The contradiction of Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence

[rhettender]

Forgive the rough nature of this inquiry as it is taken from a quick email I wrote.


It seems, logically, that God (at least in the Christian tradition) could not be both omnipotent/omniscient and omnibenevolent. For example: if God is all knowing, then he knew that Lucifer would betray him and later trick Eve; He would also know that Adam and Eve would eat from the forbidden fruit. Yet he still made Lucifer and the tree. My point is that he purposefully arranged circumstances in a manner in which he knew Man would sin. Then, later, he holds man to an arbitrary system of redemption under threat of eternal damnation. That's not loving - it's downright cruel. I've heard the rebuttal along the lines of "you don't constantly protect your children from falling off their bike because they need to learn the dangers of not being safe on their bike." Yet this is an inaccurate metaphor; a more accurate one would be to put your kid on a bike covered in vaseline, on a tightrope, suspended over a magma-filled volcanic crater - and then cutting the tight rope. You know a terrible thing will happen because you purposefully design it that way, yet you do it anyway? That's not loving.

Now, I wouldn't say this necessarily disproves any God. Rather, it suggests one thing - either God isn't omniscient (didn't know that terrible things would happen with the way he constructed the world), or God isn't omnibenevolant (he purposefully, willingly, and directly causes sin, evil, and suffering).

I would like to think the former is more likely, because an all-powerful, malevolent God is a frightening thought (though this is what the old testament suggests, considering the amount of suffering God doles out). Rather, God doesn't know the future, and isn't all-powerful (which would explain why he doesn't just erase sin, or reverse it, or change how events unfolded, etc.), yet he's trying to do his best (by giving mankind a way out of the mess that has resulted - aka, Jesus, salvation, etc). In this model you could justify eternal damnation in hell, because God doesn't have complete control over the situation. In the second model you can also justify damnation, because God isn't all good and can do something as malevolent as punishing someone forever. Yet, if god is both omniscient and omnibenevolant, then damnation cannot be justified, because it would amount to eternally punishing people for something God himself purposefully orchestrated. You can't blame man, at least unendingly, for something that is, by all logical reasoning, God's fault.

[markdrums]

Forgive the rough nature of this inquiry as it is taken from a quick email I wrote.


It seems, logically, that God (at least in the Christian tradition) could not be both omnipotent/omniscient and omnibenevolent. For example: if God is all knowing, then he knew that Lucifer would betray him and later trick Eve; He would also know that Adam and Eve would eat from the forbidden fruit. Yet he still made Lucifer and the tree. My point is that he purposefully arranged circumstances in a manner in which he knew Man would sin. Then, later, he holds man to an arbitrary system of redemption under threat of eternal damnation. That's not loving - it's downright cruel. I've heard the rebuttal along the lines of "you don't constantly protect your children from falling off their bike because they need to learn the dangers of not being safe on their bike." Yet this is an inaccurate metaphor; a more accurate one would be to put your kid on a bike covered in vaseline, on a tightrope, suspended over a magma-filled volcanic crater - and then cutting the tight rope. You know a terrible thing will happen because you purposefully design it that way, yet you do it anyway? That's not loving.

Now, I wouldn't say this necessarily disproves any God. Rather, it suggests one thing - either God isn't omniscient (didn't know that terrible things would happen with the way he constructed the world), or God isn't omnibenevolant (he purposefully, willingly, and directly causes sin, evil, and suffering).

I would like to think the former is more likely, because an all-powerful, malevolent God is a frightening thought (though this is what the old testament suggests, considering the amount of suffering God doles out). Rather, God doesn't know the future, and isn't all-powerful (which would explain why he doesn't just erase sin, or reverse it, or change how events unfolded, etc.), yet he's trying to do his best (by giving mankind a way out of the mess that has resulted - aka, Jesus, salvation, etc). In this model you could justify eternal damnation in hell, because God doesn't have complete control over the situation. In the second model you can also justify damnation, because God isn't all good and can do something as malevolent as punishing someone forever. Yet, if god is both omniscient and omnibenevolant, then damnation cannot be justified, because it would amount to eternally punishing people for something God himself purposefully orchestrated. You can't blame man, at least unendingly, for something that is, by all logical reasoning, God's fault.


This seems more like an accusation based on subjective opinion, rather than a question. (Just so you know)

But, I will comment....
Look at it from this perspective. I am a parent. I knew FULL WELL that by bringing children into the world, they would face situations & events that would cause them pain, sadness, hurt.... (etc.)
Yet I STILL wanted to have that relationship with them. (I mean, yeah, I COULD HAVE spared them the "trouble & misery" of having to be born & go through it.... right?)
Do YOU blame your own parents for bringing you into this world with pain & suffering?

That's a pretty illogical, & selfish stance to take.

The truth is, It was worth it to me, even knowing the risks involved in being a parent. To have that love & relationship with my children is priceless.

That's the same way God "saw" things. He knew well & good that there was potential for evil & sin. Potential for disobedience. Yes, he also knew Adam & Eve WOULD fall, & Satan would be instrumental in the process. He knew what it would take for redemption as well.
It took ONE man to curse the world, and one man to redeem it.
God didn't leave us in a bad situation with no way out, having to fend for ourselves. He knew the whole plan before creation itself.
It was worth it to have that relationship with US.

[rhettender]

It's an accusation/rumination based on logic. The concept of omniscience raises a lot of logical problems.

The example you used doesn't work because you are not supposedly all-powerful. You could not directly shape the world around you for your child; rather, you brought them into the world and did the best you could. God does not have this limitation.

Think of it this way: you're about to bring a child into the world. You have the choice of living in a slum where there is no access to running water, gang violence produces several murders each night, drug use is essentially 100%, there is no education system, and, once you move there, there is no way to leave; or you can live in a community with the highest sanitation standards, the best schools, the safest streets, friendly, tolerant people, and your entire family and friend network already lives there. I think it's safe to say that if you chose to live in the slum it would make you a bad (or a stupid) parent. No parent that cares about their unborn child would ever consider introducing it to an environment where it is bound to fall into significant suffering if there was an alternative.

In the case of an all-powerful creator, knowing full well that circumstances ABC would lead to Satan, Sin, and the Fall of Man, purposefully creating such circumstances amounts to an act of malicious entrapment and neglect. It's bad parenting for His children, especially considering the fact that the supposed only way out is so narrow that the vast majority of humanity will not be able to take advantage of it (again, because of the circumstances God devised).

Therefore, the Christian God either cannot be all good, or cannot be all-powerful and all knowing, or cannot exclude any individual from heaven (this still produces the logical problem of God orchestrating suffering in the first place, but is far less egregious than God punishing most of humanity for being born into circumstances that He knew would lead to sin).

I seriously think this is one of the most crushing shortcomings of Christian theology, and keeps many people away from the faith (though most don't articulate it to this extent).

[markdrums]

It's an accusation/rumination based on logic. The concept of omniscience raises a lot of logical problems.

The example you used doesn't work because you are not supposedly all-powerful. You could not directly shape the world around you for your child; rather, you brought them into the world and did the best you could. God does not have this limitation.

Think of it this way: you're about to bring a child into the world. You have the choice of living in a slum where there is no access to running water, gang violence produces several murders each night, drug use is essentially 100%, there is no education system, and, once you move there, there is no way to leave; or you can live in a community with the highest sanitation standards, the best schools, the safest streets, friendly, tolerant people, and your entire family and friend network already lives there. I think it's safe to say that if you chose to live in the slum it would make you a bad (or a stupid) parent. No parent that cares about their unborn child would ever consider introducing it to an environment where it is bound to fall into significant suffering if there was an alternative.

In the case of an all-powerful creator, knowing full well that circumstances ABC would lead to Satan, Sin, and the Fall of Man, purposefully creating such circumstances amounts to an act of malicious entrapment and neglect. It's bad parenting for His children, especially considering the fact that the supposed only way out is so narrow that the vast majority of humanity will not be able to take advantage of it (again, because of the circumstances God devised).

Therefore, the Christian God either cannot be all good, or cannot be all-powerful and all knowing, or cannot exclude any individual from heaven (this still produces the logical problem of God orchestrating suffering in the first place, but is far less egregious than God punishing most of humanity for being born into circumstances that He knew would lead to sin).

I seriously think this is one of the most crushing shortcomings of Christian theology, and keeps many people away from the faith (though most don't articulate it to this extent).


Actually your straw-man example is quite flawed.
There is no "crushing shortcoming" in the subject that you seem to have a problem with. You have yet to LOGICALLY show what that would be.

You're trying to compare GOD, an infinite, limitless being, with a "person" under a limited set of options. The slum vs. nice neighborhood?
No way out of the slum?
How does GOD put us in a "slum" with no way out?

Your argument is totally illogical.
In fact, it's quite reminiscent of the same rhetoric used in a book I read by some guy named Richard Dawkins....
Very interesting..... Richard did nothing but spew his opinions. he gave no evidence to support a single thing he said. There was no substance to his book.
Much like "The God Delusion", your argument / examples fail to stand up under further examination.

[rhettender]

Actually your straw-man example is quite flawed.
There is no "crushing shortcoming" in the subject that you seem to have a problem with. You have yet to LOGICALLY show what that would be.

You're trying to compare GOD, an infinite, limitless being, with a "person" under a limited set of options. The slum vs. nice neighborhood?
No way out of the slum?
How does GOD put us in a "slum" with no way out?

Your argument is totally illogical.
In fact, it's quite reminiscent of the same rhetoric used in a book I read by some guy named Richard Dawkins....
Very interesting..... Richard did nothing but spew his opinions. he gave no evidence to support a single thing he said. There was no substance to his book.
Much like "The God Delusion", your argument / examples fail to stand up under further examination.

I would like to first point out that you avoided actually addressing the issue. If my argumentation is illogical then demonstrate how, rather than just calling it so, for it appears completely logical to billions of other non-christians.

The community example is merely to illustrate the notion of choice. If you have the choice whether or not to do something evil, and you choose to do it, then you are evil.

Indeed, an infinitely powerful God is exactly what I'm presupposing. If, as you say, God is infinte, then he had an infinite number of possible circumstances that he could have created existence (both physical and spiritual) under; and, yet, he chose one that he knew would lead to the fall of man and most of mankind in hell. That is evil. Therefore, God must either be all-powerful and evil, or good and not all-powerful.

[tango]

Let me put this idea of omnibenevolence to you another way.

God created us with a free will - we are free to spend eternity with God, or eternity away from God. If we choose to spend eternity away from God, why would a benevolent God deny us that choice?

What you are describing is a God who gives us a free will but then decides not to accept which way we chose. How could a just God do such a thing to us?

[mcgyver]

Just a reminder folks :)

I. The Purpose of this forum:

The purpose of this forum is for non-Christians to present earnest questions on issues that may be keeping you from being a Christian, and to receive answers from Christians. We welcome any earnest seeker who comes in peace. We will answer your questions to the best of our ability to help you understand our faith.

Please be aware that this is not a debate forum.

If there is a question in here somewhere, we'll do our best to answer it...but right now it's turning into a debate which is against the rules of this particular forum.

Complete rules may be found here:http://bibleforums.org/forum/showthread.php?t=138023

So let's all get back on track, OK? ;)

[tango]

rhettender, I'd also like to add a couple more comments.

God created us to love us, and so that we could love him in return. Love isn't love unless it's given freely. So for a relationship of love to exist, both sides must have free choice to offer (or not) their love to the other.

Sin is what happens when we do our thing instead of God's thing. It's what happened to Lucifer when he decided that he wanted to be higher than God, and it's what happens when we decide our way is better than God's way.

The thing is, love cannot exist without a freedom to choose, and the freedom to choose means we can choose to not love God. If we choose to not love God and to sin, God has to either accept our decision (much as it pains him to do so), or override our free will. Arguing against this rapidly turns into the unstoppable force/immovable object situation which becomes farcical.

So the question really comes down to which side of the fence you are going to choose to be - will you choose to love God, or turn your back on him?

[dljc]

Forgive the rough nature of this inquiry as it is taken from a quick email I wrote.


It seems, logically, that God (at least in the Christian tradition) could not be both omnipotent/omniscient and omnibenevolent. For example: if God is all knowing, then he knew that Lucifer would betray him and later trick Eve; He would also know that Adam and Eve would eat from the forbidden fruit. Yet he still made Lucifer and the tree. My point is that he purposefully arranged circumstances in a manner in which he knew Man would sin. Then, later, he holds man to an arbitrary system of redemption under threat of eternal damnation. That's not loving - it's downright cruel. I've heard the rebuttal along the lines of "you don't constantly protect your children from falling off their bike because they need to learn the dangers of not being safe on their bike." Yet this is an inaccurate metaphor; a more accurate one would be to put your kid on a bike covered in vaseline, on a tightrope, suspended over a magma-filled volcanic crater - and then cutting the tight rope. You know a terrible thing will happen because you purposefully design it that way, yet you do it anyway? That's not loving.

Now, I wouldn't say this necessarily disproves any God. Rather, it suggests one thing - either God isn't omniscient (didn't know that terrible things would happen with the way he constructed the world), or God isn't omnibenevolant (he purposefully, willingly, and directly causes sin, evil, and suffering).

I would like to think the former is more likely, because an all-powerful, malevolent God is a frightening thought (though this is what the old testament suggests, considering the amount of suffering God doles out). Rather, God doesn't know the future, and isn't all-powerful (which would explain why he doesn't just erase sin, or reverse it, or change how events unfolded, etc.), yet he's trying to do his best (by giving mankind a way out of the mess that has resulted - aka, Jesus, salvation, etc). In this model you could justify eternal damnation in hell, because God doesn't have complete control over the situation. In the second model you can also justify damnation, because God isn't all good and can do something as malevolent as punishing someone forever. Yet, if god is both omniscient and omnibenevolant, then damnation cannot be justified, because it would amount to eternally punishing people for something God himself purposefully orchestrated. You can't blame man, at least unendingly, for something that is, by all logical reasoning, God's fault.Hi rhettender and welcome to the board.

You are looking at this from a logical viewpoint trying to understand how God could allow these things and still be a just God. If I look at your post from a logical viewpoint, it would suggest highly that you do believe in God, otherwise these things wouldn't be of a concern to you. Correct? So you already have admitted that there is a God, what it comes down to now is, do you want to serve Him or not? (Keeping in mind I'm addressing your post as a whole from a logical viewpoint).

[StarGazer770]

God is omnibenevolent...He blesses the righteous and the unrighteous...and instructs us to do the same...
Matthew 5:44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Matthew 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
This is God's very nature, or He wouldn't have sent His only begotten Son, because He desires that no man perish. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

The question isn't as much "why" but "what" happened in the Garden. Sin entered the world. This we already know.

The next question is where's the answer?

The answer is

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Psalm 32:6 Therefore, let everyone who is godly pray to You in a time when You may be found; surely in a flood of great waters they will not reach him.

Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

John 3:14 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

John 3:15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.

John 3:16"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

John 3:17"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Acts 2:21 'AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.'

1 Chronicles 16:34 O give thanks to the LORD, for He is good; for His lovingkindness is everlasting.

See?...He love's you...Amen :)

[markdrums]

I would like to first point out that you avoided actually addressing the issue. If my argumentation is illogical then demonstrate how, rather than just calling it so, for it appears completely logical to billions of other non-christians.

The community example is merely to illustrate the notion of choice. If you have the choice whether or not to do something evil, and you choose to do it, then you are evil.

Indeed, an infinitely powerful God is exactly what I'm presupposing. If, as you say, God is infinte, then he had an infinite number of possible circumstances that he could have created existence (both physical and spiritual) under; and, yet, he chose one that he knew would lead to the fall of man and most of mankind in hell. That is evil. Therefore, God must either be all-powerful and evil, or good and not all-powerful.


Actually I DID address the issue..... You just didn't like my answer. ;)
OK, all kidding & razzing aside; Let's look at it this way-
You're asking why would God create us, knowing the result of giving us "Free Will". (right?)

That's the beauty of it. Had he created us as "robots" so to speak, programmed to ONLY do good & love him, & serve him; Well, that wouldn't be genuine love from us.
If you're "forced" to love someone, or programmed that way with no choice in the matter, then there's really no love there.

We love the people in our lives BY CHOICE. We don't HAVE TO love our parents, or children, or friends, or spouses.... etc. We love them because we choose to.

So, in order to have REAL love, there HAS TO BE a real choice. You can't have love without the potential for rejection.

There's nothing illogical about that.

[apothanein kerdos]

In most philosophical circles this line of argumentation has been dropped, in large part to Plantinga's God, Freedom, and Evil. I'd highly recommend reading the entire book if you want an adequate response to your objection.

I also wrote an essay based on Plantinga's "Free Will" defense (http://thechristianwatershed.com/2007/12/18/the-metaphysical-necessity-of-evil/), so feel free to use it. In fact, the essay deals with God being both all good and all knowing.

Ultimately, however, the best way for God to display His love is via sacrifice. The only way to display sacrifice is to have a need for sacrifice, i.e. for evil to exist. Evil simply had to exist if God wanted to display His love in His most optimal manner.

I'll come back later to show how the question is illogical, right now I simply don't have the time. My apologies.

[rhettender]

I was hoping the discussion would move in this direction...

You've all been invoking the argument of free will, which I think is an excellent one and acts as a very good explanation for those who don't take a literalist interpretation of the Genesis story. However, if you do take a literal position then this argument presents a distinct problem. If there is free will then there is also sin, invalidating the concept of original sin. A perfect world cannot exist if there is also free will, as perfection eliminates the possibility of acting imperfectly, which eliminates free will. So God must have created an imperfect world to begin with.

The problem I have with any conception of God is the incongruity of free will and any qualitative absolute, such as perfection or omniscience. So I'm wondering how a believer reconciles this logical hurdle. I only see two possibilities: either we don't actually have free will (in which case the salvation plan is rendered useless and any form of eternal punishment becomes undeniably evil), or God is not omniscient/omnipotent and perfection cannot exist. So God must have created an imperfect world to begin with.

(You still haven't explained why God would purposefully create an angel he knew would become Satan. It seems that man needs no additional help from demons to sink itself in sin.)

[tango]

Put simply, we do not know the mind of God so I can't say definitively why God would have done any specific thing. I'd reckon that God knew that enough of us would love him to make it worthwhile creating us. Humans continue to produce children even knowing with near certainty that our children are going to do things that distress us greatly, so it's not a huge stretch to think of God doing something similar.

The existence of free will doesn't necessarily mean there is sin, but it does mean that there may be sin. In other words, for as long as Adam and Eve used their free will to obey God there was no sin, and the world was perfect. As soon as they chose to disobey God, sin entered the world and man became a fallen creature.

To put it in less abstract terms, consider a closed environment with two people in it. There is no pain. But if A chooses to hit B then pain enters the closed environment. Everything was just fine until one of them used their free will to do something harmful.

But let me flip this around, you said in your introductory post that you were once a born-again Christian. Yet by your own admission you walked away from that on the back of some "clever" thinking. I'm not saying that to ridicule you, I did the exact same thing myself and spent many years away from God before realising I'd made a huge mistake. So I'll ask you what I asked myself when I saw the light again - if you have experienced God's love why did you walk away from it because something didn't seem to make sense? That's putting a theoretical construct above what you've experienced yourself, and makes no more sense than dismissing evidence you have seen for yourself with a shrug and "it can't have been that way".

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;
Pro 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.
Pro 3:7 Do not be wise in your own eyes; Fear the LORD and depart from evil.

[The Preacher]

Forgive the rough nature of this inquiry as it is taken from a quick email I wrote.


It seems, logically, that God (at least in the Christian tradition) could not be both omnipotent/omniscient and omnibenevolent. For example: if God is all knowing, then he knew that Lucifer would betray him and later trick Eve; He would also know that Adam and Eve would eat from the forbidden fruit. Yet he still made Lucifer and the tree. My point is that he purposefully arranged circumstances in a manner in which he knew Man would sin.

That is the price of giving a created being free will. You take the chance that the being you create will rebel. For free will to be truly tested it cannot be put into circumstances in which it can never rebel. This would defeat the whole purpose.


Then, later, he holds man to an arbitrary system of redemption under threat of eternal damnation. That's not loving - it's downright cruel.Your analysis of redemption as "arbitrary system" shows lack of understanding of what was actually involved with man's redemption.
First of all the creator emptied himself of his divine power and became a helpless baby. He went through the process of growing up in a poor household as a second class citizen under Roman domination. He became a man and went to his own people who then rejected,mocked and murdered him. He became our redemption. His blood was our redemption and the price he paid was his life. His resurrection insured that we could be partakers of his divine nature. In short, he poured out his glory and power first and became a man. After becoming a man he poured out his life unto death. He gave his ALL for a race that hated him. Now that is ...LOVE


I
've heard the rebuttal along the lines of "you don't constantly protect your children from falling off their bike because they need to learn the dangers of not being safe on their bike." Yet this is an inaccurate metaphor; a more accurate one would be to put your kid on a bike covered in vaseline, on a tightrope, suspended over a magma-filled volcanic crater - and then cutting the tight rope. You know a terrible thing will happen because you purposefully design it that way, yet you do it anyway? That's not loving.

This a classic fallacy of logic known as "false analogy"

What he actually did was create man and put him in a total paradise where his every need was meet. However, this wasn't enough for man. he wanted to become "like God" so he rebelled and did the only thing God forbid him to do. Eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that point man was seperated from God and began to determine what was right and wrong by leaning to his own knowledge. A similar error to the one committed to the one presented in your email. Yet even after man selfishly coveted that which God reserved for himself He was still willing to become human flesh and die for our sins...now that is...LOVE


Now, I wouldn't say this necessarily disproves any God. Rather, it suggests one thing - either God isn't omniscient (didn't know that terrible things would happen with the way he constructed the world), or God isn't omnibenevolant (he purposefully, willingly, and directly causes sin, evil, and suffering).

I would like to think the former is more likely, because an all-powerful, malevolent God is a frightening thought (though this is what the old testament suggests, considering the amount of suffering God doles out). Rather, God doesn't know the future, and isn't all-powerful (which would explain why he doesn't just erase sin, or reverse it, or change how events unfolded, etc.), yet he's trying to do his best (by giving mankind a way out of the mess that has resulted - aka, Jesus, salvation, etc). In this model you could justify eternal damnation in hell, because God doesn't have complete control over the situation. In the second model you can also justify damnation, because God isn't all good and can do something as malevolent as punishing someone forever. Yet, if god is both omniscient and omnibenevolant, then damnation cannot be justified, because it would amount to eternally punishing people for something God himself purposefully orchestrated. You can't blame man, at least unendingly, for something that is, by all logical reasoning, God's fault.
God has a desire to have his creation worship him of it's own free will. His foreknowledge of man's future rebellion doesn't make him responsible for it at all. Man had to be put into a situation where he free will was tested.
However,now that man has fallen and God has proven himself totally righteous by dying for him anyway. In effect Jesus was saying at the cross. I love you so much I would rather die than live without you.
God allows evil to exist because he wants to remove all possibility of future rebellion from his creation. For that to happen he will let evil manifest itself in the fullness of iniquity so that it can be seen for what it is.

[rhettender]

God allows evil to exist because he wants to remove all possibility of future rebellion from his creation.

But this is logically impossible if humans retain free will. Free will makes heaven, the millennial kingdom, the new earth, and any form of "perfection" impossible. Think of it this way:

A: God is all-powerful
B: Man has free-will
C: If Man has free will, then he may choose to act imperfectly
D: God can construct a perfect reality (which we shall call heaven)

If B, C and D, then not A. If A, C and D, then not B.

The question, in simpler terms, goes as such: In heaven, can one choose to sin? If yes, then heaven is not perfect (or can be made to be imperfect through the will of Man); and if Man can make heaven, which God has mandated be perfect, imperfect, then God cannot be all-powerful. If no, then one does not have free will.

This is why I cannot take the biblical descriptions of heaven literally. Metaphorically, maybe.

[rhettender]

if you have experienced God's love why did you walk away from it because something didn't seem to make sense? That's putting a theoretical construct above what you've experienced yourself, and makes no more sense than dismissing evidence you have seen for yourself with a shrug and "it can't have been that way".

It is precisely because I have felt faith so deeply that these logical problems are so devastatingly convincing to me. I didn't go around looking for them - I'm simply a very contemplative individual, prone to considering every logic problem I can think up.

If God created us, then he gave us brains with which to employ logic. If we are created beings I think it stands that logic is the formal method by which we contemplate God, for it was He who designed it in us. Therefore I cannot just assume "God is beyond logic," an appeal I've heard to many Christians use and which I think is fatally flawed. Logic defines us, and so if we are created in the image of God then we must be able to approach him through logic.

[daughter]

Forgive the rough nature of this inquiry as it is taken from a quick email I wrote.


It seems, logically, that God (at least in the Christian tradition) could not be both omnipotent/omniscient and omnibenevolent. For example: if God is all knowing, then he knew that Lucifer would betray him and later trick Eve; He would also know that Adam and Eve would eat from the forbidden fruit. Yet he still made Lucifer and the tree. My point is that he purposefully arranged circumstances in a manner in which he knew Man would sin. Then, later, he holds man to an arbitrary system of redemption under threat of eternal damnation. That's not loving - it's downright cruel. I've heard the rebuttal along the lines of "you don't constantly protect your children from falling off their bike because they need to learn the dangers of not being safe on their bike." Yet this is an inaccurate metaphor; a more accurate one would be to put your kid on a bike covered in vaseline, on a tightrope, suspended over a magma-filled volcanic crater - and then cutting the tight rope. You know a terrible thing will happen because you purposefully design it that way, yet you do it anyway? That's not loving.

Now, I wouldn't say this necessarily disproves any God. Rather, it suggests one thing - either God isn't omniscient (didn't know that terrible things would happen with the way he constructed the world), or God isn't omnibenevolant (he purposefully, willingly, and directly causes sin, evil, and suffering).

I would like to think the former is more likely, because an all-powerful, malevolent God is a frightening thought (though this is what the old testament suggests, considering the amount of suffering God doles out). Rather, God doesn't know the future, and isn't all-powerful (which would explain why he doesn't just erase sin, or reverse it, or change how events unfolded, etc.), yet he's trying to do his best (by giving mankind a way out of the mess that has resulted - aka, Jesus, salvation, etc). In this model you could justify eternal damnation in hell, because God doesn't have complete control over the situation. In the second model you can also justify damnation, because God isn't all good and can do something as malevolent as punishing someone forever. Yet, if god is both omniscient and omnibenevolant, then damnation cannot be justified, because it would amount to eternally punishing people for something God himself purposefully orchestrated. You can't blame man, at least unendingly, for something that is, by all logical reasoning, God's fault.
Hi there...

This is something I believed for years... that a benevolent God couldn't be all powerful.

Obviously I changed my mind...

Here is a scenario for you.

There is a maths teacher. He's in control of the class. He has responsibility for their learning, he knows everything they need to learn etc.

What happens when a very bright student objects to one of his lessons. "No sir, that equation doesn't work that way."

So the teacher lets the boy up front. He starts working out his solution... and yes, it's very clever, but flawed. The teacher corrects him. The boy says, "no, maybe this way..." and tries again. The teacher demonstrates how that is in error too, and again explains the correct principle.

If he hadn't let the boy make a mess of his workings some of the class might have continued in that error, because the student is bright and popular. By teaching through the mistakes the class understands the nature of the problem better.

Who is a better teacher, one who works with his kids in this way, or someone who simply says, "shut up and sit down." Both teachers are all powerful in their class, but which one is benevolent, and which one will have a room of students who understand the problem inside out at the end of the day?

God is like that. Man stood up and tried to work things out without Him, and He is allowing us to work through every alternative to Him, until we get it... both collectively and individually.

Does this metaphor help?

[tango]

So what was it you experienced when you first found your faith? From the fact you've said you are seeking Christ I assume you are looking to get back that relationship with God, so I wonder why you are using limited logic to try and disprove that God is who he claims to be.

Logic is all well and good, but it is so fundamentally based on our own limited understanding. Let me give you an example from a teacher friend of mine. One of her six-year-old pupils said to her that she wasn't allowed to smack him as a punishment. My friend explained to the six-year-old that because she wasn't allowed to smack him that meant he wasn't allowed to be naughty. The child obviously wasn't entirely happy with the explanation but couldn't logically refute it.

This child's limited understanding of logic left them unable to fully appreciate the sitatuon. In the same way our own limited understanding leaves us unable to fully address some of these questions that appear, on the face of it, to not add up.


1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

[daughter]

I'm posting this seperately, so as not to confuse the argument above.

A big theological problem, if God is not all powerful and all loving, is that in that case there could be no atonement, no salvation. Only an all powerful God could wipe away sin, and only an all loving God would die for us.

If God is benevolent but helpless, then we're all going to hell, because he can't save us.

If God is all powerful but malevolent, then we're all going to hell, because such a god would be worse than the devil (who at least isn't all powerful.)

Only through the blood of Jesus can we be saved, and it's vital that we have our theology right, because if we don't, then we're doomed.

[VerticalReality]

It is precisely because I have felt faith so deeply that these logical problems are so devastatingly convincing to me. I didn't go around looking for them - I'm simply a very contemplative individual, prone to considering every logic problem I can think up.

If God created us, then he gave us brains with which to employ logic. If we are created beings I think it stands that logic is the formal method by which we contemplate God, for it was He who designed it in us. Therefore I cannot just assume "God is beyond logic," an appeal I've heard to many Christians use and which I think is fatally flawed. Logic defines us, and so if we are created in the image of God then we must be able to approach him through logic.

I don't think I can go along with this one . . .

1 Corinthians 2:13-14
These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


The deeper truths of God are not revealed in man's logic or wisdom. What may be known of Him will not be found in our intellect. God did not construct mankind as just logical beings that need to figure Him out through their intellect. What may be known of Him will be discovered through our intimate relationship with Him. We need more than just an intellectual knowledge of God. We need an experiential knowledge of Him. That's what the Apostle Paul was talking about in Ephesians 3 . . .

Ephesians 3:14-19
For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and length and depth and height— to know the love of Christ which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.


A lot of folks read the bolded section as saying that the love of Christ is something we can't really totally have knowledge of. That's not what this is saying. If you study the Greek meaning it is basically saying the following . . .

. . . to have an experiential knowledge of the love of Christ which passes an intellectual knowledge . . .

It's the same as any other relationship. For example, I don't just have an intellectual relationship with my wife. I know her intimately. I have an experiential relationship with her. That is what relationship is all about.

It's those who choose to follow their own logic and intellect that fail to discover those deeper truths of God . . .

1 Corinthians 1:18-21
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

and . . .

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”

[rhettender]

I'd like to pose another question: How can God be both omnipotent and omniscient?

Here is the argument:

A: God is all-powerful
B: God is all-knowing

A implies B. If A, then B. If B, then not A. If not B, then not A. Therefore, not A or B.


Another way to put it:

God can do anything, which means that God necessarily has free will. If He knows the future, then He knows what He will choose to do, meaning He cannot choose to do anything else: therefore, God does not have free will, meaning He is not all-powerful. If He can choose to do something else, then He is not all-knowing, and so is not all-powerful. Therefore God cannot be either all-powerful or all-knowing.

[markinro]

I was hoping the discussion would move in this direction...

You've all been invoking the argument of free will, which I think is an excellent one and acts as a very good explanation for those who don't take a literalist interpretation of the Genesis story. However, if you do take a literal position then this argument presents a distinct problem. If there is free will then there is also sin, invalidating the concept of original sin. A perfect world cannot exist if there is also free will, as perfection eliminates the possibility of acting imperfectly, which eliminates free will. So God must have created an imperfect world to begin with.

The problem I have with any conception of God is the incongruity of free will and any qualitative absolute, such as perfection or omniscience. So I'm wondering how a believer reconciles this logical hurdle. I only see two possibilities: either we don't actually have free will (in which case the salvation plan is rendered useless and any form of eternal punishment becomes undeniably evil), or God is not omniscient/omnipotent and perfection cannot exist. So God must have created an imperfect world to begin with.

(You still haven't explained why God would purposefully create an angel he knew would become Satan. It seems that man needs no additional help from demons to sink itself in sin.)

Unfortunately, you are missing the point. We can have a literal view of Genesis (earth created in 6 days, the fall of man, etc) WITH free-will. In fact, without free-will we would better then animals.

A perfect world WILL exist WITH free will when Jesus returns.

You are doing what many unbelievers do - boxing in the nature of God.

He is omnipotent, all-powerful, all-knowing and loves you more then you can EVER imagine. No GREATER LOVE then this - that one should lay down his life for another.

[rhettender]

God necessarily boxes Himself when he associates with humans. Certainly Jesus could create a perfect world (as He is perfect), but He could not maintain that perfection if humans were in it (unless He stripped them of their free will).

[Scruffy Kid]

Dear Rhett -- may I call you Rhett? --
Thanks for continuing your inquiries. I'd like to pose another question: How can God be both omnipotent and omniscient?

Here is the argument. ... A: God is all-powerful ... B: God is all-knowing ...

If A, then B. If B, then not A. If not B, then not A. Therefore, not A or B.

Another way to put it: God can do anything, which means that God necessarily has free will. If He knows the future, then He knows what He will choose to do, meaning He cannot choose to do anything else: therefore, God does not have free will, meaning He is not all-powerful. If He can choose to do something else, then He is not all-knowing, and so is not all-powerful. Therefore God cannot be either all-powerful or all-knowing.
The argument you ask about is, IMO, flawed in several ways.

First, and most simply, the argument presumes that God is subject to time in the way that we are. But the classical Christian understanding is that God does not dwell in time, just as he does not dwell at some location in space. Rather, God exists as his own source and context, prior (not temporally prior) to the creation of time and space. God is omniscient not exactly in the sense of knowing "at time t" what will happen at time t+1000, but in the sense that in eternity -- that is, from beyond our embeddedness in time -- surveys all things at once, holding them all in being.

Naturally, we can't understand exactly how such a thing works, or conceive of how all this would look to God -- but that's because we are mere creatures, who exist only as beings whose whole existence is bound by time, and moves unidirectionally through time.

What God does He does in Eternity -- in the realm of His own being, far beyond our time and space -- although it is manifested in our world of time and space at particular moments and locations.

More positively, God possesses the fullness of His being in a single act. That is, God, who is infinite (that is, free from limits, unbounded in His being) is infinite, free not only from limits that arise in the world, but also from any internal limitations. I am more or less a unified person, but I am distributed over time and space. Parts of my personality, or intentions can clash with other parts. What I do at one time may bolix up what I do at another time. God is not like that. His being is wholly coordinated, wholly unified. This means not only that God's acts in regard to one thing, or expressed at one time or place in our world, are compatible with His other acts expressed at other times and places, but also that His justice, His mercy, His goodness, His holiness, and so on are not separate (and possibly clashing) aspects of His being, but are wholly harmonious, wholly compatible.

Thus, in particular, God's freedom (which need not be understood in terms of "choice", but never mind that for now) is in unity with his knowledge of His own nature. Because God, therefore, is not a being of the sort we are familiar with, whose various aspects can clash or conflict, but rather the source of all being and goodness, all of whose life is a unified whole, God's freedom does not conflict with His (complete) knowledge of Himself or of what He does.

Again it needs to be pointed out that the application of logical syllogisms to God as if these were simply about potatoes or machines is a misunderstanding of what logic of that sort can and cannot accomplish. Even when one is reasoning about things far lesser than God, one must take a good deal of care that terms which appear in various parts of an argument which appears to be formally sound are not meant in subtly different ways (or occurring in subtly different contexts) in the different place that those terms come into the argument. These problems arise even in mathematical and statistical reasoning, BTW.

All the more, one has to realize that when one is seeking to understand God, one is seeking to understand that which is deep far beyond our capacities. Thus our attempts to conceptualize it, and subject our conceptions to complex logical maneuvers, or tricks, has to be undertaken with an awareness of the limits to which this kind of reasoning in matters beyond what we know well. We can (as Aristotle long ago observed) expect of a subject only that degree of precision which it is capable of.

In friendship,
Scruffy Kid

[Scruffy Kid]

Certainly Jesus could create a perfect world (as He is perfect), but He could not maintain that perfection if humans were in it (unless He stripped them of their free will). Well, I actually find the use of the word English "perfect" rather confusing here. It can mean "complete", "mature", "whole-hearted" or "finished" (like "telios" in Greek); or it can mean "flawless" and things similar to that. The use of the word is discussions about God in English usually seems to me to generate confusion. But never mind.

Jesus is holy, and free from sin, complete and without flaw of any kind, surely. It's true that creating human beings who are free requires giving them some space, some room for deciding or choosing or acting freely, which necessarily permits them to use that freedom wrongly. In this sense, you are arguing -- as many Christians have argued -- the putting of free beings -- such as humanity -- into the world allows them to go astray.

The genesis account actually suggests in several ways, IMO, that God designed the circumstances into which He put them as a kind of sheltered environment, allowing them maximum protection from making mistakes. But however that may be, evidently humanity did go wrong, and the argument you have made (and that others, including Christians here, have also made) is that possibility was inherent in creating human beings (and angelic beings) who are meaningfully free (and thus meaningfully able to love).

However, that does not mean that free beings -- free humans -- cannot, over time, become so steady in character that they are free yet also free from the danger of going astray. As people allow God into their lives more and more, and consciously place their lives more and more into God's hands, He changes us, remaking us in the image of Jesus Christ. Of course part of that is due to our sin, and cleansing -- washing up -- our fouled inner lives. But it also has to do with growth in grace, growth in the knowledge and love of God.

If God revealed Himself to us fully, at the start of our lives, the experience could be so overwhelming that our human capacities and freedom might well be overwhelmed. But we may be able, through growing in grace and through setting our hearts and minds more and more upon God, to be transformed into people who are able to see and love God fully enough in freedom that we will not depart from the way of life which is the knowledge and fellowship of God. Thus John -- who in I John 1:3 states that his aim is that we should have fellowship with him, and that that fellowship is the fellowship of God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ -- later explains (3:1-3) that though even now we are the children of God, later we will be something we can't currently even fully imagine, for when Christ appears we will be transformed into His likeness, and will be so transformed because we will see Him much more fully, see Him as He is. Further, the process of transformation starts now through setting our eyes upon Him: as we hope in Him, this purifies us, because of His wonderful purity.

Thus, in sum, Rhett, it seems to me that God can, as we go through this time of trials, transform our hearts (if we will cooperate with His gracious desire to do so) so that we become solidly rooted and grounded in Christ (and in the body of Christ, the blessed company of all faithful people) -- so solidly rooted and grounded that we will finally enter God's realm, God's presence, both free and also without danger of falling away from the goodness of God's own life of love.

Perhaps through the pilgrimage God plans for each of us -- the difficult and sometimes stumbling growth in grace that God intends for us if we will let Him into our hearts -- he can bring us at last into a state of holy freedom in which He dwells in our hearts: in which we are both free and also unchangeably established in His love and goodness.

May this be what happens more and more in your own life, and in mine, my friend.

Scruff

[Mograce2U]

rhettender,
It no doubt depends upon which side of the fence you are on as to how you perceive God's nature.

(1 Pet 2:7-8) Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, {8} And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

(Rom 11:22) Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

(1 Cor 1:18-21) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. {19} For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. {20} Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? {21} For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

[rhettender]

Dear Rhett -- may I call you Rhett? --
Thanks for continuing your inquiries.
The argument you ask about is, IMO, flawed in several ways.

First, and most simply, the argument presumes that God is subject to time in the way that we are. But the classical Christian understanding is that God does not dwell in time, just as he does not dwell at some location in space. Rather, God exists as his own source and context, prior (not temporally prior) to the creation of time and space. God is omniscient not exactly in the sense of knowing "at time t" what will happen at time t+1000, but in the sense that in eternity -- that is, from beyond our embeddedness in time -- surveys all things at once, holding them all in being.

Naturally, we can't understand exactly how such a thing works, or conceive of how all this would look to God -- but that's because we are mere creatures, who exist only as beings whose whole existence is bound by time, and moves unidirectionally through time.

What God does He does in Eternity -- in the realm of His own being, far beyond our time and space -- although it is manifested in our world of time and space at particular moments and locations.

More positively, God possesses the fullness of His being in a single act. That is, God, who is infinite (that is, free from limits, unbounded in His being) is infinite, free not only from limits that arise in the world, but also from any internal limitations. I am more or less a unified person, but I am distributed over time and space. Parts of my personality, or intentions can clash with other parts. What I do at one time may bolix up what I do at another time. God is not like that. His being is wholly coordinated, wholly unified. This means not only that God's acts in regard to one thing, or expressed at one time or place in our world, are compatible with His other acts expressed at other times and places, but also that His justice, His mercy, His goodness, His holiness, and so on are not separate (and possibly clashing) aspects of His being, but are wholly harmonious, wholly compatible.

Thus, in particular, God's freedom (which need not be understood in terms of "choice", but never mind that for now) is in unity with his knowledge of His own nature. Because God, therefore, is not a being of the sort we are familiar with, whose various aspects can clash or conflict, but rather the source of all being and goodness, all of whose life is a unified whole, God's freedom does not conflict with His (complete) knowledge of Himself or of what He does.

Again it needs to be pointed out that the application of logical syllogisms to God as if these were simply about potatoes or machines is a misunderstanding of what logic of that sort can and cannot accomplish. Even when one is reasoning about things far lesser than God, one must take a good deal of care that terms which appear in various parts of an argument which appears to be formally sound are not meant in subtly different ways (or occurring in subtly different contexts) in the different place that those terms come into the argument. These problems arise even in mathematical and statistical reasoning, BTW.

All the more, one has to realize that when one is seeking to understand God, one is seeking to understand that which is deep far beyond our capacities. Thus our attempts to conceptualize it, and subject our conceptions to complex logical maneuvers, or tricks, has to be undertaken with an awareness of the limits to which this kind of reasoning in matters beyond what we know well. We can (as Aristotle long ago observed) expect of a subject only that degree of precision which it is capable of.

In friendship,
Scruffy Kid

An excellent argument to which I have no counter. I believe it was C.S. Lewis who suggested it was like an author writing (or was it reading?) a book, in that he may go to any page or moment, while the events of the book remained linear.

A solid use of metaphysical argumentation.

[rhettender]

Thus, in sum, Rhett, it seems to me that God can, as we go through this time of trials, transform our hearts (if we will cooperate with His gracious desire to do so) so that we become solidly rooted and grounded in Christ (and in the body of Christ, the blessed company of all faithful people) -- so solidly rooted and grounded that we will finally enter God's realm, God's presence, both free and also without danger of falling away from the goodness of God's own life of love.

I follow your argument, but I don't think it is sufficient. Even if one's heart is fully changed, they still must retain the ability to choose to act imperfectly in order to have free will. The paradox becomes: can one choose to act imperfectly in heaven? If so, then he has overruled God's edict that heaven be without imperfection, and therefore God is not all-powerful. If not, then man does not have free will.

And do you think everyone's heart is fully changed by the time they reach heaven? Surely some Christians die early in their faith, before they have fully changed.

[Mograce2U]

I follow your argument, but I don't think it is sufficient. Even if one's heart is fully changed, they still must retain the ability to choose to act imperfectly in order to have free will. The paradox becomes: can one choose to act imperfectly in heaven? If so, then he has overruled God's edict that heaven be without imperfection, and therefore God is not all-powerful. If not, then man does not have free will.

And do you think everyone's heart is fully changed by the time they reach heaven? Surely some Christians die early in their faith, before they have fully changed.When Adam walked in the garden with God, His was the only voice he heard & listened to and his will was in perfect alignment with God. It was only when another voice entered in that Adam then had to choose. Once we are in heaven there will not be any other choice to make for the word of God will be in our hearts without admixture and we will be one with God again - without sin or a devil. In this earth however there are many voices and we must choose whose we will listen to.

[chisel]

Hi there, Rhettender

I'd like to offer to some food for thought, and maybe a possible solution to the question that you're grappling with...

Lets review some premises.

1) If humans have the freedom to do what they will, then God doesn't control people for reasons:
1.1 God cannot control people.
1.2 God will not control people.
2) If humans don't have the freedom then God is the One causing all the trouble in the world.

So on the face of it, it looks like Christianity is in trouble and this is where you got stuck, right?

In short are we free of not? But either of these poses a problem.

Suppose it could be possible for us to be free but yet not be free? A kind of middle ground. You've stated in an earlier post that the perfect situation would be were people would somehow only choose good?

That would create a scenario that'll fullfill all requirements, right?
You're still free, you're not a robot or a puppet on a string, you're totally and absolute free, yet somehow your nature should be such that your will is only directed toward good. Wouldn't that solve the problem?

I believe this is exactly what God did, and it's actually really awesome that you asked these questions, because the wonder of the Gospel becomes evident when difficult questions such as these are asked.

God gave us freedom to choose either good or evil. Without this, the world wouldn't be perfect either.

Let me try and illustrate this point using the game of golf. I don't even like the sport, but hey, for some reason I can't come up with anything different right now.
So...you get a hole in one, right?
That's the most perfect shot possible in golf. Now, suppose you took a shovel and you give the hole a slightly bigger diameter, like say....100 meters.

Would a hole-in-one, still be a perfect shot? Not really, right?
Phisophically why isn't this a perfect shot anymore?
It's because the possibility of failure has been reduced to zero, so instead of this being a feat of perfection it's just stupid.

So you kinda HAVE TO HAVE FREEDOM for a perfect world to exist.
A world where we simply did exactly what we're supposed to because we have no choice in the matter would not be perfect. So let's tick 'freedom' as a necessary aspect of a perfect world.

If you wanted to bake a perfect world, a key ingredient would be freedom.

But freedom on it's own has a problem. No sooner after Adam acquired freedom did he sin, by disobeying the law of God and grasping for equality with God. When confronted he blamed God saying, "You gave me this woman"...and the woman blamed the snake, saying, "The serpent beguiled me". A heinous bunch of sins, and this introduces a major problem. Death. Freedom when fully explored leads to imperfect action, and these imperfect actions have consequences. If you do evil there is punishment and punishment means death. By committing a single sin, a human being has made the world imperfect. It only takes one crime against the laws of perfection to bring about a state of imperfection, doesn't it? Hence, all of creation being rendered FALLEN by Adam's grievous misstep. An imperfect creation in the eyes of a perfect Holy God is rubbish and must be destroyed.

Let's mark 'not being destroyed' as another crucial necessity for a perfect world. Agreed?

So what do we have so far.
a) you need freedom, but a nasty side effect of freedom is evil which leads to destruction.

Enter the Cure, the Redeemer, the GoodNews, the Liberator, the Solution to the problem. His Name is Jesus Christ.

He takes the sins of mankind upon himself, therefore erasing the sin guilt, and by the working of the Holy Spirit those who believe upon Him are renewed, so that they choose good instead of evil. Now the saved have the spirit of God in them and therefore CHOOSE good as God does.

Here is this very promise in the Bible:Heb 8:10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My Laws into their mind and write them in their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

See in the above the difference between the old and new testament. In the old testament the law was written on stone. It was outside of man. Man has freedom but that freedom meant that we are under the curse of the law. But the promise of God is that those who believe, will get a new heart. A new will that conforms to the will of God.

Eze 36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My judgments and do them.

Now the possibilty for perfection exists. Freedom within the law of God, and the law of God is love for God and love for each other.

All the necessary ingredients are gathered.
a) freedom (One could say the tree of knowledge of good and evil simbolises this)
b) freedom from the curse of death through the salvation of Christ. (the tree of life)

This post turned out a bit longer than I had planned, but I hope that this'll help you in some small way with the problem you have.

Regards

V.

[rhettender]

Once we are in heaven there will not be any other choice to make for the word of God will be in our hearts

So we wont have free will, which invalidates everything about the salvation plan.

[Mograce2U]

So we wont have free will, which invalidates everything about the salvation plan.Jesus did the will of His Father because they were one. We have the mind of Christ so we will be one with Him. Sounds like the human will has been made free to serve the Lord rather than sin. Can't get much freer than that!