I can't agree with everything in the sermon that Jon kindly transcribed and posted as a comment to my last post. For instance, I do insist that God reserves the right for special miraculous action on rare occasions that he believes necessary. Likewise, I do not think Jesus calmed the storm due to the power of his human nature as the sermon seems to imply. Basically, nothing I say about what I think the ordinary workings of nature are should be taken to mean I do not think God intervenes specially on occasion as well. I think Alvin Plantinga covered this quite well in one of his lectures last term.
Another problem with what I said is that it begs a question about heaven. We are to believe that heaven will square the circle of allowing us to love and be good without the attendant evil and sinful impulses. And how can we be free in heaven and never sin?
I can only speculate about this sort of thing but at least I can present some suggestions to those who see a contradiction here. It seems to me that having developed our ability to love and do good, we will not lose it simply by moving to an environment where evil does not exist. Our experiences that have taught us these valuable lessons will remain with us so we will always know what evil was even if we never experience it any more. We are also taught that we will have new bodies in heaven of which that of Jesus after the resurrection is a precursor. It seems likely that these bodies will lack the evolutionary instincts for status that are the root of nearly all human sin. Thus, while sin is part of our very nature here on earth, which is why we are said to be 'fallen beings', it need not be part of our heavenly nature. So no one in heaven would choose to sin just as we never choose to do things against our nature on earth. In theory, I am free to go and throw myself in front of a car. In practice it is never going to happen as it is against my nature. Sin in heaven will seem equally absurd.