The Bible makes it clear that we will be judged for eternal heaven or hell based on our response to the Christ. While God moves us to choose His will, we know He does NOT force us, because even the regenerate sin, and CAN fall away. Perhaps it might help if you consider who is responsible for a man being condemned to hell. Is it man or is it God's fault - and why? If you say it is man who condemns himself (along with unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers), then MAN is part of the formula. Man is presented with an option, God helps man make this choice. If a man is saved for heaven, it is because that man responded to God's gifts. It is God who is responsible. If man is not saved, it is man's fault, as the gifts were present.
A real world example? One used by St. Augustine and St. Thomas might help. The sun shines equally on all people as a gift of light to mankind. We remain in this light - unless we willingly shut our eyes to it. We remain in darkness on account of our own will. We remain in the light because the light is there and we do not reject it.
The answer to the first question is "No". God's omnipotence does not mean He can do anything conceivable, it means He can do anything within the bounds of His nature.
And you have answered the question on why God does not save all people, even though He greatly desires all men to be saved. God has decided to give man free will - which, logically speaking, means the possibility of rejection. Will is not free if something can not be rejected. Do you or do you not believe that man has free will? Can you, in any given moment, choose to reject a commandment of God?
If man's free will inevitably leads away from God, and God is not in total control of salvation, God needs cooperation, then there is no way God could save all men. That is, if God's nature were really like this. Of course I do not think it is.
Read from verse 18 to the end of Romans 1. Consider what IS the wrath of God...It is leaving men to their own will. God holds out proof of His existence, even to the pagans. They have a Law written on their heart (as per Romans 2). Even they are without excuse. We, with THIS LAW, CAN obey it - or choose not to obey it. But if we choose not to, God does what? He leaves man to their devices. Now, is not God "awaiting" our response in this example? Strictly speaking, He is not - He knows what we will choose. But He allows us to choose it without executing miraculous infusions of grace to individuals. Forcing men to "believe" in God is not what love is about.
That's why I keep saying I think the salvation decision, under your view, is made independently of God. I don't mean in opposition to God, but rather separately from God. I see God as accomplishing our own salvations through us.
God accomplishes two desires at once when a man chooses God - the man is saved, and the man chose God freely. Man doesn't choose God separately, because God is intimately intertwined in all of our decisions. No one can take our thoughts and actions and divide them up and say "this part was God, and this part was me". We know, from Scriptures and experience, though, that we CAN choose. Consider the people who SAW the splitting of the Red Sea, SAW the water come from the rock, SAW the manna, etc. - and STILL turned from God, dying in the desert before seeing the promised land.
Therefore, it couldn't be an act of love. That's why I disagree with you when you say that Christ died unnecessarily and it was still an act of love from Him. If it was unnecessary, then it was suicide, a sin.
I didn't say Christ died unnecessarily! I said that God the Father could have chosen a different manner of saving mankind. But once the Father chose to show His love for man through such a means, it remained for Christ to obey His Will. Certainly, Jesus didn't die unnecessarily!
You're not at all addressing the issue of necessity. That's the only thing I have been talking about.
What makes something that God does "necessary"? Is God forced to do anything? You might say it is necessary for us, but for God, nothing is "necessary".
However, I'm not so sure the Orthodox see it that way. I seem to remember a few posts to the effect that evil was an actual "thing" that exists independently of good, but I can't remember who said it, so... :)
IF someone said that, it would be close to Oriental dualism that the Orthodox, to my knowledge, abhor. Perhaps someone reading this will reply to that.
If the correct circumstances guaranteed the result, then we might be on the same page. But I don't think you are willing to go there. :)
Just because God arranged things doesn't mean we don't have a free choice, does it? Even in such a scenario, WE still are making the decision - AND there IS the possibility of choosing "wrongly". We don't have a choice taken away because God tries to arrange things so that we are more likely to answer "yes". In the end, we ALWAYS can say "no". Thus, our will remains intact, while God guides our wills and desires to please Him.
Regards
It took me a minute to figure out what you were saying, but that's because you switched topics on me in between sentences. :) Sure, man chooses to sin. That is our common experience, whether saved or not. But I don't think this is at all the same as with the ultimate issue of eternal salvation. We both agree that God chooses an elect, and it is a certain elect. We also agree that the entirety of this elect have all chosen to sin. That makes it two different things, doesn't it? God's choice and man's choice.
Clearly, God does not force us to never sin. There is clear evidence. However, that still leaves it completely debatable about how an elect CERTAIN comes into being inside time. There is no similar evidence. It is a separate issue.
A real world example? One used by St. Augustine and St. Thomas might help. The sun shines equally on all people as a gift of light to mankind. We remain in this light - unless we willingly shut our eyes to it. ...
God also made clouds, and He puts them wherever He wants them! :)
Will is not free if something can not be rejected. Do you or do you not believe that man has free will? Can you, in any given moment, choose to reject a commandment of God?
The answer to the second question is an unfortunate "Yes". The first question is more difficult to answer because I think we see and use the term differently. I'll even give you that I've been more eclectic. :) Whenever I "downplay" free will, I am thinking of it from God's POV. I believe that God selected His elect without regard to His foreknowledge, and those specific elect WILL be saved, regardless. God will grace those individuals to whatever degree necessary, and they all WILL accept Christ, and they all WILL persevere. I understand that this does not "sound" like free will.
However, when I speak positively of man's free will, I am talking from man's POV, because that is what we really experience. When I said my Sinner's Prayer, before I knew a thing about theology, I really felt that I had made a free will decision to accept Christ. It was real to me at the time. I didn't feel forced at all. So, in that sense, I did have free will.
In addition, now that I am "saved", I believe I have free will from either POV. Clearly, sometimes I do God's will and sometimes I do my will, and I experience that I choose, although I now know that any good I do is really God acting through me. Praise be to God that as I continue through my sanctification, I have seen the balance tip ever more slightly toward the former.
Read from verse 18 to the end of Romans 1. Consider what IS the wrath of God...It is leaving men to their own will.
I just read it, and the message to me was that knowledge, without faith, equals destruction. I agree that leaving men to their own will leaves no chance for such a man.
They have a Law written on their heart (as per Romans 2). Even they are without excuse. We, with THIS LAW, CAN obey it - or choose not to obey it. But if we choose not to, God does what? He leaves man to their devices.
So man, just as he was born COULD obey the law? Is it just a coincidence that the scorecard so far is 20 billion (or whatever) to ZERO? I thought one of the points of the OT law was to prove that we could not live up to it.
Forcing men to "believe" in God is not what love is about.
I would say that saving men through whatever means necessary is what love is all about. :)
Man doesn't choose God separately, because God is intimately intertwined in all of our decisions. No one can take our thoughts and actions and divide them up and say "this part was God, and this part was me".
Why can't we divide them up? Not in a labeling sense, but just in the sense that some part was over here (God) and some other part was over there (man). Isn't that how you think of free will? You have said that free will is not coerced, which makes me think you mean it is independent of anything else.
With any free will agreement, two (or more) parties come together and must independently agree. That is why I see your salvation model as being that man agrees to accept Christ along with performing various duties throughout his life. God agrees to let him into heaven. Yes, God helps, advises, counsels, cajoles, and makes it sound like a really sweet deal, etc. However, if the man is still free to say "No", then it still is really an independent decision by the man, isn't it? For the elect, my view is that the man has no objective freedom to say "No". The man, like me, will be oblivious to this, but it is nonetheless true.
BTW, God is "intimately intertwined" with our decisions to sin?
I didn't say Christ died unnecessarily! I said that God the Father could have chosen a different manner of saving mankind. But once the Father chose to show His love for man through such a means, it remained for Christ to obey His Will. Certainly, Jesus didn't die unnecessarily!
There, you just said it again! :) If the Father had options short of death, but chose death anyway, then it was unnecessary. It was a preference. I don't see how the Father could have chosen to put Jesus through all that IF there were viable options that also would have satisfied His justice. What is one explanation?
What makes something that God does "necessary"? Is God forced to do anything? You might say it is necessary for us, but for God, nothing is "necessary".
Going back to my "big rock" argument, anything that is required to be consistent with His nature is "necessary" for God to do. I would say that God is "forced" to continue existing, He is "forced" to not lie, He is "forced" to keep His promises, etc. So, in this light, was Christ dying on the cross necessary to be in keeping with His stated natures of justice and of loving man (His elect)? I would say "Yes".