Is it possible that God can relent on the eternal punishment in Hell?

[simpleas]

•all Catholic theologians are agreed that God foresees from eternity and permits the final defection of some, but that the decree of His will destining them to eternal damnation is not antecedent to but consequent upon foreknowledge of their sin and their death in the state of sin. The first part of this proposition is a simple corollary from Divine omniscience and supremacy, and the second part is directed against Calvinistic and Jansenistic teaching, according to which God expressly created some for the purpose of punishing them, or at least that subsequently to the fall of Adam, He leaves them in the state of damnation for the sake of exhibiting His wrath. Catholic teaching on this point reechoes 2 Peter 3:9, according to which God does not wish that any should perish but that all should return to penance, and it is the teaching implied in Christ’s own description of the sentence that is to be pronounced on the damned, condemnation being grounded not on the antecedent will of God, but on the actual demerits of men themselves (e.g. Matthew 25:41).
•So-called negative reprobation, which is commonly defended by those who maintain election to glory antecedently to foreseen merits, means that simultaneously with the predestination of the elect God either positively excludes the damned from the decree of election to glory or at least fails to include them in it, without, however, destining them to positive punishment except consequently on their foreseen demerits. It is this last qualification that distinguishes the doctrine of negative reprobation from Calvinistic and Jansenistic teaching, leaving room, for instance, for a condition of perfect natural happiness for those dying with only original sin on their souls. But, notwithstanding this difference, the doctrine ought to be rejected, for it is opposed very plainly to the teaching of St. Paul regarding the universality of God’s will to save all (1 Timothy 2:4), and from a rational point of view it is difficult to reconcile with a worthy concept of Divine justice.

newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

 

[Tom_Baum]

Hello Tom.

Thanks for bringing my poor typing to my attention. OOOOOPS! It should read: “but that **doesn’t **mean He will will it. He won’t.”

Sorry for the confusion.

Glenda

You wrote this in response to my writing, "Interesting statement: “God wills that all men be saved but that does mean He will will it.” "

So your statement should have read, “God wills that all men be saved but that doesn’t mean He will will it. He won’t.”

Seems to me that what you wrote, “God wills that all men be saved”, means that God has already “willed it”, doesn’t it?

I imagine that you could say that God could “unwill” what God has “willed” but one couldn’t say “but that doesn’t mean He will will it. He won’t.”, even tho that is what you said, since you have already said that “God wills”, a declaration that God has, indeed, willed something (this something being that all men be saved), get what I am saying?

 

[Amandil]

Does “eternity” last forever?

“Forever” necessarily implies temporarily, change. “Time” is that thing that we humans call in regards to how we measure the change that we observe within this part of existence.

There is no temporality in eternity. Eternity is not bound by time and change because there is no change in eternity, only “present”.
Tom Baum:

Jesus said a lot of things.

Including the eternal reality of hell. You can’t just pick and choose what you like to believe and ignore or explain away what you don’t.
Tom Baum:

Where Jesus said about whatever you did to the least you did to me, do you think or do you know what the Church might say concerning whether there is anyone who falls completely into one or the other category?

Seems to me that ALL of us have done right towards others and have done wrong toward others, do we go to both the left and right of Jesus?

The parable has a very specific context Tom-the Judgment on the Last Day.

So you really can’t explain it away that easily.

 

[Tom_Baum]

“Forever” necessarily implies temporarily, change. “Time” is that thing that we humans call in regards to how we measure the change that we observe within this part of existence.

There is no temporality in eternity. Eternity is not bound by time and change because there is no change in eternity, only “present”.

Rather than the question, “Does “eternity” last forever?”, does eternity end?

Will “eternity” be swallowed up, death will be swallowed up?

As far as saying that eternity is only “present” in a way means nothing since “present” implies time that is not moving but time nevertheless.

Is there any definition of eternity that you know of that is not reliant on using time as part of its definition?

Including the eternal reality of hell. You can’t just pick and choose what you like to believe and ignore or explain away what you don’t.

You mean like: “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony at the proper time. For this I was appointed preacher and apostle (I am speaking the truth, I am not lying), teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” and others and prayers, such as “O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell and lead all soul to heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy” and others.

As far as “ignore or explain away”, I am not ignoring them or explaining them away, I am using my God-given abilities in “pondering” them and I also believe that Jesus did NOT send the Holy Spirit only to the “higher-ups”.

"The parable has a very specific context Tom-the Judgment on the Last Day.

So you really can’t explain it away that easily.

The “Sword of Jesus” just might be capable of doing things that you have never given any thought to whatsoever.

Just as a “little leaven” can leaven all, a “Purification” by the “Consuming Fire of Pure Love” can purify ALL.

“Suffer the little children to come unto Me for of such is the Kingdom”, or words to that effect.

 

[Rodb]

Don’t use the “all” in the text to do as some Protestants do with the “until” part of the Scriptures to refute Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. It is a grave mistake of the same kind: Scripture twisted to deny or refute something we know is fact.

This might be true ordinarily, but the qualifier “epecially of those who believe” seems to indicate that all, in this case, means every human.

 

[Seraphim73]

If Justice, as opposed to mercy, is seen in the relationship as primary, then it doesn’t matter whether a sinner in hell (if it happens) finally repents, the “rules” are more important than the individual’s suffering. On the other hand, if hell is indeed “punishment”, and all ethical punishment has a reformative effect (at least in intent), then hell itself is a temporary state.

“Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright, His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. ‘He is good’, He says ‘to the evil and to the impious.’ How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers? “Friend, I do thee no wrong: I choose to give unto this last even as unto thee. Or is thine eye evil because I am good?” How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over his wealth? None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him, lest we doubt it, and thus bore witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God’s justice?—for while we are sinners Christ died for us! But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change. - St Issac the Syrian

 

[Amandil]

If Justice, as opposed to mercy, is seen in the relationship as primary, then it doesn’t matter whether a sinner in hell (if it happens) finally repents, the “rules” are more important than the individual’s suffering. On the other hand, if hell is indeed “punishment”, and all ethical punishment has a reformative effect (at least in intent), then hell itself is a temporary state.

You still don’t understand. There is no “purpose” to hell. Hell is not “reformative”, nor was it ever intended to be.

“An ever-burning Gehenna will burn up the condemned, and a punishment devouring with living flames; nor will there be any source whence at any time they may have either respite or end to their torments. Souls with their bodies will be reserved in infinite tortures for suffering…The pain of punishment will then be without the fruit of penitence; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late they will believe in eternal punishment who would not believe in eternal life.” St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 5, chpt 24

“The soul is so connected with the body that it succumbs to great pain and withdraws; for the structure of our members and vital parts is so infirm that it cannot bear up against that violence which causes great or extreme agony. But in the life to come this connection of soul and body is of such a kind, that as it is dissolved by no lapse of time, so neither is it burst asunder by any pain…Death will be eternal, since the soul will neither be able to enjoy God and live, nor to die and escape the pains of the body. The first death drives the soul from the body against his/her will; the second death holds the soul in the body against his/her will.” St. Augustine, City of God, Bk 21, chpt 3

 

[Amandil]

Rather than the question, “Does “eternity” last forever?”, does eternity end?

No.

Will “eternity” be swallowed up, death will be swallowed up?

You care to clarify the above.

As far as saying that eternity is only “present” in a way means nothing since “present” implies time that is not moving but time nevertheless.

It only means “nothing” to you because you apparently cannot look beyond material existence.

FYI, the present is the very things which is most like eternity. The future is the least.

Is there any definition of eternity that you know of that is not reliant on using time as part of its definition?

“Eternity is the complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life.”

As far as “ignore or explain away”, I am not ignoring them or explaining them away, I am using my God-given abilities in “pondering” them and I also believe that Jesus did NOT send the Holy Spirit only to the “higher-ups”.

Jesus gave those who your rather disrespectfully call the “higher-ups” His authority.

True adherence to the Holy Spirit necessarily dictates humility and docility towards the authority of those put over us in the Lord, Tom(Heb 13:17).

The “Sword of Jesus” just might be capable of doing things that you have never given any thought to whatsoever.

This appeal to your personal incredulity is getting rather weak, Tom.

Just as a “little leaven” can leaven all, a “Purification” by the “Consuming Fire of Pure Love” can purify ALL.

“Suffer the little children to come unto Me for of such is the Kingdom”, or words to that effect.

Ripping Scripture out of context as a pretext to justify your own opinions. :tsktsk:

 

[simpleas]

Exactly, I agree completely with both of these statements. God will act according to His nature. But what is His nature? His nature will be seen according to individual relationships with Abba. This is what we can glean from this thread, folks.

If God as I know Him forgives conditionally, then I will view Abba’s nature differently than someone who knows God as forgiving without condition.

If Justice, as opposed to mercy, is seen in the relationship as primary, then it doesn’t matter whether a sinner in hell (if it happens) finally repents, the “rules” are more important than the individual’s suffering. On the other hand, if hell is indeed “punishment”, and all ethical punishment has a reformative effect (at least in intent), then hell itself is a temporary state.

These differences are to be worked out within the individual in their own relationship with God. Can we take this thread to a new level? Obviously, there are going to be differences, and what is the Christian response to these differences?

To me, the Christian response is to accept people where they are, and to include people in what we see as “Church”, not in exact doctrinal interpretation but in the simple fact that we break bread together. Does anyone out there see this differently?

When we are in church, we aren’t thinking “I wonder who is a worse sinner than I am?” We are all together as one body. We all confess that we sin. We are all that we are in front of God, no more, no less.
We don’t publicly confess our sins (man, if we did, could you imagine the judgement, coldness that we all would experience, from some, not all people)
It’s enough to know we all come to the Lord for forgiveness, love and hope.

 

[glendab]

Hello Tom.

You wrote this in response to my writing, "Interesting statement: “God wills that all men be saved but that does mean He will will it.” "

So your statement should have read, “God wills that all men be saved but that doesn’t mean He will will it. He won’t.”

Seems to me that what you wrote, “God wills that all men be saved”, means that God has already “willed it”, doesn’t it?

I imagine that you could say that God could “unwill” what God has “willed” but one couldn’t say “but that doesn’t mean He will will it. He won’t.”, even tho that is what you said, since you have already said that “God wills”, a declaration that God has, indeed, willed something (this something being that all men be saved), get what I am saying?

The context of the Scripture you are referring to was that the person speaking was saying that** all who heard those words step up to be Baptized. It was as if a person were in the room giving a speech and there were three hundred persons in the room. He was addressing all of those in the room, all three hundred, not just the Jews in the room, but Jews and Gentiles alike. ** He didn’t mean all of humanity for at the time those words were said, the person speaking knew that a good bunch of folks were already lost to Salvation and couldn’t possibly be addressed, saved or spoken to. Keep the context of Scripture in context and you won’t get so confused.

As for what I wrote, sorry if it added to your confusion. I will say this very clearly, I do not in any way, shape or form agree with your Universalist interpretations of Scripture or the idea you have that Universal Salvation includes all of humanity. That isn’t what the Church believes and teaches either and it is way out of bounds for a Catholic. And as for the OP and the question in this thread, it isn’t possible for God to relent and end the sufferings of those in Hell, ever. They are damned for eternity. That will never change. Don’t join them. Repent while there is still time.

Glenda

 

[OneSheep]

You still don’t understand. There is no “purpose” to hell. Hell is not “reformative”, nor was it ever intended to be.

“An ever-burning Gehenna will burn up the condemned, and a punishment devouring with living flames; nor will there be any source whence at any time they may have either respite or end to their torments. Souls with their bodies will be reserved in infinite tortures for suffering…The pain of punishment will then be without the fruit of penitence; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late they will believe in eternal punishment who would not believe in eternal life.” St. Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 5, chpt 24

“The soul is so connected with the body that it succumbs to great pain and withdraws; for the structure of our members and vital parts is so infirm that it cannot bear up against that violence which causes great or extreme agony. But in the life to come this connection of soul and body is of such a kind, that as it is dissolved by no lapse of time, so neither is it burst asunder by any pain…Death will be eternal, since the soul will neither be able to enjoy God and live, nor to die and escape the pains of the body. The first death drives the soul from the body against his/her will; the second death holds the soul in the body against his/her will.” St. Augustine, City of God, Bk 21, chpt 3

So, like I described, the problem is that if hell is a “punishment”, and ethical punishment is reformative, then there would have to be a way out of hell. If the “punishment” is not reformative, then it is unethical, indeed vengeful.

So, let’s get away from the whole idea of “sent” or “condemned to” and go back to the concept of choice. The “choice” concept makes much more sense to me; it allows for the premise that God loves and forgives without condition.

If, however, it makes sense that God is vengeful or conditionally forgiving, then “sent” or “condemned to” also make sense to the individual, right?

The assertions of St. Augustine and St. Cyprian must be read in the context of individuals and their own relationships with Abba.

 

[rinnie]

The hearts of some sinners harden in the face of God’s light because of pride. The pride of Pharaoh when faced with God’s truth is what caused his heart to be closed to God because it conflicted with Pharaohs personal ambitions. This is the reaction of the sinner in the presence of God’s truth.

God wants all people to be saved wishing that non should perish. Therefore it is not a reasonable interpretation to suggest that God actively and intentionally blinds people to truth by hardening their hearts because he hates them.

The Catholic church has a rich theological and philosophical tradition that exists apart from the bible. In light of that tradition the interpretation that God hates his creation or regrets creating them makes no rational sense.

It seems that sola scripture is very much alive among some Catholics.

Huh? Are you saying the teaching of the RCC is apart from the teaching of Sacred Scripture?

If not, my bad, is so, please show me one teaching of the RCC that is opposite from the Bible. One teaching where SS and ST are different from one another.

 

[Amandil]

So, like I described, the problem is that if hell is a “punishment”, and ethical punishment is reformative, then there would have to be a way out of hell. If the “punishment” is not reformative, then it is unethical, indeed vengeful.

You need to get out of your mind the assumption of positive law, which is where your idea of “reformative” punishment comes from.

Hell does not exist as a “reformative” place.

“Unethical” is an inaccurate description because ethics is the science of morality. Morality is necessarily ordered to universal goodness. Sin is the rejection of such goodness.

Hell exists as the result of the abuse of the natural moral law. Immoral acts necessarily have immoral consequences. In the natural moral law those immoral acts-what we call sin-are in fact their own punishment.

Thus hell is not “unethical” because it is the realistic end any sinful act: the denial of God and man’s natural end to love God and neighbor.

Nor is hell “vengeful”. Hell is just. The only ones who want to believe that hell is “vengeful” are those who sin, who know that they sin, yet who want to get away with it.

OneSheep:

So, let’s get away from the whole idea of “sent” or “condemned to” and go back to the concept of choice. The “choice” concept makes much more sense to me; it allows for the premise that God loves and forgives without condition.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Those “condemned” to hell are not sent against their will. They choose hell in the next life just like they chose hell in this life. God’s judgment merely confirms their own choice.

OneSheep:

If, however, it makes sense that God is vengeful or conditionally forgiving, then “sent” or “condemned to” also make sense to the individual, right?

The assertions of St. Augustine and St. Cyprian must be read in the context of individuals and their own relationships with Abba.

So when statements from Bishops of the Church directly contradict your opinions, your first thought is not to re-evaluate your opinions but call to question “their own relationships with Abba”?

They were Bishops of the Church, OneSheep. Their authority on the matter is just by that fact more certain then your opinions.

 

[rinnie]

A priest once told us, “when your prayer is a petition, pray as if you know that the request is already answered.”

And remember, as far as we know there may be no one in hell.

The Roma (aka “gypsies”) were also commonly rounded up and thrown into concentration camps.

Now, are you going to answer why you would never pray that someone to be allowed out of hell?

I am going to have to give this a shot.

I believe that if a person is sent to hell they are indeed evil, want to hurt people, want nothing to do with God, and want to never change.

I don’t want to pray for a person who wants nothing to do with God around me and around others that I love, so that they can hurt them. remember hell means they will NEVER want God, EVER! Want nothing to do with him. All they want is to hurt God, by hurting those he loves.

I want my loved ones to be in heaven, surrounded by love not hate, good not evil, and be save and have everything to do with God. Be able to live in his everlasting love, to never see hate again, death, hurt, or suffering which is caused by sin, which is not obeying God.

 

[glendab]

Hello Seraphim.

“Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright, His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. ‘He is good’, He says ‘to the evil and to the impious.’ How can you call God just when you come across the Scriptural passage on the wage given to the workers? “Friend, I do thee no wrong: I choose to give unto this last even as unto thee. Or is thine eye evil because I am good?” How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son who wasted his wealth with riotous living, how for the compunction alone which he showed the father ran and fell upon his neck and gave him authority over his wealth? None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him, lest we doubt it, and thus bore witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God’s justice?—for while we are sinners Christ died for us! But if here He is merciful, we may believe that He will not change. - St Issac the Syrian

I think in this passage the type of justice St Issac was speaking of was purely human justice which as history has shown was usually anything but just. If you had to compare then to now, you could easily replace the word just with legalistic for it to show the tone he was taking. It doesn’t mean that there is no justice to be found in God for that would be utter nonsense. Consider the times and the audience the Saint was writing in and to.

Glenda

 

[Tom_Baum]

I am going to have to give this a shot.

I believe that if a person is sent to hell they are indeed evil, want to hurt people, want nothing to do with God, and want to never change.

From what some have written on here, it seems as if some of the Saints and some of the Doctors of the Church believe beyond a shadow of doubt, some would say know, that the vast majority of humanity (past, present and to come) “are indeed evil, want to hurt people, want nothing to do with God, and want to never change” according to you since according to some of these Saints and Doctors of the Church they will be “sent to hell”.

I don’t want to pray for a person who wants nothing to do with God around me and around others that I love, so that they can hurt them. remember hell means they will NEVER want God, EVER! Want nothing to do with him. All they want is to hurt God, by hurting those he loves.

Then it seems as if you should stop going to Mass since at least at some Masses, we pray for “God to have Mercy on ALL”.

We are called to pray for ALL, especially those most in need of prayer not just those that we think are good enough to pray for.

I want my loved ones to be in heaven, surrounded by love not hate, good not evil, and be save and have everything to do with God. Be able to live in his everlasting love, to never see hate again, death, hurt, or suffering which is caused by sin, which is not obeying God.

According to what some have written on here, there isn’t going to be very many there.

If you want your “loved ones to be in heaven”, don’t you think that “others want their loved ones in heaven”?

If “your loved ones” are there, why shouldn’t “other’s loved ones” be there?

If enough want their “loved ones” there, seems like it just might be a “catholic” heaven, as in for ALL, universal, the definition of catholic.

Do you think that God is incapable of cleaning up anyone?

Do you think that God is incapable of voluntarily getting everyone, somehow, wanting to be “cleaned up”?

 

[arte]

Who precisely are you referring to as “degenerates”?

My post explains who the degenerates are. This is important so that we can distinguish the really evil people in the World from the vast majority of mankind who are also going to spend eternity in Hell with these degenerates.

Aside from the dreadful appeal to emotion, human souls, which either possibly end up in heaven or hell, do not exist in eternity as children.

So “children” are not in hell, arte. Such appeals make you look rather foolish.

The Age of Reason/Moral responsibility is normally 7 years old. Are you saying that people age in Hell? The tone of your reply is very discourteous. You are “sailing close to the wind”. Matthew 5:22: “and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell”.

All except the last.

I agree with you. However, see Mark 121359’s post number 382. The vast majority of mankind will go to Hell and a small minority will go to Heaven. God knew this before He created mankind so my question, although controversial, is valid.

And excessive drinking of alcohol and drug should never lead to mental and physical dependence. Nobody should be poor and hungry and homeless and we should all live in giant castles in the sky with all of our wants tended to.

In the real world, arte, temporal choices do in fact have eternal consequences.

You’re living in a giant castle in the sky not me. No matter how you phrase it, TEMPORAL (secular, worldly etc) choices should NEVER lead to ETERNAL consequences.

Nor do you understand the nature of the torture of the reprobate.

I guess you are referring to the separation from God’s love? But, aren’t they still being tortured by demons in Hell fire?

What’s worse is that you assume that the torture in hell is suppose to have some purpose. You are sorely mistaken.

If torture in Hell doesn’t serve a purpose then why bother having the place?

IOW, God must act the Tyrant and override someone’s will so that you can feel more comfortable?

Most definitely not. I was merely suggesting a hypothetical way in which God could handle people like Hitler. Whenever the disbelief in Hell is mentioned, someone will always ask: “What do we do with Hitler?” I always thought the dentist was public enemy number 1 but it appears Adolf Hitler is.

Or He must keep them physically alive past the point of the natural world-weariness which eventually falls upon people just so they “eventually” come to the state which you prefer for them and which may never come? Which may in fact only exacerbate the problem and prolong their hardness of heart the more God keeps them alive in their advanced age and infirmity?

Again, are you saying that people age in Hell? The hypothetical prison would not be in Hell. The important point is that God could easily change the heart (soul) of the sinner so Hell would become redundant. If you still want punishment for their sins: “In the blink of an eye, God could make them feel the physical and mental torment of all the people that their evil has affected”.

Divine euthanasia. How pragmatically "kind and “compassionate”. You would have God treat human souls like you would a dying horse. How noble.

Yes, it is noble. Much more noble than torturing a soul for eternity. I actually got the idea of destroying the soul from Judaism.

You absurdly think that the punishment of hell “serves a purpose” when it doesn’t. God didn’t create hell, we did. Purposes are necessarily directed towards some good, there is no good in hell, no purpose.

Again, if punishment in Hell doesn’t serve a purpose, why have the place? Didn’t God create Hell for Satan and his demons? If humans created Hell, I hope they were given a “Get out of Hell Free Card”. Not all purposes are directed towards some good. “The purpose of this suicide bomb is to kill as many people as possible in the marketplace”.

The souls of the reprobate are tortured with the very fires of God’s love. The very fires of God’s love which the saints embrace in heaven are the same fires which torment the reprobate in hell. They cannot love anything but themselves and/or their sins. They have no more will or individuality left; it begs the question if they are even persons.

Have you been to Hell because you certainly know a lot about the place? I cannot believe that people in Hell love themselves and/or their sins so much and that they find God’s love a torment. I’m certain that they would all want to leave Hell and go to Heaven.

Not without in some way violating human nature, which is precisely what you are advocating.
You are completely wrong. I am not violating human nature. Hell violates God’s omnipotent nature.

You apparently haven’t been paying attention to the news because Society is already breaking down because of modernist-secular-progressive ideas which you are espousing.

I agree with you that society is breaking down to a degree because of certain modernist progressive ideas. However, I would much rather live in a secular society than a theocracy of any kind including Christian. Just look at Muslim countries and the Republic of Ireland which was basically a Catholic theocracy until 12 June 2013.

Jesus is a “bleeding heart liberal” to those who seek Him for mercy and forgiveness and is “hard-headed” and unyielding as a Rock to those who refuse. Jesus is both, at once, soft-hearted and hard-headed because He is both Truth and Love.

Amandil, your statement above is excellent. I agree with your statement to an extent because I do seek Jesus for mercy and forgiveness especially for what I have written in my posts. The question is: Is Jesus so hard headed that He would not show mercy and forgiveness to this large segment of mankind who after they have died ask Him for it?

 

[Amandil]

arte, I respectfully ask you to clean up your post (#494).

There is a reason why there is a quote function on message boards, and it is not to wrap your words in a quote with my name on it.

 

[tdgesq]

Amandil, your statement above is excellent. I agree with your statement to an extent because I do seek Jesus for mercy and forgiveness especially for what I have written in my posts. The question is: Is Jesus so hard headed that He would not show mercy and forgiveness to this large segment of mankind who after they have died ask Him for it?

This assumes that those in hell will ever ask for mercy and forgiveness. Ironically, those theologians who admit only to the possibility (not certainty) that any human soul will be damned, are the the same theologians who speculate that eternal separation from God will be the free and eternal choice of the one who irrevocably closes himself to saying “yes” to God. They would tell you that the one who does this will simply not seek God’s mercy or forgiveness.

 

[Amandil]

This assumes that those in hell will ever ask for mercy and forgiveness. Ironically, those theologians who admit only to the possibility (not certainty) that any human soul will be damned, are the the same theologians who speculate that eternal separation from God will be the free and eternal choice of the one who irrevocably closes himself to saying “yes” to God. They would tell you that the one who does this will simply not seek God’s mercy or forgiveness.

I’d go even further to say that those reprobate who would wind up in hell would demand that God ask them for forgiveness, such is the extent of their self-exaltation. Heaven itself would be utterly disgusting for such a person because they could not be the center of everything. Heaven would be so abhorrent and undesirable precisely because there would be nothing for them to derive pleasure from. The love of God and those in heaven would to them would be the height of absurdity; unreal, phony, fake, pretentious, etc.

This is the problem with many here who simply do not understand what sin really is.