> Based off of that, it sounds like they can’t repent.

What it sounds like to me is that the window of opportunity for that is closed. It happens a lot in life. Sure, who doesn't wish they could buy Apple stock at its price 15 years ago and reap all this profit, but that ship has sailed. The opportunity for that is closed.

When Jesus is asked, "Are only a few people going to be saved?", we have to understand some of the cultural background. Jews thought that just by being Jews they'd get a free ticket to heaven. Bingo! Don't even have to be godly. They had a "get out of jail free" card by birthright. Many of Jesus's teachings speak against that idea. Only those who follow Jesus get in. Your ethnic heritage is meaningless. So the question comes: "Am I hearing you right? We're not all getting in?"

His answer is bit oblique: "It's a narrow door. Do whatever it takes to enter. Pay any price, make any sacrifice (these thoughts coming from some of his other teachings)." We enter heaven on God's terms, not our own

But then he says, "Many will try to enter and will not be able to." What is THAT? It seems from the next verse that people will try to get in only when it's too late, when admission is no longer possible. Not only is there a limited number, but a limited time. Not only is there a limited number, but a limited time. There are no second chances, no do-overs, and no reincarnation. But why not? Why not let them in once they have seen the truth? If he loves everyone and doesn’t want anyone to perish, you’d think any and every opportunity to let them in would be gladly granted, and it will. But here, after the fact, one can see that their motive is not love or even faith. They are acting out of self-interest and for self-preservation only, and self is the enemy of God. It would be like the groom at the altar, when the preacher says, “Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife,” answers: “I couldn’t find anybody else, so I guess so.” You know, that isn’t it, and he’s going to find himself standing alone at the altar.

> for some reason I was thinking it described a wealthy guy in Hell who was begging to get out, but maybe I’m mistaken.

Same point. The wealthy guy wants out from a sense of self-preservation, not from love for God or desire for God. That isn't it, and God won't honor that.

> why did God not want to give us a nature similar to his?

He gave as good a one as He was able. Human beings are miraculous creatures. When I watch sports, I'm amazed at what people can do. Science? Astounding. Musicians? Mind-blowing. Creativity? Wow. Intelligent? Awesome. But God can't make us divine. We're creatures, not creator. Could He create us with free will, but where that free will was always caged and could only choose the good? Nope. That's not free will.

> Like, aren’t Christians going to be sinless in Heaven and presumably still free? Why not skip straight to that?

In heaven we will all voluntarily take our free wills and submit them to Christ's authority. Then what God does is not interfering with our free wills, but perfectly aligned with them. We will give Him our free wills to conform to His will. That's very different than God forcing our free wills in only the right direction.

Right now we're unable to do that (Rom. 7.15-24; 8.7). Even now, though, we can submit our wills to God and His authority (James 4.7), though sin is still in us, because we're still in this life. But when we are complete purged of sin in the afterlife, when we truly submit all of ourselves to God face-to-face, a whole different reality is possible. It's not possible now. We have to be changed (1 Cor. 15.42-57). It's only possible after the change.

Thank you for saying that. Sometimes I feel like I get annoying by asking too many questions, so it’s nice to be reassured lol

> Judgment is the idea.

Ah, okay. I see now why containment isn’t really the right word.

> Luke 13.22-30

Based off of that, it sounds like they can’t repent. Even if they can’t, do they want to? Maybe the Bible doesn’t say anything about that, which is fine, but for some reason I was thinking it described a wealthy guy in Hell who was begging to get out, but maybe I’m mistaken.

> It is constrained by His nature, as is ours.

That makes sense, but why did God not want to give us a nature similar to his? One where we still had free will, but simply wouldn’t do evil. It sounds like free will is really important to God, and I can mostly see why, but why not have the best of both worlds?

Like, aren’t Christians going to be sinless in Heaven and presumably still free? Why not skip straight to that? (Not “skip” per se, but like start with that originally)

You're asking great questions and giving good comments. I'm enjoying the conversation. Thanks.

> Isn’t it kinda, though?

I can see where you'd say it kind of like containment, but containment isn't the idea. Judgment is the idea. It's not that God has to corral it all together and separate it off to it doesn't spring loose again, spread, or contaminate anything. It's the wrong mental picture. God is judging sin and those who persist in it, so they are all sent to their proper (read: justice) fate.

> Do you think anyone can (or wants to) repent after they go to Hell?

There are plenty of Christian thinkers who think so. I'm not so convinced, but whatever Jesus decides to do is going to be fine by me. He often speaks of eternal punishment, but those Christian thinkers say, "It's only eternal for those who refuse further invitations." Well...yeah...but...um...

In Luke 13.22-30, Jesus seems to be addressed with a question that leads him in this direction. By my reading of it (13.25-27), Jesus is saying there's a time for deciding, and then that door is closed. It's tough to know. If God doesn't give them another chance, I get that. But if He does, I'm good with that, too.

> So are you saying that God’s “inability” to get rid of sin is tied to his perfect justice, kind of like how God can’t sin because of his perfect nature? That would be an interesting way of looking at it.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

> You pose God being unable to sin as if it solves the problem, but if we were hypothetically allowed to sin, it would be the problem itself

We can only act within the constraints of our nature. I have free will, but I can't use my free will to beam up to Saturn. I can't even use it to beam me over to my neighbor's driveway. That's not what free will does for humans. It's not free will to anything, but free will to do what is a proper exercise of free will suited to my nature. For us, it's daily mundane choices, significant choices, and moral decisions. For God, based on his nature, it's also daily choices, but moral decisions for deity, because of His nature, are on a different level than moral choices for me as a human. His nature presupposes goodness and truth; mine doesn't. His nature doesn't allow him to be self-contradictory (like sin) or do self-contradictory things (like make a square circle). That doesn't mean His free will isn't free. It is constrained by His nature, as is ours.

> I know there’s such a thing as “fallen” angels, but aren’t the non-fallen angels sinless? Doesn’t that mean they have a better nature than we do?

We know almost nothing about these things, so it's difficult to say. We don't really know what kind of nature the angels have, though that some have fallen (Jude 6) tells us they have volition. But nothing is said in the Bible about them being offered salvation, as we are, so there's a lot we don't know. On that regard, however, it seems they have a different nature than we do, but it's difficult to say if it's a better one, or even what it's like. We hardly see angels in the Bible other than short glimpses where they deliver a message and are gone. They're like the mailmen. I see my mailman every day, but I know nothing about him.

>It's not containment.
> For those who will spend the afterlife separated from God, their sin will stay with them because they never accepted Jesus's offer to forgive it and redeem them.

Isn’t it kinda, though? They go to Hell where they suffer in/for sin and God’s people get Heaven and the new earth to themselves? Not that I’m judging, but it sounds like a containment/separation thing.

> He will not forgive people against their will and force them to live in His presence when they hate Him.

Do you think anyone can (or wants to) repent after they go to Hell?

> I'm not an annihilationist because I think it removes certain aspects of accountability and justice that the Bible insists on and consistently teaches.

Interesting. So are you saying that God’s “inability” to get rid of sin is tied to his perfect justice, kind of like how God can’t sin because of his perfect nature? That would be an interesting way of looking at it.

> God's free will doesn't allow him the option to sin, because that would be self-contradictory. For us, sin is not self-contradictory so it has to be one of the choices. In other words, if sin were a legitimate option but God refused to allow us to make that choice, then "free will" itself just because a self-contradiction, because it's not free at all, but determined for us.

I guess I’m still struggling with this. You pose God being unable to sin as if it solves the problem, but if we were hypothetically allowed to sin, it would be the problem itself:

> God's free will doesn't allow him the option to sin…that would be self-contradictory

if sin were a legitimate option but God refused to allow us to make that choice, then "free will" itself just because a self-contradiction, because it's not free at all

> Wouldn’t this mean God’s free will isn’t actually free also?

> It is not possible that God could give us a divine nature (one unsusceptible to sin).

I know there’s such a thing as “fallen” angels, but aren’t the non-fallen angels sinless? Doesn’t that mean they have a better nature than we do?

> But what does “deal with it” mean? Isn’t that just more containment?

It's not containment. At the end of time, those who are heading to an eternity with Jesus will be purged of their sin. It will be removed from them, never to return, thanks to the blood of Jesus, who forgave them for it all. For those who will spend the afterlife separated from God, their sin will stay with them because they never accepted Jesus's offer to forgive it and redeem them. Revelation 20.10 says Satan, the beast, and the false prophet (with their sin) will be thrown into the lake of fire. Verse 14 says death and hell will also be thrown there, presumably with the residents of hell and their sin. God will "deal with it" by judging it and bringing it to its proper consequence.

> but is it really impossible for him to do so even if he wanted to?

I think it is impossible for Him. Some people will persist in holding on to their sin, as will Satan, the beast, and the false prophet. God cannot forgive where there is no repentance, and He cannot form a relationship of love where His love is rejected. He will not forgive people against their will and force them to live in His presence when they hate Him.

Notice Mark 6:5: Jesus was not able to do any miracles there because of their lack of faith. Was not able??? That's what it says.

> Couldn’t he just get rid of everyone who was not saved (in hell), including Satan?

Some Christians think that's what will happen. It's called annihilation theology. I'm not an annihilationist because I think it removes certain aspects of accountability and justice that the Bible insists on and consistently teaches. But there are Christians who are annihilationists.

> Or override free will to make all sin go away?

If he overrides free will, it's not free will. Like forcing someone to love you isn't love after all.

> Thank you, btw, for being so patient with me.

No problem. Glad to talk.

> I don’t think that 4 necessarily follows that just because God gave us free will, it has to be different from his free will.

God's free will doesn't allow him the option to sin, because that would be self-contradictory. For us, sin is not self-contradictory so it has to be one of the choices. In other words, if sin were a legitimate option but God refused to allow us to make that choice, then "free will" itself just because a self-contradiction, because it's not free at all, but determined for us.

> God is constrained by his nature, his nature does not let him choose sin. Why couldn’t God give us a nature that didn’t let us sin too?

Since we are created beings, a different set of legitimate options is available to us that is not available to God. Our nature is necessarily different from God's (we are not uncreated divinity), and therefore the range of choices available to us conforms to that of created beings, and perfection is not one of them. We are vulnerable (being less than divine) where God is not. It is not possible that God could give us a divine nature (one unsusceptible to sin).

> It wouldn’t make us God if he did that, he created us in “his image” and gave us other qualities he had, so why not that one?

When you think about the qualities of God that we have, you'll notice that we have the same stuff, but with great limitation. God knows everything, we know some stuff. Our knowledge is limited. God is everyone, we are just in one place at one time. Our presence is limited. God is all-powerful; we are sort-a sometimes powerful and limited in what we can do. God is holy, and we're supposed to be holy, but we can't be holy like He is; our holiness is limited. God is love; we are given the gift of love, but we only love in limited way, not like He can. I could keep going, but I think you get the idea.

So God is without flaw. Where we have to go with this one is that human beings are very remarkable beings, but we're limited. Our goodness only goes so far, and we susceptible to sin. There's just no way around it.

> (4) He will deal with it when the time is right (Rev. 6.11)

But what does “deal with it” mean? Isn’t that just more containment?

Going back to God not being able to destroy sin, I understand that you believe that he can’t and therefore won’t destroy it, but is it really impossible for him to do so even if he wanted to?

Couldn’t he just get rid of everyone who was not saved (in hell), including Satan? Or override free will to make all sin go away? I understand he may not want to do that, but couldn’t he if he theoretically wanted to?

I don’t mean that to sound like I’m looking for an excuse to say “See! God could/should get rid of sin!”, I’m more addressing the idea that there’s something God can’t do.

> Does that answer your question? Let's talk more if it raised more questions or if there's stuff you don't agree with.

It does, but that raises a couple disagreements and questions. Thank you, btw, for being so patient with me.

I’m onboard with 1/3/5, but idk about 2/4. 6 is on hold because I asked more about that above.

2 in itself makes sense, but I don’t think that 4 necessarily follows that just because God gave us free will, it has to be different from his free will. The way I understand it, God is constrained by his nature, his nature does not let him choose sin. Why couldn’t God give us a nature that didn’t let us sin too? It wouldn’t make us God if he did that, he created us in “his image” and gave us other qualities he had, so why not that one?

Our will would be no less free than God’s, who always chooses good.

> But isn’t that potentially problematic, that an interpretation of a verse could mean very different things based off how well it got translated?

The issue of translation is tricky. There aren't always exact parallels from language to language. Then's there are always the issues of "Do we translate it word for word (even if the meaning doesn't come through)?" or "Do we translate it by what it means (even if those aren't the exact words)?" And sometimes a word has many possible meanings, and translators have to choose what they think the author meant. In a case like this, where there's no context to go by, it can be difficult.

On top of that, and besides the language part of it, the worldview of the ancient culture is very different from ours. Sometimes they'll say something, and we know we don't see it that way any more—so then how do you translate it? (For instance, now that we know about the chattel slavery of Rome, and the chattel slavery of the colonial West [Europe and the Americas], whenever we read the word "slavery," we read it in our cognitive environment and in our worldview as the awfullest thing imaginable. But in the OT, that's not what "slavery" meant at all. It was mostly debt-slavery, sort of like our employment system. But sure enough, the word they use is "slave." So how do we handle stuff like that?"

As you can see, it can be quite the challenge to translate ancient texts. (1) That's why we have so many versions of the Bible [different approaches], (2) that's why new versions keep coming out [more information all the time], and (3) That's why scholars are continually at work to deepen and refine our understanding.

> Doesn’t that concern you? Something exists and the best God can do is essentially contain it?

It doesn't concern me because (1) God has an excellent plan to contain it, (2) He is dealing with it quite effectively, (3) In the meantime He is using it to His advantage, (4) He will deal with it when the time is right (Rev. 6.11). In my opinion, God is doing exactly what He can be and should be doing.

> “Why did God let sin begin in the first place?”

Let me try to explain it this way.

1. God can't sin. He has free will, but he's God, so sin is not an option. It's not even a possible direction.
2. But God is uncreated (both by nature and by definition), so anything He creates is not God and is less than God (hopefully that makes sense to you).
3. We were created with free will (necessarily so. Without free will, we wouldn't be able to think or do science or love—things necessary to be human).
4. Because we're not God, and are less than God, but have free will, sin is one of the possibilities for us. It wouldn't be "free" will if God said, "You always have to choose the good and the right."
5. So what God did (Genesis 2) is provide all kinds of good things for us, showed us how to choose the good and the right, made it possible for us to do so, and warned us of the consequences of choosing wrong. That's all anyone can do in that situation.
6. We chose to sin. God couldn't stop it, but He certainly had a good plan for how to deal with it when and if it happened.

Does that answer your question? Let's talk more if it raised more questions or if there's stuff you don't agree with.

> I think most people mean it in the latter sense, which makes me very uncomfortable. I think there are a lot of things God doesn't control, and that's exactly the point. This world is quite frankly a mess, and God is working to fix it. He's not making it happen. Egads.

Yeah that seems like a pretty strange God to worship. Can you really call him “good” anymore if he literally causes everything bad too? Although I guess if we define “good” as just whatever God decides to do, then it’s technically okay, but that’s still concerning. That’s a different discussion, though.

> The Hebrew word of issue in the verse…

Huh, I looked into that a little more. That’s pretty interesting, looking into the original language. I see what you mean, that would certainly change how I see this verse. But isn’t that potentially problematic, that an interpretation of a verse could mean very different things based off how well it got translated?

> God can't prevent it or remove it

Doesn’t that concern you? Something exists and the best God can do is essentially contain it?

While you did technically answer my question, I guess I should have been a bit clearer. I meant it more like: “Why did God let sin begin in the first place?”

> I was thinking of “control” more like a parent with a kid riding a bike, not that God is causing/making every little thing happen.

I think most people mean it in the latter sense, which makes me very uncomfortable. I think there are a lot of things God doesn't control, and that's exactly the point. This world is quite frankly a mess, and God is working to fix it. He's not making it happen. Egads.

> I had always equated “sovereign” with “in control” (in the sense I described above). I’m guessing you see it differently, so what does that mean to you exactly?

When there is a king who is sovereign over the land, it doesn't mean he controls everything that happens or controls what the people do. God's sovereignty means He has the power and authority to accomplish His purposes in history, at least some of which includes the plan of salvation and reconciling all things to Himself (Col. 1.20). He is certainly sovereign over sin and death, meaning that He has the power and authority to destroy them.

> Prov. 16.9

Since the proverbs are disconnected aphorisms, context doesn't help us much. From the other verses in Proverbs I wrote about, we can see it is the general perspective of the writer(s) of the Proverbs that these kinds of sayings generally mean that we shouldn't try to handle everything ourselves because there's so much we can't see and don't know; instead we should look to God for help. The question at hand is, "Is verse 9 different from the rest?"

The Hebrew word of issue in the verse is יָכִין (yakheen). It means "Prepare; make ready; establish; direct; put to rights; correct." So the question is for the interpreter: Does it mean God directs your steps, or that he determines them?

For me, the first part of the verse shows that humans do plan, and there's no problem with us making plans, and even an expectation that we will (which goes along with other Scriptures, like James 4.13-15, which see). As a guard against faithlessness, pride, and secularism, however, we are always to remember that we should look to God for ultimate direction, as James says. That's what I think.

> sin only exists because God does not prevent/remove it.

I think sin will always exist now that it has begun. Sin has been conquered (as has death), but I don't think it can ever be removed. In the end (Rev. 22.14), death and Hades are thrown into the Lake of eternal Fire. Presumably all residents will continue in their sin (rebellion against God) for eternity. God can't prevent it or remove it; what He does is forgive it and remove it from those who repent, and He redeems us from its power.

Thank you as well. I’ve been having a lot of trouble researching this topic, and you’ve been the most helpful so far.

> But then we're left to struggle with, "What in the WORLD do we mean when we say 'God allowed it'?" That gets real difficult real fast, so it's a dicey term.

Yeah that was my issue as well. I eventually decided on “allow” over “permit,” “ordains,” or anything else of the sort. To me, “allow” implied that God could stop it if he wanted to, but because he doesn’t, he lets it (continue to) exist, which I assumed was closest to the right idea.

> I've never been too pumped on the "God is in control" cliche of many Christians. If God causes everything to happen…

I was thinking of “control” more like a parent with a kid riding a bike, not that God is causing/making every little thing happen.

Like, when your kid is starting to learn to ride, the dad is right there with them, hands ready to grab on at any moment. He let’s the kid peddle and steer, but at any point he can take hold of the handles or tell his son where to go.

So when I said “God is in control,” I mean that God might let people do what they want, but everything we do God let’s happen. He could stop/cause anything he wanted, but he allows us to cause things sometimes. That’s how I was viewing it, at least.

> God is sovereign, but we're not robots.

I had always equated “sovereign” with “in control” (in the sense I described above). I’m guessing you see it differently, so what does that mean to you exactly?

> So you can see that NONE of these verses are saying that God controls everything and that our lives are determined (we're just robots going through the motions; God is in control).

I think I see what you mean by most of these verses, but I’m not convinced by your analysis of Proverbs 16:9: "The thrust of the proverb is that our plans are based on limited knowledge and vision, so we need to look to God for guidance to help us walk in the way of wisdom."

I don’t see anything about “knowledge” or what man uses to plan, more that even though man plans his steps, God is the one who establishes them. Despite whatever plans man has, God’s plan is the one that actually happens (is established).

Not to say that giving free will and letting you make your choice isn’t part of his plan sometimes, but everything that happens still goes through God, in a sense.

> We have to go with "yes" on this. Ultimately all that is in the system God allowed in the system

So however we want to say it (allows, let’s, permits, etc.), sin only exists because God does not prevent/remove it. So why doesn’t he? Or worded differently, what’s the motivation for letting it continue or exist to begin with?