Free Will- Result of Emotional Handicap?

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.

 

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:

 

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

 

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:

 

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

 

OK

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.

 

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 ?

 

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".

 

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.