I think my question revolves more around: does a believer need to be perfected in order to recieve the BV, rather than become perfected because of it? Does he need to completely surrender his will to Gods’ will first, having freely, but with the help of grace, come into agreement with it by that time?
With regard to the kinds of beings that can receive the Beatific Vision, angels and men, in both cases God has ordained that an irrevocable act of the free will is made by the creature to love God before the Beatific Vision is possible for them. The angelic will is irrevocable by its nature and it seems the human will is made irrevocable by death. So, yes, God has made a certain mode of perfection a prerequisite for the Beatific Vision. However, I would not say that the angels or men who have already made their decision cease to be free agents, but at least in regard to this fundamental choice, their is no change. The reception of the Beatific Vision itself, however, is certainly a means of perfecting the will, and it is a mode of perfection beyond that required to initially receive it. For instance, the souls in purgatory have already made their irrevocable decision to lovew God, however, they do not yet enjoy the Beatific Vision. While their will is fundamentally orientied toward God, it seems possible that their will is not yet perfected. It seems that the Beatific Vision itself is the final guarentee of the perfection of the will, and that without it, a final resting of the will (joy) has not been achieved.
One of Mary’s several roles in man’s salvation, is the one of role model. Is she a better role model if she had the ability to sin, yet chose not to? To me this demonstrates the greater love. My understanding of the Church’s teachings on perfection implies that nothing imperfect enters heaven. I also believe “entering heaven” to be synonymous with the Beatific Vision".
Ok, except that I was thinking that purgatory, itself, had that purpose of perfecting the will not yet fully oriented to God.
Yes, I understand that. But is it not the very purpose of purgatory to finally get our wills fully oriented to His-in order to be able to see Him? You seemed to be saying in your first post that the reason we don’t sin in heaven is due to the impact that the BV has on us and I’m asking if that isn’t really the purpose of this life together with, perhaps, purgatory, rather than a purpose of the Beatific Vision since it would seem to me to be a Reformed position that transformation- sanctification-doesn’t need to finish taking place on this side of the hereafter.
In heaven we will still have a free-will. Love cannot exist unless there is free will. We are absolutely free when we are able to always choose the Good (God). We won’t be able to sin (even though we will still have free will) because we will see God face to face in the beautific vision. We will be totally free and always choose the good due to the direct vision and knowledge of God.
Perhaps there is room for two causes operating simultaneously. The Beatific Vision by its very nature precludes the possibility of sin from the one beholding it. However, there might also be another reason why we cannot sin in Heaven having to do with the irrevocable nature of our will upon death. I would certainly say that the Beatific Vision is a reason that we do not sin in Heaven (and perhaps the most obvious), but it might not be the only reason. I think you have brought up many good points in this discussion.
Yes, maybe it can’t be rectified but I’m trying to understand what, exactly, the difference might be. If the Beatific Vision were the only reason for our not wanting to sin-if the presence of God is so overwhelming to our wills that we simply won’t want to sin when we experience it-in other words, if Adam & Eve would not have willed to sin had they had the benefit of that Vision-which should be true- then what was the purpose of withholding it to begin with?
Firstly I would say that beholding the Beatific Vision not only makes us “want to sin” but that it is an actual impossibility. That being said, in the Beatific Vision there are certain kinds of freedom which we do not have. If the Beatific Vision were given to us prior to any free act of our will, it would in a way overwealm free choice. Now, the term love means several different yet related things. One of love’s meanings involves the notion of free will. According to this understanding of love, love cannot be “forced” and can only truly result after a free choice of the agent. We could not give God this kind of love if did not have the option of rejecting Him. This, however, is the kind of love that God wants from us, and so I posit that is the reason why the Beatific Vision wasn’t given to men and angels from the first moment of their conception/creation.
If you mean by “they did experience God fully” you mean the Beatific Vision, I am fairly certain that would be a heretical statement or perhaps proximate to heresy. I could try to find the appropriate Magisterial definition if that is what you meant. You also seem to imply that the Fall was some how necessary for us to be able to properly conform our will, and hence the fall was necessary to ultimately achieve the Beatific Vision. I hope I misunderstand, because I am fairly certain that this again would be proximate to heresy.
It is an interesting analogy and I think it works well.
I think you are definitely on the mark with all of your statements. God created us without our willing it, but won’t bring us to heaven (the Beatific vision) without it.
So you’re saying that man must freely choose to love God-which also implies freedom from sin-prior to the Beatific Vision, which I would agree with. But OTH, isn’t love forced if we can’t sin even then-because free will implies freedom to sin/freedom not-to-love.
Well, I always try to avoid heresy when I can help it but probably step in it more often then not and I’d like to find whatever dogma there is on this-I haven’t seen what you’re objecting to. If you have any references, I can look it up myself to make it easier.
Love requires an act of the free will, but loves termination (or goal) is the union between the lover and the beloved. In such a union, the lover becomes bound to the beloved. Look at marriage for instance. Your freedom is required to entire into marriage (consent is necessary for a valid marriage), yet once you are married, you are not “free” to leave your spouse. Does this mean that your love is somehow “forced”? No. Because you freely chose to bind your will to the beloved, you have simply exercised you free will act and are now living it out. If our understanding of freedom implies the inability to bind oneself, freedom is actually a curse. No, on the contrary freedom means not being forcibly bound by another, but if you willing bind yourself, you are still acting as a free agent.
I have done it myself many times, and indeed I could be mistaken, but I will try to find a good magisterial source to clarify the issue. I have my copy of Denzinger at home, so I will try to do this later this evening.
Absolutely. Specifically the good that God brought about was the Incarnation and the presence of the Redeemer. I was rather objecting to the notion that Heaven would have been impossible had man not first fallen. That is not what the Church Fathers meant by the felix culpa. Without death, there might not have been an ordinary means for man to attain the Beatific Vision, but God could have established that with or without the fall. I was reacting more to your statement, “they lacked the wisdom necessary to stay in obedience.” If they did not possess the necessary means of avoiding the sin, they could not be culpable for it. The implications such a theory has on the donctrine of free will is problematic. That is all that I meant.
God is free in many ways, but not “free to sin.” The ability to commit sin is not strictly speaking a good thing, and would be contradictory to God’s nature. Freedom can mean many different things, and some forms of freedom are not good. God is free in respect to things that are not in themselves evil. So for instance, God was free in regards to whether or not to create the world. He was free in regards to whether or not to incarnate the Son. God is not free, however, to hate Himself. It should be noted that Freedom is not one of the attributes of God.
Sounds good.
I’m not asserting that heaven would’ve been impossible without the fall-God could do it however He wants-but I’m wondering why God chose to do it the way He did and I haven’t yet been convinced that such speculation is futile, but it could be and if any of it proves to be heretical I’ll certainly drop it. I’ll get my Denzinger or Ott out tonight, too.
But there was something lacking in them, else why would you think they sinned? The “lack” could simply be the inevitable inherent inferiority of all creation relative to the perfection of God. With men or angels, the risk would always be that they would fall, at least until an irrevocable decision is made-which makes sense but I’m still working on understanding that one.
To say that something was lacking in that implies that there was something that was supposed to be in them which wasn’t. Such a lack would imply a fault either in the creator or in teh creature, but Adam and Eve had done nothing wrong before the fall (unlike the picture painted by Milton in Paradise Lost), and certainly God did nothing wrong. Hence, Adam and Eve were exactly they why they were supposed to be, i.e. nothing was lacking in the order of due perfection (certainly there are perfections that were above their nature that they did not participate in).
I understand why you say that, of course, but it should be kept in mind, that at least in the realm of virtue, struggle does not make a person more virtuous than one who does not struggle. Virtue is a habit, and I image there is a certain habitual quality to love as well. It could be argued that man would have been more virtuous had he not fallen, and hence more “deserving” (using that term very loosely) on a natural level than fallen man.