There is a podcast called "Theology Unplugged" with a group of Calvinistic brothers (Tim Kimberely, JJ Seid and Sam Storms) from Credo House Ministries in Oklahoma. In their most recent podcast titled, "Does God Choose People to Go to Hell," they discuss the issue of double predestination as it relates to the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9. 

As is typical, they paint all non-Calvinists as believing the "foresight faith view" of election and thus never give a strong rebuttal to the most widely held scholarly perspective opposing their Calvinistic interpretation.  

They are honest about the difficulties of the text and are sincere in their efforts to interpret God's Word.  However, they have misapplied the intention of Paul in Romans 9-11 to support their individualistic soteriological perspective causing unnecessary difficulty in accepting the text.

 

As a Calvinist, I had to learn that "the foresight faith view" was not the only scholarly alternative to the Calvinistic interpretation.  

I had so saturated myself with Calvinistic preachers and authors that the only thing I knew of the opposing views was what they told me. Thus, I had been lead to believe the only real alternative to Calvinism was this strange concept of God “looking through the corridors of time to elect those He foresees would choose Him.” Notable Calvinistic teachers almost always paint all non-Calvinistic scholars as holding to this perspective. Once I realized I had been misled on this point, I was more open to consider other interpretations objectively.

I found a much more robust and theologically sound systematic in what is called "The Corporate View of Election," which so happened to be the most popular view among the biblical scholars of my own denomination (Southern Baptists). Much more can be said about this view that I will not take the liberty to expound upon in this article. However, I must warn readers that the all too common phrase, “nations are made up of individuals too,” does not even begin to rebut the claims of this perspective. Individuals are just as much involved in the Corporate perspective as they are the Calvinistic perspective (maybe even more so). Anyone who believes the Corporate view is easily dismissed with that simple one-liner has not yet come to understand it rightly. In my experience, very few Calvinists give this view the attention it deserves because it requires a shift in perspective that, if recognized, would undermine their entire premise.

Do you understand “The Corporate View of Election”…I mean really understand it? Could you defend it in a debate if you had to? Could you explain it objectively to a classroom of students? Are you willing to study it and evaluate its claims?

 

 “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” -Aristotle

KEY POINT: God DOES use determinative means to ensure His sovereign purposes in electing Israel, which includes:

• (1) the setting apart of certain individual Israelites to be the lineage of the Messiah, and
• (2) the setting apart of certain individual Israelities to carry His divinely inspired message to the world (using convincing means like big fish and blinding lights to persuade their wills) and
• (3) temporarily blinding the rest of Israel to accomplish redemption through their rebellion.

However, there is no indication in scripture that:

• (1) all those who DO believe the appointed messenger's teachings were likewise set a part by such persuasive means (especially not inward effectual means).
• (2) all those who DO NOT believe the appointed messenger's teachings were likewise hardened from the time they were born to the time they died.

As a Calvinist I did not understand the historical context of the scriptures as it relates to the national election of Israel followed by their judicial hardening. When the scriptures spoke of Jesus hiding the truth in parables, or only revealing Himself to a select few, or cutting off large numbers of people from seeing, hearing and understanding the truth; I immediately presumed that those were passages supporting the “T” of my T.U.L.I.P. when in reality they are supporting the doctrine of Israel’s judicial hardening.

 

"FROM AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO TO THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, WESTERN CHRISTIANITY HAS TENDED TO INTERPRET THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF AND WITH REGARD TO INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS. DURING THOSE SAME CENTURIES THE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN FAR LESS EMPHASIZED AND SELDOM EVER CONTROVERSIAL IN EASTERN ORTHODOXY. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT AUGUSTINE AND LATER CALVIN, WITH THE HELP OF MANY OTHERS, CONTRIBUTED TO A HYPER INDIVIDUALIZATION OF THIS DOCTRINE THAT WAS HARDLY WARRANTED BY ROMANS 9-11, EPH. 1, AND I PETER 2? IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THE MAJOR EMPHASIS IN BOTH TESTAMENTS FALLS UPON AN ELECT PEOPLE -- ISRAEL (OT) AND DISCIPLES OR CHURCH (NT)?" - LEO GARRETT