That's incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, impassible, impeccable, and immutable! - Oct 23 2023

[Lon]

"Will never choose" does not mean "no choice present."

I think I can appreciate that, but is it necessary at that point? Clete rightly says we are delving into depths of His love so I'm not sure that it 'has'' to be like I'm seeing, it seems that choice is part of love, but not its definition. All this an attempt to make a 'better' definition. For the most part this is the thrust of my entry.

If I have a bottle of poison next to me, but have absolutely ZERO desire to commit suicide, it doesn't mean the poison doesn't exist! If the poison was not there/did not exist, then I would have no ability to NOT take the poison (iow be committed to life), because there's no poison to not take.

Yes, but then isn't 'choice' negligent in the story? I believe if we were to search 'vanilla' it'd take us to one of the archived Open Theism threads, but I'm not sure it ever was addressed, at least I need to revisit it. Love of vanilla (superficially) is a choice negligibly. I yet think 'nature' is the better qualifier of what is. In this case, it isn't so much that I choose vanilla, choosing is rather the consequence of how I've been made. At that point God the Father and Son love because they are love by nature. Until the flesh, there is no 'desire' even to do otherwise in the Godhead though I believe I can appreciate they do in fact 'choose' it is rather against the idea of 'not love' that haunts my mind regarding 'choice.' Creativity is expressed in 'options' for love's expression, as such it seems 'choice' is an option of 'expression for love' rather than love itself.

In the same way, the choice not to love is always present. If the choice not to love doesn't exist, then it's not love.

Yes, that is what is being questioned, whether that is true AND my redefinition of love would have to include the concept, thus I need a hearty argument that it 'must' be part of the definition to prove it.

It's a robot running code. IE, not human, not God.

Needs expounding, proof, and explanation and best from your own mind and wrestling.

 

[Clete]

It is still haunting my rational mind: I 'love' (am drawn toward) vanilla. I don't really believe I have a choice nor does it make a whit of difference to an accuracy (granted on the most superficial of love descriptions).

Category error.

A preference for vanilla is not love in the sense in which we are discussing it, it's a personal opinion and a biologically driven one at that.

All things moral require choice. The degree to which volitional choice is not an ingredient, the less we are talking about anything that has to do with morality, including love.

Isn't this rather talking about 'freedom' rather than 'love?' Again it supposes in circular reasoning that "Choice = Love."

No! There is no such thing as amoral love (not in the sense we are talking about it).

The whole point here is that if there are no alternatives then there is no choice and if there is no choice then the action is not done freely and is therefore not moral in nature.

There is actually a name for this idea. It's called the Principle of Alternative Possibilities which states that an action is only moral if the person performing the action could have done otherwise. Indeed, this is what it means to have a will. Your ability to do otherwise is the capacity that the would "will" gives name to.

Let me trouble (or attempt it) your logic: It is assumed a robot (a man by direct association) cannot love specifically 'because' it has no other choice but the logic is importing a fallacy here: The robot hasn't been made to love in the first place. It is in my argument that 'if' you or I had the capacity to create as God does, we theoretically can make a loving robot. IOW, the counter-argument assumes the premise that Love isn't love 'unless' there is choice and borrows from exactly the robot's lack of choice to make the assumption in the first place, that 'robot's cannot love.' Or simply: Robots cannot choose either, one doesn't automatically relegate the other, the connector is we cannot make a robot that does either very well though I'd argue we can place a value that the computer thus 'consistently chooses and/or randomizes' thereafter (dice throws are randomized in programming for instance).

This makes no sense at all. Unless I am severely misunderstanding your point here, you defeat you own argument as you make it.

When you say that,

"'if' you or I had the capacity to create as God does, we theoretically can make a loving robot.",

how is it that you aren't saying that,

"'if' you or I had the capacity to create as God does, we theoretically can make a robot with the ability to choose"?

And it doesn't matter anyway because an argument from definition is not any sort of logical fallacy and love (or any other moral act) is a choice BY DEFINITION.

No, because long ago I'd made a commitment to love all who are God's but this kind of dialogue often confuses that I'm not saying 'choice' isn't good nor that it doesn't often/most often come into play concerning 'expression' of love. Rather I'm arguing that it often is 'confused' with identity (Again, God is Love doesn't convey God is equally 'choice').

This makes no sense, Lon! I can hardly follow it.

Again, you seem to defeat your own argument here by changing the subject. You do not love your wife in the same sort of way that you "love all who are God's"! Are you going to tell me that you love me like you love your wife? I certainly hope not! Tell your wife that and see what happens!

Further, step back a second and really try to think it through and see if you can't conceive of a moment when you had the option of walking away from she who would become your wife. Do you not have that option even now? Surely, you aren't suggesting that just because it wouldn't ever actually do it, that it isn't an actual option that you COULD do if you decided to. You stay because you want, and therefore choose to stay, not because leaving is impossible. Right?

Yes, this is part of what was troubling, especially any discussion/idea of 'choice to do otherwise.' A genuine love that IS love by definition will never choose 'not love' which is why the crisis in definition in the first place.

Where's the crisis? Look at your own words....

"A genuine love that IS love by definition will never CHOOSE 'not love'"

Saying that "God is love" is not the same thing as saying that "water is wet" because water doesn't choose to be wet and/because cannot be otherwise. Treating "God is love" as though it were in the same class as saying "water is wet" would be to make another category error where you're conflating the moral with the amoral.

Thus, it isn't that God is incapable of "not love" but that He always CHOOSES to be loving!

How do I express "choice between love and love?" Appreciate the reflection and input.

That isn't the choice! Not even for the God who is love! The choice is between love and "not love" (to use your quite good phrasing).

Let me ask you what might seem like an unrelated question...

Could Matthew 4:1-11 have turned out differently than it did? Could Jesus have capitulated to Satan's temptations?

 

[Clete]

"Will never choose" does not mean "no choice present."

If I have a bottle of poison next to me, but have absolutely ZERO desire to commit suicide, it doesn't mean the poison doesn't exist! If the poison was not there/did not exist, then I would have no ability to NOT take the poison (iow be committed to life), because there's no poison to not take.

In the same way, the choice not to love is always present. If the choice not to love doesn't exist, then it's not love. It's a robot running code. IE, not human, not God.

Outstanding analogy! I wish I had read this before writing that last post!

 

[Lon]

Category error.

A preference for vanilla is not love in the sense in which we are discussing it, it's a personal opinion and a biologically driven one at that.

Agree, but was testing it on the road before learning to drive so to speak: Can I say I 'love' vanilla? Not only that, it seems pretty egocentric. Love is 'other-centric' as far as my working definition.

All things moral require choice. The degree to which volitional choice is not an ingredient, the less we are talking about anything that has to do with morality, including love.

Agree. I'm never talking about 'choice not involved' just how/if it is part of its definition. It may be helpful to discuss what love is as well as if "Love=Choice" is accurate.

No! There is no such thing as amoral love (not in the sense we are talking about it).

I wouldn't believe so either. I think we both agree it comes from the character and is part of the nature of God, thus ours is a display of imago deo (image/display) of God. It is important both because it expresses God's nature and because as such, does the highest good (both for the lover and the loved). How's that for a definition so far?

The whole point here is that if there are no alternatives then there is no choice and if there is no choice then the action is not done freely and is therefore not moral in nature.

Isn't 'moral' just a reflection of God's image and goodness? IOW, isn't any condition (whether it moves or not - working definition of choice at this point) that reflects God's nature already good without the interaction? Let me sail this for a moment: What I 'think' you are talking about is an 'expression' of love between two entities. Another way then of asking if 'choice' is necessary is to ask: Must I have another to act upon, or can I be consistent with 'love' without that being first? Example: I was 'honing' my ability to love before I married. Granted I was honing it with others. Perhaps 'other' is the better descriptor than 'choice' on point? Thank you again for working on this. Also, if you have a good working definition of love that sort of handles and explains all of this already, I'd love to hear your or another's definition in thread (and ty). What a great thread for Christmas, btw!

There is actually a name for this idea. It's called the Principle of Alternative Possibilities which states that an action is only moral if the person performing the action could have done otherwise. Indeed, this is what it means to have a will. Your ability to do otherwise is the capacity that the would "will" gives name to.

Do you believe determinism and Freewill are compatible (the middle position)?
It doesn't however, to me, look like it is too involved in the premise: Love ≠Choice. I'm more interested in 'if' love can be defined without 'choice' in its defintion.

This makes no sense at all. Unless I am severely misunderstanding your point here, you defeat you own argument as you make it.

When you say that,

"'if' you or I had the capacity to create as God does, we theoretically can make a loving robot.",

how is it that you aren't saying that,

Yes, I realize it, but 'robot' is already both not capable of making a choice, nor loving. It'd be like saying, imho, 'rocks' don't love. Of course not but it doesn't seem to touch on the subject "Does love need to have choice in its definition?"

"'if' you or I had the capacity to create as God does, we theoretically can make a robot with the ability to choose"?

And it doesn't matter anyway because an argument from definition is not any sort of logical fallacy and love (or any other moral act) is a choice BY DEFINITION.

Exactly the question on the table. I don't ever recall any definition of love with 'choice' in the definition.

This makes no sense, Lon! I can hardly follow it.

Sorry, forget it, I was just trying to show that 'robot' like 'rock' can do neither anyway. I was simply saying that 'robot' by any comparison is problematic because "I" can both love and choose, robot can do neither. Anytime we say 'robot' then, we already have neither but people are saying in argument "robots cannot love" when regarding 'choice' but robots cannot 'choose' either so it is already built into the definition of 'robot' that it can do neither. Point? Again: I'm hearing "if you cannot choose, you are just a robot" but I'm disagreeing that one is the other. "IF" I can make a robot love, then perhaps necessarily 'ability to choose' as well, but that's exactly my inquiry: Robot doesn't give me the answer because it can do neither. Again, if too confusing, I'm not really the one that brings up 'robot.' I'm simply trying to answer the premise often asked. I don't think 'robot' is a great talking point because, as I say, Robot cannot do a lot of things we can, so even if Double-pred Calvinist, Robot doesn't quite fit. So in a nutshell, I'm 'trying' to answer to robot but may not be any better than the accusation to begin with. I'd rather say in a nutshell "robot" isn't quite adequate for either of our discussion points.

Again, you seem to defeat your own argument here by changing the subject. You do not love your wife in the same sort of way that you "love all who are God's"!

I do love her exactly the same: She is my sister in Christ. Now certainly I'm 'one flesh' which is a commitment level beyond, but I certainly do love her as my sister in Christ. It is just that as my sister, I love here with Christ in all my interaction and meaningful exchanges. He is the pinnacle and the desire (exactly the same) for every person in my life. I just don't think you can love anyone any better than wanting 'Christ in His fullness for them.'

Are you going to tell me that you love me like you love your wife? I certainly hope not! Tell your wife that and see what happens!

You are conflating 'same way' with love, between the two perhaps. God has called me to be 'one flesh' but I wasn't comparing that. I was comparing exactly how I love her in Christ to as much as I love another in Christ (granted I'm not exactly 'this' capable, she gets favoritism at this venture, naturally). BUT the best thing I could want for her, her greatest good, is the exact same thing I want for you: Christ. You are bringing some of the idea of 'oneness' into this. So the same highest good, certainly difference and dedications are different.

Further, step back a second and really try to think it through and see if you can't conceive of a moment when you had the option of walking away from she who would become your wife. Do you not have that option even now? Surely, you aren't suggesting that just because it wouldn't ever actually do it, that it isn't an actual option that you COULD do if you decided to. You stay because you want, and therefore choose to stay, not because leaving is impossible. Right?

No, not an options because of all I am and all of who she is, in Christ. "What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." It is not a choice, not an option. Prior? Sure and don't think, yet again, I'm saying choice isn't part of who we are, how we love. I'm rather and only (ever) asking if it is part of the definition of love. You could make a case that I 'can' choose differently but honestly, it is about as 'tempting' as bread from a rock. I'm just not interested. Why? Because the 'pull of love' against 'choice otherwise' is much much stronger. It seems at times, to me, Love is the exact opposite of choice to 'not love' because "God did this and I'm blessed with her" and choice is odd and unnecessary for what is already better than the other choice. Secondarily, yes, trying to find its relation to love, but specifically not on the = level. That is all I'm questioning. I'm trying to see if I can write a definition of love 'with' choice or 'without' choice. It pretty much is trying to find out 'how' exactly choice is related to love. If you followed my 'no' above, I think you can at least appreciate that 'choice to do otherwise' is just not that meaningful to 'love' between my life and I. The actually 'good' choice and not the choice to do otherwise is actually Love's virtue. I realize you know this, I'm just dragging you with me through the 'not love' discussion. It just doesn't look that important to me with my relationship with my wife. "Choices" seems to have even and less and less of anything significance to me as I grow old with her. Simply 'being' seems to be the better descriptor of our marriage over and against 'choice to do otherwise.' I don't think we always have to have contrasts to grasp something and it 'seems' choice isn't the necessary part of grasping it. Is it needed? Yes. We live in a world of autonomy from God and our every endeavor is to grow closer to Him and dependent upon Him. I believe 'choice' diminishes and that eventually there will be no 'choice to do otherwise.' We'll just love Him at that point, not desire for 'choice to do otherwise' will contrast that 10 thousand years from now (may still not be explaining this well).

Where's the crisis? Look at your own words....

"A genuine love that IS love by definition will never CHOOSE 'not love'"

Right but change the emphasis "will never choose." That's the crisis (not exactly a crisis, just 'why' of the thread discussion for me). I can live with a mystery for awhile, just wanting to know the 'place' of choice in love. To date, 'choices' isn't really a part of my grasp of love definition.

Saying that "God is love" is not the same thing as saying that "water is wet" because water doesn't choose to be wet

Exactly, so 'as' water is wet (without choice) God is Love is the question/proposition. Is He love, by nature (I believe so, the identity principle 'is' means that), as water is wet? I've never seen a verse: "God chooses to love." We do see "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" with the caveat "this is love," and "not that we loved Him." It isn't the same as "God chose love." Would love to see that verse if you have it. The only one I know of is "God is love."

and/because cannot be otherwise. Treating "God is love" as though it were in the same class as saying "water is wet" would be to make another category error where you're conflating the moral with the amoral.

I don't see 'is' as a categorical error in scripture. "Is" is identity, and equals Moral by definition cannot be amoral (unless we used 'what man decides' from an awkward definition). Similarly love by definition can never 'be' not love. Notice the language is identity. I can 'be' loving. God is love. The scripture grammar on that verse is straightforward and a trait of identity. You can yet argue that choice is necessary part of love, just 'how' at this point and venture.

Thus, it isn't that God is incapable of "not love" but that He always CHOOSES to be loving!

Right, but I'm arguing it is like you and I being 'man.' We cannot 'choose' to not be man but the absence of choice for identity is not an earmark for identity. You can certainly say I "still choose to be a man" thus that 'choice' is necessary for 'being a man' but I'd argue simply "I have no other option, no choice, yet a man without the choice." If 'love" is identity, there is no appreciable difference between it and identity as a 'man' and it can help us answer whether 'choice' is strongly tied or simply an aspect of it in expression. It 'seems' to me that this is the place of choice in love discussions.

That isn't the choice! Not even for the God who is love! The choice is between love and "not love" (to use your quite good phrasing).

That's the argument at any rate. I'm not convinced God ever has an ability to not love. I don't believe a God who "IS" Love 'can' not love. His hate isn't what anybody else's is. It is simply an expression toward anything 'not love' because He cannot/will not.

Let me ask you what might seem like an unrelated question...

Could Matthew 4:1-11 have turned out differently than it did? Could Jesus have capitulated to Satan's temptations?

You are going to hate this and I know why you are going to hate this, but "no." Temptation doesn't require that I'm sucked in, it simply requires a tempter. Look at the temptation 'bread.' His flesh wanted 'bread' but He didn't want the bread from rock. He could have, without Satan's help, eaten a loaf of bread He made from a rock on His own. His desire was to say "Look, my body wants bread, but I'd literally starve! God's Word causes life (likely referring to himself as the bread of Life?). His 'flesh' would have wanted bread, but He absolutely didn't need to bow to Satan. That doesn't, however mean I'm opposed to anyone saying "yes." It only means that in His perfect nature, He cannot be 'tempted' but say no every time. In the flesh, He could be tempted by 'what His body wants' but not give in because He is God built to say 'no.' Matthew 4:1-11 It is a huge 'other' discussion on TOL. My stance is He can and was 'tempted' but no, that He'd not ever 'choose' against His divine perfect nature. Why? The tree in the Garden was 'the knowledge of Good and Evil." He knows fully what evil is and has a nature completely against it.

 

[Lon]

Scenario that came to mind last night as I've been contemplating this discussion:

A boy has a servant that takes care of him, the boy asks why do you do all this for me. The servant says "Because your parents instructed me to do it." The boy asks "do you like doing this?" The butler says "Does it matter? I cannot help it." "Why?" "I'd do it anyway."

Choice ever comes into play and it is very difficult in interaction, to not talk about 'choice.' I've endeavored to try and do so but 'choice' comes up in the scenario and I haven't been able to eliminate it. We don't know at this point if the servant loves the boy. We simply know he is talking care of him and an inkling the butler 'may' have love toward the child (emotion, being, altruistic intention). The scenario came as I was asking the questions 1) understanding choice without a clarity of the existence of love and whether such in itself can convey love. It seems it at best suggests love and thus choice = love or love=choice isn't quite right. It is troubling my definition.

2) I'm attempting to understand the love of God: We can have the existence of all that is love in us (loving and being what love is), but it'd seem that it needs expression, yet it is still not quite right 'looking' for my definition to say "Love = expression." Is it even accurate to say Love = Interaction, thus that love is always the interaction between beings resulting in their highest good by intent? Saying God = interaction isn't quite right either, but that seems to me exactly the same as 'choice.' If we say God = anything, it has to be an identity principle. Side comment: We don't say Love is God, because God is more than Love, when we generally express this. Rather love is one aspect of Who He is (Being). The Apostle John simply says "God is love."

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

Commentary observation:
Verse 7, love is a verb, an action (choice). Thus is appropriate for the definition of love. We could say love = action and choice as a verb
Verse 8, God is love is a subject, identity. It is the 'well' so to speak of the source of love. Significance: love as subject, being, identity isn't best defined by 'choice.' He just 'is' (given proposition by the Apostle John). It hits me that when we are talking about choice, we then are talking about the action of love and the interaction thereof, not love the subject. What this does for me, is expediate the discussion a bit. I 'think' we (I probably more precisely) necessarily must distinguish between the identity of love (Noun if that helps), and love as an action choice. The verb, I think, certainly must be expressed with action and interaction (unless I can do anything not toward another being, in a loving manner: doesn't appear to be valid, but have to ask for the needed clarity). Still troubling me: Choice verse choice to do otherwise. It doesn't seem a possibility that God can do anything but act in perfect love thus 'otherwise' is problematic.

 

[Lon]

Outstanding analogy! I wish I had read this before writing that last post!

Agree, liked it too.

 

[Derf]

Wholly disagree. I know of no scripture that says love is constrained in such a manner. At present, this is an argument from freewill theists that I've never seen but a desire to be so with no inkling of scriptural expiation.

Just on this point, can you show a scripture where love ISN'T freely given, i.e., it is forced? And if not, then every scripture about love fits your criterion--that love is "constrained" by the definition of love, i.e., doing those actions of love willingly. Certainly we can imagine the same actions done in a forced way, but where in scripture is such ever associated with "love"?

The bible talks about that kind of love, where the servant (whose actions are forced) decides he loves his master and wants to stay with him forever. Before, the actions were forced, but it wasn't love until the actions were done freely, with a possibility of doing otherwise. And indeed, it is a passage about love, constrained to be offered freely.

Exodus 21:5 KJV - And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

 

[Idolater]

Just on this point, can you show a scripture where love ISN'T freely given, i.e., it is forced? And if not, then every scripture about love fits your criterion--that love is "constrained" by the definition of love, i.e., doing those actions of love willingly. Certainly we can imagine the same actions done in a forced way, but where in scripture is such ever associated with "love"?

The bible talks about that kind of love, where the servant (whose actions are forced) decides he loves his master and wants to stay with him forever. Before, the actions were forced, but it wasn't love until the actions were done freely, with a possibility of doing otherwise. And indeed, it is a passage about love, constrained to be offered freely.

Exodus 21:5 KJV - And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

That's an interesting passage. So the servant is thinking, "I love my master, plus, if I go, he's going to keep my wife and kids for himself. So I'll stay." That's an interesting choice. I'm sure culturally it was different then and usually people would just up and leave their wife and children and run off, so this actually isn't a hostage situation. But it looks like one from where I'm setting.

But then there's Our Lord's parable here too, which is an interesting dovetail with Exodus 21:5 (from Luke):

16 He also said to His disciples: “There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and an accusation was brought to him that this man was wasting his goods. 2 So he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’​

​

3 “Then the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship away from me. I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have resolved what to do, that when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.’​

​

5 “So he called every one of his master’s debtors to him, and said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ So he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ 7 Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ So he said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ 8 So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly.​

Is this love too?

 

[Derf]

That's an interesting passage. So the servant is thinking, "I love my master, plus, if I go, he's going to keep my wife and kids for himself. So I'll stay." That's an interesting choice. I'm sure culturally it was different then and usually people would just up and leave their wife and children and run off, so this actually isn't a hostage situation. But it looks like one from where I'm setting.

Yes, but the previous verse says "if" the master gave him a wife. So it can be love for master and/or love for wife and kids in a subset of cases.

But then there's Our Lord's parable here too, which is an interesting dovetail with Exodus 21:5 (from Luke):

16 He also said to His disciples: “There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and an accusation was brought to him that this man was wasting his goods. 2 So he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’​

​

3 “Then the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship away from me. I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have resolved what to do, that when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.’​

​

5 “So he called every one of his master’s debtors to him, and said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ So he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ 7 Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ So he said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ 8 So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly.​

Is this love too?

Self-love, perhaps. Do you see him loving someone else?

 

[Idolater]

Yes, but the previous verse says "if" the master gave him a wife. So it can be love for master and/or love for wife and kids in a subset of cases.

Yes.

Self-love, perhaps. Do you see him loving someone else?

I see the steward loving himself, and I see the master loving the steward.

 

[Derf]

Yes.


I see the steward loving himself, and I see the master loving the steward.

How is the master loving the steward?

 

[Lon]

Just on this point, can you show a scripture where love ISN'T freely given, i.e., it is forced? And if not, then every scripture about love fits your criterion--that love is "constrained" by the definition of love, i.e., doing those actions of love willingly. Certainly we can imagine the same actions done in a forced way, but where in scripture is such ever associated with "love"?

Well "wholly" was too strong, a reaction to those who would say "freewill autonomy" is a gift from God, it was the result of sin and disobedience. Judge Rightly argued well that they had to 'be able not choose the tree' per the direction. It means they were made capable of not doing so, but I yet believe 'no serpent, no sin.' IOW, they'd have had no desire, "choice"? I'm mulling it over. Clete and Judge have done a good job of bringing more of the needs of discussion into play here.

The bible talks about that kind of love, where the servant (whose actions are forced) decides he loves his master and wants to stay with him forever. Before, the actions were forced, but it wasn't love until the actions were done freely, with a possibility of doing otherwise. And indeed, it is a passage about love, constrained to be offered freely.

Not necessarily. You are making an assumption that he/she didn't love. They could have from the very beginning. It is a good analogy, the bulk of conversation in thread is simply this: "Do I have to 'choose' for love to exist? I'll post a scripture momentarily that uses love as a noun and a verb interchangeably. My initial statements in thread are somewhat upon the understanding "God is Love." Because of that, Love the noun isn't dependent on choice, but Clete and JR have argued convincingly that I have to do something (thus make a choice) for love the verb.

Exodus 21:5 KJV - And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

Its a good passage for this discussion. I gave a scenario thinking of this passage in thread.


1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot[a] love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

 

[Lon]

That's an interesting passage. So the servant is thinking, "I love my master, plus, if I go, he's going to keep my wife and kids for himself. So I'll stay." That's an interesting choice. I'm sure culturally it was different then and usually people would just up and leave their wife and children and run off, so this actually isn't a hostage situation. But it looks like one from where I'm setting.

Jewish slavery was more like 'indentured servant.' They were released every 7 years.

But then there's Our Lord's parable here too, which is an interesting dovetail with Exodus 21:5 (from Luke):

16 He also said to His disciples: “There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and an accusation was brought to him that this man was wasting his goods. 2 So he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your stewardship, for you can no longer be steward.’​

​

3 “Then the steward said within himself, ‘What shall I do? For my master is taking the stewardship away from me. I cannot dig; I am ashamed to beg. 4 I have resolved what to do, that when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses.’​

​

5 “So he called every one of his master’s debtors to him, and said to the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 And he said, ‘A hundred measures of oil.’ So he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and sit down quickly and write fifty.’ 7 Then he said to another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ So he said, ‘A hundred measures of wheat.’ And he said to him, ‘Take your bill, and write eighty.’ 8 So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly.​

Is this love too?

 

[Derf]

Well "wholly" was too strong, a reaction to those who would say "freewill autonomy" is a gift from God, it was the result of sin and disobedience.

"Freewill", sure. "Autonomy"? No, at least not without consequences. God told them the "law", and the consequences for breaking it. I don't see that as a gift.

Judge Rightly argued well that they had to 'be able not choose the tree' per the direction.

Yep.

It means they were made capable of not doing so, but I yet believe 'no serpent, no sin.'

You blame man's sin on the serpent?

IOW, they'd have had no desire, "choice"?

Do you really think they could've lived millions (billions? trillions?) of years without wondering about that tree?

I'm mulling it over. Clete and Judge have done a good job of bringing more of the needs of discussion into play here.

Yes, they have. I'm glad you're having the discussion with them.

Not necessarily. You are making an assumption that he/she didn't love.

No, only that the reason for obeying started as something else.

They could have from the very beginning. It is a good analogy, the bulk of conversation in thread is simply this: "Do I have to 'choose' for love to exist? I'll post a scripture momentarily that uses love as a noun and a verb interchangeably. My initial statements in thread are somewhat upon the understanding "God is Love." Because of that, Love the noun isn't dependent on choice, but Clete and JR have argued convincingly that I have to do something (thus make a choice) for love the verb.

Its a good passage for this discussion. I gave a scenario thinking of this passage in thread.


1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot[a] love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

More when I get the time.

 

[Idolater]

"Freewill", sure. "Autonomy"? No, at least not without consequences. God told them the "law", and the consequences for breaking it. I don't see that as a gift.

Do you think He told them that because it was arbitrary, or do you think He told them that because morality is objectively true and real? iow did God just make up the law about abstaining from that one tree? as a sort of test maybe? or did He merely tell them the morally necessary truth, which is (under this theory) that as human beings, morality attaches, and that there's just metaphysically no escaping the fact that sin is a real possibility for us?

I suspect somehow it's both, even though it makes no sense on its face rn to me tbh. Can morality exist pretty much almost eternally, and God exist eternally also at the same time? How do two eternal things interface or interact? And I think that it's important to keep in mind that wherever logical conflicts arise, that God prevails.

Yep.

You blame man's sin on the serpent?


Do you really think they could've lived millions (billions? trillions?) of years without wondering about that tree?

100%

Of course.

That was the whole point of the story.
The serpent silently whispered into Eve's mind. And the rest is history. And history ended, we are told as Biblical inerrantists, in or around the year AD 33. We are playing out the tremors from that socio-politico-cultural quake, but the quake is over.

And I'm noting that demonic proposals (thoughts) and suggestions (ideas) are not unique to those of us suffering under concupiscence (this word appears three times in the KJB if you want to look up its context). In fact of Our Lord it's said, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin." This is why it is 100% fair to believe He is a real man and not like a Zeus or Hercules (this is basically Arianism, they felt like they are magnifying Jesus by envisioning Him as a Thor-like entity, rather than the humble ---- and in their eyes humiliating ---- Jesus of Nazareth).

Our Lord heard the Devil silently whispering into even His mind. But as tempting as Satan is, Our Lord withstood it. And as so many Evangelical ministers have pointed out, the way He resisted the Devil's temptations was by quoting the Scripture, which is authored by the Holy Spirit. Also, confer 1st John 4

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are​

​

of God​

​

: because many false prophets are gone out into​

​

the world​

​

. Hereby know ye the Spirit​

​

of God​

​

: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is​

​

of God​

​

: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not​

​

of God​

​

: and this is that [spirit]​

​

of antichrist​

​

, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in​

​

the world​

​

. Ye are​

​

of God​

​

, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in​

​

the world​

​

. They are of​

​

the world​

​

: therefore speak they of​

​

the world​

​

, and​

​

the world​

​

heareth them. We¹ are​

​

of God​

​

: he that knoweth God heareth us¹; he that is not​

​

of God​

​

heareth not us¹. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.​

​

​

¹ So the Apostles added to the Scripture which Jesus read. iow Jesus only had access to what we call the Old Testament when the Devil tempted Him (proposed suggestions to Him, like how he proposed suggestions to Eve our mother according to the flesh). He quoted from the Old Testament to defend Himself against the temptation, when He was very physically weakened. We today also have content from the Apostles, plus that same Scripture, to quote from, to defend ourselves against the Devil's proposed suggestions.

(Even Paul said, consistent with the Holy Spirit ultimately being the author of the Old Testament, Romans 3, "What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly², because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.")


² "chiefly" means the Greek word "proton" which is the same word as Matthew 10:2 "protos" ... iow Paul claims that and extols the Scriptures themselves as being from God (authored by the Holy Spirit).

 

[Idolater]

How is the master loving the steward?

We agree that this is supposed to be a picture of the kingdom of Heaven, right? This is a parable about the kingdom?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The serpent silently whispered into Eve's mind.

Not to distract from the thread, but this is the second time you've said this, and it simply isn't true.

There is no indication that Satan whispered anything in the garden. "Whisper" in ancient Hebrew has it's own word, h8102. The word used in Genesis 3 is h559.

Please stop making this claim. it is false.

 

[Derf]

Not to distract from the thread, but this is the second time you've said this, and it simply isn't true.

There is no indication that Satan whispered anything in the garden. "Whisper" in ancient Hebrew has it's own word, h8102. The word used in Genesis 3 is h559.

Please stop making this claim. it is false.

Yeah, @Idolater, don't be an oxymoron!

 

[Derf]

We agree that this is supposed to be a picture of the kingdom of Heaven, right? This is a parable about the kingdom?

It is, but it's different from the ones where some are cast into outer darkness, with weeping and gnashing of teeth. The parable seems to be talking about an earthly kingdom of heaven, where some will be cast out of the kingdom and just be with other people (no gnashing?). So I would suggest God's love is withdrawn from the first group (weepers and gnashers), and effectively so with the second. If God's love (and therefore blessings) is withdrawn from someone on earth now, he can still survive, but to get ahead might require a little conniving.

Just a thought.

 

[Derf]

They could have from the very beginning. It is a good analogy, the bulk of conversation in thread is simply this: "Do I have to 'choose' for love to exist?

If the servant was loving from the beginning, he was choosing to do so. I can't tell where the servant went from no-love to love. But wherever it was, it was his choice...and he didn't have to do it from love.

This seems to be what's going on when Christians are told to "do all things as unto God." We show love to fellow men by doing to them as good as we do unto God. Iow, our love for God should translate into love for others. Yet we have a choice NOT to do so, don't we? See if that pertains to your scripture below.

I'll post a scripture momentarily that uses love as a noun and a verb interchangeably. My initial statements in thread are somewhat upon the understanding "God is Love." Because of that, Love the noun isn't dependent on choice,

I don't see how you can say that. God is good because He chooses to do good to His creation. Isn't God love because He chooses to love? And He exemplifies loves by the incarnation and ultimate sacrifice of His son. The noun (adjectival, imo) is merely a description of the verb-action.

but Clete and JR have argued convincingly that I have to do something (thus make a choice) for love the verb.
Its a good passage for this discussion. I gave a scenario thinking of this passage in thread.


1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us.

I think this comports with what I said above. We know God is love because of the love God has for us, which was demonstrated in Jesus (becoming flesh, and then dying).

God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot[a] love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

This always bothered me, because I can tell that I don't always love my brother who I can see, so my "love" for God is sometimes pretense. More to work on, then, to choose better for those I can see.