On his website, Arminian Perspectives, Ben Henshaw has a questions page at which he answers questions about Arminianism and Calvinism that visitors to his site pose in the comment section of the page. Here is a question from a woman named Ashly followed by Ben’s answer:
Question: I read your post about Romans 9:16 but what about the following passages? Paul states what someone may question … Then gives the example of them being a pot destined and appointed for destruction. Then it states the prophecy of Hosea that says God did not love everyone but later decided to love Gentiles too.
Answer: We have several posts here that I think will help you with your questions. Here are a few of them:
An Apparently Not So Brief Response to C. Michael Patton on Rom. 9
Romans 9 in Context: God’s Just Prerogative in Confounding All Confidence in the Law of Works
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Who do Jacob and Esau Represent?
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Prerogative Equals Unconditionality
Where Calvinism Gets Romans 9 Wrong: Proof-Texting From a Translation Choice
I personally hold to the corporate election view and see that view being expressed nicely in Romans 9-11 (as you will see in the first link above, the rest of the links go to posts that were written by the other author at this site, JCT). Once you understand the corporate view, Romans 9 makes a lot more sense and avoids the serious difficulties one encounters in the Calvinist view when reading Romans 9-11 as a unit. Here is a link to several resources on the corporate view (especially see the links at the bottom of the short summary):
A Concise Summary of the Corporate View of Election and Predestination
If you still have questions, let me know.
