IS FREE WILL AN ATTRIBUTE GOD GIFTED TO MAN?

[Iconoclast]

I would think that Eve would be the first example of a freewill choice as she gave that which was forbidden to Adam as they shared in a freewill choice to disobey God.

With permission from Joe R. Price to use what he has written about freewill.

FREEWILL
By Joe R. Price
joe@bibleanswer.com

God did not predestine the man (which individuals would be saved & lost), He predestined the plan (how men would be saved) - read again Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 1:3-12; Rom. 8:28-30; 10:9-17.

Our friend Joe Price is clearly wrong. he mentions rom 8:29-30...4x it says WHOM, ie the persons...Whom He did Foreknow, ...NOT WHAT, [ as in the plan ]

The Bible reveals that regarding free-will and predestination it is not one or the other, but rather both. That is, the Bible teaches both the free-will of man and God's election or predestination. Unfortunately the teachings and creeds of men have misdefined these Biblical concepts so that the impression is left that one cannot have both, but only one or the other. We must accept the whole counsel of God on this subject instead of the wisdom of men (Gal. 1:6-10; 1 Cor. 1:18-21).

Many people teach that man either has no free-will (fatalism) or limited amounts of it. The Bible teaches that every person with a moral capacity has the freedom of will to decide whether or not to obey God.

No, the bible teaches that the natural man CANNOT....you say he can, but God says he cannot.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Simply put, the Bible teaches that God elected (predestined or set in place) to save every soul who fears (respects) God and works righteousness, (Acts 10:34-35). That is, before time eternal, God predestined that men would be saved "in Christ" (Eph. 1:3-4, 7-12). God predestined the "plan" of human redemption (cf. Eph. 3:10-11).

No God knows us by name, not a plan, but people ,saints,

God also determined that man would have free-will, the ability and responsibility to choose to obey Him (cf. Gen. 3:1-6; Josh. 24:15; Matt. 11:28). God did not predestine the man (which individuals would be saved & lost), He predestined the plan (how men would be saved) - read again Acts 10:34-35; Eph. 1:3-12; Rom. 8:28-30; 10:9-17.

One false idea, leads to all the false ideas here.

Some do not understand the above passages on predestination.

It seems as if the truth has eluded you on this.

They think that if a person is not of those predestinated, he is just out of luck, is eternally damned, and there is nothing he can do about it. However, it is a particular group or class of people that God chose before the foundation of the world and not individuals. It is up to us to be part of that class of those "in Him" if we want to be of the chosen.

Falsehood. It is up to God 100%

 

[for_his_glory]

Our friend Joe Price is clearly wrong. he mentions rom 8:29-30...4x it says WHOM, ie the persons...Whom He did Foreknow, ...NOT WHAT, [ as in the plan ]

No, the bible teaches that the natural man CANNOT....you say he can, but God says he cannot.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.



No God knows us by name, not a plan, but people ,saints,

One false idea, leads to all the false ideas here.

It seems as if the truth has eluded you on this.

Falsehood. It is up to God 100%

Yes, God knows us by name , but have you followed after Christ when you came from your mothers womb? Have you lived your whole life as being pleasing unto the Lord? I would have to say no because we have all sinned and fallen short of His glory and that is why God's plan of salvation through Christ Jesus was before the foundation of the world as God is omniscient knowing us before the foundation of the world. Remember, we were created to be holy and blameless before Him, but all have fallen short. Do you think that God did not know that Adam and Eve would sin?

 

[JLB]

Our friend Joe Price is clearly wrong. he mentions rom 8:29-30...4x it says WHOM, ie the persons...Whom He did Foreknow, ...NOT WHAT, [ as in the plan ]

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
Romans 8:29-30

• He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son

The plan is to be conformed to the image of His Son.

Yes He foreknew us.

He predestined whom He foreknew, to be conform to His purpose.


Predestination is always about purpose not salvation.



JLB

 

[Iconoclast]

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
Romans 8:29-30

• He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son

The plan is to be conformed to the image of His Son.

Yes He foreknew us.

He predestined whom He foreknew, to be conform to His purpose.


Predestination is always about purpose not salvation.



JLB

My friend..... WHOM...are individual people

 

[JLB]

My friend..... WHOM...are individual people

Whom refers to people.

Being conformed to the image of His Son is what His purpose is, for those whom He foreknew.

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Romans 8:29

Predestination is about purpose, not salvation.

That is the context as Paul continues in Chapter 9 —

For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. Romans 9:3-5

• of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. Romans 9:3-5

The purpose for the elect, the Jews was to be the bloodline lineage of Christ.


And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), Romans 9:10-11

• that the purpose of God according to election might stand

Election is for purpose, not salvation.

Jacob was chosen over Esau, to be the lineage of Christ.


Jacob was not chosen for salvation while Esau was chosen for eternal damnation. That is silly, and a gross misunderstanding of the context.





JLB

 

[Tenchi]

You do not see it yet. Let me try this way. It was ordained by God the Job was afflicted by Satan, but he could not take his life. Are you suggesting that God forced Satan to afflict Job?

I wouldn't contend for such a thing since it is not something I believe, but I know of several prominent Calvinist/Reformed teachers who would. They might not put it as you have here, exactly, but essentially they would say that, though God meticulously ordains whatsoever comes to pass, He does so in such a way as to allow Him to escape responsibility for what He ordained to come to pass, the responsibility for actions He ordained falling instead upon those simply acting according to His sovereign decree.

Also, same case with Judas. Did he want the 30 pieces of silver, or did Jesus force him to betray Him?

According to Calvinism, who ordained Judas's desires? God, ultimately. Yes, Judas did what he desired to do, but, at bottom, all of His desires, on Calvinism, are meticulously set by God who decrees whatsoever comes to pass. Who, then, bears responsibility for Judas's mercenary conduct? Not Judas. On Calvinism, he was simply acting according to what God had decreed He should do.

You cite Jer. 19:5...are you suggesting that a 100% Omniscient God had something slip by Him without crossing His mind??? or could it have a different meaning?

What does the verse say? Did God indicate in it that He had meticulously ordained the murder of children on the red-hot arms of Molech?

The wording of the Confession of faith is the consensus of several learned Pastors, based upon the scripture, not just pulling things out of the air.

Nonetheless, it is not divinely-inspired Scripture, nor is the section you quoted accepted without controversy. Really, it only carries weight with those who already agree with it. The rest of us just shrug our shoulders and think, "Meh, no. That's not in God's word."

Nothing can happen, that was not ordained to come to pass. The atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. It was ordained to come to pass. Did God himself,
1]create the bomb ?
2] load the bomb on the plane ?
3] Give the order to drop the bomb ?
4] Fly the plane ?
These are secondary means that were used.

??? Whether God had dropped the bomb upon Hiroshima from His own hand or had decreed that it should be dropped from the airplane that actually dropped it, on Calvinism, having meticulously ordained the event of its dropping, He is the One ultimately responsible for it.

 

[Iconoclast]

I wouldn't contend for such a thing since it is not something I believe, but I know of several prominent Calvinist/Reformed teachers who would. They might not put it as you have here, exactly, but essentially they would say that, though God meticulously ordains whatsoever comes to pass, He does so in such a way as to allow Him to escape responsibility for what He ordained to come to pass, the responsibility for actions He ordained falling instead upon those simply acting according to His sovereign decree.



According to Calvinism, who ordained Judas's desires? God, ultimately. Yes, Judas did what he desired to do, but, at bottom, all of His desires, on Calvinism, are meticulously set by God who decrees whatsoever comes to pass. Who, then, bears responsibility for Judas's mercenary conduct? Not Judas. On Calvinism, he was simply acting according to what God had decreed He should do.



What does the verse say? Did God indicate in it that He had meticulously ordained the murder of children on the red-hot arms of Molech?



Nonetheless, it is not divinely-inspired Scripture, nor is the section you quoted accepted without controversy. Really, it only carries weight with those who already agree with it. The rest of us just shrug our shoulders and think, "Meh, no. That's not in God's word."



??? Whether God had dropped the bomb upon Hiroshima from His own hand or had decreed that it should be dropped from the airplane that actually dropped it, on Calvinism, having meticulously ordained the event of its dropping, He is the One ultimately responsible for it.

I see why you ask questions on this...That God ordains something does not mean he causes it! There is a difference between ...ordain vs, decree.
God is Holy...Nothing exists outside of His control. I think we agree on this, as I like many of your posts and agree. I will try and present more on this.
Going to eat now, but will respond to the rest of your post later on

 

[Iconoclast]

I wouldn't contend for such a thing since it is not something I believe, but I know of several prominent Calvinist/Reformed teachers who would. They might not put it as you have here, exactly, but essentially they would say that, though God meticulously ordains whatsoever comes to pass, He does so in such a way as to allow Him to escape responsibility for what He ordained to come to pass, the responsibility for actions He ordained falling instead upon those simply acting according to His sovereign decree.



According to Calvinism, who ordained Judas's desires? God, ultimately. Yes, Judas did what he desired to do, but, at bottom, all of His desires, on Calvinism, are meticulously set by God who decrees whatsoever comes to pass. Who, then, bears responsibility for Judas's mercenary conduct? Not Judas. On Calvinism, he was simply acting according to what God had decreed He should do.



What does the verse say? Did God indicate in it that He had meticulously ordained the murder of children on the red-hot arms of Molech?



Nonetheless, it is not divinely-inspired Scripture, nor is the section you quoted accepted without controversy. Really, it only carries weight with those who already agree with it. The rest of us just shrug our shoulders and think, "Meh, no. That's not in God's word."



??? Whether God had dropped the bomb upon Hiroshima from His own hand or had decreed that it should be dropped from the airplane that actually dropped it, on Calvinism, having meticulously ordained the event of its dropping, He is the One ultimately responsible for it.

According to your explanation you could reason like this;
God is the Creator of the universe.
Sin exists...therefore
God is the Author of sin.
Let's blame God for all sin, because if He did not create us, there would be no sin.
This would be the result of you and other free willers trying to keep the idol of free will alive.

If I am wrong, explain how your post does not lead to these conclusions. You also have to have an answer for the sin problem. I maintain God is not the author of sin, it is not possible.

 

[GodsGrace]

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil.

Jeremiah says no.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Seems to me that making the right moral choice would please God. Paul says the unregenerate cannot do that.

Of course the unregenerate cannot please God.
They're walking in the flesh and not in the spirit.

The question is:
HOW does one come to please God?

Jesus said REPENT FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NEAR.
Matthew 4:17

This is a command for everyone.
Jesus preached to everyone that came within his voice.
This is
This is HOW a person can be saved.

Peter preached after the ascension of Jesus. He preached what Jesus had taught him.
Acts 10:35
...but in every nation THE MAN WHO FEARS HIM AND DOES WHAT IS RIGHT, is welcome to Him.

This is WHO can be saved.

 

[Tenchi]

According to your explanation you could reason like this;
God is the Creator of the universe.
Sin exists...therefore
God is the Author of sin.
Let's blame God for all sin, because if He did not create us, there would be no sin.

Again, I don't myself subscribe to the idea that God is the Ultimate Source of Evil. But there are Calvinist/Reformed folk (high Calvinists, to be precise) who do think this - though they don't frame this point of view in a way that is so unflattering to God.

My own perspective on the...tension(?) between God's sovereignty and Man's freedom to choose is a mixture of Provisionism and Molinism that resolves that tension without doing violence to God's word (as I think Reformed thinking does), or to simple reason.

This would be the result of you and other free willers trying to keep the idol of free will alive.

If I am wrong, explain how your post does not lead to these conclusions. You also have to have an answer for the sin problem. I maintain God is not the author of sin, it is not possible.

"Free willers" and "trying to keep the idol of free will alive" are not helpful remarks to make in discussions with those upon whom you are levying such descriptions. Calvinists can't seem to resist throwing out these provocative and ugly labels and descriptions...

I agree that God is not the Author of Sin. But not by appealing to "mystery," as the Calvinist/Reformed proponent does. God's omniscience is key. See Molinism.

 

[Whatever]

HOW does one come to please God?

Jesus said REPENT FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NEAR.
Matthew 4:17

Yes, it is a command for everybody. But there is a big problem:
1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

A natural man does not receive (to receive favorably, give ear to, embrace, make one's own, approve, not to reject) this command.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

He is not subject to. the law of God.
Subject = to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience
Law = anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command

But then, who can be saved if they cannot obey the command to repent?
Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)

Even when you were dead in sin and unable to obey, He made you alive.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
see = get knowledge of, understand, perceive

It's pretty clear to those willing to hear. You must be born again first by the unconditional power of God.

 

[Iconoclast]

I found a few articles discussing Molinism and its misconceptions. One article from Zondervan Academic1 explains that Molinism is often misunderstood as being only for Catholics, but it is actually a theological thought-system that is relevant to Christians of all theological stripes. Another article from Ligonier Ministries2 explains that the Reformed held that all that occurs is unconditionally decreed by God and that men and women are responsible for their actions, so they saw no need for a third kind of divine knowledge, a middle knowledge, which depended upon God foreseeing what possible people would freely do in certain circumstances. Finally, an article from Oxford Academic3 discusses the contemporary debate surrounding Molinism and its problems. The article explains that there are three problems with Molinism: the semantics of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, truth-makers for counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, and how counterfactuals of creaturely freedom can be true prior to creation.

I hope this information helps you understand more about Molinism and its misconceptions.

 

[Iconoclast]

Molinism 101

God’s Knowledge In thinking about God’s knowledge theologically it was customary for many years, until and including the Reformation, to distinguish between God

www.ligonier.org

God’s Knowledge​

In thinking about God’s knowledge theologically it was customary for many years, until and including the Reformation, to distinguish between God’s necessary knowledge and His free knowledge. The distinction is obvious and natural. God’s necessary knowledge includes several kinds of truths. It is the knowledge of matters such as the truths of mathematics (for example, 2+2=4). It is also the knowledge of truths such as the whole is greater than the part and no circle can be a square. God’s necessary knowledge also includes His knowledge of all possibilities, such as possible people, the possible lives they could lead, and the whole range of possible worlds. These are known to God immediately and intuitively.

God’s free knowledge, on the other hand, is His knowledge of His decree (of that which, in His wisdom, God freely and unchangeably ordained to come to pass). That which God decrees is obviously a subset of all the possibilities that are known to Him. His decree also has its source solely in His mind and will.

Middle Knowledge​

In the late 1500’s a new kind of knowledge was proposed by two Iberian Jesuit thinkers, Luis de Molina (1535-1600) and Pedro da Fonseca (1528-1599). Middle knowledge (or “Molinism” as it came to be called), was their contribution to a controversy within the Roman Catholic church over grace, free will and predestination. In our own time Molinism has been proposed by Alvin Plantinga and others in connection with God’s relation to evil. I think it is fair to say that while Roman Catholic theologians have long discussed middle knowledge in their textbooks, recent interest in it has been due to Plantinga and his discussion of the topic in his book God, Freedom and Evil.

What is middle knowledge? At the center of this recent interest has been God's knowledge of possibilities involving human choice (the “counterfactuals of freedom” as they have been called). Why this innovation? Its proponents are concerned to preserve what they consider to be two vital beliefs. The first is God’s providence and total foreknowledge. The second is the idea that human beings are ineradicably free in an indeterministic sense. When we speak of indeterministic freedom, we mean that any human being, in a given set of circumstances, has the power to choose A or to choose not-A. The problem is obvious. How can this be consistent with God’s universal providential rule and His purposes of redemption?

The Molinists’ way of attempting to keep all this together was to suggest that there existed, besides God’s natural knowledge and His free knowledge, a third kind of knowledge. They argued that God also has “middle knowledge” (between the other two). What this means can be briefly explained. Given a whole array of possible worlds (that God knows), given worlds in which men and women were free in the relevant indeterministic sense, God knows what they would freely choose in every possible circumstance. God has knowledge of all such possible outcomes. If placed in one set of circumstances, God knows what Jones would freely choose. If placed in another set of circumstances, God knows what Jones would freely choose. This is true for all possible people and all possible circumstances. God has this middle knowledge by inspection of all the possibilities that the free will of each person might choose.

In His power and wisdom, He chooses that possible world, that total combination of individuals and circumstances, whose expressions of free will best serve His purposes. Thus, God’s omniscience is preserved, and human free will is preserved. The moral evil that occurs in the chosen world is not the direct responsibility of God but of those creatures who exercise their choices in a malevolent fashion.

What Are The Implications of Molinism?​

We need to emphasize that the view of free will held by Molinists both ancient and modern is what is often called “libertarianism” or “indeterminism.” By contrast their opponents, in the Roman Catholic Church and in the churches of the Reformation, have held views of human freedom that are deliberately consistent with God’s decree of all that comes to pass and the irresistibility of His grace.

What About Biblical Arguments for Molinism?​

Insofar as its proponents sought direct biblical support for middle knowledge, they used the example of David at Keilah recorded in 1 Samuel 23. At this point in the biblical narrative, the Philistines were attacking Keilah. David asked the Lord if he should go to Keilah to fight the Philistines, and the Lord said that he should. David’s companions were fearful and so David enquired a second time. At Keilah, fearing that Saul would attack him there, David asked the Lord whether Saul would come to Keilah. At this point, we read the following conversation:

And the Lord said “He will come down.” Then he said “Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the Lord said, “They will surrender you.” Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. (1 Samuel 23:11–13)

To the minds of the Molinists, this incident showed middle knowledge at work, for it showed that the Lord knew what would happen if a certain free action occurred (they assumed that David and the other participants were acting with free will in the libertarian sense). God knew that if David freely stayed at Keilah, then the Keilahites would freely surrender him. So David freely took evasive action, and Saul freely gave up the expedition against David when he learned of what David had done. God knew all of this (and much more besides) by His foreknowledge.

What Is Wrong with Molinism?​

Since the Reformed held that all that occurs is unconditionally decreed by God and that men and women are responsible for their actions, they saw no need for a third kind of divine knowledge, a middle knowledge, which depended upon God foreseeing what possible people would freely do in certain circumstances. The Reformed interpreted the Keilah incident differently. God did not simply see what Saul would do; He ordained that Saul would come down if David remained. He ordained that David would depart from Keilah upon hearing what Saul would do. And He ordained that Saul would change his mind.

Not only is middle knowledge unnecessary to an all-knowing, all-decreeing God, but the Molinists’ conception of free will makes it impossible for God to exercise providential control over his creation. Why? Because men and women would be free to resist His decree. God can only bring to pass the actions of free agents via His middle knowledge of what they would freely do if . . .

Further, given the Molinist view of freedom, it is impossible for God to bring about the conversion of any person by the exercise of His effective call, for in the view of the Molinists it is always possible for an individual to resist God's grace. Men and women must freely cooperate with what God says and does if they are to become Christians. God’s grace is always resistible. Reformed Christians have no good reason to accept the speculative concept of middle knowledge and strong reasons to reject it.

Conclusion​

In conclusion, we may say that there is much that is interesting and puzzling about Molinism, but the Reformed response to it has been—and should continue to be—that not only are there unresolved difficulties in the idea of middle knowledge itself, it is also an unnecessary speculation. Scripture scarcely mentions anything that may be thought to give support to Molinism, while teaching perfectly clearly that God works all things, even the evil actions of people who act with full responsibility, after the counsel of His own will. As Peter said on the Day of Pentecost, Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” and lawless men crucified and killed him (Acts 2:23).

 

[GodsGrace]

You do not understand Calvinism.

Hi Elected,
You've told me the same many times.

It's not that we don't understand Calvinism/Reformed theology,
it's that we don't agree with it.

Also, there are different nuances of beliefs within calvinism, so, instead of telling someone they don't understand (which breaks TOS BTW) why not just express what you understand to be the truth and have a real conversation.


(and remember that you're in Apologetics, not Calvinism)

 

[GodsGrace]

I found a few articles discussing Molinism and its misconceptions. One article from Zondervan Academic1 explains that Molinism is often misunderstood as being only for Catholics, but it is actually a theological thought-system that is relevant to Christians of all theological stripes. Another article from Ligonier Ministries2 explains that the Reformed held that all that occurs is unconditionally decreed by God and that men and women are responsible for their actions, so they saw no need for a third kind of divine knowledge, a middle knowledge, which depended upon God foreseeing what possible people would freely do in certain circumstances. Finally, an article from Oxford Academic3 discusses the contemporary debate surrounding Molinism and its problems. The article explains that there are three problems with Molinism: the semantics of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, truth-makers for counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, and how counterfactuals of creaturely freedom can be true prior to creation.

I hope this information helps you understand more about Molinism and its misconceptions.

Actually, I have to disagree with Molinism too.

It's a type of God ordaining events.
I'm very opposed to any such idea, no matter how it could be explained.

 

[GodsGrace]

No it does not "clearly teach FREE WILL"...It teaches a totally depraved heart....a Will bound by sin, and not at all free.

An unregenerated will is a will that is in service to satan and will always tend toward sin.
All of Christianity agrees with this. Which seems to be what you're stating.

Free will only means that the will is free, when it tends toward sin, to either sin or not sin.

An unsaved person can either steal that book or pay for it.
Most will tend to pay for it even thought their will tends toward evil.

Also, because they decide to pay for the book does not even mean that they are saved, changed, transformed, etc.

It only means that they have a conscience and a will....
and in that particular case they decided to not steal.

They used their free will to make this decision.

If your theology were correct, it would mean that they had no free will except that to serve satan due to their being unregenerate and so they would have been practically forced to steal the book.

Only those who do not understand spiritual death correctly would offer a wounded Adam, not a dead Adam.

Actually, Adam was wounded or stained.
He was not dead.

We can know this because Adam and Eve continued to have a relation ship with God.

Genesis 3:21
And the LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
God cared enough for his creation that He made a covering for them.
The first sacrifice of an animal for God's creation.
He cared enough for them so as to make a plan for their salvation --- Jesus.

Genesis 4:1
....I have gotten a man-child with the help of the LORD.
Eve believed God had helped her conceive.
They were banished from the Garden, but still had a relationship with God, although broken in nature.

They were not spiritually UNABLE to have a rapport with God.
The relationship was not as before and future generations would have to follow God's plan for salvation.

Regarding Jesus crying over Jerusalem....
Why would Jesus cry over something He knew man had no control over?
He wouldn't.
He would have understood that there was nothing to cry about.
Instead he wept for those that would not accept Him and be saved.
He knew that it was up to each person, individually, to accept Him or reject Him.

Free will is throughout the bible for those that wish to see it.

 

[GodsGrace]

I trust my wife enormously, but she has changed her mind about many things...

She's allowed to change her mind!!

 

[GodsGrace]

What keeps some people from Christ? Al Martin outlines four important reasons:
1) Ignorance of your desperate need of Christ;
2) Impenitence before the searching demands of Christ;
3) Unbelief with respect to the promises of Christ;
4) Unwarranted expectation of additional revelation from Christ.
These are often the reasons many will not come to Christ. May the Lord draw many more to Himself, breaking down all their excuses!
https://www.chapellibrary.org/book/rwsw/

I agree.
Even gave you a like.
But nowhere on your list does it state that unbelief is due to God passing over an individual.

 

[Tenchi]

I found a few articles discussing Molinism and its misconceptions.

When this is how you begin in addressing a different, opposing perspective, it immediately demonstrates that you aren't seeking Truth but just defending doctrinal turf. I'm well-informed about Molinism, which is why I subscribe to it. Does it have all the answers to every question pertaining to God's sovereignty and Man's free will? No. But no soteriological perspective I know of has all the answers. Molinism, though, is far more fruitful, in my view, in making sense of what is in Scripture than is Reformed doctrine.

One of the things I try my best to avoid is gaining an understanding of a view by the characterizations of it by its enemies. In other words, if I want to be sure to not understand Molinism or Provisionism well, I will let a Calvinist tell me what these perspectives propose. To gain the fullest, clearest conception of any doctrinal perspective, I must go to its chief and best proponents and from them obtain an understanding of the perspective.

This doesn't mean I don't consider the objections and challenges of the detractors of a particular doctrinal point of view, only that I will not let them be the primary source from which I obtain my understanding of that point of view. In my experience, Calvinists are quick to curate information about an opposing view, redacting good rebuttals to Calvinist objections to the view, thus making it seem the view is insupportable, or fatally-flawed.

In any case, I would urge those interested in Molinism or Provisionism to ignore Calvinist sources of information about these doctrinal perspectives and go to Dr. William Lane Craig (www.reasonablefaith.org), or Dr. Kenneth Keathley ("Salvation and Sovereignty: A Molinist Approach"), for careful and lucid explanations of Molinism and to Dr. Roger Olson, or Dr. Leighton Flowers, for explanations of Provisionism.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes, it is a command for everybody. But there is a big problem:
1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

A natural man does not receive (to receive favorably, give ear to, embrace, make one's own, approve, not to reject) this command.

Agreed.
The unsaved certainly do not understand the bible.
It takes those who have the spirit of God to understand.
Paul states that AFTER we have become spiritually alive, we can have access to all that God teaches, which has been hidden from the beginning, the plan of God as to how to save mankind.
Verses 11 and 12 tell us that we have learned this great gift of God (our salvation) from Jesus Himself and that Paul is now passing this on to the Corinthians.

The problem here is that 1 Cor 2:14 just states that the unsaved man does not accept the things of God.

It is NOT speaking as to HOW to become saved, but addressing those that are saved b ecause Paul calls them FRIENDS and speaks of the FIRST TIME that he had gone to the Corinthians and how he spoke to them.

This is how salvation is achieved:

Acts 16:31
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Again, we are commanded to do something...
there is an action we must take...

BELIEVE in the Lord Jesus to be saved.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

Again.
Agreed.

He is not subject to. the law of God.
Subject = to subordinate; reflexively to obey: - be under obedience
Law = anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command

But then, who can be saved if they cannot obey the command to repent?
Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us,
Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)

Your conflating the law of God with The Law.
Romans 8 states that those who are in Christ are no longer under condemnation.
The Law brings sin and death. Verse 6.
Those in the flesh cannot please God because of their egotistical life.
They absolutely cannot subject themselves to God. Verse 7

Paul is teaching that we are not under obligation to the flesh, Verse 12
but by the spirit, and so we are sons of God. Verse 14

Again, these verses do not state HOW one becomes saved.

Could you post a verse that states that God CHOOSES who will be saved?
We could discuss that verse instead.

Even when you were dead in sin and unable to obey, He made you alive.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
see = get knowledge of, understand, perceive

It's pretty clear to those willing to hear. You must be born again first by the unconditional power of God.

You must be born again before you could be born again as in John 3:3?

That verse does not state this. It just states we must be born again. Once.
Is there a better verse?