K
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is it possible that God can relent on the eternal punishment in Hell?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
glendab
Guest
Hello ChainBreaker.
Your reasoning that since God is Love, there must be a different meaning to the Scriptures, isn’t a reliable means for interpretation of Scripture. You have concluded that one Scripture nullifies another. This is common reasoning in the circles of persons who interpret Scripture for themselves. It is dangerous.
God does hate. He most certainly hates Satan and all his minions and those in league with him among the living. Think about that for a while.
Glenda
What gives you the right to interpret the Bible the way you’ve chosen to and claim that it is Church teaching? The Scripture cited is actually a repetition of another Scripture from Genesis. It was part of the teaching of the Church long before Jesus even came as Messiah. It clearly states God’s thoughts and feelings towards Jacob and Esau. It is part of Salvation History and actually happened. It isn’t my single interpretation. Esau was such a man so as to be hated by God. And this consequence is recorded in our Salvation History as a warning to those who tend to presume on God’s Mercy. The italicized portion is my spin on why these facts are recorded in Genesis and used by St. Paul in Romans. These facts are recorded for a reason.I take it that you have a literalistic view of the bible, however God’s nature is love. God is ontologically identical with love, and thus it is logically impossible for God to potentially hate as much as it is impossible for God to potentially cease to exist; neither can God be both identical to love and hate at the same time.
Your interpretation of scripture is necessarily false and it is not the view of the Catholic church.
Your reasoning that since God is Love, there must be a different meaning to the Scriptures, isn’t a reliable means for interpretation of Scripture. You have concluded that one Scripture nullifies another. This is common reasoning in the circles of persons who interpret Scripture for themselves. It is dangerous.
God does hate. He most certainly hates Satan and all his minions and those in league with him among the living. Think about that for a while.
Glenda
T
thinkandmull
Guest
The epistle of Jude says there are people in hell
C
ChainBreaker
Guest
I am not going to debate you because it seems you are unwilling to even address the reasoning put forward. And as for private interpretation, at best you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of. In fact, if you have time you should really speak to a priest about it if you seek the opinion of somebody with more authority on the matter.God does hate. He most certainly hates Satan and all his minions and those in league with him among the living. Think about that for a while.
Glenda
As for Satan, God loves all his creation unconditionally. There is a difference between unconditional love and unconditional salvation if by unconditional salvation you mean that people go to heaven without true repentance. Having said that it really does not matter how evil a human being is, the possibility of salvation is always open to God’s creatures at least in this life precisely because God loves his creation even though they are all sinners.
T
thinkandmull
Guest
If God loved the damned, he would be sorrowful for all eternity. That sounds like a bad story by a bad author
G
glendab
Guest
Hello folks. There seems to be a misunderstanding developing in this thread again about God and His Love and what that means and whether or not God actually hates anyone or anything. So for some light on the subject I give you the following food for thought from the Summa as found at the New Advent website:
Article 3. Whether God reprobates any man?
Objection 1. It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wisdom 11:25): “Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made.” Therefore God reprobates no man.
Objection 2. Further, if God reprobates any man, it would be necessary for reprobation to have the same relation to the reprobates as predestination has to the predestined. But predestination is the cause of the salvation of the predestined. Therefore reprobation will likewise be the cause of the loss of the reprobate. But this false. For it is said (Hosea 13:9): “Destruction is thy own, O Israel; Thy help is only in Me.” God does not, then, reprobate any man.
Objection 3. Further, to no one ought anything be imputed which he cannot avoid. But if God reprobates anyone, that one must perish. For it is said (Ecclesiastes 7:14): “Consider the works of God, that no man can correct whom He hath despised.” Therefore it could not be imputed to any man, were he to perish. But this is false. Therefore God does not reprobate anyone.
On the contrary, It is said (Malachi 1:2-3): “I have loved Jacob, but have hated Esau.”
I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article 1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.
Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good–namely, eternal life–He is said to hate or reprobated them.
Reply to Objection 2. Reprobation differs in its causality from predestination. This latter is the cause both of what is expected in the future life by the predestined–namely, glory–and of what is received in this life–namely, grace. Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present–namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future–namely, eternal punishment. But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace. In this way, the word of the prophet is true–namely, “Destruction is thy own, O Israel.”
Reply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (Question 19, Article 3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.
newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article3
Please keep in mind that the mind of the Church is expressed in St. Thomas’ Replies to the Objections not in the initial Objections. Some try to use the Objections part as if* they *are the mind of the Church. It is an interesting flip, but it is a flop.
Glenda
Article 3. Whether God reprobates any man?
Objection 1. It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wisdom 11:25): “Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made.” Therefore God reprobates no man.
Objection 2. Further, if God reprobates any man, it would be necessary for reprobation to have the same relation to the reprobates as predestination has to the predestined. But predestination is the cause of the salvation of the predestined. Therefore reprobation will likewise be the cause of the loss of the reprobate. But this false. For it is said (Hosea 13:9): “Destruction is thy own, O Israel; Thy help is only in Me.” God does not, then, reprobate any man.
Objection 3. Further, to no one ought anything be imputed which he cannot avoid. But if God reprobates anyone, that one must perish. For it is said (Ecclesiastes 7:14): “Consider the works of God, that no man can correct whom He hath despised.” Therefore it could not be imputed to any man, were he to perish. But this is false. Therefore God does not reprobate anyone.
On the contrary, It is said (Malachi 1:2-3): “I have loved Jacob, but have hated Esau.”
I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article 1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.
Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good–namely, eternal life–He is said to hate or reprobated them.
Reply to Objection 2. Reprobation differs in its causality from predestination. This latter is the cause both of what is expected in the future life by the predestined–namely, glory–and of what is received in this life–namely, grace. Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present–namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future–namely, eternal punishment. But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace. In this way, the word of the prophet is true–namely, “Destruction is thy own, O Israel.”
Reply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (Question 19, Article 3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.
newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article3
Please keep in mind that the mind of the Church is expressed in St. Thomas’ Replies to the Objections not in the initial Objections. Some try to use the Objections part as if* they *are the mind of the Church. It is an interesting flip, but it is a flop.
Glenda
V
Vico
Guest
**Catechism of the Catholic Church…
Does a soul that exists ever cut himself off from the love of God? We are nothing without God, IMO. A person may possibly (though I cannot see how or why) choose to reject God, but God never, ever, rejects…
**29 But this “intimate and vital bond of man to God” (GS 19 § 1) can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man.3 Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.4
3Gaudium et Spes 19 § 1.
4 Cf. GS 19-21; Mt 13:22; Gen 3:8-10; Jon 1:3.
***Gaudium et Spes ***
- The root reason for human dignity lies in man’s call to communion with God. From the very circumstance of his origin man is already invited to converse with God. For man would not exist were he not created by Gods love and constantly preserved by it; and he cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and devotes himself to His Creator. Still, many of our contemporaries have never recognized this intimate and vital link with God, or have explicitly rejected it. Thus atheism must be accounted among the most serious problems of this age, and is deserving of closer examination.
Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion.
C
ChainBreaker
Guest
First of all i would be careful before asserting that everything Aquinas expresses in the summa is necessarily in line with the infallible voice or mind of the church barr any perspective to the contrary. Other perspectives are possible and Molinism is a case in point.Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good–namely, eternal life–He is said to hate or reprobated them.
Please keep in mind that the mind of the Church is expressed in St. Thomas’ Replies to the Objections not in the initial Objections. Some try to use the Objections part as if* they *are the mind of the Church. It is an interesting flip, but it is a flop.
Glenda
Secondly the above quote clearly undermines what you are saying. It clearly says **God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good **
However he goes on to say that He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good–namely, eternal life–He is said to hate or reprobated them.
This clearly does not undermine the belief that God unconditionally loves all his creatures. It simply says that God saves those that he has brought to repentance. This providential activity is defined symbolically as God loving the repentant more than the unrepentant because he brings them to salvation; but again even if you took that literally this does not give one license to say that God does not love all his creatures unconditionally. It also says “He is said to hate or reprobated them”, but again if this is taken literally as real hatred this obviously conflicts with God’s nature which is love. Its like reading in the bible that God is jealous, but its clear that jealously is a moral imperfection and so this cannot be taken literally!!!
The idea that God hates some creatures is purely a symbolic theological representation of God giving to some what he does not give to others, namely salvation.
God does not literally hate anyone as that would be a contradiction of his ontological nature.
You have refuted yourself.
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Chainbreaker.
Thanks for the reply. If you’d like to start this ball rolling again, (the unconditional love of God debate) I’m willing. It is fun. But this thread isn’t about that. Start a new thread and you’ll see me along shortly. I’d love to have it again and again and again till the sin of presumption is dead in all the viewers and debaters at CAF and beyond.
Glenda
Thanks for the reply. If you’d like to start this ball rolling again, (the unconditional love of God debate) I’m willing. It is fun. But this thread isn’t about that. Start a new thread and you’ll see me along shortly. I’d love to have it again and again and again till the sin of presumption is dead in all the viewers and debaters at CAF and beyond.
Glenda
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Chainbreaker.
Esau was a real man and he fell and earned God’s hatred. He most likely is in Hell. It is a literal thing. Hell is real and it has many in it because of a dangerous sin called presumption.
No. St. Thomas is correct. So am I. But I’m no expert. Take Thomas’ word for it - God does hate some men.
Glenda
Scripture is the Word of God. It is alive and more powerful than any word you or I could write. It clearly says: "As it is written: ‘I loved Jacob but hated Esau.’ Roman 9:13. That is God talking about hating a person, Esau. These words found in Scripture have more impact than St. Thomas Aquinas’ and he is a Doctor of the Church. Don’t equivocate this important difference away. St. Thomas says: He is said to hate or reprobated them. That is God St. Thomas means. It shows that God does hate persons, therefore He stopped loving them and this is a result of their sins. His Justice requires it. One Attribute of the Divine Nature cannot out weigh another. They are compatible and complementary. God is One in Three and this is part of the Mystery of the correct understanding of God and His Divine Attributes and Nature. Just because God loves doesn’t mean He cannot stop loving a person. That is wishful thinking on the part of man and places a limit upon God and His perfect Justice.…It clearly says **God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good **…However he goes on to say that He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good–namely, eternal life–He is said to hate or reprobated them…The idea that God hates some creatures is purely a symbolic theological representation of God giving to some what he does not give to others, namely salvation…God does not literally hate anyone as that would be a contradiction of his ontological nature…
Esau was a real man and he fell and earned God’s hatred. He most likely is in Hell. It is a literal thing. Hell is real and it has many in it because of a dangerous sin called presumption.
No. St. Thomas is correct. So am I. But I’m no expert. Take Thomas’ word for it - God does hate some men.
Glenda
T
thinkandmull
Guest
Aquinas’s response to objection 1 is confusing. He doesn’t say whether God doesn’t want eternal life for the reprobates before or after they sin. Augustine didn’t believe God wanted to save everyone. An what good does he desire for the reprobates.? Elsewhere he says that God loves the NATURE of the devils. Doesn’t that imply he hates the persons? My answer to Wisdom 11:25 is that he loves as created, but can hate after they fall
Hello folks. There seems to be a misunderstanding developing in this thread again about God and His Love and what that means and whether or not God actually hates anyone or anything. So for some light on the subject I give you the following food for thought from the Summa as found at the New Advent website:
Article 3. Whether God reprobates any man?
Objection 1. It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wisdom 11:25): “Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made.” Therefore God reprobates no man.
Objection 2. Further, if God reprobates any man, it would be necessary for reprobation to have the same relation to the reprobates as predestination has to the predestined. But predestination is the cause of the salvation of the predestined. Therefore reprobation will likewise be the cause of the loss of the reprobate. But this false. For it is said (Hosea 13:9): “Destruction is thy own, O Israel; Thy help is only in Me.” God does not, then, reprobate any man.
Objection 3. Further, to no one ought anything be imputed which he cannot avoid. But if God reprobates anyone, that one must perish. For it is said (Ecclesiastes 7:14): “Consider the works of God, that no man can correct whom He hath despised.” Therefore it could not be imputed to any man, were he to perish. But this is false. Therefore God does not reprobate anyone.
On the contrary, It is said (Malachi 1:2-3): “I have loved Jacob, but have hated Esau.”
I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article 1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.
Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good–namely, eternal life–He is said to hate or reprobated them.
Reply to Objection 2. Reprobation differs in its causality from predestination. This latter is the cause both of what is expected in the future life by the predestined–namely, glory–and of what is received in this life–namely, grace. Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present–namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future–namely, eternal punishment. But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace. In this way, the word of the prophet is true–namely, “Destruction is thy own, O Israel.”
Reply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (Question 19, Article 3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.
newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article3
Please keep in mind that the mind of the Church is expressed in St. Thomas’ Replies to the Objections not in the initial Objections. Some try to use the Objections part as if* they *are the mind of the Church. It is an interesting flip, but it is a flop.
Glenda
K
KindredSoul
Guest
2 Peter 3: “The Lord does not delay His promise, as some regard ‘delay,’ but He is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance”
If, therefore, “God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good,” then it is clear that He loves all, for scripture plainly states that He wills ALL to come to repentance. He will not trample their free will, so not all DO come to repentance, but God wills it, nonetheless.
I would say that there is at least one solitary-but-NOT-insignificant act of love which God affords even the souls in Hell: He wills them to exist. If God did not will it, they would cease to be. God would not even have to “destroy” them so much as He would merely have to STOP willing them to exist. His very act of willing their existence, therefore, is an act on their behalf. Again, if it can be said that “God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good”, then it can be said that He loves any creature that He continues to will to exist. For existing is in itself a good.
The day that God ceases to love a creature in any aspect whatsoever, He will not even will it the mere good of existence, and it will cease to be.
This doesn’t mean that God will be miserable for eternity because there are souls He loves in Hell, because in its purest sense love is not an emotion. It is, in fact, willing the good of the other…and as we have established, God does allow the souls in hell to exist, when He would be perfectly justified in ceasing to do so: And if that’s not love, I don’t know what is. But then again, I am more intimately aware than most people that existence is intrinsically good: To the point that I’d rather go to Hell than cease existing. The only way God can truly hate me, therefore, is by letting me cease to exist. Otherwise, I value my own existence so incredibly much that simply willing me to exist is something I see as a profound and great act of love. In my opinion, seeing it any other way is to be ungrateful for the amazing gift that existence IS.
As for Scripture to prove this claim of mine, see Wisdom 11:24-26 “For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned. And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you? But you spare all things, because they are yours, O LORD and lover of souls” Clearly, what God truly hates (and we must remember, hatred is the opposite of love, so if you hate something you cannot even have the smallest love for it) will NOT exist in eternity. If God hated the souls of the damned, they would be annihilated in eternity, not preserved.
Nor does this cause the sin of presumption. I have no idea where anyone is getting the idea that believing that God–Who is Love–loves everyone is the same as presumption. Presumption is to assume that God can be mocked, or that His love can be taken advantage of, so that “God surely wouldn’t allow ME to go to hell!” Well that’s obviously not true. God does indeed balance His love with His justice, and as it is logically necessary for the greater good of His own Justice and of the perfection of His Kingdom, He does indeed see that the souls of the unrepentant go to Hell, just as a father who loves all of his children might still kill one of them–despite his love–if that one was attempting to maliciously slaughter all the others.
So the threat of Hell is VERY real; mortal sin DOES lead to Hell if left unrepented, and we will NOT get away with taking advantage of God’s love. I, for one, am always aware that if I die outside of a state of Grace, I will go to Hell. Quite the opposite of presumption. Sorry, but belief that God literally hates people is NOT necessary in order to take the idea of eternal torment in Hell quite seriously.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
If, therefore, “God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good,” then it is clear that He loves all, for scripture plainly states that He wills ALL to come to repentance. He will not trample their free will, so not all DO come to repentance, but God wills it, nonetheless.
I would say that there is at least one solitary-but-NOT-insignificant act of love which God affords even the souls in Hell: He wills them to exist. If God did not will it, they would cease to be. God would not even have to “destroy” them so much as He would merely have to STOP willing them to exist. His very act of willing their existence, therefore, is an act on their behalf. Again, if it can be said that “God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good”, then it can be said that He loves any creature that He continues to will to exist. For existing is in itself a good.
The day that God ceases to love a creature in any aspect whatsoever, He will not even will it the mere good of existence, and it will cease to be.
This doesn’t mean that God will be miserable for eternity because there are souls He loves in Hell, because in its purest sense love is not an emotion. It is, in fact, willing the good of the other…and as we have established, God does allow the souls in hell to exist, when He would be perfectly justified in ceasing to do so: And if that’s not love, I don’t know what is. But then again, I am more intimately aware than most people that existence is intrinsically good: To the point that I’d rather go to Hell than cease existing. The only way God can truly hate me, therefore, is by letting me cease to exist. Otherwise, I value my own existence so incredibly much that simply willing me to exist is something I see as a profound and great act of love. In my opinion, seeing it any other way is to be ungrateful for the amazing gift that existence IS.
As for Scripture to prove this claim of mine, see Wisdom 11:24-26 “For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned. And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you? But you spare all things, because they are yours, O LORD and lover of souls” Clearly, what God truly hates (and we must remember, hatred is the opposite of love, so if you hate something you cannot even have the smallest love for it) will NOT exist in eternity. If God hated the souls of the damned, they would be annihilated in eternity, not preserved.
Nor does this cause the sin of presumption. I have no idea where anyone is getting the idea that believing that God–Who is Love–loves everyone is the same as presumption. Presumption is to assume that God can be mocked, or that His love can be taken advantage of, so that “God surely wouldn’t allow ME to go to hell!” Well that’s obviously not true. God does indeed balance His love with His justice, and as it is logically necessary for the greater good of His own Justice and of the perfection of His Kingdom, He does indeed see that the souls of the unrepentant go to Hell, just as a father who loves all of his children might still kill one of them–despite his love–if that one was attempting to maliciously slaughter all the others.
So the threat of Hell is VERY real; mortal sin DOES lead to Hell if left unrepented, and we will NOT get away with taking advantage of God’s love. I, for one, am always aware that if I die outside of a state of Grace, I will go to Hell. Quite the opposite of presumption. Sorry, but belief that God literally hates people is NOT necessary in order to take the idea of eternal torment in Hell quite seriously.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Think.
Oh well, I’ve said too much again. Forgive me.
Glenda
This may help - focus on this part: “but He does not wish every good to them all” and think about the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was full of grace. She received the fullest portion of God’s goodness as any one person ever could. In contrast, Aquinas is saying that God does not wish every good to them all. If He did, we’d all be like Mary. If you understand that much, then it is a shorter trip to understanding the result of sin that can bring one to a such a deplorable state in life that one is reprobate, or hated by God. It does happen. Sin can carry one so far that one doesn’t even think of turning back to God. One dies in that state, then God’ justice takes over and viola - Hell for that soul for all of Eternity. Hardness of heart is a good one for carrying one away that way. Wonder what that is about? Think Sebelius and Company. There are Catholics who choose Contraception for themselves, even though it is an automatic excommunication to choose it and they remain hardened to it all their lives yet come to Church. Their own free will and stubbornness will earn them God’s Justice at their day of judgment. God initially wanted what was good for them in their childhood and infancy and teenaged years, but when they decided in their marriages to choose contraception instead of life as God wills, their choice is such a severe breech of the Covenant that they loose His grace as is pointed out by Aquinas’ Objection 2, “But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace.” They become deserted by grace. At the end of their lives, God’s Justice will prevail. The only way this can change is for that particular person to repent and return to the Lord and beg for His Mercy. He may relent.Aquinas’s response to objection 1 is confusing. He doesn’t say whether God doesn’t want eternal life for the reprobates before or after they sin. Augustine didn’t believe God wanted to save everyone. An what good does he desire for the reprobates.? Elsewhere he says that God loves the NATURE of the devils. Doesn’t that imply he hates the persons? My answer to Wisdom 11:25 is that he loves as created, but can hate after they fall
Oh well, I’ve said too much again. Forgive me.
Glenda
C
ChainBreaker
Guest
According to my understanding of Catholic teaching this is not true.Hello Chainbreaker.
It shows that God does hate persons, therefore **He stopped loving **them and this is a result of their sins. His Justice requires it. a
G
glendab
Guest
Hello Kindred.
Glenda
This is a false assumption. The souls of the damned will exist for all of Eternity in Hell and yes, their souls will be re-united with their bodies and they will be preserved body and soul for all of Eternity, but that preservation will be in a state of perfect Justice and they will be in torment forever. You have stretched God’s love too far. He holds all things together in Himself, but there is a place of eternal torment and it is for the devils and those souls who have lost God. God’s love is only for those who want it and respond to it. To think that a soul would cease to exist because God no longer loves that soul is to misunderstand both God’s love and what sin does to one’s relationship with God. We are created for Eternity. Where we spend it is up to us.The day that God ceases to love a creature in any aspect whatsoever, He will not even will it the mere good of existence, and it will cease to be… If God hated the souls of the damned, they would be annihilated in eternity, not preserved…l
Glenda
K
KindredSoul
Guest
See, you’re “presuming” that I’m presuming that no souls go to Hell. I have clearly stated that souls of the damned can and DO suffer torment in Hell forever. So you’re simply wrong if you think I’m denying that. In that case, you’re attacking a straw man.Hello Kindred.
This is a false assumption. The souls of the damned will exist for all of Eternity in Hell and yes, their souls will be re-united with their bodies and they will be preserved body and soul for all of Eternity, but that preservation will be in a state of perfect Justice and they will be in torment forever. You have stretched God’s love too far. He holds all things together in Himself, but there is a place of eternal torment and it is for the devils and those souls who have lost God. God’s love is only for those who want it and respond to it. To think that a soul would cease to exist because God no longer loves that soul is to misunderstand both God’s love and what sin does to one’s relationship with God. We are created for Eternity. Where we spend it is up to us.
Glenda
But that simply does not equal hatred. You’ve got scripture that you think “proves” that God hates the souls of the damned. But I have scripture that says rather explicitly that what God does not love will no longer exist. So the question is, which is more likely to be taken literally? The scriptures you state which, if taken literally, would be less compatible with scriptures that say “God is Love,” or the Scriptures I quote, which are fully compatible with that Title AND which still–due to what I have said–do not contradict the belief that the souls of the damned will go to Hell?
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
V
Vico
Guest
It is not about human human emotions of love and hate. Malachi and Paul are talking of the Edomites, the descendants of Edom, by using the name Esau. God rejected Esau (a.k.a Edom) as the father of His chosen people choosing Jacob (a.k.a Israel) instead. Even so Esau and Edomites still received blessings from God, seen in Genesis 36. And also seen in Genesis 33:9 when Jacob met Esau, that Esau was blessed with enough:And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep what you have unto yourself.Hello Chainbreaker.
Scripture is the Word of God. It is alive and more powerful than any word you or I could write. It clearly says: "As it is written: ‘I loved Jacob but hated Esau.’ Roman 9:13. That is God talking about hating a person, Esau. These words found in Scripture have more impact than St. Thomas Aquinas’ and he is a Doctor of the Church. Don’t equivocate this important difference away. St. Thomas says: He is said to hate or reprobated them. That is God St. Thomas means. It shows that God does hate persons, therefore He stopped loving them and this is a result of their sins. His Justice requires it. One Attribute of the Divine Nature cannot out weigh another. They are compatible and complementary. God is One in Three and this is part of the Mystery of the correct understanding of God and His Divine Attributes and Nature. Just because God loves doesn’t mean He cannot stop loving a person. That is wishful thinking on the part of man and places a limit upon God and His perfect Justice.
Esau was a real man and he fell and earned God’s hatred. He most likely is in Hell. It is a literal thing. Hell is real and it has many in it because of a dangerous sin called presumption.
No. St. Thomas is correct. So am I. But I’m no expert. Take Thomas’ word for it - God does hate some men.
Glenda
A
Amandil
Guest
FYI: Hate is not the direct opposite of love. You can love a person and at the same time hate that same person and/or hate what they do.
Hate is nearly impossible without some sort of recognition if the good that is intrinsic either to the person or value which is at stake in the intent or circumstance.
The opposite of love is indifference. It is impossible to love someone and be indifferent towards that same person at the same time.
Just as it is impossible to hate someone and be indifferent towards someone at the same time.
If you think that I’m wrong, try it.
Hate is nearly impossible without some sort of recognition if the good that is intrinsic either to the person or value which is at stake in the intent or circumstance.
The opposite of love is indifference. It is impossible to love someone and be indifferent towards that same person at the same time.
Just as it is impossible to hate someone and be indifferent towards someone at the same time.
If you think that I’m wrong, try it.
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Interesting. Of course, we would need a theological definition of “hate” to find out if God is capable of it. God would obviously not hate in the “dictionary sense” for that’s: a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injuryFYI: Hate is not the direct opposite of love. You can love a person and at the same time hate that same person and/or hate what they do.
Hate is nearly impossible without some sort of recognition if the good that is intrinsic either to the person or value which is at stake in the intent or circumstance.
The opposite of love is indifference. It is impossible to love someone and be indifferent towards that same person at the same time.
Just as it is impossible to hate someone and be indifferent towards someone at the same time.
If you think that I’m wrong, try it.
b : extreme dislike or antipathy" Which deals with human emotions that God, at least apart from the Human Nature of Jesus, would not have. So in that sense “hate” is simply irrelevant and nonsensical when talking about God. Scripture often does anthropomorphize God by attributing human emotions to Him, but these cannot be taken literally unless we suppose that God–in His Divinity–is subject to human passions.
If “hate,” in the theological sense means the opposite of “love” theologically–love being “to will the good of another”–then I can see how the two might coexist and be aimed at the same person: It is possible to will both something extremely good for someone and something quite ill for someone at the same time, provided that the good and ill are not contradictory opposites.
In that sense we could say that God’s willing a soul to go to Hell at all, or even willing a soul to be “allowed” to go to Hell for those who would say souls choose Hell for themselves, might be considered a form of “hate,” although it must still be granted that God’s continually willing the existence of the those same souls is an act of profound love, so it would still be true that “There is no one God does not love.”
But in this case, I think it’s important to realize that the “hate” we would be talking about is strictly insofar as God was willing a (deserved) ill toward those souls, and would have nothing to do with hate as we tend to understand it: Loathing, spite, vitriol, etc. Typically the thought of God hating someone brings to mind pictures of rage, fuming, and foaming at the mouth, which I don’t think God bears toward anyone at all… In this sense of the word “hate”, it is very similar to when the old testament says God did something “evil” which really means He did something for the people’s ill, not that He did something wicked. So too whenever we speak of God “hating” the damned (whom, I think it easily established, He loves at the same time, even so): It’s just a way of saying He wills some eternal ill for the person, not of saying he “hates” in the human sense of the word.
I still hesitate, however to use that word, as I fear to slander God Who is Love, and also the Catechism and teaching of the Church strongly suggest that even when souls go to hell for eternity it is in spite of God willing the good of eternal life for them (but refusing to infringe upon their free will), rather than because He actively wills it. So while I could see what someone meant if they used “hate” in this sense, piety and reverence give me more than a slight pause at attributing any “hatred” to God even in this sense of the word.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Actually, for theological and moral purposes, I would categorize true indifference toward a living being as a category of hatred, and perhaps the worst kind.FYI: Hate is not the direct opposite of love. You can love a person and at the same time hate that same person and/or hate what they do.
Hate is nearly impossible without some sort of recognition if the good that is intrinsic either to the person or value which is at stake in the intent or circumstance.
The opposite of love is indifference. It is impossible to love someone and be indifferent towards that same person at the same time.
Just as it is impossible to hate someone and be indifferent towards someone at the same time.
If you think that I’m wrong, try it.
Either way, the quote from the book of Wisdom, earlier, establishes that, regardless of whether we could hypothetically envision hatred coexisting with love (although it’s still pretty difficult to imagine hating a person–not only his/her actions–AND truly loving him at the same time), God nonetheless hates nothing in Creation (“For you …] loathe nothing you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.”) I believe that, especially in context with the two verses following, pretty strongly makes a case for God not hating anyone.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSOul
- Status
- Not open for further replies.