Yes, I agree.
I would not construe it that God authors sin for I don’t see sin as being a thing. I see it as disobedience. Did God have it in his plan that Adam and Eve would disobey? Well I would think so, for the following reasons:
- God loving A&E, who are without sin and in his image, REQUIRES he protects them. (cor 13 - Love ALWAYS protects).
- God hardnes in order that they/we might receive mercy (Roman 11)
- God Hardens whom he wants and soften whom he wants and it is NOT DEPENDNT on mans efforts or desires (rom 9)
- God binds every single human over to disobedience to have mercy on them all (Romans 11)
- The very law God gave them afforded SIN THE OPPORTUNITY (Romans 7) - in pauls own words “But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;” - For the power of sin is the law (1 Cor 15: The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law"
My point is when scripture says IT IS GOD WHO BOUND ALL MEN OVER TO DISOBEDEINCE for his PURPOSE of HAVING MERCY; you suddenly hit the eject button on literal intrpretation and find some LIBERAL way of reading these passages. More pointedly, you commit the same crime you accuse us of; It was God who said he is going to restore Sodom to what she was before, not us.
So everyone believes by choice? Salvation thus is applied to everyone? God’s provision does not require a choice? If it does, it’s called an offer. Try to spin it anyway you like. At least say what it is you believe and quit trying to spin it like we don’t see through the smoke. You believe God provides salvation, via prevenient grace OFFERS the person salvation; the person chooses. In the LFW position, MAN IS CULPABLE because he KNOWS what he’s doing and he has to make the right choice. That is why they ALWAYS say “God does not send anyone to hell, they send themselves” - what verse is that?
Be real with us Aaron37 and at least admit salvation’s an offer to the world and that choice is “do you believe” or “do you deny”…It’s man’s choice.
If a person’s libertarian free choice is the deciding factor in the question of whether they go to hell or not, then wouldn’t the other side of the coin necessarily be, “God does not send anyone to heaven; they send themselves”? If (as per Aaron37’s theology) God has already done everything in his power and wisdom to make heaven available to all, but only some people end up there, then I don’t see how this wouldn’t be the case.
Aaron,
yes of course, but ECT/LFW’ers begin spinning it so they look like they know what they’re talking about. About the only respect I have for ECTLFW would be Calminians who admit they are in a contradiction and are willing to admit the bible teaches at least one contradiction. So I assume now Aaron37 will deny that famound ECTLFW claim that God doesn’t send anyone to hell. Similarly, if you look at his last response he stated “God never offered salvation he provided it to every person who believes and receives it…you seem not to be able to grasp that.”. So now I’m truly confused. God provided salvation for me, but it’s not an offer since Salvation is provided for me NO MATTER WHAT I CHOOSE. If I choose to no believe it, it’s still effective on me because it’s not an offer? Again, he’s trying to spin it so that the whole gambling issue is dissolved but still in tact is the responsibility of the believer to believe or not believe. If it’s not a choice to believe or disbelieve then I guess people really don’t choose hell or sin then do they? So either 1) he’s a universaslit or 2) he’s a determinist.
I would think at least he could come forward and say he understands why we would not embrace such a system until it’s further explained. But NOOOOO! We’re supposed to just accept what makes no sense to us because it’s the truth.
I posted just a few reasons why many of us are nonECT. Some of us on this board are LFW some are more DET. Does it matter. I don’t think it matters at all because no matter how you see the dynamics of how things work; God in creating the universe loves all, God in the means loves all, and God in the end loves all. So the dynamics are up for discussion. The end result is proclaimed (at least that’s how I see it).
Aug.
God loves the world so much…he does not force them to love Him back.
So … your God won’t “force” people to love him–and is apparently unable to convince them to love him, but you say he** wil**l force us UR proponents to forget the ones we love who are suffering in hell?
Interesting god you have there.
Sonia
Aaron37,
Curing someone of a disease hardly entails forcing them to live. If your child lost his mind (infected with sin) by a virus, which caused him to lose his mind and do awful things, and you had the cure would it entail you are forcing your son to love you.
The world is hostile to God because they cannot do good, they cannot please God, nor can they submit to the Spirit of God. Their nature, which is in them, which produces wickedness keeps them from freeing themselves. In this sense it’s like a virus which is why paul says "For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me..
God knows how to save us from our unwillingness to be saved, which is a product of our nature. To remove the things which hold us captive and away from him and when he does we do not choose enslavement. For as John says their leaving us shows they never really belonged to us.
Now I believe Talbott is right on these grounds, but surely I realize we could be wrong. But at this point in my life, it makes far more sense then ECT or Calvinism. For us who do believe in free will, it’s not in a libertarian sense. The will of the sinner is not free. The will of the Christian is free. Thus people aren’t free to do as they please and thus inherit Heaven or hell, rather they are enslaved to sin and God frees them which is salvation. For to be free from sin is to be a slave to righteoussness and no one can serve two masters.
So no, I believe God saving people from their unwillingness to be saved is loving and not forceful. As I stated, allowing them to drown because of their incoherent/irrational choices hardly seems right. Rather, I see God as one who humbles the arrogant of which our knee bows and we confess our God and our King as Jesus Christ. For without God destroying our arrogance, we certainly would not bow.
Sonia.
God unable to convince people to love Him? No, that would be your failure if people don’t see Jesus in you. God depends on his children( believers) to be an ambassador for Christ. Do people want what you have, Sonia? Do people see Christ in you?
Aaron,
That’s also Martin Zender’s argument in his book, “The Really Bad Thing about Free Will.” 
HI Sonia!
That’s what I was thinking as well. I would find it a bit strange for a Christian scholar to “agree” that the Greek word aionios “does not mean eternal” and yet remain fully convinced of the doctrine of ET.
Going back to the example of the Mormons and that only Mormon scholars have found “proof” of the BoM. I would not expect to come across any “non-Mormon” scholars that believe that there is archeological “proof” for the BoM who would still maintain a position “against” it’s authenticity.
Love your analogies. This one as well as your earlier analogies. I’ve used a water analogy before myself. It seems odd to think that a loving father would stand on the shore throwing out a life-ring to his drowning child in order to save him but would not go out to the child TAKE HOLD OF HIM and DRAG HIM to shore. Or to think that such an action could possibly be misconstrue as this father “forcing” his child to “choose life”?
Hi Aaron37,
I’d be interested to know how many people you think YOU have saved?
Aaron: If a person’s libertarian free choice is the deciding factor in the question of whether they go to hell or not, then wouldn’t the other side of the coin necessarily be, “God does not send anyone to heaven; they send themselves”? If (as per Aaron37’s theology) God has already done everything in his power and wisdom to make heaven available to all, but only some people end up there, then I don’t see how this wouldn’t be the case.
Tom: Gosh I’ve been busy. Haven’t posted for ages, but I still drive by and check things out. Glad this site is here!
Everybody knows I’m a fan of freedom (the libertarian sort)! Hehe.
My understanding, Aaron, is that exercising LFW doesn’t mean being “the deciding factor” in a particular outcome if by “the” you mean “the only” cause or a even “sole sufficient” cause. That’s not what libertarians claim. No finite being could be that sort of ‘cause’. Rather, it just means being “a necessary factor” (undetermined in its exercise by other sufficient causes). I think what you have in mind by “the deciding factor” might be something more like “final arbiter.” And in that sense, I’d agree that to be free in the libertarian sense IS to be the final arbiter in transitioning possibility to actuality. But there are always other necessary (even if not sufficient) causes that contribute to outcomes. So a full account of any outcome would include all causes (necessary and sufficient). The agent’s will (assuming LFW) is only one among several necessary causes. Hence, a full account of somebody’s going to heaven would include all contributing causes other than the agent. Salvation is a work of synergy. Do I have a ‘necessary’ role to play? Yes. Am “I” why I’m in heaven? Yes. Am “I” the ONLY reason I’m in heaven? No. And in a real sense ending up in hell requires a certain synergy. People “send themselves” to hell in the sense that all other causes/factors being equal, the agent could have avoided this outcome. It doesn’t mean a full account of all contributing factors to why I’m in hell would include ONLY myself. There are other necessary factors that contribute to making the agent’s choice possible.
No view of freedom is absolutely problem-free, of course. Everybody’s bailing ‘some’ water. So I totally respect people who are convinced we’re never free in the libertarian sense.
Peace out!
Tom