How can there be free will in heaven?

[levnishbar]

That is where the problem of the tree of Knowledge comes in. Man most often takes that knowledge and uses it for man's personal benefit, making judgements that benefit man's self serving will, not the will of God. The very attitude that got man banished from the Garden.

For man to exercise judgments for selfish reasons is probably wrong. To exercise judgments for the benefit of others, perhaps not.

When Abraham interceded for Sodom in a conversation with God (Genesis 18), it was after he had to rescue Lot from Sodom (Genesis 14). So he had reasons to hold a grudge against Sodom, but instead asked for God to show all of them mercy on account of a few righteous being found.

Incidentally this was a small foreshadowing of the Gospel, that the righteous may expiate or turn away God's wrath on the sinners.

 

[timothyu]

His will will be done in earth as it is in Heaven. Man will no longer have the opportunity to govern or more specifically self govern for as we see in the US today it becomes a battle of divisiveness over who gets what and acting responsibly is out the window.

 

[timothyu]

To exercise judgments for the benefit of others, perhaps not.

Love all as self... simple guideline.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Here's a theory. Perhaps on this Earth, which God put Man as stewards over with free will, we have room to exercise our own judgments on matters, to show mercy or justice and to even disagree with God's judgments.

The latter may sound like heresy, but recall the conversation between Abraham and God over the the fate of Sodom (Genesis 18:16-33). If done with the right attitude of respect to God, Abraham and us too, may debate the appropriate judgment on a matter with God.

It seems though, that as imperfect, sinful human beings, our role in trying to persuade God to change his judgment should err on the side of mercy. Because of we ask God to be merciful to others, perhaps He may be merciful to us as well.

Therefore referring to punishments in the Old Testament we do not agree with or think are too harsh, as humans we would be able to commute the sentence. However we must be careful because some commandments of God are not supposed to be commuted, e.g. 1 Samuel 15 with Saul sparing Agag and the best of the plunder (one could argue this was at least partly for reasons of greed rather than mercy).

There are numerous examples from the Bible where God's will is immutable and those who try to contravene it suffer due punishment. On the other hand, there are times where individuals seem to be molding God's will in their interaction with him. For example, we have Abraham bargaining with God over the fate of Lot in Sodom. At the end it would seem that Sodom was going to be spared because there were more than the minimum number of righteous people there, but (as God apparently knew from eternity) Sodom's fate had already been sealed, along with that of Lot and his family.

 

[Clare73]

No doubt because while still alive he accepted his punishment of remaining behind and understood why. He was repentant of his self serving mistake and
knew a price must be paid here in order to benefit there.

Sin remitted in the OT was the same way sin is remitted in the NT:
faith in Jesus Christ (the Promise) in the NT (John 3:16) and
faith in the Promise (seed, Jesus Christ, Genesis 15:6; Galatians 3:16) in the OT.

 

[BobRyan]

There's also precedent for God changing some of the laws. He has changed the dietary laws a few times.

first He gave only plants. Then He gave all animals after the flood, then with Moses, He restricted some animals, and restricted wine from priests and nazarites, nazarites couldn't even eat grapes.

Then after the new testament He lifted the dietary laws and pronounced all 4 footed beasts clean, and Paul said not to burden the gentiles with the dietary laws and circumcision.
.

No text says all four footed animals are clean rather Acts 10 says to "call no MAN unclean" -- he has two feet.

Acts 10 commands Peter to eat rats and snakes 3 times... and Peter says no 3 times. Then Peter explains 3 times that this was God teaching him to "call no man unclean". Nothing there about how the church is now supposed to eat rat sandwiches.

Paul says nothing about telling gentiles it is ok to eat rat sandwiches.

No text in OT or NT says that gentiles need to be circumcised to be saved or to worship the one true God.

 

[Clare73]

Moses accepted his physical punishment and knew why he was punished. Jesus was a different story as He opened the door to the Kingdom as that was his job.

Not according to Jesus. . .he said he came to die as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28); i.e.,
to atone for sin, paying its debt, thereby allowing God in justice (Romans 3:25-26) to cancel (forgive) our debt and remove the condemnation of his wrath which was upon us (Romans 5:7; John 3:36).

 

[Jamdoc]

No text says all four footed animals are clean rather Acts 10 says to "call no MAN unclean" -- he has two feet.

Acts 10 commands Peter to eat rats and snakes 3 times... and Peter says no 3 times. Then Peter explains 3 times that this was God teaching him to "call no man unclean". Nothing there about how the church is now supposed to eat rat sandwiches.

Paul says nothing about telling gentiles it is ok to eat rat sandwiches.

No text in OT or NT says that gentiles need to be circumcised to be saved or to worship the one true God.[/QUOTE]

ah yes, a vessel with all 4 footed animals that God says for Peter to rise, kill and eat.. While Peter's interpretation was not incorrect, it was also not complete.

God had in the vision, made all animals clean again as well.

Paul said not to burden the gentiles with too many laws, and 1 Timothy 4 as well. I think Paul also was told of Peter's vision, and completed the interpretation.

as for the old law? Wasn't it also for "the sojourner among you" so under the old law, any gentile living in Israel was beholden to things like circumcision?

 

[timothyu]

Not according to Jesus.

Yes. His entire mission was the Kingdom. .

 

[Clare73]

No text says all four footed animals are clean rather Acts 10 says to "call no MAN unclean" -- he has two feet.

1) The word "man" is not in Acts 10:15 in the Greek.

2) The word of God states "no food is unclean in itself" (Romans 14:14),
that "all food is clean" (Romans 14:20),
which includes four-footed animals (Genesis 9:3), except under the old order of the old covenant, and applying only until the time of the new order (Hebrews 9:10) of the new covenant.

3) Jesus said, "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean.' "(Matthew 15:10)

All food is now clean. (Romans 14:20).

 

[Clare73]

Yes. His entire mission was the Kingdom. .

Not according to Jesus (Matthew 20:28).

And he set up the Kingdom (Matthew 21:43; Luke 11:20),
which is not of this world (John 18:36) but
spiritual--invisible and within (Luke 17:20-21) the hearts where he reigns and rules,
and which never ends (Luke 1:33), is eternal.

Christ does not have two kingdoms.
There is no other Kingdom than the eternal kingdom set up at the first coming of Christ.

 

[timothyu]

Not according to Jesus (Matthew 20:28).

And what do you think He was talking about? Opening the door to the Kingdom of God,

 

[Clare73]

And what do you think He was talking about? Opening the door to the Kingdom of God,

My Bible refers to "dying as a ransom for sin" as remission of sin. . .for those who believe in and trust on that atoning sacrifice.

In my Bible, he brought (Matthew 21:43; Luke 11:20) the eternal Kingdom (Luke 1:33)
to those who believe in and trust on his atoning sacrifice for the remission of their sin (Romans 3:25).

 

[timothyu]

In my Bible, he brought (Matthew 21:43; Luke 11:20) the eternal Kingdom (Luke 1:33)
to those who believe in and trust on his atoning sacrifice for the remission of their sin

Yes, He did His bit by teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, putting only the Father's will first and dying so resurrection and the Kingdom could come about. He opened the door but left stipulations on who and how they would enter.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, He did His bit by teaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, putting only the Father's will first and dying so resurrection and the Kingdom could come about. He opened the door but left stipulations on who and how they would enter.

The Gospel of the Kingdom depends on his atoning sacrifice for the remission of sin to be able to enter God's Kingdom.

No atoning sacrifice--> no remission of sin --> no possible entrance into the Kingdom --> no Gospel.

Wherever you get your teaching, "come out from among them," for they do not know the NT gospel which saves from God's wrath (Romans 5:9).

 

[Clare73]

.

 

[timothyu]

The Gospel of the Kingdom depends on his atoning sacrifice for the remission of sin to be able to enter God's Kingdom.

That is what i said. As a result we too can be resurrected but must still face judgment

 

[timothyu]

for they do not know the NT gospel which saves.

There is only one Gospel according to Jesus... the Gospel of the Kingdom.

 

[Clare73]

There is only one Gospel according to Jesus... the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Yes, the NT gospel which saves is the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of God, etc., etc., etc., all one and the same gospel.

 

[timothyu]

Yes, the NT gospel which saves is the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of God, etc., etc., etc., all one and the same gospel.

Yes, the NT gospel which saves is the gospel of the kingdom, the gospel of God, etc., etc., etc., all one and the same gospel.

Yes not the salvation one added as the main gospel. That was only part of the whole Kingdom gospel, the return of God as our government thus eliminating man as authority over each other. That's the good news.