Which way would produce more positive results?

I think if God chose who would be saved without any creaturely choice, then that would lead to universalism -- all would be saved. This is because God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4).

 

Ditto.

 

Nobody would be saved if each individual chose whether to be saved.

Dead people don't choose.

 

Because God loves us so much that he does not force us to respond to him, even though this gives us the power to frustrate his desire for us.

 

Amen

 

God loves us so much that our choices matter. I hope you never have to deal with a grown-up son or daughter who chooses to lead a destructive lifestyle. But, for those who do, there comes a time when they have to allow their child to make choices -- even choices that may be destructive. To refuse to allow someone to make choices is to refuse to acknowledge their personhood by rather treating them as a beast.

As for eternal damnation, I believe that everlasting life is God's gift to those who believe in Jesus, while perishing, destruction, utter darkness, consuming fire, final separation from God and the second death is the fate of those who don't (see John 3:16; Matthew 10:28, etc.). As such, I do believe that God's love is compatible with damning those who reject him to destruction. Since God is the eternal I AM, to reject God is ultimately to reject existence itself. It is only in God that we truly have our being. But, that's [another thread].

 

He loves us so much that he will let us choose eternal damnation? That doesn't sound like love. I love my children too much to let them choose what will destroy them. If my child is in danger I do what I can to remove them from danger. I do not ask their permission first. </font>[/QUOTE]Right on, Whatever.

I would do anything within my power to spare my daughter any pain and suffering, whether she thought it a good idea at the time or not. I can't even fathom, allowing her to go into a burning building (because she sees so many 'enticing' things along the way). I would simply say, NO WAY, YOU ARE NOT GOING!

 

No, I do not believe Jesus was forced into that. Jesus chose to submit to the Father's will. "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done" (Luke 22:42).

I don't see how anybody could think that Jesus was coerced into being our Redeemer against his will. I think such an interpretation makes a mockery of Jesus and his love for us.

How old is your daughter? Is she old enough to be responsible for her own choices? Will you also prohibit your daughter from doing anything that will cause her pain and suffering when she is in her 20s and living independently? Or, will you encourage and plead with her to choose rightly, but allow her to live her own life?

 

I'm curious, what is your own position? I assume that you believe that our choices do not in any way influence whether God has selected us as among the elect or among the damned. So, based on your stated love for your daughter, does that mean that you believe that God loves all the people he created at least as much as you love your daughter, and thus will tell each person "No way, you are not going!" and save them from hell, regardless of their wishes? Or, do you believe God only loves some people?

If neither of these is your opinion, what did you mean by your illustration?

 

Why do you think God does not save everyone, then? </font>[/QUOTE]And therein lies the anti-calvinist paradox. God supposedly loves everyone enough to let them choose- but yet no one would choose life, so you're back to the original question: Why is anyone saved?

 

One would have to be an anti-Calvinist with a Calvinist perspective to create that paradox. Scripture seems to indicate that we can choose life. That's why it repeatedly tells us to do so.

 

That is what I disagree with. The Son chose to obey; the Son chose to submit to the Father's will. If Jesus was only allowed one choice, then it would indeed be coercion.

Luke 22:42 indicates submission, not coercion.