V
Vico
Guest
No, God wishes that “all join Him in heaven” for God has given angels and mankind free will: God has willed free will to them.
- Status
R
Rubee
Guest
He wills it, too. God-willing doesn’t mean God-forcing.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
Perhaps. What I believe is: it is impossible for a single soul to be saved without grace and possible that everyone will, with grace. I’m not asserting that everyone has, but as long as the church does not condemn it, my expectation/hope is that God’s infinite grace will indeed overcome the worst possible sinners.
Even our Lord’s words in the gospel are not interpretable in only ONE sense.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
In that sense it is called antecedent will where God gives actual graces that are sufficient that with free human cooperation a person can be saved.Vico:
He wills it, too. God-willing doesn’t mean God-forcing.
R
Rubee
Guest
I found this article by an E.Orthodox VERY interesting!
https://www.blacklionacademy.com/blog/patristic-universalism
https://www.blacklionacademy.com/blog/patristic-universalism
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
I guess my position on that would have to be that I do not think the Church teaches universalism. I think the Church teaches that “many” go to Hell, given Christ’s own words, and that Hell is eternal and we are unchanging after death.
And I would say that this is based on what has been revealed to us; however, I would not preclude there being unrevealed truth which would change things around, which would make us say, “Oh, so that’s what He meant!”
Part of what bothers me is that there are two formulations used in the argument which bother me, and that the idea is based on something we do not know and cannot find out, so it is like those “thought experiments” which seem to appeal to people who are different from me.
I guess I am suspicious of the idea because it draws people away from thinking about things that we know, that God has revealed to us as true, but that may be a personal thing.
And I would say that this is based on what has been revealed to us; however, I would not preclude there being unrevealed truth which would change things around, which would make us say, “Oh, so that’s what He meant!”
Part of what bothers me is that there are two formulations used in the argument which bother me, and that the idea is based on something we do not know and cannot find out, so it is like those “thought experiments” which seem to appeal to people who are different from me.
I guess I am suspicious of the idea because it draws people away from thinking about things that we know, that God has revealed to us as true, but that may be a personal thing.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Let’s see, Vico. Let’s say a person hears all the words above, but does not believe in God, doesn’t believe that the Church stands for morality, and doesn’t even believe in the concept of grace. He has evidence to back up all that he believes about these things. Indeed, he has made the observations that the same Church that has made these statements about faith and morals has done great evils in the world. Based on these things, he rejects anything to do with Christianity.
Does he know what he is doing? (this is a question based on a hypothetical, so please answer from your own definition of the word “know”. I am looking for your opinion.)
Even if he has heard the entire catechism, is he “fully aware” about rejecting God?
I didn’t read it all, but I found it interesting also. The reason why I find this topic relevant is not so much about the question of hell being populated, but the images of God and man, and especially how we can see the significance of Christ’s understanding and forgiveness of the crowd who crucified Him.
What we can see is that the crowd wanted justice, they wanted Jesus to pay for what they saw as blasphemy. What Jesus saw, though, was that the crowd was blinded by their desire for justice, they were blinded of their capacity for mercy and ability to see Love in the person they had condemned. Indeed, there is a part of ourselves that wants justice, and that want is so strong that it can blind us to our connection to mercy and love. When we see someone in this world commit horrible crime and are never punished in this life, there is a part of ourselves that wants these people to pay in the afterlife. Jesus saw that the crowd was disconnected from their merciful center, from the Love that is at the core of what it means to be a human child of God. A “normal” person being crucified, in Jesus’ situation, would react in kind, they would want the crowd and executors to be punished severely for what they were doing, but Jesus models a forgiveness, a forgiveness that begins in recognizing the blindness and lack of awareness that people have when they sin. The way I see it is that Jesus is, in extending this concept, recognizing that there is a part of ourselves that wants some people to forever pay for their sins in hell; He is showing us that the way to rein in that part is to be connected to Love within, to use the gift of understanding to see the truth that all people are beautiful, have a basic innocence, and that justice without mercy has no meaning.
From the cross, Jesus opens our eyes to a means of creating a Kingdom of Mercy, built on a foundation of forgiveness and reconciliation.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
That’s not true, though. The church teaches that those who die unrepentant are damned. That’s all.
You can say, “those who fly beyond the solar system are forever lost” without it being a factual assertion that people have in fact been lost in that space. It’d be true even if no one ventured there (and thus none was lost).
An interpretation of his words.
Last edited:
V
Vico
Guest
There are cases to consider: vincible ignorance and invincible ignorance. A person that deliberately acts against his conscience condemns himself. The explicit intention to offend God and break His law is not necessary rather the full and free consent of the will to an evil act is sufficient.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I had a feeling that you would cite doctrine rather than give a yes or no answer, so that is why I asked for your opinion. I gave you some specific parameters and asked you if the person knows what they are doing, and you did not answer.
What you posted was this:
What you posted was this:
And I replied with a scenario of a person closing themselves off. I asked if that person knows what they are doing, and you did not answer. What I am looking for is a “yes”, “no” or a “maybe” with some support that actually comes from your logical engagement with doctrine, not a mere recitation.OneSheep:
A person can reject God (“close themselves off” to grace) fully aware that it contrary to the teachings of faith and morals, so there is knowledge of “what they are doing”.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
I put the word many in quotes because I was quoting Christ: whatever He meant by many is what I mean.
V
Vico
Guest
I did answer, the case is maybe, as explained. I think in agreement with the doctrine I posted.I had a feeling that you would cite doctrine rather than give a yes or no answer, so that is why I asked for your opinion. I gave you some specific parameters and asked you if the person knows what they are doing, and you did not answer.
What you posted was this:
Vico:
And I replied with a scenario of a person closing themselves off. I asked if that person knows what they are doing, and you did not answer. What I am looking for is a “yes”, “no” or a “maybe” with some support that actually comes from your logical engagement with doctrine, not a mere recitation.OneSheep:
A person can reject God (“close themselves off” to grace) fully aware that it contrary to the teachings of faith and morals, so there is knowledge of “what they are doing”.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Okay, let’s try to apply doctrine. Is it possible that this scenario I posted be “vincible ignorance”? Here it is again:
V
Vico
Guest
Yes, in the example there is no mention of conscience.Vico:
Okay, let’s try to apply doctrine. Is it possible that this scenario I posted be “vincible ignorance”? Here it is again:
O
OneSheep
Guest
So, since there is no mention of conscience, then the example I gave was an example of “vincible ignorance”? Am I understanding that correctly? The invincible/vincible teaching is so difficult to pin down.
V
Vico
Guest
It could be either vincible or invincible ignorance or not ignorance at all.Vico:
So, since there is no mention of conscience, then the example I gave was an example of “vincible ignorance”? Am I understanding that correctly? The invincible/vincible teaching is so difficult to pin down.
Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes on ignorance:
Sin (which is always voluntary) can be from malice, passion, or ignorance. (Catechism)
O
OneSheep
Guest
Okay, let me add something to the mix here to help clarify.
The man decides that believing what the Church says about rejecting God is unconscionable, for from his observation what the Church does in the world is evil. He makes no effort to enlighten himself further, because he has seen what his conscience tells him are very bad behaviors on the part of the Church.
So, is that “invincible” or is it “vincible”?
V
Vico
Guest
Since it is not in concord with the dogma of faith of the Catholic Church the person makes an error which could mean that the conscience is not properly formed, yet it is not difficult to become properly informed. I could not conclude that it was from ignorance for the person may rather willfully hold contempt for the Church. Members of the Church are not perfect, as always.Vico:
Okay, let me add something to the mix here to help clarify.
The man decides that believing what the Church says about rejecting God is unconscionable, for from his observation what the Church does in the world is evil. He makes no effort to enlighten himself further, because he has seen what his conscience tells him are very bad behaviors on the part of the Church.
So, is that “invincible” or is it “vincible”?
R
Rubee
Guest
How can one appreciate the evilness of an act without intending at once to reject/offend goodness per se? The distinction is incoherent. To the extent a person does not intend to offend God, they do not appreciate (fully) the evilness of what they choose. After all, what makes anything at all evil, is precisely its deviation from God who is goodness itself, as evil is merely the privation of Goodness (which is God), as St. Augustine taught. If a person does not understand that they are rejecting that, they do not understand the evilness of their action in any complete sense. So the distinction is literally illogical and impossible.
PS: Notice I’m NOT saying it’s impossible to reject God; only that the distinction you wish to draw between rejecting the final object of the will (goodness itself, which is God) and wilfully choosing evil is an impossible one.
Last edited:
O
OneSheep
Guest
Right, but he doesn’t want to inform his conscience. So that might not be ignorance at all?
So if he willfully holds contempt for the church, which I am going to rephrase as wants to hold contempt for the Church, then he is not ignorant?
- Status