
How do we know Rom.3:23 is not referring to all 'sorts of men' and not every man?
I was wondering how long before Rom.9:20 would show up! That's because Romans 9-11 is something the Armininan simply cannot explain. To say it speaks only of national groups is just a flight of fancy. ("God's dispensational dealings with Israel" was the line I used when I fought against Calvinism. It was crap then, and its crap now.) Tell me, how can this speak of "God's dispensational dealings with Israel?" 5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. 7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; -- Rom 11:5-7. This speaks of individuals being elected, and thus, it cannot be held that Romans 9-11 speaks of "nations."
First, Romans 9 begins with Paul referring to 'his brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh'(Rom.9:3)
Second, Romans 11 begins with 'hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamim.
Doesn't sound like he is speaking of individual salvation here.
As for vs.7, those Jews who believed in this dispensation were made part of the Church (Gal.3:28), but the rest were hardened (again a national reference)
The passage that you cite in Romans. 9:13 'Jacob have I loved, but Exau have I hated' is a quotation from Malachi 1:2
I have loved you saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? Saith the Lord, yet I loved Jacob. And I have hated Esau and laid his mountains and his heritage to waste for the dragon of his wilderness (Mal.1:2-3)
Thus, that 'hatred' of Esau is referring to a national hatred based on its attitude to Israel (Psa.137:7), not individual salvation of either Jacob or Esau.
I note that you did not answer the question of God being 'arbitrary'.
So if all men are the same, on what basis did God choose some and reject the rest, creating them for the sole purpose of sending them to a Lake of Fire?
The Calvinist wants to pretend that he is so humble, that he preaches 'grace'.
What he really believes is that there must have been something that made him worthy of being saved, after all, they will exclaim, God chose me!
If not on the basis of something in that person, then it is simply that God picks a name out of a giant cosmic hat and being God is allowed to do so, 'might makes right', the same view that Islam has of God.
I think we have gone full circle, dealing with the usual Calvinistic 'proof-text's.
Actually 'unconditional election' is only an issue because the Calvinists make it one.
The real issues in Christianity are the Gospel of Christ,(Rom.1:16) and being a doer of the word and not only a hearer (James. 1:22)
As Wesley preached at the sermon of Whitfield, non-essentials should not separate the brethen who are laboring for the Lord.