The New Heaven and Free Will Inconsistency
February 25, 2014 at 11:47 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2014 at 11:50 pm by jdrubnitz.)
Hey there, all. So, the following is an inconsistency I came to when contemplating the idea of the New Heaven and Earth. It's sort of an extension of the problem of evil. Sympathizing with the vague and broad terms of a "loving" and "good" God, it's really more the "problem of the free will defense argument in the context of Christian Doctrine":
NHNE = New Heaven, New Earth
1. The NHNE doctrine claims there will be no evil or possibility of evil present once the the devil is destroyed, and eternal judgment takes place
2. If there can be no evil present, yet humans still are able to somehow freely choose, than God’s permission of evil in the first place, before the new heaven and earth, was unnecessary.
a. Unnecessary means God did not need to permit evil in order for his goodness and love to thrive, for supposedly his goodness and love can thrive after the NH and NE, even without sin being able to take place
3. If there can be evil present, and humans are able to freely choose it, Jesus’ life and atoning sacrifice had no significance in the first place
a. Significance denotes some eternal bearing on the reality and existence of evil and sin, particularly their defeat by the power of Jesus Christ (His death and Resurrection)
b. “No significance” denotes that Jesus’ actions merely impacted culture and society in a way that may have inspired some sort of change in behavior, just as any man could and has done.
4. If, somehow, it is possible that God remains good and loving by abruptly disallowing the presence of evil after this age, than He is not immutable.
*Notes. This is a drafted presentation of the argument. There are still many broad terms I'd like to define, and I plan to elaborate on each step. The following are some premises for the reader, as well:
This argument refutes the consistency of a certain Christian Theology if
1. The believer claims God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and Immutable (Unchanging)
a. Immutable denotes that God is a being who, while he is able to commit different actions, every action steps within the bounds of an unchanging character (one of love, mercy, and goodness) and will.
1. Loving, good, merciful, and will are in themselves broad terms, but it seems that most believers have for themselves some idea or conception of what they mean. Scripture points out the details. For this argument, it is unnecessary to define these terms.
2. The believer claims that God gave human creatures free will in order that he may be fully loving and/or good
3. The believer claims that Jesus Christ’s life and atoning sacrifice destroyed the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), and made it possible that all believers may live eternally in the New Heaven and Earth without evil, pain, and suffering (Revelation 21:14).
4. The believer claims there is some afterlife, which for the believer entails an absence evil or the possibility of evil
NHNE = New Heaven, New Earth
1. The NHNE doctrine claims there will be no evil or possibility of evil present once the the devil is destroyed, and eternal judgment takes place
2. If there can be no evil present, yet humans still are able to somehow freely choose, than God’s permission of evil in the first place, before the new heaven and earth, was unnecessary.
a. Unnecessary means God did not need to permit evil in order for his goodness and love to thrive, for supposedly his goodness and love can thrive after the NH and NE, even without sin being able to take place
3. If there can be evil present, and humans are able to freely choose it, Jesus’ life and atoning sacrifice had no significance in the first place
a. Significance denotes some eternal bearing on the reality and existence of evil and sin, particularly their defeat by the power of Jesus Christ (His death and Resurrection)
b. “No significance” denotes that Jesus’ actions merely impacted culture and society in a way that may have inspired some sort of change in behavior, just as any man could and has done.
4. If, somehow, it is possible that God remains good and loving by abruptly disallowing the presence of evil after this age, than He is not immutable.
*Notes. This is a drafted presentation of the argument. There are still many broad terms I'd like to define, and I plan to elaborate on each step. The following are some premises for the reader, as well:
This argument refutes the consistency of a certain Christian Theology if
1. The believer claims God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and Immutable (Unchanging)
a. Immutable denotes that God is a being who, while he is able to commit different actions, every action steps within the bounds of an unchanging character (one of love, mercy, and goodness) and will.
1. Loving, good, merciful, and will are in themselves broad terms, but it seems that most believers have for themselves some idea or conception of what they mean. Scripture points out the details. For this argument, it is unnecessary to define these terms.
2. The believer claims that God gave human creatures free will in order that he may be fully loving and/or good
3. The believer claims that Jesus Christ’s life and atoning sacrifice destroyed the works of the devil (1 John 3:8), and made it possible that all believers may live eternally in the New Heaven and Earth without evil, pain, and suffering (Revelation 21:14).
4. The believer claims there is some afterlife, which for the believer entails an absence evil or the possibility of evil
