It seems to me that it is evident from scripture that all men are conceived and born sinners, and rightly under God's Wrath. They cannot do anything but sin, and are incapable of doing anything truly good. They are sinners both by choice and by nature, enslaved to the sin they are born in. Unless God, by His Holy Spirit, regenerates their hearts, they will not turn to God, nor are they even able to do so. They will not seek God, or entertain any notion of seeking Him, their natures being so corrupted that it would never occur to them to seek Him, and they would reject any such idea should it be presented to them.
Therefore, since man will not seek God, God MUST make the first move. Man's will is corrupted as well as his nature. Man cannot have the will necessary to choose God, because it, along with everything else is corrupted, twisted, and bent. God, by His Holy Spirit, unbends, straightens, and cleanses his will (Efficacious Grace), not to FORCE the man to choose God, but to make him ABLE to choose God. When God does that, the man will choose God.
The Arminian position seems to teach that this Grace is given to all men, as though God owed it to them. God owes Grace to no one. That He bestows it on even one person is entirely due to His Mercy, for all are rightly condemned to die for their sins. The Arminain may protest and ask how it is that God can save some and not others. The real question is, why should he save any? That He does is God's Grace, God's Mercy, and God's decision. It is evident that God has not, in fact, saved all, for salvation was only given to a few in the OT, and it is in the NT that more have been saved. It is impertinent in the extreme to accuse God of injustice for doing as He Wills with what is, after all, His own Creation. All men are rightly judged for their sins, so injustice cannot flow from that, in that all deserve to die. If He chooses to rescue some from that fate, how is that unjust, seeing that His Justice dmenads even their deaths? If He chooses to override His Justice by His Mercy shown to a few, it only confirms His Justice, and His Sovereignty over His Creation. Those who have been granted mercy cannot glory in it, for it was not by their power that they were shown mercy. Those who have not been shown mercy cannot claim unfair treatment, for they know they are rightly condemned. Injustice can only be claimed if they were unjustly condemned, or if the mercy granted a few was due to anything other than God's own choice, unaffected and unswayed by any outside consideration.
The flaw in Arminian thought is their insistence on man having a free will unaffected by the Fall of man into sin, something which is logically impossible. When someone says, "God voted for me, Satan voted against me, and I get to cast the deciding vote", they are stating a completely unscriptural idea, for several reasons. First, they elevate Satan to be equal with God, which, while it probably pleases Satan no end, is clearly not possible. Second, they elevate their own will to an equal status with God, which is just as unscriptural as elevating Satan's will to that level. Nowhere in scripture is it taught that man is on an equal footing with God, in his will, or in any other facet of life. It is God who chooses, it is God who saves, it is God who decides. Man does not choose God, God chooses him, enables him to believe, supplies the faith necessary to believe, and saves the man. Man's only part in the whole process is one of reception, of submission, of complete surrender. God does the work, man just receives it. Unless God does that work, man not only cannot receive, he will not receive.
It is all God's doing, unlike the Arminian postion which says man can decide which way to go, to accept or reject God's gift. The Arminian give man the final authority over his fate, which flies in the face of God's Sovereignty, and His makes a mockery of Christ's substitutionary work on the cross on man's behalf.
Well, that is the Calvinist position, so even though you do not call yourself a Calvinist, you are stating that it is the correct one.
Nowhere in Scripture does it state that a man is saved by Regeneration, it states rather that he is regenerated by faith.
Now, it is true that man is spiritually dead, which is separation from God, but that does not mean that man cannot be reached by God.
God is able to communicate with unbelievers who respond to His commands (Gen.20) with fear without regenerating them.
Thus, total inablility is not Biblical, it is an excuse for Unconditional election, which makes the man unable to respond since that man is not elected.
Therefore, since man will not seek God, God MUST make the first move.
True, and God has done that with nature and conscience (Psa.19,Rom.1-2)
Man's will is corrupted as well as his nature. Man cannot have the will necessary to choose God, because it, along with everything else is corrupted, twisted, and bent. God, by His Holy Spirit, unbends, straightens, and cleanses his will (Efficacious Grace), not to FORCE the man to choose God, but to make him ABLE to choose God. When God does that, the man will choose God.
Well, that is the Calvinist position ('smoothed' out to make 'irresistable' grace a bit more acceptable.
The point is, that man cannot resist what the Holy Spirit is doing to him, thus by whatever terms you want to use, the real question remains, why not everyman?
The Arminian position seems to teach that this Grace is given to all men, as though God owed it to them.
No, no classical Arminian ever stated that.
Grace is mercy in action, and thus, mercy is just that, undeserved.
However, if one man is going to be shown mercy why not all?
Is not God a God of mercy?
Moreover, how (according to the Calvinists themselves -see Calvin BK 3) did man get in this situation?
God put him in it!
This goes back to unconditional election and God eternal plan to save some and to damn others for no other reason then it would show His glory.
How creating billions of rational creatures and saving a small portion of them, while damning the rest, not giving them any chance to believe, would be glorious to God is unfathonable.
We would call someone like that a madman, not God.
Also God owes Grace to no one. That He bestows it on even one person is entirely due to His Mercy, for all are rightly condemned to die for their sins. The Arminain may protest and ask how it is that God can save some and not others. The real question is, why should he save any? That He does is God's Grace, God's Mercy, and God's decision.
Well, that would be fine except, according to Calvinism, it is God who put man in that position in the first place, so it is a bit unfair to damn them for what they could not help.
Moreover, the point is a mute one since Christ did undo the work of the 1st Adam and has made all men savable (Rom.5:18) if they will believe.
Moreover, God does call upon all men to repent (Acts.17:30)
It is evident that God has not, in fact, saved all, for salvation was only given to a few in the OT, and it is in the NT that more have been saved.
How is the OT salvation any different.
Israel spread its message throughout the world, which was one of her purposes.
God was not without witness in the Old testament as the conversion of Ninevah proves.
It is impertinent in the extreme to accuse God of injustice for doing as He Wills with what is, after all, His own Creation.
It would be if God did not show in Scripture that He wants all men to be saved (see Calvin and Spurgeon, Boettner etc) but not really!
All men are rightly judged for their sins, so injustice cannot flow from that, in that all deserve to die. If He chooses to rescue some from that fate, how is that unjust, seeing that His Justice dmenads even their deaths? If He chooses to override His Justice by His Mercy shown to a few, it only confirms His Justice, and His Sovereignty over His Creation. Those who have been granted mercy cannot glory in it, for it was not by their power that they were shown mercy. Those who have not been shown mercy cannot claim unfair treatment, for they know they are rightly condemned. Injustice can only be claimed if they were unjustly condemned, or if the mercy granted a few was due to anything other than God's own choice, unaffected and unswayed by any outside consideration. The flaw in Arminian thought is their insistence on man having a free will unaffected by the Fall of man into sin, something which is logically impossible.
Find where Arminius or Wesley ever said that man's will was not effected by the Fall.
Did Adam run from God?
Did God seek him?
Did Adam make a decision with that same corrupted will?
The corruption in the will is not seeking God, but God can seek man and find him and then give that same will the chance to accept or reject him.
When someone says, "God voted for me, Satan voted against me, and I get to cast the deciding vote", they are stating a completely unscriptural idea, for several reasons. First, they elevate Satan to be equal with God, which, while it probably pleases Satan no end, is clearly not possible. Second, they elevate their own will to an equal status with God, which is just as unscriptural as elevating Satan's will to that level. Nowhere in scripture is it taught that man is on an equal footing with God, in his will, or in any other facet of life. It is God who chooses, it is God who saves, it is God who decides. Man does not choose God, God chooses him, enables him to believe, supplies the faith necessary to believe, and saves the man. Man's only part in the whole process is one of reception, of submission, of complete surrender. God does the work, man just receives it. Unless God does that work, man not only cannot receive, he will not receive.
What does the 'vote' have to do with it?
God is seeking all men as is Satan and will blind those who reject the Gospel (2Cor.4:4) (odd to blind someone who cannot believe in the first place)
Also, why have Satan around if God is just going to damn everyone He has already decided to in the first place.
Satan is thus a mere pawn as are rational creatures in the hands of this Calvinistic God who has not allowed any choices to go against His sovereign directive will.
In fact, sin did not orginate with Satan but with God since God decreed that Satan would sin (for God's glory).
So sin can be traced back to God, not His rational creatures, a view that makes God both Good and Bad at the same time, like Ying and Yang or the 'Force' of star wars.
That God allowed sin in His universe does not make Him responsible for it, since the responsiblty falls on those who choose to reject God and God honored their decisions by making those decisions part of history.
It is all God's doing, unlike the Arminian postion which says man can decide which way to go, to accept or reject God's gift. The Arminian give man the final authority over his fate, which flies in the face of God's Sovereignty, and His makes a mockery of Christ's substitutionary work on the cross on man's behalf.
It doesn't reject God's sovereignity if God in His Sovereignity decreed that it would be that way.
It is only offensive to the Calvinistic notion of God's sovereignity, not the Biblical one.
With God's subsitutionary work, as you yourself said, all men are savable.
If all men could not be saved, then it is indeed a mockery to say that all men are savable.
Christ died for all men, not just a select few, and if when one goes to hell, they go despite God's will for their lives, not because of it.
One last point, Palmer in his work on the five points of Calvinism does describe Total Depravity as total inability (P.14)
Thus, the real difference in our positions is that you see no problem with a God who despite what He says in scripture, could create for the sole purpose of destroying most of it.
This is espically true of man, who was not created to go to the lake of fire, which was created for Satan and his angels not man (Matt.25)
I think you can call yourself a Calvinist, since you adhere to unconditional election, although you do not seem to accept the Limited Atonement aspect of it.