"Someone here needs to explain the mindset, purpose, and reason for the 'imaginary objector' in Paul's audience. What are they objecting to? That believers are elect of their own free will? Why object to that? Is the objector in the audience more of a calvnisist, or arminian? And how does that logically follow the topic still being carried over from the last few verses of chapter 8 (the elect being predestined).
I suppose your answer would be similiar in your explanation of why people got offended and left Christ when he said "no one can come to me unless the Father has appointed them" in John 6:65.
I see the objector with an arminian view in Paul's audience, crying about fairness, equal treatment, and injustice (why does He find fault? Who can resist His will?).
The question raised was "ok.. Paul, we hear you on predestination, salvation, etc. but there's a problem--what about national Israel?" and then Paul goes on to explain the basis for salvation is not within man, but within God, and His prerogative. The potter shall not judge God for what He does with His clay.
When you put an arminian spin on the point of the passage, the intention of the 'objector' and Paul's explanation, following the same topic from chapter8, it all falls apart and doesn't make sense.
Zoom out, look at the big picture, follow the flow-of-thought, be honest, and I think you will see the text for what it is.
I'm a little shocked, and actually kind of impressed that no one has brought up the lame "but Jacob and Esau are nations being predestined!!" argument.
Well, I may have spoken too soon, Homer hasn't weighed in yet. J/K Homer
"