HD:1) God is not omnipotent. Man is capable of resisting God, at least in the area of salvation.
HarleyD: God calls men throughout creation. Men in general resist God. God calls to man through the internal call individually. Individual men cannot resist.
CB:?
Metmom: One of God's characteristics IS omnipotence. That does not mean that He is obligated to use it under all circumstances. He hates sin and must punish it, but the very fact that we exist and He sent Christ demonstrates that He does not always choose to use it. He doesn't have to otherwise, He would be a slave to His own nature, and He's not.
As a-g (IIRC) pointed out, God has a permissive will which is not the same as His sovereign will. Allowing us to be able to resist Him does not impugn on His nature in the least.
Man is not capable of resisting God because he is capable of it but because God permits it. So the conclusion that man being able to resist God does not mean a non-omnipotent God.
God's calling is God's calling. I see nowhere stated in Scripture that there is a difference and that one is capable of being resisted while the other isn't. Gleaning that from examples that may or may not support the theology is not really strong Scriptural support for it.
Differentiating between the two is basically theological hairsplitting. It's reminiscent of making the distinction between mortal and venial sins.
God bringing people to the breaking point does not mean that that doctrine is true. It could simply very well mean that God knows exactly what it will take to break us and does it.
If God knows exactly what it will take to break us, then why doesn't he simply break everyone?
Why did he break you and me but not Nietzsche or Darwin or Fred the Atheist next door?
Man is not capable of resisting God because he is capable of it but because God permits it. So the conclusion that man being able to resist God does not mean a non-omnipotent God.