Yes, in hell, but why forever

[Gorgias]

As I recall, you simply attempted to deny the Thomistic teaching that God reprobates some.

If by ‘reprobate’, you mean a positive act of God, then you’re misunderstanding Thomas. His claim in I.23.3 is merely that God “permits certain defects in those things which are subject to providence” and therefore God “permit some to fall away from [eternal life]; this is called reprobation.”

However, the objection you’re citing is asking a different question than what you’re attempting to demonstrate, it seems. The objection is that, since God loves all, therefore God reprobates none. Thomas is simply affirming his answer – inasmuch as God’s providence allows for a loss of eternal life, He ‘reprobates’ them; but, that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t love them.

I take it to be self-evidently true that some people at times cannot realize what is in their own best interests, and this can be attributed to many things—habituation in vice, deliberate alteration of brain-states with chemicals

So, in the context of God intervening, you raise the notion of sinful actions taken deliberately and willingly. Fascinating. So, what your argument boils down to is (1) people sin; (2) sin causes bad effects; (3) these bad effects lead to more sin; (4) God must intervene. In other words, God must either keep us from sinning in the first place, or ignore the fact that we’ve sinned and merely give us a pass on our unrepented sin. (You realize that’s not what the Church teaches, right?)

 

[oliver109]

What about the case where someone dies before they are able to repent from their sin? why would God allow that? why could he not give them one last chance?

 

[Gorgias]

What about the case where someone dies before they are able to repent from their sin? why would God allow that? why could he not give them one last chance?

Because God doesn’t act like the Fates of Greek myth – that is, picking and choosing when a person dies. Rather, He allows life and death to proceed on its own, and He only asks that we love him always and repent when we sin. He doesn’t “cherry-pick” the results and knock off people just because they stepped out of the confessional in a state of grace.

 

[oliver109]

Is God powerless to take someone back to Heaven when they are in a state of grace?

 

[Gorgias]

Is God powerless to take someone back to Heaven when they are in a state of grace?

It’s not a question of “power”; it’s a question of “choice.” Asking about God’s “power” is a red herring here.

(Besides which, if folks started drawing a connection between people going to confession and dying right afterward, well… how many people do you think would go to confession? )

 

[oliver109]

Probably a lot would go to Confession as it would be a guarantee of Heaven, at the same time why does God not get everyone to die just after they have committed a mortal sin, then perhaps Heaven would have only the most righteous there.

 

[Gorgias]

Probably a lot would go to Confession as it would be a guarantee of Heaven

Would you go to confession tomorrow, if you knew you would die right after?

Probably very few would.

why does God not get everyone to die just after they have committed a mortal sin

Again, it’s because God does not “get [people] to die,” regardless of their state.

 

[oliver109]

I would, I would have nothing to feel guilty about doing so therefore it would be a no brainer really. So God is basically passive about when people die? That is a God I feel uncomfortable about worshipping.

 

[Gorgias]

I would, I would have nothing to feel guilty about doing so therefore it would be a no brainer really.

I’ve got an experiment for you, then: ask a number of people you know whether they’d go to confession tomorrow, if they knew God would “kill” them right afterward.

You’re gonna be surprised…

So God is basically passive about when people die? That is a God I feel uncomfortable about worshipping.

So… in your perception of God, He basically knocks people off when He feels like it? That doesn’t sound like an omnibenevolent God that one can feel comfortable worshipping.

 

[oliver109]

Maybe it is the lack of faith that is the reason why they would not go to Confession if they were guaranteed to die afterwards, look at Christ and his ascension, that must have been devastating for his followers but at the same time overwhelmingly joyful as everyone knew that he was going on to do great things up there so to speak. My perception of God is that he ensures that the time someone dies is the best time they can die, he also allows peoples deaths to ensure the journeying of humanity towards it’s perfection that has not yet been attained. So in reality a lot of people do not die at the best time but I feel that God can do a lot with a soul before it is separated from the body, we must not despair because a person has appeared to have died after it has committed mortal sin.

 

[Magnanimity]

If by ‘reprobate’, you mean a positive act of God, then you’re misunderstanding Thomas

Yet another distinction that makes no difference. Whether I directly cause someone to suffer or whether I stand by and allow them to suffer when I could have prevented it, it makes little difference. On either scenario the person suffers, and I am causally related to the suffering.

St Thomas bends over backwards to try to accommodate the Augustinian position, and it’s a very hard thing to do. St Thomas’ nuance won’t fit into your simple view though. There is nothing outside of the providence and governance of God. Aquinas affirms this repeatedly in the ST. But he wants to allow for some to end up “damned,” following the Augustinian tradition. Yet he also wants to affirm that God loves all people. So, Aquinas is somewhat cornered by trying to defend the bizarre—the loving God co-eternal with a realm of “damnation.” So, St Thomas will say odd sounding things like “although God wishes some good to all men, he does not wish the particular good of eternal life to all.” But if it’s all up to the human, then what is meant by “he does not wish the particular good of eternal life to all?”

I’m asking rhetorically bc I know the answer. This is basically, for St Thomas, the principle of predilection—God loves/prefers some more than others. That’s all well and good, I suppose (eg, the Virgin Mary is obviously “preferenced). But I’d doubt whether it could extend to damnation. Loving one person more than another has nothing to do with holding a person in perpetual existence so that she may suffer unending, inescapable torment. That’s not predilection. It’s cruel and unusual. It’s the gods of the ancient world. It isn’t a God who is love. You have not even attempted to demonstrate how God could be said to “love” the goat, Sarah, after her death. Still waiting…

In other words, God must either keep us from sinning in the first place, or ignore the fact that we’ve sinned and merely give us a pass on our unrepented sin.

False dilemma. Hell can exist, and it can even be a place of torment and suffering, but it cannot be forever and inescapable. The Augustinian Hell is incompatible with (1) a God who is love, (2) the nature of humanity that ever inclines the will toward some good (even disordered goods) and are made for beatitude and (3) justice itself, since the Augustinian Hell could not possibly be a proportionate punishment for the finite crimes of any human.

 

[oliver109]

1.God is love but he cannot make people accept his love, they have to accept to love God and accept to be loved by God 2. Yes you could argue that the majority of humans do will to do good and to stop sinning, there are clearly people out there who not only love their sin but would even tell you that they would hate a world where they can not indulge In their sin. 3. committing a mortal sin is itself worthy of an eternal duration of misery as you are sinning against goodness itself and there is no way God can give say 30 years in Hell for what is a sin that sins against goodness and is rejecting goodness.

 

[Magnanimity]

1.God is love but he cannot make people accept his love, they have to accept to love God and accept to be loved by God

@oliver109! I thought you and I were supposed to be agreeing here.
There are about a dozen things I could say in reply to what you write above, so I have to be selective…I’ll just start here: to love another is to will and work for the good of the other, as other. That is, if someone loves you, they desire and work for your good for your own sake (not as a means to an end and not for any other purpose). That is the starting point for any being who is love itself. Said being always wills and works for the good of his beloved, period. There are no other conditions. That is it. That is all.

As for point #2, I’m glad you accept the Aristotelian-Thomistic starting point bc it’s frankly a bit exhausting talking to folks who don’t.

there are clearly people out there who not only love their sin but would even tell you that they would hate a world where they can not indulge In their sin.

Any and all sins are privations of some good. So I completely accept that many folks have admixtures of various goods in their lives—that is, there are goods intermingled with various privations. The problem with the Augustinian (inescapable, everlasting) Hell is this—what “good” does the human will orient itself toward in that realm? If God is “absent” from Hell, then toward what does a human in Hell orient her will? Also, humans are literally made for beatitude, and the Augustinian Hell completely thwarts this “final end” of the human. It thwarts what the human was made for.

1. committing a mortal sin is itself worthy of an eternal duration of misery as you are sinning against goodness itself and there is no way God can give say 30 years in Hell for what is a sin that sins against goodness and is rejecting goodness.

I’m afraid I can’t grant you this point in the least. Just as when you commit a loving act toward God, no one would say that you are loving God infinitely, so too, when you offend God, it cannot be said that you offend him infinitely.

No one on CAF will argue for the infinity of God more ardently than I, but it does not follow that any act you could commit toward such a being is ipso facto an infinite act. All of your acts are finite by their very natures.

If you disagree, you are going to have to argue to the contrary (demonstrate how a finite creature engages in infinite acts of love or offense). On the face of it, such a position is absurd.

As a corollary, God is immutable. He cannot be literally affected by any act you do toward him (whether good or evil).

 

[sudy]

This article seems to address this topic to an extent.

Why We Can’t Change Our Soul After Death | Catholic Answers Magazine

I’m not really in a position to enter into debating this topic in any real depth, though, so I won’t pretend that I am.

 

[yammerGee]

I’m rather confused now. From your link Why We Can’t Change Our Soul After Death | Catholic Answers

If those things that motivate us to change our course of action are rooted in the body, then it follows that when the body is gone the disembodied soul will no longer be able to change its choice .

But doesn’t Catholicism teach that a human consist of both a body and a soul?

From a dogmatic decision of the Fourth Lateran Council The Resurrection of the Body | Catholic Answers

The only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, who will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead and to reward all according to their deeds, both the reprobate and the elect, all of whom will rise with their own proper bodies which they now bear, so that they may receive according to their deeds, whether good or evil.

So Catholicism teaches that even those destined for hell will still have bodies. So how can the first article allege that repentance in hell is impossible due to the lack of a body?

 

[sudy]

So how can the first article allege that repentance in hell is impossible due to the lack of a body?

I’m afraid you’re asking the wrong person…

I’m not really in a position to enter into debating this topic in any real depth, though, so I won’t pretend that I am.

I haven’t read up on the argument in any real depth. I know what the catechism teaches, and what Scripture teaches. The theology behind it all is something I haven’t studied.

Perhaps… and this is only a random guess, that if the body as well as the soul is immortal, perhaps that’s why the punishment is eternal.

 

[Gorgias]

Yet another distinction that makes no difference.

Hardly, but at least now I understand where you’re coming from. I think you’re mistaken, but it’s good to see what your objection is.

Whether I directly cause someone to suffer or whether I stand by and allow them to suffer when I could have prevented it, it makes little difference.

So, by that standard, God is already evil, by virtue of being able to have ‘prevented’ Jesus’ suffering and death, but having not done so.

And, if you disagree with that one – which, as a Christian, one hopes you do – then you’ll have to admit that the same principle holds with God vis-a-vis humanity: He’s not the cause of our suffering, either.

But if it’s all up to the human, then what is meant by “he does not wish the particular good of eternal life to all?”

Because it still falls under the realm of His providence. Or is that too simple a view for you to accept?

This is basically, for St Thomas, the principle of predilection—God loves/prefers some more than others.

Please show me where he says that, if I’m mistaken, but I can’t recall seeing where he says that. Oh, sure – God wills salvation for some, but not all; but not “loves more”.

You have not even attempted to demonstrate how God could be said to “love” the goat, Sarah, after her death. Still waiting…

Sure I did! Maybe you missed it: He loves by honoring our choice; He loves by willing His justice; He loves by rewarding virtue and punishing vice. If he didn’t, then he’d be a dictator; a tyrant; and capricious, respectively.

False dilemma.

I’m responding to oliver’s statement in particular, in which he suggests that God must ignore the first sins of a person and therefore prevent/forgive the subsequent sins that follow on. Keep up, man.

the Augustinian Hell could not possibly be a proportionate punishment for the finite crimes of any human.

All sin is an offense against God, isn’t it? God is not finite. Therefore, the offense is not finite. Not sure whether you’ve never run up against that train of thought, or are just ignoring it…

In any case, you might be interested in Aquinas’ take on the question.

 

[Gorgias]

@oliver109! I thought you and I were supposed to be agreeing here.

LOL!

if someone loves you, they desire and work for your good for your own sake (not as a means to an end and not for any other purpose)

So, when a person doesn’t work for God’s good for His own sake, then he doesn’t love God. Therefore, it’s both just and good (and an expression of love) for God to give him what he himself has demonstrated he wanted.

So good to see you’re finally coming around to it…

The problem with the Augustinian (inescapable, everlasting) Hell is this—what “good” does the human will orient itself toward in that realm?

The perceived – but mistaken – ‘good’ of having things his own way.

Just as when you commit a loving act toward God, no one would say that you are loving God infinitely,

So… heaven is unjust, too? After all, it’s eternal reward for temporal love…! Boy, you must have a hard time of it – God’s evil for allowing hell, and He’s wrong for allowing heaven!

But doesn’t Catholicism teach that a human consist of both a body and a soul?

Sure, and after we die (but before the eschaton), we’ll be “incomplete” in the sense that we’ll be disembodied souls.

So Catholicism teaches that even those destined for hell will still have bodies. So how can the first article allege that repentance in hell is impossible due to the lack of a body?

I think that it’s not making that claim (at least, with respect to the eschaton). Rather, it’s saying that a person’s choice becomes irrevocable while they’re a disembodied soul. Because it’s irrevocable, there’s no “fleeting passions, change in habit, or correction of intellectual error” in hell, even in the eschaton.

 

[yammerGee]

I think that it’s not making that claim (at least, with respect to the eschaton). Rather, it’s saying that a person’s choice becomes irrevocable while they’re a disembodied soul. Because it’s irrevocable, there’s no “fleeting passions, change in habit, or correction of intellectual error” in hell, even in the eschaton.

But it says the lack of a body is the sole reason why it’s unchangeable.

If those things that motivate us to change our course of action are rooted in the body, then it follows that when the body is gone the disembodied soul will no longer be able to change its choice.

It’s all about the body. Body linked with soul on earth = can change. Body removed from soul = can’t change.

Therefore it seems to follow that when the soul is reunited with the body (as the Lateran Council indicates will happen), then the things which could motivate us to change course (which are “rooted in the body”) will be back as well. And therefore the potential to “change course” will also be back.

 

[sudy]

Matthew 10:28 says that both body and soul can be thrown into hell. It doesn’t specifically state that the body and soul will be reunited for those going to hell.