How can there be free will in heaven?

[BobRyan]

For example, we have abolished slavery even though the Bible goes into great detail about its institution and administration.

The Bible says to love your neighbor as yourself Lev 19:18 and that man is made directly by God.

The result is that it was the Christian church that abolished slavery in the U.S. and Europe.

We reject polygamy and concubinage, even though it was practiced not only in society in general, but by the God-ordained kings of Israel and Judah

The Bible flat out said that kings were not to "multiply wives to themselves".

In the NT "The husband of one wife" was the high standard for Christians.

We reject incest, even though the Bible permits first cousins to marry each other as long as they are in the same tribe.

In the Bible they start off with Adam and Eve as identical twins - Eve coming from Adam's rib and the children of Adam and Eve marrying each other.

Leviticus 18 forbids incest.

As the genome continued to get more and more fragile - wider and wider rules had to be adopted.

Marriage outside of one's tribe is forbidden in the Bible, but the entire concept is totally unknown today.

All of Jacob's children married wives outside of their tribe.

There were no commands against Levites marrying someone from Judah etc.

But what does this have to do with "free will in heaven"??

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Bible says to love your neighbor as yourself Lev 19:18 and that man is made directly by God.

The result is that it was the Christian church that abolished slavery in the U.S. and Europe.

The Bible flat out said that kings were not to "multiply wives to themselves".

In the NT "The husband of one wife" was the high standard for Christians.

In the Bible they start off with Adam and Eve as identical twins - Eve coming from Adam's rib and the children of Adam and Eve marrying each other.

Leviticus 18 forbids incest.

As the genome continued to get more and more fragile - wider and wider rules had to be adopted.

All of Jacob's children married wives outside of their tribe.

There were no commands against Levites marrying someone from Judah etc.

But what does this have to do with "free will in heaven"??

Good question. It makes me wonder what your recent posts also have to do with the OP.

The fact remains that God has complete and unfettered free will in heaven, both now and throughout all eternity.

 

[BobRyan]

Good question. It makes me wonder what your recent posts also have to do with the OP.

My posts were responses to what others were posting and while the response is to the point - I am not sure why the topic is here on this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

God has complete and unfettered free will in heaven, both now and throughout all eternity.

No doubt - God has free will.

 

[Jamdoc]

Peter never says to eat rats, cats , dogs, bats or "swine" in his statements in scripture on this point. Rather he says the point was about "calling no MAN unclean"... He leaves the rats and bats as they were --- unclean.

And in Acts 15 neither Peter nor anyone else in leadership mentions --
1. Do not take God's name in vain Ex 20:7
2. Do not murder Ex 20
3. Love God with all your heart Deut 6:4

And this is not a sign that these commands do not apply to gentiles -- as we all know.

Jesus reiterates the moral laws.
but Paul and Peter don't lay on the kosher dietary laws or ritual laws or ceremonial laws aside from blood, eating things strangled, and avoiding fornication. The 10 commandments are moral laws, and Jesus boils them down into 2 commandments, love God and love each other. The ceremonial laws were to separate Israel from the Gentiles.
Those laws are not really necessary when the new covenant grafts gentiles in with Israel so that distinction is no longer there.

if you're in a scenario (which I hate to say it, but may be incoming) where there's a really bad famine, you're saying you wouldn't eat a rat? You'd starve to death if that's what's available?

God didn't give a vision about gentiles. God gave a vision where all animals were made clean.

Peter's taking of the vision as just "preach to the Gentiles" had already been addressed directly by Jesus Himself.

Matthew 28

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Luke 24

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

Mark 16

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

There wasn't a need for a vision to tell Peter to preach to the gentiles. He'd already been told that by the Resurrected Jesus prior to Pentecost. They were given instructions, wait until Pentecost to receive the Holy Spirit, and then preach to all nations.

Acts 10

9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

Context, when did Peter receive the vision, it's in the context of eating.

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

It's like after the flood

Genesis 9

2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

So before there was a set difference between Israel and the nations, God gave ALL ANIMALS as food. He did not make a distinction between clean and unclean. Think to the Levitical laws, when the dietary laws are laid out it says unto you it shall be an abomination or it is unclean unto you. That's specific to Israel. It is not laid out that way for all humans, it never was.

But note the command not to eat blood, that is for all mankind. That's part of why Peter kept that in the rules shared with gentiles, the rules that aren't covered by loving God and loving your neighbor, but is given as a law to all mankind and God gave a reason for it.

Now back to Acts 10

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

You might want to explain what killing and eating has to do with "preach to the gentiles"

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

Let this sink in, Peter rejected what the Lord said to do.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

Peter was rebuked by God, for rejecting.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

Peter has doubts as to how this could be interpreted. The Jew in Peter will not let him just take what was shown at face value.

so Peter made an interpretation. The Holy Spirit did not explain the vision, the Holy Spirit simply told him to meet Cornelius.

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

Remember, Peter had already been told to preach the gospel to gentiles after Pentecost.
If Peter's interpretation was correct, then the vision, a profound vision from the Lord, gave zero new revelation.

But if it made all animals clean, for Peter to rise, kill and eat? That's new revelation.

last thing, and everyone would do well to remember this.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Peter is not perfect.

 

[Jamdoc]

1. There is no "at first rejected then later ate rats" text in Acts for Peter.
2. Peter tells Jesus "no" flat out in Matt 16 when Jesus said that He as the Messiah would die - this was not what the Jews were expecting. And Christ hammers him on the spot for that rejection of command. This is exactly what DOES NOT happen in Acts. Rather Peter tells his students that the lesson was about not calling humans unclean. Luke seems to agree.

are you kidding me? the Lord rebukes Peter instantly when Peter rejects the command to rise kill and eat.

 

[Clare73]

Perhaps not according to your translation but according to the Greek Interlinear Bible
there’s nothing there to suggest that people have sinned before or during birth.

What sin has a newborn committed?

The same "sin" a newborn rattlesnake commits--his nature.

Man is born with a fallen nature, preferring self over God's will.

 

[Clare73]

Because the clean animal (in this case) that "dies of itself" (and so is deemed unclean ) is not radio active - rather it just has some bad bacteria etc that needs to be washed off and die --- when it comes to what might still be on your skin or clothes.
That's the health issue.
By contrast - notice that the text does not say you can eat a rat, cat or bat -- then wait until evening and it won't do you any harm.

Notice that in Genesis 9:3, everything that lives and moves was given to Adam for food.
Notice in Matthew 15:11 that Jesus said that nothing which goes into the mouth makes a man unclean.
Notice in Romans 14:14 that no food is unclean.

Notice that all food was healthy for Adam,
then unhealthy for Moses,
then healthy again for Jesus?

It's not about health, it's about the Mosaic law being given to reveal sin (Romans 3:20), where the food laws were a temporary type, showing the nature of sin to be spiritual defilement, which must be cleansed.

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that in Genesis 9:3, everything that lives and moves was given to Adam for food.
Notice in Matthew 5:11 that Jesus said that nothing which goes into the mouth makes a man unclean.
Notice in Romans 14:14 that no food is unclean. .

In Matt 5:10-12 we don't have anything about clean or unclean.

Rather we have this -
10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in this same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

In Acts 10 (long after Christ ascended to heaven) Peter reminds us that even to that day he had been faithful to the scripture teaching on clean vs unclean.

Rom 14:
14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died.

Rom 14 in context

2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him

Jews of course were required to eat meat as part of their worship celebrations for Passover etc. So those who were not eating meat in this case are gentiles who had converted to Christianity. And why is it that they would have "weak consciences" and so would only eat vegetables??

1 Cor 8 answers the question by giving us more context.

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we (Jews) know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some (gentiles), with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

==========================

context matters in the case of scripture.

Though I still don't see how this has anything to do with the thread topic

 

[Clare73]

In Matt 5:10-12 we don't have anything about clean or unclean.

You're right about that! . . .a typo, it should be Matthew 15:11.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The same "sin" a newborn rattlesnake commits--his nature.

Man is born with a fallen nature, preferring self over God's will.

A newborn baby is completely ignorant to God’s will. It knows nothing. It’s a completely blank canvas.

 

[Clare73]

A newborn baby is completely ignorant to God’s will. It knows nothing. It’s a completely blank canvas.

Irrelevant. . .and so are baby rattlesnakes, but their inner computer soon tells them what they prefer.

And which has nothing to do with Ephesians 2:3, where we are by nature objects of God's wrath.
We are born with our nature, and objects of God's wrath from birth (just as rattlesnakes are born with their nature), and our inner computer soon tells us what to prefer--self.

Just as the nature with which rattlesnakes are born makes them my enemy, so likewise,
that fallen nature with which we are born makes us enemies of God (Romans 5:10).

 

[Sheila Davis]

“and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭17:26‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

If every nation of mankind came from Adam how could Cain have married someone who was not a descendant of Adam?

Starting with Genesis chapter 4 - God put a curse on Cain to be a wanderer. Cane appeal to the Lord, Cain was scared that ANYONE finding him may kill him _ who are the "anyone" if there are only two offsprings of Adam and Eve - now one because Cain slew Abel. And God said NO ONE should touch Cain - no one?
That scripture implies there were other adult people around.

The teachings of the church is Cain and Abel were the first two children born to Adam and Eve and they had daughters afterwards and Cain married one of those daughters - which would make him and her brother and sister.
Yet scripture tells us God said don't marry your brother, sister, mother, father, aunt, uncle. Why is that since we were all created to commit incest anyway? THE TREE OF LIFE - it's healing effects gave man a form of immortality and CLEANSED the BLOOD. After the fall of Adam the Tree of Life was taken away and everyone born was born in sin, under of the penalty of death of the flesh.

Different understandings beginning to surface

The Tree of Life is the key.

Descendants of Adam before he sinned was cleansed by the fruit and leaves of the Tree of Life.
Now there is no where in scripture that indicates when Adam sinned or whether he had children before he sinned. God's commandment to them was to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth, before their fall.
AND
There are also indications that Adam did have children before he sinned _ Cain went to the Land of Nod and knew his wife. Who lived in the Land of Nod? The church teaches the name is symbolic - a easy way to get out of giving an explanation. The Bible didn't say Cain took his wife or Cain and his wife went - yet he went to the Land of Nod before he knew her.

There is more than one way to interpret what scripture actually means when it says Adam's sin brought death into the world, and death fell upon all mankind. And that interpretation would be based on the Tree of Life and God saying that he put them out of the garden so that they wouldn't eat from it and live forever. Church will teach that they never ate from the Tree of Life, yet God put it in the garden and told them they could eat from every tree except the Tree of Knowledge - convenient reasoning to keep from explaining.

Far too many churches today teach that it is just symbolic - yet all the medicines of mankind basically comes from greenery. In the Book of Revelations it clearly states the Trees of Life is on each side of the river, on the new Earth, that has no oceans or seas or night. There are 12 different fruits, new every month and the leaves are for the "healing" of the Nations and our Lord God is there and is the light thereof.

Did Eve Have Children Before the Fall?

The female Cain married was an offspring of Adam but through the cleansing of the Tree of Life no longer considered Cain's biological sister - even as mankind consider themselves today "none are considered biological sisters and brothers except through direct mother and father."

I read where it has been taught throughout the centuries in just about all churches Adam and Eve were unable to procreate before the fall - that doesn't make sense because God's commandment was given to them before the fall to be fruitful multiply and replenish the Earth so why wouldn't they be able to procreate before their fall?

People of today, especially today - fail to realize that the writers from thousands of years ago did not write in the same manner as the educated people of today. They were just learning to write, the majority of the people didn't read or write - even up until the 18th century AD.

That is a lot to say just to say we are all offsprings of Adam, which means we are all sisters and brothers - yet not biologically _ nor was the female Cain married his biological sister and maybe to be politically / literally correct I should say immediate biologically.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Irrelevant. . .and so are baby rattlesnakes, but their inner computer soon tells them what they prefer.

And which has nothing to do with Ephesians 2:3, where we are by nature objects of God's wrath.
We are born with our nature, just as rattlesnakes are born with theirs, and our inner computer soon tells us what to prefer--self.

Just as the nature with which rattlesnakes are born make them my enemy, so that fallen nature, with which we are born, makes us enemies of God (Romans 5:10).

Your quoting verses pertaining to adults and applying them to newborn infants as if they fit into that category. And I don’t see any scriptures comparing newborn babies to anything even remotely similar to baby rattlesnakes. The scriptures refer to babies as precious blessings. Can you provide one single verse of scripture referring to newborn babies in a derogatory way?

 

[BNR32FAN]

who are the "anyone" if there are only two offsprings of Adam and Eve

Where are you getting the idea that Cain & Able are Adam & Eve’s only two children? Or even their first two children? How old are Cain & Able when Able was killed? Hundreds of years old perhaps?

“Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord.” Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering;”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭4:1-4‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

Starting with Genesis chapter 4 - God put a curse on Cain to be a wanderer. Cane appeal to the Lord, Cain was scared that ANYONE finding him may kill him _ who are the "anyone" if there are only two offsprings of Adam and Eve - now one because Cain slew Abel. And God said NO ONE should touch Cain - no one?
That scripture implies there were other adult people around.

The teachings of the church is Cain and Abel were the first two children born to Adam and Eve and they had daughters afterwards and Cain married one of those daughters - which would make him and her brother and sister.
Yet scripture tells us God said don't marry your brother, sister, mother, father, aunt, uncle. Why is that since we were all created to commit incest anyway? THE TREE OF LIFE - it's healing effects gave man a form of immortality and CLEANSED the BLOOD. After the fall of Adam the Tree of Life was taken away and everyone born was born in sin, under of the penalty of death of the flesh.

Different understandings beginning to surface

The Tree of Life is the key.

Descendants of Adam before he sinned was cleansed by the fruit and leaves of the Tree of Life.
Now there is no where in scripture that indicates when Adam sinned or whether he had children before he sinned. God's commandment to them was to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth, before their fall.
AND
There are also indications that Adam did have children before he sinned _ Cain went to the Land of Nod and knew his wife. Who lived in the Land of Nod? The church teaches the name is symbolic - a easy way to get out of giving an explanation. The Bible didn't say Cain took his wife or Cain and his wife went - yet he went to the Land of Nod before he knew her.

There is more than one way to interpret what scripture actually means when it says Adam's sin brought death into the world, and death fell upon all mankind. And that interpretation would be based on the Tree of Life and God saying that he put them out of the garden so that they wouldn't eat from it and live forever. Church will teach that they never ate from the Tree of Life, yet God put it in the garden and told them they could eat from every tree except the Tree of Knowledge - convenient reasoning to keep from explaining.

Far too many churches today teach that it is just symbolic - yet all the medicines of mankind basically comes from greenery. In the Book of Revelations it clearly states the Trees of Life is on each side of the river, on the new Earth, that has no oceans or seas or night. There are 12 different fruits, new every month and the leaves are for the "healing" of the Nations and our Lord God is there and is the light thereof.

Did Eve Have Children Before the Fall?

The female Cain married was an offspring of Adam but through the cleansing of the Tree of Life no longer considered Cain's biological sister - even as mankind consider themselves today "none are considered biological sisters and brothers except through direct mother and father."

I read where it has been taught throughout the centuries in just about all churches Adam and Eve were unable to procreate before the fall - that doesn't make sense because God's commandment was given to them before the fall to be fruitful multiply and replenish the Earth so why wouldn't they be able to procreate before their fall?

People of today, especially today - fail to realize that the writers from thousands of years ago did not write in the same manner as the educated people of today. They were just learning to write, the majority of the people didn't read or write - even up until the 18th century AD.

That is a lot to say just to say we are all offsprings of Adam, which means we are all sisters and brothers - yet not biologically _ nor was the female Cain married his biological sister and maybe to be politically / literally correct I should say immediate biologically.

Marrying a relative was not forbidden by God until the Mosaic Law was instituted if I’m not mistaken.

 

[BobRyan]

Marrying a relative was not forbidden by God until the Mosaic Law was instituted if I’m not mistaken.

The children if Adam and Eve would have had no other choice and that is also true of the children of Noah.

So then there are laws against it in Leviticus 18 but even then it is more liberal than would be safe in today's gene pool.

 

[Clare73]

Your quoting verses pertaining to adults and applying them to newborn infants as if they fit into that category. And I don’t see any scriptures comparing newborn babies to anything even remotely similar to baby rattlesnakes. The scriptures refer to babies as precious blessings. Can you provide one single verse of scripture referring to newborn babies in a derogatory way?

Previously addressed, post #292.

Familiar much with parallels?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Previously addressed, post #292.

Familiar much with parallels?

Nice cop out, I’m guessing I was right and you weren’t able to find not a single verse since Ephesians 2:3 and Romans 5:10 say absolutely nothing about newborn babies. There’s definitely no shortage of scriptures mentioning newborns just none of them actually support your position.

 

[Clare73]

Nice cop out, I’m guessing I was right and you weren’t able to find not a single verse since Ephesians 2:3 and Romans 5:10 say absolutely nothing about newborn babies. There’s definitely no shortage of scriptures mentioning newborns just none of them actually support your position.

Non-responsive to post #292.