In the two passages you quoted, I showed you many times where what's written only makes sense if free will is real, otherwise Paul would've been writing superfluously, if it makes any sense at all. The alternative is that God is unjust, since it is Him calling all the shots, and then penalizing those who are only doing what He made them do in the first place. And I know that you'll counter with Romans 9, and I receive and believe Romans 9, but that's why I keep trying to focus what Christian faith actually is---believing in Christ's Resurrection. It's as simple as that. We can choose to believe, or choose to not believe. Romans 9 isn't concerned with believing in Christ's Resurrection. John 3:18 KJV is though: 'he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed'
I pass on what the Catholic Church teaches. Your view depends upon the pastorate that God Himself willed into being, through the work of Jesus Christ, and of His Apostles, whom He commissioned to administrate His Church, is defunct. I do not find anywhere in Sacred Scripture where that's a possibility.
Those things are just not true.
How do you get that GOD created a being equal to HIM if free will for HIS creation is HIS will?
You have created a philosophy along with the Roman church. It is syncretism and it attempts to tear down God's sovereignty while lifting up the church at Rome.
I have gone over how the human will cannot be free as long as God rules over and above humans. You reject that statement. The outcome is you declaring yourself to be equal to or greater than God.
No, it doesn't. And the church at Rome is the one that Peter pastored, and the one that Paul wrote Romans to, and the Church in communion with Peter's supreme pastorate, is the Church that Jesus Christ founded.
You keep saying that, but it's not true.
That's really how you perceive history, isn't it? You're not exaggerating.
I'm saying that if 'that church' is THE Church, that Jesus Christ founded, then you have to deal with that, even more than you need to concern yourself with teasing out your personal notions about how to interpret the scriptures, in a vacuum, in an echo chamber, with blinders on. Plainer than the teachings of God's exhaustive definite sovereignty over His creation---a thing which I have ceaselessly confessed to believing in, which sets me apart from every 'arminian,' every, 'socinian' or 'pelagian'---is the teachings of the reality, legitimacy, and Apostolically authorized pastorate of the Church, involving priests, deacons, and Bishops, who are at the top of the pastoral hierarchy, and have been since the Apostolic age; the Apostles themselves being the first Twelve Church bishops of the college of bishops, who exist still today, and have always existed since Pentecost in AD 33.
The Bible teaches there are Apostolic traditions that are not necessarily recorded for us in the Bible. 1st Corinthians 11:2 KJV and 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 KJV
I still am not doing that. I already explained for you how they integrate together.
The Roman church is NOT THE church. There is your fatal flaw.
Well I didn't say that it was. I said the Church that Jesus Christ founded, is together all those churches in communion with the Roman church, and more precisely, with the Roman church's supreme pastor, known as the archbishop. The Roman church's pastorate is Peter's final pastorate of his life, and so every subsequent archbishop of the Roman church is very reasonably called 'Peter's successor,' since it is the same church/diocese, and the same pastorate of that same church, as when Peter presided over the whole Church, as supreme pastor, as he presided over the Roman church, which was his church as archbishop of Rome.
The Body of Christ is THE Church.
Yes I'm sure there are.
Right. All those who believe in Christ are Christians, Catholic or not, and we are everywhere. But one of those 'denominations' is the one that Jesus Christ actually started, and all the others are not.
Which claim? I reread your post, but I don't know which claim you're talking about.
'Doesn't appear to be.
It is you who ignores scripture and makes your own doctrine as free will is in the Bible multiple times directly, and is inferred by all the passages that show us we must choose.
You are simply making my beliefs up as you go. Your words in no way accurately describe my beliefs. Your magnificent illogic shines through as usual. You are veiled by a dark shade.
No sir; I in no way refute the omnipotence of GOD. HIS will be done.
I notice you ignored the Bible.
But, you fight his Sovereignty by claiming free-will. You are not, cannot and will not ever be a co-ruler. There is no such thing as free-will.
What is that supposed to mean?
Your flaw in reasoning seems to be that you conflate GOD given freedom with GOD.
I have provided a large list of verses and passages declaring God's choice, God's election and God's predestination. You ignore them all. Why?