What's Love got to do with it?

[franklinmonroe]

Is having a choice the basis for human relationship? Maybe not.

For example, we did not choose our parents; yet, virtually all children love their parents. We do not choose our siblings; yet, most people feel a brotherly/sisterly love towards their siblings. These feeling are hard to supress; they often tend to remain beyond rational limits.

But wait you say? After all, we did choose our spouse. Oh, really? The Bible states relating directly to marriage that humans should not divide what God put together (Mt. 19:6). Finally, we do not choose our own natural children; yet, people generally have a inate parental love for their offspring.

There you have the four of the closest relationships among humanity and none of these are originally based upon our own choice.

And what about God? Does He have a choice in loving His creatures? I don't think so. God is love and by His very nature I think He must love the people He has made. I don't conceive how God create a being that He would/could not love. Yes, I believe that God loved Satan in his initially created form.

We love God because He first loved us (1 Jn 4:19). Is not the real basis of relationships Trust?

 

[Winman]

There you have the four of the closest relationships among humanity and none of these are originally based upon our own choice.

Nonsense. The vast majority of people are not in arranged marriages and choose their spouse.

And not all family members get along or love each other. In fact, a large percent of murders are when one family member kills another. I watched Dateline last night about a lady who shot and killed her brother. At the time they thought it an accident, now she has killed others and they are re-opening the investigation into her brother's death.

And what about God? Does He have a choice in loving His creatures? I don't think so. God is love and by His very nature I think He must love the people He has made. I don't conceive how God create a being that He would/could not love. Yes, I believe that God loved Satan in his initially created form.

Well, of course God loves all men, that is what the scriptures say (John 3:16). God does not create some persons so that he can destroy them. The scriptures say God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. However, God is just, he is a Judge and must judge righteously. Those who reject his salvation through Jesus Christ must be punished.

We love God because He first loved us (1 Jn 4:19). Is not the real basis of relationships Trust?

The verse says we love God because he loved us. Of course, trust or faith is important in any relationship. However, you can love someone you may not trust. A fellow may be a thief who would steal from his own mother, yet his mother loves him, even though she may not trust him.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Nonsense. The vast majority of people are not in arranged marriages and choose their spouse. ...

I didn't even mention arranged marriages. Since you seem to believe that you chose your spouse allow me to point out that --

You did not chose which country, state, or even city you would be born into, nor did you chose which country, state, or even city your future spouse would be born into (proximity being an important factor for most in the 'chosing' a mate although there are many exceptions);

You did not chose your IQ or early education, nor your potential spouse's IQ and early education;

You did not chose which race you or your future spouse would be (ethnicity being an important factor in 'chosing' a mate);

You did not chose that your future spouse would be a saved Christian (I'm suggesting the ideal situation);

You did not chose other socio-economic factors that play a role in the 'chosing' of a mate. There are many other considerations, but unless one day you pointed to a picture of a person that you had never met and then married that person immedately I seriously doubt you can deny that you were NOT in control of all the circumstances that ultimately led to your marriage 'decision'.

If God did not direct you to your spouse, how would you know if you got the right person? :laugh:

And not all family members get along or love each other. In fact, a large percent of murders are when one family member kills another. ...

Yes, and some people who love each other do occassionally get mad at each other. This does not prove that they didn't love them; many express great remorse for killing some one they actually loved. I don't imagine that you get along with people you actually dislike better than the people you love.

Well, of course God loves all men, that is what the scriptures say (John 3:16). ...

Technically, John 3:16 does not explicitly state that 'God loves all men' (it merely states that God loved "the world"). But we agree that God does love all men.

What I should have emphasized more in the OP was the universal aspect: if people 'chose' who they are going to love then why don't almost half of all children reject their parents at an early age? why don't many more scholars fall in love with high school dropouts? why don't German people marry outside their nationality more than half the time? why doesn't a significantly high percentage of parents hate their children from birth?

Let's try this much.

 

[Shortandy]

Romans 9:13

It appears that Paul is in disagreement with you on this point.

 

[Winman]

You did not chose which country, state, or even city you would be born into, nor did you chose which country, state, or even city your future spouse would be born into (proximity being an important factor for most in the 'chosing' a mate although there are many exceptions);

Well, I'm one of those exceptions, I grew up and was living in Florida, I met my wife when she was vacationing from Connecticut.

You did not chose your IQ or early education, nor your potential spouse's IQ and early education;

While it is true that everyone has to attend school, that does not guarantee a person will be educated. I happened to be a good student, but that is because I was naturally inclined to learn, I loved to read and study. My younger brother on the other hand hated school and made poor grades. But today he owns his own business and is far more successful than me speaking purely money wise.

I did go to college on my own, working a full time job while I attended, and chose my school.

You did not chose which race you or your future spouse would be (ethnicity being an important factor in 'chosing' a mate);

I did not choose my wife because of her race, although she is Caucasian like me. My brother married a girl who is half black, half Hawaiin with very dark skin. And again, she was from Hawaii, while we lived in Florida.

You did not chose that your future spouse would be a saved Christian (I'm suggesting the ideal situation);

This is ridiculous, I would not have married my wife if she was not a Christian, and not just a Christian, she had to be Baptist like me.

If God did not direct you to your spouse, how would you know if you got the right person?

I do not doubt that God caused the circumstances that caused me to meet my wife. But that does not mean I had no say-so in the matter. If I would have not liked her as a person I would not have married her.

Yes, and some people who love each other do occassionally get mad at each other. This does not prove that they didn't love them; many express great remorse for killing some one they actually loved. I don't imagine that you get along with people you actually dislike better than the people you love.

That's not the point. While for a certainty the vast majority of people love their family members, being born in a family does not guarantee that everyone will love each other. You cannot force or cause anyone to love someone else.

Technically, John 3:16 does not explicitly state that 'God loves all men' (it merely states that God loved "the world"). But we agree that God does love all men

On the contrary, the scriptures have many verses that says God loves all men.

Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Who is the ungodly? Are only the elect the ungodly?

Calvinism twists and wrests the scriptures, redefining words like "world" in John 3:16 or "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 to mean only some men. If God wanted to say he only died for the elect, or if he wanted to say he was not willing that the elect should perish, he could have easily said so just as I have done now. But Calvinism actually implies that God is incapable of clearly expressing himself and says misleading terms like "all men" when he really meant "some men". I am amazed any thinking person can fall for such a ridiculous and false argument as this.

 

[The Archangel]

On the contrary, the scriptures have many verses that says God loves all men.

Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Who is the ungodly? Are only the elect the ungodly?

Calvinism twists and wrests the scriptures, redefining words like "world" in John 3:16 or "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 to mean only some men. If God wanted to say he only died for the elect, or if he wanted to say he was not willing that the elect should perish, he could have easily said so just as I have done now. But Calvinism actually implies that God is incapable of clearly expressing himself and says misleading terms like "all men" when he really meant "some men". I am amazed any thinking person can fall for such a ridiculous and false argument as this.

It's amazing what error you (plural) can fall into when you cherry-pick verses completely ignoring the context of the passage.

Romans 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. (Emphasis mine)

Who is the we? Is it all mankind? No, not even close. Look at the entire pericope:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. 6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (emphases mine)
If you are suggesting, as you wrongly are, that God loves all men equally (ie. in the same manner) and you use Romans 5:6 as a proof-text (which you are clearly doing) you then have to say that all men are saved and you have to be a universalist.
​

The passage, Romans 5, is not written to all mankind. Rather, it is written to Christians (note the plethora of "we" and "us"). Had you read the first chapter of Romans, this would be plain: "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus...to all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

So, Paul is writing to Christians, not all mankind...and there is no way around this. Your use of Romans 5:6 is devoid of context and is plainly and simply wrong.

Further, the 2 Peter passage is not without its own context or grammar. See here:

9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (Emphasis mine)
​

Now, in the scope of the book of 2 Peter, in chapter 3, Peter is taking on the scoffers of v. 3. He says they "deliberately overlook..." in v. 5 and then he returns to the same root word in v. 8--addressing scoffers who might be among the Christians in the Church Peter is writing to. He is encouraging the Christians and admonishing the doubters all at the same time.

But, the death knell of your argument is found in the emphasized word "you" in the verse printed above. Again, we see that Peter is writing to Christians, not all mankind: "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ"

But your argument fails because the "you" in 2 Peter 3:9 is plural--meaning, without a doubt, that Peter is addressing the people to whom he is writing. In other words, Peter is saying to Christians that God is being patient with them and that patience is demonstrated because God is not willing that "any" should perish. Who is the any? Any of mankind? Not even close. Peter is saying that God does not want any of the Christians to perish. Because they have not reached repentance. Now, would we call these people "Christians?" It'd doubtful. Had they had committed serious error in theology? Had they committed serious errors in living (ie. not living a Christian life)? Probably. Peter is admonishing the scoffers and the Christians by saying "what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,"

But, again, this fits with Peter's purpose for the book (encouragement and admonishment of believers) as seen in 2 Peter 1:10: "Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall."

So, again, we see you ripping verses out of their context straining to compress the scripture in to your a priori ideas.

The Archangel

 

[kyredneck]

....So, again, we see you ripping verses out of their context straining to compress the scripture in to your a priori ideas.....

.......all in his quest to stamp out Calvinism; evil, evil Calvinism.

 

[The Archangel]

.......all in his quest to stamp out Calvinism; evil, evil Calvinism.

Sad but true, apparently.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

When Paul said Jesus died for the ungodly, that would include all men.

He didn't say "When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the elect"

Now, he could have said that, and then there would be no doubt whatsoever that he was saying Jesus only died for the elect. And God could easily have said in 2 Peter 3:9 that he was not willing that the "elect" should perish, but that all the "elect" would come to repentance.

And that is what I said, Calvinism strongly implies that God does not have the ability to effectively communicate what he wants to say. He says "all men", but you Calvinists come along and say "God did not really mean "all men" when he said "all men", he really meant only "some men"."

Ridiculous. And what is really sad is that you don't recognize that you are doing this.

If God did not love the whole world, but only the elect, he could have said so. He could have said:

John 3:16 For God so loved the ELECT, that he gave his only begotten Son, that the ELECT who believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God could have said that. I am just a man and I altered this verse so there would be no mistake, no misleading words. But according to Calvinism, God is not capable of expressing himself properly and needs you to correct him. Absurd.

 

[The Archangel]

When Paul said Jesus died for the ungodly, that would include all men.

He didn't say "When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the elect"

Now, he could have said that, and then there would be no doubt whatsoever that he was saying Jesus only died for the elect. And God could easily have said in 2 Peter 3:9 that he was not willing that the "elect" should perish, but that all the "elect" would come to repentance.

And that is what I said, Calvinism strongly implies that God does not have the ability to effectively communicate what he wants to say. He says "all men", but you Calvinists come along and say "God did not really mean "all men" when he said "all men", he really meant only "some men"."

Ridiculous. And what is really sad is that you don't recognize that you are doing this.

If God did not love the whole world, but only the elect, he could have said so. He could have said:

John 3:16 For God so loved the ELECT, that he gave his only begotten Son, that the ELECT who believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God could have said that. I am just a man and I altered this verse so there would be no mistake, no misleading words. But according to Calvinism, God is not capable of expressing himself properly and needs you to correct him. Absurd.

As is so often the case, you are kicking against the goads of the text. You have an a priori presupposition (to be redundant) and it is this: "God loves all men." You have spent much time and much effort to proof-text your presupposition, but your arguments are still vapid.

If you would look at Romans 5--the whole thing, not just picking out a verse that seems to support your presupposition--you would see verse 8: "but God shows his love for us in that ​while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (emphases mine).

This verse is in a clear parallel with verse 6 and shows that the "ungodly" of verse 6 are the "still sinners" of verse 8 and those ungodly, still sinners are "we." Paul is saying the ungodly for whom Christ died are the ones who are Christians--though they weren't always Christians.

Your argument is not with me or any other Calvinist. Your argument is with the text of scripture--and, by the way, that is an argument you will never win.

You make silly statements like these:

And that is what I said, Calvinism strongly implies that God does not have the ability to effectively communicate what he wants to say. He says "all men", but you Calvinists come along and say "God did not really mean "all men" when he said "all men", he really meant only "some men"."

God could have said that. I am just a man and I altered this verse so there would be no mistake, no misleading words. But according to Calvinism, God is not capable of expressing himself properly and needs you to correct him. Absurd.
​

You make these statements and the problem is that God has clearly spoken and you refuse to listen. You would rather put proof-text type words into His mouth. Either you are unable or unwilling (probably the latter) to receive God's effective communication and because of your inability, you charge Calvinists with scripture twisting and misrepresenting God. Sad.

The Archangel

 

[MB]

Is having a choice the basis for human relationship? Maybe not.

For example, we did not choose our parents; yet, virtually all children love their parents. We do not choose our siblings; yet, most people feel a brotherly/sisterly love towards their siblings. These feeling are hard to supress; they often tend to remain beyond rational limits.


But wait you say? After all, we did choose our spouse. Oh, really? The Bible states relating directly to marriage that humans should not divide what God put together (Mt. 19:6). Finally, we do not choose our own natural children; yet, people generally have a inate parental love for their offspring.

There you have the four of the closest relationships among humanity and none of these are originally based upon our own choice.

And what about God? Does He have a choice in loving His creatures? I don't think so. God is love and by His very nature I think He must love the people He has made. I don't conceive how God create a being that He would/could not love. Yes, I believe that God loved Satan in his initially created form.

We love God because He first loved us (1 Jn 4:19). Is not the real basis of relationships Trust?

Of course maybe you have over looked that what God had put together Man takes apart in divorce. Then man goes out and marries his former baby sitter. Of course God put them together as well even though their marriage would be directly against his will. Yeah Right!!!!!!!!!! by the time man get's done marrying, why he's one flesh with 5 or 6 wives. Man that is a lot of flesh for just one man.
MB

 

[saturneptune]

.......all in his quest to stamp out Calvinism; evil, evil Calvinism.

Believe it or not, we agree on the doctrines of sovereignty and grace. I have struggled with this for years, and just recently came to that conclusion.

 

[saturneptune]

Ridiculous. And what is really sad is that you don't recognize that you are doing this.

If God did not love the whole world, but only the elect, he could have said so. He could have said:

John 3:16 For God so loved the ELECT, that he gave his only begotten Son, that the ELECT who believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

.

You can mock the verse all you want to line up with your opinion about predestination and election, but the words of the original verse can be defended without the sarcastic changes. "Whosoever believes in Him shall not perish..." The whosoever is not going to believe unless his life is first touched by the Lord. If you ever read Romans 3:10, or try Psalms 14, how could anyone, (whosoever) believe in such an evil and fallen state.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Well, I'm one of those exceptions, I grew up and was living in Florida, I met my wife when she was vacationing from Connecticut. ...

You're not an exception. In fact, you prove my point.

While it is true that everyone has to attend school, that does not guarantee a person will be educated. I happened to be a good student, but that is because I was naturally inclined to learn, I loved to read and study. My younger brother on the other hand hated school and made poor grades. But today he owns his own business and is far more successful than me speaking purely money wise.

I did go to college on my own, working a full time job while I attended, and chose my school. ...

You say some rather odd things. First, it isn't mandatory to attend school throughout the world. Second, I never said that education would guarantee a high intellect. Good for you and your brother. But how many mentally retarded women did you date? The point was that your wife probably does not have a significantly higher or lower IQ than yourself.

This is ridiculous, I would not have married my wife if she was not a Christian, and not just a Christian, she had to be Baptist like me. ...

Exactly my point. You seem to miss that I was not suggesting that just any potential mate of your chosing must be a Christian; I was suggesting that the particular person that God chose and you have actually married would be a Christian.

I do not doubt that God caused the circumstances that caused me to meet my wife. But that does not mean I had no say-so in the matter. If I would have not liked her as a person I would not have married her. ...

Why would God waste His effort to bring about these extraordinary circumstances if you could simply decide you weren't interested?

That's not the point. While for a certainty the vast majority of people love their family members, being born in a family does not guarantee that everyone will love each other. You cannot force or cause anyone to love someone else. ...

No, this is precisely the point. It is virtually universal. I am not aware of culture throughout history that did not treat kindred much differently than non-relatives even when logically it should not make a difference. In other words, there is no logical reason for me to want to treat my sister with more benevolence than the woman that lives across the street.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Of course maybe you have over looked that what God had put together Man takes apart in divorce. Then man goes out and marries his former baby sitter. Of course God put them together as well even though their marriage would be directly against his will. Yeah Right!!!!!!!!!! by the time man get's done marrying, why he's one flesh with 5 or 6 wives. Man that is a lot of flesh for just one man.
MB

I believe that God has His reasons for putting these relationships together as well. Read Genesis 38 (Judah & Tamar), 2 Samuel 11 (David & Bathsheba), etc.