Now, what makes you think that the desire are equal!
But even if they were, the mind would make one or the other have a heavier weight, adding other factors.
For example, in the ice cream issue, you might like both flavors, but are trying to lose weight so pick the one with fewer calories.
That is the individual will deciding between alternatives. How the individual views those decisions (ice cream vs cake) is based on a varied combination of choices. No decision is made in a vacuum. Good choices lead to other good choices, likewise bad choices lead to other bad choices. That is how 'habits' are formed, good and bad, choosing to do something over and over until you no longer even give it a thought, it becomes impulsive. The chain is very difficult to break. It can be broken however, as we see good men go bad and bad men become good. (Demas and Mannasah) All true...however you STILL have not shown how those decisions come about. There are two possibilities as to why the will would choose one alternative and not the other: it is a random decision without any motiviation, or it is a prior inclination.
First, the idea that the decision is random is a non-starter, I do not know anyone who is defending that view.
a prior inclination is a big factor, as I stated before, but it can be resisted and changed.
In the case of the former, as I've stated several times, the decision is morally neutral...not one of preference and not one that could be justly condemned. In the case of the latter, we must ask the question, "Where did the prior inclination come from?" If, as you say, it is mere habit, it still must have a point of origination. The inclination toward one or the other is dictated by desire, dec.
I will grant that sin goes back to the beginning, but we still do resist sin since most of us do not do all the sin we are capable of doing.
That is why in Romans 1 we are held accountable because we have a conscience and do know right and wrong.
And what part do you think a misread? God does want all men to be saved (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9) My original statement was "Either some then choose against that desire (which as stated begs other questions that must be answered), or all choose Christ and are saved." Obviously all don't choose Christ (which would lead to universal salvation) and I've never seen any indication that you believe such, so like I said I think you just misread what I wrote.
No, you framed that question wrongly.
All those who are condemned do choose against God, choosing to follow another desire (Jn.3:19) over the desire for God (Psa.10)
I have not seen that done yet. I have seen a lot of straw man arguments against Arminians, but according to what both Arminus and Wesley actually taught (both believing in God's control of history), the Arminians/Wesley/Baptist view is based on clear scripture, that God loves His creation and has allowed rational creatures to make irrational decisions against Him, just as we do when we sin. Straw man arguments come in two flavors: intentional and unintentional. The intentional ones stem from intellectual dishonesty, the unintentional from a lack of understanding the original position. I think the latter are mischaracterized as the former a little too often, much to the detriment of civil conversation. I tend to give you the benefit of the doubt:)
Thank you.
Your 'proof-texts' can be handled quite easily, but in order for the Calvinists to deal with those above, they have to either twist them, or appeal to a 'secret will' That's funny...we Calvinists look at your proof-texts the same way:) This particular thread wasn't intended to continue the same old debate over those select texts pointed to by both sides, so I'm not going to go over that ground again, at least not until we've gotten through the issue at hand.
I never saw an Arminian appeal to a 'secret will'!
It is you are demanding 'full understanding' You want an explaination of the 'irrational', which cannot be made, except that man wanted to do it! The will makes a choice between various desires and weighs them and decides based on different prefences. This is why some people spend all the money they make and some others invest and save it. Many different motives can go into the same action. And this is what kills me about the argument, dec! If I'm demanding to know why a man chooses the way he does, I'm unreasonable. I'm just supposed to accept that some choose one way and some another without thought to where that motivation originated. But when I take the same approach with God...when I accept that He chooses to elect some according to His own choices/desires/etc...I'm again being unreasonable?!?
Yes, because you want us to think that it is still man who is choosing!
That is what the issue is really about, who is doing the choosing.
Now, according to your view, man is choosing since he is acting according to how he wants, yet it is really God who is 'pulling the strings' so to speak.
Still, despite that, man is to be held responsible for something he has no control of.
Now, as for my positon, the choices a man makes are based on a mydrid of factors with the final decider being his own will which judges all the factors and makes a decision.
It is his decision to make, based on evalution of the facts
Regarding the above statements, you still haven't/cannot answer a) WHY man wanted to do it, b) HOW those 'different preferences' came about, or c) where those different motives originated. As created beings these are essential points!
The Bible is very clear that God is not responsible for sin (James 1:13) yet, we still do so!
So, when we are tempted, we give into our lust and it conceives sin, we make a decision based on a desire of our Flesh, and have to resist the desire of the Holy Spirit who'lusteth against the flesh' (Gal.5:17).
Now, either God is lying and He does want you to sin, or it is your own will that is making the decision to sin and choose against God!
Fine, the final decider is the will of man. Man's will is subject to varying factors which it must weigh and finally make a decision. That decision is a real choice that it makes. Ok. Now to what types of 'factors' are you referring?
There are many factors which influence choices, both physical and cultural.
Yet these only influence the choices, they are not their determinates, the will is.
Adding other external factors? I want to be clear on this. Do you think that external factors, such as childhood experience, church experience, emotional problems, substance abuse, etc. influence man's salvific decision at all? I know that the will makes the decision, I'm just trying to understand what you think that decision is derived from.
I never saw an Arminian appeal to a 'secret will'!
You've appealed to one in just about every post. You just don't see it for what it is. That's what I'm trying to get at:)
Now, according to your view, man is choosing since he is acting according to how he wants, yet it is really God who is 'pulling the strings' so to speak. Still, despite that, man is to be held responsible for something he has no control of.
WRONG! Man is condemned for his sinfulness. This is his state BY DEFAULT. He is incapable of not sinning. Man is not condemned because he didn't make some one-time choice the right way. He's born already condemned!
Now, as for my positon, the choices a man makes are based on a mydrid of factors with the final decider being his own will which judges all the factors and makes a decision. It is his decision to make, based on evalution of the facts.
So, does everyone receive all the facts they need? And if so, again why do some not come to the correct conclusion?
There are many factors which influence choices, both physical and cultural. Yet these only influence the choices, they are not their determinates, the will is.
If they do not affect the outcome, then they do not influence. Period.