There is just one brief thought I want to add to my last post. There I quoted Dr. Davis as follows: (note the italics, which are mine)
Either God has a basis for his differential treatment of the elect and non-elect or he doesn’t. If there is no basis, then God’s decision to award irresistible grace to the one but not the other of these groups is wholly arbitrary; in which case God is a reckless, unprincipled decision-maker–a conclusion which is at once both manifestly unfair (to the non-elect) and theologically appalling.
I should have pointed out that there actually are three possibilities here:
1. God has no basis whatsoever for electing some and passing over others.
2. God bases election on foreseen meritorious faith in some.
3. God has a reason for electing some and not others and we do not know what it is other than it is not foreseen merit in the individual.
Arminianism seems to teach #2. Traditionally, Calvinism has taught that #2 is wrong but individual theologians disagree over whether #1 or #3 is correct. I personally lean toward #3, but Scripture simply does not reveal answers to all the questions we would like to ask on such matters. Perhaps an even better way to put it would be a modification of #1 as follows:
4. God has no basis whatsoever that we can know or understand from our vantage point in this life for electing some and passing over others.
Perhaps that would protect both the character and sovereignty of God in the most respectful and pious manner possible. He may have a reason to discriminate between the two groups but we cannot discern it.
No matter what system of theology one follows, there is going to come a point where one has to pause in worship before the majesty of God and acknowledge the limits of human reason.
The Bayview Review 