Part of our theodicy for the problem of evil includes the point that it was logically impossible for God to create a world in which humans enjoyed free will (a good thing), and yet were unable to use that freedom to choose evil as well as the good. I accept that as true, and yet Christianity proclaims there is coming a day in which there will be a world consisting of humans with libertarian free-will, who will never choose evil: heaven. The future hope of Christians seems to undermine one of the central premises in our theodicy. Can this be reconciled?
One might point out that the future world void of evil is only possible because God will glorify our humanity. But this is not a solution; it is an admission of the problem. Glorification is being put forward, not to show that such a world cannot exist, but rather to explain how it will become a reality. If in the future God is able—through glorification—to make human beings such that they have free will, and yet will not choose evil, then it falsifies the claim that God cannot create a world in which humans enjoy libertarian free will, and yet never choose evil. Indeed, He will do so in the future. In light of such, we might ask why God did not do this from the onset. Why didn’t He create humans in a glorified state to begin with, if glorified humans can exercise free will and yet not choose evil?
I’ve been mulling these questions around in my mind, and here is a possible explanation I have come up with. Could it be that the presence of sin—and our subsequent struggle against it—are necessary to create the kind of free creatures who will not exercise their free will to choose evil? Is God using evil as an immunization of sorts, in which our experience with it actually creates in us a hatred for it, to the extent that if our fallen nature were removed, we would always choose the good in the future—a choice we would not be able to make without first experiencing evil (a la Adam)? In this schema, evil is used as a divine teaching tool to create in us the ability to always and freely choose the good. Our present problem consists of our inability to actually perform what we presently will to perform because of our fallen nature. But in the end, God will restore humanity to its original state—removing from us our natural propensity toward evil—so that we can truly perform what we have learned to will in this life: the good.
On this proposal, evil is necessary to exercise our moral being to the point of maturity, so that in the next life we will only choose the good, and will do so freely. The purpose of glorification is not to remove the possibility of choosing evil, but to remove the barrier that is currently preventing us from choosing what we want to choose: the good.
What do you think about this proposal? Do you have a different one?
Thinking to Believe 
June 5, 2007 at 11:00 am
Glorified humans free of a fallen nature, exercising their free-will to choose the good. In what way is this different – in principle – to the angels? And if there is no necessary distinction, how do we reconcile the fall and expulsion of a third of the angelic host?
BTW, great blog!
LikeLike
June 5, 2007 at 11:44 am
Anonymous,
You suggest that glorified humans will be like the angels, at least in principle. The difference is that humans in heaven will not sin (having eternal salvation), whereas a third of the angels sinned.
Perhaps you believe that, in heaven, people can lose their salvation and be cast down like the angels? Perhaps humans are eternally saved from their earthly sins, but not from their heavenly sins? God won’t leave them, but they can leave God.
Arthur
LikeLike
June 5, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Well, I didn’t suggest the truthfulness of the concept so much as merely ask if they are similar, in principle. The notion isn’t of us sinning, as Jason explains, its us having the free-will to choose the good rather than evil; apparently the case with the angels – except for the third who opted to rebel.
I don’t believe that we might sin heavenly sins after being redeemed for our earthly sins; never heard of such a thing.
But the angels, being found in such an estate as possessing free-will, a knowledge of good and evil and “glorified” to the extent that they are without sins, yet chose to sin.
How is that different, at least in principle?
LikeLike
June 5, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Jason wrote: “Christianity proclaims there is coming a day in which there will be a world consisting of humans with libertarian free-will, who will never choose evil: heaven.”
You write: “But the angels, being found in such an estate as possessing free-will, a knowledge of good and evil and ‘glorified’ to the extent that they are without sins, yet chose to sin. How is that different, at least in principle?”
I agree that the angels and glorified humans are similar in principle. But if none of the humans will choose sin and 1/3 of the angels chose sin, there must be a distinction.
If by “glorification” you mean that they are without sin, then I agree that the angels and humans in heaven would be in the same position. But I thought that when Jason referred to the “glorification” in heaven, he meant the fact that the heavenly humans will never choose sin, not that they aren’t already sinners.
Jason’s hypothesis would provide a distinction between the angels and humans: the angels have not been “immunized” by first being sinners, while the glorified humans have been immunized. I tend to disagree, but it would at least be a distinction.
LikeLike
June 5, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Arthur wrote: I agree that the angels and glorified humans are similar in principle. But if none of the humans will choose sin and 1/3 of the angels chose sin, there must be a distinction.
Hence my question as to reconciling the angelic fall. Glorified humans and angels are similar enough, in principle. So it is not an unreasonable question to ask? How is it that we can eventually be in an estate, so similar to angels, and yet be free from the compulsion to sin? Angels are still capable of sinning, right? If not, why not? What has changed since the angelic fall? If say, I were to hear Gabriel blow a trumpet, can I be sure that it’s the trumpet blast and he’s not just toying with me? Could Michael go bad? If not, why not?
It seems to me, and of course I could be wrong, that Jesus exhibited this same “condition” (i.e. fully cognizant of good/evil, free-will, sin-free, etc.) prior to His glorification. If this is the case, and our future glorification is characterized as being the same as His (Romans 8:17; Philippians 3:21), how can glorification be thought of as the measure which “immunizes” us from sin thereby providing a workable theodicy?
I believe that our immunization to sin begins and ends at the cross. If I’ve died in Christ, I’ve died to sin and it therefore has no more power over me – in this life or the next. The writer of Hebrews portrays Jesus’ priesthood as an enduring one. If my right standing is secured in Christ now, it will be secured in Him forever. In this present abode, I’m imbued with overcoming power wrought by the Holy Spirit, but this is merely an earnest of that inheritance. If the power given me to overcome in this life can not be seen as adequate, the entirety of it in eternity certainly will be.
Jesus said that He was going to a place (His Father’s house) where we could not go to prepare a place for us to dwell (many mansions). This seems to me to be an altogether different abode – post creation, yet requiring the additional process of glorification (corruptible to incorruptible/immortality, etc.).
LikeLike
June 5, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Angels have freedom of choice, just as we do, and just as Adam did. Like Adam, some of the angels chose to use that freedom to choose evil. Others did not, just as Christ did not.
Christ never had a sin nature to begin with, so glorification did not change that. We, however, do have a sin nature, and glorification will change that.
My point is not that in order not to sin, one must first become a sinner. Jesus proves that idea false. But that is one way to guarantee it. The likelihood of a bunch of people with freedom of choice choosing only the good is virtually zero. It’s one thing for one man to do it, but not a whole world of people. At least one person is bound to choose evil, thereby messing up the whole creation. In our case, it was the very first person! But God is able through sin, to guarantee that the next time around, those who are His children will not choose evil anymore.
And no, I don’t believe anyone in heaven will sin.
Jason
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 2:37 pm
I was pleased to find that William Lane Craig offered a similar suggestion to mine:
“Heaven may not be a possible world when you take it in isolation by itself. It may be that the only way in which God could actualize a heaven of free creatures all worshiping Him and not falling into sin would be by having, so to speak, this run-up to it, this advance life during which there is a veil of decision-making in which some people choose for God and some people against God. Otherwise you don’t know that heaven is an actualizable world. You have no way of knowing that possibility.”
Jason
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 2:41 pm
I submitted this question (“If God is capable of making a world in which free creatures will not sin in the future, then why didn’t He do so from the onset so we could avoid all of this evil?”) to the Ehrman Project. David Baker responded with a good point:
“It is assumed that the eschaton represents a completely new ‘world.’ But is this true? I would argue that it is not. Rather, it seems more accurate to describe the eschaton not as a new ‘world,’ but as a ‘different stage’ or ‘different state of affairs’ within the same world, which should be understand as a complete book starting from creation and continuing through the eschaton. As Dr. Bruce Little has pointed out in his book A Creation-Order Theodicy, ‘The word ‘world’ primarily refers to the realm of humanity and its culture (See Jn. 3:16; II Tim. 4:10; 1 Jn. 2:15). Therefore, it includes humanity as a whole from the point of creation to the full realization of the Kingdom of God on this earth throughout everlasting.”
http://www.ehrmanproject.com/_blog/Ehrman_Project_Blog/post/To_Avoid_Evil,_Why_Not_Prevent_Sin/
This is in line with my explanation that our future sinless state is only possible because of a previous sinful state.
Jason
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 2:43 pm
While I’m in the mood to post comments on this old topic, I thought I would add a good line I heard J.P. Moreland deliver on this subject. To the question of how it would be possible for free creatures not to sin in heaven, Moreland responded to the effect of: “I have free will to eat my dog’s poop, but I will never use that freedom to do so.” Good point! When we are glorified and in the presence of God, we will see sin as worse that dog’s poop. And while we may have the choice to sin, we will never choose to do so–anymore than we would choose to eat our dog’s poop.
Jason
LikeLike
December 30, 2018 at 5:29 pm
[…] Maybe God Could Have Created Free Creatures Who Could Not Sin […]
LikeLike