God saving us?

[Kmon23]

God cannot (or will not) do things against His nature. He can’t make a mistake or do something evil, because He is perfect and is justice.

Now, I have heard that “God didn’t have to save us?”

Would it be against God’s nature to condemn us to hell without Him doing anything to try to save us at all (like sending us His Son or giving us the Mosaic Law or leading us to follow Him at all). If this is true, then is it incorrect to say that “God didn’t have to save us?”

Based on a discussion with a friend, he says that it is immoral for any god to condemn a person to hell if it’s not the person’s fault.

So this leads to the point (based on his ideas) that it would be immoral to create something with free will and an immortal soul with the creator’s only intention (regardless of this creation’s choice of following God) to burn and suffer in hell. So by nature of God, it would be immoral to not attempt any way of giving the creation the chance to avoid hell.
So God by his just and perfect nature would not just condemn us all to hell, and instead would give us at least the chance of avoiding hell.

Based on this logic, does that mean “God didn’t have to save us and could have condemned us to hell if He wanted to” go against God’s perfect and just nature, and so the statement is incorrect?

 

[Jared2914]

God gave us a clear set of rules to follow. Disobeying these rules is a sin. It is when we choose to commit sin of our own free will that God would condemn us to hell. God didn’t want that, but He makes sure justice is done. God in his great mercy, however, gave us another path to salvation. There was already a path before, following God’s rules and not sinning. It was well within God’s right to give us eternal suffering for our sins. There is nothing immoral about that.

 

[Julian0404]

And with this same reasoning, it would be immoral for GOD to create creatures with free will, but not allow them to use that free will to reject HIM. It would be against HIS nature, according to your friends line of thinking.

GOD gives us what we chose. We can chose to accept and love GOD, or we can chose to reject and refuse GOD, through the free will GOD gave us. This choice is not as a slave to GOD, but through the free will HE granted us.

Your choice cannot be turned back on GOD by using HIS perfect moral goodness to assume HE would never allow us to reject HIM, and therefore HE would refuse to give us what we have chosen.

Chose heaven or chose the “world”. Chose eternity or chose the “now”. Chose to share your daily bread, or chose to die a billionaire without having shared with those in need. MY yoke is easy and MY burden is light say the LORD. Your choice, your free will, your eternity which GOD will grant you.

 

[Kmon23]

And with this same reasoning, it would be immoral for GOD to create creatures with free will, but not allow them to use that free will to reject HIM. It would be against HIS nature, according to your friends line of thinking.

GOD gives us what we chose. We can chose to accept and love GOD, or we can chose to reject and refuse GOD, through the free will GOD gave us. This choice is not as a slave to GOD, but through the free will HE granted us.

Your choice cannot be turned back on GOD by using HIS perfect moral goodness to assume HE would never allow us to reject HIM, and therefore HE would refuse to give us what we have chosen.

Chose heaven or chose the “world”. Chose eternity or chose the “now”. Chose to share your daily bread, or chose to die a billionaire without having shared with those in need. MY yoke is easy and MY burden is light say the LORD. Your choice, your free will, your eternity which GOD will grant you.

Oh, don’t worry. I’m not arguing about having free will or having us forced to turn to or away from God. My question concerns about whether it would be immoral for God to condemn someone even if that person (using his/her free will) still accepted God and did everything in his/her power to live for God.

 

[Amandil]

God cannot (or will not) do things against His nature. He can’t make a mistake or do something evil, because He is perfect and is justice.

Now, I have heard that “God didn’t have to save us?”

Would it be against God’s nature to condemn us to hell without Him doing anything to try to save us at all (like sending us His Son or giving us the Mosaic Law or leading us to follow Him at all). If this is true, then is it incorrect to say that “God didn’t have to save us?”

There seems to be some things which need to be distinguished. 1) Salvation is not Redemption. Once you realize the difference, you realize that is true, God does not have to save us. He offers the gift(through His work of redemption), we have to accept it. If we don’t, we’re not saved.

Now the Redemption is more interesting. Did God have to redeem us? Ultimately no.

BUT

In the Protoevangelium, God promised that He would redeem humanity.

So then it follows that God had to redeem man because He promised that He would, He even swore by Himself that he would.

Based on a discussion with a friend, he says that it is immoral for any god to condemn a person to hell if it’s not the person’s fault.

People are born spiritually dead. God, through baptism, offers them the grace to be made spiritually alive.

If they refuse the Gospel, and if they refuse baptism, then they will receive the state of life in eternity which they chose in this temporal life, spiritual death.

So if they wind up in hell it is their fault, its a sin of omission. They knew what they should have done, they didn’t do it.

So this leads to the point (based on his ideas) that it would be immoral to create something with free will and an immortal soul with the creator’s only intention (regardless of this creation’s choice of following God) to burn and suffer in hell. So by nature of God, it would be immoral to not attempt any way of giving the creation the chance to avoid hell.
So God by his just and perfect nature would not just condemn us all to hell, and instead would give us at least the chance of avoiding hell.

Based on this logic, does that mean “God didn’t have to save us and could have condemned us to hell if He wanted to” go against God’s perfect and just nature, and so the statement is incorrect?

As I have shown the statement is incorrect. So is your friend’s suppositions. God does in fact provide a means for everyone to avoid hell. many just refuse to take it. That’s not God’s fault, He’s done everything short of getting down on His knees and begging them to repent.

They will not to. So God lets them have it their way, eternity without Him and with themselves, i.e. hell.

 

[Kmon23]

There seems to be some things which need to be distinguished. 1) Salvation is not Redemption. Once you realize the difference, you realize that is true, God does not have to save us. He offers the gift(through His work of redemption), we have to accept it. If we don’t, we’re not saved.

Now the Redemption is more interesting. Did God have to redeem us? Ultimately no.

BUT

In the Protoevangelium, God promised that He would redeem humanity.

So then it follows that God had to redeem man because He promised that He would, He even swore by Himself that he would.

People are born spiritually dead. God, through baptism, offers them the grace to be made spiritually alive.

If they refuse the Gospel, and if they refuse baptism, then they will receive the state of life in eternity which they chose in this temporal life, spiritual death.

So if they wind up in hell it is their fault, its a sin of omission. They knew what they should have done, they didn’t do it.

As I have shown the statement is incorrect. So is your friend’s suppositions. God does in fact provide a means for everyone to avoid hell. many just refuse to take it. That’s not God’s fault, He’s done everything short of getting down on His knees and begging them to repent.

They will not to. So God lets them have it their way, eternity without Him and with themselves, i.e. hell.

I definitely understand that anyone who goes to hell in this world is the person’s fault. The question I’m asking doesn’t pertain to this world, but a hypothetical one and whether it is a world God can create without it being immoral. The hypothetical world being that God condemns us all to hell regardless of whether we choose him or not, hence why I’m asking whether the statement “God didn’t have to save (and redeem) us” is true or false based on the just nature of God alone (and disregarding the promise He made to humanity let’s say and only concentrating on God’s just and perfect nature alone).

A better question is “if it is unjust for God to condemn people to hell if it’s not the person’s fault and only because God wanted to.”

Hopefully this clears up the question

 

[Amandil]

I definitely understand that anyone who goes to hell in this world is the person’s fault. The question I’m asking doesn’t pertain to this world, but a hypothetical one and whether it is a world God can create without it being immoral. The hypothetical world being that God condemns us all to hell regardless of whether we choose him or not, hence why I’m asking whether the statement “God didn’t have to save (and redeem) us” is true or false based on the just nature of God alone (and disregarding the promise He made to humanity let’s say and only concentrating on God’s just and perfect nature alone).

A better question is “if it is unjust for God to condemn people to hell if it’s not the person’s fault and only because God wanted to.”

Hopefully this clears up the question

Frankly, no. If man sins, either by volition or omission, then God is just to carry out the punishment for sin.

But you must realize that sin is not derived from what is known as positive law (such as exists in our current system of jurisprudence). Sin is related to something more fundamental, primordial, “natural”(not “natural” as in what happens in nature but natural as to what pertains to the human person, his ends and purpose).

That is what the Church calls natural law.

In positive law, when you steal and you get caught by the cops, arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to a period of detention commensurate to the theft committed.

In natural law, when you commit sin, sin is it’s own punishment. When you steal, immediately upon committing the act, your conscience weighs against you (unless you have stifled it by previous habitual thefts). You begin to bear the weight of guilt and the pleasure of which you sought through the thing you stole becomes a constant reminder of your guilt, so instead of deriving pleasure for it all you get is shame and anger and self loathing.

It’s the shame especially which causes one to hide their guilt in the prison of the mind. In reality they lock themselves away for fear of being discovered.

The second example is the temporal precursor to the eternal reality of hell. God will not condemn persons so much as He condemns sin(God practices what He preaches, He hates the sin and loves the sinner).

Sinners always insist that they are not sinners. They see their sin as essential to who they are. They identify themselves with the sin they love.

So from God’s perspective, sinners who refuse to repent from sin, cannot be distinguished from sin. So people who sin and refuse to be separated from it receive sin’s judgment: eternal separation from God.

God does not desire to condemn anyone, but neither will He force them against their wills.

God simply let’s them have it their way.

See the difference?

 

[Kmon23]

Okay now we’re getting closer to what I’m asking. I understand what you are saying about natural law. My question is closer to God not giving us the option of salvation or redemption because He wants to, and whether THIS is immoral based on God’s perfect and just nature. This is REGARDLESS of the free will of man and the choices man may make.

An example is a hypothetical world where a person is sinful (of course). He understands he is a sinner. He tries to live a virtuous life for God and worships God and loves God. He repents and is always sorry for his sins. However, God never created a way for redemption for man and does not intend to. So, God condemns this man to hell because of the sins he has committed and the original sin in his heart. And this applies to everyone in this world. It doesn’t matter what anyone does etc. Everyone in this world is condemned to hell by God no matter what.

And for the “not the person’s fault” I say this under the context of original sin, not of mortal/venial sins committed. A person does not “do” anything to have original sin as everyone is born with it. So, is it just for God to condemn people to hell because of the way they are born into the world (original sin) without giving us any way of redemption or salvation (there is no covenant, no baptism, and God never made a promise to humanity).

I know the CCC 1037 says that God does not predestine/double-predestine anyone to hell. I understand that Catholic teaching says that God does not double predestine anyone to hell. I’m wondering if the opposite of CCC 1037 (God double predestines us all to hell) would be unjust/immoral based on God’s perfect and just nature.

 

[Amandil]

Okay now we’re getting closer to what I’m asking. I understand what you are saying about natural law. My question is closer to God not giving us the option of salvation or redemption because He wants to, and whether THIS is immoral based on God’s perfect and just nature. This is REGARDLESS of the free will of man and the choices man may make.

An example is a hypothetical world where a person is sinful (of course). He understands he is a sinner. He tries to live a virtuous life for God and worships God and loves God. He repents and is always sorry for his sins. However, God never created a way for redemption for man and does not intend to. So, God condemns this man to hell because of the sins he has committed and the original sin in his heart. And this applies to everyone in this world. It doesn’t matter what anyone does etc. Everyone in this world is condemned to hell by God no matter what.

And for the “not the person’s fault” I say this under the context of original sin, not of mortal/venial sins committed. A person does not “do” anything to have original sin as everyone is born with it. So, is it just for God to condemn people to hell because of the way they are born into the world (original sin) without giving us any way of redemption or salvation (there is no covenant, no baptism, and God never made a promise to humanity).

I know the CCC 1037 says that God does not predestine/double-predestine anyone to hell. I understand that Catholic teaching says that God does not double predestine anyone to hell. I’m wondering if the opposite of CCC 1037 (God double predestines us all to hell) would be unjust/immoral based on God’s perfect and just nature.

Is it just strictly speaking? The answer would have to be yes. God cannot be immoral because that would explicitly be a denial of His own nature and thus reality itself.

It would be like God making a round square. Only God exists absolutely.

But would it be a God I would want as a god? Not necessarily. It sounds more like to the god of Islam.

I just thank God the He is who He is and not any alternative.

 

[fhansen]

Oh, don’t worry. I’m not arguing about having free will or having us forced to turn to or away from God. My question concerns about whether it would be immoral for God to condemn someone even if that person (using his/her free will) still accepted God and did everything in his/her power to live for God.

There are non-Catholic churches that teach that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell, without regard to our free choices. This is strictly against the teachings of God’s church. In Catholic teaching, God wants none to perish, and gives all an equal chance to turn to Him, judging us based on what we’ve done with what (grace) we’ve been given.

 

[Kmon23]

I understand this and I understand the Church’s teaching.
I’m just wondering if a perfect and just being were to predestine some to hell, would this be infringing/going against the perfect and just nature of this being. Or if predestining someone to hell is a morally neutral thing. That is what I’m asking, and I’m just connecting it the One True God and whether in His perfect and just nature can He predestine us to hell (or condemn all of humanity with no hope of redemption) without going against His perfect and just nature.

I accept and believe Catholic teaching. I am just asking these questions just to figure out more about morality concerning with God’s perfect and just nature alone and no other factors. I am just wondering about the morality of the scenarios I am mentioning.

 

[fhansen]

I understand this and I understand the Church’s teaching.
I’m just wondering if a perfect and just being were to predestine some to hell, would this be infringing/going against the perfect and just nature of this being. Or is predestining someone to hell is a morally neutral thing. That is what I’m asking, and I’m just connecting it the One True God and whether in His perfect and just nature can He predestine us to hell (or condemn all of humanity with no hope of redemption) without going against His perfect and just nature.

I accept and believe Catholic teaching. I am just asking these questions just to figure out more about morality concerning with God’s perfect and just nature alone and no other factors. I am just wondering about the morality of the scenarios I am mentioning.

It couldn’t be morally neutral to arbitrarily condemn a being to eternal torment, the chief aspect of which is separation from God, BTW. For this a willing, persistent, turning away from Him is required.

 

[Kmon23]

It couldn’t be morally neutral to arbitrarily condemn a being to eternal torment, the chief aspect of which is separation from God, BTW. For this a willing, persistent, turning away from Him is required.

Finally an answer that seems to directly answer my question.

Just to be sure, you are saying the opening post statement “God didn’t have to save (or redeem) us” (and implies automatic condemnation to hell) is an incorrect one?

 

[fhansen]

Finally an answer that seems to directly answer my question.

Just to be sure, you are saying the opening post statement “God didn’t have to save (or redeem) us” (and implies automatic condemnation to hell) is an incorrect one?

Yes, automatic condemnation to hell would be against His justice. But that doesn’t mean He’s obligated to save anyone who doesn’t want to be saved.

 

[Kmon23]

Yes, automatic condemnation to hell would be against His justice. But that doesn’t mean He’s obligated to save anyone who doesn’t want to be saved.

Those who don’t want to be saved, I definitely agree and my question does not pertain to them.
Thank you, this is the answer to my question I’ve been looking for.

 

[DebChris]

There are non-Catholic churches that teach that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell, without regard to our free choices. This is strictly against the teachings of God’s church. In Catholic teaching, God wants none to perish, and gives all an equal chance to turn to Him, judging us based on what we’ve done with what (grace) we’ve been given.

It couldn’t be morally neutral to arbitrarily condemn a being to eternal torment, the chief aspect of which is separation from God, BTW. For this a willing, persistent, turning away from Him is required.

This comes right back to what the Church teaches regarding natural law and salvation.
The Church teaches that God has written His Law upon each man’s heart. The Church recognizes a Baptism of Desire for those who seek God, who seek to do the right.

In order for sin to be mortal it must be a willing turning away from God. It is the persistence that leads to condemnation. God gives us the choice to turn choose “fire or water, life or death.”

 

[fred_conty]

God cannot (or will not) do things against His nature. He can’t make a mistake or do something evil, because He is perfect and is justice.

Now, I have heard that “God didn’t have to save us?”

Would it be against God’s nature to condemn us to hell without Him doing anything to try to save us at all (like sending us His Son or giving us the Mosaic Law or leading us to follow Him at all). If this is true, then is it incorrect to say that “God didn’t have to save us?”

Based on a discussion with a friend, he says that it is immoral for any god to condemn a person to hell if it’s not the person’s fault.

So this leads to the point (based on his ideas) that it would be immoral to create something with free will and an immortal soul with the creator’s only intention (regardless of this creation’s choice of following God) to burn and suffer in hell. So by nature of God, it would be immoral to not attempt any way of giving the creation the chance to avoid hell.
So God by his just and perfect nature would not just condemn us all to hell, and instead would give us at least the chance of avoiding hell.

Based on this logic, does that mean “God didn’t have to save us and could have condemned us to hell if He wanted to” go against God’s perfect and just nature, and so the statement is incorrect?

You are a person who knows how difficult it is to stay away from sin…right? Do you think you could stay away from mortal sin all your life? Think there are many persons who could do this?

If Jesus had not died for us, our sins would be binding us to hell for it is impossible for us to pick ourselves up “by the boodstraps” and pay what is due to God. We don’t have that kind of power.

But Jesus did, and he picks us up and washes us clean and frees us from hell. He is the one without which we would be doomed by our own mortal sins…which no one could stay free of during their life.

So Jesus did redeem us, and if we accept him thru his baptism, we are liberated from sin and death of hell.

So yes, we would all probably go to hell without him…that is eternal death…worse than death.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[Kmon23]

You are a person who knows how difficult it is to stay away from sin…right? Do you think you could stay away from mortal sin all your life? Think there are many persons who could do this?

If Jesus had not died for us, our sins would be binding us to hell for it is impossible for us to pick ourselves up “by the boodstraps” and pay what is due to God. We don’t have that kind of power.

But Jesus did, and he picks us up and washes us clean and frees us from hell. He is the one without which we would be doomed by our own mortal sins…which no one could stay free of during their life.

So Jesus did redeem us, and if we accept him thru his baptism, we are liberated from sin and death of hell.

So yes, we would all probably go to hell without him…that is eternal death…worse than death.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

I understand what you are saying. My question concerns if God did not come to save us, would it be moral or trespass on God’s perfect and just nature to just leave us all to hell, because then God would be creating souls with no other fate than suffering and eternity in hell.

I understand that Jesus came to redeem us, and that anyone going to hell does so in their own free will. I am asking whether it is moral or not in this hypothetical universe, whether it is moral to condemn us regardless of what we choose of our free will.

 

[fred_conty]

I understand what you are saying. My question concerns if God did not come to save us, would it be moral or trespass on God’s perfect and just nature to just leave us all to hell, because then God would be creating souls with no other fate than suffering and eternity in hell.

I understand that Jesus came to redeem us, and that anyone going to hell does so in their own free will. I am asking whether it is moral or not in this hypothetical universe, whether it is moral to condemn us regardless of what we choose of our free will.

I don’t believe it would be so much a moral decision on God’s part as it would be the lack of qualification to be admitted to heaven on our part. For we know from the current teaching in Jn 6, that Jesus said a man must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven. And we know that ability is given to us thru baptism, the cleansing of our soul so that the God’s life may be alive within us which entitles us to be with him in eternity. So I would say it isn’t a moral judgement but a missing condition on our part.

This may sound like beating around the bush, but it is important to understand what is necessary for God to have us as his children in his home. And of course we now know that God our Father loves us to the degree that he sent his only beloved Son to restore us to divine life and the kindgom of heaven. If he would have made a moral decision, then it would be all over for us, but we now know thru his beloved Son just how much he cares for us.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[thinkandmull]

OP, it is possible for someone never to sin, but it never happens according to the Bible