# God doesn't want forced love from robots



## moselle (May 4, 2010)

I apologize - I imagine this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I couldn't find any threads...

A relative of mine, when responding to the slightest hint of Calvinism (although not from me - we've never discussed it) always says that God doesn't want forced love from robots - that's not real love.

So, what would be your response to this? (Aside from the fact that C3PO is pretty loveable in his own way...)


----------



## SemperEruditio (May 4, 2010)

I don't think God has elected robots... Now I know some of us Reformed types might be a bit stiff but I don't think anyone of us could be confused for a robot. However I don't know about how God views love from inanimate objects...I don't think they can express it however maybe the new iRobot from Apple might be different....


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 4, 2010)

What is love? How does the ability to hate someone create the freedom to love him?

Did I have to hate my children the moment I saw them in order to love them more intensely? Does the fact that I've never considered abandoning my children imply that I love them less than a father who abandons his children only to return to them after despising them for a season?

Has the Son of God ever hated the Father or the Spirit? Does the Godhead have intra-Trinitarian "robotic" love?


----------



## Poimen (May 4, 2010)

Challenge them to read the Reformed confessions so that they know what they are critiquing:

*Canons of Dordrecht, 3rd&4th Head of Doctrine*



> Article 16: Regeneration's Effect
> 
> However, just as by the fall man did not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will, and just as sin, which has spread through the whole human race, did not abolish the nature of the human race but distorted and spiritually killed it, so also this _divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force,_ but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and--in a manner at once pleasing and powerful--bends it back. As a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. Thus, if the marvelous Maker of every good thing were not dealing with us, man would have no hope of getting up from his fall by his free choice, by which he plunged himself into ruin when still standing upright.


----------



## George Bailey (May 4, 2010)

(with apologies to our UK friends...) I loved the veggie tales where Archie the asparagus had to explain to the townspeople "I'm not a robot! I'm British!"


----------



## heartoflesh (May 4, 2010)

So what they're saying is that God delights in love that is not created by him, or finally determined by him, but created by and finally determined by our selves from the resources of our own natures. Oh how proud we must be of ourselves to have love for God when so many others do not!


----------



## jwright82 (May 4, 2010)

We want to love God just as much as the unbeleiver wants to hate God, God just changes our desires that's all. Arminianism holds to many beleifs that philosophically, and more importantly biblically, undefendable. The bible does not teach what they believe and their philosophical views are highly problamatic.


----------



## Kiffin (May 4, 2010)

Tell him, "Us loving God does NOT save us. God loving us does." When we experience and realize the love from God, how can we resist loving him back?


----------



## moselle (May 4, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> Tell him, "Us loving God does NOT save us. God loving us does." When we experience and realize the love from God, how can we resist loving him back?


 
I was thinking along these lines also. It's not our love for God that saves us, but His love for us. A former pastor once illustrated it this way - we were once dead in the morgue - God came and breathed life into us, and we were made alive. We were amazed and grateful and had a measure of love, but it takes time and effort to really know who God is, and to begin to understand what it means to truly love him. 

Yes, Rick, what pride we must have that we have our own, special love to offer God.  I suffer from that often. Hey, I grew up in Burnsville. Bet my hockey team beat your hockey team


----------



## MW (May 4, 2010)

> God doesn't want forced love from robots - that's not real love.


 
(1.) God doesn't want for anything. (2.) Christ's love compels inwardly; it does not force externally. (3.) Human beings are not robots because they choose according to their values. Real love is that which results from (1.) God's fulness freely given, 1 John 4:10; (2.) Christ's redemption perfectly accomplished, 2 Cor. 5:14, 15; and (3.) the Holy Spirit's work of renewal which changes our values, Rom. 5:5. Any other love, springing from any other source, compelling for any other reason, and operating from any other influence, is not Christian love and must be regarded by the Christian as untrue.


----------



## heartoflesh (May 5, 2010)

moselle said:


> Hey, I grew up in Burnsville. Bet my hockey team beat your hockey team



Hey, alright! I actually grew up in Edina - state champs back in my day (84/85).


----------



## Bern (May 5, 2010)

This problem along with most other criticisms of Calvinism, can be answered simply by addressing total depravity. If a person cannot accept that sin has tainted us in every respect, including our wills and emotions, then logically, they cannot accept that we are not capable of loving God freely. This is the whole issue with free will arguments. Humans are only free in the sense that they are able to make choices according to their nature. An elephant cannot choose to fly because it doesn't have the capacity for it. In the same way, humans cannot choose to love God as they should, because they are not capable of it. As it says in Romans, "there is none who seeks God, no not one".

Once a person accepts the doctrine of total depravity, then everything else flows as a natural result of that understanding.


----------



## moselle (May 5, 2010)

Rick Larson said:


> moselle said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, I grew up in Burnsville. Bet my hockey team beat your hockey team
> ...


 
Is it permissible to hijack your own thread to talk '80's high school hockey? My (slightly) older sister would have less-than-fond memories of your team. My violin teacher lived in Edina, so we drove there every week for several years.


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 6, 2010)

I would say, "I COMPLETELY agree with you!" and then proceed to show him what the Bible says about sovereign love.


----------



## JBaldwin (May 6, 2010)

Bern said:


> This problem along with most other criticisms of Calvinism, can be answered simply by addressing total depravity. If a person cannot accept that sin has tainted us in every respect, including our wills and emotions, then logically, they cannot accept that we are not capable of loving God freely. This is the whole issue with free will arguments. Humans are only free in the sense that they are able to make choices according to their nature. An elephant cannot choose to fly because it doesn't have the capacity for it. In the same way, humans cannot choose to love God as they should, because they are not capable of it. As it says in Romans, "there is none who seeks God, no not one".
> 
> Once a person accepts the doctrine of total depravity, then everything else flows as a natural result of that understanding.


 
This thought occurred to me. Many of the folks I've talked to over the years who object to any form of election or predestination refuse to believe that the will of man is fallen as much as the rest of man. It is God who does the work in our wills. I go back to the promise in the OT that He would give us a new heart. We need that before we can even choose God.


----------



## Christopher88 (Jun 3, 2010)

Poimen said:


> Challenge them to read the Reformed confessions so that they know what they are critiquing:
> 
> *Canons of Dordrecht, 3rd&4th Head of Doctrine*
> 
> ...


 
Good luck getting to read anything reformed. I get called a labeled theology lover every-time I point to something with more heat than my words. The free willers hate theology that places them below God and they call us hertics. I'm almost tired of debating them, you need a nap or a punching bag every-time you end a talk with them.

---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 AM ----------




JBaldwin said:


> Bern said:
> 
> 
> > This problem along with most other criticisms of Calvinism, can be answered simply by addressing total depravity. If a person cannot accept that sin has tainted us in every respect, including our wills and emotions, then logically, they cannot accept that we are not capable of loving God freely. This is the whole issue with free will arguments. Humans are only free in the sense that they are able to make choices according to their nature. An elephant cannot choose to fly because it doesn't have the capacity for it. In the same way, humans cannot choose to love God as they should, because they are not capable of it. As it says in Romans, "there is none who seeks God, no not one".
> ...



Yea I have run into that. Depravity which came easy to me, is one of the harder points of biblical truth to get across.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Jun 3, 2010)

moselle said:


> I apologize - I imagine this has been discussed ad nauseum, but I couldn't find any threads...
> 
> A relative of mine, when responding to the slightest hint of Calvinism (although not from me - we've never discussed it) always says that God doesn't want forced love from robots - that's not real love.
> 
> So, what would be your response to this? (Aside from the fact that C3PO is pretty loveable in his own way...)


 
_What do you mean by that? What do you mean by forced love? What do you mean by robots? What do you mean by "real love?"​_ Put the burden of proof back on them. We are too quick to want to respond when we haven't been given anything but a statement with no reasons. Without answering _What do you mean by...?_ and then _How did you come to that conclusion?_ all we're doing is wasting their time and ours because they haven't said anything. We need to stop answering questions that haven't been asked because all we do is get into senseless debates of which "they" are in control of the conversation. I believe this is why when in the past I've argued with Arminians it was like catching smoke because I'm arguing statements they've made without providing any reasons for making their statements. What's worse is when all they do is explain their statements but still not provide reasons and we go hogwild explaining what they didn't ask about.

Your relative has made a statement, now have them give supporting reasons for said statement. The statement is a roof and the reasons are the walls that support the roof. All your relative has done is put up a roof with no walls. Don't fall for it. I have in the past but no more.


----------



## buggy (Jun 3, 2010)

Sonny said:


> Good luck getting to read anything reformed. I get called a labeled theology lover every-time I point to something with more heat than my words. The free willers hate theology that places them below God and they call us hertics. I'm almost tired of debating them, you need a nap or a punching bag every-time you end a talk with them.




If you show them the Bible perhaps they will be more willing to listen. 
While most Arminian evangelicals don't really like hard theology, telling scripture as it is helps. I find this very helpful when talking to broad-evangelicals in my varsity fellowship.

One very good example of how the grace of God works is through the conversion of Apostle Paul himself. Acts 9.


----------



## Poimen (Jun 3, 2010)

Sonny said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > Challenge them to read the Reformed confessions so that they know what they are critiquing:
> ...



If people are twisting and/or misrepresenting Reformed doctrine and _then_ refuse to be corrected, it seems to me there is only one approach left: prayer for their repentance.


----------



## Philip (Jun 3, 2010)

My response is usually to ask the person what they mean by "freedom". Nine times out of ten, they don't know and hadn't considered the question.


----------



## Hilasmos (Jun 3, 2010)

Without disagreeing with all the above, and sounding overly deterministic, I find that we also need a healthy dose of reality. We are creatures, we have been created. Our minds and bodies operate in a seemingly infinite amount of ways that we cannot take account for in any act of "self-creation." Why do we operate the way we do? There is an overriding similarity in how humans respond, think, and speak from a wide array of stimuli...why is this, for lack of a better term (and to use robot terminology), than that we were "programmed"? We are creatures. For all the places where the robot cariacture failes, it is right, at the least, in pointing out that we are not gods.


----------

