The calvinist might even concede that Romans 9 lends itself to the interpretation presented thus far, but in totality of all other Scriptures, why must this new interpretation even be entertained… Isn’t God sovereign? Can’t He choose to save some alone from the fall while leaving the rest there from before the foundation of the world?

By all means, God can do that – had He not Himself revealed His desire not to do so. He has expressly stated that He desires the wicked to repent and live, for whom He has sent a Savior into the world. God further acts upon this desire of His by commanding all, even the non-elect, to believe the Gospel of Christ. He weeps over those who reject Him until such time that their measure of iniquity is filled. Only after such factoring in of their self-deterministic choices does God will to condemn and destroy them.

It’s common knowledge that the Calvinist interprets these differently – but can they deny that the previous paragraph provides a valid interpretation in the absence of calvinist doctrines. Theoretically, if there are 2 consistent doctrinal systems, and one lent itself to the added advantage of reconciling division, shouldn’t this system be preferred over the other?

Anyway, on more conclusive terms, the calvinist must reconcile how God has a desire for the wicked to be saved. The Two Wills teaching is the only attempt made, which contains a fundamental contradiction. And apart from this, any further questions are brushed under the ‘mystery’ carpet. That should no longer be acceptable when there is an alternate better and consistent reconciliation possible.

The Master Scientist

To reiterate, God is perfectly within His sovereign entitlement to choose to leave His creatures in the fallen state without offering any means of salvation. Scripture simply doesn’t show this happening to fallen mankind. It instead shows precisely this happening to the fallen angels. So if the calvinists wish to prove that God is sovereign to do so – yes, it’s apparent for all to see. But having already demonstrated this truth in the fallen angels, why must God repeat the same demonstration with man?

Picture God as a Master Scientist who knows all things and wishes to demonstrate these truths to fallible creatures, in giving them knowledge about His glory. God knows that the creature’s self-determinism has no glory whatsoever of itself (1Cor 1:29) and profits nothing (John 6:63) when compared to God’s works. Now He goes about proving this as a scientific demonstration.

The Demonstration

The demonstration must observe what the creature is capable of with its own self-determinism, and then be contrasted with what the creature does when God works completely within it, mortifying its own self-determinism. This is what gets played out first in the elect and non-elect angels. And we see the results – when angels are permitted to operate with their own self-determinism, they always completely fall. But when God works in the angels, they are perfectly preserved from falling. This clearly demonstrates God’s glory and the futility of self-determinism in not falling from what was created good.

But what can we observe of the creature’s capabilities similarly contrasted after such a fall. The demonstration must now contrast the creature’s self-determinism in it being redeemed from the fall versus God completely working in the creature to redeem it. So we begin with the fall and see this played out between elect and non-elect man, where God has provided the means of redemption in Jesus Christ. The results – when non-elect man is permitted to operate with his own self-determinism, he always completely ends up remaining fallen. But when God works in man, mortifying his self-deterministic nature/flesh, then he is perfectly redeemed. This again clearly demonstrates God’s glory and the futility of self-determinism in the redemption from the fall.

All this is to manifest all the revealed attributes of God in all His glory to His chosen creatures. Accordingly, even the elect angels look down on man to learn about God’s grace and mercy that preserved them from falling.

God’s Spirit vs the Creature’s self-nature

The sanctity of the demonstration rests on it being a level playing field, with only the one parameter that’s being contrasted for observational proof being an allowed variable of difference. If there were 2 or more factors differing between the test cases, a conclusive inference wouldn’t be possible attributing the variance to just the single factor being observed. So, it makes sense that God would keep all other things equal except whether it is the creature’s self-determinism at play or if it’s God’s nature at play.