Freewill?

[elman]

Let me reword it then.. do those who do not understand, have not experienced what it means to love and/or be loved. Will they also be raised and learn these things or are they just outta luck?

I agree that God is loving and that we can trust him. But I think the boundries placed on this love by various doctorines hides the love of God from many.

I am not supporting any doctorines hiding the love of God or putting boundries on this love. Every human being who reaches maturity and is not mentally defective is born with the ability to love or not love. There is none without that ability. If I am wrong about that and there is, God will decide that issue without my help or advise. I have no idea what will happen to them or the evil ones either, but I am not as confident as you are that the evil ones will be given more chances after physical death. And I see no obligation on God to do anything in regard to the ones who do not turn to righteouosness as Ezekiel puts it. Nor do I see promises to us that we can be as evil as we wish and depend on the love of God to bring us further opportunites to live with Him in paradise.

 

[hairettic]

wow, no wonder you are out there scaring them all.

 

[Pneuma3]

And God destroys that old man of sin in all of us right without our being involved in that destruction right? How do we sin with no free will? Is sin the wrong choice or something else?

You will have to reword your first question brother as I don't understand it.

As to the second Paul tells us why we sin even against our will, because of the law of sin in our memebers.

You want to blame sin on the will of man, Paul squarely lays the blame on the law of sin in our memebers. Gee I wonder who is right?

 

[martymonster]

I am not supporting any doctorines hiding the love of God or putting boundries on this love. Every human being who reaches maturity and is not mentally defective is born with the ability to love or not love. There is none without that ability. If I am wrong about that and there is, God will decide that issue without my help or advise. I have no idea what will happen to them or the evil ones either, but I am not as confident as you are that the evil ones will be given more chances after physical death. And I see no obligation on God to do anything in regard to the ones who do not turn to righteouosness as Ezekiel puts it. Nor do I see promises to us that we can be as evil as we wish and depend on the love of God to bring us further opportunites to live with Him in paradise.

Why don't you give us some scriptures to show us all where you are coming from.

very little, if anything that I have read from you has any biblical backing to it.

 

[martymonster]

It is our is not our actions that define sin, it is our attitude and our reasons for that action that defines sin!

Joseph's brothers sold Him into slavery, but Joseph said that God was responsible for them doing it so many lives could be saved!

It was their attitudes towards their brother that made them accountable not their actions!

God accepted responsibility for their actions, but not for the murder that was in their hearts!

 

[elman]

You will have to reword your first question brother as I don't understand it.

As to the second Paul tells us why we sin even against our will, because of the law of sin in our memebers.

You want to blame sin on the will of man, Paul squarely lays the blame on the law of sin in our memebers. Gee I wonder who is right?

So you want to blame my members, but not me. How does that work exactly, my members sinning but not me? Since I did not create my members and God did, does that make God to blame? Do you really believe that Paul is saying God is responsible for me being a sinner?

 

[elman]

It is our is not our actions that define sin, it is our attitude and our reasons for that action that defines sin!

Joseph's brothers sold Him into slavery, but Joseph said that God was responsible for them doing it so many lives could be saved!

It was their attitudes towards their brother that made them accountable not their actions!

God accepted responsibility for their actions, but not for the murder that was in their hearts!

That is drawing a fine line. God is responsible for our evil actions, but not our evil thoughts. Did I get that right?

 

[elman]

Why don't you give us some scriptures to show us all where you are coming from.

very little, if anything that I have read from you has any biblical backing to it.

Ezekiel 18
Matt 25:31 and following
First Corinthians 13
First John.

 

[elman]

wow, no wonder you are out there scaring them all.

Who is scaring who?

 

[Harlin]

Hello,



Deadly serious, I believe that the second death is an eternal death, eternal separation from God (Rev 20:6,13-15) Not eternal torture. (PS, I am a sister, not a brother lol)


Show me the Scripture that says that there is eternal separation from God.
I know for a fact that you won't be able to, because the eternal separation from God thing is just more christian dogma.

show me some scripture that supports it, and I'll show scripture that contradict it, but we both know that God doesn't contradict itself, so either you'll be wrong or I'll be wrong.

we shall see!

Hello,

I believe death to be exactly that, I do not believe in the natural immortality of the soul, I understand "the dead know nothing" and that the spirit goes back to God from whence it came.

From that understanding, the second death is the last one, there is no recorded resurrection after the second death, that is final, eternal. That is why the Bible says:

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years" Rev 20:6

Now, the reason I don't believe that people burn forever is because we are shown in Revelation 20, that the lake of fire and brimstone is here on this earth, along side the "camp of the saints", and the "beloved city".

We are then told that told in chapter 21 that "there is a new heaven and a new earth for the first heaven and first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea".

So seeing that the lake of fire is on the earth, the lake of fire must pass away with the old earth. That is why I cannot believe that the second death is a refining one, or the judgement day is when sin is removed. Sin is removed in the lake of fire, not just from the individual, but from the earth. The individual who has chosen to cling to sin will therefore be consumed with his sin when the earth is cleansed.

God Bless,

Harlin

 

[Harlin]

1: Rev 14:10 Indicates "in the presence of"

2: It is not possible to be seperated from an omnipresence.

Hello,

"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Sound familiar? What does "forsaken" mean to you? If God had said "It is not possible to be separated from an omnipresence" then maybe I might believe it.

God Bless

 

[Evergreen48]

not setting myself above anything any of these translators said sis.

Not one of them says the destruction is away from the presence of the Lord.

They in fact state what I did that the destruction is from the presence of the Lord.

You are simply adding a word (away) not one translation agrees with.

I have not added any words. Neither have I said that the scriptures say that the destruction is away from the presence of the Lord. I copied the translation as it is in the version that it came from. I don't understand where you are coming from on this, Pneuma. The scripture says what it says, and you just do not want to accept it.

Anyway, martymonster ask for scripture that said there was eternal separation from God - He said he would show scripture that would contradict it. I gave that scripture, and so far marty monster has been as quiet as a little mouse. All I have gotten so far is a reply from you, and not marty, which denies that the scripture says what it says.

Whatsup, martymonster? Why aren't you holding up your end of the 'bargain'?

Revelation 14:10
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Explain the away part here?
or is it your that it is you yourself that holds your own understanding above thoses learned men an women who translated them.

When you explain to me how anyone could literally drink the wrath of God from a literal cup of his indignation, then I will explain the away part.

P.S. Would you please stop addressing me as 'sis'. There is something about that which doesn't settle very well with me.

 

[martymonster]

Hello,

"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Sound familiar? What does "forsaken" mean to you? If God had said "It is not possible to be separated from an omnipresence" then maybe I might believe it.

God Bless

Psa 139:7 Where shall I go from your Spirit? or where shall I flee from your presence?
Psa 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, you are there: if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, you are there.

 

[martymonster]

Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out undiluted into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presenceof the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

There you go!

I only need to post the one verse, because the bibe does not contradict itself!

So either your interpretation of the scriptures are wrong, or the bible is wrong, and I pick you!

 

[Pneuma3]

Anyway, martymonster ask for scripture that said there was eternal separation from God - He said he would show scripture that would contradict it. I gave that scripture, and so far marty monster has been as quiet as a little mouse. All I have gotten so far is a reply from you, and not marty, which denies that the scripture says what it says.

Thats the problem Evergreen you never gave a scripture that does not state that there is eternal seperation from God, in order for it to say that you have to add the word away from his presence in order for it to say what you want it to say. And then you say this to me.

I don't understand where you are coming from on this, Pneuma. The scripture says what it says, and you just do not want to accept it.

That right the scripture does say what it says and it say nothing about eternal seperation from God. So it not me that wont except what the scripture state Evergreen it is you.

P.S. Would you please stop addressing me as 'sis'. There is something about that which doesn't settle very well with me.

Not a problem it happens all the time, people don't mind if you call them brother or sister as long as you are in agreement with thier doctrine but as soon as disagreement comes in they do not want to recognize you as a brother or sister in the Lord anymore.

 

[Pneuma3]

So you want to blame my members, but not me. How does that work exactly, my members sinning but not me? Since I did not create my members and God did, does that make God to blame? Do you really believe that Paul is saying God is responsible for me being a sinner?

Not me Elman Paul, here read it for yourself.

Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.


18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

So who according to Paul is to blame for him missing the mark (sinning)?

If I do that which I would not, IT IS NO MORE I THAT DO IT, but sin that dwelleth in me.


21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members

So where does Paul clearly lay the blame for his continually missing the mark (sinning)?

Is Paul not consistant in his approach aways stating it is the law of sin in his memebers?

 

[Evergreen48]

Thats the problem Evergreen you never gave a scripture that does not state that there is eternal seperation from God, in order for it to say that you have to add the word away from his presence in order for it to say what you want it to say. And then you say this to me.
That right the scripture does say what it says and it say nothing about eternal seperation from God. So it not me that wont except what the scripture state Evergreen it is you.

Apparently for you to understand what the scripture is saying the word 'away' would have to be added. But this is not the case for me. I understand perfectly well what the scripture is saying without adding the word. So did a few translators, it seems.

-- Weymouth's New Testament
2 Thessalonians 1:9 They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, being banished from the presence of the Lord and from His glorious majesty,

-- International Standard Version
2 Thessalonians 1:9 Such people will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction by being separated from the Lord's presence and from his glorious power

-- William's NewTestament
2 Thessalonians 1:9 These will receive the punishment of eternal destruction as exiles from the presence of the Lord and His glorious might,

How much plainer could it be said?

Not a problem it happens all the time, people don't mind if you call them brother or sister as long as you are in agreement with thier doctrine but as soon as disagreement comes in they do not want to recognize you as a brother or sister in the Lord anymore.

Pneuma, LOL, there has always been disagreement between you and I. So that is not the reason that I don't like your calling me 'sis'. Its personal. But thanks for obliging. Hope I didn't hurt your feelings. (I do consider you a brother in Christ.)

 

[martymonster]

Unfortunately for you, there's no such word as eternal in the bible,

even God is not referred to as eternal, but the God of the ages!

Here is a few translations that have it correct!

(CLV) yet manifested now and through prophetic scriptures, according to the injunction of the eonian God being made known to all nations for faith-obedience -"


(RYLT-NT) and now having been made manifest, also, through prophetic writings, according to a command of the age-during God, having been made known to all the nations for obedience of faith --


(WNT) but has now been brought fully to light, and by the command of the God of the Ages has been made known by the writings of the Prophets among all the Gentiles to win them to obedience to the faith--


there are more like the Rotherham's for example, which I own, but not on e-sword unfortunately.

 

[Pneuma3]

Apparently for you to understand what the scripture is saying the word 'away' would have to be added. But this is not the case for me. I understand perfectly well what the scripture is saying without adding the word. So did a few translators, it seems.

-- Weymouth's New Testament
2 Thessalonians 1:9 They will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, being banished from the presence of the Lord and from His glorious majesty,

-- International Standard Version
2 Thessalonians 1:9 Such people will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction by being separated from the Lord's presence and from his glorious power

-- William's NewTestament
2 Thessalonians 1:9 These will receive the punishment of eternal destruction as exiles from the presence of the Lord and His glorious might,

How much plainer could it be said?

Well we both know that translation are not all made accurately, and some translator are swayed by their own belief. I know this can be argued both ways.

That is way I posted Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out undiluted into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

This scripture tells me their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is in error. They have added their own interpretation to what the words “from the presence of the Lord” mean, and simply got it wrong.

Pneuma, LOL, there has always been disagreement between you and I. So that is not the reason that I don't like your calling me 'sis'. Its personal. But thanks for obliging. Hope I didn't hurt your feelings. (I do consider you a brother in Christ.)

We I’m glad you still think of me as a brother in the Lord Evergreen and no my feeling were not hurt and yes we do seem to always have disagreements between us. Someday we are going to have to have a discussion on something we agree on.

 

[martymonster]

Well we both know that translation are not all made accurately, and some translator are swayed by their own belief. I know this can be argued both ways.

That is way I posted Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out undiluted into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

This scripture tells me their translation of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is in error. They have added their own interpretation to what the words “from the presence of the Lord” mean, and simply got it wrong.





We I’m glad you still think of me as a brother in the Lord Evergreen and no my feeling were not hurt and yes we do seem to always have disagreements between us. Someday we are going to have to have a discussion on something we agree on.

Absolutely right Pneuma3!

My kingdom for a bible that is translated honestly without any doctrinal slanting.

the Rotherham's is good, but can be a little difficult to read in some parts.