Reasons for God's word having free-will verses

[childeye]

Childeye



So now we know what you really think of those of us who disagree with you. LOL

FC

No one disagrees with me here. They just think they do.

 

[highlife]

2Sa 12:1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. ...

2Sa 12:7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
...

2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

His sin was not his wives or concubines but his adultery with Bathsheba now we badger people in church over a piece of paper they has sex slaves in the ot and was never called out as sin now the church smacks young people's hands for kissing the badgering over sex is the SINGLE reason a lot of people avoid church

 

[reba]

You live you life as you see fit. Fornication is fornication. Some folks wish to set their own sin standards. In the USA you are free to do so. Some just dont want to hear the Word.

Luk 9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them

 

[Former Christian]

Childeye

love your neighbor as yourself is what I base it on. That is a common definition of what love would have me do. Please note I must reply honestly how I would want to be loved and apply it to others.

Doesn’t really define love. Only what you’re to do with it if you know what it is. A definition would have to include 1 Cor 13.

In the sense that it was delivered to the Jews was my point. Hence I said it is still wrong to murder even without the law. Please note it was not delivered to the Gentiles and this is made clear in Acts 15. The law required all sacrifices be made in Jerusalem which of course is now a moot point. The law has been rendered obsolete since the substance of which it is only shadow of has already been embraced, the Christ. So Jesus did resurrect the temple in his own body not made of stone, but of people.

Acts 15 describes a certain situation for which something particular was prescribed. It’s not an eternal prescription as some have taken it. Not that many Christians follow what little was prescribed there.

You don’t distinguish between the different aspects of the Law. The Tabernacle ritual has been fulfilled. Not done away with. That’s the reason it’s no longer necessary to have a tabernacle in Jerusalem. Of course, Jews, and Christians who believe that the current state that calls itself Israel is the same Israel that the OT describes, will disagree vehemently.

The dietary and moral aspects of the Law, for example, didn’t change on that account. One should know not to eat pigs or people because the dietary Law still applies. Apart from the Law, to eat pigs and people might be distasteful to some, but there wouldn’t be any reason to condemn the practice. So also murder is wrong because the moral aspect of the Law still applies. Not to say that Christians haven’t been influenced by secular agendas to interpretively understand what murder really means. Some Christians think that fighting in national wars is not murder, so long as it’s declared to be self defense. And turn around and say the death penalty for hardened murderers is murder. And Christians have murdered in the past using their interpretations of God’s own commands to annihilate races as evidence it’s all right to do so.

There are plenty of examples in Christian history that show how the bible can be interpreted to condemn or condone any idea or practice by imaginative bible interpreters. And the idea of an obsolete or abrogated Law, even though given by God, is just such an example.

Sorry FC, but the apostles abrogated the law.

Did they really? Well, I guess that frees all the murdering Christians from any condemnation who have murdered in the past in the name of God. Including that more recent account of a Christian who murdered an abortionist. Murder may be wrong to you in spite of the obsolete Law, but it isn’t to me if the Law is obsolete. Ever see the movie God’s Gun with Lee Van Cleef? In my personal opinion, if the Law is abrogated, then my desire toward revenge for a murderous wrong toward my own by murder becomes righteous, and an act of love for those wronged. Mercy is just a possibility in relation to that. Does your Christian sensibilities of “love thy neighbor†condone that?

I can’t agree with the notion of an obsolete or abrogated Law. Simply because I can’t yet agree with the notion of an obsolete or abrogated bible. God gave the Law. That Law is the basis of both the OT and the NT. If the Apostles abrogated the Law, something Jesus could not have done in order to fulfill the Law, they also abrogated their own authority and the bible itself. And what Jesus did is quite important to a Christian, is it not? Show me where Jesus abrogated the Law. And not one of those verses that are used to show that Jesus changed the Law, when in actuality he was merely showing the right spirit of the Law.

Jesus who is the ultimate authority said it this way, you cannot put New wine in an Old wineskin

You really need to take context into consideration when you throw out verses like that.

At the end of the account in Luke Jesus says, “no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ â€

There’s only one God created religion. It’s described in the OT. By your interpretations you make Christianity not only a religion of men, but a new religion to boot. A new religion that is anti-God and lawless. Except for the laws it makes for itself. Now, there’s an idea that I find worth considering. I’ll ask my Jewish and Atheist friends what they think about that and get back to you.

For Jesus did say no one can come to me unless given by God. This is the one area I would hope you would think deeper upon.

John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
(NIV)

Context.

John 5:
31 ¶ "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
32 There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid.
33 "You have sent to John and he has testified to the truth.
34 Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved.
35 John was a lamp that burned and gave light, and you chose for a time to enjoy his light.
36 "I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me.
37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form,
38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent.
39 You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,
40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

According to your interpretation, Jesus just berated these people without the benefit of your interpretation.

Just after that he says,

John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.

Can you only understand that in a Calvinistic way?

You really need work in this area of thought.

So you’re saying I’m not quite as “brilliant†as you thought? You amuse me. For the moment you can keep your head.

You just can't seem to distinguish between freedom of action and freedom of choice.

One comes from the other.

You just can't seem to see that men can't be in control of their ulrimatedestination "if" they are lost and don't know where they are at, nor where they are going.

But they do know.

Romans 1:
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities— his eternal power and divine nature— have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
(NIV)

I leave to you to see the correlation of what Paul says here and what he says in Ephesians 2.

I would say all is by grace. I don't like the term Calvinism unless God's hidden name is Calvin. But I don't think it is.

You may not think of yourself as a Calvinist. But the influence is obvious to anyone with eyes to see. Either that or you were in the Arminian camp and what you now believe is a reaction to it.

No one disagrees with me here. They just think they do

LOL

FC

 

[childeye]

=Former Christian;616477]

Doesn’t really define love. Only what you’re to do with it if you know what it is.

That's why I said it is what Love does. Love is empathy and compassion.

Acts 15 describes a certain situation for which something particular was prescribed. It’s not an eternal prescription as some have taken it. Not that many Christians follow what little was prescribed there.

The point of Acts 15, is that Godly Love fulfills the law. The law is unnecessary for those who have been given the Spirit of God. It would be like telling God not to steal which would only reveal the ignorance of the one who would do so.

You don’t distinguish between the different aspects of the Law. The Tabernacle ritual has been fulfilled. Not done away with.

I don't see any difference between fulfilled and done away with.

The dietary and moral aspects of the Law, for example, didn’t change on that account. One should know not to eat pigs or people because the dietary Law still applies.

Who says? Jesus said it's not what goes in the mouth that defiles, it's what comes out of the mouth. I believe him.

There are plenty of examples in Christian history that show how the bible can be interpreted to condemn or condone any idea or practice by imaginative bible interpreters. And the idea of an obsolete or abrogated Law, even though given by God, is just such an example.

The letter is only a shadow of the Spirit. Even the law itself says it is abrogated by God.

Did they really?

That's what scripture says. That's why the apostles met, to discuss whether the newly come Gentiles should be required to keep the laws of Moses.

Well, I guess that frees all the murdering Christians from any condemnation who have murdered in the past in the name of God. Including that more recent account of a Christian who murdered an abortionist.

Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. But Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean they have the Holy Spirit of Truth. Without that Spirit, they consequently are still under the law.

I can’t agree with the notion of an obsolete or abrogated Law. Simply because I can’t yet agree with the notion of an obsolete or abrogated bible. God gave the Law. That Law is the basis of both the OT and the NT.

Sin is the basis of the law. Without sin there would be no need for the law. The New Testament is about freeing men from sin.

If the Apostles abrogated the Law, something Jesus could not have done in order to fulfill the Law, they also abrogated their own authority and the bible itself.

The Christ's and his apostles authority was to set people free through the Gospel.

And what Jesus did is quite important to a Christian, is it not?

It's important to all of heaven and Earth.

Show me where Jesus abrogated the Law. And not one of those verses that are used to show that Jesus changed the Law, when in actuality he was merely showing the right spirit of the Law.

I submit that the Spirit of Eternal Love abrogates the letter of the law not it's moral inclination.

Romans 3:31 31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Colossians 2:13-15



13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.


Ephesians 2:14-15

14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

You really need to take context into consideration when you throw out verses like that.

At the end of the account in Luke Jesus says, “no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’ ”

Galatians 4:29
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

There’s only one God created religion. It’s described in the OT. By your interpretations you make Christianity not only a religion of men, but a new religion to boot. A new religion that is anti-God and lawless. Except for the laws it makes for itself. Now, there’s an idea that I find worth considering. I’ll ask my Jewish and Atheist friends what they think about that and get back to you.

Don't bother, it is clear you misunderstand what I am saying. Counting religions as men's various images of god, Christ is sent to end all religions. For Christ is the True Image of God sent by God.

According to your interpretation, Jesus just berated these people without the benefit of your interpretation.

Being corrected is not necessarily being berated.

Can you only understand that in a Calvinistic way?

I wouldn't know what a Calvinistic way is. I only know that only those with Godly Love in their heart can appreciate the Godly Love seen in the Christ.

So you’re saying I’m not quite as “brilliant” as you thought? You amuse me. For the moment you can keep your head.

I still think your brilliant. You are adept at pondering and asking the pertinent questions.

One comes from the other.

Both are subject to ignorance and knowledge of God.

But they do know.

The scripture you quote is relating to the existence of a Godhead, not to the comprehension of Holiness. For when they knew God they did not esteem God as God. Otherwise Jesus is a liar when he says he is the bread of life. For it is clear that Jesus was sent so men might believe in the True Image of God so as to do away with the false one. Men being slaves of sin through a false image of god were therefore starving for righteousness.

You may not think of yourself as a Calvinist. But the influence is obvious to anyone with eyes to see. Either that or you were in the Arminian camp and what you now believe is a reaction to it.

I had never read any teachings of Calvinism or Arminianism prior to my being enlightened through the Holy Spirit. Even so, I still have seen only bits and pieces of their teachings. None of which have ever influenced me in the slightest.