You just made the distinction yourself. "Choosing" is essentially a mechanical act, based on the consciousness of alternative actions, followed by a process of selecting one over the other. Simply to be conscious of choice, implies the awareness of different paths and different consequences. Discernment is the means by which we evaluate the consequences of each.
Your argument, for it to work at all, demands that all people be utterly unconscious of the idea of "choice," in all circumstances. That is clearly not the case, for anybody who has a minimally functional mind. We all exercise choice, all the time.
The mind is clouded by sin, in fact it is actually dead, spiritually speaking. The truth cannot penetrate the mind clouded by sin to the point where sufficient truth to obtain salvation is possible.
Let us grant that there are those who are so far gone as to be utterly unable to discern truth. There is no basis in empirical observation, nor in Scripture, for assuming this to be the general condition of mankind. God rather obviously communicates with humanity on the basis that they're able to discern truth at some level.
Beyond that, you seem to be setting an unnaturally (and un-Scripturally) high threshold for the sort of decision required to "obtain salvation." The woman in Luke 7, or the Samaritan woman at the well, or the thief on the cross, or any number of others ... they were sinners of precisely the sort you describe. Their salvation was rooted in nothing more than the most basic acknowledgement of Jesus, and it is clear from that Gospels that their decision is a crucial component in that process.
That is why we need a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit to put us in the right mind so that the truth of God’s salvation can penetrate and change us. We call this regeneration, and it only comes to God’s elect.
While I will most certainly not denigrate the role of the Holy Spirit in setting people right, the body of Scripture does not support this statement. (Nor, for that matter, does my own experience support it.) Worse, the underlying logic of your statement reduces to the proposition that sin is God's will -- which in turn suggests that "sin" does not actually exist. Which again is counter-Scriptural.
Moreover, your introduction of "God's elect" into the discussion reminds us that you therefore also believe that many (most) people are not among them. And yet those among the non-elect clearly have and exercise choices every day, many of which are the same as those that you (presumably one of the elect) would make, and for some of the same reasons. Either they're actually able to discern truth at some level (which you suggest they cannot), or they're just automata under God's complete control -- which makes no Scriptural sense whatever.
To use the words of a friend of mine, Scripture makes clear that God is sovereign, and that we're responsible. What's in the middle is a mystery. But the fact that we're responsible, only makes sense in a context where we have the power to decide and choose.
There is nothing in the Bible after the story of the Fall in Genesis that indicates man has a "free will" you have conceived it. "Natural man" is not inclined to do any moral/ethical good towards God. It is only after the working of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life that they are able to do good towards God. Good works, like our faith, is a gift of God, and not something that is innate
Sorry to say, but you seem now to just be making things up. The "facts" you're stating are little more than self-referential claims made to support your argument. Scripture does not agree with you.
For example, the Old and New Testaments are full of stories wherein people are, in fact, "inclined to do ... moral/ethical good towards God." Abraham is an obvious case. I gave you an excellent example (Luke 7:36-50) in my previous post. That they cannot perfectly do "moral/ethical good" is of course a consequence of the Fall. But it is blindingly obvious that they are at least inclined to do it.
Moreover, the Bible shows God interacting with mankind in a way that can only be explained in terms of that "inclination." Even with something as dramatic as St. Paul's conversion, or Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, God requires people to make a choice.
And speaking more personally, I can share with you one of the major features of my own conversion. God said to me, "You know I exist. Now what are you going to do about it?"
I appreciate your contribution to this discussion very much. I am copying your answer to topcat54 for reading in our Bible institute on the mission field. It will be trnaslated into Chinese.
We have seen Chinese go to the States for post-grad studies, while there get their head full of religious intellectualism, and when they return, they try to take over (quite literally, and most often very, very rudely) thinking they have really arrived.
This is a terminology issue. I do not deny that folks can make choices. What I deny is that folk have a "free will" or natural ability to make any correct choices wrt God, that is, insofar as religion is concerned. (I do not confuse being able to carry on an intelligent conversation in this forum with the moral ability to make "free will" choices for God. They are two different birds.)
The woman in Luke 7, or the Samaritan woman at the well, or the thief on the cross, or any number of others ... they were sinners of precisely the sort you describe. Their salvation was rooted in nothing more than the most basic acknowledgement of Jesus, and it is clear from that Gospels that their decision is a crucial component in that process.
But there is nothing in any of these texts to suggest that these folks were able to make their "choice" apart from the special working of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Jesus could say "your faith has saved you" knowing that even our faith is a gift from above (Eph. 2:8,9). It is not something that lies naturally in any human being. Supernatural faith, that which leads to eternal life, is from above. Unlike the 1st Adam, We have no "free will" to choose God apart from divine intervention.
When Jesus asked Peter, "who do men say that I am?" Jesus’ response to Peter’s answer was not to commend him for his excellent "free will"-enabled, well-discerned commentary. He pointed, rather, to the true source of real knowledge, that is, God Himself (Matt. 16:16).
For example, the Old and New Testaments are full of stories wherein people are, in fact, "inclined to do ... moral/ethical good towards God." Abraham is an obvious case.
You are confusing regenerate with unregenerate. How did Abraham get to the point in his life where he was able to choose God? Why did no one else in Ur exercise their "free will" and go after the true God besides Abraham and his family? Abraham could only choose God because God had first chosen him and work in his soul to revive his dead, stony heart.
There is no example in the Bible of an unregenerate person choosing to do some moral good toward God while in an unregenerate state. That is because they are dead in trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:5) and incapable of any moral good wrt God.
"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Phil. 2:13)