If the people in heaven have free will yet cannot sin, why could Adam and Eve sin?

[RobbyS]

Heaven consists in union with God. The Beatific Vision is the union of a creature with God. Since God is infinite good, the will of one who is united with him in the Beatific Vision will gravitate toward the infinite good just as iron is drawn to a magnet. But that is not the exercise of free will.

In order for man or angels to freely choose God, the Beatific Vision must be delayed.

Suppose a parent could implant a device into their childrens’ brains which would ensure the children are always obedient. That might be a blessing but it would not be something the child chose freely. The child’s obedience would not be the result of love.

God gave both angels and men a test to allow them to make a free choice between themselves and God.

Is heaven a “place” or a relationship with God?

 

[belorg]

St. Thomas Aquinas argued that this was the only point in history where angels had the capacity to rebel against God. As Heaven is outside time and space, the decision these angels made was eternal. So the angels that rebelled against God were rebels for all eternity, and the angels that stayed with God will be angels for all eternity. Neither can the devil repent for his actions as he witnessed God’s glory (Ezekiel 28:14) and was therefore completely culpable for his actions.

If it is outside time and space, then how is there a decision? A decisoon entails an instance at which something isn’t the case, and an instance at which something is the case. But, since Heaven is timless, there never was any instance at which the fallen angels worsiped God, they in fact, never worshiped God, nor wil they ever do so. They remain frozen in their timless state for eternity.
So how is this a free-willed decisioj by the ‘fallen angels’?

 

[buffalo]

Why didn’t God place them in the heavenly state after their first good deed?

Don’t forget they had preternatural gifts, including bodily immortality and freedom from sickness.

 

[buffalo]

I disagree with the claim that those in Heaven *cannot *sin. If they cannot sin, they don’t have free will. So what is different between the Garden and Heaven (besides the Beatific Vision)? I do not claim to know, but I believe there is (or will be) to us a clarity (about sin and rebellion) in Heaven that was absent (for whatever reason) in the Garden, that would absolutely preclude, by one’s own free will, a repeat of Adam’s deed.

When you see God you will be convicted not to sin. The beauty and love will be so great a movement against would be quite dumb.

 

[grannymh]

If it is outside time and space, then how is there a decision? A decisoon entails an instance at which something isn’t the case, and an instance at which something is the case. But, since Heaven is timless, there never was any instance at which the fallen angels worsiped God, they in fact, never worshiped God, nor wil they ever do so. They remain frozen in their timless state for eternity.
So how is this a free-willed decisioj by the ‘fallen angels’?

Angels are created beings. In that sense, there was a period before the reward of heaven. All angels had to make a free will choice to live in God’s friendship or not. Some said yes; others said no and thus became the fallen angels or devils.

I do not know general Christianity’s teaching on angels. However, for some interesting reading, check out the Catholic teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, Paragraphs 391-395. Link to Catechism: scborromeo.org/ccc.htm Put paragraph 391 in the search bar. You can continue reading from there.

 

[benedictus2]

david:

davidv:

Adam and Eve were in the garden, not heaven. Huge difference.
Luke K:

What’s the difference between the garden and heaven, and why is there that difference? You did not answer the question at all.

The difference is that the garden was not heaven.

 I think there is another aspect that must also be addressed.  Lucifer was in heaven yet he sinned.

I think the answer lies in the fact that in heaven we would have already been redeemed , saved from sin. Christ overcame sin and thus this means we would have already overcome it in Christ.

When we get to heaven we would have undergone theosis – the process of divinization by which we become transformed into the image of Christ. Our incorporation into the Body of Christ means that once this process is completed, we become like Christ – unable to sin.

We sin because we try to fulfill our desire for the Good with the wrong kinds of “good”. An aspect of sin is seeking the good in all the wrong things and all the wrong places. Once we are truly enlightened and are already beholding the Supreme Good, then that desire which we have been trying to quench with all the wrong things, is finally truly filled.

The desire that God planted in us can only be filled by Himself; and in heaven that is truly filled. And because we have been divinized, then like Christ who is always obedient to the Father, so too will we be.

 

[benedictus2]

If it is outside time and space, then how is there a decision? A decisoon entails an instance at which something isn’t the case, and an instance at which something is the case. But, since Heaven is timless, there never was any instance at which the fallen angels worsiped God, they in fact, never worshiped God, nor wil they ever do so. They remain frozen in their timless state for eternity.
So how is this a free-willed decisioj by the ‘fallen angels’?

Well not quite. If the universe is the time space continuum, then even before the time space continuum there was a before and after. Before there was no time space continuum, then after - there was.

 

[danserr]

What’s the difference, and why did God make that difference exist such that Adam and Eve COULD sin?

They were created good, but not confirmed in glory. See what Fulton Sheen says on the creation of angels. I am inclined to apply the same principle to human beings.
youtube.com/watch?v=OW7Ti9bkqi8

Secondly, it is useful to explain that people in heaven, if they really have free will, could certainly sin. They cannot, however, because there are no sins available to commit.

Greylorn’s thought can be cleared up actually with this other video of Sheen’s distinguishing 2 types of freedom.
youtube.com/watch?v=muLMGHh34jk

 

[benedictus2]

First, let’s acknowledge that your question is generalizable to the entire human race, not just Adam and Eve,

Secondly, it is useful to explain that people in heaven, if they really have free will, could certainly sin. They cannot, however, because there are no sins available to commit.

Everyone in heaven can have whatever he wants, which eliminates a lot of stealing and looting like in New Orleans and Washington, D.C.

There’s no need for reproduction in heaven, so there are no sexual mechanisms, and no built-in instincts and annoying hormones to make it fun enough for humans to want to do it despite the disadvantage of offspring. That eliminates all sins of lust and carnal desire automatically.

Since there is no need to impress members of the opposite sex so as to get laid, there is no lying in heaven. Likewise, since there is no need for things, there is no need to lie about whose harp you stole, since all harps are the same and there is an infinite supply of them.

No one needs houses, cars, food or money in heaven, so no one needs to work. Sins like sloth are irrelevant.

With nothing to steal, politicians will be irrelevant in heaven. Their absence eliminates at least 80% of the lying.

Everyone getting into heaven will be made instantly as smart and knowing as God, and since everyone is beautiful and wears the same brand of glowing toga, there will be no need for upmanship or envy.

There’s no point throwing a punch at someone in an enhanced spirit-body that doesn’t bleed, bruise, or feel physical pain.

The fact that everyone in heaven is already dead pretty much eliminates the need for killing.

Every day is a Sabbath, but there are no asses to haul out of non-existent pits.

There are no other gods in heaven, so who would worship them? God’s name won’t be taken in vain when He is the Big Guy right there in your face, listening, taking the daily roll call of everyone sitting happily at His right hand, strumming away for lack of anything they need to do. It’ll be hard to curse a God who’s given you everything you want. Lots of sins eliminated, right there.

Ultimately there is no sin in heaven because the place is a perfect communist fantasy-land, except without meat-market or bread lines to stand in and sneak to the head of, with nothing either useful or malicious to do. Earth is full of sin because it is a place where there is work to be done, food to be grown, money to be made, sex to be had, children to be raised, infidels to be blown up, and wars to be fought over women, territory, or God— whichever excuse fits best. On earth, thoughts and actions count. In heaven, they are irrelevant.

(This material is copied or paraphrased, with permission, from my website.)

Which just goes to show that you have a very limited understanding of sin. Sin is essentially a No to God. In heaven one can still say no to God because of free will but one won’t because there will not be any desire to do so once we have been perfected in Christ.

So all the reasons you have mentioned for not sinning is nonsense.

 

[fred_conty]

This is an anology of heaven and feedom.
I have hit the lottery for 1 billion $.
I am presented with a choice.
Accept that billion $ or accept solitary confinment for life.
Multiply that reward/punishment by 1 billion times.

So-to-speak, do we really have a choice?

The Glory in heaven is so overwhelming that we will always want it.

 

[greylorn]

Which just goes to show that you have a very limited understanding of sin. Sin is essentially a No to God. In heaven one can still say no to God because of free will but one won’t because there will not be any desire to do so once we have been perfected in Christ.

So all the reasons you have mentioned for not sinning is nonsense.

As a master of nonsense, you must be right. BTW… innovative grammar.

 

[benedictus2]

As a master of nonsense, you must be right. BTW… innovative grammar.

I have notread a post from you that is logical. But then I have not read all your posts…

 

[greylorn]

I have notread a post from you that is logical. But then I have not read all your posts…

Good. If you ever do read something of mine which you regard as logical, please let me know. That will be my clue that I’ve become senile, and had better load the shotgun while I still remember how.

 

[benedictus2]

Good. If you ever do read something of mine which you regard as logical, please let me know. That will be my clue that I’ve become senile, and had better load the shotgun while I still remember how.

If you had some idea of logic, you will not be reduced to one liners that do not address the question at all - you would rebutt. Sadly, there has not been any evidence of that in our previous “conversations”. And this is on display again in your above response.

If you can refute what I wrote, refute away.

 

[greylorn]

If you had some idea of logic, you will not be reduced to one liners that do not address the question at all - you would rebutt. Sadly, there has not been any evidence of that in our previous “conversations”. And this is on display again in your above response.

If you can refute what I wrote, refute away.

There is no point in it, else I would happily do so, as with other posters.

I base my arguments upon legitimate facts and straight-up logic. Yours are based entirely upon your religious dogmas. You may employ logic, but as you well know, logic is simply a way to develop one or more hypotheses. If the hypotheses are all derived from dogma, the result will be a second or third derivative of dogma.

Plenty of experience on CAF has taught me that there is no point or value in arguing with a dogmatist. No matter how good the argument, they will use dogma to refute it. I believe that I engaged you once before, and that this was your style. So, until I see some indication of critical thinking ability on your part, I’ll follow Christ’s wise teaching about pearls and hogs, and address my posts to those with the glimmer of curious minds.

 

[benedictus2]

There is no point in it, else I would happily do so, as with other posters.

I base my arguments upon legitimate facts and straight-up logic. Yours are based entirely upon your religious dogmas. You may employ logic, but as you well know, logic is simply a way to develop one or more hypotheses. If the hypotheses are all derived from dogma, the result will be a second or third derivative of dogma.

Plenty of experience on CAF has taught me that there is no point or value in arguing with a dogmatist. No matter how good the argument, they will use dogma to refute it. I believe that I engaged you once before, and that this was your style. So, until I see some indication of critical thinking ability on your part, I’ll follow Christ’s wise teaching about pearls and hogs, and address my posts to those with the glimmer of curious minds.

Sorry but that doesn’t wash. You won’t because you can’t. Because for sure, if you can, you would - because you would dearly love to show me where I err.

And no, mine is based on logic. Yours are not. Dogmatism has nothing to do with it. If something is logical it is logical. End of story.