Why can't we sin in heaven?

[Kaily]

I was talking to calvinist and here is what he said:

"
Something to think about
Share
Mon 7:21pm
On Freedom and Glorification

Definitions:

Freedom: Being able to choose between good and evil and being able to perform whichever desired action.

Glorification: The completion of sanctification, being only able to choose good and not evil or the process of transformation to be had at the second coming in which all sin is removed from us and we are made perfectly fit to be in communion with God eternally.

I know not yet of any christian who hopes that upon their glorification they will retain their ability to sin and their ability of rebelling against God. Yet, according to the current definition of freedom in the world today, once a christian is glorified their second state is worse than the first in that they will not be free. People/Christians believe they are free because they can choose either good or evil and that they would be robots otherwise, yet would you not agree that you do not want to be able to choose sin when you are glorified and it is the hope we all wait for, to perfectly and always glorify and honor God without the ability to the contrary? However, according to our understanding of freedom you would be less free after glorification because you could not sin, thus your current state of being non-glorified is better than being glorified for currently you are free whereas when you are glorified you would not have the ability to choose sin and thus not be free? Is there not a problem here, either our definition of freedom is wrong or when we are glorified we will retain our ability to sin and do evil. Also meaning, you should hope, even now, that you will retain the ability to sin and go against God when He comes to glorify you, otherwise you are conflicting with your belief of what freedom is for God would be making you a robot in glorification if you could not still sin.

Perhaps our definition of freedom is wrong?

Something to think about."

What is your response to free will and the ability to sin in heaven?

 

[Caesar517]

We don’t have free will in heaven, it is directly and completely ruled by God. Our existence here on Earth is an exercise in replacing our will with God’s will. Similarly, you wouldn’t have free will in Hell, because free will necessitates a chance to repent, which can’t happen to those in Hell. Being in Heaven or Hell is the state of having used free will to it’s conclusion. So it’s not exactly a lack of free will; free will got you to where you are. You might say that it’s the culmination of free will.

What makes you think that not being “glorified” is superior, just because we can choose sin?

 

[Kaily]

We don’t have free will in heaven, it is directly and completely ruled by God. Our existence here on Earth is an exercise in replacing our will with God’s will. Similarly, you wouldn’t have free will in Hell, because free will necessitates a chance to repent, which can’t happen to those in Hell. Being in Heaven or Hell is the state of having used free will to it’s conclusion. So it’s not exactly a lack of free will; free will got you to where you are. You might say that it’s the culmination of free will.

What makes you think that not being “glorified” is superior, just because we can choose sin?

Thanks for your reply and I don’t think that, I was quoting a calvinist who I was talking to.

 

[Mad_Amos]

The elect are those who pursued The Will of God as opposed to their own. The reward for such effort is to receive forever the object of their desire, that their will and His become inseparably one.

Heaven and eternity are simply semantic conventions that express God. God is unchanging; therefore, we too shall be unchanging when ultimately and perfectly united with Him.

Eternity crystallizes and consummates the will. By your temporal existence you will have made manifest your desire to either commune with The Divine or turn from Him, and such will be cast into infinity upon your departure from this life.

For those whose deepest longing is to please only Him, the final removal of the last vestiges of concupiscent distraction will be complete and true freedom.

What we truly are, we are forever.

 

[Katholish]

This question is impossible to understand if we do not first look at what an act of the free will really is. The OP gave a possible definition of freedom as “Being able to choose between good and evil.” Technically speaking this is not at all true.

The proper object of the will is some particular good. The will is absolutely incapable of choosing something evil because it is evil. We can only choose evil if we see it as good. Whenever we sin, we are choosing a lesser good over some greater good that we have an obligation to choose but fail to. Take the example of fornication. The marital act is an objectively good thing. However, it is wrong to pursue that good outside the context of marriage. Chastity is a greater good for the unmarried person then inappropriately pursuing his passion. Not only is the fornicator failing to make the better choice, but failing to do something he was supposed to do (or not to do in this case), for which he is morally at fault.

If the will can only choose a good, why doesn’t it always choose the objectively best good? Human freedom comes into play in that while we choose what we perceive to be the greater good, we are free to consider objects in different ways. God is the greatest possible good, and if we truly saw God as the greastest good, it would be impossible not to choose Him over all else. In this life, however, we do not perfectly perceive God to be the greatest good. I am free to think of following god and His moral law as a burden to me, and hence I am considering God under a negative aspect (even though in reality He has no negative aspects). My knowledge is imperfect, and my will is free to consider certain objects under different aspects.

In Heaven, we perceive God directly (see Him “face to face” as the Scripture says). In this Beatific Vision, we see God as the greatest Good, and because we are perceiving directly, there is no opportunity for our will to consider God under any other aspect than as the greatest Good. That is way we cannot sin in Heaven.

I wouldn’t say that we lose our freedom in Heaven, however, I would simply say that we no longer have a need or an occasion under which we can exercise it further. The Beatific Vision is apparently something that must be consented to (and hence willed, both men and angels have to choose to allow God to reveal Himself in this way).

Do those in hell exercise their freedom? It seems that they would because without the Beatific Vision, there is no reason that they would not have the ability to consider different objects under either the aspect of good or evil. I would think, however, that they would be in the bad habit (or vice) of seeing what is objectively evil as “good” for them.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Katholish makes a fantastic point regarding freedom and moral choice. I would like merely to make a gloss by stating a definition of freedom that I find interesting–Freedom is the ability to do what is necessary.

And what is necessary? It is, of course, the will of God. Only that is necessary.

Moreover, with reference to the idea that glorification represents, in part, the loss of free will, such an idea is repugnant. It makes love an impossibility because it makes it impossible for us to choose love, transforming the freedom of love to love into coercion. Such being the case, it makes the beatific vision and union with God, in love, impossible. As such, it turns glorification into a process not of fulfillment, but of de-naturing, destruction, and darkness. Why would one choose to believe that heaven is so horrific?

My two cents, at any rate.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is grace and mercy–Deo Gratias!

 

[fhansen]

I was talking to calvinist and here is what he said:

"
Something to think about
Share
Mon 7:21pm
On Freedom and Glorification

Definitions:

Freedom: Being able to choose between good and evil and being able to perform whichever desired action.

Glorification: The completion of sanctification, being only able to choose good and not evil or the process of transformation to be had at the second coming in which all sin is removed from us and we are made perfectly fit to be in communion with God eternally.

I know not yet of any christian who hopes that upon their glorification they will retain their ability to sin and their ability of rebelling against God. Yet, according to the current definition of freedom in the world today, once a christian is glorified their second state is worse than the first in that they will not be free. People/Christians believe they are free because they can choose either good or evil and that they would be robots otherwise, yet would you not agree that you do not want to be able to choose sin when you are glorified and it is the hope we all wait for, to perfectly and always glorify and honor God without the ability to the contrary? However, according to our understanding of freedom you would be less free after glorification because you could not sin, thus your current state of being non-glorified is better than being glorified for currently you are free whereas when you are glorified you would not have the ability to choose sin and thus not be free? Is there not a problem here, either our definition of freedom is wrong or when we are glorified we will retain our ability to sin and do evil. Also meaning, you should hope, even now, that you will retain the ability to sin and go against God when He comes to glorify you, otherwise you are conflicting with your belief of what freedom is for God would be making you a robot in glorification if you could not still sin.

Perhaps our definition of freedom is wrong?

Something to think about."

What is your response to free will and the ability to sin in heaven?

Because perfection in man is for him to choose to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and his neighbor as himself.

His freedom to choose remains intact. His desire to abuse this freedom has been finally conquered by himself, although not without Gods’ grace.

That’s our whole purpose here on earth-and in purgatory if need be-to do what Adam and Eve refused to do and in the process to become perfect as God is perfect, holy as He is holy-and that can only involve our wills.

 

[Kaily]

This question is impossible to understand if we do not first look at what an act of the free will really is. The OP gave a possible definition of freedom as “Being able to choose between good and evil.” Technically speaking this is not at all true.

The proper object of the will is some particular good. The will is absolutely incapable of choosing something evil because it is evil. We can only choose evil if we see it as good. Whenever we sin, we are choosing a lesser good over some greater good that we have an obligation to choose but fail to. Take the example of fornication. The marital act is an objectively good thing. However, it is wrong to pursue that good outside the context of marriage. Chastity is a greater good for the unmarried person then inappropriately pursuing his passion. Not only is the fornicator failing to make the better choice, but failing to do something he was supposed to do (or not to do in this case), for which he is morally at fault.

If the will can only choose a good, why doesn’t it always choose the objectively best good? Human freedom comes into play in that while we choose what we perceive to be the greater good, we are free to consider objects in different ways. God is the greatest possible good, and if we truly saw God as the greastest good, it would be impossible not to choose Him over all else. In this life, however, we do not perfectly perceive God to be the greatest good. I am free to think of following god and His moral law as a burden to me, and hence I am considering God under a negative aspect (even though in reality He has no negative aspects). My knowledge is imperfect, and my will is free to consider certain objects under different aspects.

In Heaven, we perceive God directly (see Him “face to face” as the Scripture says). In this Beatific Vision, we see God as the greatest Good, and because we are perceiving directly, there is no opportunity for our will to consider God under any other aspect than as the greatest Good. That is way we cannot sin in Heaven.

I wouldn’t say that we lose our freedom in Heaven, however, I would simply say that we no longer have a need or an occasion under which we can exercise it further. The Beatific Vision is apparently something that must be consented to (and hence willed, both men and angels have to choose to allow God to reveal Himself in this way).

Do those in hell exercise their freedom? It seems that they would because without the Beatific Vision, there is no reason that they would not have the ability to consider different objects under either the aspect of good or evil. I would think, however, that they would be in the bad habit (or vice) of seeing what is objectively evil as “good” for them.

This is a very good reply, but I think people know that sometimes something is less good and still choose it anyway. So they are willingly choosing evil rather than good to satisfy their passions and impulses.

 

[Katholish]

Kaily,

This is a very good reply, but I think people know that sometimes something is less good and still choose it anyway. So they are willingly choosing evil rather than good to satisfy their passions and impulses.

I certainly know what you mean–I think everyone does–because we all experience it. We know that something is wrong, and even that it is a lesser good, but we choose it anyway. What is going on there?

It still has to be a momentary choice to take this object to be the better good. Lets take another example, murder this time. I know that murder is evil, but Mr. Jones just killed my father and I am not about to let that go unpunished. There was a mis-trial or double jeopardy or something such that he is not in prison. On one level, I know that even though the justice system has failed, that does not give me the right to take the law into my own hands and kill him, but on the other hand, I am really tempted to see justice and perhaps a little vengence down as well. I cannot claim I do not know that my action is wrong. I am fully aware it is grave, but I do it anyway. What has happened? Have I knowingly chosen something evil? Well, yes. I am at fault because I knew better. Does this mean I didn’t think it was the better good at the time I did it? No. For however brief a period of time, I convinced myself that it was better to kill this man than to follow God’s law. I knew it was better not to sin, but I knowing pushed that consideration aside when I decided to commit my crime. I chose to allow myself to think vengence was better than God’s law.

This is the case for all mortal sin because mortal sin requires that you have full knowledge that your action is gravely sinful. Yet, you do it anyway because you are choosing to view the matter differently even though you know you shouldn’t. The will is not free to chose something other than a good, but we are free to consider the objects of choice placed before the will in many different and even harmful ways.

 

[Katholish]

(additional comment)

That is actually one area in which the Protestant “Reformers” really failed to understand the scholastic theology. Protestants in general do not accept the distinction between mortal and venial sin, and because of the notion of some that once a person is “saved” they cannot fall out of that state of “being saved”. In moral theology, we have a name for the theory which states that even if you do bad things, so long as your overall or fundamental orientation is toward God, it doesn’t matter if you sometimes commit what might be called mortal sins.

This “Fundamental Option Theory” is clearly shown to be in error when you understand mortal sin as the momentary acceptance of some lesser good to be greater than that of God Himself. You are in essence momentarily idolizing the lesser good, so in the case of fornication, you are taking the good of the marital act to be greater then God, or in the case of murder, you are taking the good of individual justice to be greater than God’s law.

 

[fhansen]

This question is impossible to understand if we do not first look at what an act of the free will really is. The OP gave a possible definition of freedom as “Being able to choose between good and evil.” Technically speaking this is not at all true.

The proper object of the will is some particular good. The will is absolutely incapable of choosing something evil because it is evil. We can only choose evil if we see it as good. Whenever we sin, we are choosing a lesser good over some greater good that we have an obligation to choose but fail to. Take the example of fornication. The marital act is an objectively good thing. However, it is wrong to pursue that good outside the context of marriage. Chastity is a greater good for the unmarried person then inappropriately pursuing his passion. Not only is the fornicator failing to make the better choice, but failing to do something he was supposed to do (or not to do in this case), for which he is morally at fault.

If the will can only choose a good, why doesn’t it always choose the objectively best good? Human freedom comes into play in that while we choose what we perceive to be the greater good, we are free to consider objects in different ways. God is the greatest possible good, and if we truly saw God as the greastest good, it would be impossible not to choose Him over all else. In this life, however, we do not perfectly perceive God to be the greatest good. I am free to think of following god and His moral law as a burden to me, and hence I am considering God under a negative aspect (even though in reality He has no negative aspects). My knowledge is imperfect, and my will is free to consider certain objects under different aspects.

In Heaven, we perceive God directly (see Him “face to face” as the Scripture says). In this Beatific Vision, we see God as the greatest Good, and because we are perceiving directly, there is no opportunity for our will to consider God under any other aspect than as the greatest Good. That is way we cannot sin in Heaven.

I wouldn’t say that we lose our freedom in Heaven, however, I would simply say that we no longer have a need or an occasion under which we can exercise it further. The Beatific Vision is apparently something that must be consented to (and hence willed, both men and angels have to choose to allow God to reveal Himself in this way).

Do those in hell exercise their freedom? It seems that they would because without the Beatific Vision, there is no reason that they would not have the ability to consider different objects under either the aspect of good or evil. I would think, however, that they would be in the bad habit (or vice) of seeing what is objectively evil as “good” for them.

But I would think our wills would need to be perfected prior to entrance into heaven because no sinners can enter heaven according to scripture. And I wonder if Adam & Eve didn’t have the Beatific Vision themselves or something like it in the garden. If so, then something more than being in Gods’ immediate presence might be responsible for mans freedom from sin-which would be that man, himself, no longer wills to sin because he’s learned by experience of the evil that sins’ separation from God results in.

 

[Katholish]

fhansen,

But I would think our wills would need to be perfected prior to entrance into heaven because no sinners can enter heaven according to scripture. And I wonder if Adam & Eve didn’t have the Beatific Vision themselves or something like it in the garden. If so, then something more than being in Gods’ immediate presence might be responsible for mans freedom from sin-which would be that man, himself, no longer wills to sin because he’s learned by experience of the evil that sins’ separation from God results in.

Man must accept God as his greatest good in order to be allowed into the Beatific Vision. This indeed, might require a purification of the intellect and will (such as a period in purgatory).

Adam and Eve certainly did not enjoy the Beatific Vision in the garden, just as the angels did not have it before the fall. Both were created in a state of orginial grace, and as such participated in the life of God through Sanctifying Grace, but had they had the Beatific Vision, they could not have sinned.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen,

Man must accept God as his greatest good in order to be allowed into the Beatific Vision. This indeed, might require a purification of the intellect and will (such as a period in purgatory).

Adam and Eve certainly did not enjoy the Beatific Vision in the garden, just as the angels did not have it before the fall. Both were created in a state of orginial grace, and as such participated in the life of God through Sanctifying Grace, but had they had the Beatific Vision, they could not have sinned.

Thank you for the reply. But I’m still trying to understand the difference.
Adam & Eve were closer in some manner to God than us as they “walked” with Him in the garden. Why, do you think, God would’ve elected to toss them out of the garden and ban them from eating of the tree of life if, by means of this greater experience-the BV- He could’ve accomplished His ends of creating sinless beings to share heaven with? Maybe that’s too much to speculate about-I don’t know.

 

[Kaily]

Here is what this person is saying now:

"
So then you are agreeing that in glorification we will not have a free will, as you said: “when we use our free will, we either will to sin or will to do good” and also, “We will have complete and true freedom in Heaven because concupscience (ability to sin) will be removed.” Which if I were to paraphrase, “Free will is being able to sin or not to sin, in heaven we will not be able to sin” Meaning, in glorification God is removing our free will…which if you believe that, I do not understand how you are so against a Calvinist saying man is born without a free will and God through regeneration, sanctification and finally glorification gives man a free will.

So just to clarify, you are saying we are born with a free will and then God removes it in glorification, and the calvinist is saying we are not born with a free will and God instills free-will within those He saves and brings free-will to its completion in glorification."

 

[davidv]

Thank you for the reply. But I’m still trying to understand the difference.
Adam & Eve were closer in some manner to God than us as they “walked” with Him in the garden. Why, do you think, God would’ve elected to toss them out of the garden and ban them from eating of the tree of life if, by means of this greater experience-the BV- He could’ve accomplished His ends of creating sinless beings to share heaven with? Maybe that’s too much to speculate about-I don’t know.

A creature created to be sinless would not have been created in His image and likeness. A creature that could not sin, could not love as God loves. Love must be freely given to be truely loving. Loveis a act of the will. As such, this will must have a choice to love, or not.

 

[fhansen]

A creature created to be sinless would not have been created in His image and likeness. A creature that could not sin, could not love as God loves. Love must be freely given to be truely loving. Loveis a act of the will. As such, this will must have a choice to love, or not.

Yes, I understand that. And in a way it’s what I’m saying because I’m questioning if the Beatific Vision by itself removes the will to sin.

 

[Kaily]

Kaily,

I certainly know what you mean–I think everyone does–because we all experience it. We know that something is wrong, and even that it is a lesser good, but we choose it anyway. What is going on there?

It still has to be a momentary choice to take this object to be the better good. Lets take another example, murder this time. I know that murder is evil, but Mr. Jones just killed my father and I am not about to let that go unpunished. There was a mis-trial or double jeopardy or something such that he is not in prison. On one level, I know that even though the justice system has failed, that does not give me the right to take the law into my own hands and kill him, but on the other hand, I am really tempted to see justice and perhaps a little vengence down as well. I cannot claim I do not know that my action is wrong. I am fully aware it is grave, but I do it anyway. What has happened? Have I knowingly chosen something evil? Well, yes. I am at fault because I knew better. Does this mean I didn’t think it was the better good at the time I did it? No. For however brief a period of time, I convinced myself that it was better to kill this man than to follow God’s law. I knew it was better not to sin, but I knowing pushed that consideration aside when I decided to commit my crime. I chose to allow myself to think vengence was better than God’s law.

This is the case for all mortal sin because mortal sin requires that you have full knowledge that your action is gravely sinful. Yet, you do it anyway because you are choosing to view the matter differently even though you know you shouldn’t. The will is not free to chose something other than a good, but we are free to consider the objects of choice placed before the will in many different and even harmful ways.

But, I think this person knows it is evil to do a certain action and knows it would better to not do it, but chooses to do it anyway without viewing it to be better at that moment, sometimes the person just doesn’t care that what he is doing is evil.

 

[Aleii]

A creature created to be sinless would not have been created in His image and likeness. A creature that could not sin, could not love as God loves. Love must be freely given to be truely loving. Loveis a act of the will. As such, this will must have a choice to love, or not.

How does this fit in with the idea that Mary was sinless though? She chose to love, and to serve God of her own free will, and did not sin.

 

[Katholish]

Thank you for the reply. But I’m still trying to understand the difference.
Adam & Eve were closer in some manner to God than us as they “walked” with Him in the garden. Why, do you think, God would’ve elected to toss them out of the garden and ban them from eating of the tree of life if, by means of this greater experience-the BV- He could’ve accomplished His ends of creating sinless beings to share heaven with? Maybe that’s too much to speculate about-I don’t know.

Yes, Adam and Eve were closer to God in many ways. Your question seems to be, “why does the Beatific Vision have to be something accepted by the creature, and not something God can just reveal to prevent the creature from sinning?”

It is basically the question of why we have free will. The answer could only be that there is something about the nature of the Beatific Vision that does not force it upon another. Could it have been otherwise? I don’t actually know. I am sure it was a question the scholastic theologians took up, but I am not familiar with it. The Beatific Vision is the ultimate bond of love between creator and creature. Can love be “forced”? I don’t think so, but it does raise a whole bunch of new philosophical questions which I will ponder for the next couple of days.

 

[Katholish]

But, I think this person knows it is evil to do a certain action and knows it would better to not do it, but chooses to do it anyway without viewing it to be better at that moment, sometimes the person just doesn’t care that what he is doing is evil.

He might not care that an action is evil, but he cannot chose it simply because it is evil, but chooses it for some perceived good.

Now, if he doesn’t see an action such as murder as evil, it would indicate that he does not highly prize the good of life, and hence might prize some other good more than the good of life, hence when he murders, he is still taking the object of his act to be a greater good than the life of the other or God’s law.