Mistakes and creationism

[Ploutos]

I think it comes by misconstruing innocence and sin. I don't think the Bible describes everything imperfect as sin. It describes things contrary to his revealed will as such. Either the Bible, when it says "be perfect as your Father is perfect," means obtaining his exact attributes. Or there is a perfection of man, that is not equally perfect as the perfection of God. i.e. It describes moral perfection, not complete perfection which is only limited to God, as the definition of it.

But why does innocence entail mistakes? Is it not possible for there to be an innocence that is perfect (meaning free from error) while still being finite? And how is imperfection not contrary to God's revealed will?

 

[Pomopu]

I think the baggage that comes along with mistakes mean we should coin a "nonce word,"

Parastake: (n/v) par-a-stake, 1) when one intends and and acts with one expectation in paradise but something else occurs, whether due to creaturely limitation or external disruption. 2) Action of the morally perfect that fails to obtain precisely as desired on the part of the saint

And how is imperfection not contrary to God's revealed will

The difficulty is because we are framing our conception of mistakes in terms of this eras mistakes, where the results of limited ability and knowledge result in great suffering, pain, evil, and so on. This is why I've consistently pointed out the heavenly failure for humans to consistently achieve the results they want is fitted by God to enhance his glory and the benefit of all heavenly-dwellers. In other words, from a human perspective, from what you want and I want, there will be occasioned "imperfections," but again, like the father swooping in to make the 3-point shot an alley oop, in heaven our failure to get what we want is God's way to enhance the total value of heaven and bring a greater perfection according to a God-like mind, not a human-mind.

So on on one level the question is about who gets to determine what happens in heaven, man or God. The answer? God, every time. Why do we suppose that God will disclose his entire purposes to man? Well, that's not even possible, God is pure act, he is Wisdom itself. Why do we suppose God will not surprise us? Why do we suppose God won't operate on a variety of levels, telling us one thing and occasioning far better things, and working without limitations to do so? The tottering toddler splashing in the kiddie pool. He falls over, and gets back up delighted, laughing, absolutely thrilled he fell over into the shallow water. That's the captivating, lively, God-focused, man-diminishing version of paradise I prefer, where a billion innocent mistakes will be used by God to massively improve the already perfect conditions of the heavenly universe, bringing all to a higher pitch as he orchestrates the lives of millions of saints.

 

[Ploutos]

Parastake: (n/v) par-a-stake, 1) when one intends and and acts with one expectation in paradise but something else occurs, whether due to creaturely limitation or external disruption. 2) Action of the morally perfect that fails to obtain precisely as desired on the part of the saint

The critical flaw is assuming that God would allow either of these things to happen in heaven. Another flaw is assuming that God's perfect plan would allow for external disruption or a mismatch between desire, ability, and outcome.

 

[Pomopu]

The critical flaw is assuming that God would allow either of these things to happen in heaven. Another flaw is assuming that God's perfect plan would allow for external disruption or a mismatch between desire, ability, and outcome.

I am walking in heaven. God directly plucks me from my path. I do not end up at the destination I had intended to go to. This is what I mean. Now, apply that principle to God using creation.

I am walking. God sense a vast wind in heaven to carry me elsewhere. I don't end up at the destination. Why not allow for external disruption? Something outside in acting upon us?

And if you admit that, it's an easy stretch to say one's own actions on creation are not akin to God saying, "let there be light," but instead Adam engaging in the process of sowing and reaping, which involve estimations and learning curves and happenstances.

 

[Ploutos]

I am walking in heaven. God directly plucks me from my path. I do not end up at the destination I had intended to go to. This is what I mean. Now, apply that principle to God using creation.

I am walking. God sense a vast wind in heaven to carry me elsewhere. I don't end up at the destination. Why not allow for external disruption? Something outside in acting upon us?

And if you admit that, it's an easy stretch to say one's own actions on creation are not akin to God saying, "let there be light," but instead Adam engaging in the process of sowing and reaping, which involve estimations and learning curves and happenstances.

In heaven, you would never set out for a destination where God did not intend you to go. God would ensure that your desires were perfectly aligned with his, such that you would only ever set out to go where he desired you to go. And that could well include an absence of any specific intent at all and an open-handed yielding to where he will take you.

It most certainly will not involve you setting out to go to one place and God sending you somewhere else.

 

[Pomopu]

In heaven, you would never set out for a destination where God did not intend you to go. God would ensure that your desires were perfectly aligned with his, such that you would only ever set out to go where he desired you to go. And that could well include an absence of any specific intent at all and an open-handed yielding to where he will take you.

It most certainly will not involve you setting out to go to one place and God sending you somewhere else.

I am content to concede we have totally different visions of heaven that are irreconcilable at their core. But this has been an engaging discussion, thank you for the thoughts.

 

[jwright82]

I agree that there needs to be humility on what heaven will look like. I do think it is possible to be clear on one thing, though: heaven will be perfect. As such, it will be free of oversights, accidents, errors, imperfections, mistakes, "lateness", discomfort, and any other language that speaks of something falling short of an intended design. All those words, whatever they mean, imply at some level a disparity between intent and outcome or a disparity between what is desired and what is achieved. As such I don't see how they have a place in heaven where will be perfect, God's creation will be perfect, and God's oversight, guidance, and protection of us will be perfect. Part of that perfection is that our actions and goals will always be perfectly aligned.

That's my point. You could be right but you could be wrong. You're taking a word perfect, defining it one way and then applying it to heaven. I'm saying that you can't know that. You don't know that you're idiosyncratic definition is the right one to apply to heaven or anything else.
You're also taking a word perfect, defining from our perspective here and now and then placing heaven on a scale of being and trying to work out what it's going to be like. We don't know what it's going to be like and your whole point hinges on your idiosyncratic definition that you can't prove anyway. That's my point.
In short your whole argument is unfalsifiable because we don't know if your definition is the proper one to use and apply.

 

[Ploutos]

That's my point. You could be right but you could be wrong. You're taking a word perfect, defining it one way and then applying it to heaven. I'm saying that you can't know that. You don't know that you're idiosyncratic definition is the right one to apply to heaven or anything else.
You're also taking a word perfect, defining from our perspective here and now and then placing heaven on a scale of being and trying to work out what it's going to be like. We don't know what it's going to be like and your whole point hinges on your idiosyncratic definition that you can't prove anyway. That's my point.
In short your whole argument is unfalsifiable because we don't know if your definition is the proper one to use and apply.

I don't think my definition of perfect is idiosyncratic. It is certainly not as idiosyncratic as definitions of perfect that talk about shooting hoops in heaven or scheduling romantic outings before the fall. As far as defining things from our perspective, I'm the one who is specifically not doing that. The people who say there will be mistakes and oversights in heaven, who say that will set out to be somewhere at 3:00 and then end up somewhere else because the Lord whisked us away... Those are the people with speculative idiosyncratic ideas about perfection, and those are the people who are defining heaven in terms of their earthly perspective.

I know that I don't know what heaven looks like, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend I know nothing at all. I know that it will be perfect, I know that God's protection over every aspect of our heavenly existence will be perfect, and I know that we will be with him fully in heaven. Notice in how many of my answers I've allowed multiple possibilities, and that just based on the idiosyncratic scenarios that other people are setting up. With regard to being on time for things, I'm willing to allow either that we will always be on time or that there will be no concept of being late or on time because we will be leaving our schedule entirely in the Lord's hands. There might be other possibilities that I can't conceive of, but I'm trying to approximate based on the starting points given to me by others. It's been discussed on here recently that time as we know it might not even be the same in heaven. I'm not claiming to know this one way or the other.

I'm not the one laying out some detailed vision of a heaven that has basketball where we can shoot a hoop and miss. All I'm saying is that if there is basketball in heaven, we will never miss. I personally don't think there will be basketball in heaven, but ultimately I don't know and I don't care. There might be, and it doesn't really matter. Tell me how that is speculative and idiosyncratic on my part. All I'm saying is that mistakes, oversights, errors, and accidents will have no place in heaven. None whatsoever. It is utterly integral to the plain sense dictionary definitions of these words and concepts that they can only exist in a fallen world because they entail deficiency and flaw. To posit that any of these things have a place in heaven is to do a disservice to God.

On the flip side, none of these concepts are integral to the idea of spontaneity or creativity. Again, assuming that spontaneity and creativity as we recognize them now are present in heaven - an idiosyncratic, speculative, and earthbound idea that did NOT originate with me - if those concepts have a place in heaven, it will not involve such things as mistakes and oversights. What spontaneity looks like without the types of mistakes that generally go with it on earth? I don't know. I'm not the one pushing my speculative, idiosyncratic, earthbound ideas onto a deficient conception of heaven. I just know that there won't be mistakes in heaven, the same way I know that there will be a God in heaven. That's not speculative and I don't need to know exactly what it looks like to know that it will be true. I just wish people would stop and think about what a mistake is. Mistakes and perfection don't go together. God created, and he saw that it was very good. No mistakes. That's what it will be like again in glory.

 

[davejonescue]

God created, and he saw that it was very good. No mistakes. That's what it will be like again in glory.

Again, it seems you are conflating God with his creations. You are rightly asserting God cannot make a mistake. What you may not be rightly asserting, is that God cannot create a perfect human with the potentiality of mistakes.

 

[Ploutos]

Again, it seems you are conflating God with his creations. You are rightly asserting God cannot make a mistake. What you may not be rightly asserting, is that God cannot create a perfect human with the potentiality of mistakes. I think the burden of proof on you is to prove every mistake is sin, thus impossible in a sinless environment.

I honestly think you either don't know what a mistake is or you're unwilling to accept what is plainly evident, and I think the burden of proof is on you to proof that God would design a perfected heaven with the potentiality of mistakes.

While writing my last post, I found myself wishing that people smarter and more articulate than me - of whom there are many on this board - would weigh in and explain my points better than I seem to be able to. What I realized is that actually they already have done so. Prof. Strange and Rev. Winzer in particular have given far more incisive and eloquent defense of my talking points than I can ever hope to devise. The difference is that they had the sense to say their peace and leave it at that, and I am the fool who is continuing to talk long past the point where the law of diminishing returns kicked in. I have said everything I know how to say on the subject, and I have ignored the reminders of conscience some posts back that when there's nothing more to be said, nothing more should be said. Perhaps in my foolish persistence and hotheadedness I have strayed past the confines of what I would have originally wanted to say. Therefore, this is my final post in this thread. I thank all of you for the stimulating discussion, from which I have profited greatly in more ways than one, and I look forward to finding out in heaven which of us was mistaken.

 

[davejonescue]

I honestly think you either don't know what a mistake is or you're unwilling to accept what is plainly evident, and I think the burden of proof is on you to proof that God would design a perfected heaven with the potentiality of mistakes.

When God created Adam in his perfection, he created him with the potentiality to err and make mistakes. The fall resulted in the violation of a direct command. How does this necessitate that all errors are sin, as opposed to sin not just being an error, but a violation of a command? I know in the future life, we will be unable to sin, or to be tempted by it. I just do not see how this means we will be free from innocent mistakes or mishaps, as opposed to being free from contrariness to God's revealed will? If missing a basket were sin, wouldn't it be wrong for churches to let kids play it at youth camp? Or, if missing a touchdown pass were sin, would not watching or promoting college football be sin also? If it isn't sin, then all mistakes or mishaps are not sin. And if something is not sinful, why would it automatically be deemed unfit for glory? Could it be somewhere between juice and vinegar, is where the wine will be?

 

[MW]

That's my point. You could be right but you could be wrong. You're taking a word perfect, defining it one way and then applying it to heaven. I'm saying that you can't know that. You don't know that you're idiosyncratic definition is the right one to apply to heaven or anything else.
You're also taking a word perfect, defining from our perspective here and now and then placing heaven on a scale of being and trying to work out what it's going to be like. We don't know what it's going to be like and your whole point hinges on your idiosyncratic definition that you can't prove anyway. That's my point.
In short your whole argument is unfalsifiable because we don't know if your definition is the proper one to use and apply.

I think we would all agree that the flow of redemptive history leads us to see the present as a fall from the original design of creation, and heaven as a consummation of what it is supposed to be. On that basis we would expect heaven to perfectly reflect God’s nature as holy, loving, and just, and that it will surpass earthly experience. We must recognise that human language is inadequate to fully capture it, and yet special revelation aims to give us a clear idea of its desirability. Yes, we do not know what it is going to be like so far as concrete realities are concerned, but we do know what it is going to be like in terms of fulfilling human desire and expectation. To that extent I think we can posit certain things about perfectibility, especially when the Bible makes promises here that are to be perfected there.

 

[jwright82]

I think we would all agree that the flow of redemptive history leads us to see the present as a fall from the original design of creation, and heaven as a consummation of what it is supposed to be. On that basis we would expect heaven to perfectly reflect God’s nature as holy, loving, and just, and that it will surpass earthly experience. We must recognise that human language is inadequate to fully capture it, and yet special revelation aims to give us a clear idea of its desirability. Yes, we do not know what it is going to be like so far as concrete realities are concerned, but we do know what it is going to be like in terms of fulfilling human desire and expectation. To that extent I think we can posit certain things about perfectibility, especially when the Bible makes promises here that are to be perfected there.

Fair enough. But a certain definition of perfect being used seems to go to far in speculation. I'm going to respond to your response Ploutos after this. It's not that I think anyone who has such a concrete definition is always wrong, it's more that there's no way to prove it, right or wrong. And working out all the implications of such a view seems to take one to strange conclusions. That's all.
I think the only speculation I have ever been comfortable with was, I believe, Jonathan Edwards in which every moment will be better than the last. Again unprovable but general enough to work with and not get caught in the weeds.

 

[MW]

Fair enough. But a certain definition of perfect being used seems to go to far in speculation. I'm going to respond to your response Ploutos after this. It's not that I think anyone who has such a concrete definition is always wrong, it's more that there's no way to prove it, right or wrong. And working out all the implications of such a view seems to take one to strange conclusions. That's all.
I think the only speculation I have ever been comfortable with was, I believe, Jonathan Edwards in which every moment will be better than the last. Again unprovable but general enough to work with and not get caught in the weeds.

Let's work with this. We might begin with no more pain and sorrow. This seems to me to be a specific category of expectation and it would exclude much that happens in this world. It would certainly eliminate many mistakes even if you did not feel so sure about removing all mistakes. And I think once this were conceded we would have narrowed the field significantly. But then, the beatific vision, seeing light in God's light. Having a knowledge commensurate to the reality we inhabit. This would also significantly reduce the field of mistakes we often commit in our ignorance. But wait, there's more! No more sin. How many mistakes are due to the fact we are blinded by sinful preferences that distort our priorities? We have come very far simply by thinking categorically in terms which the Scripture itself presents to us and leads us to desire. There is no speculation here. And I think it would only be a matter of thinking through the various categories of "glory" to see that the position of a mistake-free existence is based on God's own revelation.

 

[jwright82]

I don't think my definition of perfect is idiosyncratic. It is certainly not as idiosyncratic as definitions of perfect that talk about shooting hoops in heaven or scheduling romantic outings before the fall. As far as defining things from our perspective, I'm the one who is specifically not doing that. The people who say there will be mistakes and oversights in heaven, who say that will set out to be somewhere at 3:00 and then end up somewhere else because the Lord whisked us away... Those are the people with speculative idiosyncratic ideas about perfection, and those are the people who are defining heaven in terms of their earthly perspective.

Cannot agree more and I apologize if it seemed like I signaled you out for criticism. I can see my mistake (no pun intended) was not making that clearer. For the record I'm critical of any speculation of whether or not we'll make mistakes in heaven or if we hadn't sinned. We can't know that stuff and the scientific and philosophical issues involved in such speculation are astounding. I only picked one issue to bring up philosophically speaking.

I know that I don't know what heaven looks like, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend I know nothing at all. I know that it will be perfect, I know that God's protection over every aspect of our heavenly existence will be perfect, and I know that we will be with him fully in heaven. Notice in how many of my answers I've allowed multiple possibilities, and that just based on the idiosyncratic scenarios that other people are setting up. With regard to being on time for things, I'm willing to allow either that we will always be on time or that there will be no concept of being late or on time because we will be leaving our schedule entirely in the Lord's hands. There might be other possibilities that I can't conceive of, but I'm trying to approximate based on the starting points given to me by others. It's been discussed on here recently that time as we know it might not even be the same in heaven. I'm not claiming to know this one way or the other.

Again my previous response here is the same.

I'm not the one laying out some detailed vision of a heaven that has basketball where we can shoot a hoop and miss. All I'm saying is that if there is basketball in heaven, we will never miss. I personally don't think there will be basketball in heaven, but ultimately I don't know and I don't care. There might be, and it doesn't really matter. Tell me how that is speculative and idiosyncratic on my part.

How do you know what physics will be like? If there will even be such a thing? Never missing a basket, if it exists in heaven, does appear to me a pretty idiosyncratic definition of perfect. That's very speculative in my opinion because we can't know either way. To even debate this from both sides is speculative.

All I'm saying is that mistakes, oversights, errors, and accidents will have no place in heaven. None whatsoever. It is utterly integral to the plain sense dictionary definitions of these words and concepts that they can only exist in a fallen world because they entail deficiency and flaw. To posit that any of these things have a place in heaven is to do a disservice to God.

And that's where speculation can get you. You pick a definition of perfect (from our fallen human perspective), apply it to a place that you have no idea it's appropriate to, and then any other definition can lead to a disservice of God. But you can't know either way.

On the flip side, none of these concepts are integral to the idea of spontaneity or creativity. Again, assuming that spontaneity and creativity as we recognize them now are present in heaven - an idiosyncratic, speculative, and earthbound idea that did NOT originate with me - if those concepts have a place in heaven, it will not involve such things as mistakes and oversights. What spontaneity looks like without the types of mistakes that generally go with it on earth? I don't know. I'm not the one pushing my speculative, idiosyncratic, earthbound ideas onto a deficient conception of heaven.

How do you know, outside your own definition of things, that it's necessarily "deficient"?

I just know that there won't be mistakes in heaven, the same way I know that there will be a God in heaven. That's not speculative and I don't need to know exactly what it looks like to know that it will be true. I just wish people would stop and think about what a mistake is. Mistakes and perfection don't go together. God created, and he saw that it was very good. No mistakes. That's what it will be like again in glory.

Well that seems quite dogmatic about an issue you can't prove or disprove. I think my agnostic way about it is much safer but we'll see.

 

[jwright82]

Let's work with this. We might begin with no more pain and sorrow. This seems to me to be a specific category of expectation and it would exclude much that happens in this world.

I can agree this.

It would certainly eliminate many mistakes even if you did not feel so sure about removing all mistakes. And I think once this were conceded we would have narrowed the field significantly.

I'm agnostic about mistakes in heaven or anywhere else outside of fallen creation but I'll follow you. The problem I pointed out was linguistic in nature. I mean how much of physics as we know it going to be there? How about math? Unsolvable problems. I mean I can't say from our perspective.
If it's a lot like ours than yes the linguistic meaning of mistake will have to be greatly reduced in use, to describe far less examples. But that's my point, that's only assuming physics and math are roughly the same and we can't know that.
Starting with no sin or suffering, which are both true can never get a person to stating there will be no mistakes. I'm agnostic about it. I just can't know.

But then, the beatific vision, seeing light in God's light. Having a knowledge commensurate to the reality we inhabit. This would also significantly reduce the field of mistakes we often commit in our ignorance. But wait, there's more! No more sin. How many mistakes are due to the fact we are blinded by sinful preferences that distort our priorities? We have come very far simply by thinking categorically in terms which the Scripture itself presents to us and leads us to desire. There is no speculation here. And I think it would only be a matter of thinking through the various categories of "glory" to see that the position of a mistake-free existence is based on God's own revelation.

I see what you're doing and I like it but it's still hinging on an unprovable definition of mistake. We can't know either way.
I'll take it another route. Statistics will say that yes there is the possibility of mistakes in heaven (however anyone wants to define that). We'll probably bump into one another as a mistake during worship. Unless statistics will be either different or non effectual in heaven. Never mind physics.
But how could we possibly know that, we can't? So being agnostic seems the safest bet to me. If someone wants to differentiate between sinful mistakes and non-sinful mistakes then ok, yes there will be no sin in heaven.
But I don't even buy that distinction because I can see no concrete way to differentiate between the two outside of the abstract adverb "non-sinful". So to draw any conclusions except that no sin or suffering is to go too far. As is because there's no concrete way to differentiate between the two then there must be no mistakes. That's a jump in logic.
What's that old joke in America at least, dancing or drinking isn't a sin in moderation or style but because both can lead to sin you shouldn't do either one. It goes to far into something we can't know.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Some thoughts on mistakes, now and in the world to come.

Rom 3:23 KJV, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”

sinned: hamartanō, to miss the mark; come short: hystereō, fall short, fail

Please note, I am talking here of the saints, those who walk with the Lord in the New Covenant era, yet are imperfect in their ways.

We, who are in this group, make mistakes. To make a miss – take is to have a wrong take on something. We have “remaining corruption” within us, which Romans 7 focuses on.

In our church’s order of worship we have our corporate confession of sin, wherein we confess that “we have not walked in that perfection required to enter Your presence or Your paradise”, “Yet You have provided the righteousness of Christ to cover us with His righteousness as with spotless and glorious robe in Your sight.”

But looking now at the perfection we will have: John in 1 John 3:2 KJV, says, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”

John, now in Revelation, says,

Rev 21:9-11 KJV, “And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal…”

This speaks, in the poetic language of the Hebrews, of our perfection, the bride of the perfect One who shares His perfection with us, according to our various capacities, on an ongoing basis.

We are now, our union with Christ consummated after the wedding feast of the Lamb, in such a state of perfection that there is no miss-taking, no falling short or missing the mark, for His Spirit is our life.

It may be hard for us to comprehend the perfection of God into which we have been united, but He is now our life, and His perfection is ours, and we are given to grow in it, world without end.

 

[Brownie]

What do you think of the connection between this view of perfection and my non-uniformitarian view of creation? This way of looking at things seems to me to make it utterly impossible that the pre-fall world could have operated according to the same laws of nature that we now have. Therefore, any attempt to build a creation narrative based on what we can now observe, or even extrapolate from their present observations, cannot hold up.

We don't have much to go on, but Gen. 3:14-19 clearly shows changes in creation post-Fall.
[automerge]1748177475[/automerge]

Unless... One wants to put forward the idea that the Garden of Eden was in some sort of different plane of existence from creation as we know it. I believe there is patristic warrant (Origen?) for this idea, that man was kicked out of the Garden of Eden into this world after the fall. @RamistThomist - can you provide some insight here? I also think that C.S. Lewis was influenced in his writing of The Space Trilogy by some of these older ideas about the Genesis account.

I recommend On the Typology of Scripture by Patrick Fairbairn. After establishing general principles, he explains a lot about Eden and he has compelling arguments to think that Eden survived until the Flood and was the place to worship. Hence the cherubs preventing man from entering it.

As for heaven: according to Christ we will not marry, but be like the angels and Paul says our bodies will change. So it's very possible that pre-Fall conditions and heavenly life will be very different. But in both there can't be death, since it's an enemy. Probably all life was/will be vegetarian. Accrording to Gen. 9:2-4 man only ate meat after the Fall and Lev. 17:23 says the soul is in the blood, so everything that doesn't have blood could've been eaten in Eden without there being death.