Is the justice of Hell accepted on faith?

[Ana_v]

It is said that the articles of faith cannot be demonstrated to be true through reason. They are known only through Divine Revelation and must be accepted on faith.

It is also said that, while not rationally demonstrable or provable, these articles of faith can be shown to not contradict reason.

Many people struggle with the doctrine of Hell, including faithful, pious Catholics.

I want to focus on one particular aspect of this struggle: the teaching that eternal punishment for sin is an act of Divine justice, i.e. that it is just for a sinner to be condemned to Hell.

Is this an example of a teaching that is rationally demonstrable or must it be accepted on faith?

 

[John_Martin]

Justice to our LORD is Love, wherein He pours His whole being into me and “I am”, and I pour my whole self into union with him: 100% reciprocation.
That is Justice - He into me, I into Him.
Reciprocal love.
Our God is Aflame - contemplate the Seraphim always beholding Him, burning.

In Hell, justice is awaited; the fire of the presence of our God burns before the person; it is time for the person to enter God, the Flame, with love giving his whole being into union within God.
But he backs away from God, away from the Flames that are all around - “I want my life; I will not let it be yours; I would be no being if I enter you and burn up.”

An eternity of refusing justice, refusing to enter the Fire of God, and not knowing there is eternal reciprocation rather than extinction.

John Martin

 

[goout]

I discern, I reason, I choose, I act. Actions have consequences. Many consequences are what we consider “negative”. If we believe in the Christian God, then God is love, and divine justice is one with God’s love rather than opposed to it.
God’s love only operates in freedom. And so freely chosen consequences are bound up with justice because… God is love. It is also justice to experience the beatific vision.

It is fair to say that this is all rationally demonstrable by observing “how things work”. We are human beings after all, and we have what we have to inform us and help us reason this out.

Observing what is revealed to us reinforces the gift of faith, and vice versa. As I respond to God in faith I can see more clearly.

 

[EZweber]

It is said that the articles of faith cannot be demonstrated to be true through reason. They are known only through Divine Revelation and must be accepted on faith.

It is also said that, while not rationally demonstrable or provable, these articles of faith can be shown to not contradict reason.

Many people struggle with the doctrine of Hell, including faithful, pious Catholics.

I want to focus on one particular aspect of this struggle: the teaching that eternal punishment for sin is an act of Divine justice, i.e. that it is just for a sinner to be condemned to Hell.

Is this an example of a teaching that is rationally demonstrable or must it be accepted on faith?

Hell is not a doctrine that is rationally provable without revelation. However, it makes no sense to leave revelation out of logic.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Perhaps those who doubt the existence of Hell lack the humility to accept God’s justice.

 

[thomat65]

I want to focus on one particular aspect of this struggle: the teaching that eternal punishment for sin is an act of Divine justice, i.e. that it is just for a sinner to be condemned to Hell.

Is this an example of a teaching that is rationally demonstrable or must it be accepted on faith?

I think I don’t see the boundary between faith and reason that you have spotted. It seems that every reasonable conclusion is reasonable inasmuch as its presuppositions and intermediate logical steps are reasonable. In other words, how does one produce a reasonable statement without presuppositions? And one who relies on presuppositions is accepting something on faith.

Note this does not preclude the ability to demonstrate that another’s “reasonable” conclusion is internally inconsistent. This is quite a powerful ability. That is to say: you might be able to reasonably disprove my presuppositions and “articles of faith” (I hope I’m understanding your use of that phrase).

So do you consider the following to be a rational demonstration?

• The biblical authors assume that God is just to condemn people to Hell
• Romans 3:25-26 implies that God is at risk of being unjust to forgive people

With some additional effort I feel I could “justify” both points.

 

[Wesrock]

I think it’s rationally justifiable, as do many theologians historically. However, sentiments and opinions popular today on punishment and goodness would seem to make that more difficult.

 

[po18guy]

Perhaps those who doubt the existence of Hell lack the humility to accept God’s justice.

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen relates the story of an individual telling him “I don’t believe in hell” The Servant of God replied, “You will when you get there.”

That is good enough for me.

For the OP, a thought: Bishop Sheen’s talk on “The Hell There Is”

 

[John_Martin]

Again, the definition of “justice” (to God, not to the OP) is the"why?" of Hell.
To God, justice is the equality of love with the Lover and the Beloved. It is eternally expected to happen.

God (the Lover) pours his entire being into the Creature (the Beloved) granting being.
And the Creature will give his whole being into God in love so that God will know the Creature united within Himself freely, which is love.

Justice - proportional equivalence of love - reciprocal self giving - 100% to 100%.
That is the two greatest commandments: “You WILL love the LORD your God with ALL…, And you will love your neighbor as being yourself.”

Those who, in the last day, enter the Fire of God’s being freely want to be one IN Him. They do not fear but love him.
Those who do not see union with Him as their reason of being, their Final Cause, are afraid and eternally flee the ever present Fire of his Being as he patiently eternally stands before them with flaming open arms awaiting the reciprocation of justice where they would enter him, abandon their being into union with him.

Hell is looking at a Lover you do not want but there is no other. Hell is not a punitive equation.

John Martin

 

[Latin]

Maybe those who doesn’t believe the existence of hell for humans, they believe the Love, Mercy and the Justice of God.

God bless

 

[Magnanimity]

…the teaching that eternal punishment for sin is an act of Divine justice, i.e. that it is just for a sinner to be condemned to Hell…Is this an example of a teaching that is rationally demonstrable or must it be accepted on faith?

Ana, you seem to have a very precise mind, so I assume you’ve chosen your words here carefully. You ask whether hell is “rationally demonstrable.” I assume this is something akin to whether the existence of God is rationally demonstrable, but let me know if you think this is an improper analogy.

As St Thomas Aquinas argues, the existence of God can be proved in five ways. The existence of God was, for St Thomas, a truth that was self-evident in itself, though not necessarily self-evident “to us.” Perhaps you’re asking whether hell is similarly self-evident in itself, thought not to us and merely requires certain demonstration from things that are better known to us (like St Thomas Five Ways do w/ the existence of God).

I think that the teaching that eternal punishment for sin is an act of divine justice is an act of faith and is not self-evident in itself for the following reasons:

1. If the nature of God is understood as one who is entirely good (infinite Goodness itself) and is love, then this God always wills and works for the good of his creatures, for their own sakes (and not merely as a means to an end). Always. There can be no time or circumstance when God would cease to love his creatures.
2. The nature of humanity is such that it bears the image and likeness of God, which is a high glory. Also, the nature of human wills are such that they are ever oriented toward some good (Aristotle) in all their acts (even disordered ones). Humans are made for beatitude (Aquinas) as their final end.
3. The nature of justice itself requires that any and all punishments must be proportionate to their crimes. Humans, being finite, are incapable of accruing infinite sentences for finite crimes, no matter how severe the crimes and no matter how long are their duration (or how many their number). Just as humans cannot love God infinitely (simply bc he is infinite) so too humans cannot offend God infinitely bc he is infinite. Whatever a human does, he does in a limited and conditioned way. So any punishment must be proportionate to his crimes/offenses/sins, which would ipso facto preclude an “eternal Hell” as a just punishment.
4. Although this may be the weakest of the reasons, it is still worth mentioning that very many prominent theologians in the entire history of the church have been open to the belief that there will be, in the end, no humans in Hell everlastingly.
5. Hell has poor ecumenical conciliar support, unlike other doctrines such as christology and trinitarian theology, which have widespread and pervasive conciliar support.

My two cents…

 

[Ana_v]

As St Thomas Aquinas argues, the existence of God can be proved in five ways. The existence of God was, for St Thomas, a truth that was self-evident in itself, though not necessarily self-evident “to us.” Perhaps you’re asking whether hell is similarly self-evident in itself, thought not to us and merely requires certain demonstration from

@Magnanimity, Thank you for bringing up St. Thomas. You beat me to it!

Yes, I think your analogy is appropriate for the question at hand.

St. Thomas distinguishes between the “preambles of faith” and the “articles of faith”.

This helps to address the comment made by @thomat65:

I think I don’t see the boundary between faith and reason that you have spotted. It seems that every reasonable conclusion is reasonable inasmuch as its presuppositions and intermediate logical steps are reasonable. In other words, how does one produce a reasonable statement without presuppositions? And one who relies on presuppositions is accepting something on faith.

Articles of faith presuppose the preambles of faith, i.e. natural knowledge, and the truth that God exists is an example of something that can be grasped through natural human reason.

But as you point out @Magnanimity, St. Thomas makes a distinction between a proposition being “self-evident in-itself” and “self-evident to us”.

Self-evident: when its predicate is included in the definition of its subject.

E.g. “A penguin is a bird.”
“A whole is greater than its parts.”

As long as the one knows the definition of “bird” and definition of “penguin”, then the truth of the proposition is self-evident. Same with “parts” and “whole”.

Proposition: God exists.

It self-evident in itself, because, according to St. Thomas, God is his own existence.

Yet the truth of the proposition “God exists” is not self-evident to us because we don’t what the term God signifies or means, precisely speaking.

For this reason, in order to prove the proposition “God exists”, we must argue from effects back to their cause.

Relating this to the issue of Hell…

The truth of the propositions:

1. Hell exists.
2. God condemning a sinner to Hell is just.

Are, I think, not self-evident to us.

 

[Ana_v]

The nature of justice itself requires that any and all punishments must be proportionate to their crimes. Humans, being finite, are incapable of accruing infinite sentences for finite crimes, no matter how severe the crimes and no matter how long are their duration (or how many their number). Just as humans cannot love God infinitely (simply bc he is infinite) so too humans cannot offend God infinitely bc he is infinite. Whatever a human does, he does in a limited and conditioned way. So any punishment must be proportionate to his crimes/offenses/sins, which would ipso facto preclude an “eternal Hell” as a just punishment.

You make a good point in drawing an analogy between our inability to love God infinitely and our inability to offend God infinitely.

I was never quite satisfied with the standard apologetics for Hell.

For example, the fact that an offense committed incurs a greater penalty in proportion to the authority being offended. A student hitting another student is less serious than a student hitting a teacher, than a student hitting a policeman, etc.

Up to a point, this line of argument is helpful. Yes, offending God is most serious.

But I don’t think it actually proves that eternal punishment is just.

The doctrine of Hell scandalizes people not because of the idea that sin must be punished, but because people have the sense that eternal punishment isn’t proportionate to the crime. Let alone the method of torment used to punish sinners. Fire and/or other corporeal tortures.

 

[Ana_v]

I read an interesting abstract of a paper concerning Dun Scotus’ views on Hell:

“The existence of everlasting punishment has sometimes been thought to be incompatible with God’s goodness and omnipotence. John Duns Scotus focused on the key issue concerning everlasting punishment, i.e., the impossibility for the damned to repent of their evil deeds and so to obtain forgiveness. Scotus’s claim was that such an impossibility is not logical but nomological, i.e., it depends on the rules God established to govern the world, specifically on what I call ‘the rule of the permanence of the last volition.’ Scotus does not try to defend God’s decision to implement the rule of the permanence of the last volition. I suggest, however, that that decision can be taken as an indication of God’s preference for a world where this life is given unique value as the only test rational creatures have to prove themselves as moral agents.”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271109888_Scotus_on_Hell

 

[otjm]

I am firmly of the belief that God does not condemn anyone to hell.

They condemn themselves. God is both a loving and a just God; and he so respects our free will that he will not override it.

And that also solves the sophomoric whine (not made in this thread) of “Why would a good God condemn me to hell for making a mistaaaake.”

A mistake is wearing a polka dot tie with a striped shirt.

a mortal sin, by its very definition is never a “mistaaake”. Sorry, not a miss-spelling; its
the best I could do to represent a whine.

 

[Latin]

They condemn themselves. God is both a loving and a just God; and he so respects our free will that he will not override it.

Of course God respects our free will, how could He not respect our free will, when our free will decisions are the products of His graces.
.
St. Thomas: GOD EFFECTS EVERYTHING THE WILLING AND THE ACHIEVEMENT.

The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza. Page 84.

St. Thomas properly explains the chain of causality:

“It is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first: for the agent moves the second to act.

And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself: and therefore He is the cause of action in every agent. ST, Pt I, Q 105, Art 5.

Because God is the cause of action in every agent, even man’s free will determination to do good comes from God.”
.
St. Thomas teaches that all movements of will and choice must be traced to the divine will: and not to any other cause, because Gad alone is the cause of our willing and choosing. CG, 3.91.

.
308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will. (De fide.)

2022; “The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man. …”

God effects everything, the willing and the achievement. … (Thomas Aquinas, S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3).

CCCS 1996-1998; This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will.”

.
THE MYSTERY OF PREDESTINATION by John Salza

“Sufficient grace remains an interior impulse, whereas an efficacious grace produces an exterior act.

With efficacious grace, man is able to resist the grace but does not, because the grace causes him to freely choose the good.

This means that when God wills a person to perform a salutary act (e.g., prayer, good works), He grants him the means (an efficacious grace ) that infallibly produces the end ( the act willed by God ).

If God wills to permit a person to resist His grace, He grants him a sufficient, and not an efficacious, grace.
.
The distinctions between these graces reveal that God is responsible for man’s salvation.

FOR EXAMPLE
John Salza, Page 113: The Church teaches that God infused Adam with sufficient grace to resist temptation and to perform his duties with charity.
God, however, willed to permit Adam to reject His grace and to sin.”
.
The same principle applies to us as well.
.
God bless

 

[thistle]

I want to focus on one particular aspect of this struggle: the teaching that eternal punishment for sin is an act of Divine justice, i.e. that it is just for a sinner to be condemned to Hell.

Those who end up in Hell have condemned themselves. God does not send anyone to Hell.

 

[Latin]

ONLY GOD CAN CAUSE PEOPLE TO END UP IN HELL BY HIS DECREE THE DIVINE REPROBATION
.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Predestination of the elect explains.

"Considering that not all men reach their supernatural end in heaven, but that many are eternally lost, there MUST EXIST a twofold predestination:

(a) one to heaven.

(b) one to the pains of hell.

However, according to present usages to which we shall adhere in the course of the article, it is better to call the latter decree the Divine reprobation so that the term predestination is reserved for the Divine decree of the happiness of the elect.
.
The COUNTERPART of the predestination of the good is the Decree the Divine reprobation.

Merely implies the absolute will not to grant the bliss of heaven, though not positively predestined to hell, yet they are absolutely predestined not to go to heaven (cf. above, I, B).

.
The majority of theologians STRONGLY CONTESTED not only positive but even negative reprobation to hell.

"Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of negative reprobation, it CANNOT be harmonized with the DOGMATICALLY certain UNIVERSALITY and sincerity of God’s salvific will.

For the absolute predestination of the blessed is at the same time the ABSOLUTE will of God NOT TO ELECT a priori the rest of mankind (Suarez), or which comes to the same, to EXCLUDE them from heaven (Gonet), in other words, NOT to save them.

How can that will to save be called serious and sincere which has DECREED from all eternity the metaphysical impossibility of salvation?

He who has been reprobated negatively, may exhaust all his efforts to attain salvation: it avail’s him NOTHING.

Moreover, in order to realize infallibly his decree, God is compelled to frustrate the eternal welfare of all excluded a priori from heaven, and to TAKE CARE that they die in their sins.

Lessius rightly says that it would be INDIFFERENT to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be CERTAIN."

Predestination | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia

.
Fallen man cannot redeem himself. (De fide.) – It is God’s responsibility to save ALL OF US.
.
Without the special help of God the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification. (De fide.) – It is God’s responsibility TO KEEP US SAVED by his Gift of Perseverance.
.
THE MYSTRY OF PREDESTINATION by John Salza
“He grants the efficacious grace of perseverance only to His elect.” – Without it, there is NO SALVATION, this fact alone proves, God is responsible for our salvation.
.
The absolute predestination of the blessed is at the same time the ABSOLUTE will of God NOT TO SAVE a priori the rest of mankind.

As we see, in reality the Decree the Divine reprobation is God’s condemnation to hell.

So, whose responsibility is the salvation of the human race? – It is GOD’S RESPONSIBILITY.
.
God bless

 

[laylow]

For example, the fact that an offense committed incurs a greater penalty in proportion to the authority being offended. A student hitting another student is less serious than a student hitting a teacher, than a student hitting a policeman, etc.

One must admit this works the other way around as well. For example, a teacher hitting another teacher is more serious than a 2nd grader hitting another 2nd grader, since it should be assumed that the teacher has more knowledge and responsibility than the 2nd grader. If a teacher hits a 2nd grader…well that’s child abuse and obviously the most serious of the example.

 

[Magnanimity]

The existence of everlasting punishment has sometimes been thought to be incompatible with God’s goodness…Scotus’s claim … it depends on the rules God established to govern the world, … ‘the rule of the permanence of the last volition.’ … that decision can be taken as an indication of God’s preference for a world where this life is given unique value as the only test rational creatures have to prove themselves as moral agents

Yes, I agree, Ana. That is very interesting! It reminds me a little of one of those “Closer to Truth” interviews with the Thomistic philosopher Eleonore Stump. About halfway through the short segment, Stump brings up a very interesting psychological argument that Aquinas gives, and it seems very similar to the Scotistic line of reasoning above. Basically, Stump claims that Aquinas argues that the only way for a human to ever change her mind is to either (1) be given new information or (2) the opportunity to consider old information in a new light. And Aquinas further argues that at the moment of death, the human mind is given all available information for that mind to set its will–for the Good or against it. (This seems similar to how Aquinas argues for the angels being “fully actualized” and therefore unable later to change their wills once those wills are set.) Stump is not entirely comfortable with the Thomistic psychological argument, although she doesn’t really explain why.

So, for my own part, given what we currently believe we know from human epistemology, there are at least five sources and grounds for knowledge: perception, memory, introspection, reason and testimony. (This is fairly standard in epistemology texts.) What I’m curious about is this. Even if we assume that perception and testimony would no longer be possible sources and grounds of knowledge in a realm like Hell, why would we also conclude that those human minds would not engage the memory, would not introspect and would not utilize reason? I understand that perception and testimony give a person “new information.” But, memory, introspection and reason allow a person to reconsider old information in a new light. What are the good reasons for believing these intellectual faculties would be frozen? I don’t quite understand why we would want to believe this about folks in Hell.

Also, regarding the Scotus argument above, it seems to make this current life a type of game that God (and we) are playing, a rather high-stakes game. Using the sort of language like “test,” “implement rules,” and “prove themselves” is all very game-like. And I’m not sure that conceiving of rational creatures having intrinsic value/worth/sacredness is compatible with conceiving of life in terms of a high-stakes game. Life as a “game” would seem to entail that the god in charge of the game views its rational “players” in the game as means to some further end (and not as ends in themselves). As in, the further end could be the cosmic struggle between good and evil itself or the further end could be some pleasure the god derives from watching the game play out.