While it may be as you say, "They let their own thoughts rule over what this above verse clearly says", it also may be there is a misunderstanding. Otherwise I agree the scripture clearly says that there are those that do not receive the love of the Truth.
I am not comfortable equating that action of not receiving the love of the Truth with coming from a freewill anymore than I am comfortable with equating receiving the love of the Truth as coming from a freewill. To me these are two distinct wills only because they see things differently.
The scripture describing the mystery of iniquity at work shows severe consequences for those who more than likely had ample opportunity to receive the Truth, but I would guess they were too prideful.
Regardless of the fact that I currently control my fingers and legs and their actions according to my discretion, it's still a different issue to believe I am in full control of my moral/immoral disposition according to my discretion. Heck just needing a nap can change my attitude. Ironically, I am dealing with His judgment of me even when I judge others as pertains to mercy. Even Christ said that the sick need a doctor, and of course there are probably those that refuse to admit that they or anyone else needs any healing at all.
The context of Romans 1 referencing God's wrath is about a time before mankind had become utterly sinful, and how God's wrath was justified. In this context the presence of culpability is clear since the scenario is one where men knew God had made them, and yet they took the glory for their righteous attributes unto themselves when they were rightly Gods', and so this is uncontested. For by doing so men changed the incorruptible image of God and worshipped the creature over the Creator and became corrupt and foolish within themselves. I don't think mankind knew this would be the result.
Respectfully, the phrase "those who thirst" is not representative of a will that is free from the compulsion or realization of the need to drink so as to live. And the term translated "freely", implies that it is the water that is freely given and that no one who thirsts should be denied, for it is to be counted as a gift that comes by grace and therefore cannot be earned or deserved.
It's not my place to say definitively how God will judge the wicked. According to scripture, we all have already been condemned as wicked through the works of the law. Currently in my mind, I would think that the wicked and unrighteous are more prone to condemn others rather than forgive, and the just and righteous are prone to forgive others rather than condemn.
The issue is most likely a misunderstanding caused by the occasion of semantics.
You probably want people to take God's wrath and judgment more seriously, and they don't want to believe it's the fear of His wrath and judgment that is the reason for being good or obedient or the impetus for remorse.
It depends on how 'free' in front of 'will' is qualified and the context in which it is applied. To quote scripture, to be free from righteousness is to be a servant to sin, and to be free from sin is to be a servant of righteousness. There are two opposing types of freedom being described there. This indicates that there are higher powers that we are forced to react to because they precede us in existence and that ultimately we will serve one or the other unto our detriment and the detriment of others, or for our benefit and the benefit of others.
Free will is the individual, the person, oneself is the cause for their choice, they are the cause for their action, and no external factor caused them to decide or act.
From this perspective, “we” are not “forced” to react to one of the two higher powers. Rather “we” freely choose to react to one, or both, of those higher powers, and “we” are the cause for the decision and the action. Nothing is “forcing” us to decide or act one way or the other.
However in the context of having been given over to a reprobate mind, one cannot expect such a mind to know God or acknowledge Him.
So what? The verse(s) in Romans clearly states the people in Romans 1:28 were already freely choosing to not acknowledge God. “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God…” So what if a “depraved mind” for these people “cannot” acknowledge God? They were already not acknowledging God. The not acknowledging God is what led them to being turned over to a depraved mind. “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper…”
Not acknowledging God came first, being given “up” to a “depraved mind” followed. Which, by the way,
And the entirety of the passage has some wording that a depraved mind can acknowledge God, albeit in a way to hate Him and praise disobedience of His ordinance.
“29
people having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed,
and evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit,
andmalice;
they are gossips,30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unfeeling,
andunmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God.”
