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

[Magnanimity]

But like you say, there was diverse disagreement.

Right, for any patristic you’d quote, I’d quote two. But that is precisely my point. If it’s soooo obvious from scripture that Christ was teaching eternal damnation, this shouldn’t be possible.

And you’re right, it was “St Athanasius against the world,” on Arianism, wasn’t it?! The scriptures do not settle the matter on Hell. The Tradition does not settle the matter. So…???

 

[RealisticCatholic]

For example, a JW could look back at various church fathers and say “see, there was disagreement over Jesus as God.” Etc.

That’s why Tradition itself is not sufficient.

So it’s more fundamental to ask, what does the church actually teach?

 

[Magnanimity]

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.

The infernists here on CAF point out Lateran and they also point out the anathemas of Origen (of the emperor Justinian). Contemporary scholarship does not associate the anathemas with Const II (for whatever that’s worth).

Here is what Lateran IV (1215 AD) writes, “he descended to the underworld, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. He descended in the soul, rose in the flesh, and ascended in both. He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.
There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved…”

These are the only conciliar supports I ever see by infernalists.

I just don’t know @RealisticCatholic. St Thomas Aquinas himself (a hero of mine) taught that God reprobates men. He said that God wishes some good to all men but does not wish the particular good of eternal life to all. ST 1.23.3. That kind of stuff is completely reminiscent of Augustine. I think he was too attached to the great saint for his own good.

 

[skelly]

Who are you questioning when you question the existence of hell and whether it not it is just and whether or not there are actually people in hell? For the church or anyone to tell you different would require an edit of Jesus’ words in all four gospels. Reading the saints is great but sometimes some on here need to go back to reading the gospels.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But Aquinas wasn’t afraid to part ways with Augustine when he thought Augustine to be speaking nonsense, like with regards to infants going to hell.

But yeah, I just looked up the relevant passages in the Summa, and the way he answers that bugs me. At least the CC officially teaches that God predestines no one to hell. In addition, God desires all to be saved.

Just because something comes from a Council doesn’t mean it’s infallible. Is there any reason the people cite that particular portion of the council as infallible?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

@magnanimity

Do you think it makes sense to say that, if hell exists, then it has to be because someone actually wants to go there?

 

[Magnanimity]

At least the CC officially teaches that God predestines no one to hell. In addition, God desires all to be saved.

Yes! At least the church has abandoned that aspect of the Augustinian teaching—double election.

Just because something comes from a Council doesn’t mean it’s infallible. Is there any reason the people cite that particular portion of the council as infallible?

Folks here offer it as support. Not sure whether they would insist it’s infallible though I would guess so.

Do you think it makes sense to say that, if hell exists, then it has to be because someone actually wants to go there?

Let me get your reaction to what I wrote elsewhere to you on this point. I’d like to know your thoughts.

I wonder if the idea that love is giving a person what she wants is a Modernist notion, undergirded by a voluntarism that we see emerging in the late medieval period (and which completely takes hold in the Modern Age). Voluntarism would make the will preeminent and subsume one’s essence beneath it.

Choice itself is not the highest good for a human. Manifesting her destiny seems like the highest good—doing and being what she was meant to do and be (beatitude). Let me know what you think.

 

[DanielJT]

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.

Cool

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

I did not know this and will keep an eye out for it.

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.

Agreed.

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

Did you study somewhere? I appreciate the dialogue.

 

[IWantGod]

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.

Yep, i have completely rejected the torture chamber interpretation. It is certainly reasonable in comparison to think that hell is a natural state or a natural result of an eternal separation between God and a created person. It is more about what one lacks in that state which to me makes better sense of eternal suffering. Much like evil being described as a privation of good, hell is in a sense the eternal privation of God.

 

[IWantGod]

But Aquinas wasn’t afraid to part ways with Augustine when he thought Augustine to be speaking nonsense, like with regards to infants going to hell.

Yes, people often mistake the words of saints to be absolutely infallible. The church fathers disagreed on things or sometimes had different ideas on how to interpret something.

I am so glad that the church has rejected limbo as official church teaching.

 

[Magnanimity]

Did you study somewhere? I appreciate the dialogue.

Thanks! Same here. I enjoyed reading your thoughts. I have a couple of degrees (philosophy and religion) but they were obtained a long time ago. So today, I’m just an interested layman.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Choice itself is not the highest good for a human. Manifesting her destiny seems like the highest good—doing and being what she was meant to do and be (beatitude). Let me know what you think.

Let me get your reaction to what I wrote elsewhere to you on this point. I’d like to know your thoughts.

I guess the question has to be if an individual forms his “second nature” responsibly. In your post, you ask if it would be good of God to let someone go down a path of self-destruction. I think the way – the only way – this can be so, is if that person indeed does so, anyway, knowing what he or she is doing.

 

[Magnanimity]

I think the way – the only way – this can be so, is if that person indeed does so, anyway, knowing what he or she is doing.

My “western mind” supports you in this. As in, I’m inclined to agree with you. Have you yet read St Gregory of Nyssa? His speculations on this matter diverge completely from you and me. DB Hart gives a talk here that illustrates St Gregory’s “collective” approach to all of humanity. I’d be interested to read what you’ve got to say to this, if you have the time/interest.

 

[Isearch]

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)

I do think he was misuderstanding the answer shown here. This statement may have meant that the knowledge of future good or evil actions of a person logically proceeds from God’s decision to create that person.

This is what I hold to be the logical sequence of God’s foreknowledge:

God decides to create that person>God foresees that person’s future actions>God decides to predestine or reprobate that person based on his future merits or demerits

 

[Isearch]

Because of this, I believe that anyone asking this question, “Why would God create person x if He knows that person would end up in hell,” is asking a wrong question.

 

[niceatheist]

Augustine made his career attacking Origen at every turn, and indeed in many ways Augustine had the upper hand. But Origen’s ideas have never quite left Christianity, and Universalism pops up its head here and there. I think in part because Origen’s views just seem more just, whereas Augustine, who, like St. Paul before him and Luther after him, was just so darned strident. They held an almost Old Testament view of God, a sort of “either you are with us or you’re against us” mentality. I think Augustine’s view served Christianity well in that critical period as the Church’s influence began to spread, but it’s also useful to note that while he’s a hero in the West, he’s viewed much more dimly in Orthodox circles, and I’d say Orthodoxy tends a little more towards universalism than does Western Christianity.

 

[Lion_IRC]

What’s ‘imperfect’ about people who love God being with God, and people who don’t love Him being somewhere else?

Seriously, what’s the problem here?
How long do people need to make their choice about - God yes? Or God no?

Another word for indecisive is lukewarm.

 

[Magnanimity]

But Origen’s ideas have never quite left Christianity,

You’re right about that. I don’t know about the East’s familiarity with Origen, but for the West, there has been a resurgence of interest in Origen among Latin-rite Catholics, at least in the last 50 years or so.

Universalism pops up its head here and there.

On my brief research, universalism rears it head in East and West, in every age of the church (though during the Middle Ages in the West, it’s less commonly found but not entirely absent—witness Scotus Eriugena, Mechtilde, Julian of Norwich).

whereas Augustine, who, like St. Paul before him and Luther after him, was just so darned strident. They held an almost Old Testament view of God, a sort of “either you are with us or you’re against us” mentality.

I follow you here and agree, with the exception of St Paul. The epistles of Paul are most often appealed to by universalists, especially 1 Corinthians. But the link between Augustine and Protestants (like Calvin for sure and even Luther a bit) cannot be denied.

I think Augustine’s view served Christianity well in that critical period as the Church’s influence began to spread, but it’s also useful to note that while he’s a hero in the West, he’s viewed much more dimly in Orthodox circles

This is very well said—all contemporary Orthodox that I’ve read are none too impressed with the great Latin saint. But I think you’ve made a more important point here—the Augustinian vision of Hell may have had a time and a place of importance (and served an important function for the church) but that time is far beyond us today. I see no good practical function that the Augustinian vision serves today. If anything, it’s a reason for unbelief (in an unjust god who loves us only up to a certain point).

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But again, it’s not like an eternal hell was invented by Augustine.

The moral imperative of the New Testament presupposes a call to action, that there really is good and evil, and that our choices and acts matter in this life, for the next. Paul saying certain actions will “not inherit the Kingdom of God” can benefit the idea of an eternal hell as much as universalism, if not more.

My point here is to not think so poorly of Augustine. This is why the Catholic Church has an advantage, because it is not JUST Latin, not JUST Greek. It’s West and East.

But now back to the actual question re: hell. This is why I look forward to David Bentley Hart’s book, because at the very least, hopefully it will propel traditional Catholics to consider the topic more deeply – instead of just reiterating perceived dogma.

 

[goout]

Time is the factor that is misapplied.
Fore-knowledge is not a thing for God. There is no time for God, so before and after are useless in trying to explain these things. You have to start with this basis or you get tied up in anthropomorphic knots, or trying to explain God in human terms. Then you have to use things like tenses, and “if, then…” statements.

In God acting and being are one thing, so it’s not like God changes his mind at a certain time, or is moved to act in in time.
Heading off the obvious objection that scripture portrays God acting in human ways: yea scripture does that. Scripture is human words revealing someone that human words are not fully able to reveal. Human words are limited.

To be freely united with God in love is a radical possibility of human freedom. And part of that possibility is to freely choose slavery, or to reject the freedom of love. And because love is radically “other”, so is choosing not to love.