Love requires choice?

[convicted1]

Love isn't merely an emotion or feeling. You see plenty of people on the news daily who don't love their children. The op is comical.

The love is already there before you choose to do things for your children. But love, in and of itself, is not a choice. When I went out with my wife, it didn't take me long to fall in love with her and want her for my wife. I didn't choose to love her, but the things I do for her express my love to her.

 

[Luke2427]

The love is already there before you choose to do things for your children. But love, in and of itself, is not a choice. When I went out with my wife, it didn't take me long to fall in love with her and want her for my wife. I didn't choose to love her, but the things I do for her express my love to her.

Exactly.

He fails to realize that he is arguing FOR love that precedes actions with his own illustrations.

Your point is the point.

Actions grow out of love. They are not love itself.

But Arminians are hamstrung by their propensity to conflate terms.

They think faith is the same thing as choice.

They think regeneration is the same thing as salvation.

They seem to lack the intellectual ability to allow each term to stand on its own.

 

[convicted1]

Exactly.

He fails to realize that he is arguing FOR love that precedes actions with his own illustrations.

Your point is the point.

Actions grow out of love. They are not love itself.

But Arminians are hamstrung by their propensity to conflate terms.

They think faith is the same thing as choice.

They think regeneration is the same thing as salvation.

They seem to lack the intellectual ability to allow each term to stand on its own.

 

[convicted1]

What I have proved is that Jesus obeyed his Father by choice. He could have done otherwise, Mat 26:53 absolutely implies that. And if you are honest you know that.

So Jesus was a paranoid schhizophrenic??

 

[convicted1]

Why don't you ask John MacArthur or Paul Washer and see what they tell you?

Why can't you simply believe scripture? Did Jesus imply that he could have prayed to his Father, and his Father would send more than twelve legions of angels to rescue him if he desired?

Doesn't that prove Jesus obeyed his Father by choice?

Think for yourself for once.

Was it God the Father's will to send God the Son to die for sinful man? If yes, then how could Jesus stop short of that? If no, then why did He come here to begin with?

 

[evangelist6589]

They'd eat his breakfast, lunch, supper and bedtime snack over there.

Which explains why WinMan won't do it. There are some very hard Calvinists over there whom have even told me that John MacArthur is no Calvinist nor am I, because we both believe in Dispensational Eschatology which by their def cannot be held by any Calvinist.

 

[Revmitchell]

Love requires choice.
Have you ever heard that little gem?

Consider...
The opposite is true.

The greatest love is such that it renders the will IMPOTENT.

I cannot HELP but love my children. I do not CHOOSE to love them. I cannot WILL to STOP loving them.

Some can will themselves to stop loving their children. And what do we say of the love they had? It was not very great love if it can stop. We say, "If you ever loved your children the way I love mine, you'd still love them. You wouldn't be able to stop!"

Most of us love our children so much that our will is gone- we cannot BUT love them. I cannot BUT be ever concerned for their well being. I have no choice in the matter.

But an infinitely greater example is the kind of love that has existed eternally within the Triune Godhead.

God the Father does not have the ability to STOP loving God the Son. To not love God the Son would be the pinnacle of sin and evil. Since God CANNOT choose to do or be evil, his love for that which his own perfect goodness demands be loved, His Son, cannot BUT be unyielding.

God the Son does not CHOOSE to love God the Father- if by choice you mean the ability exists to either love or not love. He cannot BUT love God the Father. To fail to love God the Father for an INSTANT would be the most grievous of sins. Since God CANNOT sin and Jesus IS God, he has no choice BUT to always love God the Father.

The greatest love is not the love of God for man or of man for God. The greatest love is the love of God for God. If love requires choice (the ability to love or not love) then GOD HIMSELF DOES NOT LOVE.

The GREATEST love is a million MILES AWAY from "free will."

Deficient love is infected with will.

Great love is void of it.

Let us pray not, "Oh God, strengthen my will that I may love you, my family and my fellow man more." NO!! Let us pray, "Oh God give me such love that my will to do otherwise is ever more swallowed up in it!!"

Grant it, God, we pray.

I see a lot of philosophy there.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Was it God the Father's will to send God the Son to die for sinful man? If yes, then how could Jesus stop short of that? If no, then why did He come here to begin with?

thank you for that, brother.
and that is what many, not just winman, misses.
Jesus Christ is bound by his covenant with the Father and the Spirit, and there is no other way out of it.
that covenant between the One-in-Three was sealed in eternity past, and even if Jesus was speaking to Peter (as winman pointed out) in the here and now (of their time) about Him being able to ask the Father for an army of angels to rescue Him (not verbatim), there just is NO WAY He is going to do that, notwithstanding the fact that even if He did, the Father would prefer to pull His Son out of the mission He has been given, and just let everybody else (including winman) proceed on to eternal separation.
The Son is most important to both the Father and the Spirit than GOD's act of writing anyone in His memory (the Book of Life), and that should be enough to quash the ego of anybody who thinks he is going to heaven because he is a precious jewel to the Father and unless he is willing to be saved......
Salvation is not about us, nor our willingness to be saved, it is about God and His willingness to save us.

 

[Winman]

I don't think I'm going to extremes at all. Most people on this planet are poor, to the point that they cannot afford to give anything monetarily. So where does that leave them in light of James 2:15-16? Do you think scripture verses are simply for convenience, or do they really matter in relation to our beliefs?

Jam 2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

What do these scriptures have to do with the subject at hand?

But let's pretend for a minute that I used extreme examples. Does your view not include extreme cases?

If you want to hold to the notion that love is not real unless it manifests itself in action, then you must consider extreme cases.

If your view cannot be extended to the extremes, then you have an obligation to reconsider your view.

And I'm NOT saying you need to make a choice to believe differently, because it is not possible to decide to have a change of mind. But you have a responsibility to be convinced by sound judgment.


Ok. I think you're either flip-flopping, back peddling, or you have a very sloppy way with words.

Yes. Love is definitely EXPRESSED through action. But love is not the action itself. Love MOTIVATES us to choose to act.

Love is the motivation behind the choice.

There you go again being conflicted. First, you say that love is a choice. And then you throw in the notion of choosing to act - Jesus must have chosen to love because He chose to act.

But then when confronted with different (maybe extreme) lack of expressions, you become conflicted. What if someone's action is hindered because of their circumstances?

On one hand, you would have us believe that lack of action denotes lack of love. Then you turn around and say that it's possible for someone to not have the means to act, yet the love is still there. And you acknowledge that the choice to act can be present while the love is absent.

You should really settle on a position before continuing

All I am saying is love is a choice. You cannot help someone if you are dirt poor, but if you have means, then you are able to help. You could spend your money on a new sports car for yourself, or you could buy blankets and a new heating system for an orphanage where they have no heat. That is a choice.

Jesus made a choice. In Mat 26:53 we are clearly told that Jesus did not have to let the soldiers take him. The question he asked Peter demanded a YES answer. Jesus could have prayed to his Father, and his Father would have presently sent more than twelve legions of angels to rescue him. So Jesus had option, he did not have to be taken. But Jesus chose to be taken and crucified, because he loved his Father and wanted to do his will, and he loved us and wanted to die for us to save us from our sins.

That is a choice, plain and simple. The whole point of Mat 26:53 is to tell us that Jesus had a choice.

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

 

[Winman]

They'd eat his breakfast, lunch, supper and bedtime snack over there.

No, they would gang up on me just like the Calvinists do here, calling me a Pelagian and heretic. They would offer no arguments of substance to refute me, just like you offer no real arguments of substance here.

Being a Calvinist site, they would probably ban me real quick there.

 

[Winman]

Exactly.

He fails to realize that he is arguing FOR love that precedes actions with his own illustrations.

Your point is the point.

Actions grow out of love. They are not love itself.

But Arminians are hamstrung by their propensity to conflate terms.

They think faith is the same thing as choice.

They think regeneration is the same thing as salvation.

They seem to lack the intellectual ability to allow each term to stand on its own.

Love is caring for someone. It is an emotion, but it is an emotion expressed through action. If you love someone, you treat them well, you do things to make that person happy, or things that will benefit that person.

If we see a parent who neglects their children, does not clothe or feed them, or does not discipline them when they do wrong, we suspect they do not have much love for their children, and rightfully so. You cannot see love except through action.

It is the same with faith. Paul said that whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. But then he asks, How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

Praying to Jesus to save you from your sins is not faith, it is evidence of the faith you already have. If you believe Jesus was simply a good man who lived and died 2000 years ago, you are not going to pray and call on him so save you. A dead man cannot help you.

But if you sincerely believe Jesus was the Son of God as he claimed to be, that he died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead, and that he sits on the Father's right hand, then you will pray to him and call on him to save you. The prayer is evidence of your faith.

And doing good things to help others is evidence of love. It is a choice. Jesus did not have to allow himself to be taken in the garden, but if he did not allow himself to be taken and crucified we could not be saved. We would all die in our sins with no remedy. Jesus CHOSE to let the soldiers take him, he allowed himself to be crucified for our sins because he loved us. This choice was evidence of his love toward us.

If Jesus had chosen not to be taken and crucified, it would be evidence that he did not love us.

 

[Winman]

Exactly.

He fails to realize that he is arguing FOR love that precedes actions with his own illustrations.

Your point is the point.

Actions grow out of love. They are not love itself.

But Arminians are hamstrung by their propensity to conflate terms.

They think faith is the same thing as choice.

They think regeneration is the same thing as salvation.

They seem to lack the intellectual ability to allow each term to stand on its own.

Regeneration does mean salvation. Regeneration literally means to be made alive AGAIN. The very word refutes Original Sin, because if we are born dead as many teach, then it could never be said we are alive again, but that is exactly what Jesus said twice in the parable of the prodigal son.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Luk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

The word regeneration literally means to be made "alive again", exactly as Jesus said of the prodigal son in Luke 15:24 & 32. To be spiritually dead means to be separated and alienated from God by sin (lost). The moment we trust Jesus our sins are washed away and we are reconciled and brought back into union with God (found).

To be regenerated means to be saved from your sins. It is salvation.

The very word "regeneration" completely refutes the false doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[Winman]

thank you for that, brother.
and that is what many, not just winman, misses.
Jesus Christ is bound by his covenant with the Father and the Spirit, and there is no other way out of it.
that covenant between the One-in-Three was sealed in eternity past, and even if Jesus was speaking to Peter (as winman pointed out) in the here and now (of their time) about Him being able to ask the Father for an army of angels to rescue Him (not verbatim), there just is NO WAY He is going to do that, notwithstanding the fact that even if He did, the Father would prefer to pull His Son out of the mission He has been given, and just let everybody else (including winman) proceed on to eternal separation.
The Son is most important to both the Father and the Spirit than GOD's act of writing anyone in His memory (the Book of Life), and that should be enough to quash the ego of anybody who thinks he is going to heaven because he is a precious jewel to the Father and unless he is willing to be saved......
Salvation is not about us, nor our willingness to be saved, it is about God and His willingness to save us.

Nevertheless, Mat 26:53 clearly implies Jesus did not have to allow himself to be taken and die on the cross for us. His question to Peter demands a YES answer, he could have prayed to his Father to rescue him, and his Father would have presently sent more than twelve legions of angels to rescue him.

This verse is told us for no other reason but to show us Jesus had CHOICE. He was not forced or compelled by his Father to go to the cross, he went willingly of his own free will.

Jesus was not "bound" as you claim. That is complete error.

 

[convicted1]

Jesus would not ask this due to His willingness to fulfill His Father's will. It was His Father's will for Him to die, and Jesus' will was to do His Father's will...

 

[JamesL]

Jam 2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16 As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

What do these scriptures have to do with the subject at hand?

Ummm, I didn't say 1st Peter, I said James. And I think you know that.

Dodge tactic, playing games. Nice try

All I am saying is love is a choice.

I know. And refusing to acknowledge very real scenarios that disprove your faulty logic.

You cannot help someone if you are dirt poor, but if you have means, then you are able to help. You could spend your money on a new sports car for yourself, or you could buy blankets and a new heating system for an orphanage where they have no heat. That is a choice.

Jesus made a choice. In Mat 26:53 we are clearly told that Jesus did not have to let the soldiers take him. The question he asked Peter demanded a YES answer. Jesus could have prayed to his Father, and his Father would have presently sent more than twelve legions of angels to rescue him. So Jesus had option, he did not have to be taken. But Jesus chose to be taken and crucified, because he loved his Father and wanted to do his will, and he loved us and wanted to die for us to save us from our sins.

That is a choice, plain and simple. The whole point of Mat 26:53 is to tell us that Jesus had a choice.

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

I never said that Jesus didn't make choices. You keep arguing something that everyone agrees with. His choices to DO

But if you say that choice to do is a choice to love, then you must think that He didn't love the Father before the chief priests showed up in the garden.


But quite honestly, I'm already sick of this argument. You're still grinding the same stump you started with on page 1. Instead of focusing on the original post, you've continued to focus on works, behavior, doing - the outward rather than the inward.

And you keep arguing in circles while refusing to addressing those examples that put your philosophy in a bind. Instead, you dismiss them as extreme, and exclude them from your view, choosing to argue for what everybody already agrees with

Good job. I'll bet somebody is proud of you and your tactics
But really, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

You can feel free to wallow in your mire by yourself

 

[Winman]

Jesus would not ask this due to His willingness to fulfill His Father's will. It was His Father's will for Him to die, and Jesus' will was to do His Father's will...

What? Jesus in the garden actually did pray if there was some other way that he might not have to endure the crucifixion.

Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

As a man, Jesus did not will to be tortured and crucified and die.

This is the very same chapter where Jesus implied he could have prayed to his Father, and his Father would have sent twelve legions of angels to rescue him. So, it was "possible" to avoid the crucifixion, else Mat 26:53 would be a lie.

That said, it would not be "possible" to save mankind unless he went to the cross.

Jesus CHOSE to willingly go to the cross and die for us, both to please his Father, but also because he loved us and wanted to save us from our sins.

 

[Aaron]

Love requires choice.
Have you ever heard that little gem?

I've heard love is a choice. That, of course, is bunk.

 

[Winman]

I've heard love is a choice. That, of course, is bunk.

Wow, what a compelling argument.

 

[Winman]

Ummm, I didn't say 1st Peter, I said James. And I think you know that.

Dodge tactic, playing games. Nice try

What? I actually posted James 2:15-16. What do these verses have to do with the subject at hand?

I don't know where you got this 1st Peter stuff from, I never mentioned 1st Peter. Show where I did.

I believe you are a little confused.

I know. And refusing to acknowledge very real scenarios that disprove your faulty logic.

They don't disprove anything. You cannot give someone a coat if they are cold if you do not own a coat. That does not prove you do not love them.

But if you do own a coat and see that a person is cold, then you have the ability to help them if you choose. Or, you could hoard the coat for yourself. That is the choice you have.

I never said that Jesus didn't make choices. You keep arguing something that everyone agrees with. His choices to DO

But if you say that choice to do is a choice to love, then you must think that He didn't love the Father before the chief priests showed up in the garden.

The fact that Jesus allowed himself to be made lower than the angels proves he loved his Father. That God himself could become a lowly man was a choice.

But quite honestly, I'm already sick of this argument. You're still grinding the same stump you started with on page 1. Instead of focusing on the original post, you've continued to focus on works, behavior, doing - the outward rather than the inward.

And you keep arguing in circles while refusing to addressing those examples that put your philosophy in a bind. Instead, you dismiss them as extreme, and exclude them from your view, choosing to argue for what everybody already agrees with

Good job. I'll bet somebody is proud of you and your tactics
But really, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

You can feel free to wallow in your mire by yourself

You simply do not want to acknowledge that Jesus made a choice when he died for us. He could have prayed to his Father, and his Father would have delivered him. Mat 26:53 serves no other purpose but that to tell us Jesus had choice.

Now, you don't like that, it upsets your apple cart. Perhaps like the Calvinists you think God is some huge monolith made of stone who cannot make choices, that everything is fixed in stone. Sorry to mess up your worldview.

 

[Aaron]

I need no argument. Look at love's opposite. Did you choose to find certain things repulsive? Of course not. Do you think you can just switch it to attraction by taking thought? Could you live 30 years with an odious woman?