The Great Commission negates Calvinism/predestination teaching

Definitions: The Great Commission: Jesus command to all those in his church to go and preach the gospel to every creature on earth and make disciples of all the nations. Negates: nullifies, contradicts, shows that the following cannot be true, etc…. Calvinism/Predestination teaching: the teaching that there is no free will, God controls the actions of all, including our thoughts and choices, even our choices that will send us to hell because the potter decided it brings him glory to have clay set aside for destruction, and only an elect few made to ever be able to go to heaven. Terms and Nature of this debate: this is obviously a Christian theology debate, so biblical references and a Christian perspective are necessary for you to defend your side of the resolution, you cannot argue God does not exist for in this debate its axiomatic that he exist and the Old and New Testament is his divinely inspired word. This debate is over the very popular controversy that divides denominations everywhere possible more than any other, the Wesleyn Vs Calvism debate or better known as the Free Will Predestination debate. And while this very fun topic to discuss and debate has many points of contention that commonly come up, like arguments over the consequences of the fact that God is Omnipotent and sees the future, or how the theology affects answering the Problem of Evil in apologetics, or the nature of a loving God, and of course proper translation and interpretation of scripture references……for this particular debate I would like to avoid getting into to deep of arguments about any of those things. Instead I would like this debate to focus specifically on one very common charge brought up against Calvinism, the charge that if there is no Free Will there is no point in Evangelism or Witnessing to the Lost and thus the Great Commission makes no sense. Usually that’s really more of an emotional point than it is a logical case against Calvinism. To show how the teaching of predestination can negatively affect the spirits of those preaching the gospel to the lost, cause after all what’s the point? Nothing you do or say changes where a persons soul is going to go (according to Calvinist). So I’d like to take that normally emotional charge and put it in its most logical format as a case against Calvinism. That Calvinism not only logically disheartens one witnessing, but that the very fact that Jesus gave us the great Commission itself directly/ indirectly indicates that there is free will, and the state of the souls of every creature on earth is that of a soul that can be saved, nobody is ‘made for the purpose of burning in Hell’. ‘The Lords ways are mysterious’ defense only carries so far, and in this matter there is nothing mysterious to this fact, if there is no free will and the souls that will one day be in hell were made for since before they were born and the souls in heaven were elected for it before they were born then Jesus flat out would not tell his disciples to go preach the gospel to every creature on earth, for the gospel is not for every creature but only the elect. And so the scriptures on the Great Commission are thus indirect evidence against the doctrine of predestination. And for some further direct evidence on the same point I claim is indirectly made in the scriptures about the great commission, I point to the scriptures in Ezekiel the reality of the real choices that can still be made by every person we are called to witness too. God tells Ezekiel that if he does not warn the city to repent of there sins or God will bring destruction there way, then God will hold Ezekiel accountable for there lack of repentance, there blood will be on his hands, but if he does bring the word to them then it will be off his hands and onto the people of the city. It will then be because of there choices in response to the prophets warning that brings or repels there destruction. These passages are only understandable if seen in a Free Will Context. A prophet has no power to stop or cause a people to repent, because God is in control of everything according to Calvinist. Yet these passages are contrary to that interpretation of what it means to be a Sovereign God, because God tells his prophet that if the people do not repent and the prophet did not warn them then it is indeed the prophets fault. By being quite the prophet removes the choice from the people to repent of there sins, Now holding true to Calvinism means reading this to mean a mortal Prophet must be able to override the God’s control over other peoples wills because when its God will they should repent but a prophet can stay silent and cause those people to never repent because of it……this is absurd. The truth is the prophet overrides the will of nothing by being silent or speaking up because God does not express his sovereignty by controlling the wills or his people in that sort of way. We are given ability to make choices on our own independent of God and when the prophet tells us to repent we must make a choice between repenting or ignoring the warning and carry on as we were. I would like it if my opponent were honestly a Christian that believes in Predestination if that’s at all possible, and whoever takes this debate I request that we try not get into much scripture outside of these two I have already given, I understand there are a lot of passages quoted by both sides that are also relevant to the free will predestination debate, but its just the validness of this particular contention I want to debate. Of the necessity of non-pre-destined choice being made by people for there to be a Great Commission, and for it to make a difference in weather a prophet is accountable for the city’s sins or not that he does or does not preach to.