Jedi, when I wrote about the hypothetical person who freely chooses to believe in God as making the "best choice," I meant that such a free, autonomous choice would be morally praiseworthy (if it were possible). As Scripture speaks clearly about all sinners being "enslaved to sin" and also states unequivocally that "no one seeks God," such a free, autonomous choice is an illusionary concept... more the product of human wishful thinking than a conclusion reached from an honest assessment of humanity's condition as depicted in the Bible. God's Word states that we are dead in our sins. How can spiritually dead people make the objectively good and wise choice to turn from their sins and trust in Christ for salvation? They can only make that choice if God opens their eyes and gives them ears to hear the Truth. If they could make the choice freely, they would not be spiritually dead-- just spiritually fatigued, or at worst, damaged. Scripture shows sinful humanity as being in a much, much worse state though.
As far as Calvinists possibly thinking that they are better than others because of God's choice in election, any Calvinist who truly understands the Reformed truth knows that God's choice of him (or her) had nothing to do with any sort of human righteousness or supposed goodness. That is the meaning of grace-- God's completely unmerited favor bestowed upon utterly undeserving rebels. God chooses the elect not because they are better, but rather, in spite of the fact that they are just as sinful and deserving of Hell as any people. Election is emphatically not favoritism on God's part. It's not about God "playing favorites." Both election and reprobation are about God displaying His attributes. Election displays God's mercy to sinners who don't deserve it. This shows His love. Reprobation displays His wrath toward sinners who do deserve it. This shows His justice. You keep saying that in order for God to be "fair," He has to "save as many people as possible." Think about the implications of that statement, in light of the fact that all human beings are willfully sinful rebels against God. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that if God were really going to be "fair," He would have to damn all of us? You have used the analogy of a lifeguard saving drowning civilians and applied it to God saving us. By your logic, for God to be fair, He has to save (or "give the opportunity to accept salvation to") as many "drowning" sinners as possible. Let's look at the analogy you are making here-- drowning civilians to lost sinners. It doesn't hold up, because the former are drowning against their will, while the latter are exactly where they want to be. Drowning people are only too happy to be rescued. However, as the Bible clearly states, lost sinners are at emnity with God. You say that although lost sinners sin (by definition), they also desire goodness. You are defining "goodness" according to your own subjective standards though. You are not defining it as the Bible does, because Scripture states that whatever is not done out of faith (in terms of moral actions) is sin. Perhaps that seems a bit harsh or extreme to you, but Scripture says it! The only morally good, pleasing acts to God are those that are done, first and foremost, out of faith in Him. Lost sinners who don't know God don't do anything out of faith in Him-- therefore, even though it might not fit your logic, according to the Bible, any act that a non-Christian does (that has a moral dimension!) is a sin. Therefore, lost sinners do not desire goodness! In order for them to do so, God has to change their hearts and minds. In other words, He has to regenerate them.
Your definition of "fairness" is also very human, very man-centered, in that it assumes that whatever would be fair for us to do would also, of necessity, be fair for God-- and in fact, if He didn't do, in His choices, what we would do (in order to be fair) in ours, then He wouldn't be fair! However, God is God, and we are not. Things that would be horrific for us to do, as finite beings, might well be good and wise for God to do, from His viewpoint of infinity. Any good human father would not willingly allow his child to be physically harmed. However, God allowed Job to be physically afflicted for His own purposes. He was sovereign over Job's suffering-- He allowed Satan to attack Job and his family. God didn't step in as soon as He saw Job starting to crack under pressure. If a human father treated his son in such a way, we would say that the man was cruel, heartless. We have no right to say such things about God though, because He sees from the beginning to the end, in all things, and we don't. He is perfectly wise, and we are not. Therefore, we cannot (and have no right to) "hold God hostage" to standards of what would or would not be fair for us to do, as finite beings with a limited view of history and reality. As I once heard someone say, each one of us has his/her own personal "perspective." However, God doesn't merely have a perspective-- He has Perspective, period. Therefore, His choice to save a person or to leave that person in his/her sins cannot be accurately evaluated for "fairness" from the viewpoint of finite humanity. He saves according to His purpose and pleasure-- and such a vantagepoint is far beyond any of us. From what the Bible states about fallen humanity and its attitude toward God though, we can know that He would be quite fair in damning all of us to Hell. In light of the fact that all humans are rebelious sinners, the real mystery is not, why doesn't God save more people? Rather, it is, why does He save any of us at all??
About Paul on the road to Damascus, you said that God "gave him an opportunity, and he accepted it." So, while on the way to persecute Christians, being knocked to the ground, blinded, and sent off for three days, only to be told at the end of that time, "You are my appointed spokesman".... that is being given an opportunity? No. Plain and simple, God chose Paul. Paul was not seeking God. He was on his way to persecute followers of the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ, when Paul was chosen by God to be a minister of the very Gospel that he was trying to destroy! Go back and read the account in Acts again-- if any situation displays God's unconditional election of sinners, it is that of Paul on the road to Damascus!
About the hypothetical "brain-damaged man" being a "madman" who needs to be "cured," you missed part of the point that I was making. A severely brain-damaged man is not culpable for his lack of lucidity, i.e. "not thinking clearly." However, a depraved sinner is culpable for his sin. The sinner's form of "not thinking clearly" is being in love with his sin, honestly enjoying it. It is a sort of "spiritual insanity," but it is not morally neutral (as being brain-damaged is), because it is self-chosen. You said, in regard to the "brain-damaged man/lost sinner" analogy, that if everyone "thought clearly," then they would all choose God. Yes... if we were all still in the Garden of Eden, and Adam and Eve had not fallen, we would all naturally choose God. However, that is obviously not the case. We are all fallen. We do not "think clearly," morally speaking-- but the problem is, without God's intervention in our lives, we don't want to think clearly. However, to display His sovereign grace and mercy, He steps in and restores some people. For others, He leaves them as they are-- which is how they want to be. That is a display of His sovereign justice. When God changes a sinner's heart so that he (or she) will be honestly, truly love God, it is not "rape"-- it is an act of love and mercy, because God is saving that person from his own destructive ways!
As for your exegesis of Romans 9, if it doesn't have to do with salvation, then why do the passages go from speaking of God's love of Jacob and hatred of Esau, based on His "purpose in election," "not by works but by Him who calls," straight over to a description of God as the "potter" and us as the "clay," finally culminating in the picture of God's "vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction?" Why are these "vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction" described as "displaying the riches of His glory to the objects of His mercy?" (my emphasis) In light of those passages, the determining choice, as to who receives wrath (damnation) and who is shown mercy (salvation), certainly seems to belong to God.
