I'm not appealing to middle knowledge.
I'm appealing to the fact that the reformed believe Romans 9 is about individual salvation
and every other denomination believes it's about corporate salvation.
Yes, the passage is about individual salvation, i.e adoption as sons, but his focus is on the Jewish perspective. He is answering objections to his gospel raised by those who are his kinsmen. So he begins his answer to this particular objection with an opening paragraph that sets up the argument. And he uses OT examples.
Romans is not an easy book to understand fully, and Romans 9 to 11 should be in a separate letter.....
but it certainly does seem that Paul is speaking about a NATION and not about individual salvation.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I point out that Paul doesn't use the term "Israel" for an entire eight chapters in Romans until he begins his argument in Romans 9.
Do you deny that God can know who will be a better leader?
I don't see anything in the text about leadership
Notice that in verse 11 it states that E and J had not done anything yet.
God did not choose the promise keeper by his works.
just like we are not picked by our works.
Paul mentions that the two boys were twins. This is to highlight the fact that there was NO physical distinction between them. They were both sons of Abraham; they shared the same parents and genetics.
Can we find a spiritual distinction between the boys? Yes, Esau was willing to trade his birthright for a bowl of soup. Jacob was willing to cheat and deceive his brother, with his mother's help, to get his father's blessing.
Nevertheless, before the boys were born, before they could manifest their spiritual condition, it was said of them, "the older will serve the younger."
Paul argues that God told this to Rebecah so that she knows God chooses whom to bless according to his plans and that he is responsible for the outcome.
it seems, can we know for sure?, that God chose Jacob because, maybe God wanted to show that the son not meant to carry on the promise would be the better choice.
Of this we can be sure:
God did not choose one to damn the other.
It is NOT about individual salvation.
I agree, Paul's argument up to that Point is not about individual salvation but it leads to a profound question. "God is not unjust, is he?" His question would not make sense if we assumed that God was looking down the halls of time to see what Jacob and Esau would do. If that were the case, all Paul would need to do is argue that God was acting justly in blessing Jacob and not Esau, given their behavior.
However, Paul argues differently. He argues that God has the right to bless Jacob and not bless Esau because he is their creator: essentially, God has the right of authorship. God is like a potter who creates some pottery for honorable us while he creates other pottery for dishonorable use.
I DO believe that God chose Jacob.
If we agree that God chose Jacob as the promise keeper and not for personal salvation...then we agree.
However, God chose Jacob based on God's FOREKNOWLEDGE.
Foreknowledge is not causation.
This brings us back to Middle knowledge. To say that God chose Jacob based on his foreknowledge is to argue that God is not a maker of pots; he is a selector of pots. If God is choosing whom to bless based on his foreknowledge, he is like the woman who goes to the store to find a pot suitable to her liking. She has a set of criteria from which to evaluate each pot and she selects the one that best fits her criteria.
By contrast, Paul argues that God is a potter. He doesn't select pots based on criteria; he creates pots to meet them. God is not using his foreknowledge to select people to bless. According to Paul, God is creating people to bless.
God creates history...your verse....
Hebrews 1:2
1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
The above states that Jesus is heir of all things...
He has authority over all things...
How does this mean that God created history?
Here’s a smoother, more cohesive paragraph that keeps your argument sharp while giving it a strong rhetorical flow:
Paul’s use of the term “world” translates the Greek word for “ages,” meaning the unfolding of history itself. His point is that Jesus was never an afterthought or a divine repair job, as some portray him. Paul rejects the idea that creation was perfect until Adam ruined it, forcing God into a reactive “Plan B.” In Paul’s mind, nothing about God’s redemptive work is improvisational. Christ was not sent to fix an unexpected problem; he was always the center of God’s purpose from the beginning. Jesus is not Plan B — he is, and always has been, Plan A.
I have authority over my children...
I do not cause every move they make.
Yes, I agree. But you describe a physical state, not a spiritual one.
Then why do you keep speaking about compatibilist free will?
So you are now stating that you believe in libertarian free will?
I'm sorry if I have confused you and especially in light of your wish to pin down which "box" I fit into —Calvinist, Arminian, Molinist, compatibilist, libertarian, etc. My comments may have sounded to you like I was shifting categories. Again, I apologize. My views don't neatly fit into one of the familiar categories because they belong to a long line of Christian theological and philosophical ideas once rejected by most modern Christians. I include you and me in that statement. We don't accept or read the Bible through the lenses that other men have handed to us. We are looking at the scriptures afresh.
You are right in your observations. I have argued strongly for God's sovereignty, and you might have assumed that means that I am a compatibilist. But I have also argued strongly for something that sounds like genuine human agency, and that sounds like libertarian language. So I understand that I have confused you.
I’m not arguing for libertarian or compatibilist free will. Those are boxes we inherited from earlier debates, and modern Christians keep inventing new ones. My point is that our view of sovereignty and freedom depends on our view of God’s nature. If God is transcendent over creation the way an author is transcendent over a novel, then the categories change. The author determines the entire story, yet the characters still act freely and meaningfully within it. In the same way, God determines the shape of history, while human beings genuinely express their freedom within the world He authored. So I’m not switching camps — I’m using a different framework altogether.
I can go into detail if you like.
One could argue that the entire chapter is the context because it depicts a crowd that seems to recognize that Jesus came from God, but their only concern is whether or not Jesus will continue to feed them bread. The question on the table seems to be "which one of you actually understands what I am doing?" The only ones who seem to understand are the ones whom the Father sent to Jesus. John 6:35-40