Will we sin when we get to heaven?

[civilwarbuff]

You are saying he is maximally powerful. Such a being is insufficient to cause the universe to begin to exist, as it is logically absurd to effect nothing and cause something to exist.

Of course you have evidence to corroborate that statement, right?

 

[cloudyday2]

Of course you have evidence to corroborate that statement, right?

I can only guess that you have been irritated when atheists have asked you for evidence of your faith-based claims in the past, so now you are giving the same treatment to atheists? ... Don't forget that bible verse about turning the other cheek. Some things you write are interesting, so you should take the high road IMO.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Once again starting with a false dichotomy.

I don't know about a false dichotomy, but it is a false presumption. By asking "we" the OP is presuming he will be there, too. As a professed non-believer, it is impossible for him to be there. Which makes the rest of his questions irrelevant.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I can only guess that you have been irritated when atheists have asked you for evidence of your faith-based claims in the past, so now you are giving the same treatment to atheists? ... Don't forget that bible verse about turning the other cheek. Some things you write are interesting, so you should take the high road IMO.

Got nothing to do with that, it has to do with making empty claims as if they are fact but cannot be substantiated. I try hard to back up my assertions; I go out of my way to provide evidence and quote scripture. I think it is reasonable to expect the same in return.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Got nothing to do with that, it has to do with making empty claims as if they are fact but cannot be substantiated. I try hard to back up my assertions; I go out of my way to provide evidence and quote scripture. I think it is reasonable to expect the same in return.

In my thread, "Is God above the law or not?" you certainly went out of your way to not answer my question. You have also gone out of your way to redact a post in which Davian exposed some of your less than savory debate tactics.

Of course you have evidence to corroborate that statement, right?

I already proved it and I already asked you to stop conversing with me. You've exhausted my patience and I don't have any interest in continuing dialogue with you. Continuing to address me in threads forces me to either respond or else make it appear as though I'm willfully ignoring someone for no good reason. If you think you have really good points and you are seriously interested in a discussion with me, you can go a long way in proving that by correcting the mistakes you made on the other thread. Simply go on there and explain why I'm wrong or admit that you were, it's that easy.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't know about a false dichotomy, but it is a false presumption. By asking "we" the OP is presuming he will be there, too. As a professed non-believer, it is impossible for him to be there. Which makes the rest of his questions irrelevant.

OK, I'll bite. What aspect of believing actually makes my sins forgiven? Can you explain the mechanics of that process to me please? Oh that's right, you can't. You can cite "Saved by grace through faith" but that only makes me repeat the question. Only God knows what he actually intends to do. In your theology, all you're equipped to say is that God has atoned for our sins against him. He can actually still choose to leave BigDaddy4 out of heaven purely for his own amusement and there's nothing you can do about it as you haven't earned heaven but are only given it by his whimsical suspension of justice. Conversely, he can take me into heaven even as I blaspheme for all eternity if that is what he chooses.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not relevant to whether or not regenerated and resurrected humans sin.

The state of angels is not relevant to the message of the Bible.

It's relevant in the sense that I am asking about the actions that would lead to banishment from heaven.

However the deliverance of mankind is central to your OP.

Deliverance of mankind is already assumed in the OP and is not even a point in question. I'm asking what happens once we attain salvation. To me, salvation has always meant getting through those gates. But it is not clear that you can start the celebration once you get inside because there are known to be beings who were banished.

Where is it stated angels were made in the image of God?

It's implied. Angels are always described as men, perhaps as young men. They are even sexually attractive, apparently more so than Lot's virgin daughters. Man was created in the image of God, and angels are in the image of a man.

There was only one creation, mankind made in the Image of God.

Did the angels create themselves?

Your presumptive conclusion that God was incapable of creating angels and mankind without free will is yet another false dichotomy.

You must've skimmed the OP, which is odd considering it's quite short. Please look again. On the righthand side I clearly list the possibility that free will does not exist.

Regardless, the idea of free will or no free will is not a false dichotomy.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Concerning angels, the scripture is mostly silent. We can determine what happened in a general sense, but not why. As to the fate of the redeemed and unreformed humans, the bible is clear. So trying to instigate a discussion on something that is going to be speculation at best will not be beneficial.

I disagree, I don't think the Bible is clear on this. My position is supported by the fact that there are hundreds (thousands?) of branches of Christianity that all disagree with one another. Even within the same denomination there will be disagreement. Even in the same church there are pre-tribbers, mid-tribbers, post-tribbers, and non-tribbers.

Regardless, even if we agree that the Bible is clear that heaven exists and we can go there if we believe and/or if we are among the elect, there's still an issue. As I said to redleghunter,

To me, salvation has always meant getting through those gates. But it is not clear that you can start the celebration once you get inside because there are known to be beings who were banished.

My view/understanding is this. Adam was created good in the sense that he was without sin. But that doesn't mean he had inherent righteousness. Christ has inherent righteousness because it's His nature. So His righteousness is imputed to those who are believing. We are credited with His righteousness. In heaven, we are told we will be like Him. We will go from having His righteousness credited to us, to actually being righteous. So we will not sin in heaven because it will not be in our nature.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by righteousness? I always took it to be synonymous with sinless.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Mankind was originally created sinless as well, however, the temptation was for a state preferable to remaining in sinless communion with God, being your own God, this why humility and selflessness is a big theme in the teachings of Jesus and Paul.



I guess we're also assuming in this thread that the post-exile understand of Satan as a fallen angel at opposition with God is the correct one, and not the pre-exile understand of Satan as God's, for lack of a better term, District Attorney? Since we are, Satan's rebellion of God was completely different than the sin of Adam because angels are immortal, spiritual beings of a completely different purpose, role, and etc. When Satan, along with 1/3 of the angels, those chose were the only ones effected, just like damned men choose their sin over God. Another important factor, how do you know with 100% certainty there is no plan for fallen angels to be redeemed? Why would scripture even mention that as it as no relevancy to the relationship between God and man because that's an issue between God and his angels.

Well I'm not entirely sure you answered my questions.

When we get to heaven we will be comparable to angelic beings at least in some respect. I'm not sure how we will be any different at all. You didn't address this comparison whatsoever.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, He is the most powerful force there is. He is also the root of logic.

You sound like Matt Slick. Do you work for CARM or something? You sound like you're initiating the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God.

Regardless, I've remarked on your signature once before and explained to you the severe problem with what you're proposing. The mathematician Gödel proved his Incompleteness Theorem, so if God created logic and mathematics, why is it "incomplete"?

Here's my watered down version of the theorem:

Saying that God is limited by logic necessarily revokes his omniscience because there are propositions in any consistent, nontrivial axiomatic system which are necessarily either true or false but which cannot be decided either way.

He can not change His logical nature which is what you are supposing. The only nature that is sinless is God's by nature, by structure and by being. God is not a created Being and as such everything ...everything else is created. All living things, the universe itself and even the spiritual world occupants of angels, Cherubim, Seraphim and even Satan. None of these living beings besides God were created sinless because sinless creation is like a square circle. Logically impossible. There is no possible world that physical beings can be created without sin. Being sinless is being perfection and the only perfect Being is God. No physical being can be perfection. All created must be shed of its sin nature and the one and only way is through acceptance of salvation through Christ Jesus.

It sounds like you're saying we will retain our sinful nature in heaven. Can you follow that half of the flowchart for me?

All created beings have to choose to be covered by salvation or forever be separated from God and the new world set up for eternity.

You are using the bizarre language of Paul here and this has nothing to do with what Jesus ever said. Jesus spoke in parables but the things he said were simple things comprehensible by anyone. Please explain this weird Pauline doctrine in laymen's terms for me.

The angels in heaven today will never sin and the reason is they chose not to rebel against God. They accepted God.

Choice is not a one-time thing like that. If you have a bubble gum addiction, and you choose not to chew it, five minutes later you might decide to chew some. So your answer is nonsensical to me.

Each one of us has to do the same thing before being covered by God in salvation. Once that is done and in death our physical nature is gone (the body) we will no longer have our sin nature and are covered by God by our choice. All living beings have to make a choice. God will not force people to worship Him because that is not true worship.

He won't force us to worship because that is not true worship? How is threatening us all with hellfire not forcing us to worship him? Or do you make a distinction between withholding free will in order to not force worship and allowing the existence of free will but imposing a horrific threat in order to coax obedience? If you adore God so much that this threat is meaningless to you because you'd worship him without the threat, why don't you make a much more genuine effort to actually live by the words of Christ? Luke 12:33.

 

[civilwarbuff]

In my thread, "Is God above the law or not?" you certainly went out of your way to not answer my question. You have also gone out of your way to redact a post in which Davian exposed some of your less than savory debate tactics.




I already proved it and I already asked you to stop conversing with me. You've exhausted my patience and I don't have any interest in continuing dialogue with you. Continuing to address me in threads forces me to either respond or else make it appear as though I'm willfully ignoring someone for no good reason. If you think you have really good points and you are seriously interested in a discussion with me, you can go a long way in proving that by correcting the mistakes you made on the other thread. Simply go on there and explain why I'm wrong or admit that you were, it's that easy.

There is an ignore button....I use it myself.....

 

[cloudyday2]

OK, I'll bite. What aspect of believing actually makes my sins forgiven? Can you explain the mechanics of that process to me please? Oh that's right, you can't. You can cite "Saved by grace through faith" but that only makes me repeat the question. Only God knows what he actually intends to do. In your theology, all you're equipped to say is that God has atoned for our sins against him. He can actually still choose to leave BigDaddy4 out of heaven purely for his own amusement and there's nothing you can do about it as you haven't earned heaven but are only given it by his whimsical suspension of justice. Conversely, he can take me into heaven even as I blaspheme for all eternity if that is what he chooses.

In fact there is even a Bible verse apparently on this topic - the sheep and the goats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_and_the_Goats

 

[civilwarbuff]

He can actually still choose to leave BigDaddy4 out of heaven purely for his own amusement and there's nothing you can do about it as you haven't earned heaven but are only given it by his whimsical suspension of justice.

Where does the NT give that impression? I can't see how you could arrive at that conclusion so please give a chapter/verse reference.....

 

[Nihilist Virus]

There is an ignore button....I use it myself.....

And I used that button on you long ago. I'm asking you to stop talking to me out of courtesy and I gave a good reason for it and even an easy remedy. Do you reject the notion of common courtesy?

 

[civilwarbuff]

And I used that button on you long ago. I'm asking you to stop talking to me out of courtesy and I gave a good reason for it and even an easy remedy. Do you reject the notion of common courtesy?

I am free to reply to any thread that opens (within the confines of that forums SoP). You don't have to reply. You may not like the answers I give; they are sometimes hard and biting but that is no different than what you do. Now, if you are willing to drop the snarkiness, sarcasm, etc that you employ I am more than willing to do the same and we can have a discussion. What say you?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am free to reply to any thread that opens (within the confines of that forums SoP). You don't have to reply.

I never said or suggested that your conduct is against the rules of the forum. I'm only pointing your conduct out as rude, because as I understand the word, something is rude if it is legal but also contrary to the common good. That summarizes your behavior succinctly.

You may not like the answers I give; they are sometimes hard and biting but that is no different than what you do. Now, if you are willing to drop the snarkiness, sarcasm, etc that you employ I am more than willing to do the same and we can have a discussion. What say you?

I already laid out a completely reasonable offer. You can accept it or reject it. Your offer is unreasonable because its terms dictate that I admit to character flaws as a condition of agreement. Furthermore, you make no indication that you have any intention of answering the question you dodged repeatedly in the thread I specified. So no, offer rejected. For the time being you can respond to the old thread with "Yes, you're correct, and you've exposed a massive hole in my theology" or "No, you're wrong because ____" or else "I don't know the answer." That is my offer, it will not change, but it might be rescinded as you are once again trying my patience.

 

[civilwarbuff]

As you wish.....

 

[civilwarbuff]

If you would like continue this I suggest it be done on pm and not the oopen forum.....

 

[redleghunter]

It's relevant in the sense that I am asking about the actions that would lead to banishment from heaven.



Deliverance of mankind is already assumed in the OP and is not even a point in question. I'm asking what happens once we attain salvation. To me, salvation has always meant getting through those gates. But it is not clear that you can start the celebration once you get inside because there are known to be beings who were banished.



It's implied. Angels are always described as men, perhaps as young men. They are even sexually attractive, apparently more so than Lot's virgin daughters. Man was created in the image of God, and angels are in the image of a man.



Did the angels create themselves?




You must've skimmed the OP, which is odd considering it's quite short. Please look again. On the righthand side I clearly list the possibility that free will does not exist.

Regardless, the idea of free will or no free will is not a false dichotomy.

I read and understand your OP flow chart. I have already responded to its flaws.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's too Molenistic for me. But I don't want to derail the thread.

I've never heard of Molinism until your post. Interesting.