In my opinion? It would exalt God as God. It wouldnt leave the reconciliation up to “I hope” but know that God is in control and thus it will be. At first it was just a fun topic to talk about. Until some started, whether intentionally or unintentionally, patronizing me and other completely avoiding to directly respond to my inquries while time and time again I responded to theirs.
The very fact that Ive gotten everyone who believes in “free will” to admit “its limited” is good enough for me. Because its illogical to say its limited and yet free at the same time.
Some have even thrown out Gods foreknowledge, even though its stated in scriptures many time, because the very argument of if God foreknows then it must be.
If God has authority over man’s libertarian free will, He can do whatever He wants to bring about His greater glory. For example, hardening Pharoah’s heart. That doesn’t prove Pharaoh had no LFW.
No offence but that makes no sense. Did pharoah have a choice in God hardening His heart?
If no then His will isnt free
If yes then God did not have authority of his supposed “free will”
Like the analogy I posted above about clipping a birds wing and then saying it has the freedom to fly.
But on a side note. I wanna genuinely thank you origen for actually addressing my inquiries directly. even if we dont agree and I, personally, dont see the logic in your statement.
Free will - the argument that keeps on giving. For over 3,000 years now.
I’m glad we’ve settled it.
Whats your opinion on foreknowledge? Does God foreknow everything? If so can our “free will” do the opposite of what He foreknew?
Lol.
Im not arrogant enough to say that 100% not wrong. Ive just never seen a refutation that seemed logical for me to switch sides. And ive never really seen a satisfactory explanation of verses stating God subjects,purposes and foreknows that would validate “free will”.
And the reason is - if one chooses either of the extremes in this argument, there are impossible contradictions to surmount.
If one chooses the FWED answer, which involves the simple concept of synergy - the problem dissolves imo. Would that it would dissolve forever. 
Im assuming fwed is some acronym for the idea of compatiblism?
That’s not the way I intended it, actually. Free Will Enough Defense is more general than that - simply saying that we have the freedom of choice God wants us to have. We have enough to choose Him and to flee evil, enough to love others or not, etc. It’s a very general theory and I intended it that way.
Unfortunately, it does not leave much to argue about lol.
Id argue against that 
“no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”
What you could do, just for fun, is to try taking the other side of the argument. Find those scriptures - there are hundreds - that show God demanding people to make a choice. If you tried that - and I did once upon a time - well, for me it answered the question, and FWED made it’s appearance.
To me God does ALL the saving. Convicting us through conscience, giving grace and faith, producing fruits, etc. Its not something we will up inside of ourselves.
Ive made the argument before that if any part of salvation can be attributed to ourselves it is not 100% God.
If LFW is a creation of God that He has Sovereignty over, then God can overrule it at His pleasure, just like a man turning off a light switch. Just because the light is turned off that doesn’t mean the light bulb & electricity don’t exist. If God doesn’t provide light to a man, then his LFW can never make the choice of choosing light over darkness. All God has to do to put freewill on mute is turn out the lights. In so doing the man is blinded & walks in darkness, & even though he still has a LFW he must be a slave of sin.
I don’t know. I’m looking into Open Theism.
I have.
Truly I have. Any position I take on ANYTHING I always look at the opposing view. Its how I went from a annihilationist (for about a month or two) to a universal reconciliationist. I dont like echo chambers.
To me it has to do with progressive revelation. God was playing a role among His creation when exhorting them to do what He knew they would not because He destined it otherwise. To tell a story. To bring about things out of His creation and to bring about means to display His own purpose and messages (Pharaoh comes to mind here)
It isnt till the risen Christ appears to Paul that we get a divine and outright revelation that “God is working ALL things in accord to HIS will”. This is vaguely touched upon by o.t. prophets but never barging into our understanding like a battering ram like Paul does make it to be.
When I was an annihilationist the thing that REALLY pushed me to U.R. is that U.R. could give a logical explaination of the annihilation verses but the annihilation could never give a logical explaination for the U.R. verses. And the same applies to the free will/sovereignty debate to me. Foreordainment can make sense of the “free will” verses but the “free will” verses cannot give a logical explaination for the foreordainment verses. And thus is why I am one who believe in the reconciliation of all things and believe in Gods ultimate sovereignty over His creation to subject them to what ever purpose He may have.
If I didnt want to look further into the “free wills” side of the debate I wouldnt be asking so many times how it aligns with verses that dont fit into that puzzle. I wouldnt be here if I just wanted to stay to my own bubble. It can be frustrating sometimes. Ill admit that. And I may have retaliated with snappiness or bluntness in response to feeling ignored or belittled. But I am not here just to say Im right and they are wrong or I wouldve ended this conversation like that a long time ago.
Oh and I also forgot to say good morning back to you! even though its night time now