>>794
>Reprobates who are not saved
So when Paul continues writing in Romans 2 (and remember, chapter distinctions did not exist when Paul wrote this) and says "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed", is he calling the Christians in the church at Rome reprobates? If Romans 1 is describing reprobates, why does the passage begin by identifying the group who does this as "men"? Why does Paul never identify them as reprobates? When in Romans 3 Paul claims to have condemned the gentiles, where did he do that? How is there such a thing as a reprobate if what the future holds is uncertain?
While you struggle with those questions (since the Andersonite interpretation is tissue paper especially when you add open theism), I'll cut to the chase and explain what it actually means. The church at Rome was undergoing ethnic strife since it had formerly been a synagogue, and Paul's solution was to demonstrate that ground is level beneath the cross. The result was essentially one great passage on the topic of our relationship with our maker, stretching from Romans 1 all the way to the grand crescendo of Romans 8, with the rest of the epistle mostly being application of what he established there to the covenantal status of nations. Probably more than any other, the first three chapters were central to this. First, he condemns the gentiles, clearly and deliberately describing their abominable idolatry and behavior in light of the true God, who is known by all. Then, he turns on the Jews, who would be in self-righteous agreement with the letter till that point, condemning them as sinful hypocrites, no better than the gentiles. And finally comes the conclusion, that all, both Jew and Gentile, have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and shall all be doomed unless they flee to the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Romans 1 does not describe reprobates alone, but expressly all men whatsoever, while they are yet children of wrath. The listed sins in the passage are not intended to be an exhaustive list of sins practiced without exception, but are rather a description of the nature of sinners, which is why the charges are so broad and sweeping.
>"Uttering the name Jesus" does not amount to believing in him as Lord.
But you don't believe they have to, remember? "Repentance isn't needed for salvation" and nobody could be said to be in submission to Him whom they openly hate, profane and rebel against.
>The elect are the saved
I didn't ask you who the elect are but you're not getting it so I'll expedite; the word elect means choose. When the word is used as a noun, it means chosen. The use of the word is puzzling enough in Arminianism, but in open theism they are not even known, let alone elected. The fact this is the word the Holy Spirit chose to use in so many books of scripture itself speaks volumes about how far apart His worldview is from the open theist worldview. "God does not know who the elect are" is completely incoherent.
>Strawman
>I feel the same way about neoplatonic Calvinism
Well, except it isn't, and the way you feel is completely irrelevant, since I can turn to practically any page of the bible and find a God who has infinitely more in common with any number of heathen gods than with the strange god the open theists have erected to prop up the idol of free will. In fact, here's a particularly relevant example
<Produce your cause, saith the Lord; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you.