Trent's Answer on CAL Atheism May 20 - Trent please see this

[Inquirer]

Hi there!

I was listening to the CAL on 20th May when Trent was on and a caller named James called at about the 41st min on the YouTube upload (it was the second show on podcast). His question was quite simple -

How could a perfect God with foreknowledge create an imperfect world.

Trent answered from the catechism. He also mentioned attributes like compassion and heroism/courage all have to exist only in an imperfect world, one that journeys towards perfection.

James was hung up on the foreknowledge aspect - why would a good and perfect God create beings that would suffer for eternity when He knows their eventual outcome.

Trent’s answer - God could do this if He had a morally sufficient reason for doing so. He gave different answers from a few theologians -

1. God did not know how we would choose until He made us. Trent doesn’t really agree with it, neither do I. Because God loved me before the foundation of the world. (John 17:24)

However, very astutely, Trent said that there was a mystery to it and it would not negate God’s existence if we did not understand why He created beings that He knew would spend eternity in hell.

1. God honours free will.
2. Then Trent said something which I thought was strange - if God did not create some people who He knew would reject Him, then it would mean that other people who would have enjoyed heaven would not have had been created. So one person might reject God but his descendants, who might amount to thousands, might enjoy heaven and it would not have been possible if not for that one rejection.

James replied by saying that - if God made the rules, why didn’t He create a perfect universe.

Trent said that it might not be feasible for God to do that given human freedom to choose, He cannot logically create impossible things, like a squared circle or a married bachelor. He cannot make someone freely choose to love Him.

That’s where I thought to myself - Hold up. Surely Trent believes that Mother Mary had free will. In fact, being full of grace means she had more free will than any of us!

Then Trent goes on to talk about trade offs … if the world only had 5 people who all went to heaven or billions where some will end up in hell forever.

Trent, do you really think that that is justifiable? We’re talking about hell here. Eternity is a long time …

Let’s face it, if God wanted to He could have given all of us the grace He gave to Mary - that would have given us free will AND guaranteed us heaven.

I think if there is a good answer to this, I have not heard it yet. I actually ask Dr David Anders this and did not get a good answer too.

Trent should have just stopped after he said that the answer to this question will remain a mystery but it does not negate God’s existence, then turn the conversation to His existence rather than His designs, which we cannot understand much less try to explain it.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

As far as we are aware, the Catholic Answers apologists do not frequent this forum. If you want your question answered by him or one of his representatives, your need to send an email.

 

[Vico]

… In fact, being full of grace means she had more free will than any of us! …

The dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church is that some receive more grace than others. A person can self-prepare for the grace of Justification with the help of prevenient grace (vere sufficiens) yet can also refuse to give assent by free will (mere sufficiens).

 

[Magnanimity]

I think if there is a good answer to this, I have not heard it yet.

You’re not likely to run across any satisfying answer to this question. In one way, the entire Catholic medieval tradition threw its brightest minds at this question (Sts Augustine, Anselm, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas) and from what I’ve read, their answers range from dissatisfactory to completely stretching credulity.

If a person starts where St Augustine started—that assumption that we know that Hell will be/is populated by humans, then whatever follows is going to be a series of more or less ridiculous attempts to justify that knowledge.

As you are seeing for yourself, “because freedom” or “because the church says so…” all these answers end up firmly in the place of inadequacy. Unfortunately, that’s just where the conversation in the West went during the Middle Ages, and we (today) live and think in the wake of that starting assumption—that we know folks are bound for hell.

The church needs to abandon that Augustinian assumption. It is the only way forward on this issue.

 

[Inquirer]

Abandon that assumption? On what grounds? And for what? To justify a loving God?

I don’t think we’ll ever know, this side of heaven, but we should just admit that it’s a good question AND THAT it doesn’t negate the existence of God. After all, this isn’t the only question we don’t have answers to.

 

[Magnanimity]

Abandon that assumption? On what grounds?

In my mind, that is backwards thinking. To begin the discussion assuming that humans are worthy of Hell is bad anthropology. To begin the discussion assuming that an all-loving God can give up on me one day is bad theology. In fact, just the opposite is what is likely true—that humans are made for beatitude and that God never stops loving his creatures (and his people never stop loving him and each other) on into eternity. Those are the appropriate starting points, not the bleak Augustinian vision.

I don’t think we’ll ever know, this side of heaven

Which was my point.

we should just admit that it’s a good question

Suit yourself. Good luck in your search for those answers!

 

[Ana_v]

In my mind, that is backwards thinking. To begin the discussion assuming that humans are worthy of Hell is bad anthropology.

Besides, I’m pretty sure it’s a big no no in philosophy to appeal to the more obscure to illumine the less obscure. And if philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, then…

Hell just isn’t a good place to start.

You said something interesting in another thread. I can’t remember word for word what it was, and I don’t want to misquote you, but it was along the lines of no one would arrive at or accept the radical idea that an everlasting Hell is “justice” for sinners if they weren’t already committed a priori to believing it exists and people are there.

 

[po18guy]

1. God did not create an imperfect world - our first parents caused it.
2. Why did God do this…why did God do that…why did God do the other thing…why did, why did…

Our Freedom! God is huge on freedom. Believe it. Live it.

 

[DanielJT]

To deny the existence of Hell would be a heresy.

And the difference between Theology and Philosophy is that Theology begins with certain assumptions. Catholic Theology begins with (along with other things) the existence of hell.

Theology can be systematic and reasoned, but it also must be faithful. To do Catholic Theology properly, it must be in line with the teachings of the Church, anchored in public revelation (sacred scripture and Tradition), and done with faith.

 

[nooooby]

I don’t normally bite, but this question, why did God create an imperfect world always struck me as lucifer’s question. What caused the angels to rebel? I have always imagined it was the newsflash that God was going to create humans with free will and the son was going to be incarnated as a human. Cue, that’s only going to end in tears, better to not create misery and let’s live happily ever after in heaven us spirits. Of course this was the angels test of faith…

 

[Magnanimity]

Besides, I’m pretty sure it’s a big no no in philosophy to appeal to the more obscure to illumine the less obscure. And if philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, then…

Hell just isn’t a good place to start.

Hi Ana, you make a very good point. In the case of Hell, the scholastics were committed to this very thing—it was taken for granted that St Augustine was mainly in the right on his views here. So then, there is a bit of “working backwards” to make it all fit together—to try to create a coherent picture of reality, even fitting something so bizarre and seemingly out of place as the forever-and-inescapable-realm of suffering and torment.

And with minds as subtle and sharp as Sts Augustine, Anselm, Bonaventure and Aquinas tackling the problem, it seems to me that if it were easy enough to fit the Augustinian Hell comfortably within Christian theology, it would have already been done by these giants of fundamental theology. And yet, the problem persists over the centuries—the tension introduced by a theology of Hell never gets resolved…

but it was along the lines of no one would arrive at or accept the radical idea that an everlasting Hell is “justice” for sinners if they weren’t already committed a priori to believing it exists and people are there.

Yes, that’s close enough! I do firmly believe that the medieval church in the West persisted in its theological musings within the vast and looming shadow of St Augustine, to include his (at the time, fairly radical) views on human nature, original sin and Hell. I think there is good reason to believe that the scholastics were a priori committed to that vision of Hell and then tried to make the puzzle pieces all fit together. Laying a lot of this at the feet of St Augustine is a general trend in the literature I’ve read on Hell.

But then there is a secondary point here, as you say, which is that no one would simply arrive at the Augustinian Hell by considering (1) the nature of God, (2) the nature of humanity or (3) the nature of justice. St Augustine’s hell doesn’t seem to fit well or easily with any one of those three categories, let alone all of them taken together.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

The very question baffles me on some level.

Why don’t people spend more of their energies on uniting themselves with the highest Good rather than wonder at why the universe wasn’t created to their own specs?

 

[Magnanimity]

To deny the existence of Hell would be a heresy.

If, for the sake of argument, we grant that what you say here is true regarding Hell and heresy, it would still follow that speculation about the nature of such a realm/existence is a live option. For example, I would never for a moment grant your statement above if you had written it as “To deny the existence of the Augustinian vision of Hell would be a heresy.”
As it happens, the great creeds and conciliar decrees of the unified church have very little concretely to say about Hell.

To do Catholic Theology properly, it must be in line with the teachings of the Church, anchored in public revelation (sacred scripture and Tradition), and done with faith.

I imagine everyone seriously engaged on this topic would agree. I certainly do. But once you start investigating the issue of Hell, something becomes apparent very quickly—there is no singular and unified voice of the church on Hell. It doesn’t exist. The only thing close to unity is the medieval church in the West. Everything else (considering east vs west, patristics, medieval, modern and contemporary periods) the discussion is all over the theological map. To believe otherwise is simply to be unaware of the situation.

 

[John_Martin]

Since we are human, living here on earth in this material creation and this “life”, how about if we just see what God does with us here, with predestination here, and leave “heaven and hell” to a later consideration, after we fully understand what we are doing day to day, week to week where we live right now?

For instance, St. Paul says, “do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6)
Let’s say we are going to limit our talk to life here, and this means that what we must conclude from St. Paul is that the “unrighteous” listed above will not be allowed to participate in the Catholic Church, not as Priests, nor religious, nor communing laity, etc. They are treated as “outsiders” so that the Catholic Church will display a righteous reality to the world as a “strange people” in the midst of the world. “Those who believe and whom you baptize, you shall regard as Catholic and participate in the Church with them; those who do not believe the Apostolic Witness, remaining as people in the world and of the world, you shall not regard as Catholic, but leave them outside in the world without Catholic identity.”

And how did we get this way? Predestination by God to have a righteous people in the world: He acted in the world so that there would be a holy people, through Abraham, Isaac (not Ishmael), Jacob (not Esau), Moses, Joshua, Ruth and Boaz, David, the Prophets, Jesus, the Apostles, the Apostolic Line, down to us.

We are here in the world as light and salt, to be servants, a Holy People to the LORD. We are doing the Will of God in the World, so that there will be faith in the world when the Son of Man returns. Sodom and Gomorrah were not saved because ten righteous men could not be found there, as negotiated between the LORD and Abraham. And from then on, the LORD has moved to have his own Holy People in the world, who are freely wanting to be his servants, yet who are still chosen, are still predestined, are still called. We are different than all the people OF the world, and we are IN the world IN their Midst. The Kingdom of God, our heritage, is in their midst, and Abraham (and all the Saints [and I]) are negotiating with the LORD: “If you were to find a billion (or?) righteous in their midst, would you spare the rest?”…

John Martin

 

[DanielJT]

If, for the sake of argument, we grant that what you say here is true regarding Hell and heresy, it would still follow that speculation about the nature of such a realm/existence is a live option.

I might be misunderstanding you here with you say that hell does not need to be a “live option.” I am guessing that you meant that hell exists but because Jesus died for us and God loves us, no one will go there, thus is not being an option.

If I am misunderstanding, will you please clarify?

If we are on the same page, the Church teaches against this idea
The CCC in paragraphs 2091-2092, in regards to the first commandment and its call to Hope, calls this the sin of presumption. There are two kinds or presumption - one where we rely on our own merits as a guarantee for salvation and one where we presume God’s mercy is so broad that even those who do not seek forgiveness will enter in to heaven.

Its interesting that it speaks of this sin alongside the sin of despair (believing there is no hope for personal salvation, even in the face of God’s mercy and promises). This would be the opposite side of the spectrum, but both are a misunderstanding of God’s justice and mercy.

 

[Magnanimity]

I might be misunderstanding you here with you say that hell does not need to be a “live option.” I am guessing that you meant that hell exists but because Jesus died for us and God loves us, no one will go there, thus is not being an option.

If I am misunderstanding, will you please clarify?

Some times I am embarrassingly obtuse, so I apologize. What I meant was that for (say) the unified church of the first millennium, very little is codified regarding Hell, either from the perspective of conciliar decrees or the great creeds. So there is plenty of room for speculation.

However, in the Middle Ages, the church in the West attached itself completely to the Augustinian vision of Hell (as unending, inescapable torment and suffering for the majority). But as quite a few 20th century Catholic theologians have helped folks like me see, such an attachment was awfully misguided and out of step with both the East and the patristics.

And presumption cuts both ways. Presuming to know that folks are in Hell is deeply mistaken. Likewise, it may also be that universalism suffers from a sin of presumption.

Am I being any clearer or is it still mud-like?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

@Magnanimity

I still struggle with hell, what with the kinds of questions we’ve discussed recently on other threads.

But I still think, ultimately, the church only ever had to engage the issue because it is a New Testament theme. Jesus himself is the one that mentions those who go to everlasting punishment.

What keeps me trying to understand hell is not so much the church’s teaching, which of course, is important. But rather, for me, it is the urgent warning given by Jesus and the NT writers.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

@Inquirer

I heard those answers from Trent, too, and they weren’t my favorite. However, I imagine it can be hard to think of quick, comprehensive answers while on live radio.

I think that the best answer will have to consider hell as a natural consequence chosen by the individual person. In other words, basically, someone has to want hell in order to go there.

Peter Kreeft calls sin hell and hell, sin. In this life, we make our own hell by choosing what kind of person we want to be.

I think that some Catholics, especially some non-Eastern Catholics, get too hung up on legalistic notions of Mortal Sin. “Is missing Mass a mortal sin?” or “Will I go to hell for missing Mass?” You really see this kind of mindset on CAF sometimes, and it’s unhealthy. It fosters an unhealthy view of what it means to be human, as well as Gods’ mercy.

That aside, the Church teaches hell is a possibility because humans have the capacity to definitively reject God. Why would anyone want to do this, if human fulfillment consists in God alone?

Well, look at the fallen angels. They chose against God. Whether or not you believe the demons will be reconciled at the end of time or not, the fact remains the angels were not ignorant or influenced by passion. So why did they choose against God, when they did? Pride.

But back to humans: Again, if the dilemma is going to be solved, then it has to be related to humans getting what they want. Not merely punishment, and not merely “getting what they deserve.”

Note: I didn’t solve the dilemma, but I maintain the above: It is true seeing hell as an “eternal torture chamber” is just plain mythical and contrary to a purely loving God. So the answer, somehow, has to stem from God’s allowing humans to choose their destiny.

 

[Magnanimity]

But I still think, ultimately, the church only ever had to engage the issue because it is a New Testament theme. Jesus himself is the one that mentions those who go to everlasting punishment.

And yet, how is it that prior to Sts Augustine and John Chrysostom, the tug towards universalism was rampant? They all read the same scriptures. This is what I can’t quite come to terms with—if it’s so obviously the case that Christ taught eternal damnation, how did such a swath of bright minds miss that? That stretches credulity to the brink, IMO. With Augustine’s prior manecheanism, I totally get how he could reflect on reality as the justappsition of the two opposing camps (city of God vs city of man—team heaven vs team Hell).

But I think St Gregory of Nyssa makes far more sense on Hell. There is no logical reason why hell would have to be forever and inescapable—that’s just Augustinianism. More to the point, believing that all return to the source and that evil is self-consumed is a much better eschatology, I think. It’s a much more realistic conception of a new heavens and new earth. It would actually be new, in a way that Augustinianism can’t be (bc good and evil extend indefinitely into the future for him).

It’s true that I’m not completely settled on this issue. I’m still learning. But I have come to the opinion that the Augustinian hell is much more likely to be wrong than right.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

There is no logical reason why hell would have to be forever and inescapable—that’s just Augustinianism.

I would disagree that this notion stems from Augustine. For example, Irenaeus says:

“The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever” (Against Heresies, 4:28:2)

But like you say, there was diverse disagreement.

But so was there disagreement on even more essential things, like whether Jesus was even God. At one point, I believe the vast majority of bishops were Arian!

If you think the Catholic Church has not officially settled on the nature of hell, then that may be a fair point, if it’s true. However, if your argument is mainly from Tradition (church fathers, etc.), then we have to remember that we don’t only look to Tradition (or Scripture) but the official teaching of the church, now. Do you maintain the Catholic Church has no official teaching on hell? If so, that is fine. I’m here to learn as well.