1.Salvation is wholly an act of God. 2. God chooses who is saved. 3.Saving grace is irrisistible

“We must always remember that this debate is about the Resolution. If it were not, what point would there be to even have one?”If I wanted anyone to forget the importance of the resolution, I would not have clarified what it should be. But lets consider this interesting question “what point would there be to even have one?”What was the point behind this debate? I quote my opponent himself when he said “I want to debate you on something we actually disagree on” Now my opponent can accept the FACT that C1 does not fit that criteria and we can move on, OR he can waist character space on fighting for his “resolution” over my actual Resolution. I call mine a REAL resolution because it in fact is the real resolution that Pro’s list of contentions are implied to be CONTENTIONS too.I suggest Pro just let this one go, as the point is relatively moot considering we are going to argue your C1’s either way. So while that’s on our minds…C1: My opponent completely misses the point of my donut analogy. If your looking toward an analogy to fit every describable aspect of the almighty god then you might as well never have conversations or debates about him as none will ever perfectly do. The point was not to say God is a donut maker of some kind, I use donuts to bring to mind a story that many have probably heard in Sunday school or children’s time at one point or another to explain salvation. About it being paid for us weather we take it or not. If Pro or any readers are unfamiliar with it, it can be read in full here. http://stories-etc.com... Now it’s clear to us that when you take a donut that you did not pay for yourself, that very act of taking it is not what any sane person would say was part of the ‘merits’ that ‘earned’ you that donut. So this answers Pro’s refutation that I have ‘turned it around’ and said that man earns his salvation, as I have shown choice, acceptance, compliance, lack of resistance… its not a ‘merit’, its not ‘currency’ that can pay a debt you owe.Omnipotence:Pro said in his C1 response that because God is the almighty Omnipotent god that this would negate your feasible choice in ‘accepting’ the donut. This is not true. If Pro really is going to consider God not being much of a God or Omnipotent at all if Omnipotence does not mean he can override our wills because that entails something he cannot do then he must open up to accepting all the ridiculous arguments like “can God make a round square” “a stick with one end” or “a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it” or more commonly put “a stone that he cannot move”. These are all inherently contradictory concepts and so God cannot in fact make any of them, but he is not less omnipotent for it though obviously. I can detail why if to Pro its not obvious but that’s not the focus of this debate.Among other things I bet even Pro would not contend against that God ‘cannot do’ is God cannot commit evil even though he is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, ect. But that certainly makes him no less a God and it’s clearly to those that ever go to church a big reason that causes worship of him. Why can’t he commit evil though? To quote Rev. Brian Wyke “Ultimately Gods love limits God”. It’s a character thing, unlike Pantheist, we Christians believe God to have a definitive character, shown to us in Jesus. And if we can safely say anything of Gods character its that he is all righteous and he is love itself. God out of his perfect love must not override our free wills. He made us in his image to love him and be loved by him. This love cannot come from us robotically, but freely if it is to be anything worth calling love. So he cannot force us in his omnipotence to take salvation because the omnipotent cannot do the irrational and pursing a pure puppets love is irrational.Problem of Evil:Back to the PoE, taking in all I just explained about Omnipotence, you can see how Free Will easily explains it, god being omnipotent and everything. Man is what brings evil into this world not god, and the fact that it is not stopped by god it out of his love for us that he overrides no ones will but rather has us suffer the consequences of our actions. But without Free Will from God all mans actions of evil are now not reflections of our character or even Satan’s but of GodsPro says God made Adam sin to bring Glory to himself as an answer to this. Well actually he did not reference Genesis at all in his response but it all goes back to that story. How does God clearly LYING to Adam about it being his will that he not eat of that tree bring glory to himself? This depiction of the story associates Gods character with the things that are unholy like dishonesty rather than holy things.This is a point that went over my opponents head with the contention that sin cannot exist without free will. He went on to make a case about how negligent homicide is the same as murder and this is false, event he bible has different measures to be taken for accidental deaths in the OT, but that part of Pro’s rebuttal would only matter if my point was about man when I say there can be no sin. But my point was about God. Sin is doing what is apart from God’s will. This cannot happen in a Presbyterian view, saying that anything happens apart from Gods will is challenging if he is omnipotent and on the throne somehow. All things that happen are by his will, so man cannot sin, even that accident that killed the old lady was arranged by God before creation C2-C5: Yes, I said scripture needs dealt with via interpretation or translation explanations. I then went on summarize the futility in getting into such a scripture battle though, at least its degree of futility to this debate. From experience I know how arguments would go for all the scripture on both our parts in some respect or another. About anything you quote whatever argument I use will be ‘you are using rigid wooden interpretation where its not warranted” when you boil it down. And vise versa http://www.debate.org... Also I know from experience that just confining ourselves to debate using 3 scriptures can take up all 8,000 characters fast. http://www.debate.org... So in an effort to make the most use of my character space again I state I plan to focus on the overall logic of the position rather than eat up character space with a scripture battle over differing in opinion on what scripture to take at its plainest meaning with wooded rigidness, and what to take more symbolic, expressive, hyperbolic, poetic, or other. To show that I could respectfully go the distance of such a scripture battle I listed a montage of my own set of verses I could start with that clearly can only be read understanding Free Will to exist (in the sense we Wesleyans think of Free Will) But I find arguing over how to read scripture is never that persuasive and I think I know why. Part of our faith in the book is in its truthfulness beyond our comprehension. When I say that I mean that if seeming problems are found in it passages we still have faith in our belief because we are humble enough to say we do not know the bible perfectly, “surely if I studied into it I would find an answer to this seeming problem” And the studying does need done, and if the amount of scriptures that I would debate or rather ‘help you study into more’ were restricted for this debate I would get into it. But the best use of my character space is not getting into that, even had I not made the arguments I have been making and from the start of this debate focused only one the passages RWCG quoted I would not have room to address them all. The best use of my character space in a debate like this will be to focus on the logic of predestination theology (and free will theology) I await Pro's response