Going to Hell: Legalism vs. Humanism

[Bubba_Switzler]

There are two seemingly different views of who goes to hell. I’ll call them the legalistic view and the humanistic view.

The legalistic view is that if you commit a moral sin and you die before you go to confession that you will go to hell. This view of hell is obvoiusly motivated by the desire to avoid mortal sin. Hell is a punishment for mortal sin.

The humanistic view of hell is that you go to hell if you reject God. This view is motivated by the the desire to reconcile hell with an all-loving God. God doesn’t send anyone to hell, they go there willingly.

The problem is that these at least seem to be inconsistent. In particular, while it is easy to imagine someone who rejects or even hates God as being prone to moral sin, the reverse is not so obvious. For example, someone who dies in the process of committing a mortal sin might simply not have had the opportunity to regret his choice.

 

[St_Francis]

God will judge us.

He has given us the criteria which we can understand by which He will judge us, but ultimately He will judge the states of our hearts.

It is not a question of humanism or legalism but of what our priorities are. Do we love God above all things, and act accordingly? Or do we instead put something else above God: power, pleasure, security?

If we die in the commission of culpably committing a mortal sin, then oir hearts are not right with God. If a woman catches her husband committing adultery and divorces him, would you say she was in any way obliged to give him a chance to repent before divorcing him?

God has set up our situation to allow us to enter Heaven out of the sheer goodness of His Heart, not because we in any way deserve or are owed this. What is “unfair” is that God has been so patient with us, not that He judges us at the moment of death without allowing us a chance to repent. The person who dies in mortal sin has had his entire life to overcome his tendency to sin and did not use his time wisely; There is no way that God is being unfair in not allowing us a “chance to repent.”

This is a hard concept to grasp; it took me a while to get it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

There are two seemingly different views of who goes to hell. I’ll call them the legalistic view and the humanistic view.

The legalistic view is that if you commit a moral sin and you die before you go to confession that you will go to hell. This view of hell is obvoiusly motivated by the desire to avoid mortal sin. Hell is a punishment for mortal sin.

The humanistic view of hell is that you go to hell if you reject God. This view is motivated by the the desire to reconcile hell with an all-loving God. God doesn’t send anyone to hell, they go there willingly.

The problem is that these at least seem to be inconsistent. In particular, while it is easy to imagine someone who rejects or even hates God as being prone to moral sin, the reverse is not so obvious. For example, someone who dies in the process of committing a mortal sin might simply not have had the opportunity to regret his choice.

I really think the key to answering your question is understanding the three conditions necessary for mortal sin to occur. Of course you know them, but the simple truth they point to is often overlooked. Here it is: one does not commit a mortal sin if he doesn’t know what he’s doing is evil, i.e., against God.

To commit a mortal sin—to lose sanctifying grace and deserve hell—one must commit a grave act that he knows to be sinful. And if a person commits such an act freely, unhampered by external factors or even his passions and personality, then that person truly deserves hell—by his own choice.

I do not see your two “legalistic” and “humanistic” views to be inconsistent. If someone commits a mortal sin but truly loves God, then that sin was ultimately not a mortal sin. It may have been a grave act indeed, but it may have been committed out of weakness (and so not full consent of the will), for example. The virtue of Charity and the state of mortal sin are inconsistent with each other, as you know. They do not coexist.

And so any person who ends up in hell truly deserves it, for a mortal sin involves a free turn away from God. Also, I do not think that God would allow someone who has been in the state of grace all his life to die suddenly after he commits sin. God knows all and is merciful; He gives everyone the grace to be saved.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

God will judge us.

He has given us the criteria which we can understand by which He will judge us, but ultimately He will judge the states of our hearts.

It is not a question of humanism or legalism but of what our priorities are. Do we love God above all things, and act accordingly? Or do we instead put something else above God: power, pleasure, security?

If we die in the commission of culpably committing a mortal sin, then oir hearts are not right with God. If a woman catches her husband committing adultery and divorces him, would you say she was in any way obliged to give him a chance to repent before divorcing him?

God has set up our situation to allow us to enter Heaven out of the sheer goodness of His Heart, not because we in any way deserve or are owed this. What is “unfair” is that God has been so patient with us, not that He judges us at the moment of death without allowing us a chance to repent. The person who dies in mortal sin has had his entire life to overcome his tendency to sin and did not use his time wisely; There is no way that God is being unfair in not allowing us a “chance to repent.”

This is a hard concept to grasp; it took me a while to get it.

At the risk of being simplistic, I think what you are arguing is that God does not owe us an opportunity to repent. Perhaps, but this does seem to be an argument for what I have called the legalistic view as it implies that, perhaps entirely justly, people will be sent to hell who might have chosen otherwise had they not died at that moment.

I will expand on this below.

I really think the key to answering your question is understanding the three conditions necessary for mortal sin to occur. Of course you know them, but the simple truth they point to is often overlooked. Here it is: one does not commit a mortal sin if he doesn’t know what he’s doing is evil, i.e., against God.

To commit a mortal sin—to lose sanctifying grace and deserve hell—one must commit a grave act that he knows to be sinful. And if a person commits such an act freely, unhampered by external factors or even his passions and personality, then that person truly deserves hell—by his own choice.

I do not see your two “legalistic” and “humanistic” views to be inconsistent. If someone commits a mortal sin but truly loves God, then that sin was ultimately not a mortal sin. It may have been a grave act indeed, but it may have been committed out of weakness (and so not full consent of the will), for example. The virtue of Charity and the state of mortal sin are inconsistent with each other, as you know. They do not coexist.

And so any person who ends up in hell truly deserves it, for a mortal sin involves a free turn away from God. Also, I do not think that God would allow someone who has been in the state of grace all his life to die suddenly after he commits sin. God knows all and is merciful; He gives everyone the grace to be saved.

What I think you are overlooking is the possibility of genuine change of heart post mortal sin, whether as a result of observing the consequences of that sin or for any other reason. Or perhaps you are, by the more precise definition of mortal sin (which I should have added in the OP), you are fitting what I have called “legalistic” damnation to “hunanistic” damnation.

Your last point is one I had considered and it seems at least plausible but it implies that death is God’s way of saying “I give up on you.”

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I suppose one question we have to confront here is whether it is possible for someone to repent, i.e. have a change of heart, after death. I have read somewhere that Augustine asserted that one’s attude toward God was fixed at death.

 

[sacredcello]

I suppose one question we have to confront here is whether it is possible for someone to repent, i.e. have a change of heart, after death. I have read somewhere that Augustine asserted that one’s attude toward God was fixed at death.

I would sincerely like to know the answer to this question, if it is even possible to know what the Church teaches on the moment of death vs. repentance after death.

We also have to make the distinction between objective mortal sin and actual mortal sin. Whether a person is culpable for their sin based on their knowledge of sin is what determines whether something is an actual mortal sin or merely an objectively mortal sin.

 

[Nita]

… For example, someone who dies in the process of committing a mortal sin might simply not have had the opportunity to regret his choice.

Do you really think God, who knows what we would do before we even do it, would allow one of His children to die in the state of mortal sin if He knew that person would repent if allowed to live longer?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Do you really think God, who knows what we would do before we even do it, would allow one of His children to die in the state of mortal sin when He knows that person would repent if allowed to live longer?

One description of life is that set of experiences that God uses to bring us to him. It’s certainly plausible that God would withhold death in the above situation but we have to contend with the fact that people have free will. The classic example here is that described by Shakespeare where Hamlet decides not to kill Claudius while he is in prayer but waits, instead, until he is engaged in sin.

 

[Nita]

One description of life is that set of experiences that God uses to bring us to him. It’s certainly plausible that God would withhold death in the above situation but we have to contend with the fact that people have free will. The classic example here is that described by Shakespeare where Hamlet decides not to kill Claudius while he is in prayer but waits, instead, until he is engaged in sin.

I don’t see how that changes anything; God is certainly powerful enough to hold back, or delay, the actual moment of death - or intervene to prevent the attempt. I can think of any number of ways that God might intervene – without us even knowing it. After all, look at Pope John Paul II who bent down just at the moment the bullet was shot!

 

[catholic1seeks]

What I think you are overlooking is the possibility of genuine change of heart post mortal sin, whether as a result of observing the consequences of that sin or for any other reason. Or perhaps you are, by the more precise definition of mortal sin (which I should have added in the OP), you are fitting what I have called “legalistic” damnation to “hunanistic” damnation.

Your last point is one I had considered and it seems at least plausible but it implies that death is God’s way of saying “I give up on you.”

I think that God allows a fair probation here on Earth for each individual. By Church teaching, God gives every person (sufficient) grace to be saved. But I also think that he will not allow a person to die until that person’s will is finally fixed for God or against him. As Scripture says, God desires everyone to be saved. If this means allowing a person to live a few more hours, days, months, or even years after he/she commits a mortal sin, I’m sure He would do it. I guess we also have to consider to what extent God is involved in earthly affairs. In this case, in what way can we say God decides “our time to go”? God views everything from eternity. And he has created a Universe with its own laws. If someone were about to have a car crash, and that person was in the state of mortal sin, how would God save the life? Would he? Does he interefere in this sort of way?

Perhaps at the very least we can hope that God gives much actual graces to a sinner on his death bed, for the good of his conversion.

 

[Nita]

I would sincerely like to know the answer to this question, if it is even possible to know what the Church teaches on the moment of death vs. repentance after death.

…

CCC #393 “There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.”

CCC #1033 …To die in mortal without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from Him for ever by our own free choice…

 

[Nita]

…Your last point is one I had considered and it seems at least plausible but it implies that death is God’s way of saying “I give up on you.”

And/or, “Now that you’ve made your choice, which I know you will not change, I’ll allow your death before you dig yourself even deeper into the pit”.
(The Church does teach that there are levels in hell.)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

And/or, “Now that you’ve made your choice, which I know you will not change, I’ll allow your death before you dig yourself even deeper into the pit”.
(The Church does teach that there are levels in hell.)

Or, of course, “welcome to pergatory/heaven.”

 

[Nita]

Or, of course, “welcome to pergatory/heaven.”

That is my almost daily prayer at Mass when I pray for those who will die that day.
“Lord, grant them the grace of final repentance and conversion. Rob Satan of any victory. Bring every single one of them to heaven.”

 

[TheTruth123]

But dont humans just die, after all, we are just a bunch of complex cells, and all cells die, all of our substances and elemnts go into the ground. Weather you do something wrong or not, the same thing happens.

 

[Nita]

But dont humans just die, after all, we are just a bunch of complex cells, and all cells die, all of our substances and elemnts go into the ground. Weather you do something wrong or not, the same thing happens.

There is much more than just the inanimate physical elements present in a human person. Physical elements do not have “life” as part of their essence/substance/composition. Living things have souls (vegetative souls, animal souls, or human rational souls.) In humans, the soul is the principle of both physical and spiritual life.

Altho we all die, that does not mean an end to existence. Not only does our soul continue to exist, but every physical element that composes the cells present in your body at the time of death continues to exist. However, when the soul departs from the physical body, those cells are left with only the normal properties of their inanimate physical matter. So, decomposition begins.

If you are familiar with Christian teaching, then you know

1. we teach our soul also continues to exist after death - and it continues to be able to carry out its rational/ “spiritual”/immaterial functions apart from any union with physical matter. We teach that it continues to exist in the state it was in at the time of death – a state of spiritual death or the state of spiritual life.
2. we teach that God will resurrect our bodies at the end of the world.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

I read this line from Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians the other day and it’s helped me sort through the various view of salvation:

“Let us either flee from his future wrath, or else embrace His present grace; no matter which, so long as were found in Jesus Christ with our true life before us.”(11)

I.e. its not an “either or” situation… they are both right.

 

[TheTruth123]

There is much more than just the inanimate physical elements present in a human person. Physical elements do not have “life” as part of their essence/substance/composition. Living things have souls (vegetative souls, animal souls, or human rational souls.) In humans, the soul is the principle of both physical and spiritual life.

Altho we all die, that does not mean an end to existence. Not only does our soul continue to exist, but every physical element that composes the cells present in your body at the time of death continues to exist. However, when the soul departs from the physical body, those cells are left with only the normal properties of their inanimate physical matter. So, decomposition begins.

If you are familiar with Christian teaching, then you know

1. we teach our soul also continues to exist after death - and it continues to be able to carry out its rational/ “spiritual”/immaterial functions apart from any union with physical matter. We teach that it continues to exist in the state it was in at the time of death – a state of spiritual death or the state of spiritual life.
2. we teach that God will resurrect our bodies at the end of the world.

I appreciate your view, but you must understand, it is a oppinion, now i could go into all this argument about religion and spirits and ghosts, but i truly believe that humans, are well… nothing, we are but a speck in the universe, which is made up of matter. We are simply a type of cell which has evolved over millions of years to become more complex, science tells me this. Now as you are a religious person, you follow a faith, so you think differently, and that is your choice and i respect that, but i search for the truth, and when i do not agree with something, i look for another awnser, that awnser is science.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

CCC #393 “There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.”

CCC #1033 …To die in mortal without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from Him for ever by our own free choice…

…but…

That is my almost daily prayer at Mass when I pray for those who will die that day.
“Lord, grant them the grace of final repentance and conversion. Rob Satan of any victory. Bring every single one of them to heaven.”

You might enjoy this:

docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATE0FinMUIw2ZGhuMm16cGpfMWZuMmNuZmN3&hl=en

I do wonder if it is too heretical to hope that Catholic dogma is wrong on this point.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I appreciate your view, but you must understand, it is a oppinion, now i could go into all this argument about religion and spirits and ghosts, but i truly believe that humans, are well… nothing, we are but a speck in the universe, which is made up of matter. We are simply a type of cell which has evolved over millions of years to become more complex, science tells me this. Now as you are a religious person, you follow a faith, so you think differently, and that is your choice and i respect that, but i search for the truth, and when i do not agree with something, i look for another awnser, that awnser is science.

Why should science be our only source of truth?
Besides, the use of reason alone, without Revelation (ie, the Bible, Church teaching), points to the existence of the human soul.