If we know by Natural Law that we should love God more than ourselves, what does it mean to say that the reprobate is "averse" to God?

[pluviosilla]

In his Damnation History series, professor Scott Hahn (of Franciscan University of Steubenville) says that love of God above Self is a command of Natural Law. This has me baffled, and I have a question for you theologians out there.

If loving God more than self is a command of Natural Law, then presumably this command is accessible even to people who do not have the gift of sanctifying grace, isn’t it? It ought to be accessible to people in a state of “pure nature”; it ought to have been accessible to our fallen first parents and to atheist unbelievers in our day, presumably. Assuming the answer to this question is ‘YES’ then my follow up question is:

If ungraced reprobate souls know, by the inner promptings of the Natural Law, that they ought to love God more than self, then in what sense are they “averse” to God?

Romans 8:7 - “Since the phronema of the flesh is hostile (averse) to God, it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”

So what’s the distinction here? The reprobate can know that he ought to love God more than self, but he does not have the ability to do so? I thought that, according to Catholic teaching, man even in an ungraced state of pure nature would be a good creation. If he is incapable of conforming to God’s law, doesn’t sound like it.

 

[Carlan]

In his Damnation History series, professor Scott Hahn (of Franciscan University of Steubenville) says that love of God above Self is a command of Natural Law. This has me baffled, and I have a question for you theologians out there.

If loving God more than self is a command of Natural Law, then presumably this command is accessible even to people who do not have the gift of sanctifying grace, isn’t it? It ought to be accessible to people in a state of “pure nature”; it ought to have been accessible to our fallen first parents and to atheist unbelievers in our day, presumably. Assuming the answer to this question is ‘YES’ then my follow up question is:

If ungraced reprobate souls know, by the inner promptings of the Natural Law, that they ought to love God more than self, then in what sense are they “averse” to God?

Romans 8:7 - “Since the phronema of the flesh is hostile (averse) to God, it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”

:With

So what’s the distinction here? The reprobate can know that he ought to love God more than self, but he does not have the ability to do so? I thought that, according to Catholic teaching, man even in an ungraced state of pure nature would be a good creation. If he is incapable of conforming to God’s law, doesn’t sound like it.

The thing is With God’s gift of Natural Law and gift of free will we still have to accept the gift of God’s redemption thought His Son Jesus Christ. He won it for all of us on the cross, but we have to accept the gift with faith…God’s actual grace in order to receive sanctifying grace…Peace, Carlan

 

[pluviosilla]

If by Natural Law we know that we should love God more than ourselves, then by definition we do not need to accept the gift of God’s redemption to know this.

Carlan, thanks very much for attempting to answer my question. I understand that this is not a forum in which people usually ask this sort of hair-splitting theological question. If you can redirect me to a forum where people discuss such things, I would enormously appreciate it.

God bless.

 

[Jozefo]

I’ll take a stab. An “ungraced” reprobate is averse to God by virtue of not submitting to God and his divine authority in nature. Adam and Eve became reprobate when they believed the lie, and trusted in their own authority to be as gods.

 

[banjo]

In his Damnation History series, professor Scott Hahn (of Franciscan University of Steubenville) says that love of God above Self is a command of Natural Law. This has me baffled, and I have a question for you theologians out there.

If loving God more than self is a command of Natural Law, then presumably this command is accessible even to people who do not have the gift of sanctifying grace, isn’t it? It ought to be accessible to people in a state of “pure nature”; it ought to have been accessible to our fallen first parents and to atheist unbelievers in our day, presumably. Assuming the answer to this question is ‘YES’ then my follow up question is:

If ungraced reprobate souls know, by the inner promptings of the Natural Law, that they ought to love God more than self, then in what sense are they “averse” to God?

Romans 8:7 - “Since the phronema of the flesh is hostile (averse) to God, it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”

So what’s the distinction here? The reprobate can know that he ought to love God more than self, but he does not have the ability to do so? I thought that, according to Catholic teaching, man even in an ungraced state of pure nature would be a good creation. If he is incapable of conforming to God’s law, doesn’t sound like it.

I think you might get the best answer to your question(s) from Dr. Hahn himself. Simply go to www.scotthahn.com, select “contact us” and the drop down menu will allow you to contact his office. You may have to wait a few weeks for a reply (I did) but eventually someone from his staff will contact you.
Have a great day.

 

[ellzeena]

In his Damnation History series, professor Scott Hahn (of Franciscan University of Steubenville) says that love of God above Self is a command of Natural Law.

Oh, yes? And how exactly does he know this, or how did he arrive at this epiphany of truth?

“Natural” and “law” seem more a reflection upon the actual mechanisms of creation, not the intellectual exercise of “knowing” or “contemplating”. And if love of God above Self is a “command” of “natural law”, why did Jesus find it necessary to tell us that we must love God more than anything or anyone and each other as we love ourselves? You think He was having a bad day?

Did you know that elephants bury their dead? (Many other species, as well). They cover the dead member of their herd with leaves and branches and then stand and mourn and may return over and over for extended periods of time to that place to mourn and even to try to avenge the death (if it was from an “unnatural” source such as has been recently reported in the news on a railroad track in Africa)? What does an elephant “naturally KNOW”? We have NO idea, actually, we just think we do. What does a Dolphin naturally KNOW (recently a dolphin deliberately, with intention, saved the life of a swimmer)? What does a whale naturally KNOW (the story in the past year of a species of whale that waited, patiently, while a sole diver cut it free from restraints it had unfortunately obtained while swimming - ropes - and which then turned to the puny Human and gave thanks to him)?

We are as much a part of God as any non-human creature (including subatomic particles) and what we “know” is infused by being part of Him. However: for someone to say that Humans must automatically KNOW that love of God is paramount is absurd and presumptuous and - in fact - arrogant hubris. I strongly disagree with the thesis and I think the words of Jesus prove it is incorrect.

 

[StrawberryJam]

In his Damnation History series, professor Scott Hahn (of Franciscan University of Steubenville) says that love of God above Self is a command of Natural Law.

Oh, yes? And how exactly does he know this, or how did he arrive at this epiphany of truth?

“Natural” and “law” seem more a reflection upon the actual mechanisms of creation, not the intellectual exercise of “knowing” or “contemplating”. And if love of God above Self is a “command” of “natural law”, why did Jesus find it necessary to tell us that we must love God more than anything or anyone and each other as we love ourselves? You think He was having a bad day?

Did you know that elephants bury their dead? (Many other species, as well). They cover the dead member of their herd with leaves and branches and then stand and mourn and may return over and over for extended periods of time to that place to mourn and even to try to avenge the death (if it was from an “unnatural” source such as has been recently reported in the news on a railroad track in Africa)? What does an elephant “naturally KNOW”? We have NO idea, actually, we just think we do. What does a Dolphin naturally KNOW (recently a dolphin deliberately, with intention, saved the life of a swimmer)? What does a whale naturally KNOW (the story in the past year of a species of whale that waited, patiently, while a sole diver cut it free from restraints it had unfortunately obtained while swimming - ropes - and which then turned to the puny Human and gave thanks to him)?

luding **We are as much a part of God as any non-human creature (incsubatomic particles) **and what we “know” is infused by being part of Him. However: for someone to say that Humans must automatically KNOW that love of God is paramount is absurd and presumptuous and - in fact - arrogant hubris. I strongly disagree with the thesis and I think the words of Jesus prove it is incorrect.

If we are** as much a part of God **as any non-human creature (including subatomic particles)
Then why is this God you believe in okay with animals having to eat each other and not have a promise of afterlife?

 

[ellzeena]

If we are** as much a part of God **as any non-human creature (including subatomic particles)
Then why is this God you believe in okay with animals having to eat each other and not have a promise of afterlife?

I don’t believe that animals don’t have an ‘afterlife’, I think God doesn’t make junk and that all life is of Him, from Him, and returns to Him. As for why they eat each other (not true of all species btw), well it’s a fallen world. Why do people flush their newborn babies down the toilet (as recently happened)?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The reprobate is averse to God for any one of a thousand reasons. That does not absolve the reprobate from believing in his gut that the God he is averse to exists. You will notice that atheists make a great deal of noise about God, most of it angry noise. Why are they angry if they do not believe there is someone who deserves their anger?

 

[StrawberryJam]

The reprobate is averse to God for any one of a thousand reasons. That does not absolve the reprobate from believing in his gut that the God he is averse to exists. You will notice that atheists make a great deal of noise about God, most of it angry noise. Why are they angry if they do not believe there is someone who deserves their anger?

Who is angry? Are you being specific, if so name names.
I am sick of the same tropes bieng banted about here so crassly.
Have some accountability for your accusation.
Man up and make your accusation clear.
Call me a reprobate.
Because you have the bible to give you the authority to claiim who is and who is not averse to your God.

And, you are a literalist of course. Is the earth ten thousand years old?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Regrarding the noise of Atheism

Perhaps you would think a bit harder on this and realize why there is a reason to have noise to begin with. Maybe if you could actually claim truth we could jump on board.
You have not. You posit wishfull thinking as a hope for those who lost loved ones.
I speak for myself. All Atheists have reasons.
You would be wise to see what these reasons were. But, don’t trouble yourself to think about it.
Keep going on with the progrom.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The reprobate is averse to God for any one of a thousand reasons. That does not absolve the reprobate from believing in his gut that the God he is averse to exists. You will notice that atheists make a great deal of noise about God, most of it angry noise. Why are they angry if they do not believe there is someone who deserves their anger?

There is an old Jewish proverb about throwing a stone into a pack of dogs. The one that was hit will be the one that barks loudly.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

It seems there is something to get hung up about after all.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If we are** as much a part of God **as any non-human creature (including subatomic particles)
Then why is this God you believe in okay with animals having to eat each other and not have a promise of afterlife?

Don’t forget that it is part of Catholic theology that this God actually took on human flesh and gives himself fully to be eaten by us. Giving oneself fully to another is considered an act of love to a Catholic, not a supreme tragedy.

As to not having a promise of afterlife, why should love be conditional on a promise? Okay, I’ll give myself fully in love, but only with the proviso that it gets me an afterlife?

 

[Jozefo]

As to not having a promise of afterlife, why should love be conditional on a promise? Okay, I’ll give myself fully in love, but only with the proviso that it gets me an afterlife?

That’s a great question. I was thinking about that just yesterday. What is the point of following Christ or making peace with God, if not for gaining the promise of eternal life?

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s a great question. I was thinking about that just yesterday. What is the point of following Christ or making peace with God, if not for gaining the promise of eternal life?

I think it goes to pure motive and sincerity to which God has full access, but we do not. If our ultimate motive is gain and not love, purity of heart is not fully achieved. Love means giving (not gaining) oneself to and for the other. That is why trust in God (faith) is so crucial. It is God’s pleasure to give us the kingdom, but as long as we view it as earning or gaining the promise of eternal life as an exchange or under our terms, there remains a remnant of merit, self-love: eternal life gained or exchanged for deeds done. A barter with God to win the ultimate prize.

I suspect it goes deeper than that. It is giving up one’s very self (a corrupted one at that) in exchange for what God has in mind for us. We don’t retain our corrupted self, we lose it completely (die to self) in order that God may do his will in and through us. Thy will be done without condition, not “I’ll do what I imagine you would expect from me as long as there is something in it for me,” i.e., my life prolonged eternally. It is more like: the self I have created is not worthy of eternal life, God has a better “self” in mind for me than I can ever imagine. I will let God be Creator and do his will for me rather than assume I can do that job better.

This is why I have to chuckle when I hear about pro-choice advocates promoting the idea of the right to self-determination and making choices about their lives, as if they have any ultimate power to change anything except a few superficial accoutrements.

 

[Jozefo]

I think it goes to pure motive and sincerity to which God has full access, but we do not. If our ultimate motive is gain and not love, purity of heart is not fully achieved. Love means giving (not gaining) oneself to and for the other. That is why trust in God (faith) is so crucial. It is God’s pleasure to give us the kingdom, but as long as we view it as earning or gaining the promise of eternal life as an exchange or under our terms, there remains a remnant of merit, self-love: eternal life gained or exchanged for deeds done. A barter with God to win the ultimate prize.

I suspect it goes deeper than that. It is giving up one’s very self (a corrupted one at that) in exchange for what God has in mind for us. We don’t retain our corrupted self, we lose it completely (die to self) in order that God may do his will in and through us. Thy will be done without condition, not “I’ll do what I imagine you would expect from me as long as there is something in it for me,” i.e., my life prolonged eternally. It is more like: the self I have created is not worthy of eternal life, God has a better “self” in mind for me than I can ever imagine. I will let God be Creator and do his will for me rather than assume I can do that job better.

This is why I have to chuckle when I hear about pro-choice advocates promoting the idea of the right to self-determination and making choices about their lives, as if they have any ultimate power to change anything except a few superficial accoutrements.

I think that is quite profound. Marvelous! I will read it again, from time to time, and try to digest it completely.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think that is quite profound. Marvelous! I will read it again, from time to time, and try to digest it completely.

I am honored to have added some clarity.

Peace.