God is supposed to be perfect. If the world is the work of a perfect god, it should be, as Leibniz argued, the best possible world. But it is not very difficult to imagine a better world than this. How is this argued from the point of view of classical theism?

If God is omnipotent (Psalm 115:3), then God is immeasurably perfect in every way. I feel that "human" or "human-like" emotions would detract quite a bit from divine perfection, but does God also love all his creations? Romans 9:13 mentions God's hatred for evil, which he sees in Esau, whom he also hates. I understand that God did not directly create evil and sin and it was only a consequence of free will. Even so, the Bible said that God hated not only his actions but he hated Esau himself. 1 John 4:16 (ESV): > So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. God is love, but God is also the embodiment of everything, including hate and other antonyms of love. God is everything because God created everything, and everything he has created is an extension of him (Colossians 1:16). Furthermore, we can not answer the question well without defining "perfect" first. I have always thought of perfection *not* as the absence of imperfection but as the acceptance and inclusion of everything that makes it. But that is not everyone's definition, especially not how the Scriptures define it (Deuteronomy 32:4). Assuming my opinion is true, there's a straightforward conclusion to God's perfection: God's perfection would include all of his "imperfections," making him perfect but also humane. But in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16), he is described as divine without human error. If God were a perfect divine being, how would he feel? Or have any emotions at all? If God is a divine being, I can't understand how he would feel, including his love. (I apologize in advance if my question isn't framed very well, i'm not very used to translating my thoughts into coherent questions 😅)

Argument: > If God is the Creator, He cannot be perfect. For either God created the world desiring it or not desiring it. If he did not wish it, it implies that he does not have total control over his actions, therefore he is not perfect. If he wanted to, either the creation suited him in the long run or not. If it didn't suit him, then he lacked something that suited him, then he wasn't perfect. If it didn't suit him, he has acted against his ultimate interests, so he is irrational, and therefore not perfect. How can I counterargument this?

I've seen the uncreated God contrasted many times to the created angels, Satan, and humans, and etc. Being created is counted against the latter category as a mark of imperfection which God does not bear. However I don't really see why being created is an imperfection. Surely something can be created and be created perfectly, right? To become perfect? Is there a way to understand this through the bigger picture of what perfection is? Or is this something that must be understood on its own?

**"God is perfect"** is often used as a justification for the belief that God never became God, but that rather, He never changed, but simply always was God, and **always was perfect**. What is the Biblical justification for the claim that "perfect" means that God always was God and never changed, seeing as Jesus commands us to be perfect, "even as our Father in Heaven is perfect"?

When I first became a Christian my Baptist minister spoke about sanctification, holiness and aspiring toward Christian perfection in our lives. Personally, I doubt any of us will see perfection this side of heaven, although those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus are called to be holy (1 Corinthians 1:2). My understanding of sanctification is that it is both a done deal and a daily work. It’s on-going. In the past, through saving faith in Christ Jesus, God grants us justification. Through the process of sanctification, God guides us to maturity, a practical, progressive holiness. In the future, God will give us glorification, a permanent, ultimate holiness. These three phases of sanctification separate the believer from the penalty of sin (justification), the power of sin (maturity), and the presence of sin (glorification). With regard to the Methodist view of sanctification, I found a 1988 book ‘What Methodists Believe’ by Rupert E. Davies, which said this on page 58: >One of John Wesley’s favourite teachings was that it was actually possible for a Christian in his life on earth to reach perfection in the love of God and of his neighbour; that is, by the power of the Spirit, really and truly to love God and his neighbour in the way described by Jesus without any imperfections whatever. Is this view of sanctification and attaining perfection in love unique to Methodists? Or is it common amongst Protestant Christians? I am interested in exploring the similarities and differences between Methodists, Baptists and other Protestants on the process of sanctification. Rather than expect people to compare the views of different denominations, I would be content to read views representing individual Protestant denominations. Otherwise, I fear people may be put off from answering!

In Hebrews 8, the author discusses the two covenants God has made. Why the need for two? Surely God knew that the first could not be kept by man. Why didn’t He just start with the covenant of Christ?

This question is a spin-off of the previous discussion *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95830/61679* . Therein, the top [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95831/61679) stated: > This question is answered directly in the text of the Bible. > > 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. > > > > 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we > are, yet without sin. > > > > -- [Hebrews chapter 4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204&version=KJV) > > The "missing link" here is *character.* God has free will, and is > fully capable of being tempted and enticed to do evil, but > consistently chooses to use that free will in benevolent and righteous > ways. In this, and particularly through the example of the life of > his son, Jesus Christ, he teaches us how to use our free will in > benevolent and righteous ways as well. To which I replied: > Then one could ask the follow-up question *"then why did God not create human beings which are free and have perfect character?"* Some Christians, such as Latter-day Saints, do not believe in [*creatio ex nihilo*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo) , and therefore they have a very peculiar way of answering this question. This [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95950/61679) can serve as a good example. So my question for Christians who *do* believe in *creatio ex nihilo* is the following: Why did God, according to believers in *creatio ex nihilo*, opt to create human beings with imperfect characters and vulnerability to evil, instead of bestowing them with perfect characters immune to evil like His own from the very beginning?

This question is a spin-off of the previous discussion *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95830/61679* . Therein, the top [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95831/61679) stated: > This question is answered directly in the text of the Bible. > > 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. > > > > 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we > are, yet without sin. > > > > -- [Hebrews chapter 4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%204&version=KJV) > > The "missing link" here is *character.* God has free will, and is > fully capable of being tempted and enticed to do evil, but > consistently chooses to use that free will in benevolent and righteous > ways. In this, and particularly through the example of the life of > his son, Jesus Christ, he teaches us how to use our free will in > benevolent and righteous ways as well. To which I replied: > Then one could ask the follow-up question *"then why did God not create human beings which are free and have perfect character?"* After noticing that the author of the top answer is a Latter-day Saint, I would like to know how the LDS denomination addresses the question. So my question for Latter-day Saints is: Why did God, according to Latter-day Saints, opt to create human beings with imperfect characters and vulnerability to evil, instead of bestowing them with perfect characters immune to evil like His own from the very beginning?

Do Christians (or at least a well-known subset of them) believe that God chose to create the "best possible world" among multiple/infinite alternatives, and therefore, that we are living in the best possible world right now? My personal impression is that this view portrays God as a *utilitarian*, in the sense that God is viewed as making decisions based on a *Utility* or *Goodness* function, such that He can make comparisons of the form: - *Goodness* (possible_world1) > *Goodness* (possible_world2) - *Goodness* (possible_world1) 2) - *Goodness* (possible_world1) = *Goodness* (possible_world2) And that He solved an optimization problem, by actualizing one specific world (the one we are living in right now) that maximizes the *Goodness* function. However, I know that viewing God as a utilitarian is frowned upon by many Christians, as evidenced by some of my previous questions ([Q1](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95435/61679) , [Q2](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95069/61679) , [Q3](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95350/61679)) . Do Christians believe that we are living in "the best of all possible worlds", as I just explained? If not, are there different conceptions of God in Christianity that still affirm that this is the "best possible world" that God could have created?

>...**Chapter 16. Watchfulness; the Coming of the Lord**. Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord will come. But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: **for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time...** Is that the Catholic view? The Protestant view? Any other major sect's view?

In the book of Hebrews, we read: >8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 5:8-10 (NIV) Here, the writer to the Hebrews describes God the Son as being "made perfect". The simple reading of this would imply that he was *imperfect* before this event, but that would contradict my understanding of the rest of scripture. How would a reformed protestant understand the idea of God the Son being "made perfect"?

We see Jesus saying at Matthew 5:48 (NRSVCE) > "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" Now, the image of God the Father that the Jewish people had had, before they listened to the teachings of Jesus including the Parable of the Prodigal Son, would be the one at Psalm 103:8-10 (NRSVCE): " The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.He will not always accuse, nor will he keep his anger forever.He does not deal with us according to our sins,nor repay us according to our iniquities."" That is, God the Father did get angry many a time and punished the Israel occasionally! Could the Jews therefore, treat Him as the role model of perfection? Would not Jesus himself, in human nature and form, make a better candidate as the role model of perfection for the Jews? My question therefore is: Why did Jesus project God the Father as the role model of perfection? Does the Catholic Church offer any comments on the issue?

My question can sound like a question out of blue, but I am going to ask it anyway. We can come up with many different descriptions of so called "perfect relationship", but for Christians the best example of perfect relationship (or the most "ideal" relationship) would be the relationship within the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Will every relationship that takes place in heaven (which includes heavenly relationship between God's creations, for example, a relationship between two heavenly human beings) as perfect and complete as the relationship of the Trinity? On one hand, my logic says it is impossible for God's creatures to have such perfect and complete relationship with some other God's creation, since we as a finite and inferior being do not have capacity to receive love or to give love as much as our infinite God. On the other hand, my logic says that because heaven is "the perfect" place, the strength of relationship/union that occurs throughout heavenly community should be equally perfect, powerful, and strong to the utmost extreme. If the heavenly relationship between God's creation are not as perfect and complete as that of the Trinity, that means unity in heaven is in a sense can be fragile. Will every heavenly relationship (including relationship between a heavenly human and some other heavenly human) be as perfect and complete as the relationship that Trinity has? Please answer according to Catholic understanding. Thank you,

God, through each person of the Holy Trinity, the Prophets, the Saints, and his people set out what to do in order to enter the kingdom of heaven through the commandments, through the beatitudes, though lives worthy of imitation (in the case of Jesus and the Saints) and building the kingdom of God (e.g. as specified in Matthew 25). Obviously the list is not exhaustive, but suffice to say, there are clear duties set, and reasons as to why these duties help build the kingdom of God. Those who thoroughly practice the Catholic faith strive to go beyond the minimum duties [through the forces of Grace](https://www.catholic.com/tract/grace-what-it-is-and-what-it-does) . Striving for the minimum understandably does not help much for a relationship with God, and thus it makes sense to go beyond "what the instructor specifies" so to speak. But if God, who is the perfect instructor, lays out what to do for us to become perfect [and thus be able to enter the kingdom of heaven](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm) , why must we go beyond what a perfect omnipotent being guides us to do? I am struggling to understand why [Supererogation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supererogation) is a thing. Aren't those who follow God's law, in both spirit and letter already desiring to become perfect? How can we go beyond what God commands? How can one go beyond desiring to become perfect? I feel I am missing something here, but I hope readers understand my logical conundrum here.

Jesus taught us to [be perfect](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:48&version=NIV1984) He also taught us to [be without sin](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:29-30&version=NIV1984) . Furthermore, He came to [make us perfect](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+12:2&version=NIV1984) and to [take away our sin](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:29&version=NIV1984) . My question is: are these two states identical? If I were perfect, I would presumably be sinless. But if I were sinless, would that in and of itself be enough to be perfect? Or would I just be *"not doing some things"* but I would need to change other things in my life to meet my redemptive potential?

Was Jesus perfect his entire life? This passage seems to suggest otherwise. I've never had a good answer to this question when referring to this passage. > Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it > be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, > and I will not put the Lord to the test.” And he said, “Hear then, O > house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary > my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. **Behold, > the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name > Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the > evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the > evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be > deserted.** The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon > your father's house such days as have not come since the day that > Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.” > ~ Isaiah 7:10-17

The Catholic church teaches that every relationship in heaven will be perfect and fulfilling (for example, see this [American Catholic reflection](http://www.americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/Espiration.aspx?id=31) written by Friar Jim Van Vurst, O.F.M.). What does this mean? Will every relationship in heaven be perfect and fulfilling in the sense that 1. I will receive everything I want to receive from every relationship, 2. I will give everything I want to give in every relationship, ***AND*** 3. everything that I receive and give in the relationship will be at the level I desire in heaven (everything such as affection, care, intimacy, etc)?

For those who profess to follow the word of Christ, everyone agrees that the Bible is the infallible word of God as transcribed by many different men compiled together in one book. But for this question, I'm not talking about "The Bible" as in *the idea of the perfect Bible*, but of the **copies** and **translations** mankind reads; the one you and I have on our bookshelves. This may seem like a stupid question for some, and I apologize, but **is it possible for these books to contain errors?** The way I see it, The Bible is a product of mankind, written by man, transcribed by man, duplicated on printing presses created by man, and thus it may contain errors, mistakes, even contradictions; **these mistakes are the result of man's imperfection, not God's.** It occurred to me after reading through many questions on this site that some people think that The Bible is 100% infallible, let alone that their particular copy may be a poor/inaccurate translation. It's almost as if they believe it was written by God himself, so they tend to blame errors on our own reasoning and interpretation of the Bible, as opposed to the simple fact that a particular passage could have been translated incorrectly (which often seems more likely, especially when it stands out from all the rest). Note that whether errors/mistakes *do* (or do not) occur in The Bible is irrelevant; this questions asks merely ***whether it is conceivably possible*** that it could contain errors.

I think most (if not all) Christians would agree that [there will be no sin in heaven](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rev%2021:27&version=KJV) . However, we often make mistakes that aren't sinful: accidentally spilling a glass of milk isn't a sin. We don't know everything, we aren't all virtuosos, nor are we all Olympic athletes, but ignorance and a lack of skill and athleticism aren't sins either. So: will we be perfect in Heaven, mentally and physically?