How was it even possible for Satan to fall/reject God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If I remember correctly, Aquinas believed that one always acts towards what they believe to be the greatest good, but this would mean determinism. Aquinas believed that determinism is false, so either one stance or the other is wrong. I could be wrong.
Determinism is when some external power like the
laws of the universe determines all actions, with no choices being made. The fact that people have motivations and incentives toward good things (even if they are immediate rather than ultimate goods) and away from bad things does not take away choice. A human can choose to endure pain or other negative outcomes if a great enough good is believed to be on the other side.

That people tend to choose things that will lead to good or at least pleasant outcomes (even if they may be conveniently ignoring negatives down the road, as with gluttony or lust) is not so much a theory of Aquinas’ as just an observation of how people actually act.
 
I would say, rather, that we continue to deepen our understanding of the completed revelation and how it applies to different situations.

To consider a matter that sort of ties in to our question here, God did not directly reveal to us the fate of unbaptized infants who die without committing any actual sin. In our speculations, based on what God has revealed, you can see an arc over a very long time. Augustine had no problem believing that such souls were consigned to Hell, per the basic logic of the “rules” of salvation as presented to us. Later thinkers accepted the logic but at least put them (and pagan philosophers they’d admired) on the top level or outer fringes (limbus/limbo) of Hell, suffering as little as possible. Still later, the most popular idea of limbo became a destination of “perfect natural happiness,” as good as things could possibly be for those who had done no wrong but didn’t technically qualify for Heaven. Most recently, after much contemplation on the fact (absolutely basic in even the most old-school of catechisms) that God made each of us for Heaven and is rooting for us, not looking for technicalities on which to reject us, and that the rules apply to us and not to Him, the Church has preferred to have a well-founded trust and hope (though not the certainty of revelation) that such souls may be gifted with Heaven despite the normative route being closed to them by circumstances.

That doesn’t change anything that God has revealed or that the Church has formally taught or condemned, but it does represent a new, long-developed understanding based on what’s always been contained in revelation.
 
The issue is how could anyone hate God if we were made for God, the ultimate Good?
Look at the world. I’m not saying it’s sane, but it just is. I know that no sane person would choose Hell over Heaven, but we all do insane things.
 
If you always act towards what you believe is the greatest good, then there is only one possible act in any circumstance - which sounds a lot like determinism to me.
 
I don’t see how that’s illustrative.

Of course we see sin and evil around us. The problem is: What is the source of such actions? Aquinas admits much of it is due to passion and ignorance. To me, it seems all evil acts are ultimately bound up in erroneous judgment, if in fact God is the only thing that can fulfill us. Who would choose against God if they knew he was their key to happiness and, additionally, if they were made for happiness (which we all are!)
 
I don’t see how that’s illustrative.

Of course we see sin and evil around us. The problem is: What is the source of such actions? Aquinas admits much of it is due to passion and ignorance. To me, it seems all evil acts are ultimately bound up in erroneous judgment, if in fact God is the only thing that can fulfill us. Who would choose against God if they knew he was their key to happiness and, additionally, if they were made for happiness (which we all are!)
Any sin is a choice of Hell, to some degree or another. If all our acts are determined by what we know, God is responsible for what we know, so God is the author of sin. I don’t think anyone here agrees with that, so…
 
Take the case of a toddler who would rather sulk and be miserable than be happy. They are choosing misery over happiness, and they know it.
 
I mean, yes? Hell is not the actual highest good for anyone. It’s not good, period. If you would rather have your own way and lock yourself in Hell rather than surrender to God’s will and go to Heaven, you are making the objectively wrong choice … but you are still making the choice.

It’s an imaginative rendition, and presents both Hell and Heaven as places you can leave to go to the other if you wish (making Hell also sub for Purgatory and the outskirts of Heaven still a place where dissent is possible), but C.S. Lewis The Great Divorce illustrates a number of cases in which people might quite deliberately (if stupidly) reject Heaven and get back on the bus to the other place.
 
But there’s nothing making you do that. It’s a tendency. Anyone physically could set themselves on fire like that guy in DC the other day, but when they do we generally assume that their reason is impaired or that they believe themselves to be pursuing some higher good, because ordinarily people wouldn’t do that.
 
Last edited:
But there’s nothing making you do that. It’s a tendency. Anyone physically could set themselves on fire like that guy in DC the other day, but when they do we generally assume that their reason is impaired or that they believe themselves to be pursuing some higher good, because ordinarily people wouldn’t do that.
But you do not always do what you believe to be the greatest good.
 
One of the most well-accepted answers is that Satan was prideful, and so didn’t want to bow before God, but rather wanted God’s glory for himself.
 
That doesn’t change anything that God has revealed or that the Church has formally taught or condemned, but it does represent a new, long-developed understanding based on what’s always been contained in revelation.
Yes, and it still leaves us with no certainty about the fate of unbaptized infants. We entrust them to the mercy of God. But it does sort of cause some laxity when it comes to Baptism. I’ve seen grandparents and parents who worry over the fact that new parents unduly delay baptism. It used to be recommended that a newborn child be baptized as soon as possible. Now, the new understanding seems to encourage delay, since after all, if baptism isn’t really necessary, no need to worry.
 
It seems to me that you’re struggling with the general “Problem of Evil” rather than anything particular to angels.

When it comes to angelic nature we needn’t assume that they have total knowledge, nor should we assume infallible will. Creatures don’t have complete knowledge and absolutely perfect will without union with God in Grace, which is something Lucifer and the fallen angels never had. He screwed up and made the wrong choice, which is something beings with imperfect knowledge and will do, but he had the means available to not make the wrong decision.

Your question seems to be more along the lines of why God would make beings that make the wrong choice, or make beings that have limited knowledge, rather than how creatures could possibly make the wrong choice. Is this a fair reading?

Peace and God bless!
 
Take the case of a toddler who would rather sulk and be miserable than be happy. They are choosing misery over happiness, and they know it.
Or we might use the prodigal son as example. The prodigal son repented and returned to his father. But if a son left home and steadfastly refused to return, he would not be happy even if the father kidnapped him and forced him to return.
 
Although, this is more of a thorny problem for Thomists, etc. For anyone who believes in apokatastasis panton, all things will be restored to a better state, in the end, to include the angels. But you raise a good point: could an inordinate desire entail an extreme punishment like the medieval hell? Maybe not. Fundamentally, pride is an error in judgment, right? The prideful creature has gotten it wrong, isn’t that correct?
The will is involved. The prideful creature lives in an unreal state, wanting to believe something which isn’t true about himself-and something which is in conflict with the truth as it relates to himself and his surroundings: to God, to fellow created beings, and to the rest of creation, all of which the Church teaches fallen man is spiritually disconnected from in some manner. Pride even disconnects us from ourselves. Just some thoughts
 
Last edited:
Yes, pride blinds us. We can obstinately pursue a path that reason should otherwise dictate against.
 
Last edited:
Your question seems to be more along the lines of why God would make beings that make the wrong choice, or make beings that have limited knowledge, rather than how creatures could possibly make the wrong choice. Is this a fair reading?
I think this is true. God cannot make another God, no matter how great a being He makes. So the greater the freedom He gives to His creation, the greater the risk for evil to manifest itself because that freedom is given to a necessarily less-than-perfect being, relative to His absolute perfection. At the end of the day His purpose is for creation-in the form of angels and humans- to come to know its place, and His place-for its own good, in order for truth and justice and harmony to reign. And that necessarily involves everything being subjugated to Him in love and worship. In our own stubborn pride and ignorance we suspect that this might be a prideful thing itself, His desiring this worship, not yet capable as we are of perceiving His incomparable goodness-and jealous of it perhaps, truth be known.

But Christ’s main purpose is to thwart that very notion, to overcome the “distorted image of God” that the Church teaches man conceived of at the Fall by revealing His true nature when the time was ripe in human history, to reveal a God who would even suffer an extremely humiliating and painful death on a cross at the hands of His own wayward creation to prove just how much He values humility, just how kind and merciful and forgiving and trustworthy He is, just how powerfully He loves man in spite of our sin. His nature is actually described in 1 Cor 13 in its description of love. He’s anything but the angry and distant God, aloof in His superiority, “jealous of His prerogatives” as the catechism teaches, which is our default concept of Him and which is the way we generally play God whenever we tend to abuse power or authority over others ourselves. Jesus restores the “knowledge of God”.

Creation needs to know something of the existence and unfathomable worthiness and goodness of God-and of the undeniable truth of our need for Him. Adam refused to accept his limitations as a creature; he preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good.” (CCC 398)

Adam essentially dismissed God, as God. But:
"Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom." (CCC 396)

From the large perspective the entire drama of creation, through the Fall and up to today, is for creation to ultimately learn, the hard way, over time, and without force, its place, God having made His world in a “state of journeying to perfection” as the catechism teaches. In this way something better is produced, something more like Himself that knows for itself why true justice, defined best and most fully as “love”, is of such high worth. And He’ll finally have His way in this, by the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
On Earth, we say the insane are not fully culpable.

So if “yes,” then why could someone make an insane decision and deserve hell?
 
How could a sane person, designed by God for goodness, deliberately and knowingly choose to be unhappy, and reject the highest Good?

When I say designed by God, we’re not just talking about the fact that God made man to be in relationship with him, but, even more, that man’s very actions are built to seek the good. That’s how God made us to act from the start. We are prone to act on what we take to be good.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top