God alone at work in Romans 9

[lee_merrill]

From the end of the "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" thread we see the claim that God alone is at work in Romans 9, in the potter and clay analogy (called monergism), and the counter-claim that both God and man are at work (synergism).

The question Paul is asking and answering is found in verse 6...has the Word of God failed? Answer is:
God's salvation is for all those that respond in faith.

Yes, but does faith have a cause? "When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed." (Acts 18:27)

When you dig down beyond the textual context into the cultural context and understanding, you will see that the only thing resembling that sort of theology was embedded in gnostic teaching regarding fate.

[phat8594]

From the end of the "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" thread

I guess this goes back to my point in the previous thread. All of this imposes a premise ONTO the text, rather than taking the premise FROM the text.

The goal, IMO, and I believe you would agree, would be to get the meaning from the Bible, rather than to put a meaning onto it. IOW, we should let the text speak for itself.

So, with that being said, what is the premise, background, etc of Romans 9 and Romans as a whole. Who is Paul speaking to, what issues is he addressing, and how does this part of the text play into it?

IMHO, I believe Calvinism / monergism is nowhere on the radar in Paul's mind, or the Roman church's mind for that matter. He is addressing completely different issues. So the goal would be to show, through textual context, where monergism is the premise, and where culturally the church was struggling with such issues.

(in the same way, synergism isn't on his mind either -- rather it is the assumed default of belief at the time)

Rather, Paul is discussing the role of faith and works - and dismantling the idea that people inherit the promises of God by:

1. Adhering to the Law
2. Being physical children (descendants) of Israel

And justifying that it is, and always has been, about faith:

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. (Romans 9:30-32)


And this is why we see quotes such as this from the Early Church

For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed. And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and CHOOSING GOOD BY FREE CHOICE, they are not accountable for their actions. -Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1:177

[lee_merrill]

I guess this goes back to my point in the previous thread. All of this imposes a premise ONTO the text, rather than taking the premise FROM the text.

The goal, IMO, and I believe you would agree, would be to get the meaning from the Bible, rather than to put a meaning onto it. IOW, we should let the text speak for itself.

Yes.

Paul is discussing the role of faith and works - and dismantling the idea that people inherit the promises of God by:

1. Adhering to the Law
2. Being physical children (descendants) of Israel

And justifying that it is, and always has been, about faith...

And this is why we see quotes such as this from the Early Church

For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed. And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and CHOOSING GOOD BY FREE CHOICE, they are not accountable for their actions. -Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1:177

But isn't that what Pelagius said?

Source: Pelagius, commentary on Romans

The apostle, in fact, does not [take away] what we possess in our own will, since he says above: 'Not realizing that God's goodness leads you to repentance?' ( Rom. 2: 4)...

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[phat8594]

Short answer: Based on the cultural context of the book and what Paul is addressing (Jew/Gentile tension, and the surrounding text) - the proper interpretation is that God has mercy on whom He wants (aka those who walk by faith)

In other words, God is merciful to us not account of our human efforts (i.e. adherence to the law in this context) - but rather because of His goodness. This same thing can be seen in the story of Moses this quote is taken from. Remember, this was an answer to the interlocutor (Jewish in this context) - who is charging God with being unjust for bestowing His promises on Gentiles who have not adhered to the law, yet withheld the promises to those who have 'adhered' to the Law.


Again, not sure where this is coming from in the context of the greater letter of Romans and in the immediate context. The theme of the Promises of God being inherited by those who walk by faith and not by works is laced throughout the book. More specifically, the Jews at the time believed that they were the inheritors of God's promise because of the ancestry and because of their adherence to the Law. This is exactly what Paul is dealing with here. And again, when we look at the context of this verse, we will see several things that become clear (based on the text):

For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants[b] 8children of the promisedone anything good or bad not by works

1. The first thing we see is that Paul IS NOT talking about individuals but rather people groups. He is addressing the issue of 'Israel' or 'God's chosen people'. That why he says 'not all who are descended of Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children (hint: read earlier in Romans when Paul ties together those who walk by faith with the children of Abraham)

2. By directly addressing Israel and Abraham, Paul shows that it is NOT about physical descent. And Paul clearly states it. Rather, it is the children of Promise who are children of God. (extra credit: read Galations 4:21-31 where Paul references the same allegory and uses the same language (Children of Promise vs. Children of Flesh).

3. We also see how Paul addresses adherence to the Law, and that again, is where is quotes the OT again, using another reference, now to Jacob and Esau. And again, the point is that it is not about 'doing' (ie living by the Law), but rather about God's mercy. What is clear here, is two fold: 1. Paul is not discussing the individuals of Jacob and Esau. I think you are likely seeing how Paul in no way can be discussing individuals. This is because the quotes are from the OT where each time, nations, and not individuals are in view. We further can see that Paul is NOT using texts about nations (ie a people group) to reference individuals because he says 'the older will serve the younger'. This is important because Esau the individual NEVER served Jacob the individual. The nation of Edom, however, did.

So again, the points and text are SO much richer and full of life. They are directly addressing issues of the Roman church, and teach us much about the promises of God. And when we continue to read, we see that ultimately, Israel failed to inherit the promises of God, not because God chose to damn them, but rather because:

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.

So although the Jews may scream 'unfair, unfair' - the reality is that all the way through the OT, it was ALWAYS about faith. From faith , to faith.

But isn't that what Pelagius said?

Source: Pelagius, commentary on Romans

The apostle, in fact, does not [take away] what we possess in our own will, since he says above: 'Not realizing that God's goodness leads you to repentance?' ( Rom. 2: 4)...

© Copyright Original Source

Actually, what is often believed about Pelagius is that he allegedly believed that man could perfectly fulfill the Law without God's grace or help. (so think of man centered monergism, so to speak)

So, I think you may be conflating two different topics. The ECF were VERY, and I mean VERY large supporters of Free Will (in the synergistic sense). If you dig down deep into their writings, you will see there is zero room for modern day monergism.

[lee_merrill]

Short answer: Based on the cultural context of the book and what Paul is addressing (Jew/Gentile tension, and the surrounding text) - the proper interpretation is that God has mercy on whom He wants (aka those who walk by faith)

His mercy on Paul was not when he was walking by faith, though.

In other words, God is merciful to us not account of our human efforts (i.e. adherence to the law in this context) - but rather because of His goodness. This same thing can be seen in the story of Moses this quote is taken from. Remember, this was an answer to the interlocutor (Jewish in this context) - who is charging God with being unjust for bestowing His promises on Gentiles who have not adhered to the law, yet withheld the promises to those who have 'adhered' to the Law.

What verse are you referring to, though? Do you mean verse 14? That is a question about God's justice in choosing Jacob over Esau, "not by works but by him who calls." Note that even faith is not in view here.

The theme of the Promises of God being inherited by those who walk by faith and not by works is laced throughout the book.

Certainly, but that is not the only theme, and that is not the focus here.

The first thing we see is that Paul IS NOT talking about individuals but rather people groups.

He is talking about groups, as well as individuals.

By directly addressing Israel and Abraham, Paul shows that it is NOT about physical descent. And Paul clearly states it. Rather, it is the children of Promise who are children of God.

Including the individuals Jacob and Esau, the choice being made before they had done anything good or bad. Such as believing or disbelieving.

Paul is not discussing the individuals of Jacob and Esau. I think you are likely seeing how Paul in no way can be discussing individuals. This is because the quotes are from the OT where each time, nations, and not individuals are in view.

... we see that ultimately, Israel failed to inherit the promises of God, not because God chose to damn them, but rather because:

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.

So although the Jews may scream 'unfair, unfair' - the reality is that all the way through the OT, it was ALWAYS about faith. From faith , to faith.

does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Rom 9:19-24)

Actually, what is often believed about Pelagius is that he allegedly believed that man could perfectly fulfill the Law without God's grace or help. (so think of man centered monergism, so to speak)

Well, semi-Pelagianism has also been rejected by the council of Orange.

The ECF were VERY, and I mean VERY large supporters of Free Will (in the synergistic sense). If you dig down deep into their writings, you will see there is zero room for modern day monergism.

[phat8594]

His mercy on Paul was not when he was walking by faith, though.

That is a different subject. And I'd be happy to discuss that somewhere else. Let's focus on this text for now...

What verse are you referring to, though? Do you mean verse 14? That is a question about God's justice in choosing Jacob over Esau, "not by works but by him who calls." Note that even faith is not in view here.

Certainly, but that is not the only theme, and that is not the focus here.


He is talking about groups, as well as individuals.

This is a common belief through Calvinist circles where this verse and chapter are often lifted out of their context to suit a particular theology, IMO. In other words, a premise is placed onto the text that exists nowhere within the text, to make the verse(s) say something that it was never meant to say.

When we look at context, we must see what point Paul is making with the Jacob / Esau, and how does that fit into his argument as a whole. The verse(s) cannot be lifted out of the context of the book or chapter just because it is convenient to a particular theology. (whether mine or yours)

My fear is that many Calvinists only see the text this way because of the premise they place onto the text, rather than reading what the premise the text is supplying itself. You will have to show how your asserted 'focus' fits within the cultural and textual context of the book without bringing into the text a Calvinist premise.

Furthermore, you will have to show how Paul is focusing on individuals in the text and how that works contextually both within the cultural and scriptural context. (I have supplied why it is groups in previous posts)

Although our modern western cultural is focused on the individual and a 'me centered' theology, so to speak - this was not the case with Hebrew thought at the time of the writing. Rather, peoples were referenced through ancestry and figureheads. It is a culture that focuses more on the group than the individual.


Again, what TEXTUALLY shows you that Paul is referencing individuals? I believe this is so important, and we must use the text (or even it's references) to keep Scripture as the highest authority. And I am sure you agree.

Remember, that Paul's language is plural throughout Romans 9 - except for his allegorical references to Isaac / Ishmael, Jacob / Esau (clear from the context) - which are used to support the plural. And also remember that the OT references even reference groups (e.g. the older shall serve the younger)

nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger- Genesis 25:23

The blessing of Jacob did not mean that Esau the individual served Isaac the individual. A quick reading of Genesis shows that Israel immediately fled for fear of his life. And this again lines up with the prophetic word spoken in Genesis 25:23 that Paul references in Romans 9. So, context and scripture again, are key.

does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. (Rom 9:19-24)

Here is a quick challenge. Where in the book of Romans is 'salvation' mentioned? As in, where is that word? Do you believe that could help us understand Paul's arguments and focus regarding salvation? (if he even mentions it at all)

Or are we just inserting that word because of a premise we are placing onto the text? After all, even I have asserted that we should get our premise FROM the text, right?

This a thought for all of us....and it is a serious question.

Well, semi-Pelagianism has also been rejected by the council of Orange.

I appreciate your prayers, and will pray for you as well! But the ECF are not the standard, Scripture is the standard.

So is scripture the standard or is the council of Orange the standard?

I definitely agree that the ECF aren't THE standard. And they are still a data point.

Do you believe that Scripture has always and will always mean the same thing. Or does it change with time and culture?



Faith is a consistent focus throughout Romans, in bringing together both Jew and Gentile. In Romans 9, Paul lays it out that it is God's prerogative to decide on who receives the promises and who doesn't - regardless of what people (or law abiding Jew in this context) might think of as 'fair'.

And it is clear in Romans 9 (read the end of WHY Israel has for the most part failed), and DEFINITELY Romans as a whole (seriously, who else has read the rest of Romans? I can't be the only one...) - that those who receive the promises of God are those who live by faith. (i.e. those who have the faith of Abraham).

I am seriously open to new ideas -- I just need context. So please, show me contextually where these premises come from....

[The Remonstrant]

Calvinism, theological determinism, and Romans 9 again?

[lee_merrill]

Furthermore, you will have to show how Paul is focusing on individuals in the text and how that works contextually both within the cultural and scriptural context. (I have supplied why it is groups in previous posts)

"Scripture says to Pharaoh" as an individual, are you saying that Egypt was meant in this passage, and not Pharaoh?

... and we must use the text (or even it's references) to keep Scripture as the highest authority. And I am sure you agree.

Yes.

Remember, that Paul's language is plural throughout Romans 9 - except for his allegorical references to Isaac / Ishmael, Jacob / Esau (clear from the context) - which are used to support the plural.

But they don't eliminate the singular, it is mysterious to me why discussing Jacob and Esau and what was said to them eliminates Jacob and Esau.

The blessing of Jacob did not mean that Esau the individual served Isaac the individual. A quick reading of Genesis shows that Israel immediately fled for fear of his life.

Here is a quick challenge. Where in the book of Romans is 'salvation' mentioned? As in, where is that word? Do you believe that could help us understand Paul's arguments and focus regarding salvation? (if he even mentions it at all)

Do you believe that Scripture has always and will always mean the same thing. Or does it change with time and culture?

I believe there is a depth to Scripture, so with time we understand more and more, without uprooting what has been really understood previously.

And it is clear in Romans 9 (read the end of WHY Israel has for the most part failed), and DEFINITELY Romans as a whole (seriously, who else has read the rest of Romans? I can't be the only one...) - that those who receive the promises of God are those who live by faith. (i.e. those who have the faith of Abraham).

Yes, and we can't take this point as the only point in the passage.

Blessings,
Lee

[Littlejoe]

Calvinism, theological determinism, and Romans 9 again?

Based on you past posting history and your user name, I would assume this is still an area of expertise for you. This debate has gone on for centuries, why do you think it would all the sudden resolve itself? If you have nothing of substance to say, then please take the snark to another area where it's actually encouraged. Thanks.

[phat8594]

"Scripture says to Pharaoh" as an individual, are you saying that Egypt was meant in this passage, and not Pharaoh?

Pharaoh, as a leader, spoke for his people as a whole. It is important to remember that Hebrew culture was not as individualistic as our western culture.

By now I could have used my power and caused a terrible disease that would have destroyed you and your people from the earth. But I have let you live for this reason: to show you my power so that my name will be talked about in all the earth. - Exodus 9:15-16

And remember, we must ask ourselves, how is the text using this?

I see nowhere in this text ( or anywhere), where we should get the interpretation of 'God created Pharaoh the individual to be damned to hell by no choice of his own so that God would be glorified more' This wouldn't do justice to the context.

But they don't eliminate the singular, it is mysterious to me why discussing Jacob and Esau and what was said to them eliminates Jacob and Esau.

I can appreciate where you are coming from. So this seems to be the crux of this issue. Is Paul referring to Jacob and Esau the individual or is he using them allegorically as representations of people groups?

IOW, is Paul doing the Hebrew thing and using the name of the Ancestor (or figurehead) to refer to the group? (think about when Benjamin, Judah, Levi, Dan, Reuben, Israel, etc. -- the 'people' are referred to by the name of the Ancestor)

It seems to me, that you have still yet to give a good textual reason why the interpretation that Paul is referring to the individuals of Jacob and Esau as opposed to the people groups that came from them...


Three questions:

1. What in that text leads you to believe it was divinely sanctioned?

2. Why do you assume that the blessing has to be specific to the individuals rather than the ancestral line which was to come (by the promise of God, no less)

3. How do you deal with the actual prophecy from God that states that 'there are two nations' and ' two peoples' 'in your womb' when referring to the 'older will serve the younger'? Surely, you don't believe the context there supports the individualistic interpretation....

the Israelites is that they may be saved." (Rom 10:1)

Yes, and note that Paul is referring to a people group. Paul talks about Salvation throughout Romans with regards to the Gentiles and the Jews. (people groups).

This of course, would also raise the question that if Paul believed that God created Israel (minus 'the remnant') to be damned to hell and that it would bring God greater glory, why would he pray to God that they may be saved? (since, it would already be predetermined, based on the monergistic interpretation)

I believe there is a depth to Scripture, so with time we understand more and more, without uprooting what has been really understood previously.

If this is the case, then why should we uproot the historical understanding of Free Will that was so essential to the Early Church in their interpretation of Scripture and in warding off heresies held by gnostic groups?

[Littlejoe]

"Scripture says to Pharaoh" as an individual, are you saying that Egypt was meant in this passage, and not Pharaoh?

Yes. I seems obvious that Pharoh many times said yes initially but the people (esp. his advisors) would sway him back to no.

But they don't eliminate the singular, it is mysterious to me why discussing Jacob and Esau and what was said to them eliminates Jacob and Esau.

It's mysterious to me why when seeing Paul write "it is written..." that someone would not then find the passage Paul is quoting and look at the context of the original quote. The quote is from the Book of Malachi. Malachi wrote this a long time after the time of Jacob and Esau .




Notice how the tense changes from singular to plural? "How have you loved US".

See how Esau is explained by changing the reference to Edom, the descendents of Esau? Paul is obviously using Jacob and Esau as a typology of the nations of Israel and Edom. In context, there is no individual in play here. Paul is obviously, as Phat8594 has said all along, contrasting the elect group from the non-elect group and not individual election.

[lee_merrill]

Pharaoh, as a leader, spoke for his people as a whole. It is important to remember that Hebrew culture was not as individualistic as our western culture.

Yes, and yet God was speaking to Pharaoh, "you" is singular throughout. It was Pharaoh's decision to let them go or not, not the nation of Egypt's decision:

"Still you exalt yourself against My people by not letting them go." (Ex 9:17)

I see nowhere in this text ( or anywhere), where we should get the interpretation of 'God created Pharaoh the individual to be damned to hell by no choice of his own so that God would be glorified more' This wouldn't do justice to the context.

I can appreciate where you are coming from. So this seems to be the crux of this issue. Is Paul referring to Jacob and Esau the individual or is he using them allegorically as representations of people groups?

What in that text leads you to believe it was divinely sanctioned?

"He will be blessed!" said Isaac, recognizing God's choice in blessing Jacob.

Why do you assume that the blessing has to be specific to the individuals rather than the ancestral line which was to come (by the promise of God, no less)

It's both! To Jacob personally, and to his descendants.

This of course, would also raise the question that if Paul believed that God created Israel (minus 'the remnant') to be damned to hell and that it would bring God greater glory, why would he pray to God that they may be saved? (since, it would already be predetermined, based on the monergistic interpretation)

If this is the case, then why should we uproot the historical understanding of Free Will that was so essential to the Early Church in their interpretation of Scripture and in warding off heresies held by gnostic groups?

Because it's not Scriptural? I notice that the Justin Martyr quote references no Scripture, and there is no Scripture I know of that says "man is not accountable if he cannot freely choose."

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Yes. I seems obvious that Pharoh many times said yes initially but the people (esp. his advisors) would sway him back to no.

I see where Pharaoh said no, and his advisors said yes, but not the other way around.

It's mysterious to me why when seeing Paul write "it is written..." that someone would not then find the passage Paul is quoting and look at the context of the original quote. The quote is from the Book of Malachi. Malachi wrote this a long time after the time of Jacob and Esau .

[phat8594]

Yes, and yet God was speaking to Pharaoh, "you" is singular throughout. It was Pharaoh's decision to let them go or not, not the nation of Egypt's decision:

"Still you exalt yourself against My people by not letting them go." (Ex 9:17)

Of course God was speaking to Pharaoh -- he was the figurehead and leader of a people. Or was the judgment of God only limited to Pharaoh and not the whole of Egypt?


Using this verse as justification for the idea that ''God created Pharaoh the individual to be damned to hell by no choice of his own so that God would be glorified more' - does the text absolutely no justice for several reasons.

1. Paul is posing a hypothetical question 'What if...'
2. Paul's point is that man does not get to choose the 'how' of God's choice. (Jew's thought it was unfair for a Gentile who did not live by the law to inherit the promises of God - Paul is showing it's by faith and NOT by works...)
3. Monergism is nowhere in this text (unless it is placed on it prior)
4. It would not be congruent with the rest of Romans:

e.g.

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking[a] and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. Romans 2:6-11

And why do you stop there? Outside of merely asserting 'He is referring to individuals' - there is no textual evidence to actually suggest he is. In fact, when you place that verse back into the context of the surrounding verse you see:

The older will serve the younger.Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.Romans 9:10-13

1. Both quotes Paul is referring to are speaking of peoples / nations --NOT individuals. So to claim it is referring to individuals would be to go against what the text actually shows. So the question we must all ask ourselves is "What is the TEXT actually saying?'. The last thing I would want to do is to impose my theology onto the text, rather than change my theology to fit the text. And I am sure you would agree...

2. Paul is showing that inheriting the promises is received NOT by works. If it were, they would not be received by anyone.

It's both! To Jacob personally, and to his descendants.

Not quite sure how this answers the question: "Why do you assume that the blessing has to be specific to the individuals rather than the ancestral line which was to come (by the promise of God, no less)"

It merely restates the premise....IOW it does not answer the question, nor provide clarity. It is essentially begging the question.

It would be much like someone asking

'Why do you believe X is true?'

and the other person says

'Because X is true'

This is circular in reasoning.

"He will be blessed!" said Isaac, recognizing God's choice in blessing Jacob.

Not quite sure how this clearly qualifies for: "What in that text leads you to believe it was divinely sanctioned?"

Unless you are willing to surmise that every time in the Bible someone says 'You will be blessed' as a human would qualify as a divinely sanctioned blessing that is unspecified but surely understood....

Because it's not Scriptural? I notice that the Justin Martyr quote references no Scripture, and there is no Scripture I know of that says "man is not accountable if he cannot freely choose."

And yet again, why do you just supposed the whole early church got it wrong and were 'not Scriptural'? Why be so quick to think the whole of the Early Church got it wrong and the gnostics (considered heretical by the early church) got it right?

- Justin Martyr

"Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary." - Clement

- Irenaeus

- Irenaeus

Secondly, the idea that people are accountable to only what is in their ability is simply common sense, and would be considered to be an underlying assumption. In fact, this very assumption is clear throughout Scripture (note quote's above by Church Father's) - and is logical as to what justice actually is. IOW, punishing someone for something they are incapable of doing is unjust and unrighteous.

As an example, what would you think of a father who spanked a 6-month old for not cleaning his room?


The idea that God has placed the decision in our hands is throughout Scripture and is an underlying principle throughout. God is NOT partial (as monergism asserts):

[b] Deuteronomy 30:11-20

[lee_merrill]

Of course God was speaking to Pharaoh -- he was the figurehead and leader of a people. Or was the judgment of God only limited to Pharaoh and not the whole of Egypt?

So now we agree that both individuals and groups are in view in Romans 9?

1. Paul is posing a hypothetical question 'What if...'

Literally it's "but if", though, and God's displaying the riches of his glory (the second half of this statement) is not hypothetical.

2. Paul's point is that man does not get to choose the 'how' of God's choice. (Jew's thought it was unfair for a Gentile who did not live by the law to inherit the promises of God - Paul is showing it's by faith and NOT by works...)

No, Paul's point is that "God choosing" is the focus in the potter and clay analogy.

And why do you stop there? Outside of merely asserting 'He is referring to individuals' - there is no textual evidence to actually suggest he is.

But we can't read "before the nations were born or had done anything good or bad".

2. Paul is showing that inheriting the promises is received NOT by works.

Right, not by works, but by him who calls. That's monergism.

Not quite sure how this clearly qualifies for: "What in that text leads you to believe it was divinely sanctioned?"

Unless you are willing to surmise that every time in the Bible someone says 'You will be blessed' as a human would qualify as a divinely sanctioned blessing that is unspecified but surely understood....

But Jacob was speaking prophetically, surely you believe his blessing was divinely sanctioned, and saying "he will be blessed" recognizes that sanction.

And yet again, why do you just supposed the whole early church got it wrong and were 'not Scriptural'? Why be so quick to think the whole of the Early Church got it wrong and the gnostics (considered heretical by the early church) got it right?

Well I believe both were wrong, salvation is by God's choice, and not by fate.

Secondly, the idea that people are accountable to only what is in their ability is simply common sense, and would be considered to be an underlying assumption. In fact, this very assumption is clear throughout Scripture (note quote's above by Church Father's) - and is logical as to what justice actually is. IOW, punishing someone for something they are incapable of doing is unjust and unrighteous.

Well, here now, are you implying that people can of their own free will choose what is right? Would they not then be righteous apart from Christ?

Deuteronomy 30:11-20

"Your eyes have seen all that the Lord did in Egypt to Pharaoh, to all his officials and to all his land. With your own eyes you saw those great trials, those signs and great wonders. But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear." (Dt. 29:2-4)

Blessings,
Lee