I suggest "bear[ing] the consequences of their mistakes" is more our destiny than our right.
I must disagree with you quite emphatically. Mistakes without consequences are not mistakes. For the right to make mistakes to mean anything, those mistakes must have consequences.
That isn't to say that one's rights are denied if one does not always bear the full consequences of one's mistakes. Both on a secular and spiritual level, it's generally good for the consequences mistakes to be tempered sufficiently that people can recover from them. On the other hand, it's vital that the consequences remain sufficiently severe that the mistakes are, in fact, mistakes.
To declare everyone saved would mean a reversal of his decision in the garden. To me, that's more significant than its affect on our 'free will'. No, I don't, in my belief, consider that God would reverse himself.
I don't see any fundamental problem with God changing his mind on things. Indeed, if the Bible is to be believed He has at times done so (e.g. he once thought it appropriate to use a Flood to "reset" his creation, but no longer). Returning to the Klondike analogy, though (never read anything like it elsewhere, but I think it's a good one) we don't know what rules God decided upon before starting the Game, but offering Jesus was a means for him to offer reconciliation without violating them.
But by his offering his Son as the means by which we gain salvation, he is allowing us the 'right', if you will, to take steps to reverse our own wrong. No handouts. Just compassion and an opportunity. Oh, and a magnificent demonstration of love.
It is a great show of love indeed. And it might perhaps lead one to speculate on the exact rules of the "game". Perhaps, even before Christ, the rules allowed for a person on the Day of Judgement to accept some or all of the punishment that was due to another. If such a rule existed, even if it was seldom used, it would explain the offering of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Most people would of course be limited in how much punishment they could accept on behalf of others; Christ would have no such limitation.
Even there, though, I don't think Christ is apt to offer himself to those who would not appreciate the gift. He doesn't demand much in return, but I think he does require that people recognize not only the value of his sacrifice, but also the cost--that the suffering God endures on their behalf is one of the consequences of their mistakes.
Reply: I must disagree with you quite emphatically. Mistakes without consequences are not mistakes. For the right to make mistakes to mean anything, those mistakes must have consequences.
I never said anything of mistakes without consequences. I merely said those consequences were our destiny; and that 'destiny' seems a more fitting word than 'right'. Surely you agree that we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Consequently, we all will have to answer for our sins. That is our destiny as sinners. That isn't a right God has given us; it is a consequence of 'The Fall' and of our sinful lives. I believe you misread my remark.
As Christians we are taught that God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. To delve into whether he 'changes his mind' is folly for no one can know His mind. But being taught that He is the 'same', I choose to believe that the fact we don't see 'resets', as you put it, such as the flood today, doesn't necessarily mean he's changed his mind on how to respond to the world, but Christ's coming has eliminated the need for interaction. What could he do short of the final coming to supplant that?
Even there, though, I don't think Christ is apt to offer himself to those who would not appreciate the gift.
I agree. There is nothing we can do to bring God's mercy to us. It is his gift brought through the Holy Spirit. But we first have to be open to that gift. Our hearts have to be open and prepared to share in his glorious offering. God's blessings to you.