Some immediate objections I suspect your writer can't overcome:
1) It can be retorted that Jacob and Esau were individually elected to be the heads of nations-- one of them as the representative head of the children of promise, the other the "children of flesh." Therefore it can't be claimed that God isn't speaking of individual election. Rather, these men are plainly examples and representatives of each type of individual-- whether a child of wrath or a child of mercy. What applies to them applies to all those like them.
2) The "children of the flesh" represents all unbelievers, whether of Jews or Gentiles. Therefore it can't be claimed that Paul was speaking only of the Jews under the "Covenant of works." All men have been bound to such a covenant since Adam regardless of their race. Also note the parallels: Paul begins by creating the binary between the Children of Promise and the Children of the Flesh. Next Jacob and Esau, who are representative of these respectively. Lastly the Vessels of Mercy and the Vessels of Wrath, of which Pharaoh is also a member of the latter. Therefore the children of the flesh are also the children of wrath, and these are all doomed.
3) Paul is also working to distinguish between national Israel and spiritual Israel. Therefore, we could say: "Not everyone who outwardly should be the child of God is one-- (both Esau and Jacob were circumcised and member's of God's covenant church) there are those who are regenerated, and those who are unregenerate, within the same Church/National Body, and this distinction comes about not by anything a person does, but by God's grace."
4) The writer makes election depend on faith, but the verses explicitly say "it is not of him that wills, or him that runs," thus removing salvation out of the hands of man entirely. Therefore, the writer does not get himself out of the problem (for him)-- that God saves people gratuitously, without any foreseen merits, whether of faith of works, but according to God's good purpose only.
I could go on and on, but this seems enough to sort out that website. As for your verses, I am unsure of your exact argument (your website did not reference them), so I can't reply to them until I know what you mean.
Here are some objections to your interpretation of this verse you will need to get over:
1) Christ here speaks of Himself drawing all men-- but in John 6, Christ speaks of the Father bringing men to Him, and all these are saved: "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out... And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (Joh 6:37-39). Therefore, John 12:32-33 cannot be interpreted to mean "Christ draws every individual-- because all those given by the Father to the Son are not lost." It is also possible Christ here speaks of a different sort of drawing, as the agency is changed from the Father drawing men to that of Christ drawing them.
2) In John 6, as previously demonstrated, those men standing right in front of Jesus Christ, who were hearing Him preach, were explicitly described as not having been given by the Father to the Son.
3) John 12:32-33 the "all" can be interpreted as not meaning "every single person," but "all KINDS of men," of every race and tribe, which was a truth abhorred by the Jews. This is consistent with the language of the Jews themselves, who in their Talmud use words like "the world," or "all the men in the world," often times to refer to nations, either all the Gentiles distinguished from the Jews, or all the Jews distinguished from the Gentiles (depending on context), and sometimes even to just all the individuals in a particular city, or of all the Rabbis. The "all" or the "world" only means every single individual when the context explicitly demands it. Such is the peculiar use of language that the Jews make. This same pattern of language is also seen in the scripture, such as when Christ says "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me" (John 17:9). Thus here Christ differentiates the world from those given to Him out of the world. Later, in Paul's discourse in Romans 3, he declares that no one seeks or understands God. Literally this would make no one a believer, and so it must refer to all men before regeneration. There are many more examples of this type of language, but I think these examples suffice for now.
It is not wise to mind read. Instead, you should address the scriptures I have provided.
Augustine is quite correct that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church-- which, writing in his day, only meant the universal body of Christ. The Papacy had still not yet finished construction.
I don't know this word "counterfactuals" as applied to theology, so can't really reply to it. Looking at your link it seems to mostly just be a battle of philosophy as well (and I am not a philosopher), not of scripture. I also noticed, almost right away, serious misunderstandings of Reformed Theology (but that's normal), so I decided not to bother going through the whole thing or even to attempt a reply. If you'd like to quote something in particular, or bring out their argument in simpler terms for me, I'd be happy to deal with it then.
As for the problem of evil, this is answered very simply with a quick example from scripture:
Gen_50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
It is quite true that nothing happens but by God's determination. And it is testified throughout scripture that even the evil acts of men and of spirits were decreed by God. In this case, the evil here by the brothers against Joseph was ordained to occur by God. But the way that God avoids being called the author of sin is in this: what the brothers did for evil purposes, God meant for good purposes. It is a question of purpose and motivation. A person has it within them always to do evil-- but God, through His omnipotence, is always able to take this evil and use it for His good purposes. So when the Devil attacks Job out of his evil desires, God does it for His good ones. When the brothers, out of jealousy and wickedness, sell their brother into slavery-- God does it for Joseph's sanctification (his growing in faith), as through fire, and to save many more people.
One last verse to consider:
Rom_8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
All things couldn't work together for good-- as it did for Joseph and every other believer-- if God does not indeed work all things.
I'd appreciate it if you left off the attacks. I made this account long before this thread ever existed. You reveal your bad nature when you attack me in this way.
