A typical comment seen in free-will discussions related to the depravity of the lost in soteriological topics is that "man possesses the ability to respond to God's offer of grace" along with the accompanying "some will respond rightly and others wrongly". At that juncture I want to probe more deeply into exactly the synergist made the right choice while his or her neighbor did not. What usually follows is more pointed questioning from me and my interlocutor eventually dismissing my questions with some desperate pointers to poorly understood Scripture verses. It would seem to me that to avoid the rabbit trails related to proper interpretation of the offered verses, a reasonable response to the statements given in my opening sentence above would be a question along the lines: What specifically was it about your ability to respond correctly and another's to not do the same that absolves God from being a debtor, per your choice, thereby having God giving you what you merited by your perceptive ability to choose correctly? I am hard pressed to find a response from the Arminian, open theist, etc., that would absolve God from being a debtor. That said, knowing my own limitations, I would be interested in any possible examples that would be a suitable answer to my question. As more background, I think the approach of using "reasons to boast" as a tactic with a synergist fails too often with their claims that they are not doing any "work" that would given them "reason to boast". It seems to me that another approach would be to approach the topic from a "making God a debtor strategy" as the "wiggle room" the synergist may lay claim to related to "reasons to boast" is much more narrow and explicitly didactic within Scripture. Am I all wet here or is there any cheese down this tunnel?