Great Debate: Romans 1-9 - Larni and Iano

I can see the arguement here and I concur (assuming the position I have maintained from the begining) that it is pretty convincing.Do continue

Dude, my internet router thingy got fried last night in an electrical storm, bah!I won't have the time to view this till I get it fixed (or more accurately my girlfriend gets it fixed! ).Hope you can wait.JP

Hi Iano, got my router back, hurrah! This is a stumbling block for me.Where for lay the definition for God making the 'choice'?I will get back to you on your second post but I'm still a bit pushed (essays to do, reports to write).Take it easy, mate.

Just so we are clear; this means we have no contribution to whether or not we are saved? This seems to answere my question. This really struck a cord with me as it fits snuggly with the vaious symptoms of low self esteem and confidence. Nice summary

So the Original sin was the arrogance to regect the reality that we are dependent on God on every level. Adam saw himself without God (he percieved he could face reality alone-thus divorcing himself from God).This is concurrent with the Fall and the damnation of mankind (as in Adam). This awareness was lost and it was not untill the Gospel that we re-discover this 'damnation' is intrinsic to humanity.It is through the Law that we realise that there is just no way that we can do what Adam tried to do (live inedpendent of God) and prosper (due to the nature of God) and it is not untill God actually shows us that we cannot live like this that His gift can be recieved (not accepted because that woul imply choice).Do I have it right?

So, in a way, we need only to say "sorry" and be aware what we are feeling genuinely 'sorry' for (being the metaphysical crime of Adam)? Does this tie in with the bit about it being harder for the rich man to get into heaven and the meek inheriting the world? So free will is concurrent with sin? As you can imagine I think a lot about that exact subject!Finally caught up with you, wonder how long it will last

Many of the patients I work with are in an absolute state of dispair and self loathing because of the choices that they have made and the effect it has had on them.Some sit with vacant eyes when they look at the choices that they have made in life. Unforced choices that prove (to them) that there is something very wrong with them.Part of my job is to educate people in what it means to be part of the human species. The way we make choices is very flawed, the way our psychology predisposes us towards certain illogical actions looks (objectively) like we are pretty rotten.It falls to people like me to show how this is our nature and that one can choose not to act in a detrimental way by recognising the unhelpfull cognitions and behaviours and learning to move towards more helpfull cognitions and behaviours.But before the patient can begin to make changes in their life they have to see that they have been making certain chioces in life that have brought them to where they are now by using the illogical flawed psychology we all have.This I think is very similar to acknowledging that one is a flawed creature of sin.

So the Law is there to show us what we doing wrong, even though we can never live up to the Law.It seems to me that God is; and that is definitial for the state of the universe.Without the Law (as an illuminaing factor), we would have no idea as to the nature of our transgression (our very existance).Then it follows that the Law lets us say "I can never live up to that with out help, but I must recognise that I need (and then ask for) help from God."Therefore (and correct me if I am wrong) following the Law is not the point.The point is that the Law is real and we can never live up to it. The subsequent transgression is taken by Jesus if we let him.How am I doing?