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

[Tom_Baum]

Not addressed to me…but…

isn’t what you are saying about hell being a fear motivator? That you leave “old ways” behind because you are afraid of going to hell for all eternity, rather than you experienced God’s love first, forgiveness and that was a prompting to leave “old ways” behind?

Fear works very well, we see it the world over, can be useful, but I’d prefer telling someone of God’s love first and foremost, rather than his punishment, if they do not change their ways.

This is the message I have always known from our church, the hell message has never been a large part of any teaching I’ve heard, only what was believed at the time the Gospels were written. If I’d heard how I’d burn in hell for one “mortal” sin at the time of death without confession, I don’t think I’d have ever grown in love and trust of Christ.
I’m glad I heard more of how God loves us, and that made me want to love him back as much as I could.

A lot of people bring up “Fear of the Lord”.

If one looks up the definition of Fear of he Lord, they will find that it has absolutely nothing to do with being afraid or scared of but has to do with “reverence and awe”.

 

[Tom_Baum]

The question “is it possible that God can relent on eternal punishment in hell?” is an awkward question since those in hell are there because of their own doing and will remain there because of their impotence to contrition. It is they who must relent and be sorry which of course is not possible. It is a sad state of affairs that they are the ones who lock themselves in.

We don’t really understand the full meaning of what it means to be in eternity and not in time. For we have never experienced it. But one meaning we do know and that is that in eternity nothing changes. For to change necessitates time. And being that there is no time in eternity, there is no time to change or to become contrite. Everyone is locked into whatever condition they are in when they enter eternity…love or hate.

This condition also applies to the Devil and his angels who are already in hell.

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

So are you saying that you have found another thing that is impossible for God to do, that being creating from eternity since you said, “But one meaning we do know and that is that in eternity nothing changes.”

By the way, who is the “we” in the “But one meaning we do know” and do you know just how this and/or these we “do know”?

Also you wrote, “The question “is it possible that God can relent on eternal punishment in hell?” is an awkward question”, why would you say that?

I can see three very easy answers, “No, it is impossible for God”, “Yes, it is possible” or, “I don’t know”.

Again I ask, why do you think that it is awkward?

My opinion is that we are telling God about all kinds of things that are impossible for God.

Are they impossible for God?

Is it our opinion that they are impossible for God?

Or is it our wish and/or hope that they are impossible for God?

If as you say, “But one meaning we do know and that is that in eternity nothing changes.”, how is it possible that “they enter eternity”, if as you say, “But one meaning we do know and that is that in eternity nothing changes”, wouldn’t their entering eternity qualify as a “change”?

 

[glendab]

Hello Simpleas.

Thanks for sharing that, it is very interesting to me.

Personally I have never gone to confession fearing I’d go to hell, more of, going to confess my sin in sorrow and needing to feel free to love God.

So, you’ve never feared going to Hell. I don’t have the t-shirt for that. I don’t think I’ve ever gone to Confession to get out of Hell either, but if you’re headed in that direction then the Confessional is the place to be freed of it.

I once met a gal while living with the Missionaries of Charity and enjoyed her company and companionship while she was preparing for final vows. It was obvious to me she was a Saint, although she’d deny it if you mentioned it. Her love for Jesus Christ was authentic and stunning and you’d simply be amazed at it if you ever saw it. Such love is one of the reasons why they sent so many Priests and seminarians to help out the Sisters from time to time so they too could witness the beauty of hearts turned solely towards God and His will for them. They too were amazed at the total donation of these Sisters in their loving way of life. There is nothing that compares with this. They love at a level the rest of us can only imagine. But one thing is certain, even they feared Hell and acknowledging it on a daily basis is part of their spiritual practice. They have authentic love for God and fear of Hell. The two aren’t exclusive, one of the other. They do work well together.

Another thing comes to mind, I think it is part of Benedictine Spirituality to actually contemplate Hell each and every day as part of one’s personal meditations. Might be some wisdom in that practice too.

I’d say as a rule the Saints and those trying to be Saints think quite often about the Last Four Things.

Glenda

 

[fred_conty]

So are you saying that you have found another thing that is impossible for God to do, that being creating from eternity since you said, “But one meaning we do know and that is that in eternity nothing changes.”

By the way, who is the “we” in the “But one meaning we do know” and do you know just how this and/or these we “do know”?

Also you wrote, “The question “is it possible that God can relent on eternal punishment in hell?” is an awkward question”, why would you say that?

I can see three very easy answers, “No, it is impossible for God”, “Yes, it is possible” or, “I don’t know”.

Again I ask, why do you think that it is awkward?

My opinion is that we are telling God about all kinds of things that are impossible for God.

Are they impossible for God?

Is it our opinion that they are impossible for God?

Or is it our wish and/or hope that they are impossible for God?

If as you say, “But one meaning we do know and that is that in eternity nothing changes.”, how is it possible that “they enter eternity”, if as you say, “But one meaning we do know and that is that in eternity nothing changes”, wouldn’t their entering eternity qualify as a “change”?

Thank you for your reply.

If you will re-read my post, you will not find the word “impossible” or “possible” in it.

May God our Father give you grace and peace.

 

[Amandil]

Now, after dismissing your strawman I’ll address the failures of the rest of your comments:

“He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” 1 John 4:8 (NKJV)
Hell is a form of punishment and is described as burning in a lake of fire and sulphur etc. It is a horrific form of punishment even for 1 second. In the developed World, no human judge would order that form of punishment for any criminal act including murder. However, God orders this punishment 24/7 for eternity for humans who do far less than murder someone. So how can mere humans show more love than God when sentencing someone?

Several failures in your understanding here:

1. Hell is not a “form of punishment”. Hell is not something that God could have done away with but chose not to; IOW hell is not the result of human notions of positive law. Therefore it does nothing to advance your understanding by comparing hell with human forms of jurisprudence. That is the fallacy of trying to get more from less.
2. Hell is not an arbitrary punishment for sin but is the natural consequence of sin itself. Hell-eternal separation from God- is not simply commensurate with sin, hell IS sin and sin IS hell.
3. Hell is not a “sentence” and God does not “sentence” people to hell. God sending people to hell is His affirmation of the state of a person’s immortal soul. If a person spends their temporal existence saying “no” to God, and enters into eternity saying “no” to God, He will spend eternity saying “no” to God and God will give that person precisely what they want: no God. That existence is necessarily hell.

4)God shows His love by radically respecting our freedom. This necessarily includes the possibility that many will refuse to love Him and accept His mercy.

This is process theism which is gathering favour amongst some theologians because they know that the God described in the Bible and the issue of hell are totally at odds (out of kilter) with an omnipotent God. God limits His own power so He cannot impose His divine will on people but God can try to persuade people about what should be done by utilising churches, evangelists etc. People will then either agree or disregard God’s advice given to them by a human. God’s inability to impose His divine will on the World is seen as a moral advantage, rendering God more respectable and more impressive. **Unfortunately, God’s omnipotence is sacrificed in order to better secure other attributes regarded as ultimately more important. **

Again, you seem to be not very well versed in Scripture:

"and he(the Lord) said, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.”

Our God demonstrated the height of His power by submitting Himself to the hands of wicked and despicable men to be scourged, beaten, mocked, and then hung on a cross with nails hammered into His hands and feet until His lungs filled up with his own bodily fluids and He died of asphyxiation.

Your concept of “power” is clearly at odds with God’s concept of power. Thus your notion of omnipotence is clearly lacking.

Process theism again but I’ll flesh out my rebuttal a bit. So if you no longer love your husband/wife but he/she still loves you then you get put in the tumble dryer for ever!

This is so vague it’s not even worth addressing. What do you mean by “no longer love your wife”?

Unless they have a masochistic behaviour disorder (mentally ill), no human would chose hell if it existed.

Wrong again. We choose hell every time we choose to sin. Every choice we make to sin is the choice to reject God’s love for us in Christ Jesus. Every choice to sin is a choice to reject God, to reject Reality, to reject true Love for false loves.

That’s what sin is: moral/spiritual insanity. So who are really the masochists? God? Who does everything short of getting down on His knees begging us to repent? Or us stupid, foolish, wicked humans who, like Pavlov’s dog, return to the same muck of our favorite sins over and over instead again even in the face of the slightest anxiety or temptation?

Process theism again. How come God’s mercy is less than the judge’s mercy I mentioned earlier?

The most merciless thing to do to someone is to force them to do something against their will. This includes forcing someone into a heaven which for him would be a worse torment than the hell he wants.

Furthermore, how come God’s justice is woefully behind the justice systems in use in the developed World today? In our justice system, the punishment fits the crime. God’s justice system has only one default punishment – torture 24/7 for eternity regardless of the severity of the crime (sin).

As to the foolishness of confusing positive law with natural or divine law, see above.

cont’d

 

[Amandil]

concl’d

However, I have never heard that “people will be punished with the sin they love more than God”. Don’t you mean “for” instead of “with”?

No, I said what I meant. Again, Christ is clear on this:
“Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.”

Slaves necessarily have no identity apart from their masters, they are the property of their masters. If one enslaves themselves to greed or avarice, they have no identity apart from the thing they think make them happy; their life is their things. If one enslaves themselves to sexual sins such as pornography or masturbation or homosexuality, they have no identity apart from what they love to do.

IOW they are “glued” to and with their favorite sins. There is no real difference between the person and the sin that they love, and their sin clings to them and constantly gnaws at them.

God practices what He preaches: He hates the sin and loves the sinner.

God’s grace of forgiveness AND our repentance and free-will acceptance of His mercy act(in the words of Peter Kreeft) as “reverse epoxy”, separating the sinner from the sin.

Those who refuse this “reverse epoxy” and remained glued to their favorite sins will necessarily receive God’s judgment against sin: hell, eternal and unrelenting, because it’s precisely what they wanted. They refused to be parted with their favorite sins for love of God; they loved their sins more than God, therefore God gives them precisely what they ask for.

The main problem here is that God is not seen as “real” by most people. I read on a Catholic website: “Because it is not evident that God punishes in this life, He must do it in the after life”. Most people do not see any** evidence **for God in this World. They “can’t feel” His love. When people die, they will “actually feel” God’s love and will definitely not love their sins more than God’s love. You are using the “fear factor” to evangelise by threatening people with extreme punishment unless they repent before they die.

None of this is of any relevance to anything I have said save for the last sentence.

As for "using the “fear factor”, so what? The Truth can be the scariest thing imaginable(like a malignant brain tumor), so does that mean that what is “scary” cannot possibly be true? That’s simply absurd and a non-sequitur.

Sometimes the most loving thing you can do is to tell someone the Truth, even when you know that the Reality of what you are saying will definitely frighten them.

**Conversely one of the most unloving things you can do is lie to someone or hide the Truth from someone, a truth for which they have a right to know, because you want to be “kind” and you want to spare them the feeling of being scared. **

That is my objection. The punishment you are advocating is “way out of kilter” with the crime (sin) committed.

Here’s another “reality” you need to familiarize yourself with: some choices DO have eternal consequences.

If the choice to be saved by God by accepting His mercy has an eternal consequence, then the rejection of God and spurning His mercy necessarily has an eternal consequence as well.

P.S., Sin is not merely a “crime”. Again you’re confusing positive law with natural law.

And, no matter how you try to wriggle out of it Amandil, under our Church’s teaching, children can go to hell.

Not as “children,” arte.

You do realize that death is the separation of the human soul from the human body, don’t you?

Whilst they may or may not think of God, the vast majority of mankind directs their will (hearts) towards the good.

Again you continue to show a remarkable naiveté:

For there is no distinction;
[23] since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Rom 3:22-23).

We are “by nature children of wrath”(Eph 2:3).

The vast majority of mankind directs their wills towards the self: self-interest, self-concern, self-desire. They don’t set their hearts towards the Universal objective good, only the lesser goods to achieve their own self-satisfaction, or even worse the perceived “goods” they find in their favorite sins which are not objectively good or virtuous at all but evil and self-destructive.

 

[simpleas]

Not me, I always go to confession to make sure I do my best to do what God made possible for me on the Cross and be forgiven for my sin. Why? Because I do not want to die in my sin and not ask for forgiveness and burn in hell.

Confession is repentance for sin. Although I have great Love for God, I do not repent because of my great love for him only, I repent for my great fear of not having him in my life.

Because to me. my life without God in it, would be full of fear, anxiety, stress, Any one horrible emotion possible.

God to me is who protects me against evil. and his sacrament of confession is what protects me from my own selfish sins. It opens my eyes to what I need to do.

That is fine. I just wanted to share that I had never thought I should go to confession in fear of being sent to the fires of hell. It was always for my love of God, desiring his forgiveness and feeling his love upon absolution.
I never have believed that God wasn’t in my life.
I agree about protection from God.

 

[simpleas]

Hello Simpleas.

So, you’ve never feared going to Hell. I don’t have the t-shirt for that. I don’t think I’ve ever gone to Confession to get out of Hell either, but if you’re headed in that direction then the Confessional is the place to be freed of it.

I once met a gal while living with the Missionaries of Charity and enjoyed her company and companionship while she was preparing for final vows. It was obvious to me she was a Saint, although she’d deny it if you mentioned it. Her love for Jesus Christ was authentic and stunning and you’d simply be amazed at it if you ever saw it. Such love is one of the reasons why they sent so many Priests and seminarians to help out the Sisters from time to time so they too could witness the beauty of hearts turned solely towards God and His will for them. They too were amazed at the total donation of these Sisters in their loving way of life. There is nothing that compares with this. They love at a level the rest of us can only imagine. But one thing is certain, even they feared Hell and acknowledging it on a daily basis is part of their spiritual practice. They have authentic love for God and fear of Hell. The two aren’t exclusive, one of the other. They do work well together.

Another thing comes to mind, I think it is part of Benedictine Spirituality to actually contemplate Hell each and every day as part of one’s personal meditations. Might be some wisdom in that practice too.

I’d say as a rule the Saints and those trying to be Saints think quite often about the Last Four Things.

Glenda

The picture of hell isn’t a really nice one, souls screaming in pain, possibly now begging for mercy to which God will eternally ignore?
Hard to think that in a moment, in which ever situation a person falls from grace, dies without confession, God will see them burn away in pain forever.
None of us are ever a saint or a perfect person in this life. I’m not saying we should think we can sin and get away with it because God loves us, but we are weak to a degree as we aren’t God, and I think God is fully aware of that fact.

Nice that you met someone who is giving all their life to God, in service to others.

I wonder why sometimes that St Michael the archangel prayer is not said at every mass.

 

[Amandil]

The picture of hell isn’t a really nice one, souls screaming in pain, possibly now begging for mercy to which God will eternally ignore?

That’s the thing, I don’t think anyone in hell will begging God for mercy because that would mean that they would be required to give up the very thing that they love more than God.

 

[arte]

“Process theism” is not even a valid objection because neither I, nor Thomas Aquinas, nor anyone holding to orthodox Catholic Christianity are “process theists”. In fact the Church’s philosophical/metaphysical tradition as well as the Church’s teaching and Biblical Theology are diametrically opposed to it.

You apparently ran across this catchy little name and are trying to pin it on me when its clear that you really don’t know what you’re talking about. So you pull out this nifty little strawman argument.

You would do well to read “The God Who Loves You” by Peter Kreeft.

I’ll address the rest point by point later.

I have known about Process Theism for some time because it fits with my disbelief in hell and my belief that salvation can continue in the afterlife. I showed your opening paragraph on God’s omnipotence to my son who studied ancient history and philosophy at university. We both came to the same conclusion that it had elements of process theology in it.

Any reduction in God’s powers whether self imposed or not leads to God being no longer omnipotent. From your paragraph: “That God limits His own power to permit humans to freely choose to love Him while accepting that many of them will refuse Him and therefore choose hell requires omnipotence”. From my paragraph: “God’s inability to impose His divine will on the World is seen as a moral advantage, rendering God more respectable and more impressive”.

In your sentence above, you are trying to give God a moral advantage by making Him look more respectable and impressive even though He knows in advance that many (the majority – my words) of His creation will refuse Him and therefore choose hell. If **all **of your “riders” concerning God limiting His own powers are taken away, the obvious conclusion is that God is acting immorally because He knows in advance that many (the majority – my words) of His creation will refuse Him and therefore choose hell.

Process Theology: God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The Divine has a power of **persuasion **rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force, and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. “Persuasion” in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control.

In your paragraph, God is not using coercion, He’s using **persuasion **and He is not exerting unilateral control.

Wikipedia - St. Thomas Aquinas

Neo-Scholasticism (also known as neo-scholastic Thomism or **neo-Thomism **because of the great influence of the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas on the movement), is a revival and development of medieval scholasticism in Roman Catholic theology and philosophy which began in the second half of the 19th century.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The views of Whitehead and Hartshorne (process theists – my words) should also be distinguished from those that affirm that the divine being, **by an act of self-limitation, opens itself to influence from the world. Some neo-Thomists hold this view **and a group of Evangelical Christian philosophers, calling themselves “open theists,” promote similar ideas. These forms of theism were influenced by process theism, but they deny its claim that God is essentially in a give-and-take relationship with the world.

From the above, there are elements in your paragraph that have their roots in process theism. Self limitation opens itself to influence from the world. Even some neo Thomists (followers of the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas) were influenced by process theism.

HAVING SAID ALL OF THE ABOVE AMANDIL, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT GOD NEVER LOOSES HIS OMNIPOTENCE. I DON’T CARE WHAT ANY THEOLOGIAN OR PHILOSOPHER SAYS - GOD WAS, IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE OMNIPOTENT.

It is because of His omnipotence that God cannot allow any human soul to be put in a place of torture called hell for one second never mind for an eternity.

I have read through several pages of “The God Who Loves You” by Peter Kreeft and I must admit that I do find it difficult to love God as much or more than my own family although that was not mentioned in the pages I read. I will read the book though as it looks as if it will help to improve my loving relationship with God.

 

[Amandil]

I have known about Process Theism for some time because it fits with my disbelief in hell and my belief that salvation can continue in the afterlife. I showed your opening paragraph on God’s omnipotence to my son who studied ancient history and philosophy at university. We both came to the same conclusion that it had elements of process theology in it.

Any reduction in God’s powers whether self imposed or not leads to God being no longer omnipotent. From your paragraph: “That God limits His own power to permit humans to freely choose to love Him while accepting that many of them will refuse Him and therefore choose hell requires omnipotence”. From my paragraph: “God’s inability to impose His divine will on the World is seen as a moral advantage, rendering God more respectable and more impressive”.

In your sentence above, you are trying to give God a moral advantage by making Him look more respectable and impressive even though He knows in advance that many (the majority – my words) of His creation will refuse Him and therefore choose hell. If **all **of your “riders” concerning God limiting His own powers are taken away, the obvious conclusion is that God is acting immorally because He knows in advance that many (the majority – my words) of His creation will refuse Him and therefore choose hell.

Process Theology: God is not omnipotent in the sense of being coercive. The Divine has a power of **persuasion **rather than coercion. Process theologians interpret the classical doctrine of omnipotence as involving force, and suggest instead a forbearance in divine power. “Persuasion” in the causal sense means that God does not exert unilateral control.

In your paragraph, God is not using coercion, He’s using **persuasion **and He is not exerting unilateral control.

Wikipedia - St. Thomas Aquinas

Neo-Scholasticism (also known as neo-scholastic Thomism or **neo-Thomism **because of the great influence of the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas on the movement), is a revival and development of medieval scholasticism in Roman Catholic theology and philosophy which began in the second half of the 19th century.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The views of Whitehead and Hartshorne (process theists – my words) should also be distinguished from those that affirm that the divine being, **by an act of self-limitation, opens itself to influence from the world. Some neo-Thomists hold this view **and a group of Evangelical Christian philosophers, calling themselves “open theists,” promote similar ideas. These forms of theism were influenced by process theism, but they deny its claim that God is essentially in a give-and-take relationship with the world.

From the above, there are elements in your paragraph that have their roots in process theism. Self limitation opens itself to influence from the world. Even some neo Thomists (followers of the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas) were influenced by process theism.

HAVING SAID ALL OF THE ABOVE AMANDIL, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT GOD NEVER LOOSES HIS OMNIPOTENCE. I DON’T CARE WHAT ANY THEOLOGIAN OR PHILOSOPHER SAYS - GOD WAS, IS, AND ALWAYS WILL BE OMNIPOTENT.

It is because of His omnipotence that God cannot allow any human soul to be put in a place of torture called hell for one second never mind for an eternity.

I have read through several pages of “The God Who Loves You” by Peter Kreeft and I must admit that I do find it difficult to love God as much or more than my own family although that was not mentioned in the pages I read. I will read the book though as it looks as if it will help to improve my loving relationship with God.

Given that I am not a panentheist, and that neither do I hold that God is influenced or affected by the universe or is in any way identical with the universe, that God is immutable, that God in fact created the universe ex nihilo, that His very act of creating is utterly gratuitous, and as a matter of fact so is His act of saving souls since every human created in in fact deserving of the eternity of hell based upon the Original Sin, you clearly do not have a proper understanding of my position, much less the position of Thomas Aquinas.

Nowhere have I ever stated that God does not “coerce”(there is certainly something called grace), that necessarily presupposes Divine election(Rom 8:29-30).

That you’ve drawn “elements of process theism” from my comments is not due to my comments but your inability to draw proper distinctions.

You claim that:

arte:

Any reduction in God’s powers whether self imposed or not leads to God being no longer omnipotent.

Which leads to such absurd ideas as God being so “omnipotent” so as to create a rock which He cannot lift or a square circle. Or in terms of His omniscience for Him to create a circumstance which He could not know. Or that God can sin or act immorally.

Or in terms of salvation saving persons who refuse to be saved.

For God to limit Himself is in no way a diminution of His power but instead presupposes His omnipotence.

I suggest that you cease whatever this is you are attempting to do.

 

[simpleas]

That’s the thing, I don’t think anyone in hell will begging God for mercy because that would mean that they would be required to give up the very thing that they love more than God.

That would depend on if a person/soul can still participate in the sin that they loved, more than God in the eternal dwelling. The pain maybe completely different to what we experience as bodily pain, and spiritual pain in this life. Still, if after death one can see the error of their way completely clearly, they may beg for forgiveness, It’s up to God

Granted if a person’s whole being is completely ordered towards God at the point of death, they most likely will walk through to Heaven.

 

[Amandil]

That would depend on if a person/soul can still participate in the sin that they loved, more than God in the eternal dwelling.

The punishment of hell is the fullest participation in sin, it is sin bereft of any and all pomp and deceit.

This is not positive law theory where “the punishment fits the crime”, the punishment IS the crime. Sin IS its own punishment.

simpleas:

The pain maybe completely different to what we experience as bodily pain, and spiritual pain in this life.

The only way it could be “different” is that it is more real and in a fuller sense than that of any pain we experience here temporally. And that no matter how much pain we may experience our souls will not be able to leave our bodies through death: our souls will be held within our bodies against our will.

simpleas:

Still, if after death one can see the error of their way completely clearly, they may beg for forgiveness, It’s up to God

You’re assuming that any of the reprobate will have any will in the matter. Again, “everyone who sins is a slave to sin.” Slaves by definition have no will as to what they are enslaved to, it is their “master”; they have no life or will apart from that.

 

[simpleas]

The punishment of hell is the fullest participation in sin, it is sin bereft of any and all pomp and deceit.

This is not positive law theory where “the punishment fits the crime”, the punishment IS the crime. Sin IS its own punishment.

The only way it could be “different” is that it is more real and in a fuller sense than that of any pain we experience here temporally. And that no matter how much pain we may experience our souls will not be able to leave our bodies through death: our souls will be held within our bodies against our will.

You’re assuming that any of the reprobate will have any will in the matter. Again, “everyone who sins is a slave to sin.” Slaves by definition have no will as to what they are enslaved to, it is their “master”; they have no life or will apart from that.

I have never heard this before, I was always under the impression that when we die our soul leaves the body, a person is dead, no spirit is present in the body, that is why a person is…dead…
Unless you mean, that on the day of judgement the soul would be returned to the body to then be sent to hell as the eternal punishment for unrepented sinners?

“everyone who sins is a slave to sin”

Yes, in this life, this human spiritual being, dying to sin in this life hopefully brings us new life in the here and now, and eternally.

 

[Amandil]

I have never heard this before, I was always under the impression that when we die our soul leaves the body, a person is dead, no spirit is present in the body, that is why a person is…dead…

There is more than one kind of death.

FYI it is from St. Augustine, City of God, bk. 21, chpt. 3

“The soul is so connect3d with the body that it succumbs to great pains 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 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 her will; the second death holds the soul in the body against her will.”

Unless you mean, that on the day of judgement the soul would be returned to the body to then be sent to hell as the eternal punishment for unrepented sinners?

Yes. Christianity is not Platonism.

“everyone who sins is a slave to sin”

Yes, in this life, this human spiritual being, dying to sin in this life hopefully brings us new life in the here and now, and eternally.

To die to sin you must be first saved from it by a Savior.

Those who refuse to be saved from their slavery to sin remain enslaved to it. They live for it, they do not die to it.

 

[Amandil]

“While we are still in this world, let us repent with our whole heart of the evil things we have done in the flesh, that we may be saved by the Lord while we have time for repentance. For, after leaving the world, we cannot confess or repent anymore.”-St. Clement of Rome, Second Letter to the Corinthians, 8:2

“An ever burning Gehenna and a devouring punishment of lively flames will consume the condemned, and there will be no means whereby the torments can at any time have respite or end. Souls with their bodies will be reserved in infinite tortures for suffering…Then there will be pain of punishment without fruit of repentance, useless weeping, and ineffectual prayer. Too late do they believe in eternal punishment who were unwilling to believe in eternal life.”-St. Cyprian, To Demetrian, chpt 24

“Make no mistake, brethren; the corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. If, then, those are dead who do these things according to the flesh, how much worse if, with bad doctrine, one should corrupt the faith of God for which Jesus Christ was crucified. Such a man, for becoming contaminated, will depart into unquenchable fire; and will anyone who listens to him.”-St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Ephesians, chpt 16:1

“Of which voice the justification will be seen in the awarding to each that which is just; since to those who have done well shall be assigned righteously eternal bliss, and to the lovers of iniquity shall be given eternal punishment. And the fire which is unquenchable and without end awaits the latter, and a certain fiery worm which dies not, and which does not waste the body, but continues bursting forth from the body with unending pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no voice of interceding friends will profit them. For neither are the righteous seen by them any longer, nor are they worthy of remembrance.”-St. Hyppolytus-Against the Greeks, chpt 3

“What a fond fancy is it to suppose that eternal punishment means long continued punishment, while eternal life means life without end, since Christ in the very same passage spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence. ‘These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’(Mt 25:46) If both destinies are ‘eternal,’ then we must understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative-on the one hand, punishment eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity.”-St. Augustine, City of God, bk. 21, chpt. 23

“There is one kind of fire in hell, but it does not torment all sinners in the same way, for each one feels its torments according to his degree of guilt…That truth stands solid and unshaken; Just as the joys of heaven will never cease, so, too, there is no end to the torments of the damned.”- St. Gregory the Great, Dialogues 4:43

 

[bisco]

considering the torment the rich man suffered, doing nothing either good or bad, i wouldn’t want details of what the bad suffer.

 

[Amandil]

considering the torment the rich man suffered, doing nothing either good or bad, i wouldn’t want details of what the bad suffer.

Doing nothing bad? He walked over a brother Israelite every day as if he didn’t exist. Watched him starve as he ate lavishly.

“Whatever you did to the least of my brethern, you did it to Me.”

 

[arte]

Given that I am not a panentheist, and that neither do I hold that God is influenced or affected by the universe or is in any way identical with the universe, that God is immutable, that God in fact created the universe ex nihilo, that His very act of creating is utterly gratuitous, and as a matter of fact so is His act of saving souls since every human created in in fact deserving of the eternity of hell based upon the Original Sin, you clearly do not have a proper understanding of my position, much less the position of Thomas Aquinas.

Given that the vast majority of mankind is going to end up in hell, I fail to see why God’s creation of us is utterly gratuitous. It would have been more gratuitous and moral not to create us! I do not believe in original sin. The mere thought of its consequences on babies and mankind rippling through time is completely immoral. Your belief that we all deserve to be in hell because of original sin is typical of these consequences. I have read some ridiculous beliefs in other religions and Christianity’s belief in original sin is just as ridiculous. You descended from an ape like creature – get over it. Anyway, it wasn’t Adam ad Eve – it was “Adam and Steve”. Just joking. **I now have a clear understanding of your position. You are an Orthodox Catholic and it must be very frustrating for you to have someone like me who is well away from being Orthodox on this forum. ** Whilst I have read some of Thomas Aquinas’ works, I must admit that I should read a lot more because I believe that his theology and philosophy teachings are a foundation for training all Catholic priests. Notwithstanding this, I do not need to know the teachings of Thomas Aquinas to debate a religious subject using common sense.

Nowhere have I ever stated that God does not “coerce”(there is certainly something called grace), that necessarily presupposes Divine election(Rom 8:29-30).

Your sentence: “That God limits His own power to permit humans to freely choose to love Him while accepting that many of them will refuse Him and therefore choose hell requires omnipotence”. True – you did not say that “God does not coerce" but for want of other words, you are stating just that: “God limits His own power TO PERMIT HUMANS TO FREELY CHOOSE to love Him”. By permitting humans to freely choose, you are essentially saying that “God does not coerce” humans.

I absolutely love reading St Pauls’ letters. They are fantastic.

(Rom 8:29-30).

29 Those whom God had already chosen he also set apart to become like his Son, so that the Son would be the first among many believers. 30 And so those whom God set apart, he called; and those he called, he put right with himself, and he shared his glory with them.

I can see where you are going now with coercion, grace and Divine Election. From Catholic Culture.org: “The eternal choice by God of those whom he absolutely wills to be saved. It is a matter of Catholic faith that this divine election includes the foreknowledge of each person’s merits before God. So that it does not mean, as some of the Reformers and Jansenists held, that God chooses for salvation those whom he wills independent of their free co-operation with his grace. The divine election, on Catholic principles, recognizes true human freedom in responding to the will of God”.

Isn’t this like “having your cake and eating too”? I believe that Saint Paul in Romans 8:29-30 is saying that all Christians have been chosen beforehand by God. I believe for Divine Election the better choice for Scripture would be Genesis 25 and Romans 9. Am I correct?

That you’ve drawn “elements of process theism” from my comments is not due to my comments but your inability to draw proper distinctions.

You are completely wrong. It’s your inability to draw proper distinctions.

You claim that:
Which leads to such absurd ideas as God being so “omnipotent” so as to create a rock which He cannot lift or a square circle. Or in terms of His omniscience for Him to create a circumstance which He could not know. Or that God can sin or act immorally.

Or in terms of salvation saving persons who refuse to be saved.

For God to limit Himself is in no way a diminution of His power but instead presupposes His omnipotence.

I completely agree with you. I was wrong to put that sentence in my post. The ideas about the rock etc are nonsense. One thing I have learned about omnipotence is to be careful when using the term.

I suggest that you cease whatever this is you are attempting to do.

You have said this to me before. This is a philosophical debate and people are going to post challenging statements. I would hope that we all learn something from this forum. I most certainly have including learning from your posts. Our religious positions do need to be challenged so that we can evangelise more effectively.

 

[Megan7]

Another “by the way”:
I don’t know the extent of your study of the Summa, but I encourage you to continue; be his student so you know everything the way he knew it, know yourself the way he describes you, so when he talks of your soul, you know in yourself what he is meaning, etc.
If you are still discerning about seminary, I encourage you to continue - I see from your posts both the concern for truth and the caring for people and the desire for yourself to fulfill in act the virtues that were granted to you in Baptism.
I just finished the Summa a month ago, 4 years after becoming Catholic, and I find St Thomas’ expression of reality has become my own, to such a degree that even using my own words they still can express Thomas’ meaning. And I have come to know my own soul, my will, my passions, my concupiscence, my faith.
All the best to you.

John Martin

Hi John,

Thanks for your post. May I ask, how long did it take you to read the Summa? How much
did you read each day, until you finally understood it all? Is there a short version to give to a beginner, someone not well versed in scripture, at least to get them started?
Do all Seminarians read this?
And finally, what is the youngest age you would recommend this to, High School or College? May our Lord Bless you.
Thank you