So if God's answer to man in Romans 9:19 is that man has no choice but is accepted or rejected as God desires without any recourse, then God is morally responsible for his sin?
I agree the potter can fashion a vessel for his desired purposes so how can he then judge the vessel for fulfilling his purposes?
Should the interpretation of Romans 9:19 be that God made some men for sin, so he could show the men made for his pleasure what a great God he is for saving them from the fate given to the sinners.
If Christ didn't die on the Cross for all mankind's sins, but only for the elected few then God's grace doesn't abound, and his love is limited to the few who had no choice in the matter.
But on the other hand Romans 10:9-13 seems to say man has freewill and Christ's salvation is available for All so it would seem the individual man is morally responsible for his own sins and God's grace has no limits.
So which is it? One or the other, or is it some combination of the two?
"So which is it? One or the other, or is it some combination of the two?" I don't have time now to address all of the questions exhaustively, but let me touch on this one...it is that God is in utter control of all. No hybrid, no "little bit of both".
Is. 63:17, "Why, O Lord, dost Thou cause us Thou cause us to stray from Thy ways, and harden our heart from fearing Thee?"
While this is referring to the Jews, the control is not limited to those people.
I Thess. 2:11, "For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false."
Notice, God is actually sealing off those whom He has rejected. It is we puny men demanding our view of justice prevail. The point of the Scriptures is that the universe does not work the way sinful, fallen, broken, self-oriented, proud men think it should. This should not surprise us.
And, I should have pinged you to #45 of this thread.
More to follow.