The investigation begins with the nature of humanity. A cell group member asked me a question this week. I'm not Lizzie Bennet so forgive me if I can't remember it word for word, but the general idea was : Did God create us perfect? Because if He did, then how could Adam and Eve sin? Doesn't that mean that mankind was inherently flawed to begin with?
I responded : We were created perfect, but we were given free will. Because of this, there was opportunity for sin.
After more thinking, that answer seems straightforward enough, but understanding often requires additional probing, which is why this subsequent exploration was generated.
I must begin by clearing a few issues -
1. Free will is a choice that God made, and without it, man cannot meaningfully relate to God.
2. God is almighty. So he is omniscient and omnipotent.
3. Free will always chooses the best option within its knowledge that it perceives as available.
3. Free will always chooses the best option within its knowledge that it perceives as available.
The first issue is something most of us should have little trouble understanding, I hope. Our relationships with objects without free will are not meaningful the same way that our relationships with other sentient beings are. We might project attachments and sentiments onto objects, like stuff toys or trees, but they can never respond of their own volition to whatever affection we link to them. Similarly, God did not create us to be mechanical servants of His will, but willing instruments of his divine orchestration.
Second, I base the argument on the fact that God, the Creator, is almighty, knows all and is all powerful. You might not agree with this, but I am basing my work and my life on Christian principles as much as I can; just exploring the resulting consequences.
Third, we always pick what we think is the best option for us at the time. The options also have to be within our knowledge simply because if they are not known to us, we wouldn't be aware of it. I have attached the idea of perceived availability because there might be a better option out there, but we believe that we cannot attain it and so do not strive in that direction.
To begin with, we need to examine the relationship between the Creator and the creation. (Or in tas eldawach, cives ec cizhen) When God created, the creation is by definition, inferior to the Creator. Creation is inferior both in terms of knowledge and ability, since I am working off the premise that the Creator is omniscient and omnipotent. If creation were on the same level as Creator, God would have made Himself. This difference between Creator and creation implies that creation is limited in its understanding and power. Of course the very fact that the Creator is able to create shows that he knows everything about us, while presumably, creation does not know everything about its Creator. I do wonder if this could be extended to any creator-creation relationship, but that will be for another discussion.
This has many resulting consequences on the nature of free will and the cause of rebellion. Free will that is created must therefore, belong to a being that is limited in knowledge and power when compared it its Creator. This sets up a dynamic between the first Will and all created wills. Simply put, the created wills either cooperate or defy the original Will. When the created wills work in concert with the primeval Will, there is harmony between creation and Creator. For this to be the case, the created wills must choose to be subservient to the primeval Will. On the other hand, when the created wills defy the divine Will, there is discord and suffering. There are always these two basic choices, every solution for any multifaceted conundrum will fall on one side of the fence.
A brief diversion into the nature of suffering - Suffering is a necessary result of creation rebelling against the Creator; an unavoidable consequence. This is the case because when creation chooses a path that is not in alignment with the Creator's purpose, it is unavoidably inferior to the path that the Creator has in mind. Since God is omniscient, He knows the best possible choices for every decision we have to make. We exist in a limited perspective, so we cannot always know what the best possible selection is for each encountered furcation. When we choose to rebel, or act outside God's will, the resulting situation is worse than what it was meant to be, or could have been.
We may not live in a perfect world now, but the fact of the matter is that we were created for a perfect one. Because God intended humanity to live in perfect community, we have persistent inborn expectations of the nature of the world; that which is good, pleasing and perfect, and so we know what falls short of that. Since the consequences of our rebellions are necessarily inferior to the path which God intended, there is a divide between our expectations of perfection and our imperfect reality. Because of this difference, like the Buddhists hold, suffering results. So when it comes to the question, why does God allow suffering? It seems to me it is because He allows free will. Those free wills might be restricted and coerced into suffering, but that is ultimately because other free wills are abusing their own privileges. Did God create suffering? No, for when God created, all things were good. Rather, creation creates suffering by choosing to turn away from God.
Now you might argue, if that is the case, what is the point of exercising free will? What is the point of God giving us free will if there is already a plan that He has in mind for us to follow? Part of this is already answered in assumption number one. Another part has to do with our understanding of exercising free will. As I already mentioned, the created wills either cooperate or defy the original Will. Exercising free will does not mean choosing the path that we would like to direct for ourselves. You are still exercising free will even as you submit yourself to a higher power. You would simply be making that fundamental decision to cooperate instead of cause conflict.
So, the question has turned to the issue of why a created being should wish to defy the Creator in the first place. Since by the logic of the first two underlying assumptions, any act of rebellion must lead to suffering and pain, there ought not to be any case where a created being chooses suffering over peace. Obviously, this is not the case and people make terrible, regrettable choices all the time, myself included. This is where the third tenet comes into play. A created will will only choose what they know to exist and what they perceive to be accessible. As a result, a created will may rebel against the divine Will out of pride, or of despair.
I will deal with despair first because it is not the fundamental cause of rebellion, but rather a resultant one. Despair comes when we settle for anything less than the perfect world we were intended for. Despair acts when we know that the situation should be better, but we decide that it will never be and choose what is inferior. We give up on the hope of restoration and glorification. It comes from being in a world that is already fallen, and being beaten by the offenses of that imperfect world until we submit to it. After months, years, decades of existing in a state of suffering, we forsake the divine inborn standard and elect the overtly accessible, next best alternative. In this situation, God's will is defied not out of active hatred for His plans, but because we perceive them as unattainable. However, since this form of rebellion arises from conforming to the pattern of a fallen world, it is not the original rebellion, which could only have happened in a perfect world.
The original rebellion, therefore, must have been out of pride. This is a result of a created being believing that it knows more, or has superior knowledge to the Creator. The created will sets itself above the Creator and believes that it has a superior solution than the Creator's to the choice at hand. For this to be the case, the created being has to believe it is justified in the defiant choice. Otherwise, the Creator can simply show the created being the error in its thinking and the creation will have no good reason not to begin the path of repentance. Now, we need to ask how a created being might possibly arrive at that conclusion that it has superior knowledge to the Creator. I am not considering a created being believing that it has superior power or ability, simply because power does not justify. It may be within your ability to perform a back somersault, but just because you are able to doesn't explain why you have any good reason to do so.
Going back to the second tenet, God is omniscient. Therefore it is impossible for a created being to actually know more than God, the being can only perceive that it knows more than God. This can happen in two ways, when we believe we know all there is to know, or when we believe we are considering a factor that God has not taken into account. Once again, within these two options, only the former is a candidate for the original sin. In the perfect, pre-rebellion world, created beings have full fellowship with God, so the Creator could have easily shown how He had already considered any misgivings about possible unexamined variables.
How then, might a created being arrive at the point where it believes it has achieved omniscience? The explanation that I have been directed to begins with this : since created beings are not omniscient, we are able to learn. For some, the word learning is inextricably tied up with the grinding tedious nature of academic learning. Perhaps unusually, I would say academic learning is one of the joys of my life. Nonetheless, we all enjoy learning in one form or another. It could manifest as learning about other people, learning a new song or a new skill far outside the confines of academic learning. Learning affects the three realms of knowledge that all of us are affected by. The first realm is the known, what we already know and understand. The second realm is the known unknown, which is what we are aware of, but are sure that we do not understand, like quarternion numbers for my present self. The third realm is the unknown unknown, what we are neither aware of nor understand. Perceived omniscience results when the second realm of the known unknown is minute or non-existent.
In the process of learning, the first realm expands and second realm tends to expand. The third however, remains constant. This is so because if God is omniscient, He could be viewed as having infinite knowledge. If infinite knowledge exists, then the unknown unknown is the largest of the three knowledge realms and can never be reduced since it is infinite. This holds for any quantity of knowledge that creation believes it has. However, the third realm is not what holds our pride in check, but the second. It is easy to forget about the existence of the third realm; it is neither within our reach nor comprehension. The second realm is what prompts us to assume superiority or submit in humility.
Free will always chooses the best perceived available option, and someone who knows more can easily show you a better option. If a chess master was observing a game of chess you were playing, you would be certainly be inclined to follow whatever advice he deigns to give. It's a matter of trusting someone else's expertise in an area, supported by the awareness that they know more than you about a certain subject. The second knowledge realm is readily apparent. If the roles were reversed and you were the chess master, you would probably disregard suggestions from a novice. You would be confident that you have a greater understanding of the situation than a neophyte who forgets the direction in which pawns capture. In this case, the second knowledge realm is non-existent or at least, comparatively small. You would feel justified in making your own decision instead of deferring to another's judgement.
So, how does one proceed from chess rookie to chess master? When a created being is created, it is aware that it is intellectually inferior to its creator. It has existed for less time than its creator, it has less understanding of its purpose, composition and the world, until it begins to learn. So we begin in a state of submission because the second realm is initially obvious. Even if a created being is created with inborn knowledge, it cannot be all knowing as the Creator is. As we learn, our realms of knowledge expand. However, risk is involved when the creation forgets the fact that the third, mysterious and unknown unknown is actually infinite. When we forget the infinite nature of knowledge, knowledge appears to be finite. This implies that with each new grain of knowledge, the creation feels that it approaches the omniscience of the Creator. The creation develops the impression that it is slowly exhausting the realm of the known unknown and will soon reach intellectual equality with its Creator. The finite creation believes it can encroach on the infinite Creator, because it is not within the reach of the finite to grasp the sheer magnitude of the infinite.
At the point where the created being feels it has learnt all it has to learn, it feels it knows all there is to know, and so, presumes omniscience. If, at this point, the creation has different ideas from its Creator about the nature of reality and the future, it will feel justified in making an independent decision to act contrary to the Will of the divine. This is in spite of the fact that creation can never make a decision superior to decisions within range of the divine plan. Such is the stem of rebellion by Creation in a previously perfect world. It is a lack of wonder and a fostering of pride.
For this reason, the first to rebel must also be at the peak of all created beings, and most likely, the first created being. If you are less knowledgeable than another created being, it is perfectly clear that you must still be inferior to your Creator. However, it is only when there is no other created being to compare itself with that a created being feels it is next to the Creator Himself. In this state, there is no other created being who can hold the pinnacle in check when the summit of creation chooses to challenge the Creator. I suggest that the first rebel must also be the first created being, because the rebel would have observed the rest of creation as it was created. If a created being enters a world already populated by all manner of created things, their diversity is evidence enough that the second realm exists. But if a created being was the first and able to watch the rest of creation unfold, it could potentially suppose that it understood each new creation as it came into being.
Therefore, Alora has to fulfill these traits when it comes to his own rebellion against Eleyon. Alora is the first created being, albeit along with Iyvase, and Alora and Iyvase are at the summit of created things. Alora was predisposed to learning about the external, Iyvase about the internal. Alora becomes the first to presume omniscience and rebels. After this first rebellion, other methods of rebellion are made possible, as they rely on existing imperfection.
Second, I base the argument on the fact that God, the Creator, is almighty, knows all and is all powerful. You might not agree with this, but I am basing my work and my life on Christian principles as much as I can; just exploring the resulting consequences.
Third, we always pick what we think is the best option for us at the time. The options also have to be within our knowledge simply because if they are not known to us, we wouldn't be aware of it. I have attached the idea of perceived availability because there might be a better option out there, but we believe that we cannot attain it and so do not strive in that direction.
To begin with, we need to examine the relationship between the Creator and the creation. (Or in tas eldawach, cives ec cizhen) When God created, the creation is by definition, inferior to the Creator. Creation is inferior both in terms of knowledge and ability, since I am working off the premise that the Creator is omniscient and omnipotent. If creation were on the same level as Creator, God would have made Himself. This difference between Creator and creation implies that creation is limited in its understanding and power. Of course the very fact that the Creator is able to create shows that he knows everything about us, while presumably, creation does not know everything about its Creator. I do wonder if this could be extended to any creator-creation relationship, but that will be for another discussion.
This has many resulting consequences on the nature of free will and the cause of rebellion. Free will that is created must therefore, belong to a being that is limited in knowledge and power when compared it its Creator. This sets up a dynamic between the first Will and all created wills. Simply put, the created wills either cooperate or defy the original Will. When the created wills work in concert with the primeval Will, there is harmony between creation and Creator. For this to be the case, the created wills must choose to be subservient to the primeval Will. On the other hand, when the created wills defy the divine Will, there is discord and suffering. There are always these two basic choices, every solution for any multifaceted conundrum will fall on one side of the fence.
A brief diversion into the nature of suffering - Suffering is a necessary result of creation rebelling against the Creator; an unavoidable consequence. This is the case because when creation chooses a path that is not in alignment with the Creator's purpose, it is unavoidably inferior to the path that the Creator has in mind. Since God is omniscient, He knows the best possible choices for every decision we have to make. We exist in a limited perspective, so we cannot always know what the best possible selection is for each encountered furcation. When we choose to rebel, or act outside God's will, the resulting situation is worse than what it was meant to be, or could have been.
We may not live in a perfect world now, but the fact of the matter is that we were created for a perfect one. Because God intended humanity to live in perfect community, we have persistent inborn expectations of the nature of the world; that which is good, pleasing and perfect, and so we know what falls short of that. Since the consequences of our rebellions are necessarily inferior to the path which God intended, there is a divide between our expectations of perfection and our imperfect reality. Because of this difference, like the Buddhists hold, suffering results. So when it comes to the question, why does God allow suffering? It seems to me it is because He allows free will. Those free wills might be restricted and coerced into suffering, but that is ultimately because other free wills are abusing their own privileges. Did God create suffering? No, for when God created, all things were good. Rather, creation creates suffering by choosing to turn away from God.
Now you might argue, if that is the case, what is the point of exercising free will? What is the point of God giving us free will if there is already a plan that He has in mind for us to follow? Part of this is already answered in assumption number one. Another part has to do with our understanding of exercising free will. As I already mentioned, the created wills either cooperate or defy the original Will. Exercising free will does not mean choosing the path that we would like to direct for ourselves. You are still exercising free will even as you submit yourself to a higher power. You would simply be making that fundamental decision to cooperate instead of cause conflict.
So, the question has turned to the issue of why a created being should wish to defy the Creator in the first place. Since by the logic of the first two underlying assumptions, any act of rebellion must lead to suffering and pain, there ought not to be any case where a created being chooses suffering over peace. Obviously, this is not the case and people make terrible, regrettable choices all the time, myself included. This is where the third tenet comes into play. A created will will only choose what they know to exist and what they perceive to be accessible. As a result, a created will may rebel against the divine Will out of pride, or of despair.
I will deal with despair first because it is not the fundamental cause of rebellion, but rather a resultant one. Despair comes when we settle for anything less than the perfect world we were intended for. Despair acts when we know that the situation should be better, but we decide that it will never be and choose what is inferior. We give up on the hope of restoration and glorification. It comes from being in a world that is already fallen, and being beaten by the offenses of that imperfect world until we submit to it. After months, years, decades of existing in a state of suffering, we forsake the divine inborn standard and elect the overtly accessible, next best alternative. In this situation, God's will is defied not out of active hatred for His plans, but because we perceive them as unattainable. However, since this form of rebellion arises from conforming to the pattern of a fallen world, it is not the original rebellion, which could only have happened in a perfect world.
The original rebellion, therefore, must have been out of pride. This is a result of a created being believing that it knows more, or has superior knowledge to the Creator. The created will sets itself above the Creator and believes that it has a superior solution than the Creator's to the choice at hand. For this to be the case, the created being has to believe it is justified in the defiant choice. Otherwise, the Creator can simply show the created being the error in its thinking and the creation will have no good reason not to begin the path of repentance. Now, we need to ask how a created being might possibly arrive at that conclusion that it has superior knowledge to the Creator. I am not considering a created being believing that it has superior power or ability, simply because power does not justify. It may be within your ability to perform a back somersault, but just because you are able to doesn't explain why you have any good reason to do so.
Going back to the second tenet, God is omniscient. Therefore it is impossible for a created being to actually know more than God, the being can only perceive that it knows more than God. This can happen in two ways, when we believe we know all there is to know, or when we believe we are considering a factor that God has not taken into account. Once again, within these two options, only the former is a candidate for the original sin. In the perfect, pre-rebellion world, created beings have full fellowship with God, so the Creator could have easily shown how He had already considered any misgivings about possible unexamined variables.
How then, might a created being arrive at the point where it believes it has achieved omniscience? The explanation that I have been directed to begins with this : since created beings are not omniscient, we are able to learn. For some, the word learning is inextricably tied up with the grinding tedious nature of academic learning. Perhaps unusually, I would say academic learning is one of the joys of my life. Nonetheless, we all enjoy learning in one form or another. It could manifest as learning about other people, learning a new song or a new skill far outside the confines of academic learning. Learning affects the three realms of knowledge that all of us are affected by. The first realm is the known, what we already know and understand. The second realm is the known unknown, which is what we are aware of, but are sure that we do not understand, like quarternion numbers for my present self. The third realm is the unknown unknown, what we are neither aware of nor understand. Perceived omniscience results when the second realm of the known unknown is minute or non-existent.
In the process of learning, the first realm expands and second realm tends to expand. The third however, remains constant. This is so because if God is omniscient, He could be viewed as having infinite knowledge. If infinite knowledge exists, then the unknown unknown is the largest of the three knowledge realms and can never be reduced since it is infinite. This holds for any quantity of knowledge that creation believes it has. However, the third realm is not what holds our pride in check, but the second. It is easy to forget about the existence of the third realm; it is neither within our reach nor comprehension. The second realm is what prompts us to assume superiority or submit in humility.
Free will always chooses the best perceived available option, and someone who knows more can easily show you a better option. If a chess master was observing a game of chess you were playing, you would be certainly be inclined to follow whatever advice he deigns to give. It's a matter of trusting someone else's expertise in an area, supported by the awareness that they know more than you about a certain subject. The second knowledge realm is readily apparent. If the roles were reversed and you were the chess master, you would probably disregard suggestions from a novice. You would be confident that you have a greater understanding of the situation than a neophyte who forgets the direction in which pawns capture. In this case, the second knowledge realm is non-existent or at least, comparatively small. You would feel justified in making your own decision instead of deferring to another's judgement.
So, how does one proceed from chess rookie to chess master? When a created being is created, it is aware that it is intellectually inferior to its creator. It has existed for less time than its creator, it has less understanding of its purpose, composition and the world, until it begins to learn. So we begin in a state of submission because the second realm is initially obvious. Even if a created being is created with inborn knowledge, it cannot be all knowing as the Creator is. As we learn, our realms of knowledge expand. However, risk is involved when the creation forgets the fact that the third, mysterious and unknown unknown is actually infinite. When we forget the infinite nature of knowledge, knowledge appears to be finite. This implies that with each new grain of knowledge, the creation feels that it approaches the omniscience of the Creator. The creation develops the impression that it is slowly exhausting the realm of the known unknown and will soon reach intellectual equality with its Creator. The finite creation believes it can encroach on the infinite Creator, because it is not within the reach of the finite to grasp the sheer magnitude of the infinite.
At the point where the created being feels it has learnt all it has to learn, it feels it knows all there is to know, and so, presumes omniscience. If, at this point, the creation has different ideas from its Creator about the nature of reality and the future, it will feel justified in making an independent decision to act contrary to the Will of the divine. This is in spite of the fact that creation can never make a decision superior to decisions within range of the divine plan. Such is the stem of rebellion by Creation in a previously perfect world. It is a lack of wonder and a fostering of pride.
For this reason, the first to rebel must also be at the peak of all created beings, and most likely, the first created being. If you are less knowledgeable than another created being, it is perfectly clear that you must still be inferior to your Creator. However, it is only when there is no other created being to compare itself with that a created being feels it is next to the Creator Himself. In this state, there is no other created being who can hold the pinnacle in check when the summit of creation chooses to challenge the Creator. I suggest that the first rebel must also be the first created being, because the rebel would have observed the rest of creation as it was created. If a created being enters a world already populated by all manner of created things, their diversity is evidence enough that the second realm exists. But if a created being was the first and able to watch the rest of creation unfold, it could potentially suppose that it understood each new creation as it came into being.
Therefore, Alora has to fulfill these traits when it comes to his own rebellion against Eleyon. Alora is the first created being, albeit along with Iyvase, and Alora and Iyvase are at the summit of created things. Alora was predisposed to learning about the external, Iyvase about the internal. Alora becomes the first to presume omniscience and rebels. After this first rebellion, other methods of rebellion are made possible, as they rely on existing imperfection.
Would we then say that Alora, or Lucifer as he is in this world, was created inherently evil, or predisposed to evil? Again, this cannot be the case because God created all things good. But Lucifer was also given free will, and placed in a unique position, a delicate balance between power and humility that ultimately tipped over into pride and shattered the harmony of reality.
Knowledge alone is dangerous, because it empowers its bearers. Alora's pursuit of comprehension was partly to blame for his presumed omnipotence. If a created being is content to remain in a state of submission, never questioning what the Will commands, the harmony has no chance of being disturbed. It was when creation learned, and assumed that it was approaching the infinite Creator, that hamartia of the prime created being was made manifest. Nevertheless, the ultimate choice was still up to Alora's free will, to remember his limitations, or to challenge his Creator.
I would like to emphasise that it is not wrong to learn, the Creator allows us to learn and takes delight in our learning, but it is wrong to forget the third realm of knowledge and lose trust in the divine plan. So we arrive at the difference between knowledge and wisdom. As the proverbial phrase goes : 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.' and that is exactly it. For if we remember that the Lord is superior and knows all our unknown unknowns, we may learn as voraciously as possible without fear of rebellion. But if we forget this fear of the Lord, as the first rebel did, all his glory means nothing, for the finite cannot measure up to the infinite and any choices outside the will of the Creator elect the way of suffering.
Therefore, Alora was not created evil, desiring wanton destruction, suffering and all manner of ugly atrocities. It was part of how the situation was set up that every created will has the choice to cooperate or to conflict with the uncreated Will. Unfortunately though, suffering found its way into the world through the only way possible, the hubris of the first creature in creation. This unlocks the gate, into a vast world of hurt and confusion and sin, which is what we find ourselves in today.
Knowledge alone is dangerous, because it empowers its bearers. Alora's pursuit of comprehension was partly to blame for his presumed omnipotence. If a created being is content to remain in a state of submission, never questioning what the Will commands, the harmony has no chance of being disturbed. It was when creation learned, and assumed that it was approaching the infinite Creator, that hamartia of the prime created being was made manifest. Nevertheless, the ultimate choice was still up to Alora's free will, to remember his limitations, or to challenge his Creator.
I would like to emphasise that it is not wrong to learn, the Creator allows us to learn and takes delight in our learning, but it is wrong to forget the third realm of knowledge and lose trust in the divine plan. So we arrive at the difference between knowledge and wisdom. As the proverbial phrase goes : 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.' and that is exactly it. For if we remember that the Lord is superior and knows all our unknown unknowns, we may learn as voraciously as possible without fear of rebellion. But if we forget this fear of the Lord, as the first rebel did, all his glory means nothing, for the finite cannot measure up to the infinite and any choices outside the will of the Creator elect the way of suffering.
Therefore, Alora was not created evil, desiring wanton destruction, suffering and all manner of ugly atrocities. It was part of how the situation was set up that every created will has the choice to cooperate or to conflict with the uncreated Will. Unfortunately though, suffering found its way into the world through the only way possible, the hubris of the first creature in creation. This unlocks the gate, into a vast world of hurt and confusion and sin, which is what we find ourselves in today.
