I don't pretend to be able to answer that, and I don't beleive we can, given our incomplete knowledge. This is where we place the "tension" as Calvinists often speak of. That is quite a different cry from God having a malicious intent towards certain individuals, unconditionally, from the beginning as He conceived of them as living souls; and bringing them into a state of sin and condemnation just to leave them that way and not even want to save them (yet pretend to "offer" salvation to them). Calvinists just take the tension one step further in assuming that, but it contradicts too much in scripture regarding God's character. Calvinists have been trying to insist that God is not "responsible" for their sin, and this position does that more consistently.
And anyne who receives Christ IS "actually" "guaranteed" to be saved. I find that this "makes possible" jargon is a logical tactic, and is not what the scripture addresses. Even in Calvinism there is a loophole that forces it into the same problem, because one must "persevere" until the end to "prove" himself elect, and people here have even admitted that our "faith" can be "fallible" (i.e. "in vain"). That's even worse, since it ultimately is a decree from God, and the person can do nothing about it. (People struggling with faith have gone mad over this).
I guess it's time for my testimony again.
In my late teens I was one who "ran" from God, associating Him with racist right-wingers and control freaks who used Hell to scare people into submission and financial manipulation; all fundamentalists did was attack others' beliefs, it seemed, and I had heard the horror stories from my parents and others about the so-called "Christian morality" and racism of the past.
This prefectly fits with the scripture that "Noone seeks God".
But then through a series of circumstances, God gradually began showing me the follies of the world. Being a quiet and highly intellectual loner, I didn't even have all the friends, women, parties, etc., and I believe God used this as well. He even used some false stuff to finally bring me in— the Plain Truth, in Armstrong's final years, where he was excerpting his writings on Revelation. The fulfilled and unfolding endtime prophecy made me start to see the validity of the Bible, and then it all fell into place— man's sin, including my own; why the world is the way it is; why the Church is that way it is, and that my loathing of Christian morality and doctrine before was my old nature's hostility towards God, and the discomfort I felt when God was mentioned was the conviction of the Spirit. Reading the Bible on my own, I saw that Armstrongism was full of false doctrines on other issues, and I avoided them. I sat on the fence for a while, but finally was convicted into making a decision, and prayed to God for Him to show Himself to me, and "I believe; help my unbelief".
It's obvious that God was the one doing all the work. I, in the resistant state before, did not just one day wake up and say "Oh, I must now will myself to believe in order to be saved". I felt like that at times, but then came to learn to rest in God's finished work. Sometimes I wish I could have gotten saved earlier, but it would have been impossible. In the mindset I was in, I was "blinded" and could not simply change my mind. God was drawing, but I still had a way to go before finally being led to Him. At no point did I say "OK, God did His part, now it's time for me to do mine", or think that I "closed some deal" with God. Never did I "boast" of anything. I have probably not done 1% of anything, let alone the "50%" I see 'free will' accused of. Even today I struggle and sometimes I wonder if I really believe. But then I remember that salvation is all of God, and none of my striving (including trying to "believe" when I feel doubt)(Romans 4:5). There are many "hard teachings" (the fact that any people, including those I love go to an eternal Hell, period) and rules the Bible tells me to obey, that I wish I didn't have to. But it is God who has given me the ability to believe and obey. Despite all of my shortcomings, there has been a great change in my life, not of my own doing. So I testify that my conversion was all of God, but the difference between me and some is that I do not assume that because it was God who led me like that, then everyone who was not so led is "passed over" or "reprobated". (Yet, I'm told if I don't believe this, then I'm ultimately "boasting" of "saving myself" by the "work" of "conjuring up faith from my old nature". But that does not match what I experienced.) They resisted; the cares of this life were more important, etc. It is a choice just like any other, as people can either choose to do a particular sin, but even with their depravity, can refrain from it for some reason, even though their "nature" may be leading them that way. We cannot see into another person's heart, so making a comparison of why one person believes and another resists, is above our scope of knowledge. The resistance is an active "work" that "earns" something (death). My acceptance was passive, so was not a work that saved me or made me "better" than anyone else. So man's choice is not simply that he's walking around wallowing in sin and then one day just suddenly snaps out of it on his own willing. If this was what we were arguing, then perhaps the Calvinist objections regarding man's "inability" would be warranted. God does all the drawing, but man at one point must decide to follow or continue in rebellion.
], in atonement scenario number one we have some that Jesus died for, ultimatly pereshing and going to Hell. This would make Jesus somewhat of a failure or to put it more lightly not totally succesful in his mission since he said, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10).
