Actually, my best attempts here have been to define Calvinistic free will in terms ACCORDING to our experience. :) Perhaps I have been doing a lousy job. :)
I have been saying that of course Calvinism recognizes the real experience all humans have of free will. We say that the free will of the lost person is more limited, but that after the point of true belief, we have been set free and are then free to do good in God's eyes. At the same time we recognize God's sovereignty and His plan, and that God has ordained all things, etc.
So, free will itself is quite the sticky issue. I think both of our sides get crossed up in the basic definitions of what it is. Another Reformer might say "there is no free will" and in context I would know exactly what he or she meant and agree. Yet, that same person would probably agree with what I said above, in this context.
At this time, the ground zero difference for me is the degree to which free will is independent FROM God. Can my free will trump God's will for me? I think all Reformed would say "no", this cannot happen. My perception of the Apostolic view is that "yes", this happens all the time since it is axiomatic that God's will is that all men be saved, yet we know they are not.
I know the formula, but what precisely does this mean?
My perception of the Apostolic view is that "yes",
Yes God's will is that we have free will. How is He trumped?
it is axiomatic that God's will is that all men be saved, yet we know they are not.
We have free will, we know this as well as we can know anything we experience of reality. We have your axiom above and we have that not all are saved. Ok.
Given these three truth statements: Man has free will; God wishes all to be saved; all are not saved; can we not arrive at the simple logical conclusion? Without the need to derive an obvious untruth about free will?