What plan Bill? If the free will of man supercedes God's plan then how can His plan be certain? If the preachers of the Great Awakening had chosen not to believe it would have reshaped all of human history. This is an obvious example but in fact if any believer had ever chosen differently it would have changed history to some degree. God is not subject to the whims of men.
This is what I'm talking about. You assume that God couldn't remain sovereign in accomplishing his ultimate plan at the same time man is free. That is a false assumption. God's sovereignty and man's free will are both clearly seen in scripture. To emphasize one at the expense of the other goes against the clear teaching of scripture. Can God not remain in control while men make real volitional choices by their own wills? If you say no, then you are saying that is impossible for God to accomplish something, thus claiming He is not all powerful.
The reason some are not saved is because it was not apart of God's plan to force love or worship from his creatures.
'...And the reason some people are never conceived is because it is not a part of God's plan to force the egg to receive the sperm.

God ordains physical life and God ordains spiritual life.
I agree, but this doesn't address my point. God desires all to be saved as scripture clearly teaches, the reason some are not is because of their unwillingness, not God's. He longs for all to come to him and he provides the means by which they can do that but some are unwilling.
If this were His will why go to all the trouble of creation/sin/resurrection etc? Why not just make himself a line of rocks to love him and worship him?
[/qb]
Because the purpose of creation is God's glory, not the salvation of mankind. God gets the glory from His acts of mercy and His acts of justice.
Once again I agree. But how does God recieve the most glory? Through forcing certain individuals to love him? Or by allowing people to know him and choose to love and worship him?
God can change man's will but not to the point of accomplishing His perfect will and purpose?
God changes man's will by giving them knowledge of the truth through the gospel. The gospel convicts and enlightens the mind so that one can reason and count the costs of following the Savior. That is God's perfect will and purpose.
God has free will yet cannot deny Himself as it would be against His nature.
You assume that allowing man to chose salvation or reject it would be "deny Himself" and "against His nature."
He gave Adam the ability to choose. Was God denying Himself and going against His nature then? What if Adam chose not to sin? Oh no, God's whole plan would have been twarted! Not. God is sovereign but man still has free will to chose who he will follow.
Man has free will but will not exercise it to reconcile himself to God because it is not in accordance with his nature to do so.
I agree. If man were left alone he would not reconcile himself to God. But God didn't leave us alone. He sent Christ, the apostles, the Holy Spirit, and the gospel as the means to reconcile the world to himself. Can we respond to that? YES! If we couldn't, it would be quite meaniless to untilize these means.
Yes, even Calvinism is possible, just unsupported biblically.
Arminianism is not possible and is unsupported by the whole of scripture.
This statement shows you inability to deal with scripture objectively and honestly. It also shows that you don't believe God to be omnipotent. Nothing is impossible for God!
It cuts the other way as well Bill. If man's free will, on the one hand, removes God's ability to accomplish that which, on the other hand, He purposed then God cease to be sovereign and any plan of salvation that He might offer is totally undependable.
Its not the same. Let me explain why. Our free will doesn't demand anything of God nor does it judge God. God demands fallen men to repent and then judges them for their response. Free will doesn't demand God to be Sovereign and then judge Him if he doesn't. Free will doesn't enable or disable God's sovereignty as your analogy seems to infer. God is sovereign in and through our free will as he works all things together for good. This is seen in the garden and it is seen throughout creation.
Accurate with this correction- ... man is not willing to do that which God demands in order to escape the condemnation of his nature.
Actually you probably mean to say that man's unwillingness makes him unable, right? (More semantics, you know what I mean.)
Example: Your child disobeys you and as a result breaks both legs. Actually, to be more realistic, this should say, your child disobeys you so you break both of his legs, but anyway, you say to him, "if you want your legs to be fixed get up and walk to the hospital."
That's not possible!
Exactly!! That is why I in mercy and love would pick the child up and carry him to the hospital. Just as God picks up unworthy sinners and takes them where their disobedient hearts will not.
You missed the point of the analogy Scott. God looks at the mass of humanity and says to them, "Repent or you will perish," yet, according to you He doesn't grant them the ability to do that which he demands. In this analogy you switch the child from being a "non-elect" child to an "elect" one in order to avoid the difficulty of your position.
Go back and see the child as being non-elect. You say to him, "Get up and go to the hospital," and when He failes to do it, you condemn him to hell. Yet the next kid you tell the same thing but you pick him up and carry him. How is that just?
I know what your going to say. "We all deserve hell, it would be merciful it he just carried one." But that avoids the real issue here. The issue is that God is demanding the same thing of all people who are in a fallen condition and judging them based upon their response to that demand. If some are granted the ability to understand and respond while other are not, eventhough he demands the same thing from both then the incompletion of that demand itself cannot be justly judged. Man's not understanding would be grounds for injustice, for it would be giving man an excuse.
Why would you demand it if its not possible?
[/qb]
I wouldn't. I would do it for him.
Again, your switching the analogy to speak about an elect child rather than an non-elect one.
That does not mean however that I go around looking for every child with broken legs so that I can take them to the hospital.
You wouldn't? Scott, if you had the ability know of and carry every child with broken legs to the hospital you wouldn't do that? I find that hard to believe. Even pagans would do that.
And then how could you judge him for it
Son, you didn't get up and walk to the hospital like I told you so I'M going to torture you for eternity now. ABSURD!?
This is where your analogy really breaks down. Those in hell are not being punished for being in hell, they are being punished for sin. Likewise, the child would not be judged because his bones broke but because he was disobedient. He acted according to his natural attitude (disobedience) and received the consequences.
You don't get it. The reason the child was disobedient was because his legs were broken. Moreover, he wasn't able to do what was necessary to mend his legs because you didn't choose to carry him all the while you were saying to him, "Get up and walk or you'll be condemned."
What I do find objectionable is the tactics you employ. It is dishonest to persistently mischaracterize the positions of others and put "words" in your opponents mouths (straw man).
I say "unable" then you say, "no its unwilling" and you think that answers the argument because I've attacked a strawman. But the argument is the same regardless of what terms you select.
The verse Calvinist use most often to support the T of Tulip says, "No one can come to me unless the Father has ENABLED them." That sounds alot like ability to me. But, hey Scott, if you want to dance around the issues with semantics I understand, sometimes its the only way to avoid the hard questions.