I'll briefly comment on this post:
Romans 9 is often the “go to” text for Calvinists. They hold that it is about individual election to salvation — that God unconditionally chooses to save certain individuals, and that he unconditionally rejects and hardens others. John Piper writes that the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9:11-12 was the watershed event that caused him to become a Calvinist.
Arminians come to a different conclusion about Romans 9. We hold that it’s about the election of the nation Israel to serve God’s greater purposes.
As if John Piper has never encountered that alternative interpretation, much less interacted with it.
1) To understand Romans 9, read all of Romans 9, along with Romans 10 and 11. Better yet, read the the entire book. The larger context is key to understanding the passage. Calvinists
Because Reformed theologians and NT scholars like John Murray, Thomas Schreiner, Vern Poythress, Frank Thielman, and D. A. Carson never read Rom 10-11–much less the entire book. Can't you just see them slapping their brow as they read principle #1: "Now why didn't I think of that! You mean, Romans continues on the next page? I never thought to turn the page!"
2) When reading the portion of Romans 9 that sounds Calvinistic, refer to the Old Testament passages that Paul uses for his argumentation.
Because Reformed Bible scholars like John Currid, Duane Garrett, Gregory Beale, and Bruce Waltke have never studied those OT passages.
3) Whatever Romans 9 means, it can’t mean that God is a liar, and it can’t contradict the plain meaning of other scripture passages.
When you lose the exegetical arguments, you can still pull the rip cord. Notice how principle #3 nullifies #1-2. So why not skip the formalities and go straight to #3? Arminianism is an unfalsifiable tradition.