Dr. White and objects of wrath.

[Guest]

I'm posting a new thread because this post does not pertain to the actual argument of the grammar or greek translation of act 13.

I simply do not follow the calvinists reason on act 13. I reallize this in depth argument is on the grammer and syntax (structure and tenses) to prove that the greek word means "appointed" and not disposed or some other way of tranlation.

Even if I was to take this word to translate as Dr. White suggests, I find the position to be VERY confusing.

I understand his rendering (as most calvinists) to read romans 9 as stating God has determined (ordained) that some (few) will go to heaven (objects of mercy) and another group (many) to go to eternal torment (objects of wrath).

But Paul clearly states "WE BY NATURE ARE ALL OBJECTS OF WRATH".

If this is true then why is it that he believes these people in acts 13 are objects of mercy when paul says they (by their nature, at some time) are objects of wrath.

It seems he would have to disconnect Pauls words in romans from Eph 2. In other words it seems the calvinist has to say "we by nature are objects of wrath" is COMPLETELY different than "objects of wrath" in romans 9.

Eph 2:3
All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

But according to Dr. White Paul is "elect" and NOT AN OBJECT of WRATH.
So the calvinist would have to conclude that the "object of wrath" in eph is one that can change, where in romans 9 it is one that cannot????

Auggy