A person or community of people can have free will, but that free will is often granted to them yet subject to boundaries.
This isn't correct: a community may impose sanctions for crossing boundaries (e.g. by stoning adulterers) but the people still can freely choose to commit the act or not. The very definition of free will is a will unencumbered by external force. Not a will that's not subject to consequences.
In this case our free will is granted by God, but we're still subject to the confines of the scope of his creation.
We either have free will or not. That doesn't mean that we aren't subject to the laws of nature (e.g. no matter how free my will is, I'll never be able to flap my hands and fly) or that we aren't subject to consequences (e.g. I choose to spend a full paycheck to buy a Rolex, and then can't afford to pay rent so I am evicted).
Ultimately this life is about one choice....it's preparation for eternity and whether we choose to spend eternity with God or without God. As a believer I surrender completely to the will of my Lord and Savior, but I also understand that despite the free will I'm granted it's still subject to his boundries.
Are you free to surrender though? Or is your surrender meaningless, in that you could not possibly do anything else?
Much like I can choose to enter someone else's home without an invitation, but that choice to enter doesn't negate potential consequences of the choice if the owners don't want me there.
Right - but you are still
free to actually choose to enter without an invitation, because the consequences of your action don't
limit your choices; they only deal with the
aftermath of actions.
That said, you could interchange free will and volition; unless of course you're defining free will in absolute terms (which it seems you are).
The definition of free will is really quite simple. I make my choices using the criteria I choose. Free will has nothing to do with whether those choices are good or bad, or even sensible. It only has to do with whether I can decide what to do when faced with a decision without being subjected to outside force.
My parents freely chose to conceive me, but understood that choice could result in something they didn't plan on.
Did they really freely choose? Consider what the Bible says (per your earlier post): all names were entered in the Book of Life at the foundation of the world. If that's the case how could they have
freely chosen to conceive you? After all, by being in the Book of Life, your birth was preordained and predestined. And since only they could have produced you, by having sex on the exact time they did, it's hard to see how their choice was free.
If we are to believe that there is a Book of Life and that everyone's name is written there, then we can only reach two conclusions: either they didn't choose to have you (even if they thought they did), or they somehow freely chose to have you at some point before they were born, when some divine scribe was about to enter your name in the Book of Life. It's one or the other.
In so many of my disussions with nonbelievers I speak of the ability to freely choose or deny God
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I do actually have free will and am completely free to choose or deny God. This still doesn't make anything better: God knows what my ultimate choice will be. So when he "created" me, he knew what my ultimate fate will be. Why would he create me, knowing that I'll choose to deny him? Clearly it can't be because he wants to "give me a chance" -- he knows what my choice will be, and creates me knowing I'll be subjected to a punishment. So why would he, a God of Love, create me, so that I may be punished?
His creation is based on an act of love.
Again, let's take me as an example. I'm an atheist; I reject the notion of deities. This means I reject the Christian God. How is it an act of love to create me, knowing that I will reject him and will be subjected to punishment?
He created us in his image and not some other. He doesn't need us and didn't need to create us. He did so because he can and because he loves us.
I really don't see this love that you say is in the air. What I see is -- and this is from the Bible -- a God who creates humanity, isn't happy when his creation doesn't do what he wants it to do and punishes it by expelling it from Paradise and curses all subsequent generations with Original Sin. I see a God who then decrees that the wages of sin of death, and who admits that
nobody can wipe the stain of sin. And then I see a God that sends himself down to earth, to be tortured and sacrified, so that his death may wipe the stain of sin that he decreed was punishable by death. How is this love? At best it's twisted sadomasochism.
Why wouldn't God just forgive us and say "Aww, shucks guys! It's ok!"? That's what parents the world over do. And yet, this simple act of forgiveness and unconditional love seems to be beyond the capacity of the God of Love.
The bible verses I included were based on what you said about Revelation 20:15 initially. I included other verses that included the wording you said was included in Rev 20:15 and actually wasn't. I included the last verse about blotting our names from the Book of Life to add a bit of context to my response. The verses are taken out of context so you should read the entire chapter with which they are included to get the full picture (if you're interested). I can post the chapters if you like.
This may surprise you, but I've read the Bible - and not just once - in English and Greek. I would venture to say that I'm more familiar with the Bible and what it says that most Christians.
I don't think any of the quotes you provide contradict my original assertion. But even if they did, they still don't support the argument that you're trying to make.
