Why didnt God just make heaven and forego earth?

[GUNWOUNDS]

In another of Lenny Eposito's articles he showed how it's possible for man to have free volition in heaven and yet never sin.

here ---> http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi039.asp

He states we have a new, divine nature in Christ. This nature cannot sin, just as Christ cannot sin. Even though Jesus could not sin, He was still free. Therefore, we can exist with free will in heaven and we will not sin. We know this is not an illogical idea, since no one argues that God has no free will, yet God cannot sin. So, it is possible for a being to exist, be truly free and not able to sin.

The thing I find even more intriguing, though, is that it may expose one of God's grand purposes in allowing the events of the universe unfold as they did. Many times people ask "Why would God allow evil in the world to begin with? Why wouldn't he just create beings who could not sin at the beginning?"

Here Lenny agrees with William Lane Craig. In a debate against Dr. Ray Bradley in 1994 , Craig was asked why God didn't just create heaven as the world and forego the rest.

Craig responded:

"No,Heaven may not be a possible world when you take it in isolation by itself. It may be that the only way in which God could actualize a heaven of free creatures all worshiping Him and not falling into sin would be by having, so to speak, this run-up to it, this advance life during which there is a veil of decision-making in which some people choose for God and some people against God. Otherwise you don't know that heaven is an actualizable world. You have no way of knowing that possibility."

Dr. Bradley:

"You're saying, in effect, that when I characterize heaven as a possible world in which everybody freely receives Christ (with no need of earth), I'm wrong insofar as that had to be preceded by this actual world, this world of veil of tears and woe in which people are sinful and the like." (he is asking if Heaven could exist with mankind without mankind having to go through earth as a antecedent world)

Dr. Craig:

"I'm saying that it may not be feasible for God to actualize heaven in isolation from such an antecedent world."

[nemafakei]

"God has no free will, yet God cannot sin"

By adopting the cause of good, you exclude from your options all but the most 'good-bringing' (or least 'bad-bringing') choice. Only if more than one option bring about precisely the same resultant good exists may you choose between them. Being omniscient, you can know exactly what is and isn't good, and quantify precisely. Hence, you are completely restricted to these choices. Only the entirely ignorant, entirely impotent, or entirely immoral are sure to be free. And in that case, you can do no good.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"God has no free will, yet God cannot sin"

By adopting the cause of good, you exclude from your options all but the most 'good-bringing' (or least 'bad-bringing') choice. Only if more than one option bring about precisely the same resultant good exists may you choose between them. Being omniscient, you can know exactly what is and isn't good, and quantify precisely. Hence, you are completely restricted to these choices. Only the entirely ignorant, entirely impotent, or entirely immoral are sure to be free. And in that case, you can do no good.

yes but the "adopting the cause of good" itself was a choice you made freely ... thus by saying he adopted good you are saying he made a choice.... which is what free will is all about.

[nemafakei]

I agree, but you must change your conditions such that god is not said to be unable to sin - he just chooses not to by dint of having chosen to adopt the cause of good.

Hence, "Even though Jesus could not sin, He was still free." is not correct: Jesus was free to sin, but he chose not to, and likeqise throughout.

[GUNWOUNDS]

you dont have to read all of this Nema but just flip thru it and you will see why Lenny Eposito said that Jesus could not sin but yet had free will.

1. Choices Can Produce Irreversible Change

The first important point to realize is that some choices we as individuals make produce profound and irreversible changes to our natures and our actions. The most obvious demonstration of this is the fall in the Garden of Eden. The choice of Adam and Eve to sin against God resulted in drastic changes, physically as well as to their natures. They and their progeny would now have a sinful nature - their proclivity would be toward sin - and they would become dull to the things of God.

Our belief in Jesus produces an irreversible change in us as well. We use the term "born again" from John 3:3 to describe our new relationship with God. Paul talks about the "new man" (Eph 4) and tells us "If any man is in Christ he is a new creation, all things have passed away, behold all has become new" (2 Cor. 5:17)(1).

2. At Salvation We are Given A New, Godly Nature

All of this language says that there is something more fundamental going on in the human soul at the time of conversion than the forgiveness of our sins. We are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and given a new nature. 2 Peter 1:4 states "For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature" (emphasis added). Paul also supports this view, writing "For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man" (Rom 7:22).

3. One Aspect of This Nature Is That We Will Not Sin.

In both these verses we see that those who are saved are given a nature that is radically different than the fallen nature inherited from Adam and Eve. Our new nature is godly, agreeing with all the precepts and laws of God. If you completely obey all God's laws, you would be considered sinless, as Jesus was (2 Cor. 3:21, Matt 5:17).

A more direct passage to our point may be found in 1 John 3. John writes, "You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.

[nemafakei]

to "7. Conclusion: In Heaven We Can Have Free Will and Yet Not Sin"

Well, I agree that all of this is logically coherent, so long as you accept that in heaven, we may choose to sin, and just don't. It is not beyond our capabilities, but we choose not to. For example, in the temptation of Jesus, one of his choices was to sin, and he could have done - but he chose not to.

Of course, I still believe that an omnipotent, omniscient god who is good by definition ought only to create goodness and those who don't sin, etc, but that's irrelevant to the above argument.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Of course, I still believe that an omnipotent, omniscient god who is good by definition ought only to create goodness and those who don't sin, etc, but that's irrelevant to the above argument.

Well thats where this comes in ( i posted it above)

Craig responded:

"No,Heaven may not be a possible world when you take it in isolation by itself. It may be that the only way in which God could actualize a heaven of free creatures all worshiping Him and not falling into sin would be by having, so to speak, this run-up to it, this advance life during which there is a veil of decision-making in which some people choose for God and some people against God. Otherwise you don't know that heaven is an actualizable world. You have no way of knowing that possibility."

Dr. Bradley:

"You're saying, in effect, that when I characterize heaven as a possible world in which everybody freely receives Christ (with no need of earth), I'm wrong insofar as that had to be preceded by this actual world, this world of veil of tears and woe in which people are sinful and the like." (he is asking if Heaven could exist with mankind without mankind having to go through earth as a antecedent world)

Dr. Craig:

"I'm saying that it may not be feasible for God to actualize heaven in isolation from such an antecedent world."