Please help me figure this out!

[trophy33]

Adam's guilt is imputed (by God at birth) to all those born of Adam

Thats what I disagree with.

 

[Clare73]

Thank you so much Maria. You are so encouraging!
I do certainly believe the same thing. I find that by following the logic, I end up in a place that paints a picture of God that I do not recognize.
However, I have been doubting this, and it's been tugging at me. What if they are right? And what if, in saying all these things (such as "this makes God unjust/this is not the God I worship") I am storing up wrath for myself?
I do not want to do those things. I also recognize that on occasion, God shows Himself to people in such a way that they cannot help but believe.
What I want to do is affirm the Bible- that God is love. God wishes all men to come to repentance, that none should perish. God wishes that all men should come to a knowledge of the truth! This is the goodness of God. This is why I want to spend eternity to Him and why Christ's sacrifice is so sweet to me.

I want to believe in the plain words of Scripture, the simplicity that is Christ. It is incredibly disturbing to me when Calvin states that the Bible is a "knotty, difficult text" and saying that it requires "extensive knowledge" to figure out.

Keeping in mind that Peter stated the same thing (2 Pe 3:16),
and as illustration, I offer the texts of Ro 6:23 ("the wages of sin is death") and Ro 5:12-19, where

sin is not accounted where there is no law vs. yet all sinned between Adam and Moses when there was no law with death penalty attached (as in the Garden, and which caused Adam's mortality),
no sin was accounted between Adam and Moses vs. yet all died then (which death is caused by sin),
so what sin caused their deaths between Adam and Moses,
and then its conclusion in Ro 5:18 (the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men).

That is definitely a "knotty, difficult text."

As if it is something that needs to be decoded. No, when John says that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, I want to believe!

If Calvinism is heretical, I want to war against it. But with so many people that support it, it shows that there are enough believers who support it, and there is some reason for them to do so.

I want to believe in God. I will ask him to forgive me if I say anything that is untrue of Him based on my limited knowledge. I am fortunate enough that He has assured me of eternal life through His son.

I just do not want to insinuate that there is a case in which I would not worship Him and risk trampling underfoot the gifts that He has promised.

I worship God because "all His ways are justice" (Deuteronomy 32:4). I will not worship an unjust God, a tyrant. I know that this is not any official creed or statement, but I have heard Calvinists make commentary on their beliefs by saying "God's sovereign choosing offends our human idea of justice". This is really quite confusing to me. How are we to worship God's goodness if we cannot even fathom why He is good?

Thank you for reading, and helping me along this journey. We are all in God's family and for that I am grateful, no matter what comes.

These bother me greatly:
"Salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it." from Book 3, Chapter 21.
"We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others." from the same chapter.

Please read my concerns above, as well.

 

[Clare73]

Thats what I disagree with.

However, Ro 5:12-15 disagrees with you (post #20).

Care to address Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words and omitting none of the contradictory issues presented there?

 

[trophy33]

However, Ro 5:12-15 disagrees with you (post #20).

Care to address Ro 5:12-15, being true to its words and omitting none of the contradictory issues presented there?

I do not think its the point of this thread to discuss Romans 5.

But the text is saying that the first man sinned and is an archetype of all who came after him, because all sinned too, though not in the same way Adam did.

 

[Clare73]

I do not think its the point of this thread to discuss Romans 5.

Appreciate your compliance, but does not the OP of this thread object that the Bible is a "knotty, difficult text and. . .requires extensive knowledge to figure out?"

And doesn't Ro 5:12-19 go to both the "knotty, difficult text" and the issue of all mankind being guilty of Adam's sin, which is the issue of the OP? I think we are in compliance on this.

But the text is saying that the first man sinned and is an archetype of all who came after him,

Good start. . . on a very knotty, difficult text.

Actually the text is saying that (the first) Adam was a pattern/type (tupos) for (the one to come) Christ (Ro 5:14).
So sinful Adam was a type/pattern for the righteous Christ?
Of what, pray tell?
The pattern of imputation, to wit:

The text then goes on to present contrasting parallels--"just as. . .so also"-- between the sin from Adam and the righteousness from Christ.
Now we know that the righteousness from Christ is imputed to us (Ro 4:1-11).
So if the righteousness of Christ imputed to us is a parallel to the sin of Adam ("just as. . .so also" of Ro 5:18-19), then the sin of Adam must likewise be imputed to us, or the parallel would be broken.

So Ro 5:12-19 is presenting imputation, of both righteousness and sin.

because all sinned too, though not in the same way Adam did.

That is: not in the same way of breaking a command with death penalty attached, as Adam did.
Between Adam and Moses they had no such commands as Ge 2:17, as did Adam, and Adam being the point of comparison here

The text states both. . .that all sinned, and that no one sinned, because sin is not taken into account where there is no law with death penalty.
Yet, that all were guilty of sin between Adam and Moses is proven by their deaths.
The issue is: of what sin were they held guilty, when there was no law with death penalty attached, as in the Garden with Adam, to sin against?

God held them guilty of the sin of Adam imputed to them, just as God holds us righteous with the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.

 

[trophy33]

Appreciate your compliance, but does not the OP of this thread object that the Bible is a "knotty, difficult text and. . .requires extensive knowledge to figure out?"

And doesn't Ro 5:12-15 go to both the "knotty, difficult text" and the issue of all mankind being guilty of Adam's sin, which is the issue of the OP? I think we are in compliance on this.

Good start. . . on a very knotty, difficult text.

Actually the text is saying that (the first) Adam was a pattern/type (tupos) for (the one to come) Christ (Ro 5:14).
So sinful Adam was a type/pattern for the righteous Christ?
Of what, pray tell?
The pattern of imputation, to wit:

The text then goes on to present contrasting parallels--"just as. . .so also"-- between the sin from Adam and the righteousness from Christ.
Now we know that the righteousness from Christ is imputed to us (Ro 4:1-11).
So if the righteousness of Christ imputed to us is a parallel to the sin of Adam ("just as. . .so also" of Ro 5:18-19), then the sin of Adam must likewise be imputed to us, or the parallel would be broken.

So Ro 5:12-19 is presenting imputation, of both righteousness and sin.


That is: not in the same way of breaking a command with death penalty attached, as Adam did.
Between Adam and Moses they had no such commands as Ge 2:17, as did Adam, and Adam being the point of comparison here

The text states both. . .that all sinned, and that no one sinned, because sin is not taken into account where there is no law with death penalty.
Yet, that all were guilty of sin between Adam and Moses is proven by their deaths.
The issue is: of what sin were they held guilty, when there was no law with death penalty attached, as in the Garden with Adam, to sin against?

God held them guilty of the sin of Adam imputed to them, just as God holds us righteous with the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.

I am not too inclined to discuss one of the most difficult texts of Paul about which many theologians argue indefinitely. It would need more preparation, looking into Greek etc. I probably do not even have the right English vocabulary to express my thoughts well, regarding this topic.

When I say that Adam is an archetype of us, sinners, I mean something like John Walton taught here, if you are interested (the video url leads to the time when he talks about the issue of archetypes):

I do not think we are somehow related to Adam's sin/guilt biologically, but he is our archetype, because as he sinned and died, we sin and die. He represents us in our natural state.

 

[Clare73]

I am not too inclined to discuss one of the most difficult texts of Paul about which many theologians argue indefinitely. It would need more preparation, looking into Greek etc. I probably do not even have the right English vocabulary to express my thoughts well, regarding this topic.
When I say that Adam is an archetype of us, sinners, I mean something like John Walton taught here, if you are interested (the video url leads to the time when he talks about the issue of archetypes):
I do not think we are somehow related to Adam's sin/guilt biologically,

We agree that it is not inherited, only our sinful nature (depravity) is inherited.
But the contrasting parallel of Ro 5:18-19, when understood, shows that Christ's righteousness is also imputed just as Adam's sin is imputed.

but he is our archetype, because as he sinned and died, we sin and die. He represents us in our natural state.

I hear you, but in Ro 5:14 Adam is a type of Christ, "the (one) coming."

 

[trophy33]

I hear you, but in Ro 5:14 Adam is a type of Christ, "the (one) coming."

I see Adam being the archetype of humanity in Ro 5:12.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned..."

 

[Clare73]

I see Adam being the archetype of humanity in Ro 5:12.

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned...

Adam can be said to be the archetype of humanity, but that is not what is being said in Ro 5:12.

For it also states in Ro 5:14 and Ro 5:18-19:

1) "death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses even over those who did not sin as did Adam (Ro 5:14).

2) Adam "was a pattern of the one to come" (Christ). (Ro 5:14)

3) Just as the effect of the one act of transgression on all those born of (the first) Adam was condemnation,
so also the effect of the one act of righteousness on all those born of (the second Adam) Christ is righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

The issue which you stated above (all sinned) is only half the equation in Ro 5:12, the other half in Ro 5:13 is sin is not taken into account (charged against) when there is no law, and in Ro 5:14, they did not sin.

The issue to be resolved is the seeming contradiction in these stated facts.
What other fact in the passage reconciles these seeming contradictions?
1) Well, we have the effect of Christ's righteousness, which we know is imputed (Ro 4:1-11) being paralleled ("just as. . .so also") with the effect of Adam's sin which, therefore, must likewise be imputed, or there is no "just as. . .so also," breaking Paul's parallel of Ro 5:18-19.
2) And we also have imputation complying with Adam being a pattern of Christ, "the one to come" (Ro 5:14).
In Ro 5:12-19 Paul is demonstrating God's imputation of both sin and righteousness to men.

Ro 5:12-15 is correctly understood only in the light of its conclusion in Ro 5:18-19:
"so also" (the imputation of) the righteousness of Christ to those re-born of Christ,
"just as" (the imputation of) the sin of Adam (pattern of the one to come, Ro 5:14) to those born of Adam (Ro 5:18-19).

I suspect Ro 5:12-19 is one of the texts Calvin had in mind when he stated, "The Bible is a "knotty, difficult text and. . .requires extensive knowledge to figure out," in keeping with what Peter had likewise expressed (2 Pe 3:16).

 

[Carl Emerson]

But with so many people that support it, it shows that there are enough believers who support it, and there is some reason for them to do so.

I believe that in many cases ones theology is shaped by the personal experience, or lack of it, that one has had with God.

For example I am a prodigal - He collided with me when my life was shipwrecked. How could I not believe that Salvation is by Grace and totally undeserved ?

However I don't extend that truth to total lack of free will.

As the Holy Spirit constrains us we have limited free will as He saves us from ourselves.

Serious believers have followed the example of Jesus and said "never the less not my will but thine be done..."

So we have the free will to give Him our will.

However the reward for obedience remains... we are not robots.

So our free will is within bounds for our own good.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hello everyone!
I am really struggling with the concepts in Calvinism.
About a month ago, I broke down as I considered the conclusions that Calvinism led me to. I even cried at the kitchen table considering it. I cannot think of any way that this group of ideas does not lead to the conclusion that God is the author of sin, which He is NOT. God does not tempt any man to sin.
But according to Calvinism, all men are not just born spiritually dead, they cannot even recognize any goodness to be found in the Gospel unless God regenerates them first. I am so confused by this- did not Adam and Eve come to know good from evil by partaking of the fruit?
In no way am I insinuating that they are naturally inclined to seek God or can attain the righteousness that God requires. They need God's grace to be reconciled to Him. But I thought that God invites all men, but only some accept the free gift of salvation.

Consider the rational fact, drawn from your last sentence there. If God invites all, but only some accept, WHAT exactly is it that makes that difference between those that do and those that don't?

Sin is rebellion against God. How can God be the author of it? Yet we know biblically and logically, that all fact descends from God, one way or another, so God caused that sin be. Is that the same thing as being the author of it? We know from the Bible that God intended hard things, suffering, even sinful acts of men and the treachery of demons. God "is not safe"! But he is good. He is not tame, and he is omnipotent. He is the most dangerous thing ever. He is not a kindly grandfather.

God doesn't need to tempt anyone. They will do what they do, and he knew it when he created whatever results in their sin. But maybe this fact, that I find humorous, ironic, yet desperately sad, is that the lost, regardless of what they think they are deciding, even to the point of thinking they are yielding to God or "accepting Christ into their heart", are even then, but for regeneration, doing what they do in rebellion to God. I don't know if you have seen it in yourself yet, but I have seen, and continue to see, how easily I can deceive myself, and how unreliable my dedication to God is. In the end, it is pretty obvious, at least to me, that it is dependent on God alone, who does and who does not belong to him.

 

[Dan Perez]

Hello everyone!
I am really struggling with the concepts in Calvinism.
About a month ago, I broke down as I considered the conclusions that Calvinism led me to. I even cried at the kitchen table considering it. I cannot think of any way that this group of ideas does not lead to the conclusion that God is the author of sin, which He is NOT. God does not tempt any man to sin.
But according to Calvinism, all men are not just born spiritually dead, they cannot even recognize any goodness to be found in the Gospel unless God regenerates them first. I am so confused by this- did not Adam and Eve come to know good from evil by partaking of the fruit?
In no way am I insinuating that they are naturally inclined to seek God or can attain the righteousness that God requires. They need God's grace to be reconciled to Him. But I thought that God invites all men, but only some accept the free gift of salvation.

God has made known to men his law (through the Mosaic law to Jews and the natural conscience to Gentiles [through which they become "a law unto themselves"]), and through the incarnation, Jesus Christ- His perfect sinless life and His offer to bear the sins of men and become a ransom for them. So, all men are without excuse. Everyone, therefore, has the ability to repent; God has revealed Himself to everyone. So, if someone does not repent, is it not their fault?

From what I have understood, the fault is on mankind for rejecting God. But according to Calvinism, it is God that actively chooses who will be saved (and, by consequence, who will not). So, was it God who first made Adam and Eve sin in the Garden, then? Calvin himself has said, "God, in a secret and marvellous way, justly wills, the things which men unjustly do." . . . "Although God and the devil will the same thing: they do so in an utterly different manner." The last quotation is just profoundly disgusting to me for reasons I don't think I even have to explain. The former quotation also disgusts me because it contradicts the Bible (I believe so, at least), and puts the blame on God. I do not deny that God uses the sin of people for his glorious purpose! Because God is in control of everything and can even use sinners for the greater good. God is completely sovereign and uses all things for good.

I have agreed with the traditional Southern Baptist view of predestination. I affirm total depravity to the extent the Bible does (men are totally depraved but can still recognize their need for a savior) and eternal security absolutely. With the rest, I hold to a typical "Arminian" view.

I also just feel an extreme aversion to agree with Calvin after taking a look at his life. I've read historical articles about him that weren't even trying to paint him in a bad light (from secular sources!), and I was appalled to hear about his life. I don't know, I don't like taking theology from someone who burns his theological opponents at the stake (AND did it in the name of our Savior. It's not like he wasn't a professing believer at the time. I am simply examining his fruit. I apologize if I put it a bit too harshly, but that seems to be what happened).

I just want to worship God, though. I will always thank Him for what He has done- saving me by grace through Christ's sacrifice on my behalf. I just want to worship Him, however He is like.

I worship Him because He is love. He is just and merciful. These are things I know from the Bible, and I trust His word.

I am someone who struggles with doubt, though. This really makes me doubt sometimes. What if I am wrong after all, and the Calvinists are more correct about God than I am?

I feel tempted to say that I would not worship the "God of Calvinism", just because I know God is not unjust. But would this condemn me? This is the thing I am most worried about, and the reason why I write this. That's why I am asking you all. I am really struggling here.

What I want to do is just affirm what is in the Bible and not take sides. Not try to figure everything out. But, it is in my personality to desire to figure everything out. Whenever people describe me, that is the first attribute they refer to. People describe me as someone who cannot rest until I know all I can, someone who investigates and needs answers.

I am content with just affirming what the Bible says. But if I say "if God is the God that Calvinism proposes, I do not want Him" is that wrong? Right now, I am willing to accept Him, even that way. I will still find Him merciful. But I just don't want to accept Him reluctantly. I want to accept Him with my full heart. I love God, I really do. He is the author of all good things. He created me and made me in His image. He gave me a purpose in life. Even when I messed up, He had mercy on me. Even in that sorry state, He sets before me good works for me to walk in. He says that I can be His child. Everything about Him is beautiful. But I am struggling here. I know it is just grace through faith that saves me. I know I am saved. But if I knock down and refute how Calvinists portray Him, and I am wrong, will He say to me, "depart from me, I never knew you"? Because I would be cursing Him to His face if I did that. And I love Him, I don't want to do that.

That is my honest question. Please help me. I am really struggling with this.

Eph 3:1-5 says in verse #1 I Paul , the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you GENTILES , and that is YOU and I .

SEEING , verse 2 , that you heard of the DISPENSATION / OIKONOMIA of the GRACE of God ,having been given to ME FOR YOU !!

That according to revelation , He had made known to me the MYSTERY ( Rom 16:25 and 26 ) just as I had written before in brief

verse 5 , Which in DIFFERENT generations was NOT MADE known to the sons of men , as it was now REVEALED to his holy apostle and prophets by the Spirit and practice 2 Tim 2:15 will keep all on the straight and Narrow .

dan p

 

[Clare73]

I believe that in many cases ones theology is shaped by the personal experience, or lack of it, that one has had with God.
For example I am a prodigal - He collided with me when my life was shipwrecked. How could I not believe that Salvation is by Grace and totally undeserved ?
However I don't extend that truth to total lack of free will.

Hi, Carl,

If I may, let me comment on free will.
And let me begin by saying I don't do "isms," I do Scripture. My only "ism" is "Paulism."
So I am not versed in "Calvinism and free will."

However, the sovereignty of God is not in conflict with the "free will" of man, which debate started over 1500 years ago, in defense of man's responsibility for sin.
While "free will" is not a Biblical notion, we do see it in operation in the Bible, it being the power to freely choose, without any external force or constraint, what one prefers.

But the human will does not operate in a vacuum, it is governed by the disposition--what one prefers, likes.
And God brings men to himself by operating in their dispositions, giving them to prefer him and his will, and then they freely and willingly choose him.

So God does not violate man's free will in bringing them to himself, he uses it to bring men to himself.

As the Holy Spirit constrains us we have limited free will as He saves us from ourselves.

Serious believers have followed the example of Jesus and said "never the less not my will but thine be done..."

So we have the free will to give Him our will.

However the reward for obedience remains... we are not robots.

So our free will is within bounds for our own good.

 

[trophy33]

I suspect Ro 5:12-19 is one of the texts Calvin had in mind when he stated, "The Bible is a "knotty, difficult text and. . .requires extensive knowledge to figure out," in keeping with what Peter had likewise expressed (2 Pe 3:16).

Most of the Calvinist doctrines other denominations do not agree with are based on difficult places of Paul, namely Romans. Interestingly, official Calvinist creeds or catechisms try not to go too deep in it. Its mostly individual preachers, books, posts or websites that take various difficult words or verses to extremes (for example taking it too literally).

God is frequently being presented as a despotic power who simply decides what is just purely by his might, in Calvinism. This may produce fear, but not love.

So, if common Calvinists have a problem with some complexities of that, I would simply give them some official creeds/catechisms (these are created for this purpose, in the first place) and let them live their life free of complex individual theology..

Ten people will read a verse in ten different ways, anyway. As @Carl Emerson said, ones theology is frequently shaped by personal experience. Or by overall opinions, view of the world, pesimism/optimism/depression, mood, philosophy, family background etc.

 

[Clare73]

Most of the Calvinist doctrines other denominations do not agree with are based on difficult places of Paul, namely Romans.

Let's not forget Heb 3:7-4:13 (which, based on its ending, I've just about concluded was from Paul).

Interestingly, official Calvinist creeds or catechisms try not to go too deep in it. Its mostly individual preachers, books, posts or websites that take various difficult words or verses to extremes (for example taking it too literally).

God is frequently being presented as a despotic power who simply decides what is just purely by his might, in Calvinism. This may produce fear, but not love.

So, if common Calvinists have a problem with some complexities of that, I would simply give them some official creeds/catechisms (these are created for this purpose, in the first place) and let them live their life free of complex individual theology..

Ten people will read a verse in ten different ways, anyway. As @Carl Emerson said, ones theology is frequently shaped by personal experience. Or by overall opinions, view of the world, pesimism/optimism/depression, mood, philosophy, family background etc.

Good response. . .we can't expect everyone to do the homework necessary to navigate those waters.

I love the catechisms and creeds.

Appreciate your wisdom. Thanks.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Most of the Calvinist doctrines other denominations do not agree with are based on difficult places of Paul, namely Romans. Interestingly, official Calvinist creeds or catechisms try not to go too deep in it. Its mostly individual preachers, books, posts or websites that take various difficult words or verses to extremes (for example taking it too literally).

God is frequently being presented as a despotic power who simply decides what is just purely by his might, in Calvinism. This may produce fear, but not love.

So, if common Calvinists have a problem with some complexities of that, I would simply give them some official creeds/catechisms (these are created for this purpose, in the first place) and let them live their life free of complex individual theology..

Ten people will read a verse in ten different ways, anyway. As @Carl Emerson said, ones theology is frequently shaped by personal experience. Or by overall opinions, view of the world, pesimism/optimism/depression, mood, philosophy, family background etc.

Let's not forget Heb 3:7-4:13 (which, based on its ending, I've just about concluded was from Paul).

Good response. . .we can't expect everyone to do the homework necessary to navigate those waters.

I love the catechisms and creeds.

Appreciate your wisdom. Thanks.

And Ephesians 2, and many other passages.

I have to say, based on what responses my posts invoke, that the "'despotic' presentation" you refer to is more in the view of the recipient of the presentation than that of the presenter. I speak, concerning God, of what is amazing, beautiful, precious —even enthralling— to me, invoking love for God, not the kind of fear that opposes love. But you are right in that the responses I get accuse me of saying that the God I present is vicious, hateful, even impetuous and despotic. But the whole time, I see patience, tenderness, mercy, kindness, providence, wisdom, justice, purity, purpose, power and faithfulness. The difference, it seems to me, is the worldview of self-determinism. Most believers cannot see how their choices are genuine if God causes them.

But the Westminster (at least) does go deep, but avoids extra words, when it says, “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” In ordaining all things, God ESTABLISHED all things, and that includes our choices, which, but for God's establishing them would be without effect —I would think, more like commentary than decisions. God is what makes anything real.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Maybe this would be a good way to put this: God is not swallowed up within his established creation. Creation is swallowed up within God's power. What we conceive of as "the way of things" is only so, established, by God's decree.

 

[Dan Perez]

Thats what I disagree with.

I also disagree , because in Rom 5:13 is WRITTEN by Paul , For until the LAW sin was in the world , BUT SIN is Not being IMPUTED , there not being LAW ,

dan p

 

[Clare73]

I also disagree , because in Rom 5:13 is WRITTEN by Paul , For until the LAW sin was in the world , BUT SIN is Not being IMPUTED , there not being LAW ,

dan p

The Greek word there is not "imputed" (logizomai), it is "charged" (ellogao). . .sin is not charged against, causing death, where there is no law with death penalty, yet they all died anyway. . .how?

So also is Christ's righteousness imputed (logizomai) to us (Ro 4:1-11),
just as Adam's sin is imputed to us (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[Carl Emerson]

Hi, Carl,

If I may, let me comment on free will.
And let me begin by saying I don't do "isms," I do Scripture. My only "ism" is "Paulism."
So I am not versed in "Calvinism and free will."

However, the sovereignty of God is not in conflict with the "free will" of man, which debate started over 1500 years ago, in defense of man's responsibility for sin.
While "free will" is not a Biblical notion, we do see it in operation in the Bible, it being the power to freely choose, without any external force or constraint, what one prefers.

But the human will does not operate in a vacuum, it is governed by the disposition--what one prefers, likes.
And God brings men to himself by operating in their dispositions, giving them to prefer him and his will, and then they freely and willingly choose him.

So God does not violate man's free will in bringing them to himself, he uses it to bring men to himself.

Not sure I fully agree with your thesis on this...

It seems to me that man's free will and God's choosing are not compatible concepts.

There is scriptural support for God's choosing.

As it pertains to salvation I don't believe free will plays a part as this happens before birth.

However free will plays a large part in our conscious response to God and we are rewarded for obedience.

But most folks don't see the two sperate issues - salvation and choosing - obedience and reward.