Gods will vs mans free will

God paid for that expensive car. And He made it available to ALL. That is His grace and mercy revealed to ALL. We are limited in our choices......But He put out His Gospel to ALL. In this day and age, who hasn't heard of His Gospel? Man is free to accept it or reject it.

Yes...we want to do all things for his glory -- but the question that needs to be asked to determine if any given choice we make would be to his glory should be based on the two greatest commandments. I don't think God is going to think of me less for choosing to wear one color of socks over another; or for that matter that my neighbor would perceive that I don't love him because of the color of socks I'm wearing.

Since Jesus wasn't very concerned about his disciples eating with dirty hands, which would y seem to carry weightier moral-spiritual implications, e.g. keeping God's temple (our bodies) free from food contamination since even our bodies are not our own, then I have to think how much less the color socks we wear.

In fact, what I just wrote above brought to mind the Conscientious Objector letter I wrote a few years ago (but never had to formally present) during the height of the covid "pandemic" madness which to me was a genuine life issue -- an issue whereby my choice would either glorify God or not glorify him. The crux to my objection was not along the usual lines of fetus cell material in the drugs, but on something even more fundamental: God owns me! All of me! And God has given me stewardship over my own body. He did not give stewardship to any third party, e.g. any government/civil entity. Therefore, since the government doesn't own anything in this world, how much less has it any right to tell me what I must or shouldn't put into my body? That is between my Creator and myself. And if others feel threatened by my personal health decision to not inject experimental drugs into my body, then the onus should be on them to take whatever additional measures of protection they deem necessary to further ensure their personal safety.

The 2 commandments are tools to focus on God. In focusing on God, every deliberation then can be done for His glory. Your sock color isn't important or the cleanliness of your hands. These are outward, and mean nothing if they are separated from an inward reality. And this is the crux of the matter: what is going on in the heart that makes an outward act an act of worship or merely a drawing near to God when the heart remains far from Him.

But that's the point, Cam: What precisely makes the color of my socks a spiritual-moral-heart issue? I keep an insulated cup of cold water on my night table next to my bed so that when I feel thirsty at night, I can take a sip. But if I'm understanding you correctly, I shouldn't be doing that unless I first do a "heart check" -- to check on my motives for taking a few sips? Should I pray first before taking a drink? I just don't see sock colors or quenching my thirst in the middle of the night as moral-spiritual-heart issues. If they truly are, then that should be stated somewhere in scripture, I would think.

It is...1 Corinthians 10:31...Whether therefore you eat, or DRINK, or WHATSOEVER YE DO, do ALL to the glory of God. Pretty much covers everything.

But the passage doesn't tell us what to eat or drink or even when. Yes, there is a moral-spiritual component to eating and drinking since gluttony is a sin, as well as drunkenness, etc.. But there is no moral or spiritual component any longer to what we can eat. And the "whatsoever ye do" should be understood to pertain to moral-spiritual issues. Or if I need a new pair of knock-around shoes for home or yard work, how would buying a new pair qualify as spiritual issue, assuming I didn't spend the rent money to do so?

Or the "whatsoever ye do" could very well apply to situations in which we find ourselves. Let's say I go to the shoe store to buy those pair of shoes, but the clerk is less than friendly, and as such might indeed test my patience. Then buying those pair of shoes becomes a moral-spiritual issue, since I know that I should still maintain a loving attitude toward those who are not so loving or friendly or courteous etc. . Therefore, the "whatsoever ye do" should be understood to apply to circumstances or situations in which sinning is a real possibility. If I repaid evil for evil with the discourteous, unfriendly clerk, that would not be to the glory of God. But just walking into a store to buy something I need and paying for it is in and of itself an amoral activity. It's not a sin against God to buy something I need. But my outing would be sinful if I'm not loving toward the "neighbor" (the clerk) with whom I'm interacting.

Wikipedia is your source for truth? Not very discriminating, are you? par How 'bout this definition from my old and trusted MW Collegiate?

Main Entryar£a£dox
Pronunciation:*par-*-*d*ks
Function:noun
Etymology:Latin paradoxum, from Greek paradoxon, from neuter of paradoxos contrary to expectation, from para- + dokein to think, seem— more at DECENT
Date:1540

1 : a tenet contrary to received opinion
2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises
3 : one that possesses seemingly contradictory qualities or phases

Or here is a Dictionary.com definition:

paradox

[ par-uh-doks ]
Phonetic (Standard)IPA
noun

1. a statement that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth:
   “Less is more” is a paradox often repeated in the arts and other fields.
   It is a paradox of healthy grief that we must work at it while surrendering to it.
2. any person, thing, or situation displaying an apparently contradictory nature:
   In the media the candidate was called a paradox—an unpopular populist.
   Synonyms: riddle, anomaly, puzzle
3. a self-contradictory and false statement, especially one arising from seemingly acceptable premises and correct logical argument.
4. time paradox ( def 1 ).
5. Also called par·a·dox il·lu·sion [par, -, uh, -doks i-loo-zh, uh, n]. an optical illusion depicting an impossible object, often a two-dimensional figure that the viewer intuitively interprets as representing a three-dimensional one, but which cannot actually exist in three dimensions: brought to popular attention especially by the work of M. C. Escher.
6. Archaic. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinio
   
   There's a difference between an outright contradiction and a paradox. And how you can tell the difference between the two is that a contradiction will always violate the Law of Non-contradiction, whereas a paradox will not.

What about people throughout history who never heard the gospel?

The law of non-contradiction states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time,

A paradox is a seeming contradiction that is not a true contradiction.

To prove that X and Y are a paradox, a seeming contradiction, but not a true contradiction, one needs to explain how statements X and Y are not truly assertions about the same thing at the same time in the same way, but there is actually some obfuscated difference between the two statements in regard to their subject, object, time or manner. The existence of a paradox relies on some kind of equivocation in the two statements that makes it seem like they are equivalent when they are not actually equivalent statements, i.e. not truly describing the same thing in the same way at the same time.

For instance, in "an unpopular populist" the idea is of a populist who is not popular. In other words they hold and champion popular policy positions but they are not a popular person. So, popular in "populist" and popular in "unpopular" are not being used of the same thing in the same sense at the same time. In the former it is referring to her policy positions, and in the latter it is referring to her personality. Hence we can show that this is a paradox and not a true contradiction.
You said:
Rufus said:
"And therein is the great paradox to man's will. As a moral agent, we can voluntarily (freely) make choices. On the other hand, because our hearts (the seat of all our faculties) are full of evil and corruptness our choices are inherently biased toward sin and evil; therefore in this sense the unregenerate man's will is in bondage to the world, the flesh, the devil and and even the Law since the law arouses sinful passions."

You are saying that we freely make choices; but we cannot choose not to sin.

Do you mean, "1. We freely make choices (between doing either of amoral act X or Y or Z); but we cannot freely make choices to do moral acts A or B or C" ?

Or do you mean, "2. We freely make choices (between doing either of immoral acts X or Y or Z); but we cannot freely make choices to do moral acts A or B or C" ?

Or do you mean, "3. We freely make choices (between doing either of moral acts A or B or C); but we cannot freely make choices to do moral acts A or B or C" ?

If you mean either 1 or 2, then what you state in blue is a paradox, only an apparent contradiction, but not a real one, since "choices" are not being exercised concerning the same things in the same way at the same time.

But if you mean 3, you have an actual contradiction rather than a paradox.

So, which meaning are you proposing? 1 ? or 2 ? or 3? or some other?

Do/have such people exist(ed)? These passages are all in past tense:

The LORD hath made known his salvation ... all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. Psalms 98:2-3
... thy salvation, 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; Luke 2:30-31
... the gospel ... Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Romans 10:16-18
... the word of the truth of the gospel; 6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world ... Col 1:5-6
... the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven Col 1:23
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Titus 2:11

Do/have such people exist(ed)? These passages are all in past tense:

The LORD hath made known his salvation ... all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. Psalms 98:2-3
... thy salvation, 31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; Luke 2:30-31
... the gospel ... Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Romans 10:16-18
... the word of the truth of the gospel; 6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world ... Col 1:5-6
... the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven Col 1:23
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Titus 2:11

How did Indians in America hear before missionaries came?

How did Indians in America hear before missionaries came?

Weren't American Indians within the ends of the earth/world? Aren't they included in all people, every creature, and all men?
How did Job know his redeemer lives?


And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: Acts 17:26-27 (KJV)

Columbus & the gang were far from them, but God wasn't.

Job knew of God the same way everyone does...God comes to an individual and reveals Himself.
The American Indians may have had this happen to them at some point, but when settlers came to the New World, the Indians were unfamiliar with both the gospel or Jesus. So what you believe those scriptures mean that you shared may not be what they actually mean.
None of this precludes God from coming to Indians in other generations either before or after the point in history I referred to, but at that particular time they had no intimate revelation of God.

From what you describe, it sounds like they heard about the gospel & Jesus from the settlers. (Otherwise the settlers couldn't have reported that the Indians were unfamiliar with the gospel.) So it sounds like the Indians, at that point in time, were included with "all men".

Certainly at that point, but what about all the previous generations that never heard the gospel?

What generation(s) never heard the gospel?

The ones before the settlers arrived.