Free Will- Result of Emotional Handicap?

Where you seem to seldom hold anything I say with any weight, this is the sort of thing that "grates" others. When you make such intellectually ridiculous statements in a simple hot button fashion. As glfrederick said in some earlier post (another thread) "assuming facts not in evidence."

 

I think so too, really not one to call someone out on emotionalism

 

Why can you just not answer the question?

Do you lie to your son and tell him Jesus loves him (not knowing if it's true)...or do you tell him you don't know if He does?

If your son is NOT one of the "elect", do you love your son more than Christ does?

 

Is this an emotional response, oh hypocritical one? I simply pointed out DHK is not the only one that thinks that...oh wait...you are wrong once again

 

Watch out! Luke will threaten to arm wrestle you! :laugh:

 

Aww, man! I really hate to do this.

The whole child thing really is a bad arguement not counting the so called "emotionalism" of it. Christ Himself said "suffer the little children". They are a special class and Luke can tell his son that Jesus loves him in all truthfulness. Its his unsaved, adult cousin that he'd potentially be lying too.

 

Yes, but every reprobate was at one point someone's child. If the reformed doctrine of election is true, there are some (most) children who were not elect before the foundation of the world. If they were to die in that state, they would perish. This can be the only consistent position. I know some say that all children that die are saved due to some other dispensation of salvation, all children that die in that state are the elect, etc. It's all inconsistent.

Group A = the elect
Group B = not elect

Both groups were children and loved by their parents

Now I do concur that Jesus does love every child.

 

Very good point Webdog...and one I had not really considered...under the Calvinism position one has to believe that God moves from loving all children to then making some the objects of His wrath...

 

...and that is just what I mean by the inconsistency from the reformed that all children are "the elect". Either it's universalism, or the dire fact remains in that theology that most children are not loved by Christ, Christ did not die for most parents' children, and a human can love another human more than God can...a God who IS love.

 

I see the point here, and I think it a reasonable one. My experience with a former pastor explained it to me in that he hoped with all hope that his children would be among the elect, but accepted it if not.

Self-Revelation for the moment.

In the past year, I removed myself from my church of more than 10 years over this issue of theology, not the theology itself per se, because I could have stayed having the intellectual and spiritual wisdom to know and recognize when I simply found myself in disagreement with the pastor. In his defense, he made serious efforts to not allow his theological perspective to come out of the pulpit, but rather it would be expressed mostly in bible study.

My reason for finding another place to worship was that the "church as a whole" was not aware of the issue and differences prior to extending a call as pastor. There should have been a very clear "come to Jesus" meeting in which the church as whole knew all the facts, issues etc. and then decided.

That is my only "concern" with "reformed" theology within the context of the SBC. When it proposes to come into a church, the entire church should be given a "heads up" and allowed to consider it, if that IS what they want, great, if not, then it should not be forced or imported where it is not completely wanted.

I was recently reading another blog, where the author boasted that all faculty on the campus of Southern Seminary were all very vocally reformed in their theology. I dont know if that is true, but I tend to think not. But in the outside chance that it is, well I just do not think that is right much less something to boast about.

I know there are some Southern graduates and students here, so please do let me know if what I read was simply exagerration or not.

 

I thought this was quite funny. Free will is the result of emotional handicap...but when you point out where their "logic" leads the result is anger :laugh: That is an emotional handicap.

 

Yes, this discussion is often fraught with ironies.

 

Let's be honest you haven't proven anything yet. Your words doesn't prove a thing is true in theology. It takes two or three witnesses from God's word on the matter. You have not ever shown such witness for any of your theories to me.

Of course we Love our families though the hate mentioned in Luke 14:26 is the same type of hate mentioned of Esau over Jacob. It's not really a hate but, a preference. However if your son was adopted your love for him would have to be a choice. Just as his love for you would be a choice. Everyone here is adopted we do not love God naturally like a father and son love. We love God because we choose to Love Him because He first loved us. Choosing to Love God of your own freewill is the strongest love man can have. We aren't made to love God. He simply doesn't want a man who doesn't love Him by his own choosing.

The reason our love is stronger when we will our selves to love another is because it's God will for us to love our neighbors. Any thing done in God's will is stronger because God almighty is behind it. Our being willing to do it shows our surrender to Him. Our being willing to love that which we wouldn't do normally is much stronger than you can imagine.
2Co 8:12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.

You must really believe that what you don't have is all that counts.
MB

 

Me personally, in my own emotional, illogical way; I think there may be only one way to determine the "end all" of this conversation.

Do Calvinists believe Arminians are going to hell, because they believe incorrectly? Alternatively, do Arminians believe Calvinists are going to hell because they believe incorrectly?

 

Not a bad way to "shuck the corn". My answer is No.