No, it was their foreseen faith that allowed God to do what He wanted, save them. (1Tim.2:4)
God is motivated to save all men (Jn.3:16)
Hence, it no longer is God's Sovereign Election, but an election based on the choice of the chosen, rather than the Election of the Choser.
No, it is a choice in a relationship a giver and a receiver
This makes God's Election reactionary, rather than pro-active. God's Sovereignty is not reactionary, but pro-active in all things. It is God who is Sovereign, and that absolutely. Nothing happens that is not exactly as He has ordained it. It is He that directs, decrees, and declares, and it is His Creation that obeys. Even the free choices are as He has ordained, and serve to fulfill His Purpose, in all things.
Again the old song and dance about God's sovereignty as you define it.
There is no reason why a sovereign God could not choose to allow His rational creatures to make a choice either for or against Him.
That is exactly how Scripture depicts how God is operating and that explains why some are not saved, they choose to reject God despite God's will otherwise.
In your system, God is either a respector of persons (impossible) or arbitrary (also impossible), thus, unconditional election is impossible and a blasphmy against God's very character.
Wait...what about the secret counsel of God, Ed? You draw a false conclusion because you limit the possible premises to two at the exclusion of the very one to which the Calvinists hold: that God elected according to His good purpose, the nature of which, while unknown to us, is nevertheless not arbitrary but purposed on something other than a condition which we meet.
By that logic, then the relationship precedes both the choice of the giver, and the response of the receiver. How can that be? There is no relationship until the receiver receives what the giver gives! Your logic is falling apart here.
I said: *This makes God's Election reactionary, rather than pro-active. God's Sovereignty is not reactionary, but pro-active in all things. It is God who is Sovereign, and that absolutely. Nothing happens that is not exactly as He has ordained it. It is He that directs, decrees, and declares, and it is His Creation that obeys. Even the free choices are as He has ordained, and serve to fulfill His Purpose, in all things.*
You said: Again the old song and dance about God's sovereignty as you define it.
You really hate the idea of God being Absolute Sovereign, don't you? It really grinds your gears that He is not reactionary, which is what your theology requires. You have God reacting to man's decisions, God expending all this energy to draw men to Himself, to plead with men to come to Him, "wooing" them as a lover woos his beloved, and basically making a fool of Himself for men who will not respond to Him, because they cannot apart from His first regenerating their minds and hearts so they can respond to Him. You won't acknowledge that this must happen, because if you do, then your whole theology tumbles like a house of cards.
I am not redefining God's Sovereignty. I am upholding the logical and biblical definition of Sovereignty. It is you who redefine it so man can have a say, so man can decide his own fate, and so man can have a little bit of the sovereignty for himself. It is a denial of just how far man has fallen, and how utterly helpless he is to save himself.
Most of your protestations to Calvinism are emotionally based at their root. Wesley was very good at stirring up emotional response to how he defined Calvinist teaching. He would appeal to the emotions and foster a response of indignation at the supposed "unfairness" of a God who would choose some and not others. He won converts by appeals to emotion and to feelings, rather than to the Word of God.
There is no reason why a sovereign God could not choose to allow His rational creatures to make a choice either for or against Him.
This is the central linch-pin of your whole theology. You believe God made it that way, and all of your logic flows from the first assumption. That is where you and I differ.
I do not believe this statement of yours. In fact, it is equally valid to say that "There is no reason why a sovereign God would choose to allow His rational creatures to make a choice either for or against Him". The statement, by itself, proves nothing, either way it is stated. It is a personal opinion. There must be corroborating evidence to support the statement.
Quite frankly, I believe that your position is based, at its heart, on certain ideas and beliefs about the Nature of God which are anthropomorphic in content. In other words, you believe that God thinks, feels, and reacts as we humans do, and you project your own values, sense of fairness, and ideas about love onto Him, and ascribe them to Him.
Calvinists, on the other hand, take their cues about God's Nature and Ways from scripture. They observe how he deals with men, they see how His Justice and Judgment are dealt, and they have come to an understanding of His Sovereignty based on the whole of scripture. They take Sola Scriptura seriously. They believe that it is God who defines how things are, and where there seem to be contradictions, or seeming inconsistencies ("unfairness"), it is their understanding which is at fault, not God's nature, and don't go looking for ways to make God conform to their notions, but work to make their notions conform to God.
This is my position. It is God who is Sovereign, and that absolutely. Nothing happens that is not exactly as He has ordained it. It is He that directs, decrees, and declares, and it is His Creation that obeys.
Prove that statement wrong, and we'll proceed from there.