I can only speculate here, as to perfectly know God’s mind is not something I can do…
Is it possible that God’s definition of “perfect” as He applies it to the individual Human in and of himself requires the possibility that one might have ultimately rejected Him, but ultimately did not? That is to say, what if the perfect human, as God intends a perfect human to be, isn’t something He creates instantaneously but more like a
project that ultimately, regardless of how messy the
process looked, turns out the way God wants even after the very
real possibility of
failure?
Is “a being who never could have possibly sinned nor wanted to sin” necessarily the definition
God had in mind when He created humans? Is this what God envisioned when He thought “I shall create the human race”? If possibly
not, then neither can we say that a perfect human is one who could never have sinned. If, instead, God sees the definition of “perfect human” as a the
ultimate outcome of a project, a human being who was
capable of [ultimately] loving God perfectly
or [ultimately] rejecting Him forever but who in the
end [ultimately] chooses God over all that and enters into the beatific vision, then by definition a “perfect human”
cannot be instantaneously created in that case. In that case, the perfect human must
grow into the desired result of
his own non-dictated volition (non-dictated as in, his will was not predetermined to automatically choose God, or else it is not a project but a foregone conclusion) since this definition of “perfect human” would mean that “a person who never sinned because it was
impossible for him to even
want to” isn’t what God considers the “perfect human” at all; he is, in this case, not something that
can be created, he is only something that can
become after God created the
vessel for that possibility, the
laboratory if you will, for that project–the flesh, blood, and soul combination that we call “human” being simultaneously that vessel and laboratory.
By the above definition, one’s
total perfection can only be declared in retrospect after having entered into the beatific vision (
after which it is impossible to sin, but if “perfect human” is a project gone well
despite the possibility of failure, a human who
never could have sinned at
any point in time is by definition not perfect). For instance, if the above definition of “perfect human” is possibly true, it is possible that our blessed Virgin Mary, both as a “human project” and as a “life journey” was, despite her perfect conduct and perfect
journey, only an example of “
perfect human”
after having entered the Beatific Vision, as conceivably she
could have turned from God but didn’t (as was far easier, but not guaranteed, by the absence of original sin). If “perfect human” is a project, not an instantaneous creation, then the specific project called “Mary”, might have at any given point before the project’s conclusion–her entrance into the beatific vision–proven to be imperfect even
despite not having original sin, just as the projects called “Adam” and “Eve” may have. Until that project was concluded, no call could be made as to whether she was a “perfect human” or not. It is the same with us.
A “perfect human”, in other words, may be about the
conclusion more than the journey. A perfect
human, as opposed to a human for whom the
journey was perfect (in Mary’s case both turned out to be true), may well be defined as one who, after whatever hectic sort of journey,
ultimately was willingly shaped into a being who could enter into the beatific vision.
If this is how God envisions what it means to be a “perfect human” then again, it is not something that
could be created, not because God cannot create a person who robotically follows Him and never at any point since its existence
could sin, but because that’s simply
not what He has in mind when He thinks “the perfect human.” The perfect human would not be a Theo-puppet who never possibly
could have sinned, but rather a human who ultimately became ready for the beatific vision
despite the ability (and perhaps even temporal
willingness) to sin, and perhaps even despite having
committed sins along the way before the project was ultimately a success, therefore rendering him an example of “perfect” by God’s envisioned desire for what should constitute a “perfect human.”
In short, the “perfect human” and the “human with the perfect journey” may not be one in the same, and the latter may not be required for God’s definition of the former; although I suspect He is particularly and especially pleased when a human, such as Mary, has a perfect journey or near-perfect journey, for He Himself to guarantee this (i.e. to form the human’s will so that it is impossible for the human to want to sin) would render the “project” that He is going for invalid, and would prevent the human from
truly fitting His definition of “perfect human.”
We often (acceptably) use perfection as a shorthand for sinless; and under that definition one might say Adam and Eve were “created” perfect, but this doesn’t mean they were created being instantly what God had in mind when he envisioned the “
perfect human”, since as suggested above, that may mean something different than “sinless” and rather mean “someone who attained to the favorable
end result of a potentially sin-marked journey”… In other words
moral perfection throughout one’s up-until-now existence, by which it might be said Adam and Eve were “perfect until the Fall”, may not be synonymous with “perfect human”–as is suggested from the fact that Adam and Eve
did fall (although moral perfection is
compatible with “perfect human” and certainly follows
forever afterward once one has entered into the beatific vision, this does not mean the two concepts are
one in the same).
This is convoluted, to be sure, and I’m totally just speculating in order to make sense of things, but it seems to me to be a possibility…if so, the angels may well have been a similar case, since 1/3 of them fell, but of course the “method” of the “angel” project would seem to have been different than the method for the human one, in whatever way that may be.
Of course, the scientific parallels are only for the sake of analogy and context; God is more to us than a detached scientist, as He is Love and Loves us deeply. It’s just that the terms “project” and the like seem the best allegories for what I am trying to put into words.
If I am somehow being heretical, I certainly don’t mean to be and I sincerely apologize from the depths of my soul.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
Time, space, growth, the life of man on earth may be so intimately related as to be inextricable: so that for us to be perfect from the very beginnings of our lives woiuld require creation to be drastically different; & if it were, man might be as impossible as the unicorn.
