Predestination Theology

[William]

I don't think the false predestination god should be the one to define that seeing how he is willing to torture people eternally for conditions that he placed on them. The false predestination god is a sicko.

Q:1 Is there a "True Predestination God?"

Q2: Even if hellish experiences exist for individuals, does this mean that the god is "a sicko"?

Or

Q:2.1 Is the god only a "Sicko" if those hellish experiences last forever for said individuals?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #70]

Yes. It is best not to confuse the topic at hand by injecting a discussion on the differences between BoC and SoC.

Okay.

Do you have any evidence to support that The Creator is not omniscient and therefore is not a "Predestination God" as some are referring to It?

Why would I need to support a statement that I did not make (one way or the other)?

Because it appears to be that The 'problem" of predestination is only a problem for those who cannot dovetail their particular ideas of The Creator into it.

I think one of the biggest problems is going to be the idea that God created (or allowed to be created) people who would experience suffering for all eternity, with no hope of that suffering ever ending. Hence, my original post on the thread. Perhaps another problem some have is reconciling free will with the idea being foreordained (but I do not think that is an actual issue; God knew what His Son would choose to do because God knows His Son - even though His Son had the actual ability and freedom to choose to call an army of angels to prevent His arrest and execution).



Peace again to you.

[William]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #70]

Yes. It is best not to confuse the topic at hand by injecting a discussion on the differences between BoC and SoC.

Okay.

Do you have any evidence to support that The Creator is not omniscient and therefore is not a "Predestination God" as some are referring to It?

Why would I need to support a statement that I did not make (one way or the other)?

So why are you posting in a thread regarding the question of Predestination Theology?

Because it appears to be that The 'problem" of predestination is only a problem for those who cannot dovetail their particular ideas of The Creator into it.

I think one of the biggest problems is going to be the idea that God created (or allowed to be created) people who would experience suffering for all eternity, with no hope of that suffering ever ending.

That in itself is not necessarily a hardwire factor of Predestination Theology...the belief that" Souls experience suffering for all eternity, with no hope of that suffering ever end."
Indeed, I have shown in my own arguments that while suffering can and does occur, it is because Souls create these experiences for themselves. [re afterlife/next phase of experience]

Hence, my original post on the thread.

Your original post doesn't appear to take into account why [impermanent] suffering occurs in any reality experience if indeed it is not something which The Creator would want for any of us to be involved within the experience of.
Since suffering does occur and is experienced, then it has to be acknowledged that impermanent suffering is acceptable to The Creator.
So the argument that permanent suffering does not occur, only strengthens the argument that Predestination Theology isn't incorrect.

Perhaps another problem some have is reconciling free will with the idea being foreordained (but I do not think that is an actual issue; God knew what His Son would choose to do because God knows His Son - even though His Son had the actual ability and freedom to choose to call an army of angels to prevent His arrest and execution).

Some do see this as also being a problem but it is not really. Just because The Creator knows outcomes and some of those outcomes involve impermanent suffering, does not mean that The Creator is therefore a 'sicko' [re OP] so Predestination Theology need not be abandoned as something irrelevant/non-applicable or otherwise be seen as a 'problem'.

Clearly it is not.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #70]

Yes. It is best not to confuse the topic at hand by injecting a discussion on the differences between BoC and SoC.

Okay.

Do you have any evidence to support that The Creator is not omniscient and therefore is not a "Predestination God" as some are referring to It?

Why would I need to support a statement that I did not make (one way or the other)?

So why are you posting in a thread regarding the question of Predestination Theology?

I posted what I thought the issue is that many people have with the idea of predestination/foreordaining.

Because it appears to be that The 'problem" of predestination is only a problem for those who cannot dovetail their particular ideas of The Creator into it.

I think one of the biggest problems is going to be the idea that God created (or allowed to be created) people who would experience suffering for all eternity, with no hope of that suffering ever ending.

That in itself is not necessarily a hardwire factor of Predestination Theology...

I know, but that is how it presented, hence one of the biggest problems that many have with it.

Indeed, I have shown in my own arguments that while suffering can and does occur, it is because Souls create these experiences for themselves. [re afterlife/next phase of experience]

You've said that, William. You have not shown it.

Hence, my original post on the thread.

Your original post doesn't appear to take into account why [impermanent] suffering occurs in any reality experience if indeed it is not something which The Creator would want for any of us to be involved within the experience of.

Because impermanent suffering does not cause an issue (or at least it does not cause as much of an issue) with predestination.

Since suffering does occur and is experienced, then it has to be acknowledged that impermanent suffering is acceptable to The Creator.

Sometimes we learn via suffering.

Other times suffering is just something that mankind inflicts upon mankind (and other living beings), of his own free will.

Suffering for no reason at all is - by definition - pointless.

So the argument that permanent suffering does not occur, only strengthens the argument that Predestination Theology isn't incorrect.

It just removes an issue with predestination. Logically, that does not make a statement for predestination.

Perhaps another problem some have is reconciling free will with the idea being foreordained (but I do not think that is an actual issue; God knew what His Son would choose to do because God knows His Son - even though His Son had the actual ability and freedom to choose to call an army of angels to prevent His arrest and execution).

Some do see this as also being a problem but it is not really. Just because The Creator knows outcomes and some of those outcomes involve impermanent suffering, does not mean that The Creator is therefore a 'sicko' [re OP]

I agree.


Peace again to you.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #74]

Indeed, I have shown in my own arguments that while suffering can and does occur, it is because Souls create these experiences for themselves. [re afterlife/next phase of experience]

You've said that, William. You have not shown it.

Well in regard to any theology on afterlife activity, who has shown anything Tammy?

My use of the word was re 'shown in argument' - as in 'no one has rebutted said argument by showing in their own counter-argument that my argument is incorrect.

[myth-one.com]

I don't think the false predestination god should be the one to define that seeing how he is willing to torture people eternally for conditions that he placed on them. The false predestination god is a sicko.

Q:1 Is there a "True Predestination God?"

Q2: Even if hellish experiences exist for individuals, does this mean that the god is "a sicko"?

Or

Q:2.1 Is the god only a "Sicko" if those hellish experiences last forever for said individuals?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Believers gain everlasting life.

Nonbelievers perish.

There is no eternal torture.

[William]

I don't think the false predestination god should be the one to define that seeing how he is willing to torture people eternally for conditions that he placed on them. The false predestination god is a sicko.

Q:1 Is there a "True Predestination God?"

Q2: Even if hellish experiences exist for individuals, does this mean that the god is "a sicko"?

Or

Q:2.1 Is the god only a "Sicko" if those hellish experiences last forever for said individuals?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Believers gain everlasting life.

Nonbelievers perish.

There is no eternal torture.

In defining "believers" we know already that there are too many beliefs to be able to decide what to believe, so we continue to be referred to as "unbelievers" by all those who believe we have to believe their particular beliefs...

It would be justice if the believers were allowed to believe the unbelievers "perished" while in actual fact the unbelievers were enjoying life eternal somewhere where the believers couldn't see them existing but the unbelievers could see the believers existing...and therein observe the fate of the believers as to where their beliefs took them...

The main problem in the idea of believing in Jesus, is that there appear to be so many conflicting beliefs as to what that actually means...

[myth-one.com]

I don't think the false predestination god should be the one to define that seeing how he is willing to torture people eternally for conditions that he placed on them. The false predestination god is a sicko.

Q:1 Is there a "True Predestination God?"

Q2: Even if hellish experiences exist for individuals, does this mean that the god is "a sicko"?

Or

Q:2.1 Is the god only a "Sicko" if those hellish experiences last forever for said individuals?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Believers gain everlasting life.

Nonbelievers perish.

There is no eternal torture.

In defining "believers" we know already that there are too many beliefs to be able to decide what to believe, so we continue to be referred to as "unbelievers" by all those who believe we have to believe their particular beliefs...

It would be justice if the believers were allowed to believe the unbelievers "perished" while in actual fact the unbelievers were enjoying life eternal somewhere where the believers couldn't see them existing but the unbelievers could see the believers existing...and therein observe the fate of the believers as to where their beliefs took them...

The main problem in the idea of believing in Jesus, is that there appear to be so many conflicting beliefs as to what that actually means...

Greetings William,

To me, the "what to believe" is very elementary and clearly stated:

Whosoever believeth in Jesus as their Savior from the wages of their sins, will not perish, but have everlasting life.

If believers will not perish, then nonbelievers will perish, because there are only two groups.

While all denominations claim to believe John 3:16, ask them if nonbelievers perish, and all that I know will state that perishing or dying in this verse refers to a "spiritual death" -- where "spiritual death" is defined as being eternally separated from God.

=========================================

The root cause of Christianity's failure is this false belief that all mankind is born with an immortal soul. I call it "myth one."

Once one believes myth one, John 3:16 cannot be true as written in scripture, because mankind is born with an immortal soul which cannot perish. Since we live forever, we must live somewhere. Christians proclaim they spend eternity in heaven while all others burn in hell or experience some other form of torment forever and ever.

This false belief of the immortal soul was suggested to mankind in the Garden of Eden:

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (Genesis 3:4)

Satan lied when he informed Eve that she would live forever.

Sadly, most (or all?) Christian denominations have incorporated that lie into their theologies!

[William]

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Believers gain everlasting life.

Nonbelievers perish.

There is no eternal torture.

In defining "believers" we know already that there are too many beliefs to be able to decide what to believe, so we continue to be referred to as "unbelievers" by all those who believe we have to believe their particular beliefs...

It would be justice if the believers were allowed to believe the unbelievers "perished" while in actual fact the unbelievers were enjoying life eternal somewhere where the believers couldn't see them existing but the unbelievers could see the believers existing...and therein observe the fate of the believers as to where their beliefs took them...

The main problem in the idea of believing in Jesus, is that there appear to be so many conflicting beliefs as to what that actually means...

Greetings William,

Universal Balance and Harmony Myth 1.

To me, the "what to believe" is very elementary and clearly stated:

Whosoever believeth in Jesus as their Savior from the wages of their sins, will not perish, but have everlasting life.

If believers will not perish, then nonbelievers will perish, because there are only two groups.

While all denominations claim to believe John 3:16, ask them if nonbelievers perish, and all that I know will state that perishing or dying in this verse refers to a "spiritual death" -- where "spiritual death" is defined as being eternally separated from God.

=========================================

The root cause of Christianity's failure is this false belief that all mankind is born with an immortal soul. I call it "myth one."

Once one believes myth one, John 3:16 cannot be true as written in scripture, because mankind is born with an immortal soul which cannot perish. Since we live forever, we must live somewhere. Christians proclaim they spend eternity in heaven while all others burn in hell or experience some other form of torment forever and ever.

This false belief of the immortal soul was suggested to mankind in the Garden of Eden:

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: (Genesis 3:4)

Satan lied when he informed Eve that she would live forever.

Sadly, most (or all?) Christian denominations have incorporated that lie into their theologies!

The problem with your belief system shared above is that it is based upon something you take as truth, but is not true.

How can I tell?

Well first up, The Serpent didn't so much lie as not tell the total truth. I acknowledge that this in itself may be considered 'lying' but for now will assume that it is not, because the God in the role of The Creator in that story also did not tell the whole truth, so if it is the case that that God does not lie, then withholding the whole truth is not lying.

Having said that, while withholding the whole truth may not be lying for The Creator, it may still be lying if angels, demons, serpents or humans etc...do so...so in that regard we would have to look into why withholding the whole truth would be considered lying, by looking into what motivates the one not telling the whole truth.

Your accusation is that The Serpent did not tell the whole truth in regards to them not being eternal souls. This is based upon the belief that humans were not created to live forever, but we can stop right there, because the Garden mythology gives the impression that human beings were created to exist within this universe eternally. That was taken away from them when The Creator in the story prevents humans from having access to the tree of life, and it was the fruit of that tree which enabled humans to exist in this universe in a permanent state of stay.

What is oft overlooked in the hurry to cement the Doctrine of Death as the valid truth to accept, is that clearly [re the Story] we are eternal beings, "breathed" into the human form, and in that regard the human form itself was designed to accommodate the eternal soul within it for eternity as long as access to The Fruit of The Tree of Life was available.

I will leave it there for now, with the question "can you agree with me on this so far?"

[PinSeeker]

This is getting... unweildy. Gonna split this up a bit...

Hmmm... I'm not really sure I understand your question here. Romans 9:11 is specifically about Jacob an Esau, right? But Paul presents the Jacob/Esau dichotomy as a microcosm of a much larger reality. He is showing that God made His sovereign choice regarding all individuals before they were born or had done anything good or bad... that it was his sovereign choice of which individuals to include in His elect and dependent on nothing in, of, or by the individual whatsoever, past, present, or future. So maybe the answer to your question is yes, and if so, I hope I've explained sufficiently.

But the sovereign choice between Isaac and Ishmael and between Jacob and Esau is whose lineage the promised gift will come through, not whether they were individually saved or not. In 9:11, those choices are "in order that God's purpose of election might continue" not an election concerning their individual salvation.

I disagree. You may call it my opinion if you like, but you are making a distinction here where there is none. Yes, Isaac was the child of the promise, through whom God would and will eventually fulfill His promise to Abraham to "make (his) seed as the dust of the earth" (Gen. 13:15), or as numerous as the stars (Gen. 15:5; 22:17), or "as the sand which is upon the sea shore" (Gen. 22:17). And the promises made to Abraham, which result in the blessings of the "Abrahamic Covenant," were renewed:

1.) with Isaac when God promised him that he would "multiply (his) offspring as the stars of heaven and ...give to (his) offspring all these lands... (a)nd in (his) offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed... (and would) bless him and multiply (his) offspring for (His... God's) servant Abraham’s sake” (Gen. 26:1-4, 24)

2.) then later with Isaac's son Jacob (Gen. 28; 35:9-13; 48:3-4).

The dichotomy is the same (Isaac as opposed to Ishmael, Jacob as opposed to Esau... even into the New Testament, i.e., Jesus's parable about the man and his two sons in Luke 15 and (especially) the two thieves crucified with Jesus, one on His right and one on His left. This is God's purpose of election. Some are elect, and some are not. Why did God make it that way? The only way to answer that is, God is perfect, He is King and Lord of all, and everything He does is for His own glory. And it just is what it is. It's all well and good to try to understand it -- or at least come to terms with it -- but at some point we just have to acknowledge that, well, it is what it is, God has made things to be how He has made them to be, and that God is God and we are not. And to worship Him as the King of kings and Lord of lords that He is, and give Him glory and praise, because He alone is worthy.

Okay, fair enough. Maybe I saw some kind of disparateness in error. My apologies. But the disparateness seems to be that you're saying at first that it's about election of individuals and a group of people ("election of those in Christ"), but then turn right around and say it's just about electing a way of salvation ("electing the way salvation will come about, not who will join in on that way"). That seems a stark contrast and thus a contradiction to me.

To me the "election of those in Christ" is about the way we gain the righteousness of God, by being in Christ rather than by trying our best to follow the Law.

Okay, accepted, but again, here, in this very assertion, you're saying that there is some group of people -- and people individually -- who are "elected." Right? I mean I agree with you here. That's what is puzzling to me, that you seem to be saying it's not about people/individuals, but then you turn right around and say it is. And it is. God chose some -- elected them unto His salvation -- and not others. And that's what Paul is saying to the church in Rome... and to us. And then Paul answers our objections before they are even asked: Who are we to answer back to God? Why did He make us like this?

Well, because Paul's whole emphasis in Romans 9-11... and really Romans as a whole; it is a personal letter (to a large group of people... the church in Rome) after all. So yes, I would say that election is not about "rules" of any kind but about His creation -- us, as individuals and as a whole -- and His sovereignty as Creator in making some for one purpose and others for another, according to His will. This is what Paul says in Romans 9:19-26, even anticipating and answering the inevitable objections before they even materialize.

I don't see how the purpose is about individual salvation, though.

See, again... yes you do, because you acknowledge it in your replies.

The choice of Isaac over Ishmael wasn't. The choice of Jacob over Esau wasn't.

Yes it was. See above.

The use of Pharaoh wasn't. God hardened Pharaoh to show His power and that His name might be proclaimed in all the earth" (9:17).

God's use of... things... people... things... is a different subject, really, than His purpose of election, His electing some to eternal life and others not.

God's purpose in election is so that both Jew and Gentile can be "His People" (9:24-26).

Well, okay. I mean, yeah, but God's purpose of election is to preserve a remnant for and unto Himself, which He has... well, purposed and promised to do. And all God's promises have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ Jesus. And this, like everything else He does, is to bring glory unto Himself. And to share that with Him for eternity, in a sense; our glory is to glory in Him and His glory. Both now and forever.

How does the election work? God's righteousness is attained by faith (9:30) not by pursuing a law like (much of) Israel did (9:31-32).

Hm. Election "works" because God... elects... chooses... does it. The second sentence here is regarding how salvation works, not election, per se. Come on, you know that. You know that. Like I said, you keep acknowledging that. Yes, we attain God's righteousness. Not that we have any righteousness in and of ourselves, because we do not; righteousness is accredited to us, like it was Abraham; the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us -- because our hearts are changed from hearts of stone to hearts of flesh, and (then) God puts His Spirit within us and causes us to walk in His statutes, and then we are His people and He is our God... and He delivers us from all our uncleannesses (Ezekiel 36).

[PinSeeker]

I'm just saying it just is what it is. Someone's desire can be incorporated into someone's will for sure, but desire and will are two different things. To be fair, there can be an overlap with desire and will, but in practical use, will has to do with determination or a set path, and desire more with a wish of sorts or a preference.

But why wouldn't God will what He desired? His desire couldn't be stopped if He didn't want it to be, right?

Sure, okay, the first question is certainly fair, and I would certainly answer the second question 'yes.' But I would turn around and say the same thing I said before, that in the case of the desire we are talking about, to make that desire happen, He would have to compromise Who He is -- His glory, His justice, His holiness, His perfection -- all of that, by overlooking sin.

But at some point, we have to say (with Isaiah in Isaiah 55:8-9), "For (God's) thoughts are not (our) thoughts, neither are (our) ways (His) ways... For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are (His) ways higher than (our) ways and (His) thoughts than (our) thoughts," and (with David in Psalm 139:6), "Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it," or (with Paul in Romans 11:33), "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" We don't get to decide what gives God glory and what doesn't.

These passages are not about God's ways being illogical or 'mysterious' and we've just got to accept them.

Illogical? Didn't say that. Never would say anything of the sort. Mysterious? His ways are not mysterious in the sense that we can't understand what He has done, but rather His purposes for doing certain things, as they may seem... well, not in line with how we think they should have been or should be done, as if we know better than God. This is what all those passages (and others) are saying. And, as is directly applicable to our discussion here, as Paul says at the end of Romans 11:

• "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?' For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen."

Just because God's ways, thoughts, even choices may seem random to us -- and yes, I can understand it seeming that way; we can only see things from our prespective as the created and not from His perspective as Creator -- it does not follow that it is that way.

I've jumped ahead to bring this quote in here. I agree that just because it seems random to us, this doesn't mean we are right. But that's differernt than saying that we can't understand it correctly.

This is exactly what I'm saying. I never said we can't understand it correctly. See above.

If God chooses some and not others, then God is loving (willing the good of) some and hating (not willing the good of) others. That seems to be compromising God's love. God's love is not unconditional, it's conditioned by randomness.

Ah! So, yes, God is loving some and hating others, but the concepts of love and hate are different than what you suppose them to be. Not, of course, to say, "You don't know what love and/or hate are," but, well, love and hate as referred to in various places in the Bible are not mere "feelings" on the part of God toward the subject but rather actions -- sovereign, distinguishing actions -- on the part of God toward the subject.

I completely agree! I didn't define love as "feeling all nice about" or something like that, but "willing the good of". I should change that to say "willing and choosing the good of." God's will and actions towards us is always good.

Fantastic. But I would clarify a bit what you said in the first quote here. The hate is not "not love," but rather a giving them over to their own selfish desires, as Paul says in Romans 1. He still gives them grace, just not a saving grace. It's still love, it's just not the sovereign, distinguishing, saving love given to His elect.

Love and hate are not opposites in the way that some think them to be. The opposite of love, Tanager, is complete indifference... not caring, total disregard. And the fact that God does hate necessarily implies that He is not at all -- in any way -- indifferent to or uncaring for or disregarding of any things even people. The fact is, there is no love without hate; and there is no hate without love. The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference; the opposite of feeling can only be the absence of feeling [emphasis mine] Love and hate must go hand in hand; hate is grounded in the nature of love. So God's hate is not -- cannot be -- the opposite of His love.

I thought you were saying love isn't a feeling. How can the opposite of love be indifference, then?

Indifference, Tanager, is the lack of caring, not the lack of "feeling." God is not indifferent, and not unloving toward any of His creation.

As I said before, the fact that God hated Esau (Romans 9:13) is not to be read in the light that God did not love Esau (and thus all those that He doesn't call) at all (because He loves all of His creation; He pronounced it all "very good," as you know, I'm sure), but that He didn't love him (and thus all that He doesn't call) -- take action toward him (and all that He doesn't call) -- in the same sovereign, distinguishing way as Jacob (His elect).

I think the "good" being willed (the loving vs. hating action) being contextually focused on here is "having the Messiah come through your lineage." That is a good that God willed for Jacob but not Esau.

Okay, well, you understand, I think, that I disagree with this. I mean, at least for the reason that in talking about Jacob and Esau, he is talking about us, too, in the same position as Jacob... likening all of us to Jacob as opposed to Esau. With all due respect, I would submit that what you say here is totally out of Paul's context not just in Romans 9, but in his letter to the church in Rome as a whole, at least chapters 1 through 11. Observe:
.

1. Paul starts out in Romans 1 by saying God has revealed Himself to all and that no one has any excuse of any kind.

2. He goes on then in chapters 2-7 to tell us just how hopeless we all are, even using himself as the prime example, but that God has given us Himself in the Person of Jesus so that we might be redeemed and saved.

3. Then in Romans 8 he tells us that there is now therefore no condemnation for those who are, by God's grace, in Christ Jesus and that nothing in this world can separate us -- because we are in Christ -- from the love of God that is in Christ. Which is really (should be, anyway) quite unbelievable considering who and what we've just been shown to be.

4. And then in Romans 9-11, in view of all Paul has said to that point (that we were without excuse and without hope of salvation but God did this for us), Paul shows us just how much -- as if we could really fathom it, as if even he himself can really fathom it -- God has done for us, and that it was ALL Him, even despite the fact that we were running as hard as we could the opposite way. This is how great His love is, how full of grace and mercy and compassion He is, and how worthy of all glory and blessing and honor -- forever and ever -- He is.

.

He didn't decide His action based on who deserved it more.

Sure! Agreed.

God still willed Esau's overall good, even though it wouldn't include having the Messiah as a physical descendant.

Well that depends on what we think the "overall good" is that Paul is talking about. It's certainly not about having Christ as a physical descendant. Chapters 1-11 of Romans are about salvation and God's grace that we have been the recipients of, His mercy and compassion. Then chapters 12-16 are about how we should then live in light of what we have been told in the first 11 chapters, in light of what God has done for us.

What does it mean to be 'eligible' but there is no chance that you will actually get it because of a choice someone else has made? If I told my kids that each of them are eligible to get a new computer but I know that I will only choose my oldest daughter, are they really eligible for a new computer. Logically, yes, they are able to receive the computer, but actually they aren't eligible.

You could have given your other children computers, but you chose not to. Right? Yes, so they were all eligible, but you chose to act only toward your oldest daughter, of your own volition and... grace. Right?

This is His -- and only His -- prerogative. He made us. He is the potter (the Molder, the Creator) and we are the clay (the molded, the created). He made us all with a specific purpose in mind, and this is His right as Creator. We cannot answer back to God and question Him, lest we find ourselves in the same place as Job did in Job 38-42. This is exactly what Paul is saying in Romans 9:19-21.

I completely agree. He can do whatever He wants.

Right. Regarding salvation (God's mercy and compassion, which He gives to whom He will), He is the potter, and we (all of His creation) are the clay. He can (and did) make some for honorable use and others for dishonorable use. Not some "honorable" and some "dishonorable," as if anyone is "better" than anybody else, but some for honorable use -- use by Him for His glory and honor -- and some for dishonorable use -- also use by Him...to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory -- even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles (Romans 9:23-24).

He can choose to offer free redemption (and allow us to accept or reject it) in spite of what we deserve rather than making it about how well or badly we follow the Law, which I think Romans 9 is about.

Well, I agree with what you say here, but Romans 9 is really about God's sovereign choice.