Confessor01, you just missed the importance of the Tree in the garden - it was not some random tree, it really does matter what the tree was, what it stood for and meant - Knowledge of Good and Evil. Prior to disobeying God’s will, Adam and Eve were entirely without sin NOT because they hadn’t done “not good” things but because they were entirely ignorant of Good vs Evil and so “not good” had no meaning in their lives. They disobeyed God and became aware of it simultaneously in that act of disobedience, and note how important the act is - did they fall when tempted by the serpent? Did they fall when tempted by the fruit? God did not command them not to think about eating the fruit of that tree but indeed to NOT EAT the fruit - the ACT is the key to their sin because it was not only done in disobedience to God’s command but with the knowledge that in so doing they had done wrong.
Those are interesting points to make, but please keep this in mind: we are morally perfect in heaven, incapable of sin; therefore it is possible for God to make man in such a way. He
chose not to make Adam and Eve in that fashion.
Second, why do you assume that potential for sin is a sign of imperfection? Potential for sin is a sign of free-will (which I know you don’t believe in, although your continued reference to Catholics as “libertarians” shows your confused acceptance of previously failed doctrine). God indeed created man and woman exactly as he intended, but most importantly he created them as beings like unto himself yet separate - free to choose apart from His will. If you think a truly “perfect” being is one who is free and also chooses not to sin, perhaps that is true, but if the being is “made” that way, i.e. designed such that they will never sin, that what you really have is a computer program and not a free being.
Then you must concede either (1) that it is possible to sin in heaven (in which case everyone would be damned, seeing as heaven is everlasting and therefore all possibilities will be actuated), or (2) renege on your stance that sin is always possible and concede that Adam could have been made in a state of utter moral perfection, but wasn’t – which is the Reformed stance.
Finally, Catholics do not believe it is “impossible” to sin in heaven because of programming but rather because those who ascend to heaven are sort-of by definition “in union” with God. They do not choose against His will for their wills are united to His… but here we can get into doctrine and theory regarding angels, etc. and the choices they make, which seems material for a separate thread entirely.
Insofar as you believe that the saints are “sort-of by definition ‘in union’ with God” without differentiating yourself from the Calvinist conception that you pejoratively denounce as “programming,” I apologize, but I cannot accept this as a legitimate answer to the question.
And it borders on pantheism, by the way.
Confessor01, you also seem to be confused with regard to logical causality by demanding that one thing always logically precede another - that is temporal causality. Logical causality only demands a force or forces from which an effect is emitted, it does not number those forces or give importance to them, hence simultaneous is applicable. Does this make sense?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that with logic, cause and effect are simultaneous (i.e. one does not proceed after the other), whereas with time, they do?
Please notice exactly why I make a distinction between
logical and
temporal priority – I am not saying that an effect must be “after” (i.e. temporally) a cause, but still that
conceptually speaking it is the proceeding rather than preceding factor. To deny this is simply to deny all kinds of thought whatsoever. Would you concede that axioms logically precede corollaries? Or can they be simultaneous? Would you concede that essence precedes existence? Or can they be simultaneous?
Also, when you quote scripture regarding God “hardening” or “blinding” please also justify your interpretation of the end to which God performs this act. Is it salvation? Damnation? Or is it the glorification of His name and possibly the salvation of someone else?
The purpose is entirely irrelevant. The thing I am trying to establish is God’s unilateral sovereignty over the human heart.
In fact, if you were trying to declare that “programming” is wrong, but that God does it for good reasons, then you would essentially be saying that God lets the ends justify the means, a repugnant utilitarian concept.
Besides, an angel of the Lord in Isaiah 6 proclaims that God does harden people’s hearts to keep them from repentance:
*9 He said, "Go and tell this people:
" ‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed."*
