The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Forced Love?

I was speaking with a deacon from my old church the other day and he told me that this was his problem with "Calvinism".

If God chooses who will believe and repent and in the end be saved, is He not forcing that person to love Him? If the persons ABSOLUTE (will/ability to choose)is to choose something OTHER THAN God, and God still chose them, isn't that a forceful act?

I tried my best to answer him, but I do not think I made a very good impression.. Any Ideas?

So he thinks Calvinism teaches that God somehow forces people to love Him against their will. But as no doubt needs to be repeated over and over, God does no such thing. He changes the will of each person whom He chooses.

Let's say I have the amazing ability to change your tastes. Right now, you absolutely hate chocolate ice cream. So I zap you so that you now like chocolate ice cream. Did I force you to like it against your will? No! You now like it because your tastes have been changed.

Now, if you're dead in sin, you absolutely hate God. So God chooses you and regenerates you by the power of His Spirit so that you love Him. Did God force you to love Him against your will? No! You now love God because your will has been changed.

This isn't mind-bending stuff. But people who enshrine their own will find it extremely offensive.

Here is a mock debate between the late John Gerstner and RC Sproul on the issue, that you might find helpful.

Dialogue on God’s Sovereignty and Predestination

Gerstner: "If God is sovereign, then it was determined from all eternity that you would be sitting here with me right now."

Sproul: "That makes me a robot."

Gerstner: "Well wait a minute. Are you telling me you didn't choose to come here tonight?"

Sproul: "I did."

Gerstner: "You weren't forced to come here against your will, were you? Did you have a sense of some force inhabiting your body, causing you to be here even though you had chosen not to be?"

Sproul: "No."

Gerstner: "Did you sense something interfering with your will, causing you to do something you didn't want to do, or had no intention of doing?"

Sproul: "No. But how could I have had any choice in the matter when God determined that I was going to be here?"

Gerstner: "But you just told me that you did choose to be here and exercised your will to come tonight. You did have a choice. You did exactly what you wanted to do. You weren't forced here against your will. So however God got you here, it wasn't by forcing you to be here against your will, as if moved involuntarily by a strong wind."

Gerstner's approach was to appeal to the objector's own experience, where they know infallibly that they haven't been forced to do anything against their will, but have always, in every case, done exactly what they had chosen to do. It's tough to keep up the robot argument in the face of that knowledge.

Tom

I talked with the same guy again and tried a couple of the arguments I have found most appealing to me here on the highway.. However, this is his "new" argument..

He said, "I understand that according to you, "reformists" that God simply changed my will into one that would want and love Him. Yet, if it is in my nature to hate Him, and I would NEVER want ANYTHING to do with Him, is not His changing my will a forceful act? I never wanted to know Him or to love Him, and yet He turned me into one who would want and love Him.."

I hope I got all the contexts right and its understandable.
I will try your approach Tom.. and see what I can do.

I don't see what his objection is, other than he didn't change his own will.

Why should a slave object from being freed from a cruel master who intends only to destroy him? C'mon now.

I am from the same thoughts as you Robin.. But I am not exactly sure what kind of "answer" he is looking for.. It seems as though he wants to argue everything I try to bring to him. Anyway, to answer your puzzlement Covenant, this is his objection.. God changing him from a being that WOULD NEVER want Him, into a being that WOULD want Him, is a forceful act.

First of all, since ALL of God' acts are perfect (Deut 32:4), regenerating a dead sinner's soul cannot be construed as something "wrong". Secondly, one might ask if doing good to someone is unacceptable? Is giving aid to one who is needy a bad thing? Is it wrong, a violation of that person's "rights" to offer help when the person is unable to help themselves? The point is, for God to give life to one who is dead and subject to eternal damnation surely cannot be deemed a bad thing nor a violation of that person's personal freedom, especially since the person has no freedom other than to do that which brings further judgment upon himself. Thirdly, God's saving of a sinner is clearly labeled an act of grace and mercy, both of which are virtues all men are to esteem and emulate.

Perhaps the parable of the Good Samaritan applies here. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

The objection is rather nebulous. So what if it is a forceful (i.e, POWERful) act? Is that wrong? Is it wrong of God to use His power to save sinners?

Your house is on fire. You are sound asleep with no desire to be waked. Should I let you sleep on and burn to death in the fire? Or would it be better if I use force to wake you up? Once awake, will you have any desire to remain asleep?

I agree well and true with both Covenant and Pilgrim here, yet this mans objection is that, if I understand his argument correctly, that how can "forcing" a person to "love/believe" through any means bring glory?? This is the example he told me today...

If a king is ruling over his land, would subjects that love this king because they know him and how great he is would bring forth more glory to the king than the same king paying off his subjects or some other act of taking some one who would not love him, to love him.

I hope again that I got enough of the story accurate and contexts right to make it understandable..

I pointed this man to the scripture in which it talks about the potter making his pottery for both royal purpose and common purpose, and who are we to question that.. I am hoping that sometime this week when I talk to him again he will have made some progress.. anyway, I thank you all for your help in aiding me to answer his questions.

What this man fails to understand is HOW a sinner is made willing (Ps 110:3) and able to love God. The issue is one of the soul, its disposition or inclination. The natural man, unregenerate, is wholly predisposed to hate God and to do all that is contrary to His holy law. (Gen 6:5; 8:21;, Jer 17:7; Eph 2:1-5; 4:17-19; et al) Thus the unregenerate person most naturally sins against God. However, when the Spirit makes the soul alive in regeneration (thus the meaning of the word), that person's nature is therefore predisposed, inclined to love God and to seek after righteousness. This he does most naturally of his own will since the will is the servant of one's inclinations; intellect and affections. God doesn't "force" one to love Him, but rather makes it possible for what was otherwise wholly impossible to do by enlivening the soul and creating a new nature within.

I hope that helps? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Clint

I believe Pilgrim’s description is a great way to view the matter.
One way to look a the matter in a way that I find so simple that even a child could understand it, is to use the following analogy.
If someone is stoned cold dead and someone says to that dead person "stand up, don't just lie there". That dead person can not respond because they are dead.
In the same way no one can choose to come to Jesus to have their sins forgiven, because they are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph.2:5) and unless God quickens (regenerates) them so that they naturally come to Jesus, they will remain dead in trespasses and sins.
If this fellow wants to call that "forced", then as far as I am concerned, I am sure glad the Lord did that to me and I can't understand why anyone would complain about that.

Tom

My fire department was never slapped with a lawsuit from any helpless person we have rescued, despite our having used "force" to rescue them. We don't need permission to forcibly open doors, walls, roofs, or whatever to rescue someone.

Our state laws allow paramedics to treat a sick or injured person who is unconscious. We do not need their consent in order to treat their injuries and provide lifesaving care.

Even a person in peril who states that he or she doesn't want to be rescued (such as a person threatening suicide) can still be forcibly rescued from harm.

Even the unbelieving world, which came up with these laws, can appreciate "forced love."

The fact that God rescues anyone is remarkable, since it is only His just wrath that we deserve.

Why doesn't this person just say that he was "forced" by birth into his life in the first place? Or, one might ask him if he had asked permission of his parents to be conceived.

Neither does God need permission to give His adopted children eternal life:


Denny

Romans 3:22-24

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" /> If that doesn't get him, nothing will.

Tom