Freewill?

[elman]

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!

I pick you.

 

[elman]

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?

Paul does not blame God for your sin. Ezekiel 18 says you kill your own soul with your own sin. God did not do the sin. You do. If you are right and God is to blame then God is evil. But God is not evil. God is good. so you are incorrect. God is not to blame.

 

[martymonster]

Paul does not blame God for your sin. Ezekiel 18 says you kill your own soul with your own sin. God did not do the sin. You do. If you are right and God is to blame then God is evil. But God is not evil. God is good. so you are incorrect. God is not to blame.

Rom 11:32 For God has shut up together all for disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.

Please to be explaining this then?

Rom 9:18 Therefore has he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.
Rom 9:19 You will say then unto me, Why does he yet find fault? For who has resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who are you that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

or this?

And pleas explain why you pick me to be wrong about the verse I posted.

 

[elman]

Rom 11:32 For God has shut up together all for disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.

Please to be explaining this then?

Rom 9:18 Therefore has he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardens.
Rom 9:19 You will say then unto me, Why does he yet find fault? For who has resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who are you that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why have you made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

or this?

And pleas explain why you pick me to be wrong about the verse I posted.

I have already told you. God is good and God is loving. God did not create human beings so He could have somone to torture for all eternity. If He did that would mean God is not good and loving. Sin is a failure to love. It is only humans that fail to love not God. He does not fail to love. Since all of this is true, any interpretation of scripture that contridicts this is wrong.

 

[martymonster]

I have already told you. God is good and God is loving. God did not create human beings so He could have somone to torture for all eternity. If He did that would mean God is not good and loving. Sin is a failure to love. It is only humans that fail to love not God. He does not fail to love. Since all of this is true, any interpretation of scripture that contridicts this is wrong.

sorry but you did not address my question regarding the post!

To inflict grievous suffering in this life on people who didn't ask to exist just to kill them latter is still horribly unjust!

 

[elman]

sorry but you did not address my question regarding the post!

To inflict grievous suffering in this life on people who didn't ask to exist just to kill them latter is still horribly unjust!

How about God does not inflict grievous suffering in this life on people just to kill them latter. I agree if He did that it would be unjust.

 

[Pneuma3]

Paul does not blame God for your sin. Ezekiel 18 says you kill your own soul with your own sin. God did not do the sin. You do. If you are right and God is to blame then God is evil. But God is not evil. God is good. so you are incorrect. God is not to blame.

Now where in my post did I say God was resposible for our sin?

Paul expressly stated the law of sin in our memebers was responsible for our sin.

So if you want to blame God for creating man with the law of sin in his memebers that not my problem but yours.

 

[Pneuma3]

I have already told you. God is good and God is loving. God did not create human beings so He could have somone to torture for all eternity. If He did that would mean God is not good and loving. Sin is a failure to love. It is only humans that fail to love not God. He does not fail to love. Since all of this is true, any interpretation of scripture that contridicts this is wrong.

So you don't believe God know the begining from the end then I take it.

For if God (and He does) knows the begining and the end and created man knowing He would have to eternally torment or anihilate most of them I wounder where you see God is love.

However because I know He is not going to eternally torment or anihilate any man I can tell you most assuredly God is Love.

 

[elman]

Now where in my post did I say God was resposible for our sin?

Paul expressly stated the law of sin in our memebers was responsible for our sin.

So if you want to blame God for creating man with the law of sin in his memebers that not my problem but yours.

I don't blame God for man's sin, but you seem to be trying to do that. I look at Ezekiel 18 and see who is responsible for my sin and for the death of my soul because of my sin. It is not God and it is not my father, nor is it my members if my members are not me. It is me. I assume my members is me and therefore Paul agrees that I am responsbile for my own sin.

 

[elman]

So you don't believe God know the begining from the end then I take it.

For if God (and He does) knows the begining and the end and created man knowing He would have to eternally torment or anihilate most of them I wounder where you see God is love.

However because I know He is not going to eternally torment or anihilate any man I can tell you most assuredly God is Love.

You and I can really known little about God or what He is going to do. JAMES 3:2 We all make many mistakes. So you don't know if God is going to give the wicked the gift of spiritual eternal life and a failure by God to give the wicked etenal life is not a lack of love and it does not matter what God knew ahead of time.

 

[Pneuma3]

I don't blame God for man's sin, but you seem to be trying to do that. I look at Ezekiel 18 and see who is responsible for my sin and for the death of my soul because of my sin. It is not God and it is not my father, nor is it my members if my members are not me. It is me. I assume my members is me and therefore Paul agrees that I am responsbile for my own sin.

Well if you want to blame youreslf for your sins go ahead but that way leads to condemation, Paul expressly stated "it is not longer I that sin but sin that dweleth in me".

You can blame yourself all you like but you should really take Paul up on his offering to you.

 

[elman]

Well if you want to blame youreslf for your sins go ahead but that way leads to condemation, Paul expressly stated "it is not longer I that sin but sin that dweleth in me".

You can blame yourself all you like but you should really take Paul up on his offering to you.

Where did you get the idea that I was not willing to accept the grace and forgiveness of God for my sins? Yes if we undestand we are responsible for our sins then we are grateful for the forgiveness in Christ and as Paul said there is no condenmation in Christ, not because I am not responsble for my sins, but because my sins have been forgiven. If you are not responsible for you sins, who is? How do you define sin? Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing. I define sin as failure to love your neighbor.

 

[Pneuma3]

Where did you get the idea that I was not willing to accept the grace and forgiveness of God for my sins? Yes if we undestand we are responsible for our sins then we are grateful for the forgiveness in Christ and as Paul said there is no condenmation in Christ, not because I am not responsble for my sins, but because my sins have been forgiven. If you are not responsible for you sins, who is? How do you define sin? Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing.

How many times do I have to repeat what Paul said.

It is no longer I that sinneth but sin that dwelleth in me.

Paul is saying that he is not responsible for his sin but points out to us that there is a law of sin in our members that is responsible for the sins we commit.

Paul refused to blame himself for missing the mark (sinning) brother because he knew all about the old man nature in all of us.

 

[martymonster]

You and I can really known little about God or what He is going to do. JAMES 3:2 We all make many mistakes. So you don't know if God is going to give the wicked the gift of spiritual eternal life and a failure by God to give the wicked etenal life is not a lack of love and it does not matter what God knew ahead of time.

There is hundreds of pages in the Bible telling us what God is going to do.

if you don't know what He is going to do then you are either reading it wrong or you are not reading it at all!

 

[Evergreen48]

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 bristone 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.

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 tomented 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!

Nothing can be proved by Revelation 14:10. 2Thessalonians is dealing with those Jews who would not accept Jesus Christ as Messiah and Saviour, and had been persecuting the Christian church of that day. That was a very literal thing. Revelation 14:10 is dealing with those who, if they recieved the mark of the beast and worshipped him, would be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the Lamb. That is not literal. The fire and brimstone was not literal, neither the beast nor his mark was literal, and neither was Jesus a literal lamb. You are going to have to have some other scripture beside that one to over - ride the plain truth of 2Thessalonians 1:9, which proves that there is such a thing as being forever separated from the presence of God.

Beside this, if it is God's presence that causes the everlasting destruction, (I assume that is your view) then why would not everyone be doomed to everlasting destruction, if this is the result of being in the presence of God?

Someday we are going to have to have a discussion on something we agree on.

I doubt that.

 

[Pneuma3]

Nothing can be proved by Revelation 14:10. 2Thessalonians is dealing with those Jews who would not accept Jesus Christ as Messiah and Saviour, and had been persecuting the Christian church of that day. That was a very literal thing. Revelation 14:10 is dealing with those who, if they recieved the mark of the beast and worshipped him, would be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the Lamb. That is not literal. The fire and brimstone was not literal, neither the beast nor his mark was literal, and neither was Jesus a literal lamb. You are going to have to have some other scripture beside that one to over - ride the plain truth of 2Thessalonians 1:9, which proves that there is such a thing as being forever separated from the presence of God.

Beside this, if it is God's presence that causes the everlasting destruction, (I assume that is your view) then why would not everyone be doomed to everlasting destruction, if this is the result of being in the presence of God?

I doubt that.

Well if your going to take that stance then I guess its just those Jews way back when that are eternally seperated from God and everyone else is ok then.

And yes we all are fitted to destruction in the very presence of the Lord.

The old man with his carnal mind is totally destroyed and so only the new man is left.

 

[hairettic]

the old is gone and the new remains!

 

[Evergreen48]

And yes we all are fitted to destruction in the very presence of the Lord.

The old man with his carnal mind is totally destroyed and so only the new man is left.

the old is gone and the new remains!

Matthew 10:28. "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."

If both my body and soul (identity) is to be destroyed, by the presence of God, and an entirely new second creation is brought forth, the second creation would not be me by any means. So then, what was the point in His putting the first 'me' here to start with? What was my life here on earth all about?

 

[Pneuma3]

Matthew 10:28. "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."

If both my body and soul (identity) is to be destroyed, by the presence of God, and an entirely new second creation is brought forth, the second creation would not be me by any means. So then, what was the point in His putting the first 'me' here to start with? What was my life here on earth all about?

How many scripture tell us we are to put on Christ, the mind of Christ etc.

Paul stated I no longer live (speaking of his old life) but Christ that liveth in me, yet I live (a whole new Paul).

All of your old man nature is destroyed sis, nothing of the life of the flesh can enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[hairettic]

So then, what was the point in His putting the first 'me' here to start with? What was my life here on earth all about?

Surely we are here for more than firewood!