Interesting, but nonfalsifiable, I think. What happens is what happens and anything else is counterfactual. We can perhaps intuit meaning from the course of events after the sequels start emerging and we can see what had major significance, what had minor significance and what had no impact, but it is all God's will.
The axle Sproul appears to have wrapped himself around is trying to have a single rule for understanding what human consent must be. And it's one of those subjects where the terminus ad quem is what has a major effect on what is hypothesized: if love is to exist, then those loving must be capable of offering it without constraint. And this means that we must have at least enough free will to freely consent.
Now, under what circumstances do we actually have the will to offer this consent? If Original Sin is an authentic doctrine, then our nature is fallen and every act of will on our part is flawed. This includes any act of will toward/away from God. But this does not eliminate the will of the individual, it impairs it and I think that unless one makes this tiny distinction, Pelagianism is an unavoidable label for the doctrinal result.
It would be nice if opposing doctrines could get a fair shake in discussion. We might arrive at Truth.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
Agreed.
I am compelled to ask about the origin of your screenname.