Background of the Argument by way of Systematic Theology
Christian thought says:
That the elect are elected in Christ and this is a group.
The non-elect are not in Christ and this is a group.
The "in Christ" group will dwell with God.
The non-elect shall go to hell.God has chosen the fates of these two groups from the foundations.
The issue that this argument addresses is whether if man is allowed some form of choice regarding salvation—which he must be afforded if we are going to accept that man is held responsible for his actions before a holy God.
A typical "free will defense" is this: We should not ask if God gets His will, but if God grants man freewill. If man does have some sort of freewill then one cannot escape the fact that man will at times not fulfill God's will or desire for him. If man has not freewill then God Himself is the author of the sin he hates (God forbid!).
This defense then introduces a problem: If faith is from God, how does man go about "choosing" God? If man can "choose" God then man is capable of saving himself, but man cannot save himself, so what gives?
Reformed theology seems to sidestep this issue preferring to institute irresistible grace by presuming that God chooses men and none may resist God, thus the free will defense must ultimately fail. Moreover, so that the Biblical doctrine of the hell (i.e., the two groups) can be upheld and universalism so navigated, limited atonement is also instituted by Reformed theology, and so on through the points of Calvinism as formed at the Council of Dort. It is all very logical and seems to have credible Scripture evidence and what not from the Reformed perspective.
Neat, I say—but I do not see the conclusions that Reformed theology makes as correct. I could accept this problem of God choosing man and man "choosing" God on faith that while I don't comprehend how this works, in the mind of God it is understood fully—but since I'm young and foolish, I'm grabbing the bull by the horns and offering an argument that resolves the issue while still remaining well within the established biblical context. Thus the argument above is the fruit of my own exercise to harmonize the problem. I will happily accept criticism regarding its veracity.