Control Vs. Love

[JoeP222w]

So, that’s a yes. God said not to do something and sent out the royal decree to ensure we disobeyed.

God said do and simultaneously willed don’t.

Are you sure, that is your final answer?

God was demonstrating that we, as created beings, are incapable of meeting God's perfect moral standard, and demonstrating why we need the Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[Grip Docility]

God was demonstrating that we, as created beings, are incapable of meeting God's perfect moral standard, and demonstrating why we need the Savior Jesus Christ.

I’m in near agreement with the exception of God creating us to fail.

God didn’t cause the fall and God wasn’t judged as the “ruler of this world”.

Hebrews 2:14 seems to be overlooked here.

 

[zoidar]

Those who believe, contextually. Does God love unbelievers that same as believers? No. God gives unbelievers common grace. God gives believers redemptive love. God does not grant redemptive love to unbelievers, or they would not be unbelievers. Man differentiates love and God differentiates love all the more perfectly.

We differ in how we see this. God loves the world, all men so much that he sent His Son. Jesus says there is no love bigger than this (John 15:13). That's how much He loves everyone. Of course He can only have a loving relationship with those who follow him, but that same love is for all men.

I don't think God is telling every man to repent if it wasn't possible for everyone. The whole idea that God loves some people in one way (saving love) and other people with common love (love that doesn't save) is in my opinion a pretty evil idea.

 

[JoeP222w]

I’m in near agreement with the exception of God creating us to fail.

I did not say that God created us to fail. God created us perfect. But God used the fall to demonstrate His justice, righteousness, grace and mercy. Back to full circle of what I said at the beginning. Again, God uses means to demonstrate His glory. God decrees the means as well as the end.

 

[Grip Docility]

I did not say that God created us to fail. God created us perfect. But God used the fall to demonstrate His justice, righteousness, grace and mercy. Back to full circle of what I said at the beginning. Again, God uses means to demonstrate His glory. God decrees the means as well as the end.

God is perfect. He doesn’t fail. We did. What gives?

Were we God Perfect or Creation Perfect? There’s a difference. Only one is perpetually perfectly good.

 

[JoeP222w]

Jesus says there is no love bigger than this (John 5:13).

I don't see the correlation there that Jesus is saying "there is no love bigger than this".

John 5:13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place.

Of course He can only have a loving relationship with those who follow him, but that same love is for all men.

Is that not contradictory?

I don't think God is telling every man to repent if it wasn't possible for everyone.

And that is the role of the hypothetical objector in Romans 9.

Romans 9:19-23 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” (21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

The whole idea that God loves some people in one way (saving love) and other people with common love (love that doesn't save) is in my opinion a pretty evil idea.

Are you married? If you are, I assume you love your wife. Do you have any neighbors? Do you love them? Would you say that your love for your wife is radically different than your love for your neighbor? I sure hope it is. They are both forms of love, but different. If we as sinful creatures can have differentiation in love, are you saying that God is not allowed to differentiate His love?

If you believe that God's love is the same for every human being that has ever existed, then your disagreement is with Paul.

Romans 9:13-16 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (14) What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! (15) For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

 

[zoidar]

I don't see the correlation there that Jesus is saying "there is no love bigger than this".

John 5:13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had withdrawn, as there was a crowd in the place.

Sorry, John 15:13

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."

Is that not contradictory?

No! Read further down to know why.

Are you married? If you are, I assume you love your wife. Do you have any neighbors? Do you love them? Would you say that your love for your wife is radically different than your love for your neighbor? I sure hope it is. They are both forms of love, but different. If we as sinful creatures can have differentiation in love, are you saying that God is not allowed to differentiate His love?

If you believe that God's love is the same for every human being that has ever existed, then your disagreement is with Paul.

Romans 9:13-16 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (14) What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! (15) For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (16) So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

You don't think it's the other way around, that we have different love to people because we aren't perfect?

Would you say the father loved his son in a different way when the son was away spending his father's wealth on loose living in a distant land? (Luk 15:11-32)

I don't think I disagree with Paul. God loved both Jacob and Esau the same way, but He chose "loved" Jacob to be the bloodline of Jesus and He didn't chose "didn't love" Esau for that purpose.

 

[zoidar]

And that is the role of the hypothetical objector in Romans 9.

Romans 9:19-23 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (20) But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” (21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (22) What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, (23) in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—

I think you are making way to much out of that verse. It doesn't mean we can't turn away from God. There are a lot of verses that say we can resist the Holy Spirit. If a person resists the Holy Spirit, then God won't save him. The will to save that person is still there, but He won't do it until that person repents.

 

[RDKirk]

That’s saying that in order for it to be free will, it must be void of consequences.

Yes, void of consequences imposed by any other moral agent. That's the definition of "free will," which was invented long before the first century.

Very few philosophers today believe that free will exists. The only people who really talk about it are Christians, even though scripture denies it.

 

[zoidar]

Very few philosophers today believe that free will exists. The only people who really talk about it are Christians, even though scripture denies it.

I won't give non Christian philosophers much to say on this matter. If they haven't found the truth in Jesus, how am I to believe that they have found the answer to other spiritual questions?

There is no such thing as scripture denying free will. There are verses we can make such an assumption from, but there is no plain out verse that says: "There is no free will".

 

[JoeP222w]

You don't think it's the other way around, that we have different love to people because we aren't perfect?

No.

This implies that to love everyone perfectly equally is the ideal to be sought after. I don't find this love defined in the Bible. This also implies that God loves those He sent to Hell, so God must be forever distraught that those He loves are in Hell. Again, not a concept in the Bible. God is glorified to carry out His justice and wrath on those who are in rebellion against Him, because He is love, because He is just, because He is sovereign.

Would you say the father loved his son in a different way when the son was away spending his father's wealth on loose living in a distant land? (Luk 15:11-32)

Parables are never complete definitions of God. Parables are meant to help us understand God, but parables never define doctrines.

God loved both Jacob and Esau the same way, but He chose "loved" Jacob to be the bloodline of Jesus and He didn't chose "didn't love" Esau for that purpose.

As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

I have no idea how you get that from the verse above. How can God love someone then say He hates someone, and you came to the conclusion this is the same love? That does not make any sense. And the passage is referring to the individuals, not the nations.

 

[RDKirk]

I won't give non Christian philosophers much to say on this matter. If they haven't found the truth in Jesus, how am I to believe that they have found the answer to other spiritual questions?

There is no such thing as scripture denying free will. There are verses we can make such an assumption from, but there is not plain out verse that says: "There is no free will".

For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
....
Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
....
When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.
....
The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Romans 6-8

Every person is either slave to sin or slave to God--nobody's will is "free."

 

[JoeP222w]

It doesn't mean we can't turn away from God.

Is salvation of God or man? Does God fail in whom He saves? One cannot lose their salvation, because not one single person earned their salvation. No one eternal loses their salvation. They may fall into a season of sin, but they do not lose their salvation, or if they do, then God is impotent. This is not the case.

There are a lot of verses that say we can resist the Holy Spirit.

And their is always a context associated with it. And one who is truly saved of God cannot resist the Holy Spirit to the loss of their salvation. If one loses their salvation, they never were truly saved, were never regenerated by God, never repented, they never knew the Lord Jesus Christ.

If a person resists the Holy Spirit, then God won't save him. The will to save that person is still there, but He won't do it until that person repents.

Then by this view, man's will is greater than God's.

 

[Haipule]

God is in sovereign control of everything in the universe, from the smallest atom to the largest galaxy. If God is not in control of the smallest minutiae of the universe, than He is not sovereign, He is not omnipotent, He is not in control. God does not "micromanage" as in human, sinful "micromanagement", but He has decree the end and the means. Man does not make a single decision that is outside of God's sovereign decree.

John 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:16-18 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. (17) And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (18) And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Not my opinion, but what God's word has spoken.

Your John 1:3 quote is talking about the Word. The Word became flesh in verse 14. So Jesus wasn't born yet.

Your Colossians 1:16 quote, ktisis, erroneously translated as "created", means: to found or, establish. The translators sometimes also translate it as "world" which is just as goofy.

"For by him all things were created(ktisis), in heaven(figuratively: authoritative UP position) and on earth(figurative: authoritative DOWN position), visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things(all these things have to do with authority structures) were created(ktisis: founded, established) through him and for him."

Paul is telling us that Jesus has founded and established all legitimate authority structures whether up or down, invisible or visible.

 

[Haipule]

Then that is not free will. Free will is the freedom of a moral agent to act without consequences or constraints by any other moral agent.

If you choose A because choosing B will entail negative consequences imposed by another moral agent, then your will is not free.

Never confuse freedom with anarchy. Is nudity "freedom of expression" or, anarchy? Is pornography "freedom or speech" or, anarchy?

If we do not learn to separate freedom from anarchy, then the anarchists will use the word freedom against us!

 

[Grip Docility]

Never confuse freedom with anarchy. Is nudity "freedom of expression" or, anarchy? Is pornography "freedom or speech" or, anarchy?

If we do not learn to separate freedom from anarchy, then the anarchists will use the word freedom against us!

Consequence is a nifty benefit of freedom. Indeed.

 

[Grip Docility]

Never confuse freedom with anarchy. Is nudity "freedom of expression" or, anarchy? Is pornography "freedom or speech" or, anarchy?

If we do not learn to separate freedom from anarchy, then the anarchists will use the word freedom against us!

I have to recognize. You get the Yoda Award for this answer! You just schooled me, Sir!

Awesome Post, This Is!

Learned, I have!

 

[RDKirk]

Never confuse freedom with anarchy. Is nudity "freedom of expression" or, anarchy? Is pornography "freedom or speech" or, anarchy?

If we do not learn to separate freedom from anarchy, then the anarchists will use the word freedom against us!

"Free will" is anarchy. That's literally what it would mean...if it actually existed. But it doesn't because scripture defines us all as slaves, either to God or to sin.

 

[Grip Docility]

"Free will" is anarchy. That's literally what it would mean...if it actually existed. But it doesn't because scripture defines us all as slaves, either to God or to sin.

The idea plays out like this. Person kills people, no one stops the person or deals out consequences to the person. That’s Anarchy.

Free Will goes something like this.

Martha Stewart was free to choose to pay $200,000 in taxes on one of her houses. She freely chose to evade the charge.

We know the rest.

 

[Grip Docility]

If a painter painted in a world of Anarchy, red would sometimes come out grey and green would come out purple. A straight line would never come out straight and a canvas might only hold paint on one side.

In a world of freedom, a painter is free to paint whatever they choose and are assured the result will be due to their choices and techniques.

I’m picking this thought process up as quickly as I can!