The Unchangeableness of God and the Will of God

[Kermos]

Free will is implied, otherwise if God and his moral creatures (mankind and angels) do not have free will, then this can only logically mean the will of all moral beings is under bondage or all choices are coerced from without. However, there is third option: All choices are contingent. All choices are ultimately determined by desires that arise out of our nature. Can God sin? Can God even have any evil desires? Conversely, can man not sin? I believe the most fundamental Law of Logic of them all known as the Law of Identity answers this problem. This law simply states: A cannot be B, nor can B be A. Jesus' analogy of good and bad trees applies here. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. But a tree is still a tree. Whether good or bad, it will still bear fruit because that is its nature. Likewise, since only God alone is good, he can only choose to do that which is consistent with his goodness. Conversely, since no man is innately good, Paul's indictment of the human race in Romans 3 is just; for all unregenerate men can only do evil. As far as God's will is concerned, I would refer to passages such as Ps 115:3; 135:6; Isa 46:10; Dan 4:35; Rom 9:18; Eph 1:11.

Rufus, when you wrote "Free will is implied" (your post's opening) with your supporting verses of Ps 115:3; 135:6; Isa 46:10; Dan 4:35; Rom 9:18; Eph 1:11 (your post's closing) which are devoid of freewill. Just as the original post establishes, a will requires a host; therefore a free will (detached will) is a non-existent thing (a free will is a will detached from a host).

Since man fabricated free will as a function of man's self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10) while at the same time no Scripture states free-will exists, then free-will is an ungodly, unbiblical, unreal concept.

God created the natural man (1 Corinthians 2:14-16) in which God included a self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10). That is not a free-will, but, rather, a self-will using Biblical terminology. Even with man's self-will, we find God is in control (2 Peter 2:9-10).

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (2 Corinthians 5:14), His vessels of mercy (Romans 9:21-23)!

 

[fastfredy0]

Does "It is a denial of any form of dualism (good and evil are separate entities)" mean that "good is the same thing as evil"?

Dualism - In theology, the concept of dualism assumes that there are two separate entities—good and evil—which are equally powerful (https://www.gotquestions.org/dualism.html)

No. "Good" is not the same as "evil".
"Evil" is not a thing, it is the lack of some "goodness" in a volitional being.

 

[fastfredy0]

Does "It is a denial of any form of dualism (good and evil are separate entities)" mean that "good is the same thing as evil"?

I think that when the definition of Hard Determinism I quoted refers to dualism and deism it is purposely refuting the idea that dualism or deism exist as entities that are self determining. Many people think that is God somehow disappeared that the current laws of science would work without God (deism) or that God does not determine evil that occurs; rather, the devil or whatever does so (dualism).
Colossians 1:17; Job 34:14-15; Romans 11:36 refer to God creating all thing, causes them to continue to exist and that all things would cease to exist if God "left"

 

[Josheb]

Don't have a lot of time right now to post, let alone post tomes. First of all the scriptures I posted about God doing all according to the own counsel of his will should tell you that his will is not contingent on anything external to himself. Scripture clearly teaches that He does ALL according to HIS OWN Pleasure.

I completely agree.

Tell it to the op.

Secondly, I never included limitations in my definition free moral agency. And the reason is because ALL free moral agents have INTERNAL limitations. The omnipotent God of the entire universe cannot do certain things. He cannot lie! He cannot deny himself! In short, he cannot sin. Or stated differently, He cannot violate any laws of logic of his creation, including the Law of Identity! As stated very early on in our conversation, all free moral agents are limited by their essence (i..e. nature). If you're going to deny that God is a free moral agent, then you must provide proof of that from scripture, and you must also inform us what external forces exert control over God's choices. Enlighten us, please, on how clay pots can exert power over the sovereign free moral agency of the Potter. Or does Satan and his army of demons exert control over God's decisions? Who or what exerts control over the King's decisions? To posit that the Creator is not a free moral agent is to say that his will is contingent on something or someone external to himself. What or who is that external entity?

Tell it to the op.

Also, influence doesn't mean diddly squat. For influences do not force our decisions. The whole human race is literally bombarded 24/7 by "influences" from without from every quarter imaginable: Advertisements, TV, radio, news, internet, blogs, opinion pieces, education, sports, religion, politics, etc, etc., etc. Everyone under the sun is selling something! So, does this irrefutable fact absolve all buyers? Everyone is innocent because how can anyone survive this kind of mass, non-stop carpet bombing?

I do not think you thought that through. If what you say is true (and I will agree with most of it) and the problem just described is as ubiquitous as you just described, then it does mean diddly squat. The answer to your question is and unequivocal "No!" but the question is also an irrelevant red herring. No one here has said man is innocent.

You've also digressed AGAIN far afield of the op and ignored my effort to get you to express your views (with most of which I agree) to the op. The op claims God does not have a free will and its author will not answer the question, "Does God have a will?" without qualification and ad hominem. Maybe your voice will be the voice that persuades him to reconsider the op.

Tell him.
.

 

[Rufus]

Rufus, when you wrote "Free will is implied" (your post's opening) with your supporting verses of Ps 115:3; 135:6; Isa 46:10; Dan 4:35; Rom 9:18; Eph 1:11 (your post's closing) which are devoid of freewill. Just as the original post establishes, a will requires a host; therefore a free will (detached will) is a non-existent thing (a free will is a will detached from a host).

Since man fabricated free will as a function of man's self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10) while at the same time no Scripture states free-will exists, then free-will is an ungodly, unbiblical, unreal concept.

God created the natural man (1 Corinthians 2:14-16) in which God included a self-will (2 Peter 2:9-10). That is not a free-will, but, rather, a self-will using Biblical terminology. Even with man's self-will, we find God is in control (2 Peter 2:9-10).

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (2 Corinthians 5:14), His vessels of mercy (Romans 9:21-23)!

What in the world is a "detached will"? Explain please.

And what do you mean that "a will requires a host"?

"Self-will" is not stated in 2Pet 2:9-10 either. And actually, this passage supports my argument that man is a free moral agent, which I very carefully and narrowly defined the term "free" to mean that all God's moral agents choices ultimately derive from within them and and are not driven by or contingent upon forces from without. (In other words, this freedom of which I speak is "freedom FROM", which should not be confused or conflated with "freedom to".) And the passages I cited about God's free moral agency biblically support this definition of "free". But since you disagree with this, then I pose the same kinds of questions I asked Josheb yesterday: Who or what determines or controls or directs God's choices? Who or what, for example, forced God to create anything in the first place? Or who or what determines, controls or directs God's choices about whom he will save and whom will not save? With this last question, I leave you with this passage:

Rom 9:14-21
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
NIV

Sounds like sovereign free will to me.

And to just be fair and balanced, it is said of man:

Prov 4:23
23 Above all else, guard your heart, for it affects everything you do.
NLT

I used this translation because it poignantly expresses the very same idea that Jesus taught in Mat 12:35; 15:19.

 

[Rufus]

I completely agree.

Tell it to the op.

Tell it to the op.

I do not think you thought that through. If what you say is true (and I will agree with most of it) and the problem just described is as ubiquitous as you just described, then it does mean diddly squat. The answer to your question is and unequivocal "No!" but the question is also an irrelevant red herring. No one here has said man is innocent.

You've also digressed AGAIN far afield of the op and ignored my effort to get you to express your views (with most of which I agree) to the op. The op claims God does not have a free will and its author will not answer the question, "Does God have a will?" without qualification and ad hominem. Maybe your voice will be the voice that persuades him to reconsider the op.

Tell him.
.

Well if you agree with me, as you said you do in your opening words above, then God is a free moral agent. No opponent to my view has addressed my challenges to my position to wit: If God's will is contingent on someone or something outside of himself, then what precisely is that someone or something? Very simple question.

 

[Josheb]

No opponent to my view has addressed my challenges....

That is completely incorrect. Almost everything you have posted has been said by someone else in this thread or one of the other two @Kermos ops, and most of it said by multiple posters. And not a single word you've posted has been said to the one needing to hear it even with my repeated encouragement to do so!

Well if you agree with me, as you said you do in your opening words above, then God is a free moral agent. No opponent to my view has addressed my challenges to my position to wit: If God's will is contingent on someone or something outside of himself, then what precisely is that someone or something? Very simple question.

What is the subject of this op?

 

[Rufus]

That is completely incorrect. Almost everything you have posted has been said by someone else in this thread or one of the other two @Kermos ops, and most of it said by multiple posters. And not a single word you've posted has been said to the one needing to hear it even with my repeated encouragement to do so!

What is the subject of this op?

Does the "op" specifically answer my question or do you think it does?

 

[Josheb]

Does the "op" specifically answer my question or do you think it does?

I've already answered that question. How about you answer mine?


What is the subject of this op?

 

[Rufus]

I've already answered that question. How about you answer mine?


What is the subject of this op?

You haven't answered anything. The "op" claims that God's will is not free because a will requires a host -- whatever that is supposed to mean. And I'm not reading past the "op" to try to decipher people's cryptic remarks, such as "a will requires a host". . The "op" therefore did not answer my question about who or what outside of God controls or determines his choices. If anyone here is going to make such outlandish claims, they need to prove it. I have scripture on my side -- plenty of it -- which teaches that God's choices are not contingent upon anyone or anything external to himself. And this makes God a free moral agent! Period!

 

[Josheb]

You haven't answered anything.

Posts prove otherwise. Thank you for your time.

 

[Kermos]

Actually, man did choose to sin, therefore he chose to corrupt his nature and his heart -- the heart which is the seat of all our faculties. He chose to be a slave to sin.

Unlike your thoughts of including Adam's will to "choose", the Apostle Paul excluded Adam's will to "choose" by his writing "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20).

Man's "Will" In Scripture Related To The Creation Account​

Despite the Creation account in Genesis 1-3 being silent about man's "will", there exists Apostolic teaching on the matter of man's "will" with regard to the creation account.
Adam did not exercise willpower to disobey God's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17) for Paul wrote "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20, NASB); therefore, Adam did not make a choice, not a willing choice, to eat.

A "choice" by Adam is explicitly excluded by using scripture with scripture referencing, in fact, "the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly" (Romans 8:20, KJV), so Adam acted not willingly but rather acted subject to vanity in his eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

"Not willingly" indicates "not choice".

Some people may claim that Paul was referring to a timeframe exclusively after what they call "the fall" (after Adam ate of the tree [Genesis 3:6]), but the continuity of the passage of Romans 8:20-22 must be taken as a whole.

Paul left no room for disputing to the timeframe for which "not willingly" applies, for Paul also wrote "we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:22), and the phrase "until now" is the timeframe's most recent limiting factor which means that all times prior to "now" are included, so "the whole creation" includes the moment after God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) until Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6); therefore, we can be certain that Paul includes the timeframe that Adam ate of the tree in the travailing/groaning because Paul wrote of all of this in the same passage, i.e. Romans 8:20-22.

As stated earlier, if man's will is not free, then this must mean all his choices are forced upon him from without.

There is absolutely zero problem with that. Besides, there is no such thing as a free will (detached will) because every will is attached to a host - just as explained in the original post.

And if his choices result from coercion, then how can man be morally culpable?

The Word of God declares:

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself
(Ezekiel 18:20)
​

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (2 Corinthians 5:14), His vessels of mercy (Romans 9:21-23)!

 

[Josheb]

Actually, man did choose to sin, therefore he chose to corrupt his nature and his heart -- the heart which is the seat of all our faculties. He chose to be a slave to sin.

Unlike your thoughts of including Adam's will to "choose", the Apostle Paul excluded Adam's will to "choose" by his writing "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20)....................

(josh pulls up a chair)


Tell him, @Rufus.

 

[Rufus]

Posts prove otherwise. Thank you for your time.

That's nice. First you touted the "op" answered my question, which,of course, it didn't. Now that becomes multiple posts. Whatever floats your rubber duck, Charlie Brown.

 

[Rufus]

Unlike your thoughts of including Adam's will to "choose", the Apostle Paul excluded Adam's will to "choose" by his writing "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20).

Man's "Will" In Scripture Related To The Creation Account​

Despite the Creation account in Genesis 1-3 being silent about man's "will", there exists Apostolic teaching on the matter of man's "will" with regard to the creation account.
Adam did not exercise willpower to disobey God's command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17) for Paul wrote "the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly" (Romans 8:20, NASB); therefore, Adam did not make a choice, not a willing choice, to eat.

A "choice" by Adam is explicitly excluded by using scripture with scripture referencing, in fact, "the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly" (Romans 8:20, KJV), so Adam acted not willingly but rather acted subject to vanity in his eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

"Not willingly" indicates "not choice".

Some people may claim that Paul was referring to a timeframe exclusively after what they call "the fall" (after Adam ate of the tree [Genesis 3:6]), but the continuity of the passage of Romans 8:20-22 must be taken as a whole.

Paul left no room for disputing to the timeframe for which "not willingly" applies, for Paul also wrote "we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now" (Romans 8:22), and the phrase "until now" is the timeframe's most recent limiting factor which means that all times prior to "now" are included, so "the whole creation" includes the moment after God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) until Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3:6); therefore, we can be certain that Paul includes the timeframe that Adam ate of the tree in the travailing/groaning because Paul wrote of all of this in the same passage, i.e. Romans 8:20-22.



There is absolutely zero problem with that. Besides, there is no such thing as a free will (detached will) because every will is attached to a host - just as explained in the original post.



The Word of God declares:

​

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself​

(Ezekiel 18:20)​

​

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (2 Corinthians 5:14), His vessels of mercy (Romans 9:21-23)!

Shirely U. Jest by quoting Rom 8:20, which reads:

Rom 8:20
20 For the creation (nature) was subjected to frailty (to futility, condemned to frustration), not because of some intentional fault on its part, but by the will of Him Who so subjected it — [yet] with the hope [Eccl 1:2.]
AMP

Or

Rom 8:20-21
20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
NIV

Or

Rom 8:20-22
20 Against its will, everything on earth was subjected to God's curse. 21 All creation anticipates the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay. 22 For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
NLT

And you think Paul here is talking strictly about Adam's will!? Talk about desperate grasping of straws! Clearly Paul is personalizing the entire created order -- in fact to be more precise -- the entire created order that was cursed by God after Adam freely chose to disobey God. The context makes this abundantly clear. This cursed world (which did not will itself be cursed) is eagerly awaiting to be restored, which will happen at the Parousia when all God's saints will be resurrected.

And you still haven't explained your "host" theory. And you haven't answered my question about God's free moral agency. If God's will is not free then this must mean it's contingent on someone or something. And just who or what would that be exactly?

 

[Kermos]

I've never heard of a definition of Free Will that says it must have a host. Your definition is unique IMO. By definition a 'will' must have a host so your definition makes the idea of Free Will impossible.

You drove the nail with one blow, fastfredy0, except the definition of the word "free" (detached, autonomous) makes the idea of Free Will impossible - it is not my definition - this is fundamental semantics.

Have you ever heard of a "will" separate from a host? Of course not. This is fundamental. In the Bible, every mention of "will" is associated with a host - without exception.

Here are two passages, one passage describes God keeping the unconverted self-willed person under punishment while the other passage describes God causing the Christian to will in a certain manner.

The Apostle Peter wrote:

the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority; daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties
(2 Peter 2:9-10)
​

The Apostle Paul wrote:

it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure
(Philippians 2:13)
​

The concept of free-will is illogical and unbiblical.

Since freewill is non-deterministic, then hard determinists should be determined to expose the free-willian deception.

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (2 Corinthians 5:14), His vessels of mercy (Romans 9:21-23)!

 

[Josheb]

That's nice. First you touted the "op" answered my question, which, of course, it didn't.

Never said any such thing.

What I did say is that the contents of your posts have already been posted and addressed by others. What I did say is your posts should be addressed to the op because you and I agree but the op does not. The op was not touted. The op is incorrect and should be deleted because of its many errors.

 

[Rufus]

You drove the nail with one blow, fastfredy0, except the definition of the word "free" (detached, autonomous) makes the idea of Free Will impossible - it is not my definition - this is fundamental semantics

"Detached" is not part of the definition of "autonomous". Here's the definition of this latter term in my M-W Collegiate Dictionary:

Main Entry:au£ton£o£mous
Pronunciation:*-*t*-n*-m*s
Function:adjective
Etymology:Greek autonomos independent, from aut- + nomos law— more at NIMBLE
Date:1800

1 : of, relating to, or marked by autonomy
2 a : having the right or power of self-government b : undertaken or carried on without outside control : SELF-CONTAINED *an autonomous school system*
3 a : existing or capable of existing independently *an autonomous zooid* b : responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole *an autonomous growth*
4 : controlled by the autonomic nervous system
synonyms see FREE
–au£ton£o£mous£ly adverb

Have you ever heard of a "will" separate from a host? Of course not. This is fundamental. In the Bible, every mention of "will" is associated with a host - without exception.

Here are two passages, one passage describes God keeping the unconverted self-willed person under punishment while the other passage describes God causing the Christian to will in a certain manner.

The Apostle Peter wrote:

​

the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority; daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties​

(2 Peter 2:9-10)​

​

And did not God freely choose to do this? If not, who/what forced Him? Who/what coerced Him? Who/what controls Him? Isn't God's being the very host for his will?

​

The Apostle Paul wrote:

​

it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure​

(Philippians 2:13)​

​

The concept of free-will is illogical and unbiblical.

Since freewill is non-deterministic, then hard determinists should be determined to expose the free-willian deception.

The above passage actually supports my position! For I have continually argued that what makes any moral agent "free", he is free from outside control. What God does for his elect is within them, making them partakers of his divine nature (2Pet 1:4). This is a supernatural work that is beyond human comprehension. Since God is greater than our hearts (1Jn 3:20), he knows how to kindly, gently, compassionately, mercifully woo us to himself. And he does this by graciously giving us the great gifts of his Spirit and a new heart (Ezek 36:26) whereby in this New Covenant promise, God promises to move (or cause) us to follow his decrees, laws, etc.. He makes his people willing in the day of his power (Ps 110:3). And you should not miss this point! He doesn't force us, coerce us, intimidate us to do anything against our will; rather, with this new heart, the indwelling Holy Spirit and of course the Holy Word of God, he makes us willing! We gladfully and joyfully and eagerly and humbly accept his exceedingly generous offer of salvation. You see what you totally miss is that since all men come into this world [spiritually] stillborn, God literally raises his elect up from their dark spiritual tombs! So, it can never be said that God violates anyone's will, since the sons of men cannot raise themselves up from the dead! We do not possess that kind of will power! But once He raises us up, we become HIS NEW CREATION. We now have the power to live for Him instead of for ourselves because in this new heart of ours we have new, godly desires, which we formerly did not have. And it is these desires that make US willing! I know of no saint that complains that he's being forced into the Kingdom of God against his will and that he's going into the kingdom kicking and screaming. Do you?

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (2 Corinthians 5:14), His vessels of mercy (Romans 9:21-23)!

Praise God! You should be thankful every day of your life for that kind of godly love that "controls" us.

 

[Kermos]

Hmm...sounds like something a fascist tyrant would do.

As far as God allowing Adam to sin: God is not culpable. Could God have prevented the Fall? Most certainly he could have? But since He didn't, then of course you're going to ask: "Why didn't he?". A good part of that answer is found in Isa 55:8-9. God, evidently, thought it would be better for man to have the knowledge of Good and Evil rather than not have it. Again, you might ask "Why?" Because a greater good would be served, perhaps? After all, God can bring good out of evil! I would refer you to Joseph's story in the OT. Or for that matter, Job's story.

Rufus see that your opening statement is a direct corollary to the "you, O man" who answers back to God in the below quotation of Romans chapter 9.

God is the Potter, and He molds His creatures - all souls are His(Romans 9:19-23, Ezekiel 18:4).​

The Apostle Paul wrote:

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory
(Romans 9:19-23)
​

The Gospel of Christ holds that God "has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Romans 9:18).

God is good to save even a single person - and Lord Jesus saves a Holy Nation!

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (2 Corinthians 5:14), His vessels of mercy (Romans 9:21-23)!

 

[Rufus]

Rufus see that your opening statement is a direct corollary to the "you, O man" who answers back to God in the below quotation of Romans chapter 9.

God is the Potter, and He molds His creatures - all souls are His(Romans 9:19-23, Ezekiel 18:4).​

The Apostle Paul wrote:

​

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory​

(Romans 9:19-23)​

​

The Gospel of Christ holds that God "has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Romans 9:18).

God is good to save even a single person - and Lord Jesus saves a Holy Nation!

And here we have the Truth (John 14:6), the love of Christ controls us believers (2 Corinthians 5:14), His vessels of mercy (Romans 9:21-23)!

That's correct re Rom 9:18! And this means that Gods freely and sovereignly chooses who he will raise from the dead (spiritually) and who he won't. And in either case, God does no violence to any human moral agent's ability to freely choose. In the case of the former because dead people have no will power resurrect themselves; and in the case of the latter because God simply leaves them in their unregenerate state, since he is not morally obligated to save anyone, and these people will continue to choose according to their unregenerate nature.