I am not trying to debate here, but I just want to explore the issue in a little more depth. As I said, I am open to the idea of predestination, but I am yet unconvinced.
Good. I am growing weary of debating.
From an exigetical standpoint, one issue that I see is that predestination (which I understand to mean that an individual ultimately cannot choose to accept or reject God as God has already made the choice for him or her) is that the belief seems to be based on a relatively sparse amount of very brief passages in Scripture that seem to talk about the doctrine in passing. For example, the passage we are discussing at present reads as an aside to a discussion of the coming glory that awaits all believers. It would seem that if Paul was intending to suggest such a revolutionary viewpoint, he would have done so in a more extended discourse.
Here is the first problem I see in your view of my view.
I don't believe that predestination is what you say above. I believe that a person can choose, but that their will is to reject God (see Rom 3). In other words, it isn't so much that they can't choose God, but that they won't choose God and have no desire to do so. So predestination means that that because no one will choose God, and that He desires to save some, He will give them a new heart (see Ezekiel 36) and with that new heart (regeneration) will freely choose Christ because to do otherwise would be insane. Plus, I don't think that it is such a revolutionary idea that Paul is promoting. He is promoting what Scripture has always taught.
OTOH, there appears to me to be strong suggestions throughout the NT that there is at least some element of choice involved in the salvation experience.
There is. The question is why does one choose the way that they choose.
Paul's discourses about faith and works of the law suggest that faith is something that one can choose. Jesus' words in John 3:16 seem to be a call to believe (which implies that one has the capacity to make that choice).
Go back and read John 3:16. All it is is and if/then statement. If a person believes they will have eternal life. The previous verses suggest that regeneration is needed before one will choose to believe in Christ. But I don't want to get too sidetracked to another passage, unless you choose to do so.
The very existence of moral commandments throughout Scripture (especially in the OT) imply the existence of choice. albeit imperfect. IOW, all throughout Scripture, the existence of human will seems to be taken for granted, except for a few short passages within a few lengthy Pauline discourses.
Again, the question isn't of choice. It is a question of why one chooses a certain path. IOW, are you saved because you are smarter, more spiritual, etc., than then person next to you who heard the same message.
I acknowledge that I do not have a ready exegetical explanation for these selected passages, except for what has already been proposed. I also acknowledge that I do see a logical basis for predestination in the sense that there is quite a lot of sociological evidence that one's station in life, one's upbringing, and a host of other factors seem to play a huge role in what "choices" that person will ultimately make. As a criminal defense attorney, I have notices that very few of my clients come from well to do or genuinely Christian families (or even deeply spiritual backgrounds of other faiths). I also notice that there are certain similarities among people who do ultimately respond to the Gospel that precede their conversion experience. I say all this to illustrate that I do not think that the doctrine of election/predestination is all that illogical.
Interesting perspective.
The logical problem that I see comes by way of the biblical understanding of who and what God is. John teaches that God is love. Does love cast one into eternal torment without giving that person so much as the benefit of choosing whether or not to accept the free gift of eternal life? Does love make the offer of salvation for anyone who believes while at the same time denying the power to choose to believe? Does love make commands of those who lack the ability to choose to obey?
Yes, God is love. He is also just. He is also a wrathful God that punishes sin. So with that premise, does God have the right to punish sin? Yes. Do we all deserve the punishment? Yes. Is God obligated in any way to offer us salvation? No. Can God choose to save some? Yes. Does that make Him culpable for those whom He chooses not to save? Not in my view. God isn't fair. And by that, that fact that He chose to save anyone isn't fair. But the fact that He chooses to punish sinners is just.
I agree with you that universalism is problematic. The biggest issue that I have with universalism is that it insists that God denies the individual the ability to make choices about his own destiny. In this sense, universalism and electionism are very close cousins, intellectually and theologically. However, as much as I am ready to dismiss universalism as the intellectual fantasy of the few who are not willing to believe in a God who would allow individuals to choose their own demise, I do see enough evidence for electionism that I am not at the point of denying it so outrightly. Nonetheless, I do feel the need for more convincing than I have seen thus far.
I could come up with the most solid case for election. I could give sound exegesis for Romans 8 and 9. John 6 and 8. Ephesians 1 and 2. But that won't convince you. It surely didn't convince me when I was debating Calvinists. For me it was finally letting go of my traditional presupposition. And I let go kicking and screaming because I felt the same as you. But I do appreciate the fact that you haven't condemned us Calvinists as heretics. That happens a lot. So if you want to continue to discuss and ask questions and the such, I am all for it. If not, that is cool too. I just am appreciative of your attitude. Just remember that most of us Calvinists on here are a bit gunshy. So we might overreact to a question. But I will try not to do that.
Blessings.