I have a concern with your line of thinking. It is evident that our choice of language always has consequences. For instance, if I were to inform you that you should avoid a certain sin, but you end up committing it regardless, I would essentially be providing you with an excuse or a way out. Although I understand that you are not explicitly stating this, this is precisely why I appreciate the perspective of Edwards. According to him, every time a proposition is presented, we must carefully analyze the intention or direction behind it. Asserting that an unexpressed will is still a will carries a negative implication. It opens the door for the infiltration of pragmatism. It seems that you are employing this argument to suggest that human free will exists in a state of balance by not willing absolutely. In other words, if God can choose not to will something in order to achieve the purpose of human destiny without interfering, it follows that humans can also defy God's will by determining their own destiny or end. Language plays a crucial role in this discussion, as I believe you are introducing the notion that God lacks sovereignty by not willing what actually occurs – essentially aligning with pragmatism's definition.

If man lacks the ability to make choices, and God permits man to lack this ability, then it can be deduced that God intends for man to lack the ability to choose. This signifies that God's will is manifested in the deliberate design for man to be unable to choose, aligning with the fact that God is the ultimate source and conclusion of all things. Consequently, God's will encompasses either the salvation or non-salvation of man, or it may be the case that there is no will at all.