Would the Redeemed have Free-Will in Heaven? The Nature of Humanity, Sin & Free Will at the End Times Through the Eyes of Aristotle, Maimonides, and Aquinas.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper delves into the theological and philosophical exploration of human free will in the context of the biblical End Times and the promise of heaven. Drawing upon Aristotle's definitions of time, free will, and eternity as foundational concepts, the study investigates the challenges posed by the notion of an eternal existence where humanity is incapable of sinning. Focusing on the "paradox of heaven," which questions the nature of freedom when one is unable to choose evil, the paper presents a comparative analysis of the perspectives of two influential philosophers and theologians: Thomas Aquinas from Christianity and Maimonides from Judaism, both deeply influenced by Aristotelian thought. Despite their differing religious affiliations, Aquinas and Maimonides shared significant common ground in their philosophical approaches to freedom and the nature of humanity. The paper explores their views on human existence, the mechanism of resurrection, and the process of glorification at the End Times. The comparative method employed reveals three key conclusions endorsed by both thinkers: first, the resurrection serves as a correction of humanity's fallen state; second, the believer's life entails a continual struggle towards divine conformity; and third, the sanctification of the righteous is an ongoing process in eternity, characterized by transformative growth in likeness to God. Thus, the paper suggests that in the state of glorification, individuals will choose to do good not out of coercion but from a clear vision of consequences, reflecting the strength of their character rather than the weakness of their will.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".