? for christians, your "sinless state" in heaven?

[Orion]

For those of you who are bound for heaven, . . . I would like to get your opinions on how you believe that you will remain, for the rest of eternity, in a sinless state?

 

[Alabaster]

How can we NOT? there is no sin in heaven, and we will be complete, perfected and holy. as we were created to be.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

How can we NOT? there is no sin in heaven, and we will be complete, perfected and holy. as we were created to be.

I am going to take this rare opportunity to agree with my arch-nemesis, Alabaster :-D

:D :D :D :D

 

[Alabaster]

How can we NOT? there is no sin in heaven, and we will be complete, perfected and holy. as we were created to be.

I am going to take this rare opportunity to agree with my arch-nemesis, Alabaster :-D

:D :D :D :D

 

[Orion]

What do you mean, . . "as we were created to be"? How will things be different than the first attempt at "paradise"?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

What do you mean, . . "as we were created to be"? How will things be different than the first attempt at "paradise"?

I think she means that we were created sinless, and that how we were meant to be.

The OP is (I believe) asking if we will sin in heaven, not on earth. And Alabaster correctly said: No, we will not.

Do you think people will sin in heaven? I hope not.

 

[Orion]

Well, . . . my point is, . . . if God meant for man to be sinless, . . . and the angels, for that matter, then what happened that there was such a collosal failure of the plan? How will this not be a potential possibility in heaven? How would anyone know if there wouldn't be another angel that chooses to "set him/herself above God", thus bringing in yet another age of "sin"?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Well, . . . my point is, . . . if God meant for man to be sinless, . . . and the angels, for that matter, then what happened that there was such a collosal failure of the plan?

In a phrase: "Free Will." Even though God created man sinless, He also gave man the capacity to choose good or evil. God wants our love, and the only authentic love is love that is freely given. (Hey, thats pretty good.) So it was man's choice to sin.

How will this not be a potential possibility in heaven?

Because we will be perfected.

Revelation 21:27
"nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it [heaven]"

Hebrews 12:22-24
"you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem... ...and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant..."

How would anyone know if there wouldn't be another angel that chooses to "set him/herself above God", thus bringing in yet another age of "sin"?

Well, how the angels actually fell involves a lot of speculation on the part of theologians. I have heard many theories. I can't answer that question. :

 

[Orion]

But that's my point. The angels were created, yet (as stated by scripture) a number of them "fell with Satan". How would this not be a possibility at any point in time?

As for us, . . . . without "free will", we will be nothing like we are now. How will any praise from such people be sincere?

And if God wanted those who would be true, thus setting up this world with full knowledge that man would fall, just so there WOULD be those who were true and accept them via this "free will", if that is removed, . . . then nothing would be gained, . . . . the people would be worshipping in a false, predetermined, and predefined state. This "we'll be perfect" is nothing more than saying that we. . . . . won't be who we are. There will be no one who will fall away because the "us" will no longer exist.

The bottom line is, God either created non-perfection, at the beginning, . . . or created it to perfectly fail.

I call into question this very pivital doctrine of the church and how it could ever exist for all eternity.

 

[BobRyan]

For those of you who are bound for heaven, . . . I would like to get your opinions on how you believe that you will remain, for the rest of eternity, in a sinless state?

Romans 3 describes the sinful nature as does Romans 7 - "Sin IN ME waging war with my mind" -- that sinful nature (natural inclination to death and destruction) will be removed.

Romans 6 states clearly that yielding to sin - being overcome by sin -- is in fact SLAVERY to sin.

Your argument is of the form "I can not imagine that slavery would end"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But that's my point. The angels were created, yet (as stated by scripture) a number of them "fell with Satan". How would this not be a possibility at any point in time?

As for us, . . . . without "free will", we will be nothing like we are now. How will any praise from such people be sincere?

In a free will system decisions are motivated by "compelling evidence". Read the book of Job.

The WHOLE POINT of Christ not coming to earth to die for our sins the "very day after Adam sinned" is that this "sin experiment" provides the "data" as in the book of Job -- that ensures free will beings will never knowingly - willingly "choose death disease deception and destruction" for themselves or their children the way Adam and Eve did.

God created "Free will" -- and "it is tough to BE God" which means it is tough for non-creators like you and me to know the full depth of what it means to "CREATE free will".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DavidLee]

The bottom line is, God either created non-perfection, at the beginning, . . . or created it to perfectly fail.

No. The bottom line is this:
“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.â€Â
(1 Corinthians 2:14 NASB)

We will be perfected because our corrupting flesh will be gone.
“Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.â€Â
(1 Corinthians 15:51-52 NASB)

You put up so many walls of your own making between you and the God who lives, and loves you.
“For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.â€Â
(1 Corinthians 1:18 NASB)

Your reasoned arguments are just that. They are reasoned according to man's wisdom.
“For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.â€Â
(1 Corinthians 1:21 NASB)

Embrace the cross.

 

[Orion]

I'm just trying to understand how our nature will be different from "Adam and Eve's nature". . . . . Why wouldn't God create them in the state that those who are heaven bound are supposed to be? This has nothing to do with "human reasoning". It is a legitimate question, as well as how the angels will not rise up as Satan was said to have done, and if this is something that can happen, why it wasn't made that way from the very beginning? God obviously either wanted it to "go south", or lost control of his creation. Which is it?

 

[mondar]

Well, . . . my point is, . . . if God meant for man to be sinless, . . . and the angels, for that matter, then what happened that there was such a collosal failure of the plan? How will this not be a potential possibility in heaven? How would anyone know if there wouldn't be another angel that chooses to "set him/herself above God", thus bringing in yet another age of "sin"?

Orion, I am not sure how you cal look at mans need for redemption as a "collosal failure." Acts 2 is clear that mans need for redemption was planned from eternity past.
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know;
23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:
I dont see that history was a plan for God to find some companionship that he needed in other righteous beings. As a trinity, God had all such companionship that he needed. God created, so as to have redeemed beings give glory to him. Of course, as you allude to, God also created angels that never fell and therefore do not need redemption. He also created angels that fell, and God chose not to redeem them.

How do we know that more angels will not yet fall? Actually this is not a matter of revelation (scripture) so in essence we do not know. Anything I say about that specific subject is conjecture and speculation. Please allow me that privelage.

In the garden of Eden, God placed two trees. The first tree is the knowledge of good and evil. I do not think this tree was a bad tree. God did give the command not to eat of it, but I think had Adam acted in obedience to God, God would have eventually ordered him to eat of the tree. In Adams disobedience he learned both good and evil from the perspective of disobedience and rebellion against God. At a later time, God may have ordered Adam to eat of the tree and then Adam would still have known good and evil from the perspective of righteousness. Adam was created guiltless, but not confirmed in righteousness. Adam was innocent, but did not know good or evil.

The other tree is the tree of life. After Adams fall, God cast Adam out of the garden lest he eat of the tree of life. The tree of life is not a good or bad tree either. It is a tree that would confirm man in whatever state he is in. Adam was in sin. Had he eaten of that tree his nature would be confirmed as sinful for all eternity. This tree again appears in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 22 we see the nations eating the leaves of that tree. Why at the bookends of the bible do we have the same tree... one being not eaten, the other being eaten? IF the tree of life confirms one permenantly in whatever state one is in. In Revelation we will be confirmed eternally in righteousness. In Genesis we could have been confirmed unredeemed in sin. Both the restriction of the tree and the giving of the tree are then acts of Gods grace.

What does this have to do with Angels? While this is not a matter of special revelation in the bible, after the fall of angels, did God confirm angels in their choice for all eternity? Some then can never repent, some can only be righteous. Then God would be doing the same for angels as he did for men.

Orion, I honestly have no idea what is going on in your mind. What is behind these questions? Possibly you are rejecting a God that is not "love" to the exclusion of his other attributes? RC Sproul once said that the main attribute of God is his holiness. In the bible, it speaks of both his love and his holiness. Yet the angels themselves speak of God in the triple statement that God is "holy, holy, holy." Nowhere does the bible say that God is "love love love." Is Gods love like ours? He has some that he loves more then others? He has favorites?

God will judge fallen angels. He will not redeem them. He will judge unbelievers and not redeem them. He has given his mercy to believers and redeemed them. But as Romans 9:15, 18 says...
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

God loves all men, but he never agreed to love all men equally. Some he redeems, and some he does not. But all is for his glory. Some are for his glory in making his power known, and others are for his glory as vessels of mercy.

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,


From the least of his favorites,
Mondar

 

[Orion]

Why does God care about or need worship from "redeemed beings"? :-?

Why is it that when someone asks a question that is outside of conventional dogmatic christian theology, the person asking must automatically be "rejecting God"? :-?

 

[Drew]

God will judge fallen angels. He will not redeem them. He will judge unbelievers and not redeem them. He has given his mercy to believers and redeemed them. But as Romans 9:15, 18 says...
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.

But, and I know we have discussed this before, Paul is not even talking about individuals in this chunk of Romans 9. He is talking about Israel and God's treatment of her. The issue of the eternal destiny of individual persons is not what Paul is talking about in relation to the "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy..." text. He is talking about God's right to treat Israel, as a corrporate entity, the way that He wants to. Paul sees Israel as being hardened, just like Pharoah was hardened. And Pharoah was not hardened for eternal damnation - he was hardened to play a role in effecting a great act of redemption in this world - the exodus of the Jews from Egypt. Paul is saying the same thing about Israel here in relation their role in effecting salvation for the Gentiles (see Romans 11). He is not talking about eternal destinies of individuals in this part of Romans 9.

God loves all men, but he never agreed to love all men equally. Some he redeems, and some he does not. But all is for his glory. Some are for his glory in making his power known, and others are for his glory as vessels of mercy.

22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
23 and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory,

The "potter and the pot" is an allusion to extensive use of this very same metaphor in the Old Testament in relation to the specific matter of how God treats Israel. So the potter metaphor needs to be read in its proper biblical context - it is about Israel, not about individuals.

 

[Drew]

In the garden of Eden, God placed two trees. The first tree is the knowledge of good and evil. I do not think this tree was a bad tree. God did give the command not to eat of it, but I think had Adam acted in obedience to God, God would have eventually ordered him to eat of the tree. In Adams disobedience he learned both good and evil from the perspective of disobedience and rebellion against God. At a later time, God may have ordered Adam to eat of the tree and then Adam would still have known good and evil from the perspective of righteousness. Adam was created guiltless, but not confirmed in righteousness. Adam was innocent, but did not know good or evil.

The other tree is the tree of life. After Adams fall, God cast Adam out of the garden lest he eat of the tree of life. The tree of life is not a good or bad tree either. It is a tree that would confirm man in whatever state he is in. Adam was in sin. Had he eaten of that tree his nature would be confirmed as sinful for all eternity. This tree again appears in the book of Revelation. In Revelation 22 we see the nations eating the leaves of that tree. Why at the bookends of the bible do we have the same tree... one being not eaten, the other being eaten? IF the tree of life confirms one permenantly in whatever state one is in. In Revelation we will be confirmed eternally in righteousness. In Genesis we could have been confirmed unredeemed in sin. Both the restriction of the tree and the giving of the tree are then acts of Gods grace.

This is an exceedingly interesting post (I am not just saying to be "nice" in light of our other disagreements). I suspect that this is a significant insight from which other good stuff might be leveraged.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm just trying to understand how our nature will be different from "Adam and Eve's nature". . . . .

Let's start by assuming it is the same.

Why wouldn't God create them in the state that those who are heaven bound are supposed to be?

He did.

This has nothing to do with "human reasoning". It is a legitimate question, as well as how the angels will not rise up as Satan was said to have done, and if this is something that can happen, why it wasn't made that way from the very beginning? God obviously either wanted it to "go south", or lost control of his creation. Which is it?

As I said in a free will system decisions are motivated by compelling data. See the book of Job.

Apparently 6000 years of sin suffering and death provides the compelling data for "all eternity".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Orion]

You didn't really answer my questions.

 

[DavidLee]

You didn't really answer my questions.

You have asked a question with a choice of two incorrect answers.
You have incorrectly surmised that you have the only valid conclusions.
No one is going to pick from your options.

Several people have answered your questions.

If you are referring to:

Why does God care about or need worship from "redeemed beings"?

He needs nothing from us.

If you are referring to:

Why is it that when someone asks a question that is outside of conventional dogmatic christian theology, the person asking must automatically be "rejecting God"?

I thought this was rhetorical, sorry. It sometimes seems that the questions you ask have no basis in theology, but are originated in humanism. My impression (hopefully I'm wrong) is that you ask questions without really wanting the answers.