• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How can there be free will in heaven?

Aug 10, 2019
691
269
56
North Augusta
✟61,068.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No he is not going to give us bodies like Adam and Eve had, we already have those type bodies, which is made flesh from the dust the chemicals of the Earth.
Scripture tells us we will be as Jesus is and we will see him as he truly is.
Nowhere in scripture does it say Adam and Eve were created perfect - the Bible says God said it is good. That is an error in theological teachings of scripture which are based on what man wants to believe.
And you are correct what God decrees - he decrees and it will be so.
I have wondered where the idea Adam and Eve was different from us came from. It seems obvious to me that Adam was created with a nature like ours (as when given a command that was in opposition to his desire he sinned). The only difference I can find in Scripture between Adam before "the Fall" and afterwards is that his eyes were opened and he became like God knowing good and evil. And, of course, he (like us) faced the wages of sin.
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
8,288
2,613
44
Helena
✟265,854.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
are we sure he had nipples? I don't remember anything from scripture suggesting that.

a navel would make no sense for Adam or Eve to have since they were not connected to an umbilical cord or placenta.
and the reason men have nipples is because during pregnancy, during prenatal development, at first all mammals are female, until genes that determine "male-ness" are switched on and the fetus becomes male.
so the body structures that form before then, include nipples on mammals.

But Adam was never a prenatal developing fetus as far as we know.. so.. are we sure he had nipples?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said
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.

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.

Acts 10 -
9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became hungry and wanted to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and on it were all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the sky. 13 A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.

So then four-footed of all kinds... so then rats,cats,dogs,bats etc.
Crawling - snakes, etc.

And notice Peter rejects them all three times but later he finally gives the meaning "call no man unclean". Which is very different from the 'rat sandwich' message that some may get from this.

Peter explains it three times ... and not once does he claim that the teaching was an affirmation of rat sandwiches.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,366
11,910
Georgia
✟1,094,287.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:
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.
because it is in vs 28

25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together. 28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Peter says the vision was about not calling humans unclean -- and not about eating rat sandwiches.


2) The word of God states "no food is unclean in itself" (Romans 14:14),
that "all food is clean" (Romans 14:20),

1. Some things are poisonous.
2. Rom 14 says -- 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.

Rom 14:20 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.

Some things are poisonous.

context matters. The Rom 14 issue is the same as in 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10 --- foods offered to idols... it is not about diseased meat, poison or rat sandwiches.


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

Matt 15 is about eating bread... not rats,... not even diseased meat.

Mark 7 gives more detail on the same incident

Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2 Now when they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”

6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”​


Jesus is not teaching that there is no such thing as poison, or that people should start eating rat sandwiches. In fact we know that Peter was not eating rat sandwiches even in Acts 10 long after Mark 7 -

More than this Peter refuses to take the lesson literally in Acts 10 and points out in vs 28 that the real lesson is about not calling any human unclean - it has nothing to do with eating rat sandwiches or poison.
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
8,288
2,613
44
Helena
✟265,854.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Acts 10 -
9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became hungry and wanted to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he *saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and on it were all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the sky. 13 A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.

So then four-footed of all kinds... so then rats,cats,dogs,bats etc.
Crawling - snakes, etc.

And notice Peter rejects them all three times but later he finally gives the meaning "call no man unclean". Which is very different from the 'rat sandwich' message that some may get from this.

Peter explains it three times ... and not once does he claim that the teaching was an affirmation of rat sandwiches.

Peter is a man, God gave him a vision, and an instruction, Peter only determined his interpretation of it after the vision ended, but this was not an interpretation given by angel or by God's own words.
but the instruction was rise, KILL and eat.

as for Rat sandwiches...
probably not
I bet a pig was pretty much the focal point of the vision, because if you're going to be reaching out to gentiles... they eat pork, they don't eat rats, but they eat pork.
if you're going to be traveling around giving the gospel to people who routinely eat pork... you're not going to be exposed to people eating rats and not having to turn your nose up at it

... but you will be encountering people who eat pork, and you've traditionally refused to eat it, now you're commanded to give the gospel to those people and fellowship with them.

and look what Paul says on that

1 Timothy 4
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

So first off, Paul was not restricting diets, and said ALL meats are good, if they are received in thanksgiving. They are sanctified by God having made them clean (as in Peter's vision), and prayer. Paul, ministering to gentiles, was in places where they ate pork. Likely, he'd eat pork if that's what was offered while he was traveling.
because He had faith that God had made all animals clean.

Paul was a Pharisee, if anyone would have clung to the Old Testament laws and promoted Judaizing, it'd have been him. But that's not what he did.

and Peter in Acts 15
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

and James concurred
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

The kosher dietary laws were to separate Jews from Gentiles.. but that division no longer existed, the Gospel was for all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
8,288
2,613
44
Helena
✟265,854.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Then why do men have them if men and women came from Adam.

Adam didn't have ovaries or a uterus or a vagina and Eve didn't have a penis and testes, I don't think Eve being given nipples that maybe Adam lacked would be too far fetched.

anyway, I think it's not really a particular important aspect of creation. It's a little food for thought I guess in how Adam could have been slightly anatomically different as a result of never having gone through biological development. But they are minor.

But ever since Eve men have had nipples because all mammals begin as female until getting a hormonal signal that changes their development to make a male.

and that's all mammals not just humans.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,221
7,542
North Carolina
✟345,451.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
because it is in vs 28
"Unclean" in Levitical law is not about health.

Everything that lived and moved wasn't
healthy in Genesis 9:3, then
unhealthy in Leviticus 11, and then back again to
healthy in Matthew 15:10; Romans 14:14, Romans 14:20.

The law was given to reveal sin (not to make righteous--Romans 3:20, for righteousness had always been by faith--Habakkuk 2:4; Galatians 3:11).
The food laws, as well as clean/unclean persons, garments, and houses, revealed the spiritual nature of sin--defiling, and its removal--cleansing, prefiguring the blood of the Lamb which cleanses from all sin.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,221
7,542
North Carolina
✟345,451.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes not the salvation one added as the main gospel.
There is only one gospel (John 3:16-18), and it is about remission of sin and salvation from the condemnation of God's wrath (Romans 5:9).
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.
That is man's addition to the NT gospel.

"Come out from among them."
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
24,640
9,262
up there
✟380,242.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
There is only one gospel (John 3:16-18), and it is about remission of sin and salvation from the condemnation of God's wrath (Romans 5:9).
Yes and without the Kingdom that would not be possible or necessary

That is man's addition to the NT gospel.
Man's addition is the gospel of salvation. Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom is the real mcCoy.

Matthew 24: 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14 And this GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Luke 4: 43 And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore am I sent.

Mark 1: 14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Matthew 4: 23 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom...

etc
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,221
7,542
North Carolina
✟345,451.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes and without the Kingdom that would not be possible or necessary
Who made that rule?

Remission of sin by faith (gospel) is indeed possible without the Kingdom.

Remission of sin by faith (gospel) is indeed necessary for adoption as a son by God, no Kingdom required.
Man's addition is the gospel of salvation.
Wow! . . .John 3:16-18 is now man's addition.

Do you realize you are denying Jesus' atoning work?
Do you realize who is the author of that doctrine?

"Come out from among them!"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
24,640
9,262
up there
✟380,242.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Who made that rule?
Good grief. Without the Kingdom nothing here changes. No need for resurrection or any of that stuff.

What good is the work of the Son without His Kingdom, His bride that descends from Heaven, which He said is not of this world.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,221
7,542
North Carolina
✟345,451.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Good grief. Without the Kingdom nothing here changes.
Who made that rule?

There was no Kingdom when the first change was made, whichever/whatever one you think it was.
It happened then without a Kingdom. . .the Kingdom is the result, not the cause.
No need for resurrection or any of that stuff.

What good is the work of the Son without His Kingdom, His bride that descends from Heaven, which He said is not of this world.
You've got the cart before the horse.

Everything changes by faith, no Kingdom needed.

Faith/salvation/justification create the Kingdom, they are not the result of it.

That is clear NT teaching.

"Come out from among them!"
 
Upvote 0

Jamdoc

Watching and Praying Always
Oct 22, 2019
8,288
2,613
44
Helena
✟265,854.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
so I'm wondering what those people who think we will not have free will think existence is going to be without free will?

Just.. "along for the ride" while God actually moves you around and makes you do things and you're just an observer?

I mean that'd just be the body, a total loss of free will would mean, even as an observer you'd be unable to have thoughts or judgements about what God was doing to your remote control body.

at that point are you even still you? What's the difference between that and annihilation?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,221
7,542
North Carolina
✟345,451.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
so I'm wondering what those people who think we will not have free will think
existence is going to be without free will?

Just.. "along for the ride" while God actually moves you around and makes you do things and you're just an observer?

I mean that'd just be the body, a total loss of free will would mean, even as an observer you'd be unable to have thoughts or judgements about what God was doing to your remote control body.

at that point are you even still you? What's the difference between that and annihilation?
We will be choosing what we prefer there as we all do here now.
 
Upvote 0