This is not helpful. It is a fallacy known as cherry-picking the data!
We need to avoid rhetorical flourish that defends our cherished beleifs in order to cooly and calmly reflect on all the data of scripture.
The following is excerpted from:
Biblical Defense of Arminianism | Evidence Unseen
"
In the OT, God enabled the freewill of the people to choose him (Josh. 24:15; Isa. 50:2; Jer. 1:6; 2:13-14; 7:13; 13:10; 26:2-3; Ex. 3:11; 4:1-13; Hos. 11:1-9; Ps. 78:10; 81:11-13; Jer. 32:33). Consider several examples:
(Isa. 65:12) “I will destine you for the sword, and all of you will bow down to the slaughter.
Because I called, but you did not answer; I spoke, but
you did not hear. And
you did evil in My sight and chose that in which I did not delight.”
(Prov. 1:24) “I called and you
refused, I stretched out my hand and
no one paid attention.”
(Jer. 18:8) “If that nation I warned
repents of its evil,
then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.”
(Ps. 81:11-14) “My people did not listen to My voice, and Israel did not obey Me. 12 So I gave them over to the stubbornness of their heart, to walk in their own devices. 13
Oh that My people would listen to Me, that Israel would walk in My ways! 14 I would quickly subdue their enemies and turn My hand against their adversaries.”
(Jer. 7:23-26) “This is what I commanded them, saying, ‘Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24
Yet they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and in the stubbornness of their evil heart, and went backward and not forward. 25 Since the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt until this day, I have sent you all My servants the prophets, daily rising early and sending them. 26
Yet they did not listen to Me or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck; they did more evil than their fathers” (Jer. 7:23-26).
The larger context shows that God gave them a choice to obey and be forgiven, but they refused to do so (Jer. 7:1-22).
(Hos. 11:1-2 NIV) “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. 2 But
the more I called Israel,
the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.”
3. Freewill is taught throughout the Bible
The Bible teaches freewill from one end to the other. It contains a number of broad, sweeping teachings that support the traditional concept of libertarian freewill. Even Reformed authors like D.A. Carson acknowledge these clear and perspicuous teachings of Scripture:
[7]
(1) God calls on people to
obey,
choose, and
believe in him (Jn. 15:10; Josh. 24:15; Jn. 3:18). These calls would be nonsense, if we are not free moral agents.
(2) The very fact that we can
sin implies freedom of the will, unless we are claiming that God is the agent of sin.
(3) God
judges us (1 Cor. 3:10-15; Rev. 20:11-15). Humans are
rewarded and
punished according to their actions. Judgment only makes sense, if we are free to choose and culpable for our choices.
(4) God
tests his people, which implies our ability to
pass or
fail (Gen. 22:1; Jas. 1:12; 1 Pet. 1:6-7; 1 Cor. 10:13).
(5) Prayers are not
scripted; they are
free expressions of the heart (see the Psalms for good examples of this).
(6) God
pleads with sinners to repent, which would only make sense in light of free moral decision (Ezek. 18:23-32; 33:11).
(7) God
desires all men to believe in him (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9; Jn. 12:32). Consider this. An omnipotent being “desires” something that clearly is not happening. Something must be stopping God from doing what he wants to do. Freewill is the most likely solution to this problem (Lk. 7:30; Acts 7:51; Mt. 23:3, 37; Mt. 6:10; Jn. 7:17).
(8) God himself is a
free moral agent, who is not determined (Rev. 4:11). Therefore, even the determinist will admit that it is not necessary for all decision to be determined. Jesus was not determined; instead, he submitted his will to the Father’s will (Lk. 22:42).
One final passage should be considered in this regard:
Matthew 19:24. Jesus says, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” What exactly could this verse mean from a Calvinist perspective? Arminian scholar Roger Olson comments, “What sense does this verse make in light of irresistible grace? Is Jesus saying it is harder
for God to save a rich man than a poor one? How could that be? If everyone, without exception, only gets into the kingdom of God by God’s work alone without any required cooperation on his or her part, then Jesus’ saying makes no sense at all.”
[8]
The whole of scripture appeals to man to make choices based on testimony and evidence 1000s of times. Those who reject God's will are punished as examples for free agents to use in gaining wisdom of how to act. To deny these facts using scripture is again to cherry-pick the data horribly.
Your cogent rhetorical flourish above suggests that you have the capability to study and argue the scriptures, why then choose such a fallacious method to repsent your view of god's sovereignty and man's responsibility followed by the snide comment "I hope this helps?"
Let's strive together to have a conversation free of manipulation and appeals to fallacious methods. Let's get at the views that are offered to explain the data, Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, open theism, and let's avoid the name-calling and labeling "semi-pelegianism" and focus on which view best explains all the data of scripture.
