Calvinism revisited

This post will revisit an issue that I discussed many posts ago in "TULIP is Not Biblical."

Disclaimer:
I am not, nor will I pretend to be, a Calvinist by any stretch of the imagination. However, I am also decidedly NOT an Arminian, either. Both major camps in this argument have major questions that I am not convinced they have answers for that conform to what the Scriptures have to say.

For the Calvinist, two issues. First question is how do they get around the issue of Atonement?
Calvinism teaches that Christ only died for those who accept Him, However, The Scriptures clearly state that Christ died for all mankind:

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:12-18)

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. (I Timothy 2:1-4)

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (I John 2:1-2)

I could be wrong here, but it seems that Calvinists have two basic options when they come to these verses. One is to let go of their concept of Limited Atonement. The other is to reinterpret these passages to fit into their theological grid. The latter can be quite dangerous hermeneutically, and I will have more to say about this later.
How does a Calvinist view the Scriptures above?

(Side issue but very important: Those who reject the Calvinist view of Limited Atonement, do not necessarily believe in Universal Salvation, which is clearly NOT taught by the Scriptures. I, for one, believe that Christ did indeed die for the sins of the whole world. However, not all will accept the offer of Atonement provided by Christ. The offer is Universal but many will reject the offer. So while the sacrifice of Christ was sufficient for all, it was only efficient for those who choose to surrender themselves to Him. Universal Opportunity, but Not Universal Salvation.)

The second issue that Calvinists have to deal with is the Problem of evil. How did evil get into the universe? If mankind has no free will, that how did evil get here? We know that evil exists, so why is it here. One way that Calvinists respond is with the idea of supralapsarianism, which says that God decreed the Fall of mankind before the creation. If this idea is true, then God is the author of evil, because God willed mankind kind to commit the first sin. However, We know from Scripture that God cannot be the author of evil. (James 1:13; see also 1 Corinthians 14:33)
How does a Calvinist deal with the problem of evil?

As I said, the Armenians have some issues that they must deal with as well.
For One, The role of God in drawing men to Salvation. Armenians say that it is completely man's decision in salvation. That does not square with John 6:44. So how does an Armenian get around that?

A Second issue is the issue of God's Sovereignty. Arminians place such an emphasis on free will that God's omnipotence and Sovereignty is can be obscured, and some go so far as to say that God is limited in His Sovereignty. This is known as Open Theism, which states that God either cannot know or chooses not to know the future. This is contradicted by basically the ENTIRE body of Scripture, which portrays God knowing the future and in complete control of all of His attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.

Again, the only way Arminians can get around these issues is to fit what the Bible says into their theological grid

We all do that in some way- Fit what is in the Scriptures into our Theological grid. I do the very same thing, and we must stop. We must take the Scriptures at face value and base our theology on the them, not base our Bible on our theology. SOLA SCRIPTURA!

I would love to hear from you Calvinists and Armenians out there on how you answer the questions I raised. I am interested in your responses!