Please click on the attachment to view Glen Shellrude, “The Freedom of God in Mercy and Judgment: A Libertarian Reading of Romans 9:6-29”, Evangelical Quarterly 81.4 (2009), 306–318.

Here is the author's abstract:

Romans 9:6-26 is commonly interpreted to mean that Jewish unbelief and Gentile
responsiveness to the Gospel was something ordained or predestined by
God. This article identifies elements in the whole context of 9 – 11 which call this
approach in question. It then proposes that Paul’s intent is to rebut the claim
that God was under obligation to ensure that Israel recognize the time of fulfillment.
Paul argues that God: 1. is free to define his people on the basis of who
responds to his gracious initiative; 2. is free to respond to Israel’s unbelief with
a judgment of hardening rather than turning up the heat of irresistible grace; 3.
is free to use the occasion of a hardened Israel for a broader proclamation of the

Calvinist Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), no doubt taking his cue from Arminius's fierce supralapsarian opponent, Franciscus Gomarus¹, writes: "The view of Socinus, and of Arminius who followed him closely, is totally different. It is a well-known fact that the Socinians denied the Godhead of Christ, who, as they taught, was born a mere man. But . . . they acknowledged that He had become God. Hence after His Resurrection He could be worshiped as God."²

Please click on the attachment to enjoy a little humor. Don't miss the caption at the bottom to go along with the picture.

Very often Calvinists will cite Proverbs 21:1 as a proof text for God’s exhaustive control over the will and decisions of men. Their use of the passage is not intended to demonstrate that God may at times override the will as Arminians would have little difficulty affirming, but that God is always in control of the will in such a way that we cannot will or do anything that God Himself has not caused us to do. If man has any independent control of his will then God is not “sovereign” according to the standard Calvinist understanding of sovereignty (exhaustive determinism). While there may be some Calvinists who do not hold to such a definition of sovereignty, it is the traditional Calvinist position held by John Calvin and most of his theological followers. The subject matter of this post is concerned only with Calvinists who hold to exhaustive determinism and see Prov. 21:1 as a text that confirms this doctrine as Biblical.

The passage reads:

SEA is excited to announce the addition to our site of Dr. Brian Abasciano’s recently published article Clearing Up Misconceptions About Corporate Election which argues forcefully and compellingly for the corporate view of election. The theological concept of corporate election has been gaining force in modern scholarship for quite some time. It is widely held among scholars that a primarily corporate election is the election described in the OT. It is on this basis that Dr. Abasciano and others argue that this corporate view of election is the view that Paul and the other apostles would naturally carry over into the NT. This is not just speculation but is strongly supported by the language of election used especially by Paul, not least in Romans and Ephesians.