God by will has made all rational souls immortal from the time of creation. Although immortal, a soul can die in not having a state of sanctifying grace.Immortality means never dying. The Human soul is believed to be immortal. Soul, however, is sustained by God. This means that the soul would perish if God doesn’t sustain it anymore. This means that the soul is mortal.
Romans 619 My brethren, if any of you err from the truth and one convert him: 20 He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way shall save his soul from death and shall cover a multitude of sins.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ:
9 Knowing that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over him.
10 For in that he died to sin, he died once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God:
11 So do you also reckon, that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God, in Christ Jesus our Lord.
He does. He does it with animal soul.God does not uncreate.
So you are mortal but God sustain you?God created us to live life everlasting. Sure we will die, but then our souls are taken by God to the dwelling place of our first judgement. Then at the second final judgement , our bodies are resurrected to join our soul.
God does not break His covenants with us.
I was aware of his position. So, the soul doesnt need a sustainer?Per Edward Feser,
“ but as with an angel, nothing in the natural order could destroy [the soul], because, being immaterial, it would have no inherent tendency toward corruption.
The souls is immortal because it does not have a natural tendency to decay like a mortal (ie material) body.
Yes it does, but that’s not what we mean when we say it is immortal. Immortal doesnt mean “doesn’t require sustaining” it means that it’s nature is not to decay or be corrupted in the same way our bodies do.I was aware of his position. So, the soul doesnt need a sustainer?
If the rational soul needs the sustaier then it is not immortal, therefore the argument for immortallity of soul, what Aquinas offered, fails.Yes it does, but that’s not what we mean when we say it is immortal. Immortal doesnt mean “doesn’t require sustaining” it means that it’s nature is not to decay or be corrupted in the same way our bodies do.
God cannot do something against his nature.Yes God could decide not to sustain souls, but it would be against God’s loving nature to do that.
No it doesn’t, because you are using an improper definition of immortal. Aquinas never said that for a soul to be immortal it needs to unsustained by God. According to his definition, a soul is immortal when it’s nature is not to be corruptible, unlike material things. Your argument is a strawman.f the rational soul needs the sustaier then it is not immortal, therefore the argument for immortallity of soul, what Aquinas offered, fails.
That’s not what immortality means.Immortality means never dying. The Human soul is believed to be immortal. Soul, however, is sustained by God. This means that the soul would perish if God doesn’t sustain it anymore. This means that the soul is mortal.
If the rational soul is immaterial therefore it is not corruptible. This means that the rational soul doesnt need a sustainer.No it doesn’t, because you are using an improper definition of immortal. Aquinas never said that for a soul to be immortal it needs to unsustained by God. According to his definition, a soul is immortal when it’s nature is not to be corruptible, unlike material things. Your argument is a strawman.
So what is the use of argument of Aquinas in which he argued that the rational soul is immaterial therefore it is not corruptible?If he sustains souls because it’s in his nature as a loving God to sustain souls, and since he can’t do anything against his nature then he must sustain us and as a result we are immortal.
What does it mean?That’s not what immortality means.
As i already pointed out, it means not naturally corruptible. It doesn’t mean ‘not sustained’f the rational soul needs the sustaier then it is not immortal, therefore the argument for immortallity of soul, what Aquinas offered, fails.