Predestination question

[4love2God]

Tom Baum says :** "Sure seems like a lot of people, who have never been to hell, and have only read about hell, think that they ‘know all about hell’. "**.

The same could be said of people who think they know about Heaven.
Or, those people who study stats on a Football team, and pretend to know how a particular game will turn out.
Or, you read about a Celebrity in the magazines, and think you know what that Celeb is like.

I, for one, have little-to-NO concept of how Hell (if it exists) actually works.
You know, like, is Satan the King of Hell? No one knows.
Or, how HOT is it there?
Or, is Hell the worst place to be? (the Bible insinuates that it is NOT Fun there.)
The Bible DOES tell us that it is a good thing to avoid going there.

I haven’t read any of the Posts which people claim to know all of the inner-workings of Hell.
So, I am not sure what you are talking about Tom. Please explain.

 

[oldcelt]

Sure seems like a lot of people, who have never been to hell and have only read about hell, think that they “know all about hell”.

The whole “Predestination question”, which pretty much is another way of saying that God is Omniscient, is why God came up with a Plan even before creation and God becoming One of us is the pivotal point of God’s Plan for God’s creation.

There are various views on hell and there have been since long before any of us were borne. Even in New Advent (Catholic Encyclopedia), it speaks of The Church not having spoken authoritatively on all subjects relative to hell. In another article from the Economist,

"Theologically, even the Vatican now defines Hell as a state of exile from the love of God. The devils and pitchforks, the brimstone clouds and wailing souls, have been cleared away, rather as a mad aunt might be shut up in the attic.

economist.com/news/christmas/21568590-hundreds-years-hell-has-been-most-fearful-place-human-imagination-it

So the wheels are still turning on this one way too much to speak with absolute certainty.

 

[Gorgias]

God could not know whether a person will be saved or damned unless he will create the person.

Looking at it another way makes this easier to understand.
Suppose God decided, “I will not create Vulcan with a race of Vulcans. The Earth is enough to keep me busy.”

Would God know what would have happened to the Vulcans if he had created them? No. There is nothing to be known. It is unknowable.

You’re answering a different question than the one that was asked, though, aren’t you?

The original question was why God creates those He knows will be damned, and you’re answering the (unasked) question of whether God knows the eternal fate of those whom He does not will to create…!

In fact, your take on it is problematic for another reason: it implies that God is mutable – that He learns something and thereby changes. Look at it this way: according to your take on it, God only knows the eternal destiny of a person once He’s created them; in other words, you seem to be saying that God’s knowledge is contingent upon something that’s happening within the context of space-time. In other words, before my great-great-great grandson is born, God does not yet know his eternal destiny, by your assertion, right? That means that, once he’s born, God learns something new. That doesn’t fit.

You could claim, reasonably enough, that God knows about all who will be born, since He is outside of time… but then you’d have to re-address the original question.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Tom Baum says :** "Sure seems like a lot of people, who have never been to hell, and have only read about hell, think that they ‘know all about hell’. "**.

The same could be said of people who think they know about Heaven.
Or, those people who study stats on a Football team, and pretend to know how a particular game will turn out.
Or, you read about a Celebrity in the magazines, and think you know what that Celeb is like.

I, for one, have little-to-NO concept of how Hell (if it exists) actually works.
You know, like, is Satan the King of Hell? No one knows.
Or, how HOT is it there?
Or, is Hell the worst place to be? (the Bible insinuates that it is NOT Fun there.)
The Bible DOES tell us that it is a good thing to avoid going there.

I haven’t read any of the Posts which people claim to know all of the inner-workings of Hell.
So, I am not sure what you are talking about Tom. Please explain.

I have experienced hell and I firmly believe that God knew that I needed this experience to even attempt to do what God chose me to do.

To say that it was devastating when I was experiencing it, is to point out the utterly inadequacy of human language.

However, I only experienced my own hell, whereas Jesus experienced everyone’s hell since He took everyone’s sins upon Himself on the cross.

One way to put it is that hell is experiencing all of your (wrongdoings, sins or whatever one wishes to call it) and the ramifications of your sins thru the “Eyes” of Pure Love, as I have said “sheol” is a pretty good analogy of hell since sheol was the garbage dump.

You may or may not have heard God being referred to as a “Consuming Fire of Love”, well, this Love can either caress or burn.

We build our own hell and we put ourself in that hell and if we go there, we will come to the realization that we have no one but ourself to blame.

However, God-Incarnate in His “work” on the cross “won” the “keys” to the netherworld (hell and death [physical and spiritual]) and will use these in due time, God’s Time, the captives shall be released and the dead shall rise.

Jesus did tell us what the “mission” of His Church is and that is that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It”.

God knew, before creation itself, that some would never repent this side of breath and that is why God came up with God’s Plan and as I pointed out, “God becoming One of us is the pivotal point of God’s Plan for God’s creation”.

God’s Plan is GOOD NEWS.

If the GOOD NEWS was not Good News, ultimately, for ALL than the Good News would not be Good News at all but horrific news.

 

[Amandil]

Tom Baum says :** "Sure seems like a lot of people, who have never been to hell, and have only read about hell, think that they ‘know all about hell’. "**.

The same could be said of people who think they know about Heaven.
Or, those people who study stats on a Football team, and pretend to know how a particular game will turn out.
Or, you read about a Celebrity in the magazines, and think you know what that Celeb is like.

I, for one, have little-to-NO concept of how Hell (if it exists) actually works.
You know, like, is Satan the King of Hell? No one knows.
Or, how HOT is it there?
Or, is Hell the worst place to be? (the Bible insinuates that it is NOT Fun there.)
The Bible DOES tell us that it is a good thing to avoid going there.

I haven’t read any of the Posts which people claim to know all of the inner-workings of Hell.
So, I am not sure what you are talking about Tom. Please explain.

There are six things that we will be doing in heaven which is known:

We will love and understand God.
We will love and understand others.
And we will love and understand ourselves.

Despite all other speculations about what heaven and what we’ll be doing there, those things van be taken as certain.

 

[Amandil]

I have experienced hell and I firmly believe that God knew that I needed this experience to even attempt to do what God chose me to do.

To say that it was devastating when I was experiencing it, is to point out the utterly inadequacy of human language.

However, I only experienced my own hell, whereas Jesus experienced everyone’s hell since He took everyone’s sins upon Himself on the cross.

One way to put it is that hell is experiencing all of your (wrongdoings, sins or whatever one wishes to call it) and the ramifications of your sins thru the “Eyes” of Pure Love, as I have said “sheol” is a pretty good analogy of hell since sheol was the garbage dump.

You may or may not have heard God being referred to as a “Consuming Fire of Love”, well, this Love can either caress or burn.

We build our own hell and we put ourself in that hell and if we go there, we will come to the realization that we have no one but ourself to blame.

However, God-Incarnate in His “work” on the cross “won” the “keys” to the netherworld (hell and death [physical and spiritual]) and will use these in due time, God’s Time, the captives shall be released and the dead shall rise.

Jesus did tell us what the “mission” of His Church is and that is that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It”.

God knew, before creation itself, that some would never repent this side of breath and that is why God came up with God’s Plan and as I pointed out, “God becoming One of us is the pivotal point of God’s Plan for God’s creation”.

God’s Plan is GOOD NEWS.

If the GOOD NEWS was not Good News, ultimately, for ALL than the Good News would not be Good News at all but horrific news.

FYI: “Sheol” was not a garbage dump, sheol is the abode of the dead in Jewish theology.

Gahenna was a valley in the lower southern section of Jerusalem (adjacent to the poor district-if you’re looking at Jerusalem from above as you would a clock, with due north being 12 0’clock, this would be below the 5-6 o’clock section) where the city’s refuse was burned.

Also, sheol and Gahenna are not the same.

 

[Tom_Baum]

FYI: “Sheol” was not a garbage dump, sheol is the abode of the dead in Jewish theology.

Gahenna was a valley in the lower southern section of Jerusalem (adjacent to the poor district-if you’re looking at Jerusalem from above as you would a clock, with due north being 12 0’clock, this would be below the 5-6 o’clock section) where the city’s refuse was burned.

Also, sheol and Gahenna are not the same.

Gehenna

1. Old Testament the valley below Jerusalem, where children were sacrificed and where idolatry was practised (II Kings 23:10; Jeremiah 19:6) and where later offal and refuse were slowly burned
2. New Testament, Judaism a place where the wicked are punished after death
3. a place or state of pain and torment

Ge·hen·na

1. the valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem, where propitiatory sacrifices were made to Moloch. II Kings 23:10.
2. hell .
3. any place of extreme torment or suffering.

She·ol
noun (in hebrew theology)

1. the abode of the dead or of departed spirits.
2. ( lowercase ) hell.

Sheol

1. the abode of the dead
2. ( often not capital ) hell

When I wrote, “as I have said “sheol” is a pretty good analogy of hell since sheol was the garbage dump.”, looks like I should have said Gehenna instead of Sheol since a garbage dump is a pretty good analogy for hell.

As far as “sheol and Gahenna are not the same”, if sheol is the “abode of the good dead, so to speak” and gehenna is the “abode of the bad dead, so to speak”, or hell.

I am not saying that Jesus did not go to the abode of the good dead (sheol) what I am saying is that that is NOT the only place that Jesus went.

I do NOT for an instant or less believe that I have been thru worse than Jesus concerning this and as I have stated, I believe that Jesus went thru worse since Jesus experienced everyone’s hell whereas I only, understatement to put it mildly, experienced my own hell.

 

[Alindawyl]

Murderers, serial adulterers, etc., those I can relate. However, I heard a statement here to the effect that 80 % will not make heaven. If that is even remotely true, then that God created a broken system.

To speak on a subject when we do not know the answer is to speculate, not to teach definitively. Some individuals like to speculate, even some in the hierarchy of the Church. But since Jesus did not give an answer (in fact he blatantly refused to answer the question when asked if only few would be saved), and since the Church does not give an answer either, I choose to not speculate on what the answer may be. We simply do not know how many people are in hell, or in heaven for that matter.

 

[Amandil]

Tom,

I’ve decided that to continue to try and discuss things with you is becoming an occasion of sin.

I’ll pray for you.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Tom,

I’ve decided that to continue to try and discuss things with you is becoming an occasion of sin.

I’ll pray for you.

I appreciate the prayer and while you are at it, you could pray for “God’s Will to be done”, just as God-Incarnate taught us.

As it is clearly written, “It is God’s Will that ALL be saved”, we need not know all of the details.

My “job” is to speak, it is not to convince, I am merely a messenger.

As I said, the GOOD NEWS Is Good News.

 

[Amandil]

I appreciate the prayer and while you are at it, you could pray for “God’s Will to be done”, just as God-Incarnate taught us.

As it is clearly written, “It is God’s Will that ALL be saved”, we need not know all of the details.

My “job” is to speak, it is not to convince, I am merely a messenger.

As I said, the GOOD NEWS Is Good News.

And the Pharisees, Arius, Nestorius, Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc., all “believed” that they were “God’s messengers” as well. They thought that they were given “special revelations” and believed that they were doing “God’s will”.

They were all sincerely wrong.

How do we know this? Because they thought and acted contrary to the Church, which is God’s will and “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

Finally. You “job” to speak is superseded by your job to be faithful to the teaching authority of the Church.

Your opinion about this is in violation of the Church, thus you are not doing your “job” faithfully, no matter how much you tell yourself that you are.

It is not “God’s will” that you openly defy Church teaching, that is you telling yourself that.

If you want to submit to a heretical position, that business is between you and God.

But your “job” is neither to spread heresy, which is what you ate doing.

And because you assume the “job” that you do, not by “God’s will” but your own volition, then you will definitely be held to account for spreading falsehoods and refusing correction. And you will be held accountable to a much stricter judgement for spreading your confusion.

Don’t say that you weren’t warned.

 

[Tom_Baum]

And the Pharisees, Arius, Nestorius, Martin Luther, John Calvin, etc., all “believed” that they were “God’s messengers” as well. They thought that they were given “special revelations” and believed that they were doing “God’s will”.

They were all sincerely wrong.

How do we know this? Because they thought and acted contrary to the Church, which is God’s will and “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

Finally. You “job” to speak is superseded by your job to be faithful to the teaching authority of the Church.

Your opinion about this is in violation of the Church, thus you are not doing your “job” faithfully, no matter how much you tell yourself that you are.

It is not “God’s will” that you openly defy Church teaching, that is you telling yourself that.

If you want to submit to a heretical position, that business is between you and God.

But your “job” is neither to spread heresy, which is what you ate doing.

And because you assume the “job” that you do, not by “God’s will” but your own volition, then you will definitely be held to account for spreading falsehoods and refusing correction. And you will be held accountable to a much stricter judgement for spreading your confusion.

Don’t say that you weren’t warned.

You can and should follow God the way that you think/believe that you should follow God.

I have attempted and will continue to attempt to follow God in how God chose me to follow God.

Like I said, everything “flows” from the “fact” that God Is a Being of Love as opposed to Love being merely an attribute of God.

The GOOD NEWS truly is, ultimately, Good News for ALL.

 

[Amandil]

You can and should follow God the way that you think/believe that you should follow God.

I have attempted and will continue to attempt to follow God in how God chose me to follow God.

Like I said, everything “flows” from the “fact” that God Is a Being of Love as opposed to Love being merely an attribute of God.

The GOOD NEWS truly is, ultimately, Good News for ALL.

Your definition of “love” is what is problematic.

You seem to think that “love” means that God will force salvation onto people who refuse Him. Which denies that God in fact created us with free will but instead we are simply robots under constant divine command and direction.

Or you seem to think that “love” means that God will save people who have no intention of repenting of their sins and thus God’s “will” is to repeat The Fall all over again by allowing unrepentant sinners to sin in heaven, which would not only violate Scripture ("nothing unclean shall enter it {heaven}), but would also utterly undo the whole point of Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary and His promise to create a “new heaven and earth” where there would be no more suffering or death, since suffering and death are the results of our sins.

What you don’t seem to understand is that true love is by definition “true”, thus it is logical.

What you seem to be advocating is not true love but blind love.

God’s love is not blind, its as true and clear as a diamond, and it cannot contradict God’s other attribute: justice. God’s love is wholly just. Which means that God does not compromise either. If people refuse His love in the form of His mercy, they will by that choice receive His love in the form of His justice.

That’s how they choose hell.

Your definition of God’s “love” makes no sense, therefore it cannot be true.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Your definition of “love” is what is problematic.

You seem to think that “love” means that God will force salvation onto people who refuse Him. Which denies that God in fact created us with free will but instead we are simply robots under constant divine command and direction.

Or you seem to think that “love” means that God will save people who have no intention of repenting of their sins and thus God’s “will” is to repeat The Fall all over again by allowing unrepentant sinners to sin in heaven, which would not only violate Scripture ("nothing unclean shall enter it {heaven}), but would also utterly undo the whole point of Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary and His promise to create a “new heaven and earth” where there would be no more suffering or death, since suffering and death are the results of our sins.

What you don’t seem to understand is that true love is by definition “true”, thus it is logical.

What you seem to be advocating is not true love but blind love.

God’s love is not blind, its as true and clear as a diamond, and it cannot contradict God’s other attribute: justice. God’s love is wholly just. Which means that God does not compromise either. If people refuse His love in the form of His mercy, they will by that choice receive His love in the form of His justice.

That’s how they choose hell.

Your definition of God’s “love” makes no sense, therefore it cannot be true.

How could my, as you put it, “definition of “love” is what is problematic” since I gave no definition of love.

The only definition of love that you seem to have gotten from me is just that “seem to have gotten from me”, whereas you are the one who provided the definition, so it is “your” definition of love which is problematic to you.

Don’t worry, one day you will meet God and come to the realization that Love is not an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

 

[Amandil]

How could my, as you put it, "definition of “love” is what is problematic since I gave no definition of love.

The only definition of love that you seem to have gotten from me is just that “seem to have gotten from me”, whereas you are the one who provided the definition, so it is “your” definition of love which is problematic to you.

Not at all. You insist upon universal jurisdiction and that it is the result of what you insist is “God’s love” and “God’s will”.

The examples I gave are the obvious implications of such a belief as yours is. Those two possibilities are the only logical conclusions based upon your words.

You ignore that universal salvation is expressly denied not only by Jesus in the gospels but by the Church. So right there you contradict God by claiming that universal salvation is “God’s will”.

God desires all men to be saved, true.

Jesus revealed in no uncertain terms that “many” will not be saved. That these will be those who refused to do “the will of my Father in heaven”.

Jesus even said that, “those who say to me “Lord, Lord” will not enter into my Father’s kingdom, but only those who do the will of my Father.”

Thus there is obviously a disconnect between what God’s will truly is and what you THINK it is.

That’s the data. What you’re trying to do is fudge the data to fit your theory of universal salvation.

Don’t worry, one day you will meet God and come to the realization that Love is not an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

Who says I’m worried? I’m grounded in the truth of the Faith.

 

[Biggie]

Am I nuts or is this thread essentially the Calvinist conundrum? I think there is sound apologetics available on this issue. So I would only throw in with … the premise assumes in part there is a contradiction between God knowing an outcome and his grant of free will. It therefore attempts to place the timeless in time, assuming God’s vantage point without God’s intellect. God’s foreknowledge does not preclude humanity’s free will. (I happen to think you could make the same point as to whether chaos really exists from God’s perspective, or whether random selection is really random in God’s view, but that’s another topic I guess!)

I would also contribute that love requires free will. That which is done out of duress cannot be done out of love. You cannot drag a person with you in a head lock and then offer that the person came with you because you love each other. God cannot save one against one’s will since that would be unloving and a contradiction of his own nature. This is the apparent case that Satan poses God - if God does not save he is unloving, and if God saves he is unloving.

God’s solution? Jesus Christ! God would redeem all with the complete sacrifice of himself unto death. It is only left, as St. Paul said, for one to work out one’s salvation in fear and trepidation.

 

[oneofmany]

We don’t know God’s ways. Perhaps letting the person who will go to hell into the world, that person allowed another person to get to heaven. One can always learn from example and watching a person make bad decisions lets some learn how to make good decisions.

Predestination is a Calvin teaching. The church said it was a heresy so I don’t put much thought in it. Calvinism also taught they knew who would go to hell since those people were not blessed in this life either. They were poor or sickly, etc. Not a good way to look at our neighbors is it?

 

[Amandil]

We don’t know God’s ways. Perhaps letting the person who will go to hell into the world, that person allowed another person to get to heaven. One can always learn from example and watching a person make bad decisions lets some learn how to make good decisions.

Predestination is a Calvin teaching. The church said it was a heresy so I don’t put much thought in it. Calvinism also taught they knew who would go to hell since those people were not blessed in this life either. They were poor or sickly, etc. Not a good way to look at our neighbors is it?

Predestination is not Calvinist teaching, double predestination is.

There’s a difference.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

At a bible study this questions came up and I would like the Catholic answers if someone could help me I would very much appreciate it- thank you! ( especially the first one)

1. Since God is omnipotent and all knowing. Why does he create people that he knows will be damned?
2. How can a loving God condemn people to damnation? ( I think this is easier to answer but would appreciate others answers)
3. Since faith is a gift, why aren’t all people given this gift? ( again, I think I have an answer to this but want to hear others)

I certainly appreciate those that give time to respond. God bless you!
mlz

I suppose I’m more aware of this question due to the peculiar experience I had of my own father appearing in my room the night he died. He started with an apology for 25 years of deliberate cruelty which completely destroyed my confidence (he also claimed he damaged my mind) and stated he did it deliberately. At the end he gave this terrifying scream and disappeared. I think he’s in hell, and so would you if you’d seen the scream.

However during the discussion he stated, “I always was doomed! I didn’t really have any choice!” I argued back saying “That can’t be right!” (and I was an atheist at the time oddly enough). He replied “OH, it’s right all right, you can see that from here”. Later however he admitted “I was WILLING …” (to act as he did - I’d say very willing).

However I remember even before he died once making the comment “I think God’s against me…” For example his main hobby was fishing. It was noticeable that every time he went fishing, the weather went sour. Every time! I even remember one holiday we had at Point Lookout on Stradbroke Island. It was for two weeks. The first week was absolutely miserable - rain, wind, a gorge chock full of sea foam - miserable. He could only stay for one week, and then he had to go back to work.

Literally as he drove back to get the barge back to Brisbane, the weather cleared up behind him. I mean that. The second week, when he wasn’t there, the weather was absolutely glorious. I fell in love with the place.

Anyway I asked him why he thought God was against him. He sort of gave this smug grin, and replied, “Because of the way I treat you”. So I said to him the obvious “Then why don’t you do something about it!” He just laughed and said “I enjoy it too much” (being vindictively cruel).

So was he “predestined to be damned”? I think he was. But he was WILLING to do the things that in the end condemned him.

I think Adolf Hitler was “predestined to be damned”. But he was more than WILLING to be a cruel, megalomaniac tyrant responsible for the death of millions.

Yet even he had this sense of “providence”. But he wanted a “providence” that would let him do just what he wanted. He didn’t want the Christian God who demanded certain codes of behaviour.

Now Hitler was an extreme example. Yet despite this, I think predestination and free will work together. God watching a man decide to steal something, and then carrying out the theft, is not the same thing as making him do it. He might even prompt him with some sort of jab of conscience to stop it. But if the man goes ahead, and then keeps doing it, it gets harder and harder for God to appeal to his conscience. The man kills his own conscience eventually, if he keeps doing it often enough.

God can probably see the final consequences of this man’s actions by the time he dies. In that respect he may be that he “always was doomed”. But you can bet your bottom dollar he was WILLING to go along with it.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Am I nuts or is this thread essentially the Calvinist conundrum? I think there is sound apologetics available on this issue. So I would only throw in with … the premise assumes in part there is a contradiction between God knowing an outcome and his grant of free will. It therefore attempts to place the timeless in time, assuming God’s vantage point without God’s intellect. God’s foreknowledge does not preclude humanity’s free will. (I happen to think you could make the same point as to whether chaos really exists from God’s perspective, or whether random selection is really random in God’s view, but that’s another topic I guess!)

I would also contribute that love requires free will. That which is done out of duress cannot be done out of love. You cannot drag a person with you in a head lock and then offer that the person came with you because you love each other. God cannot save one against one’s will since that would be unloving and a contradiction of his own nature. This is the apparent case that Satan poses God - if God does not save he is unloving, and if God saves he is unloving.

God’s solution? Jesus Christ! God would redeem all with the complete sacrifice of himself unto death. It is only left, as St. Paul said, for one to work out one’s salvation in fear and trepidation.

Paul also wrote, “This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony at the proper time. For this I was appointed preacher and apostle (I am speaking the truth, I am not lying), teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”

And when Jesus was asked to teach us to pray, He said, “… Thy Kingdom come, THY WILL BE DONE on earth as it is in heaven…”.

Could be, even if we do not know all of the details that we should still pray for “GOD’S WILL”.

Have you ever seen it written, “Modern biblical scholars have done their best to adjust the picture. They point out that Jesus himself, and even tetchy old St Paul, made no mention of “Hell” or “damnation” in the New Testament. The Greek words used there meant only “judgment” and “condemnation”; and only for “a long time”, aionios, not for ever.” and also, “Paul said God would have mercy on everyone.”?

Some of us (humans) tend to be mighty liberal in our dispensing of justice, or at least our conception of justice, and quite conservative in our dispensing of mercy and we tend to think/believe that God is even more so or at least that is what it seems to me by some of what is written here and elsewhere.

It is written, “My Ways are not your ways and My Thoughts are not your thoughts”.

God’s Justice and God’s Mercy are so intertwined as to be ONE.

You wrote, “God would redeem all with the complete sacrifice of himself unto death.”

“My God, My God, why have Thou forsaken Me?”, there was quite a bit more going on at the cross than the mere physical.