You are correct that people could easily come to either conclusion, however, if you follow correct guidelines for interpreting scripture (i.e. you interpret the implicit based on the explicit) I believe that you will not come to an Arminian view.

As for the verses you cited, not one of them teaches what you propose that they teach. To find out what is meant by a passage or verse, you must ask yourself these questions (they are basically the same, but are worded slightly differently). 1) What did the author intend his readers to understand from his writing. 2) What did the readers likely understand the writing to mean.

One rule of interpretation that I think you have violated is that you must interpret the history narratives by the didactic, or teaching, portions of scripture. You took Joshua 24:15 and 1 Kings 18:21 (among others), which are historical narratives, and drew from them a meaning that was neither intended by the author, nor supported by the explicit didactic teaching of the rest of scripture.

Here is an example of a passage in which the author intended to communicate to his readers that God’s choice, rather than man’s choice, is the ultimate deciding factor in whether or not a person will be saved. Not only does the author intend to communicate this message, but it is explicit. Romans 9:14-18 explicitly teaches the doctrine of election. Vs. 16 says, “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” To find out what “it” is, we must look at the context of the passage. If you read vs. 1-13, you will find that the entire chapter, up to vs. 29 is speaking of election, as stated in vs. 11. This is an example of explicit teaching. As Charles Spurgeon (I believe) once said, “As long as Romans 9 is in the Bible, no one will be able to convince me of Arminianism.”

He could keep them from being born. God in His most merciful and righteous wisdom and love, has purposed the wicked for destruction. And, you David, and me, and every other sinner deserves the same destruction.

And yet God had mercy on us! Why would He do such a thing? Because He loved us yes, but why did he love us? And if He loved all of us the same, then all would be saved.

For me a Reformed guy, there’s a mystery to God’s purpose in all this. Election and free will are a paradox to us finite humans, and we can surely discuss this deep truth until we die or the Lord returns, but there’s a spiritual missing link for this believer, and so I have to live my life out not knowing the secret things of God, but to keep dilegently studying the revealed things, so I can continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It’s the chicken and the egg thing. Admit it, one could easily come to either (or both) conclusion(s) reading scripture. You’ve opted for the one that makes God (appear) cruel, capricious, deceptive, false and double-minded. My whole thing is to say: let’s not fight. I do not believe I ’saved myself’ or any such thing. I just want to challenge the notion that non-Calvinists are senitmental sots who are biblically illiterate. Remember: I believe God allows millions to come to term, be born, grow up, etc. KNOWING they’re going to hell…I merely deny that He makes the decision for them. We’re pretty much on the same page. Oh, yes, he is sovereign also.

If God ‘listens to’ a man (which He has many times), He knew that man would pray obediently anyway. He does not react.