Featured No Ability to sin in heaven?

1.) The capacity or ability to be wicked, duplicitous or sinful is NOT necessary in order to posses free will. Free will assumes limitations. To say that we won't be free to sin in heaven does not mean that free will will cease to exist. It would only mean that that is a particular set of options not available. There are always options which are not available when making free choices.

2.) If it is the case that Free will won't exist in heaven, it still does not follow that it does not exist now.

3.) Would the "greatest" form of free will be the possibility of being wicked? Is it even accurate to speak of different forms of free choices as standing in less than-greater than relations? I don't think I would assume either of these.

Some of my Calvinist friends are making too many assumptions and placing too many restrictions upon something they don't appear to understand....Arguably, whatever definitions of free will Calvinists are assuming probably won't exist, but who asked them to define its parameters? They don't believe in it anyway. They are in the position of arguing about what color options unicorns might come in.

 

So, who tempted Satan to become the most evil being possible from a state of being perfect?

If no one did (granted), then how is that an argument for why we would not sin in heaven?

Did Satan have "corruptible flesh"?
Was Satan not in the "presence of God" from the start?
Did Satan not have the benefit of being "spiritually mature in heaven, having the wisdom not to sin"? If so, could he blame God for not creating him with this?


I don't see why it is necessary to cling to this idea that somehow we have a true libertarian free will in heaven, and rationalize never sinning from that.

Our sin in this life is from the old man that wars with the new man. The new man does not sin.
The old man serves the law of sin and death. The new man serves God alone.
When we enter glory, our old man will die and we will only have the new man. The new man is a new creation of God and, by its nature, will never sin, but always willfully, lovingly serve God.

 

According to some no one, God predestined what He did.

 

My point was that it begs the question because what was being proposed as given to us in glory could also be argued as true of Satan before he fell.

If Satan was entirely autonomous, yet fell through no temptation from any other creature, and became the most despicably evil creature possible, how can we have the hope that such a condition could not happen to us in our glorified state?


Unless, we will not have the same "free will" in heaven that Satan had.

 

Again......you are busy inventing what you define it to mean, so it is you who cannot allow anyone else to speak about it, if they do not match your subjective ideas.When you create your own reality...you always get to win:laugh::laugh:

 

O.K.....If you are paying attention to my posts, I am clearly objecting to certain assumptions about what "free-will" must entail...and I am merely suggesting that the appropriate definition of what it properly entails is more accurately or fairly defined by those who actually believe in such a thing. We want to avoid straw-man argumentation on this board (I would assume) therefore, when a proponent of "free-will" suggests that the opponents of the idea are making too many assumptions about it, and are arguing poorly because of it....it is perfectly within the purview of the opposite POV to explain where they are making assumptions which are not warranted. I have been objecting specifically to some of Aresman's assumptions...if he thinks they were unreasonable, he then, should offer his counter-argument. He has not done so. This may, in fact, be because he is honestly considering the reasonableness of some of my clarifications...I am only attempting to clarify what certain assumptions about free will are.

You said this:

The answer to that is, in fact, that, yes....as a proponent of freedom of will, I am, in fact, in a position to speak with more authority about what it must entail than the opposition might claim. Allow me to explain with an analogy:

I, a non-Cal claim that vis a vis Calvinism God creates nothing but puppets with no form of "will" whatsoever....Are you not reasonable to object? You do, actually...you would counter that it is not the case that men are mere "puppets" because men posses an enslaved "self-will"...I cannot then, fairly argue that you don't rightly posses the position you hold...I cannot define...FOR YOU what it is that you believe....You must explain what you yourself mean by "Self-will"...I have no right to suggest that you are defining your own position improperly....I can only suggest that your propositions are falsifyable or in-consistent. I cannot define them for you.

Freedom of will (as an Arminian might define it) is a position you do not, nor do any Calvinists, hold to, Arminians do...therefore, when assumptions are made about how it is defined, it is only fruitful for Arminians to clarify, and explain where Calvinists are possibly making unwarranted assumptions. Allow Aresman, whom I am generally responding to, to call me out on this...This is how we learn from one another; by avoiding attacking positions our detractors do not hold to, and rather, fairly objecting to the positions that they DO, in fact hold.....I am merely explaining that there are assumptions made about what an ACTUAL "free-willer" believes...That is perfectly within my purview.
As one who is a proponent of "free-will"....Do I, in fact, have MORE authority to define it's parameters than the opposition??? Yes, sir, I do.

 

per Apostle john, when we see jesus, we shall then be as he is!

IF we could sin, so can jesus!

 

An interesting approach. However this raises a question who would He sin against as He is God?

 

he is also man! Point is though that since he cannot sin, and we shall become as he now is morally, no more sinning!

 

So do you think we will become exactly like Him in every aspect or just some?

 

We will have a glorified body that shall be as he was after the resurrection, and we shall have moral attriubutes perfect as His all are!

See this similaiar to us being again as Adam was, morally pure and undefiled, really in image of god, but will NOT have His divine attributes such as all powerful/all knowing etc! Those are HIS alone....

 

Adam was able to sin.

 

As i said, we will have that moral perfection he had when created....
but there will be no tempter around, nor any sin nature in us to be tempted!

 

There was no sin nature in Adam before he sinned and no sin nature in Lucifer or a temptor when he sinned. If holy angles can sin why won't we be able?

 

because we will be as jesus is morally...

jesus said the Holy Spirit will seal us, and abide with us 'forever"...

Could it be because we will still all have the Spirit in us to preserve us in moral perfection?

 

I am not suggesting we will sin. I lean to the idea we will not. I certainly hope not as temptation for now is enough and I really do not want to go through eternity battling it. The problem is that scripture is not clear enough on the matter to be dogmatic.

 

Adam was flesh, just like you and I. Adam did not have a nature different than the one you were born with. You are flesh, and so was Adam.

In heaven we will not have the corruptible flesh that tempts.

All those in heaven will be those who have chosen to obey God beforehand.

Only one third of the angels sinned, two thirds chose not to sin, so it is possible to have free will and not choose to sin.

 

Think that God will be in all of us somehow/fashion, so that we all will think "perfectly' and act "perfectly"...

We will be ourselves, but the Lord will have us morally perfected, so that NO thoughts other than morally pure will be there!