There is a lot of Scripture that seems to me to show God as VERY particular whom he creates for what uses.
I agree.
That does not mean what those verses state, or the concepts they imply, apply in all circumstances. Imo, one of the errors in the soteriological debate is that of the false dichotomy. People are only either X or only Y, and X and Y are discretely defined. Perhaps a better understanding is there are Xs and Ys but there is a lot of diversity within each category. Pharoah, for example would be an example of an individual who was a sinner - as are all humans - but his life was uniquely determined to have specific purpose and outcomes... on the "more sinful" side of the equation. Judas would be another example of the "more" sinful side. Moses and Saul of Tarsus would be examples of the "more grace" side of the equation. Jacob and Esau the same. That does not mean God hates all X people in the same way or the same degree before they are born, or that He loves all Y people in the same identical way or to the same degree before they are born. Most of us are not going to have our lives recorded in the history of the world as notable persons. Jacob and Esau, Moses and Pharoah, Paul and Saul (he was his own worst enemy
) are the exceptions to the rule, not the rule. God knows the plans He has for each of us, but we're not all world-changing people. To use another analogy, most of us are sheep, not shepherds and one of the biggest problems we have is mistakenly thinking we're shepherds when we're not.
Jacob, Moses, and Saul/Paul are examples of specific individuals prepared by God from birth to be who they were and do what they did and there isn't much, if any, evidence someone else could have taken their place. This is more obvious on the other side of the equation. When the 400 years of Hebrew enslavement was up the pharaoh at that time was gonna pay and suffer. He did not have any option.
And it is ultimately logical.
That is true as long as overgeneralizations, false dichotomies, false causes, and other fallacies are avoided. Logical fallacies are never logical
.
He didn't look down to corridors of time to see that anyone would become sinful, in order to pick from the group.
I completely agree and nothing I have posted should be construed to say otherwise.
Nor did he wait to see if Adam would sin.
I completely agree and nothing I have posted should be construed to say otherwise.
I think he made each individual specifically for every use that he had in mind for them, to include their final end.
That is not much of a god.
Any god with creative faculties can make action figures that do only what they are made to do. Comparatviely speaking a God that can make a creation full of unrealized dialectics inhabited with creatures of various volitional agency AND still have His purpose accomplished is a much, much bigger, better, greater, smarter, wiser, mighty, capable God than the god of little green army or Kens and Barbies. The latter god would not correctly be called a God and s/he/it would certainly not be the God of the Bible.
I can't even imagine him picking some randomly from a group of possibles.
False dichotomy. The options are not randomness or strict determinism. Might also be a red herring or a straw man because no one argues God is "random." Strict determinism would also be an outlier view of Calvinism, not the representative view. Remember: fallacy is never logical.
- Is God's choosing of the elect for His glory?
Agreed. God's choosing of Jacob over Esau was also to demonstrate the riches of his glory, and that, before the twins had done anything good or bad.
It is pleasing when siblings dwell together in unity
.
I don't see how this answers the question of whether or not they are created for Christ.
False dichotomy. I did not say it answered that question. The matter of God's glory is irrelevant to who, why, how one is created in/for Christ because all people glorify God.
To me there is no escaping the simple logic: If God is First Cause, he created them.
Yep.
He did not at some later point decide to whom of those he created to show mercy.
The problem here it the anthropomorphizing of time. There is no "before," "after" or "later point" in eternity. If you and I found ourselves lost in the woods we'd have no way of knowing which way to go without a reference point and a destination or goal to be reached. We could determine east, west, north, and south by observing the rise of the sun, but if we had a compass that would be better and provide more accurate information, but we'd still need a destination. The sun and the magnetic pole are design specs. So too are the valleys and mountains, streams, rivers, lakes, etc. The woods is mostly a two-dimensional environment but the mountains and valleys, etc. do provide some degree of "up and down."
Conversely, if we awoke floating in outer space then east, west, north, and south would be meaningless. So too would sideways, up, and down. Again, we would need a point of reference in order to move with any purpose and objective. In both these cases (the woods and outer space) the point of reference exists external to us. We are not our own reference point. Thinking we are is hugely erroneous. Keep in mind this is still a three-dimensional environment.
We must add three things for this analogy to be relevant to God. The first addition is the addition of time
and ten other dimensions. The second addition is God's external existence. The last addition is His being His own
objective reference point.
There is no "later point" for an externally existing Creator of a 10 or 11 dimensional creation and it is profound hubris for a creature living solely within a very limited four-dimensional part of that creation to think his experience is representative of the Creator.
There is nothing logical about that.
So....
While I believe I understand your concerns, I hope you now see there are some flaws in it. Imputation, false causes, false dichotomies, strict determinism, randomness, linear temporal limits, and whatever else I cited all need to be corrected and even if I got some of my appraisal of your concerns wrong, I did not get all of it wrong.