That’s how I see it.
So my question was : if this is the end result, why not create the end first? Adam Fell thus we needed Jesus as a great redeemer. So why couldn’t Jesus redeem us by preventing us from falling in the first place? That would make him a greater redeemer.
Well, by the definition of “perfect human” I theorized, a person who was definitely prevented from the possibility of falling in the first place, so that their “moral perfection” was a foregone conclusion throughout every moment of their lives, isn’t the “perfect human.” In other words, a person who was created as the “end result”
first, who could never possibly have sinned and who was prevented from Falling by God’s predetermination, ironically
isn’t the “perfect human” as God intended. If God’s goal is an end result after the struggle and possibility of falling, then a
so-called perfect human who was created incapable of error or whose will was predetermined in God’s favor at his creation isn’t really an example of what God had in mind when he conceived of “perfect human.”
I could fall in the mud and have someone rescue me from it. I think it was better if someone grabbed my arm just as I was falling into and rescuing me before I fell in.
The latter would be a greater rescuer.
Perhaps we ought not think of salvation as the mere saving we humans from a misfortune, which is more human centered, but as a furthering along of God’s own goal in our being able to become (as can
only be become, not instantaneously created) what He has in mind for the “Perfect Humans”, a thought which is more God centered. Let us think of it this way. If you wanted, for whatever reason, to go about a project in which you hoped to find that people–who were to stay in a room with you–would willingly, without any manipulation of their will, become your friend at the end of a given day, despite whatever hardships or initial arguments you might have with them, that project could not be successful if, instead of humans capable of rejecting you, you created an artificial human who was human in every way except that he or she was guaranteed to like you. It wouldn’t fit the criteria of your project, the “willingly without any manipulation of their will” part, because you have already manipulated their will. The person has not really become your friend, they are your puppet who fulfills your “friendship” needs, and they have not shown anything about you. The project, without the artificial human involved, would demonstrate that you, BobCatholic, can be loved by people who have the ability and (perhaps at first)
willingness of not loving you, but who come to find that you are quite worth loving despite that. If all the humans are such that they were guaranteed to be your friend, it demonstrates no such thing about you; the “manufactured-foregone-conclusion-humans” were only being your friend because you made them that way.
I theorize that the “human project”, as God has endeavored about it is to demonstrate (not prove, since He already knows and needs no proof–but it seems in line with God’s nature to do things to
demonstrate His glory) that He is Love and can be Loved by creatures who had a real choice in the matter and Who weren’t just created to do so automatically, since the end result is supposed to be that many creatures, who by definition
didn’t have a perfect “I-already-know-they’ll-choose-me” will,
do choose Him in the end. If such creatures, creatures who at any point in time could have found sin enticing and who even might have sinned often and gotten wrapped in the pleasures of sin for quite some time, ultimately love God, it demonstrates beautifully–in a way that creatures with predetermined wills or who instantly entered the beatific vision
cannot–that God can be loved even by creatures capable of rejecting Him, which is why many people with the option of rejecting Him do not. However, a foregone conclusion “predetermined perfect” human who would definitely love Him is only a demonstration of His power, not His lovability, nor
can it be a demonstration of His lovability in this unique way.
Of course, God is so very lovable that to
look upon Him in His full Glory, which we call the Beatific Vision, will compel
anyone to love Him and never turn away. Thus, the existence of those who reject Him demonstrates not imperfect lovability, but simply that they never fully saw Who He is (the Beatific Vision). So why didn’t He show us Who He is,
fully, from the first moment of our creation? Well, if I am onto anything, His plan in creating humans may have been to “one up” His magnificent and inconceivable display of lovability in the Beatific Vision by showing that He is
even so lovable that at least
some free-will-and-capable-of-sinning humans will ultimately choose to love Him even
without being able to see Him in His
full Glory. As I believe, it’s a
powerful and
beautiful display of His lovability that many choose and love Him amid fear, doubt, and the pleasant escapism sin and complacency can offer.
Also, one more thing: Those who do not love Him in this life, despite not having the beatific vision, do spell their
own doom. One might ask, “Is it their fault, given that He never revealed Himself fully?” Yes. Even though He, when not seen fully, can be rejected (unlike when seen fully), He in His incomplete revelation of Himself is
still completely worth loving, so much that it is outright sinful not to. For example, a person is capable, for instance, of disliking and failing to love a saintly person like Mother Teresa, and believe it or not many do and try to even slander her memory. Just because she doesn’t automatically command love like the Beatific Vision doesn’t mean there is any excuse for rejecting such a beautiful person (love is in and of itself a mushy feeling, but a choice–in this case, to at least respect and admire the woman, which many choose to not do). Even imperfectly seen (thus when it is capable to reject Him) God is
still far more worthy of love than even the most saintly person ever, so any who reject Him cannot blame it on not seeing Him fully; they made their choice quite willingly, and it is not a justified one in the conceivable least. Besides which, I believe Hell is not a cosmic torture chamber so much as that the unbearable, unimaginable (very real) pain automatically results from total separation from God; and being totally separated from God is a most natural consequence of not loving Him, so natural that it’s
almost not even a punishment, per se, as the obvious outcome…one that is inconceivably terrible.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
