"Where is the free will in Love Me Or Burn Forever?"

[Athanasius]

Was it the socks?

Those must have been some socks!

I mean, they were quite pretty socks. They're the least of my worries now, though.

Was it the socks?

Those must have been some socks!

You must never get distracted by socks when approaching strangers. My wife bought me a pair of socks the other day, so I put them on to go to church. When I got there and sat down I crossed my leg, my pant legs rising to show I had on marijuana socks!

Oh well, the truth comes out in the end! The fact my wife is blonde has nothing to do with it!

But pastor, I, I... I thought it was the Canadian leaf flag thing!

[RabbiKnife]

Love is an act of the will nit an emotion or a quality dumped into you by an external source

[Athanasius]

I disagree that what I stated was a 'false dichotomy'.   The demand was 'love me or burn'.   Ones will is exercised to survive, not to love God.  Ones will exercised to survive doesn't mean they now love God.  It means the one doing the demanding got his will...not the will of the one submitting.

Yes, I got that. I was commenting on the specific portion of your reply that I quoted. But, okay...

If we assume "love me or burn (burn, burn, as Naglfar once sang, and I recommend you don't listen)" we still haven't arrived at a circumstance where there is, as you wrote, "no free will". The will, in fact, is as free as it was before those ~4 words were uttered. What's potentially constrained is the ability of one to exercise their will vis-a-vis acting in a given direction. I say 'potentially', of course, because the question is binary: either one loves or they do not. The constraint isn't artificial.

If anything, what we have here is an argument against the goodness of God for imposing - I imagine it would be argued - the burn on people who don't love Him, but don't hate Him, but simply want to do their own thing. On the surface, anyway. But God would be foolish indeed to present this kind of choice, and He doesn't.

As it is, if one's will is 'exercised to survive' then one's will is exercised. Perhaps that exercise eventually turns into genuine love, or maybe intense bitterness and resentment. It's an interesting question to consider.

If you love raisins you may collect $200, but if you don't, I will take $200 from you instead. This idea of God predicting eternity or salvation or whatever on compelled belief is an asinine caricature. (Was it Lady Sovereign who 'sang', "Love me or hate me, that is the question"? I think so. Not the greatest song I've ever heard.)

I disagree that love is a choice.  You can't make yourself love someone when you don't.  If you say I choose to love God, then you don't love Him.   That's like saying I choose to believe.   That is not belief.   An act of the will does not produce belief just like an act of the will does not produce love.

It's too bad English has only one word for 'love'.

The more existential question is, why would someone just decide to make themselves love another person when they don't already? Divorced from context it's a silly suggestion, but as I've outlined in my previous replies (following your lead), we have in mind people who know each other, or couples -- both young and old. The commitment already exists. Perhaps it started with a bit of philia, then ludus was introduced; eros surely followed, and pragma as well. Perhaps storge has some role to play, too. They were friends and then lovers? Or perhaps they weren't even friends at all if their marriage was arranged?

Love is not just a feeling that happens to us. It very much invoices decisions and choices. If you disagree that love is a choice then I don't think you quite realise what you're saying. Do sisters who find their younger brothers disgusting love them all the same, even if at times they can't stand them? Parents in relation to their teenage children, and vice-versa? What about when a couple remains committed to each other? We make all sorts of choices in relation to love. Love is hardly anything other than a choice, except perhaps at the very beginning.

Of course love can be demanded just like it was under the Law.  But the demand does not produce any love.  Just like it didn't with those under law.

Did it demand love in the form of a threat, as the current discussion might imply?

Only love begats love. Is it not so with Christ?  (John 10:17) Christ said He knows the Father loves Him. He is loved.  In (John 15:13) Jesus said the greatest love is to lay down ones life for a friend  or brother.  So Christ is loved and in turn loves us.    Christ gives a new commandment.  (John 13:34, 15:12)  Love one another. Love the brethren.  Takes us back to (1John 4:10) It is not our love demanded.  It is the love of God shown to us that produces our love.  Love is always a response.  Not an act of the will.

Did you read Aquinas? Will precedes the response. One must have the will to lay down their life for a friend or brother, or to remain in a garden knowing who and what was coming.

John and Peter are good examples. Peter declared his undying allegiance to Christ and that he would never be offended by his connection with Christ.  (Matt. 26:33) (Mark 14:29) (Luke 22:33) (John 13:37).   

John on the other hand declared himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved.  (John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, 21:20, 21:24)

And who was there at the foot of the Cross when Jesus was crucified?  John.   (John 19:26)  The one who knew he was loved by Jesus.  Which produced a love in him for Jesus. 

Lees

And yet we call them both Saints, or some of us, anyway (not even necessarily me). This doesn't demonstrate some kind of will/act of obedience dichotomy. John willed and he obeyed if you... will.

[Quantrill]

Yes, I got that. I was commenting on the specific portion of your reply that I quoted. But, okay...

If we assume "love me or burn (burn, burn, as Naglfar once sang, and I recommend you don't listen)" we still haven't arrived at a circumstance where there is, as you wrote, "no free will". The will, in fact, is as free as it was before those ~4 words were uttered. What's potentially constrained is the ability of one to exercise their will vis-a-vis acting in a given direction. I say 'potentially', of course, because the question is binary: either one loves or they do not. The constraint isn't artificial.

If anything, what we have here is an argument against the goodness of God for imposing - I imagine it would be argued - the burn on people who don't love Him, but don't hate Him, but simply want to do their own thing. On the surface, anyway. But God would be foolish indeed to present this kind of choice, and He doesn't.

As it is, if one's will is 'exercised to survive' then one's will is exercised. Perhaps that exercise eventually turns into genuine love, or maybe intense bitterness and resentment. It's an interesting question to consider.

If you love raisins you may collect $200, but if you don't, I will take $200 from you instead. This idea of God predicting eternity or salvation or whatever on compelled belief is an asinine caricature. (Was it Lady Sovereign who 'sang', "Love me or hate me, that is the question"? I think so. Not the greatest song I've ever heard.)

It's too bad English has only one word for 'love'.

The more existential question is, why would someone just decide to make themselves love another person when they don't already? Divorced from context it's a silly suggestion, but as I've outlined in my previous replies (following your lead), we have in mind people who know each other, or couples -- both young and old. The commitment already exists. Perhaps it started with a bit of philia, then ludus was introduced; eros surely followed, and pragma as well. Perhaps storge has some role to play, too. They were friends and then lovers? Or perhaps they weren't even friends at all if their marriage was arranged?

Love is not just a feeling that happens to us. It very much invoices decisions and choices. If you disagree that love is a choice then I don't think you quite realise what you're saying. Do sisters who find their younger brothers disgusting love them all the same, even if at times they can't stand them? Parents in relation to their teenage children, and vice-versa? What about when a couple remains committed to each other? We make all sorts of choices in relation to love. Love is hardly anything other than a choice, except perhaps at the very beginning.

Did it demand love in the form of a threat, as the current discussion might imply?

Did you read Aquinas? Will precedes the response. One must have the will to lay down their life for a friend or brother, or to remain in a garden knowing who and what was coming.


And yet we call them both Saints, or some of us, anyway (not even necessarily me). This doesn't demonstrate some kind of will/act of obedience dichotomy. John willed and he obeyed if you... will.

The will of man is never free.  Man has a will but it's not free.   It is always influenced by outside sources.  Be they physical or spiritual.  God is never influenced by outside sources.  He does His will free from outside influence.   So, it is my opinion that the idea of 'free will' doesn't exist for man.  But, he exercises his will.  And man cannot will to love God.  Man cannot will to believe. 

God doesn't impose on people to love Him or burn.  He imposes on them to believe or burn.  But as I said, one cannot will to believe either.  Yes, of course we can ponder the goodness of God and why did God create such a salvation that was so bloody and brutal.  Myself, I would say because it is what works.  And, that nothing else would work for God to obtain what He wanted.  So, such a salvation does show the goodness of God, and the love of God for His people. (1John 4:10)

Many in the early church during the Roman empire were baptized and said they believed, but they didn't.  But they were brought into the church.   Their will was exercised, but contrary to what they really willed.  And their will being exercised didin't make it true.  See how it is a good thing that the Lord does not save by the 'will'.  He saves by our faith.

I do not agree that love is a choice.  I have stated it several times.  Because one loves, that surely affects many choices. 

Concerning the demand in the Old Testament to love God, it is interesting that it is not mentioned in the 10 commandments in (Ex. 20:2-17).  It is mentioned in (Deut. 10:12).  My point is the same.  The demand to love will not produce the love.  It is true that God should be loved.  It is true it is what He demands.  But that alone does not produce it.  And a person saying 'I choose to love God', does not produce it either.   In my opinion.

No, I don't read Aquinas.   

The example of John and Peter demonstated that the one who loved, who was John, was the one whom it is said Christ loved.  John loved Jesus because Jesus loved John.   Again, (1John 4:10).   Also, (1John 4:19) 

I think I have pretty much said all I can on the subject.  All I seem to be doing now is repeating myself.  It's not important that any agree with me here.  But I have given Scripture to support and to think on.

Lees

[Athanasius]

God doesn't impose on people to love Him or burn. He imposes on them to believe or burn.

Not quite, but I'll tell you what, Peloton has this new Eminem spin cycle class thing going on, and I'm going to both believe and burn... off the extra calories I ate today because I can't resist a good McChicken (honestly it all goes to my chest these days). I'll reply in full once I've recovered.

[Fenris]

The will of man is never free.  Man has a will but it's not free.   It is always influenced by outside sources.  Be they physical or spiritual.  God is never influenced by outside sources.  He does His will free from outside influence.   So, it is my opinion that the idea of 'free will' doesn't exist for man.

Then what's the point in God commanding or even asking for anything? For that matter, what's the point of human existence?

[Fenris]

God doesn't impose on people to love Him or burn. He imposes on them to believe or burn.

Not quite, but I'll tell you what, Peloton has this new Eminem spin cycle class thing going on, and I'm going to both believe and burn...

Sweet

[Athanasius]

God doesn't impose on people to love Him or burn. He imposes on them to believe or burn.

Not quite, but I'll tell you what, Peloton has this new Eminem spin cycle class thing going on, and I'm going to both believe and burn...

Sweet

The spin cycle class was in German for some reason? That said, my German is better than I realised, and Eminem apparently makes for a compelling session.

[Athanasius]

The will of man is never free.  Man has a will but it's not free.   It is always influenced by outside sources.  Be they physical or spiritual.  God is never influenced by outside sources.  He does His will free from outside influence.   So, it is my opinion that the idea of 'free will' doesn't exist for man.  But, he exercises his will.  And man cannot will to love God.  Man cannot will to believe.

I don't think anyone responsible would reasonably suggest that our will is free, as in free from *. One's will is of course exercised within the context and circumstance of one's life, and it competes with one's other appetites daily (Aquinas is a good if not dramatically boring read at times), and it is limited by what know and how we conceived of the world, and so forth. Despite this framing of human existence freedom (of the will) is still very much a thing. I am, as we all are, free to discount the influence of outside forces. That this influence exists, in whatever form we want to present it, says nothing about the will.

God, while not influenced by outside sources, is still indeed subject to logical limits, and cannot do anything that would make Him, not God. I'm sure there's an interesting contrast in there somewhere.

But, so, anyway, as you were saying: no free will for man (I'd assume you're not a raging misandrist and include women as well), but the will is yet exercised, except that it cannot love God and there is no will to belief? So, what do you mean by this? Free will doesn't exist because of... the fall? Corruption of human nature?

Ever listen to the song 'Jekyll and Hyde' by Petra? I used to quite like it, 18ish years ago.

God doesn't impose on people to love Him or burn. He imposes on them to believe or burn.  But as I said, one cannot will to believe either.

He doesn't impose anything. What you think is an imposition is actually a description of the consequences of rejecting God, and thus, all that God provides, in connection to the teleological nature of human creation, i.e., to be in relationship, in part, with God. (By implication, we aren't truly human as we ought to be in a state of separation from God).

We still arrive at a similar situation of course: if you believe in me you'll experience joys and "wonders more incredible than you can possibly imagine" (okay, Q said that to Picard, but it's a good line) and if you don't believe in me, then you will experience existence truly separate from Me. This betrays the fact that I don't think hell is literally hellfire. I do think the reality is much worse, and that the psychological trauma will be far worse than the physical situation mostly everyone fixates on

We could assume the position of the father in Mark 9 and pray, "I (want to) believe, help me in my unbelief". So like, God meets people where they are, and people can interact with Him genuinely at the place they're in, in life? That's insane; that's like... what happened during Jesus' ministry. I guess we agree then, that one cannot will oneself into belief, but one can will to want to believe and act accordingly with that desire.

...but it seems I allow possibilities that you don't. Satre vs Camus deuxième partie.

Yes, of course we can ponder the goodness of God and why did God create such a salvation that was so bloody and brutal.  Myself, I would say because it is what works.  And, that nothing else would work for God to obtain what He wanted.  So, such a salvation does show the goodness of God, and the love of God for His people. (1John 4:10)

Yeah, I don't know about that personally -- that it had to be bloody and brutal. Maybe it didn't have to be if people were different.

Many in the early church during the Roman empire were baptized and said they believed, but they didn't.  But they were brought into the church.   Their will was exercised, but contrary to what they really willed.  And their will being exercised didin't make it true.  See how it is a good thing that the Lord does not save by the 'will'.  He saves by our faith.

Coincidentally, it was William James who lectured on The Will to Believe, in which he said:

In the recently published Life by Leslie Stephen of his brother, Fitz-James, there is an account of a school to which the latter went when he was a boy. The teacher, a certain Mr. Guest, used to converse with his pupils in this wise: "Gurney, what is the difference between justification and sanctification?—Stephen, prove the omnipotence of God!" etc. In the midst of our Harvard freethinking and indifference we are prone to imagine that here at your good old orthodox College conversation continues to be somewhat upon this order; and to show you that we at Harvard have not lost all interest in these vital subjects, I have brought with me to-night something like a sermon on justification by faith to read to you,—I mean an essay in justification of faith, a defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical {2} intellect may not have been coerced. 'The Will to Believe,' accordingly, is the title of my paper.

Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26659-h/26659-h.htm

Perhaps only related in a secondary way. Ah well, yes, we are indeed saved by grace through faith. I'll again point out that will is presupposed, but this will be immediately problematic in light of the presuppositions you've implied and haven't yet been clarified.

I do not agree that love is a choice.  I have stated it several times.  Because one loves, that surely affects many choices.

Yes, you have stated this several times. You have a misconceived notion about love, but that seems neither here nor there given your lack of interaction with what I've said. Insistent just like Judge Wilhelm, I guess.

Concerning the demand in the Old Testament to love God, it is interesting that it is not mentioned in the 10 commandments in (Ex. 20:2-17).  It is mentioned in (Deut. 10:12).  My point is the same.  The demand to love will not produce the love.  It is true that God should be loved.  It is true it is what He demands.  But that alone does not produce it.  And a person saying 'I choose to love God', does not produce it either.   In my opinion.

What do you think is meant by 'love' in Deuteronomy 10:12? That hasn't been clear in this discussion despite my implicit attempts to get at what is meant.

No, I don't read Aquinas.

You should give him a try. He died doing what he loved.

The example of John and Peter demonstated that the one who loved, who was John, was the one whom it is said Christ loved.  John loved Jesus because Jesus loved John.   Again, (1John 4:10).   Also, (1John 4:19)

Well, Jesus loved all of the apostles, while John was beloved just that little bit more. The contrast you're looking for isn't here, or at least, it's not naturally read from the text. I wonder if Peter willed himself to walk on water, or was that faith and love for Jesus?

I think I have pretty much said all I can on the subject.  All I seem to be doing now is repeating myself.  It's not important that any agree with me here.  But I have given Scripture to support and to think on.

Lees

Yeah but it's a forum and espousing from a milk crate is just soooooooo boring.

[RandyPNW]

@RandyPNW

No, I see no contradiction in my statement.  I explained my statement. 

If your will is  obtained under duress and threat, it is not your will to love God.  It is the will of the other which you submit to.  Vietnam POW's were forced  to sign papers  condemning the U.S. involvement in Vietnam.   They willfully signed due to torture and duress.  But that wasn't their will. 

The topic statement is confusing.  Eternal destiny, burning forever, is not based upon loving God.  It is based upon faith towards God.  It is not based upon you saying 'ok I love God'.  It is based upon your belief in God and Christ.  In other words, it is not based upon your 'will'.  (John 1:13) "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Lees

Yea, I think most of us reading your posts have understood that your argument was about *duress*--not free will. The problem is, you confused these two separate matters. And so I explained to you that even under duress, you are making a free choice, to either pretend to be making a choice or to suffer as a victim. Either way, it is a free choice.

But as you explain it, I understand the real point you're making. And I would respond by saying I don't think the decision set before us by God is "under duress."

Christians are sometimes abusive by threatening unbelievers with Hell, and not presenting a Gospel of love. True love will not deny that there is a consequence for making the wrong decision, and will not, therefore, deny the punishment of Hell. But the true Gospel is not manipulative and threatening, simply presenting the facts and the consequences that God has laid out for consideration.

I do believe that the thing drawing people to Salvation is a clear presentation of God as love, and a person's inclination to be part of that love. It is not purely a pragmatic decision to avoid the threat of "separation from God." The choice, by the unbeliever, to view God as undesirable is a de facto choice to be separate from God.

[RandyPNW]

Love is an act of the will nit an emotion or a quality dumped into you by an external source

Yes, but I think it actually involves both. When a person makes a choice to be loving he must draw upon the love of God to do that, whether he is conscious of it or not. I've seen a lot of pagans get real emotional and happy during Christmas time, and not know why they're so sentimental!

[RandyPNW]

The will of man is never free.  Man has a will but it's not free.   It is always influenced by outside sources. 

I heard something similar from Martin Luther in his "Bondage of the Will." And as pro-Lutheran as I am, I had to depart from Luther on this issue. I'm Predestinarian, as he was, but not in the same way.

I don't believe an external force imposes love on us. But I would agree that God's external love does influence us in the way of testimony.

So when we are presented with the choice to love or hate other people, what is the basis of our choice? It is the testimony of God's love, and how that love views each individual that we encounter.

With some people, God's love cries out for justice, because a person is unrepentant and is determined to continue in godless acts of violence and abuse. With other people, no matter how bad they are, there arises an understanding of the underlying causes of the sin, and there is a love that continues to call out to them to repent.

So there isn't just a single response to all people. Love demands that each person be judged based on the choices they are making. We derive our love for them from God by determining how God views each situation. If we choose not to see things through the prism of God's love, and determine to create our own rules of engagement, then we are choosing against God's love. And we will reap the consequences.

So I believe we do make free choices, to either accept the influence of God's love or not. That testimony to God's love comes to us as either a strong impression or a weak impression. And so, not all can be judged clearly as hopeless and calcified. We have to be open to God's love to see how He really sees each individual.

If we have received a clear testimony of God's love, and simply dislike it, wishing to create our own rules of engagement, we becomes friends of the world by our own choice, and choose not to live by the definition of who God is in the Bible.

We are making a free choice based on facts that we are clearly being presented with. This is not just a threat or a situation of being under duress. Rather, this is a clear revelation and insight into God's love, and an inclination to be repulsed by it, for one reason or another.

It's amazing how people can be embarrassed by the sentimentality of Jesus' love for children, for example. And yet, pride rises up in all of us in one way or another, and perhaps this determines who is going to be the sheep and who is going to be the goat?

Are we inclined towards humbling ourselves and accepting God's love for us, or not? That's more of a question about Predestination. But we all have the same presentation, the same revelation, and the same free choices to make.

[Quantrill]

I don't think anyone responsible would reasonably suggest that our will is free, as in free from *. One's will is of course exercised within the context and circumstance of one's life, and it competes with one's other appetites daily (Aquinas is a good if not dramatically boring read at times), and it is limited by what know and how we conceived of the world, and so forth. Despite this framing of human existence freedom (of the will) is still very much a thing. I am, as we all are, free to discount the influence of outside forces. That this influence exists, in whatever form we want to present it, says nothing about the will.

God, while not influenced by outside sources, is still indeed subject to logical limits, and cannot do anything that would make Him, not God. I'm sure there's an interesting contrast in there somewhere.

But, so, anyway, as you were saying: no free will for man (I'd assume you're not a raging misandrist and include women as well), but the will is yet exercised, except that it cannot love God and there is no will to belief? So, what do you mean by this? Free will doesn't exist because of... the fall? Corruption of human nature?

Ever listen to the song 'Jekyll and Hyde' by Petra? I used to quite like it, 18ish years ago.

He doesn't impose anything. What you think is an imposition is actually a description of the consequences of rejecting God, and thus, all that God provides, in connection to the teleological nature of human creation, i.e., to be in relationship, in part, with God. (By implication, we aren't truly human as we ought to be in a state of separation from God).

We still arrive at a similar situation of course: if you believe in me you'll experience joys and "wonders more incredible than you can possibly imagine" (okay, Q said that to Picard, but it's a good line) and if you don't believe in me, then you will experience existence truly separate from Me. This betrays the fact that I don't think hell is literally hellfire. I do think the reality is much worse, and that the psychological trauma will be far worse than the physical situation mostly everyone fixates on

We could assume the position of the father in Mark 9 and pray, "I (want to) believe, help me in my unbelief". So like, God meets people where they are, and people can interact with Him genuinely at the place they're in, in life? That's insane; that's like... what happened during Jesus' ministry. I guess we agree then, that one cannot will oneself into belief, but one can will to want to believe and act accordingly with that desire.

...but it seems I allow possibilities that you don't. Satre vs Camus deuxième partie.

Yeah, I don't know about that personally -- that it had to be bloody and brutal. Maybe it didn't have to be if people were different.

Coincidentally, it was William James who lectured on The Will to Believe, in which he said:

In the recently published Life by Leslie Stephen of his brother, Fitz-James, there is an account of a school to which the latter went when he was a boy. The teacher, a certain Mr. Guest, used to converse with his pupils in this wise: "Gurney, what is the difference between justification and sanctification?—Stephen, prove the omnipotence of God!" etc. In the midst of our Harvard freethinking and indifference we are prone to imagine that here at your good old orthodox College conversation continues to be somewhat upon this order; and to show you that we at Harvard have not lost all interest in these vital subjects, I have brought with me to-night something like a sermon on justification by faith to read to you,—I mean an essay in justification of faith, a defence of our right to adopt a believing attitude in religious matters, in spite of the fact that our merely logical {2} intellect may not have been coerced. 'The Will to Believe,' accordingly, is the title of my paper.

Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26659/26659-h/26659-h.htm

Perhaps only related in a secondary way. Ah well, yes, we are indeed saved by grace through faith. I'll again point out that will is presupposed, but this will be immediately problematic in light of the presuppositions you've implied and haven't yet been clarified.


Yes, you have stated this several times. You have a misconceived notion about love, but that seems neither here nor there given your lack of interaction with what I've said. Insistent just like Judge Wilhelm, I guess.


What do you think is meant by 'love' in Deuteronomy 10:12? That hasn't been clear in this discussion despite my implicit attempts to get at what is meant.


You should give him a try. He died doing what he loved.

Well, Jesus loved all of the apostles, while John was beloved just that little bit more. The contrast you're looking for isn't here, or at least, it's not naturally read from the text. I wonder if Peter willed himself to walk on water, or was that faith and love for Jesus?


Yeah but it's a forum and espousing from a milk crate is just soooooooo boring.

The point being man doesn't have 'free will'.  Only God has 'free will'.  In everyplace one would want to use the term 'free will' for man, how would using just the term 'will' not suffice?   Answer: The term 'will' would suffice in everyplace.    As to God's 'free will', there is never any conflict with God and Himself.  He does His will free from any outside influence. 

Yes, I have said man cannot will to love God nor can he will to believe.  (1John 4:10, 4:19) (John 1:13) (Matt. 16:16-17)  Man has never had 'free will' either before or after the fall. 

Concerning the use of the word 'impose' I was simply using the term you brought up.  But, I have no problem with it.  And, concerning the Scriptures I gave you above, how is that not God imposing His will upon man?  How is (Acts 9:1-16) not God imposing His will upon man? 

What do you mean concerning God's bloody and brutal salvation when you say maybe it didn't have to be that way if people were different?   Are you blaming people or God?  Either way the blame or responsibility goes back to God. Why didn't God create a salvation where all man had to do was climb a certain mountain and hollar Praise God three times and your sins are all forgiven and Heaven is  yours forever?  Instead of through blood and death?

Concerning your quote from William James, I believe (John 1:13) and (Matt. 16:16-17).  God must first give to man the faith to believe. Then the will of man is exercised. 

Concerning the word 'love' in (Deut. 10:12), it means to have an affection for.  See Strongs concordance.

Concerning Aquinas, dying for what one loves is commendable.  But it doesn't mean all that they wrote about is correct.  I'm sure he has many good things to say. 

Concerning the contrast with John and Peter, I believe it is there.   That Jesus loved all the disciples, Judas being a question mark,  is not the point.  It was John who recognized that it was the love of Christ for him that was preeminent.  With Peter it was all about Peter's faithfulness being boasted of.  And the one who knew Christ loved him is the one at the foot of the Cross. The one who boasted of his loyalty and faithfulness denied Christ.  It is no wonder John wrote what he did in (1John 4:10).

Lees

[Quantrill]

Yea, I think most of us reading your posts have understood that your argument was about *duress*--not free will. The problem is, you confused these two separate matters. And so I explained to you that even under duress, you are making a free choice, to either pretend to be making a choice or to suffer as a victim. Either way, it is a free choice.

But as you explain it, I understand the real point you're making. And I would respond by saying I don't think the decision set before us by God is "under duress."

Christians are sometimes abusive by threatening unbelievers with Hell, and not presenting a Gospel of love. True love will not deny that there is a consequence for making the wrong decision, and will not, therefore, deny the punishment of Hell. But the true Gospel is not manipulative and threatening, simply presenting the facts and the consequences that God has laid out for consideration.

I do believe that the thing drawing people to Salvation is a clear presentation of God as love, and a person's inclination to be part of that love. It is not purely a pragmatic decision to avoid the threat of "separation from God." The choice, by the unbeliever, to view God as undesirable is a de facto choice to be separate from God.

The topic statement is about duress and free will which is why I addressed it.  But, as I said, the topic statement itself is confusing because our salvation is not about 'love or burn'.  It is about our faith.   

I pretty much agree with what you have said.

Lees

[Athanasius]

Yes, but I think it actually involves both. When a person makes a choice to be loving he must draw upon the love of God to do that, whether he is conscious of it or not. I've seen a lot of pagans get real emotional and happy during Christmas time, and not know why they're so sentimental!

Or it's just the wonderful world of human (emotional) experience, as viewed by Christians who insert the mysteries of God into every little thing. This is the cynicism of having grown up Pentecostal.

God created us with the capacity to love, as misguided as it may sometimes be (e.g. Matthew 5:46). Certainly, there is a love for others that is a reflection of God's love for us, but I wonder if that's a step beyond, and no such drawing from the wellspring of the love of God is required is otherwise required.