The truth of Romans 9

Ben.

Why are you so evasive?

I do not want to get in the way here for a while you must be very busy getting your act together in replying to Gene.
I'll wait for now.

johnp.

 

rc,
Beyond confused?

By what standard?

 

Yes, but stil; this in itself, while allowing for individual election; still shows that "vessels" can still be corporate, which most Calvinists seem to think is impossible. But that is what the concept came from, and while saying Paul is changing this to "individual" (in the same way something applied to the literal priests, or God in the OT can be applied to the Son, as per your examples) might be at most possible; but the vessels as corporate would be the most probable because that was the original context. For one thing; the priests were, as Hebrews shows, shadows of Christ. So of course what is applied to them can be transferred to Christ. (It really sis more like the other way around!). Now you can try to say then that the corporate "election" in the OT is a shadow of individual election in the NT; but that would not make sense; Isaac is not a "shadow" of an individual Christian; and neither is Esau a "shadow" of an individual dying without Christ. But what they were shadows of is the body of saved as a whole; and the body of lost as a whole. This says nothing about individuals being preordained into either group.

"they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" and "children of the flesh, not children of God" (v.6ff) is often taken to try to prove this is talking about the "elect" and "non-elect" within Israel. But the distinction between those who obtained salvation and those who didn't was whether they sought it by faith or works. Verses 6 and 8 are simply supporting this, proving that faith is what makes one the faithful remnant, not physical inheritance. This is why Isaac is mentioned. All of the Jews were Isaac's seed also, but where Abraham represented the physical inheritance, Isaac was the child of promise through whom Christ came. Yes, there were both true believers as well as non-believers in Israel, and that's all this is saying; once again there is no assumption of preordained states of individuals.
So what Paul is arguing is that simply being "Abraham's children" does not make one a child of promise, because for one thing, Abraham had other children beside just the Jews. But God had declared that "In Isaac shall your Seed be called." (v.7) Being from Isaac also wasn't enough, because Esau also was his child. But God had still unconditionally chosen Jacob (v.12, 13), not because of any righteousness of his (Jews thought that their forefathers must have been chosen because of being more righteous, thus "works" rather than "Him that calleth"), for they were not even yet born when God made this decision.(v.11) So the whole point here is that it must be more than physical lineage from Abraham. The next step is that even being of Jacob's physical lineage is not enough.
The whole debate here was "faith" versus "inheritance", NOT "election" versus "free will"! So the plan of salvation and its carrying out is not of "blood" (inheritance); or "him who runs" or "the will of the flesh" (strives to be good through the Law); or of "him who wills" or "the will of man" (human schemes and ideas of how to be saved; demanding from God), but of God who shows mercy. (v.10/John 1:13).

I've never heard that interpretation before! "runs" means what it does as Paul elsewhere uses it: as in "running" a race. So that is the person who tries to justify themselves by their works and "make it into Heaven". Basically, this turns out to be just as good as unbelief, or of course. But he is not saying "it is not of him who believes, nor of him who disbelieves". It is him who tries to will OR "run" his way into Heaven through his works.

I don't argue "foreseen faith", but still; remember that "many are called, but few chosen", so however one tries to reconcile "regeration-or-faith: Which came first?" (which is not an easy thing to ponder, yet people think they know exacty how God does it), still, there are other factors which are being missed, so it is not as simple as "God only calls some and rejects the rest to destruction, and that is why some believe and not others".

To further demonstrate God's choice of men for these purposes was not "unjust" (v.14) Paul goes into the whole story of Pharaoh. No Jew thought of what God did to Pharaoh as being "unjust" (after all, it was for their sake, and that's what mattered to them!) So then what Paul is getting to nobody also should think is unjust. The whole context is two groups "the Children of the flesh", and "the children of promise". It says nothing about the individuals in either group being unconditionally elected or preteritioned into those groups. It just assumes two groups, and emphasizes that what many thought was the class that mattered (Jew as opposed to Gentile) was actually not the right one. Before one jumps to the clay "vessels", let's for once look more at the second part of v.20 (the beginning of Paul's answer to this question): "Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, 'Why have you made me this way'?". Made them what way? Predestined to Hell? Sinners who are "allowed to go the way their 'totally depraved' nature takes them"? Helplessly unable to repent, yet "held responsible" to repent and left in that state? Passed over for "saving grace" and therefore doomed to suffer the eternal "justice" for their sins? Once again, none of the above concepts are what was being discussed! (A reader would have no reason to even assume they were any of those things in the first place!). So you just can't say "Paul was answering the objection to God's unconditional election and preterition process"!
The focus is on "children of promise" as opposed to "children of the flesh". According to Ephesians 2:3, we all started out as "children of wrath" (which would be synonymous with "vessels of wrath", "sons of disobedience"(Col.3:6), "seed of Satan" (Matt.13) and also "children of the flesh" for the Jews), and John clearly defines "children of the devil" and "children of God" as "he that commits..." or "...does not commit [practice] sin" (1 John 3:8-10). Thanks to our "depravity" (sin from Adam), nobody is born in the latter state, and so the former, as an eternal state of condemnation, is not what God unconditionally "makes" anybody. This should prove once and for all that the question and Paul's answer have nothing to do with Calvinistic reprobation or preterition. God has declared that there are two groups: Physical Israel (which is in the same spiritual status as the rest of humanity) and spiritual Israel (Romans 2:28, 29). So the objection is: "Why did God make us physical Israel only if that doesn't make us the true children of promise? As much as we try so hard to keep the Law He gave us, why is he still finding fault or not accepting us as we are? Didn't He create us as His people? Could we have resisted His will to create us this way, if this is not what He counts?" THIS is what is being asked! HERE is where Paul says "who are you to reply back to God?" He as "the Potter" sovereignly laid out a plan, involving two categories of people; the first had a purpose, but this purpose is not the salvation of the individuals in the group, but to pave the way for the second. It's this second group one must be apart of, and who are we to question this plan? (This still says nothing about a person's inability to cross from one group to the other. The people were stubborn and refused to give up their notion of inheritance, which they would have to do to become apart of the children of promise. This also would be analogous to modern unbelievers saying "Why are you saying one has to be a born-again Christian to be saved?". "Why does God find fault with me as I am? I'm a good person! I am a 'child' of his since he created me! He made me this way (by his own will), so he should understand!" But to them too, it's not "children of the flesh" who are counted, and neither by our own self-justification!). All of this is apart of the theme or "long argument" Paul is making throughout the whole book of Romans. Calvinists claim that this interpretation removes the "sword" or "offense" of the Gospel, and the fact that Paul "anticipates objection" is the ultimate proof that their position is true. But their hypothesis is not the only doctrine in the world that is "offensive" to people. They also claim "If you haven't struggled with this passage, you don't understand it properly", but this "sword" was not intended for believers, who are the ones opposing the doctrine. Yet it is truly a sword and offense for those it was intended for. (It is certainly offensive to unbelievers, as in the above illustration!)

 

It's not "why do some from then to the present believe and die in Christ, and others die in unbelief (or seem to come to faith, but "draw back unto perdition"; which is a whole other can of worms with what "perseverance" is about!)

And "mercy" and "wrath" must not be assumed to have only eternal meanings. People suffer mercy and wrath all the time here on earth, having nothing to do with whether they wind up saved or damned in the end. "Mercy" means more along the lines of "beneficience" to one "under someone's power", whether it is from the penalty of their own sin or not. The passage does NOT say "He shall have saving mercy on who He shall have saving mercy", but it is made clear elsewhere that it is offered to all. Furthermore, as one studies the gruesome fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and how this fulfilled much of scriptural prophecy regarding the judgment of Israel; it becomes quite clear that THIS was the immediate "wrath" and "destruction" the passage is referring to, and which the Israelites were the "vessels" of! The "vessels of mercy": the Christian Church composed of people of all nations (including Jews who crossed out of the former group!), was spared this horrific event, and continued on with God's grace to the present.

Paul uses the example of Isaac, Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh to show how the people were chosen ("elected") by God for His purpose and not by their own will in the first place, and how God raised them up to show his power, and then hardens, all according to His will, and chooses others (and once again, individual salvation is not even mentioned. With both the Jews, as well as in later racism, people thought that their group was "chosen" by God over others because of some type of "superiority" they had within themselves, whether moral, intellectual, genetic, or otherwise. This is precisely what Paul is debunking, as the Gospel tells us there is no such superiority; for all have sinned and are under the same condemnation. Therefore, salvation must be purely by God's grace. The Jews, of course, would be offended by this, and one of them might ask "why does He find fault" [i.e., with the people], and then Paul says "Who are you O man, to reply against God"? The Jews had been opposing the Gospel and the apostles all along, for among other things, criticizing the Jews for their hardness in rejecting Christ, as well as opening up to the gentiles; yet, possessing the Law (v.4), they should have known better, so this is why Jesus and the apostles were often harsh to them, criticizing their "stubbornness". They had no right to question why God would find fault with the people as a whole, but as an individual, that person could still forsake his part of the national sin and repent. Think about it: WHO would ask Paul such a question in the first place? One of the "non-elect"? But who could know now that they are ultimately non-elect? Or is it just any arbitrary listener who happens not to like God's election process? Do you think the Jews would really care if all unbelieving Gentiles and apostate Jews were preordained to destruction? They probably already believed that. Would Gentiles care whether individual Jews were "vessels of wrath"? If anything, some may have hastily presumed something like that, but then Paul corrects them, in chapter 11, saying "You will say then, 'the branches were broken off that I might be grafted in'. Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear".* But otherwise; what would that have to do with them? People back then were concerned primarily about themselves and their own group. No one thought about such questions like this as we do. The whole notion of the "dignity and worth of human beings" that makes people so offended at this doctrine now is more a modern Western mindset. A first century reader who just grasped the context regarding Israel and inheritance versus faith would get the point and have no reason to be so offended. But an Israelite in the Church who still had not fully submitted to the Gospel (as we see in the Gospels, Galatians and elsewhere), was another story. The Jews saw their national identity (physical inheritance) as an extension of themselves. It was everything to them, including their salvation. So to suggest they were no longer "chosen" in the sense they were used to was a great affront to them. But the entire Gospel is showing that "chosen" groups one had no choice belonging to did not solve the problem of sin, and thus could not save.
Let's review the context by further examining the "why does He yet find fault; for who has resisted His will?" question. WHAT is really being asked here? "Yet" find "fault" for what? "Why would God unconditionally choose someone else and not me/[others], and save them by 'enabling' them to repent, yet leave me/[others] in this helpless state, dead in sin, unable to repent, yet still hold me/[them] responsible [i.e. 'find fault'] for my sin, and send me/[them] to Hell when I/[they] couldn't even 'resist His will' to place me/[them] in this state (before I[/they] were born, even) in the first place?". This is what people are asking Calvinists today, who then in turn simply project this into the text. But is it in the context of what the hypothetical person was asking Paul? It looks like it at first glance, and Calvinists assume so, so everytime someone questions or challenges "God holding helpless, 'totally unable' sinners responsible for their sin they couldn't repent of", the Calvinists just throw up the next verse as the quick magical answer. But "ability to repent" is not being discussed here. Neither is any inescapable state or fate. Paul had just mentioned Jacob, Esau and Pharaoh, These may be individuals, but what were they being used to illustrate? Step back another few verses: "not the children of the flesh are children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for a seed." (v.8)
In connection with this then, is this passage teaching that God "raises" each non-elect person for the specific purpose of sending him to Hell "in order to make known the riches of his glory" to the saved and "proclaim His name throughout the earth"? NO, we don't even know who will finally end up in Hell here on earth, so that wouldn't "show" anybody anything. Or better yet; what about the tribesmen way off in the bush who have never even been seen by Christians. If they never hear and are lost, then did God "raise" them too, like Pharaoh, for our sake? We do not even know they (as individuals) exist! How are they "raised" up, then? ("raise" meaning brought into a believer's path for a specific purpose). So clearly, this passage is not suggesting any such thing. As for the idea that the "riches of His glory" in reprobation is to be made known to the redeemed in Heaven, the context is clearly a display of God's power in the present world, so this passage must be a specific earthly example of God's purpose. Israel is the whole focus of the chapter, not "all the people who will be in Hell". Since nobody knows who will ultimately die in their sins, there is no such "group" designated, as there would be no point in discussing it. Israel is who Paul says he wished he could be accursed for in v.3, not some new "hardened" group consisting of Israelites and every other non-Christian.

*Even if you could argue that God grafts them in by unconditional election/irresistable grace, still this conclusively shows that those who are "hardened" or "cut off" are not necessarily eternally reprobated/preteritioned. It's a general category regarding the group. Verse 32 then explains both chapters by saying that the very reason He concluded all in unbelief in the first place was so he can have mercy on all, (give all a chance to come to Him) not have mercy only on some and leave the rest trapped.

 

Eric,
(It is certainly offensive to unbelievers, as in the above illustration!) This was written to the BELIEVERS in Rome. Unbelievers would not struggle with this for two reasons, 1: They can't understand it being spritually discerned and 2: It is foolish to them and don't care about it.

Paul is not argueing why God made us unbelievers in a "Why can't He accept me the way I am" state and an "I believe" state. His climax is built on Romans 1-8 ! The Crux of 9 is Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed
Failed? How?

 

My reference to unbelievers was an analogy. It is a similar principle; I know Paul wasn't writing to them.
It is Calvinists who think that unbelievers (as well as many modern believers) struggle with it because "sending people to Hell as vessels of wrath with no offer of salvation" offends our notions of "fairness". But precisely my point was that this was written to people back then, and they did not have this modern sentiment.
Yes, I would agree that the point is that though not all of Israel are [true, spiritual] Israel; the plan of God still had not failed.

 

THat's the point, Paul made the arguement using those two o.t. verses to show that God's plan, purpose of effectual calling will not fail.
that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of HIM that calleth

Notice Paul didn't conflict works with FAITH but against God and His calling which was taught back in chapt. 8. All of chapt 9 is uplifting, and solidifying everything he has said up to this point. And is showing that God's PURPOSE will stand ! And there's nothing you can do about it!

 

Hi JohnP;

Why did God have to harden Pharaoh's heart? Wasn't he just as deprave as all other sinners?
Don't you believe that man in his natural state can do nothing to please God?
Wasn't he predestined to do what he did?
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

ILUVLIGHT.

Did God harden Pharaoh's heart? You sound as if you don't believe He did. If you don't why not? If you do then why did God have to harden Pharaoh's heart?

Pharaoh was as he was due to God's providence the same as the rest of us sinners. To what degree Pharaoh was depraved is not for me to judge.

That's what I believe but that does not stop a man defending his own interests when he sees them threathened does it? One or two of those calamities and Pharaoh would have let those people go. That would have been common sense not obedience to God.

Of course he was but so was God in the hardening of him.

johnp.

 

Hi JohnP;

The Bible says He did can't you answer the question?

Excuse me I thought you were a Calvinist who believed in the total depravity of all the unsaved. So are you suggesting that some natural men are better than others? If so, in what way?

Does this also mean that a man could choose God if it were in his own best interest?

I see so who predestined God to harden Pharaoh's heart?. I mean this is God doing something other than resting. So your saying that God came out of His rest just to insure that Pharaoh did what He wanted. Wasn't Pharaoh's predestination enough to insure that he would do as God planned ? I mean if we are all predestined to do what we do including our next breath then why did God have to hardin Pharaoh's heart. It just seems to be, a bit of an over kill if you know what I mean.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

ILUVLIGHT.

Whatcha mean 'if'? You haven't! We don't like Him and He don't like us. Hell is preferable to a sinner than accepting anything He does! The essence of sin is hatred of the deepest sort.

You make a great mistake in thinking God isn't intimately involved in His creation. He sustains every particle of it continuosly. Hands on not a God far away. Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." John 5:17. Have you got your god with his feet up? A one that has to nip out to earth once in a while to give a prod or two? That's probably why it came as a surprise to him that Noah happened to be righteous. Should get out more often shouldn't he? He'd know what was going on then wouldn't he?

A man of your great knowledge stooping to meaninglessness. You know what is meant by total depravity, 1) You choose to lie about the meaning of the word and try to score a weak point, 2) You don't know what is meant by the term and you shame yourself everytime you say you know all about Calvinism when in fact you know nothing. Either way you are in a dilemma and that's being nice

The bible says that Pharaoh had his heart hardened by God I agree with you. So much for your tinpot god free will then. What happened to his free will 'a'? Got a bashing did it not? Surely you don't want to go through what Ben went through do you? But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go.

Of course he was but so was God in the hardening of him.
I said that. That God was predestined to harden Pharaoh's heart just as much as Pharaoh's heart was predestined to be hardened.
(What you think rc I stand to be corrected. I've not heard this before. Seems resonable to me.)
Your reply? I see so who predestined God to harden Pharaoh's heart? I'll give you three guesses!

It is. Every breath you take every move you make depends solely on His will. Every breath you take is dependant on Him it is not taken because of some natural law. Think of that the next time you breath in. He is awesome!

johnp.

 

JohnP;

Whatcha mean I haven't. How is it you can presume to know my heart. And what makes you think that man always chooses what he wants. Sometimes man chooses for the good of others regardless of what it'll mean to him personally. Sometimes man chooses what is best for the future and with hell as an alternative I would think that alone would be plenty motivation to make one choose right.

Well Johnboy thankyou for confirming my previous post as truth then. If predestination is enough you still need to answer why did God need to harden Pharaoh's heart. When the predestination God already placed on Pharaoh should have taken care of it. If you have no explanation it's alright Johnboy we all get the right idea.

Johnboy I just am at a loss for words. NOT!!!
The word "total" is the sum of all and is there fore all inclusive other wise it is not total.
You Calvinist never say what you mean do you? If you mean something else why don't you just say that instead of saying it is something else. I call it double speake. I haven't lied Johnboy and I'll thankyou to keep your personal attacks to your self. It is obvious that Calvinist never say what they trully mean.

First of all Johnboy freewill isn't the subject at hand and I worship the Creater of the universe there is no other God But Him. However you should know that but you just can't handle an honest conversation with out insult and attempting to injure your brothers in Christ. So far you've accused me of worshipping a false God and called me a liar. These are the things a man does who is filled with hatred for anyone who would disagree with him. Why are you so bitter Johnboy?. By the way pharaoh having his heart harden is support for freewill. God had to harden His heart to insure he didn't attempt to please God and let His people go.
This is what you're avoiding isn't it?

If this is true then why did the flood have to happen? Why didn't God just will everyone to die.
Could it be that God has always allowed for the man who would believe. You know Noah warned all the people and told them God was bringing a flood but they just laughed at him. I guess you could say they made there choice Huh!
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

Hello ILUVLIGHT.

Whatcha mean 'if'?

1 Cor 2:15 The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

This is a new thing to me, where did I say that? That's a question by the way I want an answer to.

Well it is not is it! When was the last time you got out?

I did not say man was not brave I said they would rather go to Hell than go to Jesus. You are an example of this. You stand your ground in the rebellion and you face it off with Him.

Think nothing of it old boy.

Sorry I thought I answered the point but as you say you know I will of course leave it there.

It is not the number of words but the order you place them in that makes them light or dark.

So you do not know what total depravity means!

That was not a personal attack it was one of two possibilties. Thank you for saying it was 2). How is this better? Go and learn what total depravity means you don't understand.

You say you know about total depravity and you don't know about total depravity what's that? You worship a tinpot god called free will and you can't worship God with that on your back. Let God be true and every man a liar. You trust in man.

Romans nine is about the Sovereignty of God and you oppose this with free will. It is the subject of the thread, how can you say it is not the subject of the thread? "Trust in God." Jesus said, "Trust also in me."
"I shall trust in me." Says ILUVLIGHT.

"How is it you can presume to know my heart." Says ILUVLIGHT.
Hypocrisy stalks us all you know?
You say I call you a liar and now a hypocrit and you say I am not honest? This is not a personal attack as you imagine but the truth. I am not trying to insult you but warn you of the condition you are in. If you don't accept my judgment, a judgment you should be able to discern some truth in because all men are such, I do not care. Tell you I was told to and told you I did.

JN 8:54 Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.
Sweet Jesus filled with hatred?

"Trust in God." Jesus said, "Trust also in me."
"I shall trust in me." Says ILUVLIGHT. Go for it man!

Yea! Strange that 'a'? Ok you win. RO 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. You just can't beat Him can you? This book of answers!

Like the plague.

It was predestined to be a type of Judgment Day. Those who find themselves in Jesus, chosen before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight, will survive the utter destruction of those who oppose Him, or in other words, those not chosen in Him to be holy and blameless in His sight and God will have no mercy on them.

It's a bit ambiguous could you expand this please?
Etymology: imitative of a grunt
-- used typically to express surprise, disbelief, or disgust or to request repetition or clarification of something just said
"huh." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (5 Mar. 2005).

johnp.

 

ILL,
You most obviously have never read anything on "free will" . Men will always choose "WANT HE DESIRES" quoting Jonathan Edwards. That's the reason they call it "Free Will" no one can make you choose something you DONT DESIRE! And man continually seeks evil from his youth. He is EVIL and hates God. You bad example of men making a GOOD choice of choosing to go to heaven over hell? ... The ulitmate bad example...
NO MAN CHOOSES GOOD, NO NOT ONE.

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

They only choose what they want... and are blind TO THE TRUTH!! That's the whole problem ILL !!
Their blind!! Why do they have to choose heaven when they already think their good (in their evil state) and are on their way to heaven!! How many people honestly think their going to hell?
And the ones that do are so hardened they don't care or honestly want to go to hell because they hate God actively !!

 

The trouble with Jonathan Edwards treatise, is he does not acknowledge that man changes his likes and desires through persuasion. That too is what free will is all about.

One can come to a fork in the road, each with its own sign. Both signs say their road arrives at the same destination. One road is broad and well lighted with attractions on each side. The other is little more than a country dirt road. Standing at the 'Y' is a person who tells you that the "country road" is a direct,shorter route, but can give you no information about the other road.

Now you have many elements of information to deal with. First, why were you traveling on that road to start with? Were you merely out strolling-rolling with the flow, or did you intend to reach the stated destination within a preplanned timeframe? How much of a hurry are you in? Are you easily side-tracked by "the amusements of life" and Finally do you believe what the person tells you? You have the freedom to choose according to your own desires or will. The choice is yours. You alone can change your persuasion based on knowledge. You alone have the responsibility to choose for yourself, no one can choose for you and no one can make you choose what you do not want, or what they want you to want!

 

That was the longest amount of nothing I've ever read. You didn't state anything. Man chooses and will always choose what he desires.

If there is a point in the road he still chooses what he DESIRES. That's the point! Either with a lot of information or little no matter what signs say or not, no matter the size of the roads.... who cares? Man will still choose what he desires correct?

 

But man can and does change his desires based upon persuasion brought by knowledge. If that were not true, we would not be having this conversation on this BBS, we'd all be wallowing in a pigsty somewhere doing nothing but following our fleshly desires as the pigs do!

But then, we have gained knowledge and have made our own choices under the freedom to do so, and viola here we are 'fat-fingering' a keyboard attempting to communicate with each other. Animals don't do that, only human's have been given that kind of freewill to be able to "change our circumstances for our own betterment, and enjoyment." And, it seems, only human's are capable of disobeying God! Animals do what animals do in accordance with what God has given them. Humans, on the other hand, do according to what they will do based on the knowledge they possess. Gain different knowledge than you now possess, and it will alter your choices.

 

More information doesn't change the point Wes... you will still choose what you desire. If the information changes for better or for worse that "Alters" your choice, you still choose what you desire? Correct?

If you have a fork and by the info you have, you decide you desire the left... but if you get MORE info that "Alters" your choice to the right you still end up with the same conclusion, you choose WHAT YOU DESIRE! Right?

 

What about my posts leads you to think that I have not stated that? Yes, we choose that which "pleases us" the most. However, "What pleases us the most" is subject to the information we have....For lack of knowledge my people perish!

 

What pleases us most is fulfilling our desires. Be careful here Wes, there is a difference. Pleasure is the gratification of our desires.
Information is also irrelavant because our desires choose which information to believe. There is no anticendent to desire. It is synanomous with "heart" in the Bible. It is from which all things flow FROM. The begining of thought.