Here is my problem with your view of free will. Only when the will is defined as the ability to choose freely between the spiritually good and the evil in the same state of Libria does not everyone want it. The choice is to avoid one for the other. What you are striving for is that the choice will cause the will to act in conflict. (Tone determined by tone) The will does not remain the cause of choice. So it doesn't matter in your theology. And if there is no reason, it is as if it is said that nothing happened. You say a man decides what he wants. This uses the established tone selection. But how does choice determine will? If the will has no reason to choose anything other than freedom, your view of freedom is not freedom at all. Because the choice of self-determination expresses the previous will to determine the next choice, so when you return to the first choice, what determines that choice? Which means there is no reason not to have a will in the tonal sense of freedom. This returns to the possible timeliness of the birth. A tonal view of freedom is not really a view of a possible reality. Where history does not live and has become well thought out, there are unborn choices. If there is no reason to choose not to continue, there is no reason to allow God. However, if you live like no one, your particular vision can hardly prove that the unique time you can imagine is the future when you are united with a conscious God if God does not live. And isn't it good that your view of faith is unwise at the moment, because you have to choose based on your irrationality so that everything in your logic is unwise in an unknown realm? I believe that you accept grace as a source of faith, but because you have left the will to be right and have not been subject to corruption, you feel the same way where the law is pragmatism. At that moment, whatever happens in a rational process is a matter of time. Demonstration of a deterministic view of life.