Free Will- Result of Emotional Handicap?

[Dr. Bob]

[snipped - warning about questioning salvation of God's elect] Now I know in the OT he did have his favorites but when Jesus came on the scene, everyone gained access to grace (Gentile, Jew, Greek, Calvinists, and yes even Arminians,etc..) Your beliefs only teach me a few things about your god. First, that he does show "respect of person", because he only chooses to regenerate, save some people, not all. He has power to change my will but only chooses to change your will. Second, since he's able to change wills, then he must be a weak god, since some wills are never changed. Thirdly, the followers of your god have no real purpose, because he doesn't need them for anything. He does everything on his own. What point is a preacher or church that believes in this god. He's the one who changes people's will, so preaching, going to church, testifying, all of this is pointless. Matter of fact, you writing this ridiculous post was pointless because it can't change peoples' minds, that's left up to your god. No matter how many posts you make, you'll never be able to change minds or wills because only God does that. Sounds to me like a god that I don't want to serve. My God, on the other hand, wants everyone to be saved and to follow his commandments and live up to our covenant with him (that was made when we were saved). He wants people who truly and wholeheartedly love Him by there own choice. I love my kids with all my heart, but I can't force them to love me and I wouldn't want to force them. Because that's not real love, is it? That's totally something else. If I want true love, all I can do, is teach them, love them, forgive them when they fail, and always be there for them. Eventually they'll see that I'm genuine and have their best interest at heart, then they'll either choice to love me on those merits or rebel and go their own way. This is the same way my God works.
If God's main motive is to see people saved, then why doesn't He just change everybody's will at once? He has that power, right? Then everybody would be regenerated and He could go ahead and wind things up here on earth and we could all get out of here. I agree with some Calvinist views and some Arminian views, but most of all, I agree with the Bible and the Holy Spirit which lives in me and helps guide me. We all need to put our focus on God and not on some warped personal views.

I am assuming this is tongue-in-cheek. No one could be so totally wrong 16 times in a paragraph.

 

[Cypress]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke2427 View Post
Every time folks see the word "choose" they think that implies free will. It does not.

Oh my, the problem is us stupid folks again using the most sympathetic interpretation of choose. Next thing you know it will be thinking whosoever means whosoever.
Come on Luke, try not to talk down to us. Our logic is quite solid. And you also have God needing or requiring humans in order to maximize His glory. How can we conclude what the Great I Am needs? Really, I mean truly consider just that one question please. If true, then couldn't we go on to conclude that He needs everything in order to maximize His glory? And more of everything would be even better! Imo we would be on safer ground to conclude that love would have primacy over glory in trying to understand freewill. Some interesting reading along those lines can be found here http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/freewill-predestination.htm
And my contention is that human love requires freedom. I think we agree that God is love regardless of any requirement on His part. My emotional handicap has me loving God in response to His love for me. I am glad that you and most others who will read this love Him as well.:love2:

 

[quantumfaith]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke2427 View Post
Every time folks see the word "choose" they think that implies free will. It does not.

Oh my, the problem is us stupid folks again using the most sympathetic interpretation of choose. Next thing you know it will be thinking whosoever means whosoever.
Come on Luke, try not to talk down to us. Our logic is quite solid. And you also have God needing or requiring humans in order to maximize His glory. How can we conclude what the Great I Am needs? Really, I mean truly consider just that one question please. If true, then couldn't we go on to conclude that He needs everything in order to maximize His glory? And more of everything would be even better! Imo we would be on safer ground to conclude that love would have primacy over glory in trying to understand freewill. Some interesting reading along those lines can be found here http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/freewill-predestination.htm
And my contention is that human love requires freedom. I think we agree that God is love regardless of any requirement on His part. My emotional handicap has me loving God in response to His love for me. I am glad that you and most others who will read this love Him as well.:love2:

Excellent post. I applaud you for mentioning Peter Kreeft. I love to read his "stuff" and listen to his lectures. He is a great christian philosopher/theologian. "Philosophy is the hand-maiden of theology."

I so agree with you that, as I see it, the primary motivation of God is first love and secondarily His glory.

 

[Luke2427]

Quote:

Oh my, the problem is us stupid folks again using the most sympathetic interpretation of choose.

??? What is a sympathetic interpretation??

Next thing you know it will be thinking whosoever means whosoever.

Whosoever DOES mean whosoever. Whosoever will can come to Christ- and whosoever COMES to Christ will in no wise be cast out.

But no one is willing. There is none that seeketh after God (Romans 3)

Only those that the Father giveth to Christ can come.

Those who the Father gives to Christ ARE the whosoever.

Come on Luke, try not to talk down to us. Our logic is quite solid. And you also have God needing or requiring humans in order to maximize His glory.
How can we conclude what the Great I Am needs? Really, I mean truly consider just that one question please. If true, then couldn't we go on to conclude that He needs everything in order to maximize His glory? And more of everything would be even better! Imo we would be on safer ground to conclude that love would have primacy over glory in trying to understand freewill. Some interesting reading along those lines can be found here http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/freewill-predestination.htm

Not to maximize it- it is what it is and nothing can make it more or less. But to DISPLAY it to the fullest, sin was necessary.

You cannot have grace and mercy displayed without sin.

There is no Calvary where Christ dies for sinners without sin.

There is no Lamb receiving praise forever and ever by a multitude which no man can number without sin.

Sin was not a cosmic accident- it is not something God never intended- it is part of the plan of God so "that in the ages to come he might SHOW (display) the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2.

God COMMENDETH (displays) his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

And my contention is that human love requires freedom.

Why is that your contention? What do you base it on?

If love requires the ability to choose to love or not to love then Jesus does not really love the Father because he CANNOT but love him- it is his nature to love the Father- he cannot choose to do otherwise.

Is that not real love?

Love in it's purest and noblest form is love that renders one helpless to choose otherwise.

I have a little boy who is about 20 months old. He just climbed down out of his daddy's lap. I love him dearly. I would die for him INSTANTLY. I love him so much that I CANNOT BUT love him. I do not have the power of contrary choice.

That is love at it's strongest when it overcomes the will and controls it.

 

[MB]

??? What is a sympathetic interpretation??



Whosoever DOES mean whosoever. Whosoever will can come to Christ- and whosoever COMES to Christ will in no wise be cast out.

But no one is willing. There is none that seeketh after God (Romans 3)

Only those that the Father giveth to Christ can come.

Those who the Father gives to Christ ARE the whosoever.
[\quote]


Yeah now that's what I'm talking about since everyone is eligable.

Not to maximize it- it is what it is and nothing can make it more or less. But to DISPLAY it to the fullest, sin was necessary.

You cannot have grace and mercy displayed without sin.

There is no Calvary where Christ dies for sinners without sin.

There is no Lamb receiving praise forever and ever by a multitude which no man can number without sin.

Sin was not a cosmic accident- it is not something God never intended- it is part of the plan of God so "that in the ages to come he might SHOW (display) the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2.

God COMMENDETH (displays) his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8



Why is that your contention? What do you base it on?

If love requires the ability to choose to love or not to love then Jesus does not really love the Father because he CANNOT but love him- it is his nature to love the Father- he cannot choose to do otherwise.

Is that not real love?

The love of a father and son is automatic it doesn't require choice, That's a given. However the love of a step father does require a choice. If you had a step father you'd know exactly what I mean. Many step children hate their step fathers.
What I still don't understand about this love is that they still love there fathers even after being abused. Thought this isn't so with the step fathers.

Love in it's purest and noblest form is love that renders one helpless to choose otherwise.

I have a little boy who is about 20 months old. He just climbed down out of his daddy's lap. I love him dearly. I would die for him INSTANTLY. I love him so much that I CANNOT BUT love him. I do not have the power of contrary choice.

That is love at it's strongest when it overcomes the will and controls it.

Our Love is at it's strongest when we purposefully love someone, anyone else would hate, and love them enough to lay down your life for them.

Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

As much as you love your son can you hate him? In favor of Christ?

You see to love God above all else means you must also hate your relatives and anyone else who you might favor over God. That's the choice your stuck with.

Could you leave your family behind never to see them again. I encourage you to think about it before you answer. It requires a decision of surrender.
MB

 

[Cypress]

??? What is a sympathetic interpretation??



Whosoever DOES mean whosoever. Whosoever will can come to Christ- and whosoever COMES to Christ will in no wise be cast out.

But no one is willing. There is none that seeketh after God (Romans 3)

Only those that the Father giveth to Christ can come.

Those who the Father gives to Christ ARE the whosoever.




Not to maximize it- it is what it is and nothing can make it more or less. But to DISPLAY it to the fullest, sin was necessary.

You cannot have grace and mercy displayed without sin.

There is no Calvary where Christ dies for sinners without sin.

There is no Lamb receiving praise forever and ever by a multitude which no man can number without sin.

Sin was not a cosmic accident- it is not something God never intended- it is part of the plan of God so "that in the ages to come he might SHOW (display) the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2.

God COMMENDETH (displays) his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8



Why is that your contention? What do you base it on?

If love requires the ability to choose to love or not to love then Jesus does not really love the Father because he CANNOT but love him- it is his nature to love the Father- he cannot choose to do otherwise.

Is that not real love?

Love in it's purest and noblest form is love that renders one helpless to choose otherwise.

I have a little boy who is about 20 months old. He just climbed down out of his daddy's lap. I love him dearly. I would die for him INSTANTLY. I love him so much that I CANNOT BUT love him. I do not have the power of contrary choice.

That is love at it's strongest when it overcomes the will and controls it.

First off, apologies to all because I dont know yet how to quote parts of posts and insert my answers in between. If anybody can show me where to get that info I would be grateful.So here goes reply
Sympathetic, as I mean it, it would be the first or most likely conclusion without qualifiers.

Now on glory and sin.Okay, lets have more sin.....as much as the universe can contain......maybe that would be enough to SHOW!!!!!!!

On love.
I too have children and love them dearly.
Jesus is a difficult analogy for equating the love relationship between man and God. You appealed to His nature. He and the Father are one.
I have sat on a jury and helped convict a man for violently shaking his child and rendering it nearly vegetative mentally. Somehow he chose not to love his child as we do. Why did he do this? Surely not to maximally show God's glory. More likely a chain of events by multiple free wills led him to this place in life. And in spite of these free will actions, I am assured that God is quite capable of accomplishing His will. Enough for now..:love2::love2:

 

[Cypress]

Thanks Quantum........Kreeft is insightful:love2:

 

[Cypress]

Quantum,
After an earlier exchange with Thinkingstuff, I was challenged enough to really examine what I know and thought I knew about time. An exercise that was and continues to be rather resource intensive. (read "time consuming"....Thanks TS! lol.) It seems possible to me that this is what truly divides agreement on free will or even being able to truly grasp how it dovetails with sovereignty. None of us believe that God is not sovereign or act as though man doesn't have free will. The appeal to mystery in the OP probably hinges on understanding time. Unfortunate that we get so feisty with one another when what we seek is truth. :love2:

 

[moral necessity]

For those who believe that they have a free will, in what way would you say that God is Sovereign over it?

 

[psalms109:31]

OK

For those who believe that they have a free will, in what way would you say that God is Sovereign over it?

It is God word that say's believers in His Son are saved that is His will, He still remains sovereign. Now if them who believe in His Son are not saved, then God isn't sovereign. Let men be a liar and God word be true.

It is funny(weird) that men will try to put God being sovereign over His word to me. That if He doesn't pick randomly for His good pleasure then He isn't sovereign.

Universalist believes everything that Calvinist believe, but the only difference is since man can't save themselves God saves everyone, because God wants all men to be saved. I agreed with him that He does want all men to be saved, but He is only going to save those who believe in His Son.

I went in a debate with a Universalist for a long time, before I even knew about Calvinism.

So I went against his Calvinist view that I thought that brought him to the conclusion, and I tell you Calvinist came out of the woodwork to defend their beliefs.

 

[Luke2427]

Our Love is at it's strongest when we purposefully love someone, anyone else would hate, and love them enough to lay down your life for them.

Not so, as I think I have proven.

Love for a wife should outshine love for enemies.

Love for God should outshine all loves.

This is just conjecture on your part and it is wrong.

 

[Benjamin]

Whosoever DOES mean whosoever. Whosoever will can come to Christ- and whosoever COMES to Christ will in no wise be cast out.

But no one is willing. There is none that seeketh after God (Romans 3)

Only those that the Father giveth to Christ can come.

Those who the Father gives to Christ ARE the whosoever.





If love requires the ability to choose to love or not to love then Jesus does not really love the Father because he CANNOT but love him- it is his nature to love the Father- he cannot choose to do otherwise.

Is that not real love?

Love in it's purest and noblest form is love that renders one helpless to choose otherwise.

I have a little boy who is about 20 months old. He just climbed down out of his daddy's lap. I love him dearly. I would die for him INSTANTLY. I love him so much that I CANNOT BUT love him. I do not have the power of contrary choice.

That is love at it's strongest when it overcomes the will and controls it.

When you put that dear son to bed at night do you lie to him and tell him Jesus loves him, or do you tell him that you hope he is one that has been pre-chosen ?

 

[Luke2427]

When you put that dear son to bed at night do you lie to him and tell him Jesus loves him, or do you tell him that you hope he is one that has been pre-chosen ?

Why does it matter?

What does it prove?

What is your point?

This is the point I have been making. Non-reformed people tend to be emotional and not rational.

You don't LIKE the implications of the doctrine so it must not be true. Scripture be hanged!

 

[Benjamin]

Why does it matter?

What does it prove?

What is your point?

This is the point I have been making. Non-reformed people tend to be emotional and not rational.

You don't LIKE the implications of the doctrine so it must not be true. Scripture be hanged!

I did not come to my conclusions because of what I "LIKE", my doctrines come from what I believe to be true in the scriptures, ...And it is not me that is becoming "emotional" over this "point".

 

[DHK]

Why does it matter?

What does it prove?

What is your point?

This is the point I have been making. Non-reformed people tend to be emotional and not rational.

You don't LIKE the implications of the doctrine so it must not be true. Scripture be hanged!

Oh, it does matter. And I think he just demonstrated how non-rational and emotional you were in your post.

 

[Luke2427]

Oh, it does matter. And I think he just demonstrated how non-rational and emotional you were in your post.

Well as long YOU think so.

 

[Luke2427]

I did not come to my conclusions because of what I "LIKE", my doctrines come from what I believe to be true in the scriptures, ...And it is not me that is becoming "emotional" over this "point".

Yea, you are. You may not be able to tell that you are but you are nonetheless.

This is emotional- do you tell him Jesus loves him?

It does not matter if it is true or not.

You were not making a rational or Scriptural argument. You were making an emotional point.

You were employing pathos without logos.

If not- then make a Scriptural argument or one based on logic.

But the point your question genders is NOTHING but emotional.

 

[DHK]

Yea, you are. You may not be able to tell that you are but you are nonetheless.

This is emotional- do you tell him Jesus loves him?

It does not matter if it is true or not.

You were not making a rational or Scriptural argument. You were making an emotional point.

You were employing pathos without logos.

If not- then make a Scriptural argument or one based on logic.

But the point your question genders is NOTHING but emotional.

There is NOTHING but emotion in this statement Luke:
You don't LIKE the implications of the doctrine so it must not be true. Scripture be hanged!

 

[Benjamin]

It does not matter if it is true or not.

Yes, the truth does matter. God is Love and Truth and I base my theology off of His attributes. I don't need to get into/shouldn't need to get into playing scriptural food fights to prove this.

Inquiring minds want to know...just answer the question.

 

[quantumfaith]

Not so, as I think I have proven.

Love for a wife should outshine love for enemies.

Love for God should outshine all loves.

This is just conjecture on your part and it is wrong.

Luke, didnt Jesus himself say: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for a friend."

Perhaps you mean that we have different "types" of love expressed in differing circumstances.