Liberty to Sin in Glory?

[Andrew P.C.]

In our men's study we are going through the Westminster confession. Last night (Thursdays is our study) we went through the first portion "Of Free Will". We discussed certain things about the will (we are going through Williamson's book) and particularly, we discussed ability and liberty. We talked about Augustine's four states of the ability of the will (to which I also previously taught in Sunday school), but a certain idea came up that I am trying to think through. When we got to the last state (state of glorification) we talked briefly about the inability to sin (posse non peccare). Now, one thing to mention is (if I am not mistaken) that Augustine is using the word "posse" (ability, or power) in the Infinitive Present, which means that it is used as an adverb(?). Describing the action of the ability to do something (I assume). However, when we got to the idea of liberty, someone mentioned that, even though we do not have the ability to sin, we have the liberty to choose in the glorified state.

My response was that we neither have the ability nor the liberty to sin. The reason being is that liberty is defined as "the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely; the power to do or choose what you want to". Yet, if we are not able nor have the power to sin, then doesn't that imply we are not at liberty to do so either? It was described to me that this liberty given to us in the glorified state is portraying God's love towards us, yet I could not take that answer.

Please, any thoughts on this matter? Thank you.

 

[Paul1976]

I don't think we have enough in scripture to get a comprehensive picture. Here is how I thought through that question for myself.

1) It seems like we will have knowledge of sin. We will be praising Christ for (among other things) his work of redemption, and sin figures into that story prominently. It doesn't make sense to me that we could have a picture of Christ's atonement without having a knowledge of what sin is.

2) A useful definition of sin is preferring anything over God. Used simplistically, this might mean that we choose to lie because the advantages of lying seem more attractive to us than obeying God's requirement that we tell the truth.

3) It is difficult to imagine that, in our glorified state, we would be incapable of exercising free will, which as you say, seems to make all sorts of sin possible. We might, for example, picture being tempted to bow down and worship Jonathan Edwards. A glorified and perfected Jonathan Edwards, I might add. Some sort of limitation preventing us from doing such a thing is difficult to picture.

-The first three set up the problem you stated-

4) Heaven is described as being filled with the knowledge of God, and imagery consistently pictures God's presence being throughout. There being no sun because God is the light in the new Jerusalem, for example, is an image of (among other things) how close to God and what kind of knowledge of God we'll have throughout. I can convince myself that our knowledge of and experience of God will be so complete and thorough and saturating that our free will will be to choose God over anything. This is somewhat the opposite of our current situation, where our knowledge of God is so poor and insufficient that we choose monumentally insignificant things over Him all the time.

I don't know that you could prove my view from scripture, but it is at least reasonable and would allow both a real free will, but no possibility of sin.

 

[RamistThomist]

Any act of choosing is a conjoined act of intellect and will, which require an object. There won't be an object of sin in glory.

 

[greenbaggins]

The problem here is defining what freedom of the will actually means. If freedom means being able to choose anything (i.e., the power of contrary choice), then not even God has free will. He cannot choose evil. With God, it is not a matter of power, but of character. It is not in God's character to choose evil. The Reformed have ALWAYS defined free will as the ability to choose whatever it is in one's character to choose. In the fallen state, therefore, we only have the ability to choose among various sinful options (with even our "good" deeds tainted with evil motivations). In the glorified state, the last remnants of the sin nature will be swept away, leaving no space for anything in us that wants evil. It will not be in our character. To me, this seems a simpler way of speaking about the issue. But the central issue here is the definition of freedom. The Bible is quite clear that true freedom means freedom from sin, not freedom to sin (the Bible calls this slavery!). So, there are two biblical ways of describing freedom. What is in one's character defines what we can choose. And, freedom from the slavery of sin is the second way the Bible talks about it.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

The problem here is defining what freedom of the will actually means. If freedom means being able to choose anything (i.e., the power of contrary choice), then not even God has free will. He cannot choose evil. With God, it is not a matter of power, but of character. It is not in God's character to choose evil. The Reformed have ALWAYS defined free will as the ability to choose whatever it is in one's character to choose. In the fallen state, therefore, we only have the ability to choose among various sinful options (with even our "good" deeds tainted with evil motivations). In the glorified state, the last remnants of the sin nature will be swept away, leaving no space for anything in us that wants evil. It will not be in our character. To me, this seems a simpler way of speaking about the issue. But the central issue here is the definition of freedom. The Bible is quite clear that true freedom means freedom from sin, not freedom to sin (the Bible calls this slavery!). So, there are two biblical ways of describing freedom. What is in one's character defines what we can choose. And, freedom from the slavery of sin is the second way the Bible talks about it.

With this in mind, would you say that liberty to choose sin is therefore negated by our character in the glorified state? Therefore, we do not have neutrality in liberty(To choose one or the other)?

I just find this concept hard since I would say that in our glorified state, we are so transformed that the idea of "letting us choose" evil or good is not even possible within that state. My other concern is: why would God give us the option or liberty to choose good or evil in our glorified state when we have been fully transformed from sin and evil?

This is a hard thing to grasp. Maybe I'm thinking to much about this...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The Fourfold State:

1) posse pecare, able to sin, man in Eden

2) non posse non pecare, not able not to sin, fallen flesh outside of Christ

3) posse non pecare, able not to sin, redeemed saints in Christ
(believer still sins all the time; his best works of themselves are still tainted by sin and cannot abide divine scrutiny)

4) non posse pecare, not able to sin, glorified humanity

 

[greenbaggins]

The problem here is defining what freedom of the will actually means. If freedom means being able to choose anything (i.e., the power of contrary choice), then not even God has free will. He cannot choose evil. With God, it is not a matter of power, but of character. It is not in God's character to choose evil. The Reformed have ALWAYS defined free will as the ability to choose whatever it is in one's character to choose. In the fallen state, therefore, we only have the ability to choose among various sinful options (with even our "good" deeds tainted with evil motivations). In the glorified state, the last remnants of the sin nature will be swept away, leaving no space for anything in us that wants evil. It will not be in our character. To me, this seems a simpler way of speaking about the issue. But the central issue here is the definition of freedom. The Bible is quite clear that true freedom means freedom from sin, not freedom to sin (the Bible calls this slavery!). So, there are two biblical ways of describing freedom. What is in one's character defines what we can choose. And, freedom from the slavery of sin is the second way the Bible talks about it.

With this in mind, would you say that liberty to choose sin is therefore negated by our character in the glorified state? Therefore, we do not have neutrality in liberty(To choose one or the other)?

I just find this concept hard since I would say that in our glorified state, we are so transformed that the idea of "letting us choose" evil or good is not even possible within that state. My other concern is: why would God give us the option or liberty to choose good or evil in our glorified state when we have been fully transformed from sin and evil?

This is a hard thing to grasp. Maybe I'm thinking to much about this...

The freedom of the will is never neutral. We choose what we want to choose (see Jonathan Edwards's book The Freedom of the Will). What determines that desire? Our character. We will not have the option of choosing evil in the glorified state, because our will is fully transformed: we will never want evil again.

It is always difficult to shake off the remnants of the libertarian (Arminian) definition of free will. It is so ingrained in our culture. Think of it this way. If freedom of the will means that we can choose anything, then we can choose to thwart God. The ramifications of the libertarian view of free will center on a denial of God's sovereignty. Only the compatibilist definition (that I have given above, and which is held by the Reformed) is compatible (hence the name) with God's sovereignty.

 

[RamistThomist]

And then there are the objects of our choosing. Will sinful objects exist in glory? (Of course, there are related questions of desires and connations, but that aside).

 

[Andrew P.C.]

What determines that desire? Our character. We will not have the option of choosing evil in the glorified state, because our will is fully transformed: we will never want evil again.

This was my thought as well when I responded to him, but he told me that part of God's love toward us is giving us the liberty, even in the glorified state.

 

[Paul1976]

I'd appreciate thoughts on how I currently look at things.

Unregenerate people are so in love with themselves and the world that they cannot choose to honor God over their desire to obey their sinful will. There can be no good to any of their thoughts or actions because none of it glorifies God. It isn't that they are physically incapable of choosing to honor God, or that there is some invisible barrier preventing them from doing so (in which case most would not consider them guilty, but morally incapable). I believe this is the thrust of "The Freedom of the Will," although to my shame I have not yet read it.

Perhaps, in glory, we will have so clear a picture of the triune God that we won't be able to do anything but continually choose Him over anything lesser. There would be no need to limit our knowledge of good and evil, nor would there need to be some invisible barrier to keep us from choosing the lesser over the greater. In a sense, we would have free will, but our will will be sufficiently rational that we would naturally choose continual obedience to God.

I don't think that is provable from scripture, but it does seem to work consistently with what we know from scripture.

 

[Peairtach]

Christ's work of sanctification in us is completely perfected in us when we pass into glory. That is why we cannot sin.

He would have failed in the work of salvation if this was not the case. We shall be like Him in this respect also, and He could never sin.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is always difficult to shake off the remnants of the libertarian (Arminian) definition of free will. It is so ingrained in our culture.

I agree.

Scripture defines those in Adam as being enslaved to sin and death. Scripture describes our freedom in Christ as the ability to obey God. True liberty is being set free from the enslaving aspects of sin.

What disturbs me most about the default position for many Christians today is the notion that God's highest end is protecting an idea of creaturely will that amounts to autonomous and free human choosing apart from any coercion. We imagine ourselves as in some sort of morally neutral framework with God waiting, with baited breath, for us to choose Him because, after all, there is no "love" unless it is free chosen and "freely chosen" means that we are autonomously able to choose God or not choose Him. We don't want to call the latter "sin" or slavery to sin or if we do want to call it sin then sin is just our self-destructive choice because it would be so much better if we chose God.

We think this way so much that many Calvinists feel as if they've been thrown back on their heels when modern man objects. I was just listening to the Dividing Line today as James was interacting with the thoughts of an very un-reflective Arminian and the above paragraph accurately summarizes the man. James played a long section of an answer Ravi Zaccarias gave to a question to evil that amounts to the idea that what God most values is love and, if God took away every free action that would reject him or hurt others, there would be nothing left of us to love Him. I'm summarizing but that was the essence of the reply that drew applause from the listeners.

It drew applause because that's how modern man likes to define freedom. It's how he defines love.

There are two types of men (and women in this world):
1. Those who are slaves to sin and death.
2. Those who are slaves of Christ.

The latter is called "freedom" in the Scriptures. Liberty in the Scriptures is defined by our ability to obey God. Full stop.

 

[waltongreen]

And the definitions of Scripture (freedom = slavery to righteousness--Romans 6:16-19) and of the Reformed tradition (freedom = acting within your character) are equivalent in the glorified state and within God's nature. God's character is the definition of righteousness. So, we will be "free at last, free at last..." in the glorified state as we will be perfect slaves of righteousness.

 

[Mushroom]

I can convince myself that our knowledge of and experience of God will be so complete and thorough and saturating that our free will will be to choose God over anything. This is somewhat the opposite of our current situation, where our knowledge of God is so poor and insufficient that we choose monumentally insignificant things over Him all the time.

I really liked this statement when I first read it, and maybe I still do, but then the thought came that perhaps it contains a hint of gnosticism, and my certitude was shaken. Any clarifications available?