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

[arte]

There is no mention of “Limbo” in the Bible, but the Catholic Church never claimed there was.

108 Still, the **Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.”**73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”74

The insistence on actual, specific mention in the Bible for every teaching is ridiculous. The lack of mention does not imply that a teaching is somehow flawed. All Church teaching is seriously considered in the light of scripture and tradition and arises out of this consideration. There are a multitude of teachings not specified in the Bible in many Christian denominations. There are many direct teachings of the Bible which are not accepted by the Christian Churches which hold a literal interpretation of scripture.

The question on Limbo does nothing to dispute the idea that the Bible is inerrant.

Cont’d

Other important quotes from the Report:

In the fifth century, St. Augustine concluded that infants who die without baptism **were consigned to hell. **By the 13th century, theologians referred to the “limbo of infants” as a place where unbaptised babies were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know what they were deprived of.

The commission said hopefulness was not the same as certainty about the destiny of such infants. ** It must be clearly acknowledged that the church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die,"**

From all of the above our Church can only express ** HOPE ** and not a firm positive statement that the unbaptised infants will go to Heaven. Our Church can only express hope because of the belief in Original Sin and that Original Sin is transmitted through time to all babies. That a Saint in the 5th century stated the babies end up in hell “makes me shiver” but you can see that over time, our Church quite rightly has to change its teachings. It is completely ridiculous to believe that a baby is born with sin on its soul. From my research, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Protestant Church (yes the “Proddies” again) believe in Original Sin but do not believe that the guilt from the Sin is inherited. They believe that unbaptised babies who die go straight to Heaven. I firmly believe that this is the case.

I completely agree with you that the insistence on actual, specific mention in the Bible for every teaching is ridiculous. I knew when I wrote my reply to bisco that I was “sending him on a wild goose chase” to find a Biblical reference for Limbo. “Sorry bisco.” I also completely agree with your post especially the part I have put in bold: “All Church teaching is seriously considered in the light of scripture and tradition and arises out of this consideration. There are a multitude of teachings not specified in the Bible in many Christian denominations. **There are many direct teachings of the Bible which are not accepted by the Christian Churches which hold a literal interpretation of scripture”. **These Churches are normally “born again” fundamentalist Christian Churches and can be very anti Catholic. Notwithstanding what I said above on Original Sin, I firmly believe our Church does a much better job on teachings than any other Christian denominations.

Whilst I believe that the Bible is not inerrant, you are correct in saying: “The question on Limbo does nothing to dispute the idea that the Bible is inerrant”.

 

[Amandil]

Nothing but the fallacy of personal incredulity spiced with language which is an obvious appeal to emotion.

 

[simpleas]

Cont’d

Other important quotes from the Report:

In the fifth century, St. Augustine concluded that infants who die without baptism **were consigned to hell. **By the 13th century, theologians referred to the “limbo of infants” as a place where unbaptised babies were deprived of the vision of God, but did not suffer because they did not know what they were deprived of.

The commission said hopefulness was not the same as certainty about the destiny of such infants. ** It must be clearly acknowledged that the church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die,"**

From all of the above our Church can only express ** HOPE ** and not a firm positive statement that the unbaptised infants will go to Heaven. Our Church can only express hope because of the belief in Original Sin and that Original Sin is transmitted through time to all babies. That a Saint in the 5th century stated the babies end up in hell “makes me shiver” but you can see that over time, our Church quite rightly has to change its teachings. It is completely ridiculous to believe that a baby is born with sin on its soul. From my research, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Protestant Church (yes the “Proddies” again) believe in Original Sin but do not believe that the guilt from the Sin is inherited. They believe that unbaptised babies who die go straight to Heaven. I firmly believe that this is the case.

I completely agree with you that the insistence on actual, specific mention in the Bible for every teaching is ridiculous. I knew when I wrote my reply to bisco that I was “sending him on a wild goose chase” to find a Biblical reference for Limbo. “Sorry bisco.” I also completely agree with your post especially the part I have put in bold: “All Church teaching is seriously considered in the light of scripture and tradition and arises out of this consideration. There are a multitude of teachings not specified in the Bible in many Christian denominations. **There are many direct teachings of the Bible which are not accepted by the Christian Churches which hold a literal interpretation of scripture”. **These Churches are normally “born again” fundamentalist Christian Churches and can be very anti Catholic. Notwithstanding what I said above on Original Sin, I firmly believe our Church does a much better job on teachings than any other Christian denominations.

Whilst I believe that the Bible is not inerrant, you are correct in saying: “The question on Limbo does nothing to dispute the idea that the Bible is inerrant”.

We don’t believe we inherit Adams guilt either…do we?

O.S is a state past on from Adam, not a sin. So no one is born a sinner, they are “normal” beings, just as God intended.

Baptism once held a prayer of exorcism I believe, because satan was believed to have pocession of a new soul. That maybe why belief that if a child died before baptism they would go to hell. We have moved on from that mind set, thank God.

 

[chefmomster2]

We don’t believe we inherit Adams guilt either…do we?

O.S is a state past on from Adam, not a sin. So no one is born a sinner, they are “normal” beings, just as God intended.

Baptism once held a prayer of exorcism I believe, because satan was believed to have pocession of a new soul. That maybe why belief that if a child died before baptism they would go to hell. We have moved on from that mind set, thank God.

CCC 1237 Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate. The celebrant then anoints him with the oil of catechumens, or lays his hands on him, and he explicitly renounces Satan. Thus prepared, he is able to confess the faith of the Church, to which he will be “entrusted” by Baptism.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I don’t think saying that unless we repent and listen and do the will of God we will end up in hell and separated from him forever is doing anyone a dis-service. I believe it is our job to help one another have as much knowledge of God we can and help them to get things right with God, the same way we want them to help us. Help each other is how we should do it.

But while we are told by Christ to point out a brother who’s souls is in great danger, its our hope and wish to help them.

By telling someone this is not allowed by the Church and the commandment of God is by no means saying someone is going to hell. No Catholic would ever do that.

But we must teach especially our Children right from wrong. Its our job, and the will of God that all repent sin, and come to him.

But unfortunately with free will, the will of God is not always chosen.

You wrote, “But unfortunately with free will, the will of God is not always chosen.”

Since it is written, “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.”

Is it also because of free will that many think that “God’s will coming to Fruition” is impossible?

Just because we can’t “see” how God could possibly have everyone come to God without interferring with their free will does NOT mean that God doesn’t know how.

“They have eyes but do not see, they have ears but do not hear”.

Divine Mercy and Divine Justice are so intertwined as to be One.

Sure does seem as if some think that some will receive Divine Justice, as sick as their beliefs of just what Divine Justice is and that some will receive Divine Mercy.

As much as some might wish they could, no one can slice and dice God.

Just as God Is a Trinity and yet One, it follows that there is not a God of Divine Mercy and also a God of Divine Justice.

 

[Tom_Baum]

The quote from Vico was one in which the Church anathematized or excommunicated those who taught that the judgment of hell is not eternal. He is quoting a teaching from the Council which is very much on point for this topic. He is not cursing you personally.

The Church and most especially her Bishops are the guardians of the faith. She must safeguard the correct teachings revealed by God.

Not at all! But mercy can be attained up until the moment of death and not after that point. See this doctrine of the RCC taken from the Catechism:

1021 **Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ.**590 The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. the parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul -a destiny which can be different for some and for others.591 [Emphasis added]

As indicated in this teaching, our individual moment of judgment comes in the very moment of death. There is no mercy available between death and this moment of divine judgment. We received all of the graces, mercies, and gifts of God necessary to attain heaven, if that was our desire, during our lives. The moment of death is the literal deadline for reconciling ourselves fully to the Lord.

Certainly we pray for all who have died! We cannot know where they are. But, those in heaven have no need for our prayers and those in hell are beyond our prayers. We pray most particularly for those in purgatory. We hope that they will soon enter into heaven.

Certainly it does! God desires all of mankind to be joined to Him, but even God won’t make that happen either by reneging on free will or in throwing out His justice. He wants us and He wants us to want Him. If our lives have been marked by love of God and love of neighbor and we have consistently sought his mercy through reconciliation during life, we will have made our choice. Our lives will be a huge “Yes!” to God.

Neither does the prayer say force or coerce, or pressure souls into heaven. I believe that there may be very few actually in Hell. (I certainly hope so!) But the time to affirm our faith must be before our death. The prayer asks God to lead those who are not yet on the right path to be converted so that when they die, they can be with Him in heaven.

Remember the bridegroom? When he arrived he took the wise virgins with him, but those who neglected their oil lamps were left behind. We must be ready at an instant! That is expressed clearly and consistently throughout the New Testament.

The Church definitively teaches that Judgment occurs immediately on death and that in that instantaneous judgment we immediately receive our choice: Heaven, Hell or Purgatory.

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification592 or immediately,593-or immediate and everlasting damnation.594(Emphasis added)We must take care to hold faithful to the doctrines of the Church and to interpret our prayers and the Scriptures in that light. We must also not forget that God is a God of Mercy AND Justice. If we err too far on one side and neglect the teachings that instruct us on the other we find ourselves either with a wrathful and persecuting God, or one who forgets all of His promises, desires, and commands like an overindulgent and negligent parent.

As far as " I believe that there may be very few actually in Hell. (I certainly hope so!)"

If there is only one in hell for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and everand ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and…, then the “Will of God” has been thwarted, at least by what is written in the bible and that would mean that there is a “tie” between God and satan which in essence would be a win for satan since, just guessing here, I would think that satan would want at least one, if not more, of those made in the “Image and Likeness of God…” to not be with God.

Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t the breathers called the “Church Militant”?

Just because many of them are waving their white flags doesn’t mean that all of them are.

I will continue to pray for ALL, dead or alive.

And I will continue to take to heart the words of the “O My Jesus” prayer:

“O my Jesus, forgive us our sins,
save us from the fires of hell,
lead all souls to Heaven,
especially those who have most need of your mercy.”

And as I wrote on another post:

"Sounds catholic to me, doesn’t it to you?

Doesn’t seem to be any kind of asterick or an “except for” after “lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy.”, does it?"

I believe that this is a relatively new prayer isn’t it?

Could be that God is trying to get thru to us, as one of my namesakes said, “These are a hard-headed and stiff-necked people”.

As it is written, “There is nothing new under the sun”.

 

[chefmomster2]

If there is only one in hell for ever and ever and…, then the “Will of God” has been thwarted, at least by what is written in the bible and that would mean that there is a “tie” between God and satan which in essence would be a win for satan since, just guessing here, I would think that satan would want at least one, if not more, of those made in the “Image and Likeness of God…” to not be with God.

This is a faulty conclusion. I disagree on these points:* That the salvation of nearly all must mean that God is in collusion with Satan. * That the salvation of all but one of mankind could be a victory for the devil.* That His will could be thwarted.* That Satan could win the battle for mankind.

Consider God’s plan.759 "The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life,"150 to which he calls all men in his Son.

2822 Our Father "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."95 He "is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish."…

A plan born in the Father’s heart. 294 The glory of God consists in the realization of this manifestation and communication of his goodness, for which the world was created. God made us "to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace"…139 The ultimate purpose of creation is that God "who is the creator of all things may at last become “all in all”, thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude."140So, God created us all to come to Him through His Son, to give Him praise and glory, not wishing for any to perish. However, He granted us free will and while this means we may choose not to adore Him, he wouldn’t have it any other way!

1847 "God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."…If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."117

Therefore, if there were only one in hell, that would be glorious! God promised to all of mankind that if we do as He says and remain faithful we will be united with Him in heaven. If all but one is there, His plan is fulfilled. If many are there, it is fulfilled all the same.

Don’t confuse individual free will and God’s plan for salvation. Despite the sinful choices we make every day, God’s plan will be completed according to His will. Some may not participate in our final salvation due to unrepented mortal sin, but God’s ultimate plan will succeed.

312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: “It was not you”, said Joseph to his brothers, "who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive."…

2824 In Christ, and through his human will, the will of the Father has been perfectly fulfilled once for all.

2853 Victory over the "prince of this world"169 was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life.

Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t the breathers called the “Church Militant”?

I am familiar with the term Church Militant. It is one of the three traditional divisions of the Christianity: Church militant, Church Triumphant and Church Repentant. Church Militant includes Christians who are alive on earth, Church Triumphant is the souls in Heaven, and Church Repentant is made up of the Christians being purified in Purgatory. I have no idea what “breathers” means.

Just because many of them are waving their white flags doesn’t mean that all of them are.

Sorry. I don’t know what you are referring to.

I will continue to pray for ALL, dead or alive.

I never suggested that you shouldn’t. I do it all the time. My point was that the prayer cannot be used to assert that those in hell can still be saved.

And I will continue to take to heart the words of the “O My Jesus” prayer:
“O my Jesus, forgive us our sins,
save us from the fires of hell,
lead all souls to Heaven,
especially those who have most need of your mercy.”

Absolutely! It is a wonderful prayer. Again I was merely stating that this is a prayer for those who are in Purgatory whose time there can be reduced by our sacrifices for them, and those of us alive who always need His mercy.

"Sounds catholic to me, doesn’t it to you?

What exactly are you referring to? I am not questioning the beauty or holiness of this prayer. I am disagreeing with your personal interpretation of its wording in your previous post. Those are vastly different things.

Doesn’t seem to be any kind of asterick or an “except for” after “lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy.”, does it?"

Certainly God in His mercy can lead souls of the Church Militant and the Church Repentent.

I believe that this is a relatively new prayer isn’t it?

It depends upon your definition of “new”. It is thought to have been the work of a disfigured monk named Hermannus Contractus who died in 1054. That was about 500 years before the Council of Trent.

Just to clarify:

I believe…

• that if a person dies with unrepented mortal sin, the time for conversion is over, which is the Church teaching. They will be placed, by their choice, in Hell.
• that we cannot know how many people are in Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory.
• that God wishes to save us all, but that some, none or even many may not be converted before death.

 

[arte]

Nothing but the fallacy of personal incredulity spiced with language which is an obvious appeal to emotion.

**Definition of fallacy: ** There are many definitions for the word fallacy. I’ll choose 3 definitions: a false assumption; a false notion, a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.

Several “false assumptions” is the term used by some Christian organisations to discredit the Theory of Evolution.

I have always supported my disbelief of Original Sin and its transmission to all mankind with sound arguments so your use of the term “fallacy” is incorrect.

**Definition of incredulity: ** religious disbelief, lack of faith.
These terms are used by some Christians as a “back stop” when everything else has failed in their arguments to discredit the Theory of Evolution. Basically, “it’s in the Bible so it must be true”.

OK, you could say that I do show religious disbelief or a lack of faith. I do not believe in Adam and Eve and Original Sin so the transmission of Original Sin to all humans throughout time is a completely false doctrine for me. Even if I believed in Original Sin, I would still not believe that it ripples through time to all humans. We did not commit the Original Sin and therefore we are born with NO SIN on our souls. All perfectly logical to anyone who can remove their blinkers of religious dogma for a second or two.

This is not the first time in a reply to one of my posts that you have said words to the effect: **“spiced with language which is an obvious appeal to emotion” ** You used similar language when I posted a reply concerning children going to hell. All my religious disbeliefs count for nothing compared to your lack of empathy for your fellow man. Because of your lack of empathy for your fellow man, I am beginning to doubt that you are even a Christian let alone a Catholic Christian. You show no empathy in your post for the parents who have lost a baby believing that they may never see their baby again because their baby was not baptised before death. The International Theological Commission produced a document titled: “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” on 19 January 2007. From the Introduction in the Document: Parents experience great grief and feelings of guilt when they do not have the moral assurance of the salvation of their children. Am I still appealing to emotion?

 

[Kurisu35712]

**Definition of fallacy: ** There are many definitions for the word fallacy. I’ll choose 3 definitions: a false assumption; a false notion, a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.

In this instance, I believe Amandil was using “fallacy” to refer to a logical fallacy, as in a common instance of faulty logic or appeal. Not necessarily anything to do with one’s beliefs or assertions, simply the format of their argument. Such as how a strawman fallacy is a commonly used tactic in discrediting the opposing side of a debate, but is not logically sound or is somehow unrelated to the topic when examined.

OK, you could say that I do show religious disbelief or a lack of faith. I do not believe in Adam and Eve and Original Sin so the transmission of Original Sin to all humans throughout time is a completely false doctrine for me. Even if I believed in Original Sin, I would still not believe that it ripples through time to all humans. We did not commit the Original Sin and therefore we are born with NO SIN on our souls. All perfectly logical to anyone who can remove their blinkers of religious dogma for a second or two.

As has been explained in previous posts, Original Sin is NOT a conscious sin anyone currently living has committed, and is not “sin” as commonly defined to be a choice opposing God’s will. Original Sin refers to the state of humanity as a species fallen from Grace. Original Sin is not some venial or mortal sin applied to our souls, as you seem to interpret it. It is not a “sin” in the way you are defining it. It is simply the term used to describe our disconnect with God, and also covers the reason we suffer from sickness, pain, and physical death in this life. Original Sin refers only to our fallen and imperfect mortal state, not some kind of sin we need to confess. The reason we have Baptism is to restore that grace which was lost to us. Through Baptism, we are given back our supernatural connection to God and his Grace in this life.

This is not the first time in a reply to one of my posts that you have said words to the effect: **“spiced with language which is an obvious appeal to emotion” ** You used similar language when I posted a reply concerning children going to hell. All my religious disbeliefs count for nothing compared to your lack of empathy for your fellow man. Because of your lack of empathy for your fellow man, I am beginning to doubt that you are even a Christian let alone a Catholic Christian. You show no empathy in your post for the parents who have lost a baby believing that they may never see their baby again because their baby was not baptised before death. The International Theological Commission produced a document titled: “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” on 19 January 2007. From the Introduction in the Document: Parents experience great grief and feelings of guilt when they do not have the moral assurance of the salvation of their children. Am I still appealing to emotion?

I cannot speak for Amandil or any of his words or their intended meanings, but, again as has already been stated in this thread, Catholics neither believe nor teach that children are sent to Hell (or limbo) simply for not being baptized. If I’m remembering the post by Amandil that you’re referring to, his point was simply that no soul in Hell is a child, as one must choose Hell. Hell and mortal sin require a free will choice, and Amandil’s point was that children are not capable of making such choices, and anyone who is in Hell is an immortal soul, not a mortal child. If I recall correctly, unbaptized children are mentioned in Dante’s Inferno. This was a piece of political commentary, not a doctrinal statement. Catholic’s do not believe that babies or children go to Hell.

 

[Kurisu35712]

While I’m on a roll here, I feel like I should (name removed by moderator)ut my understanding of Hell, based partly on this thread and others, as well as personal study and my knowledge of Catholic doctrine. It’s probably going to be very rambling, so please point out any errors if you find any.

For starters, Hell is not a place God sends us for being bad, and I believe it was Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI who discussed Hell being a “state” one’s soul is in after death, rather than a literal location. I understand this as meaning that Hell is described as being a place of unimaginable torture and suffering. At first glance, this seems to insinuate that there is a place that God sends people where they are standing in fire forever and ever and ever. This interpretation is very literal, and is also incorrect. It is a somewhat immature understanding of Hell, sin, and the afterlife in general. Hell is analogized to a fiery furnace.

This does not mean Hell is a literal fiery furnace. However, to understand the analogy, one must consider descriptions of the Holy Spirit, God’s love for us, Purgatory, etc. All of these very positive things are also described using fire. The Holy Spirit sets our faith on fire for God, God’s love is like an all-consuming fire (also passion as a general term is described similarly), Purgatory is a place of purging fire (including metaphors for the smelting and purification of precious metals), and many other examples. The Holy Spirit appeared as tongues of fire. The Burning Bush. Fire is a very prevalent image throughout the Bible, and mostly for good things.

Many Saints described God’s presence and Love as feeling overwhelming and like a fire, yet all of these things were implied to be good and powerful experiences. To someone who loves God and makes their goal to be with Him in the next life, this fire is a source of comfort, light, warmth, energy, life, etc. It then logically follows that, to someone who rejects God, who claims to hate God, and who wants nothing to do with Him or His Plan, that this all-consuming fire of love is a source of pain, regret, sorrow, anger, and resentment. This same fire that, in the saints and angels, is reflected and illuminates the beauty of God’s Creation, to one opposed to God, exposes all of the things they hate about themselves deep down. With the Holy Spirit, our faults and sins are burned away, and we are supported and comforted when forced to confront the things that bring us shame. For someone who does not accept the Holy Spirit, this illumination forces them to see and confront the worst parts of themselves, and this light and fire comes to be a source of torment and judgement.

In rejecting the love and mercy of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one consigns oneself to Hell. This is the unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The rejection of God’s mercy and love does not mean one is not going to face judgement for one’s sins. The rejection of Mercy, the lack of contrition for our sins, is what condemns a soul to Hell. Hell is a decision on our part, not God’s.

The reason Hell is torment for all eternity is the same reason Heaven is joy for all eternity. One cannot escape from God’s Love. The fire that gives warmth and light and joy and life to those in Heaven brings pain and torment and sorrow to those in Hell. Those in Hell want darkness to hide their sin and guilt. But in Hell, those sins are brought to light for all eternity, and since they did not accept God’s love and forgiveness, they cannot escape from their own choices.

The fire of God’s love is an eternal reminder for the damned that the God they want nothing to do with still loves them, and they cannot escape it. I would reason that the souls in Hell cannot get out, not because they want to be in Hell necessarily, but because they do not want to be with God more. They cannot get out because they will not choose to get out. And in this instance there isn’t a hypothetical choice of maybe they do want to now, because had they wanted to be in Heaven, they would have had contrition for their sins in this life or at the time of their death. We cannot know what happens to a person’s soul as they die. Which is why we cannot say who is in Hell. But Hell requires a conscious choice.

Hell is eternal torment because it is eternal rejection of God and His love. The punishment in Hell is, in my understanding, self-inflicted torment. It is so because it is a state of being in opposition to the Source of all Life. It is essentially a state of being eternally against what one was created for, which is to love and glorify God. My response to the OP is that God doesn’t have to relent on the punishment in Hell, as God is not the one doing the punishment, He’s simply confirming what we chose. And if we choose to be away from Him, understanding that that means an eternity in Hell, He will respect that choice.

 

[Amandil]

**Definition of fallacy: ** There are many definitions for the word fallacy. I’ll choose 3 definitions: a false assumption; a false notion, a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.

Several “false assumptions” is the term used by some Christian organisations to discredit the Theory of Evolution.

At least you refer to it as a “theory”.

The theory of evolution follows the fallacy of confusing similarity with descent, its a kind of cum hoc(false correlation) fallacy.

arte:

I have always supported my disbelief of Original Sin and its transmission to all mankind with sound arguments so your use of the term “fallacy” is incorrect.

The only “sound argument” you provided is based upon your personal subjective belief that it is “ridiculous”. No real reasons as to why.

arte:

**Definition of incredulity: ** religious disbelief, lack of faith.

I have no idea where you even get your “definitions” since you didn’t even bother to cite it.

Incredulity simply means: a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real.

arte:

These terms are used by some Christians as a “back stop” when everything else has failed in their arguments to discredit the Theory of Evolution. Basically, “it’s in the Bible so it must be true”.

I find it quite remarkable that you have basically canonized what you yourself explicitly call a “theory”, while in the same breath you demythologize, if not outright trash, the Word of God in the Scriptures which the Church, the Church you profess to believe in at every Mass, says are “inspired and inerrant”(which you also reject).

arte:

OK, you could say that I do show religious disbelief or a lack of faith. I do not believe in Adam and Eve and Original Sin so the transmission of Original Sin to all humans throughout time is a completely false doctrine for me. Even if I believed in Original Sin, I would still not believe that it ripples through time to all humans. We did not commit the Original Sin and therefore we are born with NO SIN on our souls. All perfectly logical to anyone who can remove their blinkers of religious dogma for a second or two.

The level of ignorance of reality this displays is remarkable as well.

Setting aside even what Paul wrote in Romans 5(which you seemed to ignore and refused to address), there are obvious examples of everyday life:

1)Original Sin is supremely self-evident in the fact that we all die.
2)Original Sin is evident in the fact that every one does sin. No one who has ever lived(save for Christ Who is God and the BVM by a singular act of grace from God) has ever loved perfectly so as to never sin.
3)If sin is selfishness, then yes, even infants and toddlers have demonstrated Original Sin in their tendency to possess and dominate through self-will(as when they hoard toys or lie to stay out of trouble).

arte:

This is not the first time in a reply to one of my posts that you have said words to the effect: **“spiced with language which is an obvious appeal to emotion” ** You used similar language when I posted a reply concerning children going to hell. All my religious disbeliefs count for nothing compared to your lack of empathy for your fellow man. Because of your lack of empathy for your fellow man, I am beginning to doubt that you are even a Christian let alone a Catholic Christian. You show no empathy in your post for the parents who have lost a baby believing that they may never see their baby again because their baby was not baptised before death. The International Theological Commission produced a document titled: “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized” on 19 January 2007. From the Introduction in the Document: Parents experience great grief and feelings of guilt when they do not have the moral assurance of the salvation of their children. Am I still appealing to emotion?

No, now you’re committing an ad-hominum, attacking me and my supposed “lack of empathy”.

You clearly have nothing beneficial or anything of substance to add, so for your sake I’ll end the discussion here.

 

[Amandil]

As has been explained in previous posts, Original Sin is NOT a conscious sin anyone currently living has committed, and is not “sin” as commonly defined to be a choice opposing God’s will. Original Sin refers to the state of humanity as a species fallen from Grace. Original Sin is not some venial or mortal sin applied to our souls, as you seem to interpret it. It is not a “sin” in the way you are defining it. It is simply the term used to describe our disconnect with God, and also covers the reason we suffer from sickness, pain, and physical death in this life. Original Sin refers only to our fallen and imperfect mortal state, not some kind of sin we need to confess. The reason we have Baptism is to restore that grace which was lost to us. Through Baptism, we are given back our supernatural connection to God and his Grace in this life.

Correct.

I cannot speak for Amandil or any of his words or their intended meanings, but, again as has already been stated in this thread, Catholics neither believe nor teach that children are sent to Hell (or limbo) simply for not being baptized. If I’m remembering the post by Amandil that you’re referring to, his point was simply that no soul in Hell is a child, as one must choose Hell. Hell and mortal sin require a free will choice, and Amandil’s point was that children are not capable of making such choices, and anyone who is in Hell is an immortal soul, not a mortal child.

I’m saying that no soul enters eternity as a “baby” but as a soul who has made some choice, ether for God or against Him, and has been judged on that choice. They will not be resurrected on the Last Day as “babies” but as full humans with their bodies to either receive the reward of heaven or the punishment of hell.

What that choice is we do not know, only God does. And whether they be saved or condemned we are required to accept God’s will in whatever destiny they receive.

If I recall correctly, unbaptized children are mentioned in Dante’s Inferno. This was a piece of political commentary, not a doctrinal statement. Catholic’s do not believe that babies or children go to Hell.

I don’t presume, and neither does the Church, to say either. That’s why at best we can have hope that they are saved. We can pray that they be saved, there is even strong Scriptural support that they are(Matt 19:14), but again this is providentially up to God.

arte’s only use for such an appeal to emotion is to elicit an emotional response from his readers. He shows this in his ad-hominum attack against me, accusing me of lacking empathy and questioning my faith in the process because I have the gall to be a faithful son of the Church and challenge his, frankly, heretical beliefs.

I have no doubt as to who will be vindicated.

 

[arte]

We don’t believe we inherit Adams guilt either…do we?

O.S is a state past on from Adam, not a sin. So no one is born a sinner, they are “normal” beings, just as God intended.

Baptism once held a prayer of exorcism I believe, because satan was believed to have pocession of a new soul. That maybe why belief that if a child died before baptism they would go to hell. We have moved on from that mind set, thank God.

CCC 1237 Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate. The celebrant then anoints him with the oil of catechumens, or lays his hands on him, and he explicitly renounces Satan. Thus prepared, he is able to confess the faith of the Church, to which he will be “entrusted” by Baptism.

Hi simpleas and chefmomster2

So simpleas you are now saying that Original Sin is not transmitted through time to all babies. It’s a “state” past on from Adam and “not a sin”. So, babies are born without any sin on their souls but they possess this “state” passed on to them from Adam. Are you therefore saying that as a descendant from Adam, this “inherited state” means that we like Adam have the capacity to sin? However, Satan “was believed” to have possession of all new souls. The “was believed” is in the past tense which is backed up by “That maybe why belief that if a child died before baptism they would go to hell. We have moved on from that mind set, thank God”. So, we’ve moved on from that mind set which means that babies are now born with no sin and no interference from Satan which would cause them to go to hell. This all sounds good to me so far.

Unfortunately, along comes chefmomster2, who by the way agrees with your post simpleas:thumbsup:, but quotes from CCC 1237: “Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate. The celebrant then anoints him with the oil of catechumens, or lays his hands on him, and he explicitly renounces Satan”. So, chefmomster2 you are now saying that the baby does have a sin on its soul which is “liberated” (set free) by Baptism and also “liberated from Satan” by doing “an exorcism or two”. To me it looks like we are still in the 5th Century AD and having to exorcise babies during Baptism to prevent them going to hell.

.

 

[glendab]

Hello Tom.

As far as " I believe that there may be very few actually in Hell. (I certainly hope so!)"

If there is only one in hell for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and everand ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and…, then the “Will of God” has been thwarted, at least by what is written in the bible and that would mean that there is a “tie” between God and satan which in essence would be a win for satan since, just guessing here, I would think that satan would want at least one, if not more, of those made in the “Image and Likeness of God…” to not be with God.

Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t the breathers called the “Church Militant”?

Just because many of them are waving their white flags doesn’t mean that all of them are.

I will continue to pray for ALL, dead or alive.

And I will continue to take to heart the words of the “O My Jesus” prayer:

“O my Jesus, forgive us our sins,
save us from the fires of hell,
lead all souls to Heaven,
especially those who have most need of your mercy.”

And as I wrote on another post:

"Sounds catholic to me, doesn’t it to you?

Doesn’t seem to be any kind of asterick or an “except for” after “lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy.”, does it?"

I believe that this is a relatively new prayer isn’t it?

Could be that God is trying to get thru to us, as one of my namesakes said, “These are a hard-headed and stiff-necked people”.

As it is written, “There is nothing new under the sun”.

I am glad you brought up the topic of the little prayer the children were given by our Lady of Fatima once again. Unfortunately the interpretation you give it isn’t valid. In no way is the Mother of God saying that which you read into the prayer - that souls can and will be saved from Hell after death. The Queen of Heaven cannot nor will not ever endorse anything that is outside of Church teaching in any way, shape or form. One of the things that happens after she appears and gives instruction or specific directions or in this case, prayers to anyone, those things get scrutinized for error under the strictest circumstances. This is to protect the faithful from anything that may injure their faith in any way and also to authenticate the actual event. Without this scrutiny, anyone could say they saw the Mother of God and demand many things and injure many trusting souls. This cannot happen and the Church determines the difference between the weeds and the wheat. Our Lady would never come to us to sow weeds among the wheat.

Perhaps it would help you understand the prayer’s purpose: it was given by the Mother of God as a gift and an instruction and one of the benefits of praying this particular prayer as a little ejaculatory prayer in distress or temptation or by adding it as millions have, to their Rosary devotions,* it works against the sin of presumption on the living *in reminding them that no one has a guarantee of getting out of Hell free. If even those children who had seen the Mother of God needed to be warned about the possibility of Hell, and I believe it was Francisco who was specifically warned by the Mother of God about his not being capable of going to Heaven until he had prayed “many Rosaries” for he had committed a mortal sin in his short life already. He had much reparation to make for his transgression. All of these things that occurred at Fatima fly in the face of what to me, is *the sin of the age *we are in and that particular sin is PRESUMPTION. It really is a devastating sin because it tells you you have no sin and shouldn’t seek Mercy. It turns many away from the Sacramental healing of a good Confession that only comes in that means and by that Sacrament. But I don’t want to get on my soap box about that in this thread. However, I do think that much of your particular problem with the Church’s teaching about Hell stems from a presumptive attitude Tom. Please don’t take that as an insult. It isn’t meant that way. These words are simply my observations of your own self-disclosure. However I see in your words the sin of presumption spelled out very clearly. Your sharing so openly and boldly shows others what happens after one gets “saved” by presumption. When people read things here they change their minds about stuff whether or no they comment about the things we type. It has an effect.

Okie dokie, Tom. So, the prayer you mention isn’t an admission at all that Hell isn’t eternal. It is a prophetic warning against presumption given to us by the Queen of Heaven through three little children at a place called Fatima. It should be prayed by everyone.

Glenda

 

[Tom_Baum]

Hello Tom.

I am glad you brought up the topic of the little prayer the children were given by our Lady of Fatima once again. Unfortunately the interpretation you give it isn’t valid. In no way is the Mother of God saying that which you read into the prayer - that souls can and will be saved from Hell after death. The Queen of Heaven cannot nor will not ever endorse anything that is outside of Church teaching in any way, shape or form. One of the things that happens after she appears and gives instruction or specific directions or in this case, prayers to anyone, those things get scrutinized for error under the strictest circumstances. This is to protect the faithful from anything that may injure their faith in any way and also to authenticate the actual event. Without this scrutiny, anyone could say they saw the Mother of God and demand many things and injure many trusting souls. This cannot happen and the Church determines the difference between the weeds and the wheat. Our Lady would never come to us to sow weeds among the wheat.

Perhaps it would help you understand the prayer’s purpose: it was given by the Mother of God as a gift and an instruction and one of the benefits of praying this particular prayer as a little ejaculatory prayer in distress or temptation or by adding it as millions have, to their Rosary devotions,* it works against the sin of presumption on the living *in reminding them that no one has a guarantee of getting out of Hell free. If even those children who had seen the Mother of God needed to be warned about the possibility of Hell, and I believe it was Francisco who was specifically warned by the Mother of God about his not being capable of going to Heaven until he had prayed “many Rosaries” for he had committed a mortal sin in his short life already. He had much reparation to make for his transgression. All of these things that occurred at Fatima fly in the face of what to me, is *the sin of the age *we are in and that particular sin is PRESUMPTION. It really is a devastating sin because it tells you you have no sin and shouldn’t seek Mercy. It turns many away from the Sacramental healing of a good Confession that only comes in that means and by that Sacrament. But I don’t want to get on my soap box about that in this thread. However, I do think that much of your particular problem with the Church’s teaching about Hell stems from a presumptive attitude Tom. Please don’t take that as an insult. It isn’t meant that way. These words are simply my observations of your own self-disclosure. However I see in your words the sin of presumption spelled out very clearly. Your sharing so openly and boldly shows others what happens after one gets “saved” by presumption. When people read things here they change their minds about stuff whether or no they comment about the things we type. It has an effect.

Okie dokie, Tom. So, the prayer you mention isn’t an admission at all that Hell isn’t eternal. It is a prophetic warning against presumption given to us by the Queen of Heaven through three little children at a place called Fatima. It should be prayed by everyone.

Glenda

As far as “PRESUMPTION” goes, as far as I know you have never met me and some of what you say is not just “PRESUMPTION” but is an outright twistation of what I am saying.

Seems to me that I must not be very clear when I write some of what I write since some seem to read into it what is not there but that they presume to be there.

I am not saying that you do not see some of what I write but, most definitely, not all and you also seem to see things that I don’t write.

I have NEVER put down the Sacrament of Confession, if fact I have written that I believe that it is a wonderful gift from God to us.

However, I do NOT think/believe that that is the ONLY way of forgiveness and I would say that the Church does NOT either because then pretty much only BAPTISED CATHOLICS would even have a chance to get to the “good place”, this is NOT a teaching or belief of the Church.

Not only does the Church speak of non-Catholic Christians but it also speaks of non-Christians as not only having a “chance” but also of being a “member” of the “Church”.

As far as “lead all souls to heaven…”, sounds pretty simple and straightforward to me, it does NOT say “lead ALL souls in purgatory…”, it does NOT say “lead ALL souls that are destined for heaven to…”, it simply says, “lead ALL souls to heaven, especially those MOST in need of Thy MERCY”.

“With God ALL things are possible”, I happen to believe that Jesus was trying to say something to us when He said this to the Apostles concerning “who can be saved?”.

I refuse to limit God and I refuse to say I know everything about God and God’s Plan of Salvation, actually, I “know” very little but I do “know” a little.

 

[Tom_Baum]

This is a faulty conclusion. I disagree on these points:* That the salvation of nearly all must mean that God is in collusion with Satan. * That the salvation of all but one of mankind could be a victory for the devil.* That His will could be thwarted.* That Satan could win the battle for mankind.

Consider God’s plan.759 "The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life,"150 to which he calls all men in his Son.

I never said nor implied that “God is in collusion with Satan”, you did.

As far as, “That the salvation of all but one of mankind could be a victory for the devil”, I did say that because for an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God, which is what we have been taught about God, to have a “partial victory”, I see as as a victory for satan, as I said.

Concerning “That His will could be thwarted”, since it clearly says that it is GOD’S WILL THAT ALL BE SAVED, if ALL are not saved, how would you look at it?

As far as saying, “That Satan could win the battle for mankind”, I am not saying that satan won the battle for ALL of mankind but in your scenario God’ WILL that ALL be saved does not come to pass.

2822 Our Father "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."95 He "is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish."…

A plan born in the Father’s heart. 294 The glory of God consists in the realization of this manifestation and communication of his goodness, for which the world was created. God made us "to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace"…139 The ultimate purpose of creation is that God "who is the creator of all things may at last become “all in all”, thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude."140So, God created us all to come to Him through His Son, to give Him praise and glory, not wishing for any to perish. However, He granted us free will and while this means we may choose not to adore Him, he wouldn’t have it any other way!

1847 "God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us."…If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."117

Therefore, if there were only one in hell, that would be glorious! God promised to all of mankind that if we do as He says and remain faithful we will be united with Him in heaven. If all but one is there, His plan is fulfilled. If many are there, it is fulfilled all the same.

You wrote, "Our Father “desires all men to be saved”, “not wishing that any should perish”, “A plan born in the Father’s heart”, "The ultimate purpose of creation is that God “who is the creator of all things may at last become “all in all”, thus simultaneously assuring his own glory and our beatitude” and “So, God created us all to come to Him through His Son, to give Him praise and glory, not wishing for any to perish. However, He granted us free will and while this means we may choose not to adore Him, he wouldn’t have it any other way”

And then you wrote, “Therefore, if there were only one in hell, that would be glorious!”, I don’t think that it would be “glorious” for that “one” in hell, do you?

Also, “God promised to all of mankind that if we do as He says and remain faithful we will be united with Him in heaven. If all but one is there, His plan is fulfilled. If many are there, it is fulfilled all the same”, what you may think of as “God’s Plan” may be fulfilled but what is written of God’s Will, “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth”, most definitely is not fulfilled.

Don’t confuse individual free will and God’s plan for salvation. Despite the sinful choices we make every day, God’s plan will be completed according to His will. Some may not participate in our final salvation due to unrepented mortal sin, but God’s ultimate plan will succeed.

312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: “It was not you”, said Joseph to his brothers, "who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive."…

2824 In Christ, and through his human will, the will of the Father has been perfectly fulfilled once for all.

2853 Victory over the "prince of this world"169 was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life.

You wrote, “Don’t confuse individual free will and God’s plan for salvation.”

If we did not have free will, why would there even be a “need” for God to have a “plan for salvation”?

You also wrote, “In Christ, and through his human will, the will of the Father has been perfectly fulfilled once for all”, since it is God’s Will that ALL be saved than you are saying that ALL WILL BE SAVED, I believe that God’s Will will come to Fruition also.

You then wrote, "Victory over the “prince of this world"169 was won once for all at the Hour when Jesus freely gave himself up to death to give us his life”, as you said, “was won once for all”, I, also, do NOT believe in a tie.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I am familiar with the term Church Militant. It is one of the three traditional divisions of the Christianity: Church militant, Church Triumphant and Church Repentant. Church Militant includes Christians who are alive on earth, Church Triumphant is the souls in Heaven, and Church Repentant is made up of the Christians being purified in Purgatory. I have no idea what “breathers” means.

Sorry. I don’t know what you are referring to.

I never suggested that you shouldn’t. I do it all the time. My point was that the prayer cannot be used to assert that those in hell can still be saved.

Absolutely! It is a wonderful prayer. Again I was merely stating that this is a prayer for those who are in Purgatory whose time there can be reduced by our sacrifices for them, and those of us alive who always need His mercy.

What exactly are you referring to? I am not questioning the beauty or holiness of this prayer. I am disagreeing with your personal interpretation of its wording in your previous post. Those are vastly different things.

Certainly God in His mercy can lead souls of the Church Militant and the Church Repentent.

A “breather” is one who is alive.

A “white flag” stands for surrender, if we are the “Church Militant” just who/what/whatever are we to be “militant” against?

Sometimes I think that the beauty of a prayer lies in the simplicity of the prayer, in other words, could be that a prayer says just what it seems to simply say as opposed to adding something to it.

It depends upon your definition of “new”. It is thought to have been the work of a disfigured monk named Hermannus Contractus who died in 1054. That was about 500 years before the Council of Trent.

Just to clarify:

I believe…

• that if a person dies with unrepented mortal sin, the time for conversion is over, which is the Church teaching. They will be placed, by their choice, in Hell.
• that we cannot know how many people are in Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory.
• that God wishes to save us all, but that some, none or even many may not be converted before death.

I could be wrong but I think that this prayer came to us by way of Fatima and that is also what glendab said in another post, this is “very recent” in the age of the Church.

Just when does a person “die”?

When we decide or God decides that one is dead?

Since as you wrote, “God wishes to save us all”, I am going to pray for and hope for what God’s wishes were/are/will be.

 

[simpleas]

Hi simpleas and chefmomster2

So simpleas you are now saying that Original Sin is not transmitted through time to all babies. It’s a “state” past on from Adam and “not a sin”. So, babies are born without any sin on their souls but they possess this “state” passed on to them from Adam. Are you therefore saying that as a descendant from Adam, this “inherited state” means that we like Adam have the capacity to sin? However, Satan “was believed” to have possession of all new souls. The “was believed” is in the past tense which is backed up by “That maybe why belief that if a child died before baptism they would go to hell. We have moved on from that mind set, thank God”. So, we’ve moved on from that mind set which means that babies are now born with no sin and no interference from Satan which would cause them to go to hell. This all sounds good to me so far.

Unfortunately, along comes chefmomster2, who by the way agrees with your post simpleas:thumbsup:, but quotes from CCC 1237: “Since Baptism signifies liberation from sin and from its instigator the devil, one or more exorcisms are pronounced over the candidate. The celebrant then anoints him with the oil of catechumens, or lays his hands on him, and he explicitly renounces Satan”. So, chefmomster2 you are now saying that the baby does have a sin on its soul which is “liberated” (set free) by Baptism and also “liberated from Satan” by doing “an exorcism or two”. To me it looks like we are still in the 5th Century AD and having to exorcise babies during Baptism to prevent them going to hell.

.

The first section is what I’ve come to think of O.S. I can believe we are in a “state” of being and that through being baptised into Christ, is what gives us extra spiritual power to be able to try to over come alot of lifes issues.
Funny enough I was visiting a village this weekend and the local church there has a grave yard, most all grave stones are 17th century, I came across one, which had many family members in graved and one which stood out was of a child who had died, and they had felt they needed to inform a passer by that the child had died unbaptised. How sad I feel for the people who believed that the child could be lost in spirit. Hope they are reunited now.

But yes, the baptism prayer still holds exorism in any case :

Prayer of Exorcism and Annointing Before Baptism.

After the invocation, the celebrant says:

Almighty and ever-living God, you sent your only Son into the world to cast out the power of Satan, spirit of evil, to rescue man from the kingdom of darkness, and bring him into the splendor of your kingdom of light. We pray for this child: set him (her) free from original sin, make him (her) a temple of your glory, and send your Holy Spirit to dwell with him (her). We ask this through Christ our Lord.

But because Christ was victorious over satan, then the power that he once held over man has been erased.

 

[rinnie]

You wrote, “But unfortunately with free will, the will of God is not always chosen.”

Since it is written, “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.”

Is it also because of free will that many think that “God’s will coming to Fruition” is impossible?

Just because we can’t “see” how God could possibly have everyone come to God without interferring with their free will does NOT mean that God doesn’t know how.

“They have eyes but do not see, they have ears but do not hear”.

Divine Mercy and Divine Justice are so intertwined as to be One.

Sure does seem as if some think that some will receive Divine Justice, as sick as their beliefs of just what Divine Justice is and that some will receive Divine Mercy.

As much as some might wish they could, no one can slice and dice God.

Just as God Is a Trinity and yet One, it follows that there is not a God of Divine Mercy and also a God of Divine Justice.

But what is your point? Are you saying we can sin and do our free will and still get into heaven? How is it possible to do our own free will which if it would be sin, and be okay with God’s will also?

If you are saying we can use our free will to choose to do the will of God and stay our of the state of Sin I totally agree. Our will can and should line up.

But what you seem to be saying is we can still sin and do our own free will, and still believe we can rely on the mercy of God and continue to sin all we want and continue to remain in a state of Grace.

Unless I am totally not getting what you are trying to say, Maybe say it clearer or another way. Thanks.

 

[Amandil]

Aquinas on God’s will:

A6: We might initially think that God’s will must of necessity be fulfilled; after all, whatever could frustrate it? But St. Paul famously wrote that “God wills everyone to be saved and to come to know the truth”, but things do not turn out that way, implying that God’s will can be frustrated. Aquinas affirm that God’s will is inevitably fulfilled, but in doing so he also reaffirms the classical notions of “antecedent will” and "consequent will” in his reply to the objection concerning the failure of universal salvation.

He starts by drawing a parallel between formal and efficient causes. A thing can fail to have a particular form, but it cannot fail to have a form. Likewise something can fail to have a particular efficient cause but it must still have a cause subsumed under the universal first cause. No effect can escape from being under the sway of the universal cause. Therefore, as the universal cause of all things, God’s will must be fulfilled; if His will appears to be frustrated from one point of view, it is in fact fulfilled from another point of view.

To understand the difference between antecedent and consequent will, Aquinas gives the example that it is good in general that people should live and bad for them to die. However, if they turn out to be murderers then it is good that they should be killed. (Our modern sensibilities might wish to replace Aquinas’s example with freedom and incarceration rather than life and execution!) An antecedent will is a sort of willing that is expressed prior to considering all the facts of a particular situation. When all those facts are taken into account, a judgement is expressed in consequent willing. So, the classical tradition is that St Paul’s words are expressing God’s antecedent will rather than His consequent will, where His justice and mercy will be in balance according His revealed promises.

So, as we have repeatedly stated, when Paul expresses God’s will in 1 Timothy that “all men be saved”, this is necessarily a statement before any actual judgment by God and not a necessary or consequential statement affirming universal salvation, as Tom has been presupposing.

This I pose to Tom:

Thomas Aquinas is recognized not only as a Doctor of the Church but as a deeply spiritual, many would even argue that he was a mystic along with Sts. Anthony of Egypt, John of the Cross, and Teresa of Avila among many others. His works are considered the supreme synthesis and epitome of Christian doctrine and tradition.

Is this great Saint “putting God in a box” when his words expressly contradict your interpretation of 1 Timothy and utterly reject your idea of universal salvation, calling it a “failure”?