tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post413859680904139954..comments2024-03-19T00:20:18.049-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Does God damn you?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger176125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48574938391696765182023-02-11T16:10:02.690-08:002023-02-11T16:10:02.690-08:00Because their will isn’t free. It’s fixed.Because their will isn’t free. It’s fixed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42018938498557288972020-04-08T00:31:50.292-07:002020-04-08T00:31:50.292-07:00This is precisely my view. There is no reason why ...This is precisely my view. There is no reason why one's last state upon dying should carry through perpetually in the next life. Why not allow subjects to use their free will in hell to decide that they screwed up and that they need to repent?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49373309083837439242016-12-08T16:03:10.496-08:002016-12-08T16:03:10.496-08:00Gyan, if the "indefinite" is not simply ...Gyan, if the "indefinite" is not simply a finite # as implied by a finite earthly life, of what <i>point</i> is the finite earthly life for each person, his allotted "three score and ten" or up to Moses' six score? <br /><br />I think we will find that the finite earthly life for each is critical to God's plan, and "indefinite" doesn't work with that. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56624488712516351292016-12-08T00:09:43.903-08:002016-12-08T00:09:43.903-08:00Tony,
"every spiritual (and intellectual) cr...Tony,<br /><br />"every spiritual (and intellectual) creature has an infinite number of chances to go on choosing him or not."<br /><br />Replace "infinite" with "indefinite" and you have the definition of the elect. As discussed in the Lamont article that Feser links to, the elect are those from whom God just won't take No for an answer. <br /><br />Now, it may be that all humanity belongs in the category Elect and thus hell is empty. Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67267779013725027792016-12-07T18:49:52.129-08:002016-12-07T18:49:52.129-08:00There some SPECIFIC way that God creates the creat...There some SPECIFIC way that God creates the created order in which we are put. It has to be either THIS way, or THAT way, specifically. It cannot be ALL ways all at the same time. <br /><br />Theoretically, God might have been able to make some created order work in which creatures could choose him (or against him) for a lengthy time after death. But even if this is possible, it says nothing about whether he was BOUND to create such a universe. If he preferred to make a DIFFERENT system, one in which the period granted for new choices for God is limited to the period before death, nothing about His deciding THAT's the universe He was going to form is "unfair" or somehow "wrong". What if he gave everyone exactly 3 chances for choice, and that's all? How could one say that such a structure to a universe is "wrong"? <br /><br />What is, I think, NOT feasible as a possible format of the universe, is a structure where every spiritual (and intellectual) creature has an <i>infinite number</i> of chances to go on choosing him or not. For, the END of an intellectual creature is to know God as He is in Himself, in the Beatific Vision. And once you HAVE the Beatific Vision, you no longer have the option to repudiate God. You <i>cannot</i> choose anything under the aspect "better than God" because it is impossible for anything else to APPEAR under that guise in the BV. And the intellect and will is not (and cannot be designed to be) able to choose something under the guise or aspect of "evil", only under the aspect of good. <br /><br />So newly orienting choice for or against God stops when you have the BV. No matter what sort of universe God might construct, if it has intellectual creatures capable of the BV, then their end (final purpose) in Him means an end (last one) of choices. <br /><br />Could there be a non-parallel situation with persons who keep on choosing against God, that he could design the universe to go on giving them infinitely many (real) chances to accept him or reject him? This too seems impossible to me. It is impossible that God could make a universe in which justice is never complete. And if a person <i>keeps on</i> making choices against God, then they would <i>keep on</i> meriting more punishment for themselves due for those sins. Punishment due cannot be forever delayed and still be just. There could not be a delay forever. So, a just universe of this sort would have to have God visiting them with the just recompense for EACH such new sin, AS THEY COMMIT the sins. Without end. And this to me seems inconceivable. <br /><br />In any case, God is under no obligation to make the period of trial be indefinitely long, as the only POSSIBLE way to be a "good" God and make an acceptable created order. People who insist on it, I think, need to re-read Job: <br /><br /><i> Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! 4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, 5Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? 6"On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, 7When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy?</i> <br /><br />We can perceive glimpses of God's purposes, and of what sort of good things his justice and his mercy shall consist, because he has revealed them. But he has not revealed them all. "What we shall be is not yet revealed..." We DON'T comprehend (as in, "know all the way around") his justice and his mercy, and we must accept that our perception of it is incomplete still. If God has set the foundations of the world, and prescribed its measurements so that the period of a man's trial shall be while he lives on this Earth and no more, then that IS just and good. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54733328911453385532016-12-07T18:14:34.914-08:002016-12-07T18:14:34.914-08:00I learned in seminary that the Roman Empire was co...<i>I learned in seminary that the Roman Empire was completely taken with the concepts of law and justice, that they filled the thinking of the average Roman citizen.</i> <br /><br />The concepts are also found throughout St. Paul, and in many of the sayings of Jesus: "Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.…" <br /><br />Whether Romans had "law" on the head is irrelevant to whether what St. Thomas was saying was true. A "perspective" can be a false perspective, or a valid one. If what St. Thomas taught is false, it is false because it fails to describe reality, not because it was "enamored" of law and justice. So: show it being false. Or not. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4534220591246583412016-12-07T10:07:15.336-08:002016-12-07T10:07:15.336-08:00Dianelos,
The obvious question though arises how ...Dianelos,<br /><br /><i>The obvious question though arises how does purgatory fit with Aquinas's idea that the will is fixed at the moment of death. The two ideas contradict each other.</i><br /><br />Those two ideas contradict each other about as much as do these two ideas: <br /><br />a) drive to Aunt Millie's; and, <br /><br />b) stop along the way to have the car washed.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66940555211989886102016-12-07T08:25:51.219-08:002016-12-07T08:25:51.219-08:00I can see you as a 14th century Spanish theologian...<i>I can see you as a 14th century Spanish theologian</i><br /><br />Dear Anonymous,<br />I can see you as a 21st-century heretic.<br /><br />Which just goes to show that one shouldn't let one's imagination get too carried away, eh? Better all around to keep one's emotions in check and pursue the truth with reason and logic instead.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78406477674247751922016-12-06T23:39:10.351-08:002016-12-06T23:39:10.351-08:00@ IrishEddieOHara,
”I think the reason that I am...@ IrishEddieOHara,<br /><br /><i>”I think the reason that I am so concerned for the truth is that there cannot be more than one truth on a subject”</i><br /><br />Since Christ is the truth we should all be very concerned with it :-) Incidentally “Christ is the truth” is not meant metaphorically but literally. <br /><br />On the other hand “there cannot be more than one truth on a subject” is an ambiguous statement: <br /><br />The most important fact in our condition is our experience of the divine – of Christ. There are many dimensions in our experience of Christ, but it is fair to say that the tenor of it is that of experiencing a person. And observe that not all who experience the same person have the same experience. So, for example, a particular person is experienced differently by her parents, her siblings, or her children – since for them she is experienced as a child, as a sibling or as parent. When speaking about their experience they are apt to speak differently to a significant degree, even though they are speaking about the same subject. Similarly a friend will experience a person quite differently than one who hardly knows her. Or take the example of the gospels. Here we have the testimony of people living in the same culture at the same time meeting the same person, namely Jesus – and yet their true testimony is sometimes inconsistent. Sometimes one reads about an easygoing, happy and all-forgiving fellow, but sometimes also about a rather stern and demanding one. So there is indeed one truth – Christ – but given the many different circumstances in the human condition there may be many truthful utterances *about* Christ. Now mystical union and thus direct knowledge (or knowledge by acquaintance) of Christ is possible – indeed God willing this is the future life of us all – but that's not something that admits talking about. Here one may only talk about peripheral stuff or to poetically wax about. Why? Because the experience of the absolute itself cannot be projected into conceptual classes without distorting it. <br /><br />On the other hand there are many cases where two beliefs cannot be both true. So, reality is either such that the spirits of deception are persons (and thus have free will and in general their own personal experience), or not. Reality is either such that all humans will in the end be in heaven, or not. Indeed all statements that refer to experience are categorical. Such statements can sometimes be misunderstood, but in those cases that they are understood correctly (or cannot but be understood correctly as in the two examples above) only one thing can be true. And as you write above the truth about eschatology can only be known through revelation, since obviously we haven't experienced it yet. Indeed if you think about all truths about metaphysics can only be known through revelation. But what is revelation? How does God's revelation work through human history – and through individual lives? Does God want to reveal all truths (and is this itself a truth one may know only through revelation)? <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48239416092297948962016-12-06T16:46:48.382-08:002016-12-06T16:46:48.382-08:00@ Dianelos Georgoudis:
First of all, let me say t...@ Dianelos Georgoudis:<br /><br />First of all, let me say that I love your posts and have copied them and pasted them to a file I am making on this subject.<br /><br />I think the reason that I am so concerned for the truth is that there cannot be more than one truth on a subject. As you express in your post to me, God is either monster who willingly created sentient beings, knowing that the majority of them would fall and experience a never-ending torment of some degree, or He is Love and in acting as love, will be sure to save all who have ever lived and bring them to the bliss of union with Him, no matter how long it takes. But you cannot express both as truth because they are contradictory.<br /><br />In like manner, following your concern over the hellfire position driving people away from Christ and the joy that is in Him, there are assemblies here in the States whose preaching and doctrines are so wretched that they present a Christ that people either turn from in disgust or worship in fear rather than love. So truth is, as you said, very important.<br /><br />In addition to this, there is the issue presented by certain folks throughout the history of Christianity, beginning with the Early Fathers, that without membership in the Church, one is going to experience that hellfire rather than the grace of God. If this is true - and at this point in my life I am beginning to say "IF" - then this is no small matter. Even if the hellfire is the temporary fire of God's cleansing love, the Patristic Universalists I have read are all in agreement that this is something you should strive to avoid. So again, finding the Church becomes quite important, even for a Universalist paradigm.<br /><br />Thank you again for your insightful and thought-provoking posts.IrishEddieOHarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13239323643595343708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-782499287948853522016-12-06T14:50:37.361-08:002016-12-06T14:50:37.361-08:00@ IrishEddieOHara,
Let me start from the end whic...@ IrishEddieOHara,<br /><br />Let me start from the end which is simpler. You write: <br /><br />“<i>Where do I find truth?</i>”<br /><br />You have already found the truth: Christ. <br /><br />In the perhaps overintellectualized world we tend to think of truth as a property of propositions. But on theism the metaphysical ultimate is God, a personal being who through Christ made all there is. Truth then is instantiated by Christ. All propositions we say are true are so because they turn our mind towards Christ in Himself or towards something Christ has made. Thus to know anything is to know Christ. Even so-called necessary truths such as logical truths refer to Christ's nature which is rational. Moral truths of course refer to Christ's goodness, and in the incarnated Christ we have the marvelous gift of meeting a human instantiation of perfection. Physical truths refer to Christ's ordering the physical world. And so on. <br /><br />Now you ask for the “infallible source of truth”, a source that will clearly and infallibly answer any question you may ask about anything, as for example about hell. But why should you feel the need to have access to such a source? One of the joys of our life, indeed one of the useful spiritual exercises, is for us to discover the truth – which after all is Christ. <br /><br />Should you be worried about truths that apply to the salvation of your soul lest you commit some serious mistake, then again you already have all the truth you need: <i>”This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you.”</i><br /><br />There really should not be any doubts weighting on the Christian's mind, and all of one's strength and will should be focused on following Christ – a call which is hard enough as it is. Actually an excellent test for the truth of any theological proposition is to consider whether or not it makes us love and desire Christ more and inspires in us more faith to follow His path. <br /><br />So then, why do I make so much fuss about hell vs universalism? Because I am worried for those who might be repelled by the dogma of hell and turn away from the gospel thus missing the beauty of Christ. <br /><br /><i>”The Scriptures declare that the Church is the "pillar and ground of truth."”</i><br /><br />The Church is the mystical body of Christ – by which I understand the continuous and living presence of Christ within humanity. The great Christian churches are within that body, they are organized communities where the best of tradition and of theological knowledge is distilled and conserved. As far as I am concerned they are all true to Christ and Christianity is enriched by any variation between them. Churches are our helpers, perhaps indispensable helpers, but Christ Himself is the way, the truth, and the life. Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2369891299483094492016-12-06T09:36:24.670-08:002016-12-06T09:36:24.670-08:00If someone would give me a concise answer to this ...If someone would give me a concise answer to this question, I would be most grateful:<br /><br />The Church (both East and West) has declared that hellism is truth. The Scriptures declare that the Church is the "pillar and ground of truth."<br /><br />If, therefore, I say that the Church, for some misbegotten reason, has erred in declaring hellism to be true, then I face a very serious problem:<br /><br /><b>Where do I find truth?</b><br /><br />Because if there is no one, infallible source of truth, then there is NONE! And then everyone with a theological idea, a vision, a dream, a dyspeptic ulcer causing hallucinations, or on a good dose of LSD, can claim to have "the truth."<br /><br />Do you see the problem I have?IrishEddieOHarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13239323643595343708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18530327949425942062016-12-06T08:52:47.405-08:002016-12-06T08:52:47.405-08:00@ Dianelos Georgoudis
First of all, as an Easter...@ Dianelos Georgoudis <br /><br />First of all, as an Eastern Catholic myself with very strong longings to be Orthodox, (I will only go there when our Lord sends me) I don't really favor Aquinas's Roman juridical views. I learned in seminary that the Roman Empire was completely taken with the concepts of law and justice, that they filled the thinking of the average Roman citizen. I find myself thinking then that Roman theology has been considerably influenced by this modality of thinking. It seems to me that the Western mind is consumed with the ideas of justice and revenge, and that colors their view of God.<br /><br />Do I understand you correctly that you do not see spirits as fallen angels, but as a metaphysical byproduct of the Fall? If so, that seems to contradict the biblical narration of the fall of Satan and those angels who followed him. You talk about "the dawn of theology" in a manner which suggests that theology rather than being a revelation from God, is more of a confluence of some revelation and some confusion from mankind as regarding the next world. Which, if true, would leave us at the mercy of our distorted imaginations as to what really is truth.<br /><br />I will put Hick's book on my to do list. I am wending my way through 5 books right now and am a bit overwhelmed.IrishEddieOHarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13239323643595343708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-130806130891252492016-12-06T03:43:46.707-08:002016-12-06T03:43:46.707-08:00Dianelos,
Man can not repent of a mortal sin by h...Dianelos,<br /><br />Man can not repent of a mortal sin by himself. It requires an infusion of grace. Now, it has been held by theologians that divine grace ceases at death. Interestingly, there is no intrinsic necessity for this cessation of divine grace postmortem. It is purely by revelation--"Night is coming in which no man can work".<br /><br />So, philosophy <br />by itself can not say that God may not confer grace on souls in hell. But theologians do hold it as a revealed teaching. Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19786057928713590642016-12-06T03:04:34.106-08:002016-12-06T03:04:34.106-08:00"As for the Ancient Greek, couldn't it be...<i>"As for the Ancient Greek, couldn't it be said that Hades is essentially another word for Hell ?"</i><br /><br />More like Sheol, Netherworld, though Hell is an older translation of it.<br /><br />Hell in the more usual sense is Hell of the damned, also known as Tartarus by Greeks and Gehenna by Hebrews.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28336689043281286782016-12-06T01:32:37.929-08:002016-12-06T01:32:37.929-08:00[continues from above]
”no person ever born after...[continues from above]<br /><br /><i>”no person ever born after the Fall is able in any sense to understand the truth of his sin nor the beauty of turning to God. We are like the dwarves in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, completely blind and unable to make a comparison between the good and the evil.”</i><br /><br />Well, clearly, we are not in fact “completely blind”. What holds is only what you write immediately after: <i>”Therefore, we are subject to being easily manipulated by our depraved passions.”</i> Now you ask:<br /><br /><i>”That God allows Satan to roam this cosmos rather than bind him up puzzles me, for if God truly desires the salvation of all, then how does He allow such evil to roam the earth deceiving people into their own damnation?</i>”<br /><br />First of all it is clear that spirits of deception do exist. Every time we are confronted with a temptation, no matter how small, we actually hear these spirits speaking in our head and pulling at our will – kind of fighting off the pull of the Holy Spirit which is rather more quiet. If you have read Tintin cartoons you'll recall the small opposing angelic figures hovering around captain Haddock's head arguing with him what he should do. Or even around <a href="https://christianhertzog.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/snowy-drunk1.png" rel="nofollow">Milu's head</a> – which is probably not correct theologically, since Milu is a dog. <br /><br />Now at the dawn of theology people visualized these spirits as actual incorporeal persons and called them angels (either good or bad). This picture has taken hold of the religious imagination – indeed there are detailed lists of names that good and bad angels have, including their respective personalities. As it happens in our tradition not all such spirits are supposed to be personal beings, so for example Mammon, the famous spirit we find Christ admonishing us not to serve, is not supposed to be an actual person. In my mind all spirits of deception are like that. So what are they, metaphysically speaking? I think they are a by-product of the fallen (incomplete) state of creation. Or an “emergent property” if you prefer. In physics we use concepts that refer to items of negative existence, for example in semiconductor physics we speak of “holes” which don't exist but behave exactly as positively charged electrons so we use them in our calculations as if they existed. If the above is right then when all evil in the souls of creatures is vanquished then all such spirits will by their nature cease to exist (I mention this because some universalists wonder if God will also save Satan – but that's a nonsensical question since when all of humanity is saved Satan's et al existence kind of evaporates). So in conclusion: There is evil and temptation and spiritual weakness in the current human condition – and these are experienced as being independent spirits, actual spirits which argue with us and often manage to enslave us. These are as real objects of experience as any. I don't want to alarm anybody (including myself), but when, say, in the context of a theological discussion one argues for a position which is in fact false one is then partaking in a spirit of deception. (The converse is also true though: when one speaks the gospel one partakes in the spirit of Christ. Herein lies the perfection of creation: we are given the power to realize the best and the worse.)<br /><br />If the above picture is right then your question reduces to “Why has God created the world in a from our point of view imperfect state (in which such spirits are a by-product)? That is the question of theodicy, and the theory that in my judgment gives the completely convincing answer is the so-called Irenaean or “soul-making” theodicy. If you haven't read John Hick's “Evil and the God of Love”, you should. I think this is one of the greatest theological works of the 20th century.Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90829767083875483772016-12-06T01:26:33.237-08:002016-12-06T01:26:33.237-08:00@ IrishEddieOHara,
”So perhaps you could tell me...@ IrishEddieOHara,<br /><br /><i>”So perhaps you could tell me which sin it is that in the view of Lex Talonis punishment deserves an unending punishment?”</i><br /><br />The answer to this question from the perspective of Aquinas has already been given: Peoples' will is fixed at the moment of death. If they die in a state of mortal sin then their evil will is fixed in that hellish condition; therefore they will for ever continue to sin and for ever be punished for it in hell. - To me this explanation sounds absurd, but that's that. <br /><br />Also a question arises about the purgatory. According to the Catholic church's teaching those who die in a state of sin albeit not mortal sin will go to a place of temporary suffering where they will be purged of their wickedness and then will go to heaven too. A universalist has little problem with that idea since it basically comports with universalism. The obvious question though arises how does purgatory fit with Aquinas's idea that the will is fixed at the moment of death. The two ideas contradict each other. This question has been raised in this blog, but I don't remember reading an answer either by Feser or anybody else. <br /><br /><i>”Secondly. you state that the soul is fixed in its state after death. If this is so, then why do we pray for the souls of the departed after death?”</i><br /><br />The question makes no sense for me since I don't believe that the state of the soul (or more precisely the will – the state of the soul in hell will presumably get much worse still) is fixed at the moment of death. Still I can offer what could be an answer: Through prayer we directly communicate with God and thus might ask God for a favor. Especially when that favor is moved by selfless love (the only true kind there is) then perhaps God will be moved to grant that favor. God's power is unlimited, so even though human will is fixed at the moment of death, if God so chooses, God will miraculously undo the metaphysical order and bestow to a wicked person the freedom to choose again. In which case given their previous experience many or even all wicked souls will choose God.<br /><br />I wish to add that in my tradition (Eastern Orthodoxy) there are testimonies by monks in which it is claimed that they actually saw a person they knew suffering in hell and that through fervent praying they managed to pull that person away from it. (I actually don't believe them, but I may well be wrong.) <br /><br />If creaturely prayer has that indirect power then there is a way to make hellism consistent with universalism, namely that through the prayer of those in heaven little by little all the damned will be pulled out of hell and therefore that atonement will in the end be complete. I don't understand the hellistic notion of divine justice, but perhaps here is a way to satisfy it and at the same time satisfy divine mercy. <br /><br /><i>”And what of the admonition of Christ our God to be like our Father in heaven, of whom it says that He forgives His enemies? We are commanded to do likewise to be like Him. How does that not mitigate punishment?”</i><br /><br />Yes, to me this is a very strong argument against hellism: on hellism it appears like God is claimed to be less ethical than we human can be. The hellist's answer here is presumably that given the enormous metaphysical chasm between creator and creature the ethical situation of God is completely different from ours. Please keep in mind that hellists are good Christians too, so there is a way to make sense of hellism. <br /><br /><i>”You couldn't have come to the point in a shorter post?”</i><br /><br />Speaking for myself, some issues are so important that the philosopher wants to be careful in her analysis. The question is whether the length of the analysis is moved by one's love of truth or whether it is moved by one's effort to reach a desired conclusion. <br /><br />[continues below]Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84240815148374205092016-12-05T23:24:28.835-08:002016-12-05T23:24:28.835-08:00Dr. Feser,
I can see you as a 14th century Spanis...Dr. Feser,<br /><br />I can see you as a 14th century Spanish theologian, justifying in your usual brilliant and eloquent manner, why all those heretics had to be burned. And what bothers me, is that I think you could make a very strong case defending the Inquisition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90306874123709348502016-12-05T22:10:20.805-08:002016-12-05T22:10:20.805-08:00Dianelos,
"A good creator would never put in...Dianelos,<br /><br />"A good creator would never put in the world creatures predestined to go to hell."<br /><br />But this is not Catholic doctrine at all. Quoting from Fr Walshe's paper available online, <br />"God positively wills salvation and moves the will of the elect to choose salvation freely with His grace and help. God only permits, but does not actually will the damnation of souls". <br /><br />"God gives sufficient grace to all: He does not allow some souls to fall.<br /><br />"Th difference between the elect and the reprobate is that with the elect, God simply won;t take no for an answer. In most cases, the elect reject him and sin but He keeps moving them to repentance and drawing them back to Himself and won;t stop until they are finally with Him. With other souls, He brings them back to Himself so many times, but eventually leaves them in their own final decision."Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-717897168519928672016-12-05T21:54:02.927-08:002016-12-05T21:54:02.927-08:00"why do we pray for the souls of the departed..."why do we pray for the souls of the departed after death? "<br /><br />Because our prayers do make a difference on what the soul chooses at the moment of death. We can pray because we do not know what the departed soul has chosen. A prayer is a window into eternity so we can pray for an event even if the event has already happened (in any case time post-mortem is not simply related to time here). Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55280385266916473092016-12-05T12:43:40.675-08:002016-12-05T12:43:40.675-08:00QUOTE: "Much more could be said, but that suf...QUOTE: "Much more could be said, but that suffices to make the point that the goodness of punishment, including eternal punishment, follows from the general background metaphysical assumptions the Thomist brings to bear on this subject, as on moral questions generally. Part of the reason some find hell incompatible with God’s goodness, then, is that they don’t share a commitment to those metaphysical assumptions. But I think there are other factors as well."<br /><br />The idea I have read in this blog is that punishment is towards a proper teleological end, that is the restoration of man's soul to that for which it was intended at the Creation.<br /><br />But here is the problem with the thinking regarding the eternal nature of such punishment: no person ever born after the Fall is able in any sense to understand the truth of his sin nor the beauty of turning to God. We are like the dwarves in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, completely blind and unable to make a comparison between the good and the evil. Therefore, we are subject to being easily manipulated by our depraved passions. In addition - and this is quite puzzling to me - our faith teaches that Satan is allowed to present to us all manner of deceptions, including painting God as a monster instead of a love which we would eagerly run to if we but got a glimpse of that love. <br /><br />(That God allows Satan to roam this cosmos rather than bind him up puzzles me, for if God truly desires the salvation of all, then how does He allow such evil to roam the earth deceiving people into their own damnation? This is akin to a father telling a beloved daughter "I love you" and then allowing an unrepentant serial rapist to have bed and board in the house. I cannot fathom why God allows this and quite frankly, it makes God very scary to me.<br /><br />Is the desire of God simply retribution? If so, how is our God, who is described as love, any different from the pagan imaginations of what God is like? Has Western soteriology been compromised by pagan mythology in this matter? An eternal retribution does not speak of a love which drove God Himself to the Cross.IrishEddieOHarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13239323643595343708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38825322171671089362016-12-05T12:01:19.742-08:002016-12-05T12:01:19.742-08:00I find the idea of a never-ending punishment to be...I find the idea of a never-ending punishment to be not only reprehensible, but against the very thing which we have been taught by God of Himself through the Scriptures. The law of Lex Talonis posits that you do not hang a man, nor tear him limb from limb for stealing a loaf of bread. You do, however, as noted, have certain crimes which are more severe than others and which call for the death penalty. There is something called "proportionality" which comes into play here. It seems that St. Thomas and others, in their attachment to Roman law as the main expression of God's soteriological dealings with us, has forgotten this.<br /><br />So perhaps you could tell me which sin it is that in the view of Lex Talonis punishment deserves an unending punishment?<br /><br />Secondly. you state that the soul is fixed in its state after death. If this is so, then why do we pray for the souls of the departed after death? According to this rationale, there is no point in praying for the departed, as their state in the next life is unalterably fixed. Someone needs to make up their mind on this one way or the other.<br /><br />And what of the admonition of Christ our God to be like our Father in heaven, of whom it says that He forgives His enemies? We are commanded to do likewise to be like Him. How does that not mitigate punishment?<br /><br />I find that the Roman scholastic mind is enamoured of lengthy diatribes on God and Scripture. Or as one wag put it: why use 10 words when 100 will do? You couldn't have come to the point in a shorter post?IrishEddieOHarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13239323643595343708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85680638654113991612016-12-05T07:19:30.994-08:002016-12-05T07:19:30.994-08:00Reading the whole passage, I have to say that find...Reading the whole passage, I have to say that finding in Christ's words a division of people, the saved and those not, is to me more natural. Certainly verse 9 suggests that he is intent on dividing up: <br /><br />"I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours."<br /><br />The rest of the prayer in Ch. 17 keeps on distinguishing "the world" from his disciples and those who "will come to believe in me". <br /><br />I accept that there are ambiguities that cannot be resolved by citing translations, and I do not know Greek. Reading over a large selection of translations, though, I find little room for overall ambiguity in the way Jesus distinguishes and separates the two over and over. <br /><br />One could see a poetic intent, for example, in initiating a sense of distinction between the evil and those saved in the first verses, and then to morph that distinction by Christ making and moving even "the evil ones" to be remade into good people by His redemption, so that the former category is empty...but poetically that makes no sense of the rest of the chapter just <i>harping</i> on the <b>continued</b> distinction between his disciples and their followers, and "the world". <br /><br /><i>I find a useful way to consider creation is not as something that is concluded but as something still growing: Christ being the light in the center working its way outwards illuminating and thus perfecting everything. Until in the end all darkness is vanquished. </i> <br /><br />I too think of creation as not yet finished. First, God's ongoing maintenance of our being is an ongoing creative act, or perhaps the SAME creative act, which (to us) is extended in time. Moreover, each new human being is an instance of God's <i>ongoing</i> creative movement in the world. St. John Paul II evokes a lesser but still real sense of the growing of creation when he points out that when a worker, or an inventor, or a businessman uses the world to generate NEW good things that didn't before exist: though these all work WITH some existing substrate, the overall larger reality is God continuing to produce brand new good things with men as instrumental causes thereof. This is perhaps more clear with a genius inventing a new product based on a new insight into the way reality works, a work of "creative genius" that is God working in us. <br /><br />But I don't find this a sufficient reason to repudiate a permanent hell. Since cannot be any such thing as "the greatest possible universe" which God might have created, it is a given that any universe God elects to create is not infinite in good, but limited. Having a world in which a lamb dies to feed a lion, or a seed dies to feed a bird, shows that there being some kinds of evil is not reason to call the making such a world bad, but good. God's triumph over darkness encompassed by mercifully saving some and justly punishing others is one kind of <i>complete</i> triumph, not partial success and partial failure. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69367678620778713962016-12-05T02:03:24.813-08:002016-12-05T02:03:24.813-08:00[continues from above]
In conclusion I get the fe...[continues from above]<br /><br />In conclusion I get the feeling that perhaps through the centuries an echo chamber was built around scripture, where not only exegesis but even translation served as both the start and the end of theology. I am not suggesting any kind of fraudulent intent here, but only that those who were translating were influenced by the theology they knew and thus by what they believed the meaning of the text is. This effect can't be completely neutralized; the translator has no alternative but to use the meaning she gets from the text she is translating, and that meaning is influenced by her background knowledge (or “noetic structure”) – no doubt my own translating suffers from this necessary effect too. On the other hand I see that recently more objective translations (and thus perhaps more ambiguous translations) are winning the day. Ambiguity is not necessarily a bad thing – poetry is often ambiguous and in that ambiguity it draws the reader deeper inside. Poetry like life itself is something to interact with. - A final thought: The above effect is present not only when one translates a text but in general when on reads a text even in one's mother tongue. The problem with translations is that not only one's given noetic structure affects one's understanding, but also the translator's. And we should always keep in mind that the original gospel even when quoting Christ is a translation too, so the English speaker is two translations removed from the actual words uttered by Christ. And we should keep in mind that the theology we find in the gospels is not even a translation but pretty much the making-sense of what the first Christians experienced when meeting Christ in the flesh, and the continuous meeting of Christ in the church continues to guide theology even to this day. (Very clearly orthodox Christian theology has grown by heaps and bounds beyond the NT even if at all times it is stressed that the roots go back to the text.) <br /><br />[1] I'd like to give you a sense of that rhythm. Bellow the Greek transliterated to the left, the literal English translation to the right: <br /><br />kathos edokas afto (the-way you-gave him)<br />exusian pasis sarkos (power-over all-of flesh)<br />ina pan o dedokas afto (in-order all it you-gave him)<br />dosi aftis zoin eonion (he-should-give them life eternal)<br /><br />Incidentally in the New Revised Standard Revision the “flesh” is substituted with “people”, but even though this makes for simpler reading something from the original is lost it seems to me. At least in my sense in the original the impersonal “it flesh” is contrasted with the personal “them life”, suggesting a transformation of sorts. <br /><br />The next verse 17:3 continues explaining the reason that all should be given life eternal: <br /><br />afti de estin I eonios zoi (this incidentally is the eternal life)<br />ina ginoskosi se ton monon alithinon theon (in-order they-know you who only true God)<br />ke on apestilas Iisun Christon (and whom you-sent Jesus Christ)<br /><br />The idea I get here is that Christ is justifying the giving of eternal life, namely that through eternal life creatures will know God and also the sent Christ. Interestingly enough this implies also the reverse, namely that those at the opposite end of eternal life will *not* know God and Christ. Now the verb “gignosko” translated as “know” has a rather intellectual bent and not an experiential one, more like “to recognize” or “to realize” than “to experience” or “to be in the presence of”. Thus the following thought suggests itself: If we start by our current condition and how it is like to move towards virtue or conversely towards vice – and then project how it must be in heaven or conversely in hell – we realize that being far from God entails not only unhappiness but also ignorance. That those in hell will ignore the existence of God is something that I have the impression is not mentioned much, but the idea flows naturally from considering our own condition and I think is given support by John 17:3. <br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38422714503282631952016-12-05T02:02:32.372-08:002016-12-05T02:02:32.372-08:00@ Tony,
”He did this to fulfill his own statemen...@ Tony, <br /><br /><i>”He did this to fulfill his own statement: 'I did not lose a single one of those you have given me.'”</i><br /><br />Please keep in mind that I am not a scholar, but being Greek I am blessed with the chance to feel in my bones the sound of the original text in the gospels. So when reading Christ's prayer in the garden I get a universalist tenor. The tenor starts at the very beginning at John 17:2. Now I can see that this is not the only interpretation possible, indeed starting with 17:6 Christ appears to be talking only about those who've heard His message, indeed He appears to be speaking only about His actual followers in that point in time – hence the “all but Judas Iscariot whom I had to lose so that your will be done”. It is as if Christ is here justifying the message itself. <br /><br />Now because of your comment I've just reread the text and discovered how slight nuances in the English translation can give a different impressions. I think that's quite interesting and would like to explain here what I've found. My source in what follows is the biblegateway website. So when reading John 17:2 what I get is Christ saying basically the coherent and beautiful “You gave Me power over all people in order for Me to give salvation to all of them”. (Incidentally beyond the beauty and coherence of the idea there is also a poetic rhythm in the original wording which to some degree may explain their choice [1].) <br /><br />But in the definitive <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017&version=KJV" rel="nofollow">King James Version</a> I read the following translation <i>“As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him”</i>. Doesn't this translation strike you as kind of labored? Why “all flesh” in the first part connected as an explanation to only “as many as” in the second? And I can fairly guarantee that in the original Greek there is nothing like the “as many as”, an expression which definitely suggests the thought “perhaps not all”. <br /><br />Interestingly enough in the later <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017&version=ASV" rel="nofollow">American Standard Version</a> I read a significantly different translation: <i>”even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life”</i>. I think reading in that translation the second part as a continuation of the first part does justice to the sense of the original: “As you (God) <i>gave</i> Him (Christ) authority over *all* creatures, so that He (Christ) should <i>give</i> salvation to *all* that were <i>given</i> to Him.” More interestingly still, immediately after the second “all” I find a footnote which reads “Greek <i>whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he</i> etc.”, as if the translator felt obliged to kind of justify the change from “as many as” to “all”. But the word in the original Greek is “pan”, a very common and plain word which means “all” and not “whatsoever”, never mind “as many as”. Incidentally I think that the “all” in the second part of the sentence had to be clarified with the following “you gave him”, not only because the second “gave” poetically reflects the first, but also because “pan” in ancient Greek is quite abstract and should one remove the clause “you gave him” then the whole sentence would not make sense. <br /><br />Incidentally the <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%CE%9A%CE%91%CE%A4%CE%91+%CE%99%CE%A9%CE%91%CE%9D%CE%9D%CE%97%CE%9D+17&version=RSV" rel="nofollow">Revised Standard Version</a> (which I understand is considered the standard today) has the same translation “since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him”. As does the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition.<br /><br />[continues below]<br />Dianelos Georgoudishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925591703967774000noreply@blogger.com