7

If it is possible to create beings like Jesus - or to recreate humans as sinless versions of themselves - Was all of creation a mistake?

A mistake that all of History in the Bible attempts to correct? From the initial mistake of not giving Adam and Eve the knowledge to prevent their own mistakes. Through to Jesus coming to correct the initial mistake, only to be the subject of further mistakes. Through to the ultimate correction of the mistake. The destruction of the world.

Doesn't this imply that we are God's mistake?

To be clear, I'm looking for a scripture-based explanation for how the universe was/wasn't a mistake. And by extension if the first, how that can be reconciled with a perfect God.

The wonderful answer to this question by @Richard inspired this question.

Improve this question
2
  • 1
    This viewpoint carries the assumption that God did not know (from the beginning) that humans would become imperfect. In other words, an omniscient God could not make a mistake! For more information, see Is God omniscient?
    – Richard
    Commented Sep 19, 2011 at 13:09
  • @Richard: Actually, I intended to point out the opposite. That God must have knowingly created Humans as imperfect and sinful, and could have chosen to do the opposite. Since that was also within his power.
    – DampeS8N
    Commented Sep 19, 2011 at 13:13

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6

First of all you start with a false premise. Jesus was not created! He is the creator. What is possible for him to be and become is not necessarily possible to create.

Secondly, something created in such a fashion that it would remain sinless would make it a very different kind of being than a sinful being that has been redeemed and made perfect out of imperfection. The latter is a MUCH HARDER feat and shows off the glory and the power of Christ.

There is no mistake. From the beginning God set out to do something hard to demonstrate the power of his Son. The history of salvation begins not at the fall of man (as if something went unexpectedly wrong) but before creation itself. Jesus is knows as the Lamb who was slain before the foundations of the world. How salvation would work was decided and implemented and the results written down before man came along to test the plan.

Revelation 13:8 (ESV)
and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

Improve this answer
8
  • "What is possible for him to be and become is not necessarily possible to create" - doesn't this suggest god is not omnipotent? Also, is this just something you think or is it part of Christianity? And is point 2 part of Christianity?
    – psr
    Commented Nov 18, 2011 at 23:41
  • @psr No, omnipotence only applies to things that confirm to his nature. It is no conflict to say he cannot do things that are contrary to his nature. As for #2, it is quite prevalent through most Christian teaching although the level of explicitness varies widely. Romans and Colossians are good places to clearly defend this scripturally.
    – Caleb
    Commented Nov 19, 2011 at 8:27
  • So you are saying that God could have created humans that were sinless and human like Jesus, but it's contrary to God's nature to do so?
    – psr
    Commented Nov 21, 2011 at 21:20
  • @psr First of all, he did create other beings that do not sin in the way that we do. He also created some others that did but did not offer to redeem them. Secondly, he couldn't make us "like Jesus" in the sense that Jesus was not a created being at all but God himself. He can however choose to make some of us "like Jesus" by removing our sin and making us pure again. That is what the Gospel is about. And yes, it would be contrary to God's nature to make something that equaled him, but it is consistent with his nature to adopt us as children and purify us to be able to fill that role.
    – Caleb
    Commented Nov 21, 2011 at 21:52
  • @Caleb - Awesome, I am omnipotent. I can do everything, except that which is contrary to my nature. Which happens to be almost everything, in my case. I can, however, eat an omnipotent snack.
    – psr
    Commented Jan 11, 2012 at 19:51
1

@Caleb hit some very important points. I think that this question, however, is an offshoot of a common objection to Christianity:

"How could an omnipotent God who hates sin allow sin. If He's omnipotent, couldn't He have prevented us from sinning?"

The answer to that, of course, is that God gave us free will because He loves us, and because He wants to be loved in return. Our love for Him wouldn't be real love if it were forced. We'd be little better than robots, programmed to behave a certain way.

The answer is so simple and so obvious that people gloss over it looking for a more "meaningful" answer, but the simple fact is that throughout scripture, love is the defining aspect of goodness. Jesus Himself said this. (Matthew 22:36-40)

Even in our limited human mental capacity we can understand this without giving it much thought at all. If you have children, think about this: They are disobedient, stress-causing, wallet draining beings, but would you trade them for a mindless robot programmed to act like the perfect child? Unless you're inhuman (or having one of those days with them), the answer is no. And the reason is because you love them in their imperfection, and they love you.

Their love is worth all of the hassles they cause for you. When they obey willingly and cheerfully, it brings you pleasure, it brings them pleasure to know they've please you, and brings you closer together.

This is why God gave us free will and gave us the capacity to sin. So that when we obey willingly and love Him of our own free will, it brings Him and us true joy, and is the ultimate definition of "good".

Improve this answer
1
  • We don't gloss over it. We find a being that would create suffering of many so it would be loved by a few to be reprehensible, or at least too human to have all the supposed attributes of God. And to stretch the children metaphor. If my having those children and not robots would mean that others across the globe would suffer, I would absolutely keep my robot children. To do otherwise would be incredibly selfish.
    – DampeS8N
    Commented Oct 10, 2011 at 13:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .