First off, I would like to say I wholeheartedly agree with what Locke is saying. Christianity isn't something to be forced on a non-believer by outside influences, but something the non-believer has to look into on his own accord. Unfortunately, the Church had a nasty habit of inducing the former back then, resulting in more harm than good for both the religious skeptics and for themselves. It chased away atheists as well as distorted the views of those who were currently practicing Christianity, and through Locke's eyes, this was a problem society could ignore. Humans were denying other humans something even God didn't deny humans. If God allows us free will, who are we to deny anyone of the same? Yes, it's sad when someone rejects continuous offers of salvation or overlooks God's obvious blessings in their life, but we should not punish them for these choices, as frustrating as they are. Love is many things, but the one thing it is not is forceful. I repeat, love isn't forceful, and that's the reason why God allows free will and that's the reason why we should not argue against His concept of free will. He doesn't want His children to come to Him because they feel like they have to, but because they love and want and need Him. God's free gift of salvation is an open acceptance, not a requirement. I'm not saying we as believers should stop trying to reach out to those who aren't nor should we condone their actions. What I am saying is that, for those who aren't and choose to stay that way, we need to be prepared to accept that fact without so much as a single shred of hate or contempt and love them anyway because God certainly loves them anyway. God loves them so much He's willing to give them a choice, and while it saddens Him that some may depart from Him and give themselves up to a life of sin, nothing would sadden Him more than forceful love, which isn't really love at all.
P.S. I commented on posts by Moriah Nelson and Jamie Peters.
P.S. I commented on posts by Moriah Nelson and Jamie Peters.
Comments