Here is a modified conversation between me and Leighton Flowers on the issue of Romans 9:

Dr. Leighton Flowers:

I am assuming that Paul is not needing to eisegete the Old Testament text so as to support something those texts did not mean in their original context. My interpretation of Romans 9 does not require for the old testament text to be maligned in that way. Paul’s quoting of the old testament text means the same thing in Romans nine as it did in the original text. If someone claims otherwise it’s their burden to prove that.

TheSire:

“I am assuming that Paul is not needing to eisegete the Old Testament text so as to support something those texts did not mean in their original context.”

Well, that’s just assuming that Paul’s purpose in quoting those passages is to explain what they mean. Paul would have to be trying to give us the original meaning of the passage in order to eisegete them. But Calvinists don’t think that is what Paul is trying to do. 

“My interpretation of Romans 9 does not require for the old testament text to be maligned in that way.”

I explained above how the Calvinist isn’t obligated to stating the OT quotations are misinterpreted.

” Paul’s quoting of the old testament text means the same thing in Romans nine as it did in the original text. If someone claims otherwise it’s their burden to prove that.”

That’s the assumption from the original question. You’re assuming that Paul is just explaining these OT passages. It isn’t my burden to prove that assumption correct or incorrect.

Tyler Vela:

Apparently, Jesus was also the nation of Israel called out of Egypt in the historical past in Hosea 11 because that’s what Matthew cites.

This is what happens when semi-Pelagians also deny basic hermeneutics like the Analogy of Faith.

Dr. Leighton Flowers:

It’s not that Paul is merely attempting to explain what the OT meant. It’s that he is using these quotes to reveal truth and convince his readers to believe what he is saying. 

If someone admittedly uses eisegesis to prove their theology is true we wouldn’t believe them today. Why? Because they aren’t basing their theology on something founded in the text. 

Paul is supporting his theology by referencing the OT not undermining it. 

If two people today are arguing for a theological position and one admits he is using eisegesis to support his conclusions but you should believe him because he is a chosen messenger of God are you going to believe him? I hope not. But you’re expecting the people of Rome to do that? Why would they? 

Paul is demonstrating the validity of his theology by quoting the OT. He is supporting his views and my interpretation aligns with that while Calvinism doesn’t which makes the burden greater on Calvinists to demonstrate unconditional election to effectual salvation was in the mind of Paul when talking about God’s choice of those who’d carry the Promise. 

When there is a conflict about the meaning of a text (like Rom 9) then the default position should be where eisegesis isn’t being relied upon…not to mention the position that doesn’t have even discerning Christians for centuries gasping in horror at the idea of it… (ie of double predestination and the reprobation of a mass of humanity and condemnation of them for reasons that are ultimately beyond their control.)

TheSire:

“It’s not that Paul is merely attempting to explain what the OT meant. It’s that he is using these quotes to reveal truth and convince his readers to believe what he is saying. “

Sure, I think that’s true. 

“If someone admittedly uses eisegesis to prove their theology is true we wouldn’t believe them today. Why? Because they aren’t basing their theology on something founded in the text.”

You either don’t understand what eisegesis is or you’re ignoring what I’ve said. Eisegesis requires one to be actually trying to state that a text means something but yet reading something else into it. But Calvinists maintain that Paul isn’t trying to explain what those passages meant. You have to be giving an interpretation of what the passages originally meant in order to be giving an eisegesis. But I’ve stated that that’s not what’s going on in Romans 9 to my estimation. Secondly, even liberal non-Calvinist scholars like Longenecker think it’s similar to Midrash. I don’t think it is Midrash but that shows similar methods of interpretation existed in the Apostles time. I’m not saying it is Midrash. I don’t think it is. But it shows that similar things existed in those times. Third,  it’s hard to understand how these quotations if understood the way you’re presenting them actually builds into the argument Paul makes. I’ve explained that issue in another article:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2018/02/08/pots-potters-and-flowers/

Take Tyler’s point about Matthew’s quote of Hosea. Matthew 2:15 isn’t quoting it to imply exactly what it originally meant(Jesus would have to be the nation of Israel) but it’s typological interpretation. But given your view, Matthew was ignorant of the bible. So, even other biblical passages show that your criticism is misguided.