The truth of Romans 9

rc;

No I do not agree. I have made decisions all my life some of those decisions was not base on my desire. I make decisions based over several factors but this decision for Christ was made based on my Conscience. Which was convinced by faith that came to me through the hearing of God's word.
More specifically my greatest conviction was over the matter that this man Christ Jesus who has so much Love with in, that was so perfect and so unconditional that He cried Father forgive them for they know not what they do. These, He was praying for were the very one's who were crucifying Him, beating Him, and Spitting On Him. All these things if done to myself as natural would have made me hate them with a vengeance that would have insured my suffering in Hell. Jesus Christ had to be God in the flesh because no mere man could demonstrate such a perfect Love with out being the Devine God I Love and worship.
His Forgiving these who persecuted Him who had such a horrid hatred and jealousy is the greatest act of Love ever demonstrated. It was beyond perfection. My God is Awesome His peace and Love is the most fulfilling thing I have ever know. No one can be complete with out Him.
May Christ Shine His Love On Us All;
Mike

 

No I do not agree. I have made decisions all my life some of those decisions was not base on my desire.

What were some of those decisions? If you chose something "Against" your desire, you were "forced" to choose something. Therefore no free will huh?

 

rc;

No I wasn't forced to choose anything against my desires I choose contrary to them for good and the reason I can do that is because unlike you I have free will.
May Christ Shine His Love On Us All;
Mike

 

This wasn't even in question. Of course Adam wasn't dead in sin, he hasn't sinned yet ! That's my point ! Information or lack of information doesn't matter. You use what you have to make an INFORMED choice. BUT you will choose what you DESIRE from that information. That's all I'm getting at. Do you agree or not? </font>[/QUOTE]Then why don't you apply that same principle of choosing what you desire to "The Elect" Don't you insist that they must be regenerated first before they can choose? Are they not also human? Why are you so afraid to allow ALL humans to choose from the same vantage point? God allows that choice! But Calvin does not!

 

"Then why don't you apply that same principle of choosing what you desire to "The Elect" Don't you insist that they must be regenerated first before they can choose? Are they not also human? Why are you so afraid to allow ALL humans to choose from the same vantage point? "

I do... man will always choose what he desires.

This is the epitome of freewill. Man is free to choose WHATEVER he desires. You will not have an argument from anybody on this forum with that definition.

Can we agree on that? That man is FREE to choose WHATEVER he disires?

 

I will not agree with you on this matter until you remove the requirement for regeneration prior to believing in God! Believing in God is a choice of the free will, and All mankind is capable of making that choice without first being regenerated to make them able.

 

Where did I put the requirement for regeneration prior to believing in God? ...

Are you assuming something Wes? It seems like you are arguing with a presumption in mind rather than making a simple point.

This is a very basic Socratic syllogism. I'm just trying to find out a simple point.

It seems to me from your reply that you would "Agree" with me that man chooses freely what he desires... Remember, I'm just trying to find out what TRUE free will is. Nothing to do with sotierology or anything thing else...

The importance is vital though. In debate, definitions are the most important basis. In doing so we have reference. In many debates with Mormons and JW's and Jews, the trick is to have them define their terms, so that :
1. Whether true or not, You properly understand what they think of what is being defined
2. You can know if they start changing the "understanding" of what was defined in order to "slip" around a topic when cornered.

 

Is that an accusation I hear coming from you?

 

No. I want to define our terms. If they are the same then we can argue from that point. If they are different than we can argue about that point, that's all. I was not in any way comparing you to JW's or Mormons. This was just an example to show the reason why it is important to do so.

 

Well then why haven't you defined Grace? Why haven't you provided the details of how grace saves man? Why haven't you described the true essence of Grace? That is definition of terms!

 

Wes,

This discussion has been on desire. Please stay on the topic. There are plenty of other places where grace HAS BEEN defined in the context of the thread where it has been brought up. In this thread we are talking about desire so stay on the subject.