Why can't we sin in heaven?

[fhansen]

fhansen
It is words like “inevitable” that give me cause for concernbecause I want to guard against the notion that their sin was inevitable. Nothing forced them to sin. There was of course the risk that they would sin, but nothing inclining them to do so, quite the opposite in fact. Given their lack of concupisence, they were inclined to do what was right.

The word “inevitable” was used in relation to their perfection or rather lack of it relative to Gods’ perfection. It’s not that He made anything less than good-it’s that nothing in creation can be as perfect as He. I’d pose the question again, why do you suppose they sinned?

 

[fhansen]

fhansen,
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.

I think struggle could make someone “own” their choice more fully as they’ve come to know the value of love by experiencing the evil of it’s absence. This, again, gets back to perfecting the will.

Also, to clarify my question as to why Adam & Eve would sin; I know what the attraction was-the good was in being “like God”, my question asks why they did it-why they would proceed to break His command.

 

[Kaily]

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.

How can you say freedom is not an attribute of God though? I don’t quite understand this.

 

[Katholish]

How can you say freedom is not an attribute of God though? I don’t quite understand this.

Here is a basic list of God’s attributes:
Just
Eternal
Love
Immense
Simple
Truth
Omniscient
Merciful
Omnipotent
Life
One
Good
Infinite

Attributes in God are identical with His nature and His existence. God does not merely possess this attributes, He IS these attributes. God is also a necessarily being. It is impossible that He not exist, and He is pure Act. I suppose it isn’t the easiest thing to explain in a message board post, but each of God’s proper actions is identical with His essence and hence they are necessary actions, most of which we would not consider “free” in many ways, though there are always some meanings of free which can apply to God (freedom to pursue the Good for instance, or freedom from coercion).

I have never heard anyone (sane) say that God IS freedom itself.

 

[Katholish]

fhansen,

Ok, what were those two things we were going to look up?

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.

Did Adam and Eve have the Beatific Vision? Ott pgs 103-105 describe man’s state of original justice quite thuroughly. Man had Sanctifying Grace, not the Beatific Vision. I suppose it could be helpful to find a source which says that it is impossible to sin with the Beatific Vision, and while I imagine such a things exists, I can’t quite give it the time to find it at the moment.

As for the fall being necessary for Heaven, you have further explained to me, or so it seems, that you didn’t mean to say that God could not have accomplished the Beatific Vision without the fall, so we are in sufficent agreement, no need to look it up.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen,

Ok, what were those two things we were going to look up?

Did Adam and Eve have the Beatific Vision? Ott pgs 103-105 describe man’s state of original justice quite thuroughly. Man had Sanctifying Grace, not the Beatific Vision. I suppose it could be helpful to find a source which says that it is impossible to sin with the Beatific Vision, and while I imagine such a things exists, I can’t quite give it the time to find it at the moment.

As for the fall being necessary for Heaven, you have further explained to me, or so it seems, that you didn’t mean to say that God could not have accomplished the Beatific Vision without the fall, so we are in sufficent agreement, no need to look it up.

Actually on page 106 of my Ott it says the Beatific Vision is common to all the states of mans nature; elevated (pre-fall), fallen (immediately after the first sin and apparently before exclusion from the garden), and restored. I never have quite understood that statement.

 

[crowonsnow]

Weren’t heavenly angels the first sinners? There must be sin in heaven.

 

[fhansen]

Actually on page 106 of my Ott it says the Beatific Vision is common to all the states of mans nature; elevated (pre-fall), fallen (immediately after the first sin and apparently before exclusion from the garden), and restored. I never have quite understood that statement.

If Ott’s right it would mean the Beatific Vision, by itself, doesn’t prevent us from sinning. I think this means that Gods’ purpose here in this life and in purgatory if need be is to complete a work in us more comprehensive and powerful than we may imagine-so we’ll simply no longer desire to sin; we’ll no longer value anything higher than Him because we’ve truly, personally, come to know of His inestimable worth and acknowledged the supremacy of His will.

Adam & Eve probably had the benefit of being in Gods immediate presence and yet they sinned. What Gods intending to produce in us -or draw us to- is a faith so strong that we continue to walk by it without the benefit of “seeing” Him directly. If we can believe in and love Him in spite of the enticements and obstacles to faith in this world, and without the benefits possessed by Adam & Eve, then what a powerful faith that would be and what holy people we’d become-because by then we’d fully come to know for ourselves the reasons why we should love and serve this God.

In man and angels, creation must consciously come to acknowledge its imperfection, yielding to the perfection of its Creator.

 

[Katholish]

I’ll admit that the pg 106 Ott statement is puzzling, but it is certainly in error. I don’t know what he meant by it, but objectively it is a false statement. In the state of fallen nature (after sin and before the Redemption, the Beatific Vision was not possible for man).

Beatific Vision = Heaven

I want to bring St. Thomas in on this.

Prima Secundae, Q4 a.4

I answer that, Rectitude of will is necessary for Happiness both antecedently and concomitantly. Antecedently, because rectitude of the will consists in being duly ordered to the last end. Now the end in comparison to what is ordained to the end is as form compared to matter. Wherefore, just as matter cannot receive a form, unless it be duly disposed thereto, so nothing gains an end, except it be duly ordained thereto. And therefore none can obtain Happiness, without rectitude of the will. Concomitantly, because as stated above (Question 3, Article 8), final Happiness consists in the vision of the Divine Essence, Which is the very essence of goodness. So that the will of him who sees the Essence of God, of necessity, loves, whatever he loves, in subordination to God; just as the will of him who sees not God’s Essence, of necessity, loves whatever he loves, under the common notion of good which he knows. And this is precisely what makes the will right. Wherefore it is evident that Happiness cannot be without a right will.

Here Thomas says that in the Beatific Vision, one of necessity loves God and the perception of the Beatific Vision is what makes the will perfectly conformed in every way to God.

Q5 a.4

Secondly, it is again evident if we consider the specific nature of Happiness. For it has been shown above (Question 3, Article 8) that man’s perfect Happiness consists in the vision of the Divine Essence. Now it is impossible for anyone seeing the Divine Essence, to wish not to see It. Because every good that one possesses and yet wishes to be without, is either insufficient, something more sufficing being desired in its stead; or else has some inconvenience attached to it, by reason of which it becomes wearisome. But the vision of the Divine Essence fills the soul with all good things, since it unites it to the source of all goodness; hence it is written (Psalm 16:15): “I shall be satisfied when Thy glory shall appear”; and (Wisdom 7:11): “All good things came to me together with her,” i.e. with the contemplation of wisdom. In like manner neither has it any inconvenience attached to it; because it is written of the contemplation of wisdom (Wisdom 8:16): “Her conversation hath no bitterness, nor her company any tediousness.” It is thus evident that the happy man cannot forsake Happiness of his own accord. Moreover, neither can he lose Happiness, through God taking it away from him. Because, since the withdrawal of Happiness is a punishment, it cannot be enforced by God, the just Judge, except for some fault; and he that sees God cannot fall into a fault, since rectitude of the will, of necessity, results from that vision as was shown above (Question 4, Article 4). Nor again can it be withdrawn by any other agent. Because the mind that is united to God is raised above all other things: and consequently no other agent can sever the mind from that union. Therefore it seems unreasonable that as time goes on, man should pass from happiness to misery, and vice versa; because such like vicissitudes of time can only be for such things as are subject to time and movement.

Here Thomas explains why man cannot sin if he has the Beatific Vision.

I should have thought to quote the Summa earlier since it is largely the source of my understanding.

 

[fhansen]

I’ll admit that the pg 106 Ott statement is puzzling, but it is certainly in error. I don’t know what he meant by it, but objectively it is a false statement. In the state of fallen nature (after sin and before the Redemption, the Beatific Vision was not possible for man).

Beatific Vision = Heaven

I want to bring St. Thomas in on this.

Prima Secundae, Q4 a.4

Here Thomas says that in the Beatific Vision, one of necessity loves God and the perception of the Beatific Vision is what makes the will perfectly conformed in every way to God.

Q5 a.4

Here Thomas explains why man cannot sin if he has the Beatific Vision.

I should have thought to quote the Summa earlier since it is largely the source of my understanding.

I think I understand this whole matter better now. Its’ not, I believe, that God would have a will not already fully ordered towards Him enter heaven but it’s also true that the will can never be as completely oriented to Him as when directly united in the Beatific Vision. I’d still like to find out where Ludwig was coming from on this, but thank you, I believe I’ve come to understand it better in any case.
Now, on to my other question regarding the reason for Adam & Eves’ sinning, if you or anyone might like to address it. Would you have an opinion as to why they would sin if, as you said, “There was no sin in them nor inclination to sin before the fall…”

 

[davidv]

I think I understand this whole matter better now. Its’ not, I believe, that God would have a will not already fully ordered towards Him enter heaven but it’s also true that the will can never be as completely oriented to Him as when directly united in the Beatific Vision. I’d still like to find out where Ludwig was coming from on this, but thank you, I believe I’ve come to understand it better in any case.
Now, on to my other question regarding the reason for Adam & Eves’ sinning, if you or anyone might like to address it. Would you have an opinion as to why they would sin if, as you said, “There was no sin in them nor inclination to sin before the fall…”

I believe that at the root of it was the giving in to doubt. The tempter laid before them something apparently “good”.

…tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise…
Gen 3:6 (RSV)

and planted a seed of doubt about God’s intentions. They decided that they alone, without God’s instructions, could decide that which was acceptable.

A believe that once in Heaven we will no longer be faced with this choice, and therefore can not turn away (sin).

 

[Katholish]

fhansen,

I just wanted to say that I have thuroughly enjoyed this discussion, I have learned a good deal as well. As for the question of why Adam and Eve sinned, I have trying to understand that question better for quite some time. My current thoughts are that the first sin is still fundamentally the same as our sins. There are two completing goods, and Adam convinced himself that the lesser was in fact the greater good. Given his preternatural gifts, Adam could not have honestly been misled by Eve or the devil, though is was probably the most significant factor, but he stilled possessed free will and with that free will, even in his state of original justice, he could intentional create a hierarchy of goods for himself which did not conform to God’s command.

Now, why would he do such a thing? I don’t know. When talking about sin, realy any sin or any free act of man for that matter, I think we can understand how a choice took place, but not necessarily why it took place. Frankly, even thinking of my own sins, I don’t fully understand why I have done certain things myself. Actually, it seems proper to the nature of freedom that we not understand to some exent. Understanding comes from causal knowledge. X caused y, and y caused z, etc. So for sin, we say it was caused by taking a lesser good to be greater than a truly greater good. We know the intermediate causes, but what caused his free determination? To the extent that it is a free act, we can only say that the agent caused it. If there were someother cause, then the agent’s choice would be subject to some necessity

Perhaps that is just a fancy way of saying I don’t know, but I wouldn’t even want to speculate because I don’t feel I have sufficient grounds to build any better theory.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen,
Perhaps that is just a fancy way of saying I don’t know, but I wouldn’t even want to speculate because I don’t feel I have sufficient grounds to build any better theory.

I tend to be one of those who rush in where wiser souls might fear to tread but I really appreciate a spirit of openness and feel that Christians most of all should be free to consider any and all options (which they often don’t seem to be) and in any case in discussions I usually come away a bit wiser than before even if I wasn’t expecting to-and I probably rarely am expecting to, to be honest.

So to carry on in my tradition I’ll pose an answer to my question. It seems to me, especially as I’ve gotten older and walked my faith for many years, sometimes more faithfully and sometimes less but generally growing in that area, that this life can be a sort of classroom, for those willing to seek truth, that can lead us with the help of revelation to recognize our absolute need for God-something that Adam & Eve obviously didn’t acknowledge.

So when I mentioned that perhaps wisdom was needed to be gained in order for our wills to be transformed, I’m speaking of the changes in us that the Potter seeks to accomplish by molding, the changes which ultimately can lead to our wills becoming one with His as we come to agree with Him about how things are and how things should be done. This causes us to become more god-like, in the sense of theosis, as we grow in likeness to Him-an end He desires for us which will only be consummated in eternity.

Now, I don’t know if “wisdom” is the right word although wisdom is certainly a divine attribute that He wishes us to possess. That Adam & Eve may not have possessed enough of it in the beginning would be due to the fact that no matter how close they may’ve been to the image of God, they were not God. So they wouldn’t be lacking in anything for any reason other than that even God can’t make another God. But in any case if in His perfect wisdom He deemed it best for our wisdom to be increased the “hard way”, by living in a world which can produce and test it, a world where man is certainly cut off from the Beatific Vision and can directly experience or know good along with evil, where he can experience the consequences of mans’ will reigning rather than Gods’, then why should it be considered unjust for God to “punish” man for lacking such wisdom-since the punishment can end up being part of the molding process as long as the clay is willing -as it should be.

Ultimately the wisdom we need is the wisdom to have faith in God, to not only believe in His existence but to trust Him, something Adam & Eve demonstrated a lack of. I’m not asserting that God had to do things this way, only that it appears to me that He did in any case. Does this mean God created the evil that exists in such a world? No, it means that He created this world in which He knew evil would occur and used it for His purposes.

Maybe this is all way off-base or heretical or maybe just nothing new but to ponder why, with the gifts Adam & Eve possessed, they would disobey God, I don’t have a better answer yet which, of course, doesn’t mean mine’s worth holding onto.

We have to remember that *God is love *and that the enmity and mistrust and distorted image of God -the “hating Him without reason” referred to in Scripture came from man, but God continued to love man while man, on the other hand, had a certain hatred for and shame of himself and God both. So I don’t believe God desires to punish for the sake of punishment but always desires to save while allowing us our freedom to remain lost.

I think the prodigal son story not only describes the lot of sinners like himself but also of Adam, Eve, and all their offspring. The punishment was the life he got by leaving his father and home. Like Augustine said, “Sin is its own punishment.” But he had to come to his senses, learning to detest wallowing in the pigsty so he could return home where his father had been waiting with open arms all along. In so doing he had ended up gaining something he previously lacked.

 

[Katholish]

That seems a reasonable speculation to me.

Ultimately it wouldn’t answer the question of why they sinned, that is, how would it be possible for Adam to view two competeing goods one which he should have known was objectively better, and one that was less, yet somehow see the less as more.

 

[fhansen]

That seems a reasonable speculation to me.

Ultimately it wouldn’t answer the question of why they sinned, that is, how would it be possible for Adam to view two competeing goods one which he should have known was objectively better, and one that was less, yet somehow see the less as more.

Yes, well, I was trying to address the “should have known” better part with a hypothesis for why he might not have known better anyway but it’s probably not so convincing. Oh well.

 

[jkiernan56]

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?

I have to disagree with this definition of Freedom “Being able to choose between good and evil and being able to perform whichever desired action.” True freedom is being able to always choose the good in my understanding.

As far as being able to sin in heaven, one of the reasons I know it is not possible is because once a person has attained heaven, it is eternal life. People in heaven do not worry about whether or not they might loose heaven. In fact, I heard or read once that a person who has made it to Purgatory is assured of their salvation and there is a blessedness in that knowledge - even though they are a work in progress.

 

[fhansen]

That seems a reasonable speculation to me.

Ultimately it wouldn’t answer the question of why they sinned, that is, how would it be possible for Adam to view two competeing goods one which he should have known was objectively better, and one that was less, yet somehow see the less as more.

On the other hand, isn’t the answer possibly in your post #5 where you made a general statement about mans’ condition, “My knowledge is imperfect…”, simple as that may seem as an answer at first glance ?

 

[Katholish]

fhansen,

Possibly. It is just a matter of to what extent Adam could actually have been “tricked” either by himself (i.e. fooling himself into thinking a lesser good is in fact a greater good) or being fooled by the devil who tried to make the lesser good look better. In Adam’s original state, there was a certian harmony in the intellect that has since been lost. Now, fooling ourselves doesn’t seem hard to believe, but part of that was due to the fall. I think the devil was largely responsible for the sin of man, it would have still been possible for man to sin, but it would have been so much harder to do so without the external temptation.

 

[jkiernan56]

fhansen,

Possibly. It is just a matter of to what extent Adam could actually have been “tricked” either by himself (i.e. fooling himself into thinking a lesser good is in fact a greater good) or being fooled by the devil who tried to make the lesser good look better. In Adam’s original state, there was a certian harmony in the intellect that has since been lost. Now, fooling ourselves doesn’t seem hard to believe, but part of that was due to the fall. I think the devil was largely responsible for the sin of man, it would have still been possible for man to sin, but it would have been so much harder to do so without the external temptation.

Very interesting thought.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

**That those in Heaven are confirmed in grace, so cannot fall. This does not contradict liberty of judgement (AKA FW), but is its fulfilment; or a result of its fulfilment. Our liberty is not the main thing - the total conformation of the creature to Christ is, for the Glory of God in Christ. If we seek ourselves, we are certain never to find self; paradoxical, but true. **​