Yes you "say" you want to start with the Arminian position that nothing MAKES them choose one way or the other - - but then you ask "So what MADE them choose one way or the other? AND don't say NOTHING MADE them choose one way or the other as your answer".
But of course you use "inclined" and "predisposed" instead of "MADE", and something ABOUT THE PERSON (the way they were MADE?).
Obviously, you were MADE in such a way that you are incapable of answering a very simple question.
Let me remind you, as you answer in a mockery of the Calvinist's answer, that YOU are the person who suggested that the difference is like one of wax vs. clay -- which implies that the difference boils down to how they are MADE. I did not suggest any such thing -- YOU DID -- and I am specifically asking for an answer that is unlike the very analogy you used.
Given that they are not MADE to choose differently, I want to know WHY one chooses to accept the Gospel, and another chooses to reject it. Now, if the wax/clay analogy is your answer, then YOU are either saying the difference boils down to how they are made, or you are simply retreating one level back and not answering the question. You have failed to explain WHY one person's heart becomes like wax, and another person's heart becomes like clay. But that's YOUR answer, not mine, so I leave you to explain it.
The only good point you made was that the word "predisposed" suggests how we're made. Okay, so let's eliminate the use of the word "predisposed". "Predisposed" was simply ONE of the many reasons in my example that I cited to explain why I might choose to eat pizza of my own free will. You don't have to choose "predisposed" as part of your answer. You never had to use that as part of your answer. All I'm asking is for AN ANSWER. Any answer to the question. And a REAL answer, not a mockery of a Calvinist's answer. An Arminian answer that is neither a tautology nor a re-statement of the same question in different terms.
Back to terminology. You are incorrect to say that INCLINED and MADE are the same thing. I may be INCLINED to choose to eat pizza due to childhood experiences. I might be INCLINED to reject pizza because I once ate a bad pizza that made me sick, and I now associate pizza with being sick. None of these INCLINATIONS are forced on me or due to predispositions. These inclinations come from my experiences.
You might answer just that -- that a person is inclined to choose to accept the Gospel because of his/her life experiences, and another is disinclined to choose the Gospel for the same reasons. YOU DON'T HAVE to answer that way, I'm just showing you that there are answers that do NOT have to do with how one is MADE, or imply that the inclination is FORCED on you. If you don't believe that environmental factors or experiences are the reasons, then don't use that explanation as your answer. Explain it any way you like. Just answer the question, that's all.
My only requirement is that you do not retreat into a tautology (they choose because they are able to choose), or a repetition of the question in another frame (they choose one or the other because something inclines them to choose one way or another).
I repeat: What I'm asking you is VERY SIMPLE. What inclines one person to choose to accept the Gospel of his own free will, and what inclines the other person to reject it of his own free will? How do you explain the difference between the two people?
