>>Rosenbladt agreed that it is a conundrum and he didn’t offer a solution for it. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a sufficient explanation, it just means that I haven’t heard one that doesn’t leave me confused.
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/why-we-cant-choose-god/
“We’re not free from our own sinful inclinations, and our sinful appetites, and our sinful desires. We’re slaves to our sinful impulses. That’s what the Bible teaches us again, and again, and again. The humanist doctrine of free will, the pagan view of free will says that man is free not only from coercion, but man is free in the sense that his will is indifferent. It has no predisposition, or inclination, bias, or bent towards sin because the pagan and the humanist deny the radical character of the fall. But the Bible teaches us that we are fallen creatures who still choose and make decisions, but we make them in the context of our prison of sin. And the only way we can get out of that prison is if God sets us free.” (Sproul)
It only becomes a conundrum when you demand your “rights” as a human being to share power with God. Most American Christians are devout Humanists and Christian when it is convenient.
That’s an answer, but to a different question.
The conundrum is/was ‘why evangelize?’- those who aren’t elect won’t respond, and the elect won’t need it since they aren’t choosing.