Calvinism is a diverse and complex theological system. When one attempts a study of the system, it doesn’t take long to discover that there are many side roads and many twists and turns in the path to understanding. The problem is complicated by those who hold to the system because there is no single view that all Calvinists accept.
The Calvinists will tend to emphasize the role of “God” in loving the world and giving the Son. The Arminians will tend to stress the word “whosoever” as indicating human freedom and the human decision-making process in salvation.
It would seem that to submit humbly to Christ’s teaching would require a willful act on the part of the believer rather than a forced submission. Once again I would argue, the only part in salvation that man can play, and must play, is that of a beggar who in response to God’s calling cries out like the Publican, “God be merciful to me a sinner.”
A modified Arminian-Calvinistic position will generally not please either Calvinists or Arminians, “both of whom will seek to emphasize certain words or texts and exclude from consideration other texts and words. But in spite of all the arguments to the contrary, this tension between the divine and human aspects of salvation cannot finally be resolved by our theological gymnastics.”
While the connection of creation and redemption can be made, and God’s sovereignty as creator is clear, it is extremely difficult to see divine unconditional election being taught in this verse. There is nothing in this opening verse that would even remotely suggest that God chose some individuals to receive salvation while others would be left hopelessly lost.