Will we have free will in heaven?
If so, does that mean we might sin and fall again?
If not, what kind of free will would we have there?
And if God can harmonize our free will and sinlessness in heaven, why doesn't he do so in this life?
Here are some thoughts . . .
A Robot "Loves" Me. Big Deal.
NOTE: This is part of a series on the problem of evil. Click here to read the previous posts in the series.
In a previous post, we looked at a common answer to the problem of evil--that God allows sin and the suffering it causes to exist because the only way to eliminate them would be to eliminate free will.
Without free will, according to this view, something important would be lost.
If we didn't freely choose good--to freely love God and love our fellow human beings--then these actions would lose something very important.
It would be like being "loved" by a robot--a being programmed to do nothing else.
The Love of the Saints
What about the saints in heaven? They don't sin. Does that make their love less valuable?
It would go against the grain of the Christian worldview to say that the saints in heaven love God in an inferior way compared to the way we are able to love him in this life.
Sainthood--understood as being with God for all eternity--is the goal of the Christian life, the fulfillment of the Christian life, not something inferior to it.
So what's the answer?
The Timelessness Solution
One solution might be based on the popular idea that when we die, we leave time and enter the timeless realm of eternity.
On this view, the final moment of our earthly life is the final moment of our existence in time.
Whatever our choice regarding God is in this final moment, it carries over into eternity.
Our wills regarding the choice to love God, therefore, would not change, because we would be in eternity and not have the capacity to change.
How successful is this answer?
And Yet . . . It Moves
The problem with the answer is that we do continue to move (change) after our deaths.
While God may be completely outside of time, we aren't, even in the afterlife. This is something that you can explore here.
We certainly continue to experience change in the afterlife:
- We can be purified of the consequences of our sins in purgatory.
- We can enter the full glory of heaven upon leaving purgatory.
- We will be reunited with our bodies at the General Resurrection.
We can definitely experience change after our deaths.
Even if this change takes place through something other than time as we experience it in this life, it still happens.
And if we can experience changes in the state of our souls like those described above, why can't our wills change?
It would seem that there are two possibilities:
- The nature of our will is altered so that it can't change, or
- We enter a condition where the fundamental orientation of the will does not change.
What do these options mean?
Option #1
God might change the nature of the will so that a person can only choose good. He removes its ability to choose evil.
This does not mean removing all free will.
One might, for example, be able to choose among different good options, but not any evil ones.
This would be free will; it would simply be a different kind of free will than we experience in this life--a freedom to choose only among different goods.
Option #2
On the other hand, God might not change the will's fundamental capacity to choose either good or evil. Instead, he might place us in a condition where--although we could still theoretically choose both--we in fact never end up choosing evil.
Why might this happen?
A common suggestion is that when we have the Beatific Vision--when we have full awareness of God's goodness--the vision of good will be so compelling that we never choose evil.
Impeccability
In either case, the blessed in heaven would be impeccable--that is, not able to sin--either because of a change in the nature of the will or a change in the circumstances in which the will operates (or both).
Precisely how this works is an open question. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
Whilst the impeccability of the blessed appears to be unanimously held by theologians, there is a diversity of opinion as to its cause [s.v. "Heaven"].
The Problem
Whatever the reason for the saints' impeccability, it raises a question for the problem of evil: If God can make our final state one of impeccability, why didn't he make our initial state one of impeccability?
It would seem that doing so would be within the realm of God's omnipotence. That is, he has the ability to create beings that are confirmed in the state of good from the first moment of their existence.
There doesn't seem to be a logical contradiction in the idea of God simply creating new saints in heaven who never lived on earth, and anything that doesn't involve a contradiction is something God can do.
So why doesn't he?
The "No Obligation" Answer
One answer would be that, even though God could create beings already confirmed in good, he is under no obligation to do so.
Creating beings with free will of the type we experience in this life--the type that can be misused--is a legitimate move.
If some of those beings end up misusing their free will, that's not God's fault--precisely because their wills are free. They are the ones that choose evil, not God.
While this answer is possible, it will strike many as unsatisfying.
One reason is that it cuts against the free will defense we have considered previously--that God finds something valuable in the exercise of free will of the type we have in this life.
Is there a way to reconcile the value he sets on it in this life with the fact that we will not be able to choose evil in heaven?
I think there is . . .
Choosing to Commit
Of the two types of rational created beings we know about--angels and humans--God has given both a chance to choose for or against him.
The angels had this experience in the past and then either became good or evil, depending on their choice.
Humans have the chance to choose over the course of our earthly lives, at the end of which our wills become fixed on either good or evil.
In both cases, God gives to his creatures a choice to commit one way or the other.
It is not an endless series of choices, where our wills can fluctuate back and forth forever. Sooner or later, we must commit.
It's not the ability to switch back and forth between good and evil forever that God values. It's the free choice of an ultimate commitment.
God wants us to freely choose to commit to him--or not.
Is it reasonable to value this type of commitment?
I think it is. We place a similar value on freely made commitments in this life.
A Marriage Analogy
While there are many situations in this life in which we freely make commitments to each other, a particularly striking one is the case of a marriage.
We would not value the love of a robot. Stepford wives are just creepy.
And we would not want to impose marriage on someone against their will. That would involve the abomination of rape, among other things.
We want our mates to freely choose us. This is true even in societies that have arranged marriages. There must be a fundamental, free consent on the part of both spouses or the marriage will not be valid. (Not from the Catholic Church's point of view, anyway.)
But marriage isn't a momentary choice that involves no commitment. It's a life-long commitment.
What we value, then, is a free choice that leads to a permanent commitment.
And that is what we have here.
The Divine Marriage
The Bible is full of marriage imagery applied to God and man. It occurs in the Old Testament, between God and his people Israel. And it occurs in the New Testament, between Jesus and his Church.
Through the centuries, Christians have elaborated this theme further.
It is thus possible to see this life as the time of courtship between God and the individual soul--when a free choice for or against God must be made--and heaven as the marriage--the time of freely chosen commitment--which follows.
Unless God is jilted at the altar.
What Now?
If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Great piece.
BTW thanks for what I perceive to be a Galileo homage. [‘And Yet..It moves.’]
In Heaven we will be like Christ because we will see Him as He is. Then our wills will be perfectly free to chose the good and we will have no doubt as to the Good. This is the nature of freedom - to chose the good.
Thanks for the answer to my question about free will in Heaven. Keep up the excellent work you do. Maybe we will meet in Heaven someday and find out!
B4N & God Bless,
Charlie
I like what Fulton Sheen said:
“...if you give your freedom to God, in heaven you will have no freedom of choice, because once you possess the Perfect, there is nothing left to choose. And still you will be perfectly free, because you will be one with Him whose heart is freedom and love.” - Seven Words of Jesus and Mary
I’ve always understood Christian perfection as conforming our will to God’s. Just as Christ’s human and divine wills were in perfect conformity, so must we strive to conform our will to the divine will. If that is the case, the will of the saints in heaven - while still free - is in perfect conformity with God’s. Am I speaking heresy here or is this what others understand?
God might change the nature of the will so that a person can only choose good. He removes its ability to choose evil.
.
This does not mean removing all free will.
.
No, it means increasing free will since freedom is the ability to choose the good. The blessed in heaven have more free will than we do on earth.
FYI: “Every generation of Americans needs to know that freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.”—Pope John Paul II, Homily at Camden Yards, Baltimore.
““On the other hand, God might not change the will’s fundamental capacity to choose either good or evil. Instead, he might place us in a condition where—although we could still theoretically choose both—we in fact never end up choosing evil.”“”
This is indeed, IMO, the most likely option. Since in paradize we will be in complete happiness, we will be perfect in opur natur and we will have FULL knowledge of the consequences of sin, no one would ever choose sin willingly.
It would be like a sane person would willingly put his hand in molten lava… no sane person would do so willingly, well knowking that he would feel horrible pain and lose his/her hand
So I speculate we will be “compelled” to be impeccable, but compelled by our own reason and knowledge, i.e. it would not make sense to sin, not would anyone ever want to.
After all even in this life sane people would NOT do most of the sins they do if they were FULL AWARE of the consequences (either in this life or the next).
So I speculate we will be “compelled” to be impeccable, but compelled by our own reason and knowledge, i.e. it would not make sense to sin, not would anyone ever want to.
.
We will be compelled by God’s grace, which is the source of our free will (i.e., our free will is not independent of God’s grace). God gives us the grace to freely choose the good. If we were cut off from His grace, as are those condemned to hell, we would not be able to choose the good—we would not have free will.
What happens to our memories? We may be “purged” in Purgatory, yet will we still retain the memories of our sinfulness? Even David said in Psalms, “My sin is always before me.” And at the final Judgement, when all will be revealed…why would God want us to see every sin of every person that ever lived? Seeing my own will be heartbreaking enough…but just as I turn from images that I do not wish to commit to my memory, will I/we retain all of the good and the evil that we will see at the end?Consciousness…if the damned live in their sins forever and are completely aware, will the saved in the presence of LOVE, filled with LOVE have any sorrow, saddness for those who are damned?
Can we learn anything about these things from the first people to have free will?
In receiving the first command, Adam had a wonderful prospect in front of him: life in a paradise. “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.” IOW, ‘Go enjoy yourselves whether you like it or not.’ :-) Implicit in that command was the idea that his Creator could and would provide for his needs.
Scripture bears this out: “And the Lord God brought forth of the ground all manner of trees, fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of:” So, not just ‘hospital food’, but tasty and good looking as well as nourishing. And, “And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself… but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself… And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman.” Notice that Adam was given a privilege of serving God- a God who didn’t need help from anyone- and a perfect complement to him. How could Adam show appreciation for these things? By obeying the [only] other command: “Of every tree of paradise you shall eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat. For in what day soever you shall eat of it, you shall die the death.” Obey, live; disobey, die.
With this in mind, just what did A & E do when they disobeyed? Did they not agree with Satan that God was a liar? “And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death.” Did they not agree that God had failed to provide something beneficial from them? “For God knows that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.” And did this not call into question God’s right to rule over them?
We too have a measure of free will. What should we be doing with it? And if we are restored to Adam’s situation, what then? (Isa 55:10,11; Ps 37:29) If a perfect man and woman failed, how can anyone ‘born of woman, born in sin’ do better?
Ursula, your question is a good one, and is answered in the Bible. “And I heard a great voice from the throne, saying: Behold the tabernacle of God with men: and he will dwell with them. And they shall be his people: and God himself with them shall be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more. Nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away. And he that sat on the throne, said: Behold, I make all things new.” Rev 21:3-5, Douay. That makes sense, doesn’t it? What good is an ultimate reward from God if it comes with an eternal life of guilt and regret?
Would it not have been more beneficial to ponder how we use God’s gift of ‘free will’ while we are still alive? For example, do we even realize that we have the freedom to choose or are we still reliant on the demands of our society and culture? While we live in this physical state we will continue to experience the need to compete for all our needs and desires and thereby suffer the ‘slings and arrows’ of pain and suffering. Recognizing that the life we live is not ours but is that of God experiencing himself through us, we can know that salvation is for the here and now – and not outside our daily reach. Through God’s grace we can freely choose to exercise his will rather than that of our own.
As long as we live in our ‘fleshy’ body we will remain dependent on our ego or False Self while hopefully learning to become more trusting on our God given nature known as the Spirit or ‘True Self. At the moment of death however we will be PURGED of all our Ego needs and desires and enter into eternal Oneness with God. In this state or heavenly realm we will be completely free from all physical and emotional pain and suffering; competition or comparison, as well as time and space. In our perfected union with God all will be experienced as One and not separate from the other.
Doug, thank you for the reminder. Blessings!
I congratulate you for recognizing the paradox of free will in heaven. However, your attempt at resolving it amounts to a ball-and-cup trick. You line up the parallel cases of angels in heaven and people on Earth, and then distract the reader by focusing on the permanency of choice. But the ball remains under the other cup: if angels in heaven have free will, choice, and all the other attributes of experience that we do without any of the suffering, then why would a benevolent God force millions of people to live in hunger, filth, oppression, and agony here on Earth?
Your only real answer to this question is this: “even though God could create beings already confirmed in good, he is under no obligation to do so.” What rot.
Of course, if God is a tyrant he has no obligations. But if, as you appear to claim, he is morally perfect, then just as he cannot commit a logical contradiction, he cannot commit a moral crime. Yet, there it is: the African mother who must watch her baby die in her arms of cholera to “test” her faith in God could have made the same choice in heaven with none of the pain and suffering. If that’s not a moral crime, then morality has no meaning.
Evidently you cannot explain away this glaring injustice; all you can do is call it “a legitimate move” and hasten to distract readers with lofty metaphors of marriage. Well, I understand that as a “senior apologist” you have no choice but to defend God. Still, you and all your readers do have at least one choice: to reconsider the foundational assumptions of your theology. They make no sense.
Clay Farris Naff
Science & Religion Writer
Mr. Naff,
I hope Christianity is not one of the religions you write about. You don’t seem to have a basic understanding of its tenets.
”[...] then why would a benevolent God force millions of people to live in hunger, filth, oppression, and agony here on Earth?”
God doesn’t “force” any of those things on people. For most people on the planet those conditions are forced on them by men, through tyrannical governments.
Christians understand that God created the world perfect, as He did our first parents, Adam & Eve. This perfect universe was irrevocably damaged by the Fall; after being banished from Paradise, Cain kills Able, laying out the suffering and oppression men would find themselves in until the promised Savior arrived on Earth.
Before the Fall: No suffering, no death.
After the Fall: Suffering (toiling in work, disease, natural disasters), death (murder, war, spiritual death).
So, the African mother (any mother, really) who watches her baby die is not being tested by God. That is absurd. She is dealing, as we all are, with a fallen world, and, fallen men.
Christians embrace suffering because it brings us closer to Christ’s Sufferings as He hung on His Cross. What was once just painful & meaningless, becomes redemptive & luminous.
This is one of the biggest obstacles for the non-believer, because he believes life should be one, long physical pleasure.
God Bless!
I am pretty childish even though I am 74 years young!
Of Course I believe in Free Choice down here on earth and when we die we, most of us, need reeducation.
We need reeducation because most of us have not yet learned to appreciate what eye has not seen nor ear heard nor what has entered into the heart of man what God has prepare for those who love HIM.
By committing to HIM down here and in Purgatory we will eventually arrive at a point of a total commitment which is the passing in exam for entry to live with the saints.
What happens after that is hard to imagine. We must accept that it will be so wonderful that there would be no thought of turning back.
It would be like going on a Cruise ship around the world and then after the first few days asking the Captain permission to leave and go back to the point of departure.
That would be ridiculous as a wonderful adventure lies ahead of places to visit and experiences to experience.
For my idea of Heaven and I realise that my highest expectations fall very far short of what it will really be like, is that it is unfathomably wonderful and continuous and eternal.
It is like a prize for faithful lessons learned.. The main lesson being to learn to love ones enemies.
I believe too that there will be challenges and opportunities to serve and help in the redemption process. 3 john v 4.. there is no greater joy than to see ones children walk in the truth.
Although this is a great topic to discuss, I think the early Christian doctrine of reincarnation(banished in the 6th century), partially takes care of this problem. The other portion is answered when we become ONE with the Father.
Yours is a common attitude and leads to a common question, ‘How/why is there so much badness in the world if God is holy, almighty, loving, merciful and so on, as his adherents claim?’ What isn’t often explained is the cause and effect spelled out in the Bible itself. Whether one believes the Bible is myth or reality [history] doesn’t matter here, any more than we can say that “Moby Dick” didn’t kill “Captain Ahab” in the famous book, just because it’s fiction. And the narrator? His name is Ishmael- just because the author has him tell us that.
“In the beginning” a writer tells us, God created everything. That gave him sovereignty over everything, including the man he created. (You have sovereignty over your house, even though you may not have designed or built it, right?) He gave that man one command: ‘Go live in a paradise earth whether you like it or not.’ (Genesis 1:28; please look up that in any Bible you have handy.) Later, there was one more command: “And Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to take care of it. And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: ‘From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.’ ” (Gen 2:15-17, NWT) Are you with me so far? Inquiring mind that wants to know? Not interested? Don’t see the relevance to the OP? Relevance to your ‘African mother’?
Sorry; my last post was a reply to Clay Farris Naff on Thursday, Jan 24
To lighten up our day, blog-wise, consider this, Mr “Science & Religion Writer”. In Jack Webb’s newspaper movie 30, the religion editor was given the real estate section as well. He had one demand: ‘I want a sign on my door saying, “Editor of Heaven and Earth”.
I do not think the problem of suffering can be solved by an appeal to free will. Having the ability to choose does not account for the desires that lead people to make choices that cause suffering. Why is it that I desire to do things that sometimes cause suffering to myself and other living creatures? If you say my desires are due to the fall of Adam and Eve, then why did Adam and Eve desire to make a choice that caused suffering? Even if the devil tempted them, they would still have to see his temptation as desirable, which it objectively speaking was not. Ergo there was at that point a deficiency in them. Who created them with such a deficiency? Come to think of it, why did the devil become the devil?
The traditional answer is better, namely that God has made the world as it is because a better end will result from it than if it was created free from unnecessary suffering.
The problem with this resolution is first of all the doctrine of hell. Some of God’s creatures are going to suffer for all eternity. That is not a good result for them. And so God must have chosen to disregard this terrible outcome when he created the world. The second problem is animal suffering. Animals do not have an eternal soul according to Catholic theology. Some are born into terrible suffering (such as cows living under miserable conditions, only to wind up as dinner on our plates) and they shall never be rewarded with any bliss, be it temporal or eternal. In fact, complex life, capable of suffering, has existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years.
The nature of the word, I believe, is the reason why God is often portrayed as angry, bloodthirsty and vengeful in the Old Testament.
God loves us so much he would never force us to be with him if we really don’t want to choose him so then we choose hell and are there by Gods mercy! That is why there is hell and not total annihilation or “seize to exist” which is a teaching of the JW’s, they teach no hell you just won’t ever exist again, not exactly what God had in mind when he gave us free will. Anyway great article Jimmy I would bet that in heaven we love God so perfectly just as he loves us we would not choose evil even if we could!
@Homeschooling Works
One of the problems with that answer is the catholic doctrine of mortal sin. A young man who masturbates does not do so because he wants to suffer eternally. A teenage couple who has sex but is not yet married do not desire an eternity away from God, they desire each other. And yet they are told that if they do not repent by going to confession or making a perfect act of contrition, they will suffer eternal punishment (assuming the act was done with knowledge and consent). If the couple have made love in the back of a car and die in a car accident immediately after, they are doomed to hell. Is this because they do not want to be with God? Nope. And yet God will happily allow them to suffer ETERNALLY.
Were this true, it would be unjust, cruel and irrational.
Wow, Jimmy, what an insight! Our life is the period of courtship with God at the end of which we live out our commitment with him or live without him if we make the awful choice not to commit. This is truly profound.
Regarding free will, it would seem that our free will is perfected in heaven. Perfect free will would never choose something imperfect.
Vidar, the person who chooses something knowing fully that it is seriously displeasing to God is choosing himself over God. Is is neither unjust, cruel nor irrational to allow someone to reap the consequences of his own fully informed free choice. If the person did not fully know the seriousness of the choice, then he may not be fully culpable, which of course God takes into account.
Also Vidar, you say God will “happily” allow the person to suffer. I think not. I don’t profess to know if God has emotions as we humans do, but if he does I would expect his attitude would be one of resignation, sad that the person has made that choice and reaped the consequences, but fully accepting it.
@TomD, I believe the original question that Jimmy was attempting to answer is why we are not created with a perfected free will in the first place, if it could prevent all this evil. If we can have it in heaven, why not on earth from the moment of creation? Secondly, the freedom to choose does not explain the desire for something that is displeasing to God. Desire and the freedom to act upon that desire is not the same thing. Adam and Eve’s free will does not account for their desire to act in an irrational manner, against their own best self interest as well as against the will of God.
Your second point really just asserts that eternal hell is the consequence of free choice. But eternal hell is unjust because no finite act merits an eternal punishment. Furthermore, God is responsible for his creatures being born into the world with evil desires, such as wanting to eat the forbidden fruit in the garden.
Infinite punishment for a finite act is unjust even if it violates the law of an infinite God, as you cannot harm someone infinite. Steal a million dollars from someone with an infinite fortune and his fortune is still as large as ever. According to catholic theology, stealing from someone rich is a smaller sin than stealing from someone poor. By this logic, sinning against an infinite God should merit the least punishment of all.
Eternal suffering is also irrational because suffering without the purpose of reforming the sufferer serves no useful purpose. It is pure cruelty. If there was a possibility to be reformed by the sufferings of hell, it would serve a purpose, but no such possibility exists according to catholic dogma. The persons in hell are already unable to cause further harm to anyone. That should suffice. There is no need to subject them to eternal torment. It is possible for them not to suffer while not being with God, since many are quite capable of this on earth.
If God is unhappy about this terrible, eternal and fruitless suffering, he has to the power to stop it. That is what being omnipotent means.
TomD Great!!!!!!
Dear Vidar, by the way what is a vidar?
You have made an excellent argument, but a simple point has been missed totally.
Free Choice is a vital part of our training. If we were to have perfect free choice then we would be born as Robots who could do no wrong. What merit would there be in your children if you have any, of them always saying Daddy I love you when you pressed an electronic button. That kind of response would be meaningless! The fact that my 7 children have the opportunity to love and to hate me then when they do say that they care, really has meaning.
I sure do not understand totally the mind of the eternal being of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. If I did then I too would be God. God bashing is a great game these days and soon we will all see and experience the Hell that is going to be let lose on this world during a period of GREAT TRIBULATION which precedes His Final Judgement and return to rescue His Followers and punish those who think that they know better than HIM.
I am very glad to be on HIS Side even though a very imperfect an sinful member of His Family. I look forward to hearing from you as I am sure I will soon. One question?? Do you believe in Jesus Christ as Your Lord and Saviour? I imagine that you do not. But maybe I am wrong.
OK I now know what Vidar or Viör is.
Norse Mythology…
Tha<yt explains a great deal. God bless you and Yes!!! Jesus Loves you.. John Ch 3 v 16!
@Michael Jaffray, I wouldn’t read too much into it if I were you. It happens to be my actual name, so I didn’t get to choose it :)
@Michael Jaffray
For some reason, I overlooked your response and only saw the short post about my name :) I have not argued that God should have made people like robots without free will. Rather, I have pointed out that there is a difference between the ability to choose something and the desire to do so. The desire to act against ones own interests (such as in the story of Adam and Eve) cannot be explained by the freedom to do so.Could Jesus sin? Jesus had free will according to catholic theology, but his nature was such that he would never use it to violate God’s law.
As for God bashing, I am doing nothing of the sort. I am pointing out the flaws in a man made theological system _about_ God. I am not blaming the actual God for suffering, as I think there may be a justified reason for it (what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin called “the omega point”). But not within the confines of a theology that has no hope or future for animals and where some humans will suffer terribly for all eternity.
Vidar,
If I may add my two cents, souls in the state of mortal sin at the time of death are not sentenced by an all powerful Judge to eternal damnation. They send themselves to Gehenna (Hell). Catholic theology teaches that at the particular judgement, those in the state of mortal sin reject God completely: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Para. 1033, cf para. 1021-1050)(emphasis mine).
So, God doesn’t send us to Hell, we send ourselves there.
Hope that helps. God Bless!
Well what do you know??? God’s crowning Glory is not a dear sweet little puppy but a Human being.
Why are you so taken up with animals?
Since Roe V Wade we have murdered 50 million humans!!!
Does that matter to you?
I love animals up to a point but I am not sold out on them in preference to Humans..Are you?? Obviously yes!!!
I’ll bet you do not eat meat!! Are yo u a fruitarian?
Thank God for the Holy Book the Bible and Yes I do believe that it is the WORD OF GOD!good luck to you and may God bless and show you much more than you already know. Just ask HIM Matthew 7 7 and He will show you all and more than you need to know.
Takes all sorts and
@Nick, and the point I made above is that many who commit so-called mortals sins do not do so because they reject God… I’ll not repeat it, but if you read my previous comments you will see where I am coming from.
@Michael Jaffray, we are the smartest animal on planet earth right now (one small planet in a vast, vast universe), but how that makes us the crowning glory of God escapes me. You yourself make the point that we actually kill our own unborn, even though we have minds capable of judging such acts morally reprehensible. Crowning glory indeed…
As for the Bible, I would say that it perfectly mirrors the human condition. There are noble truths in it (Matthew 5, for instance), but also morally reprehensible commands, such as we find in 1 Samuel 15, where God allegedly commands his king to commit genocide, even killing small infants and animals, due to what the forefathers of the Amalekites did 300 years earlier… What kind of person would it take to carry out such an atrocity? And would really a God of infinite love and compassion command this?
Vidar,
“[...] [T]he point I made above is that many who commit so-called mortals sins do not do so because they reject God [...].”
But, that is the definition of mortal sin per paragraph 1855 of the CCC:
“Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him” (emphasis in bold mine).
I’ve re-read your comments, and you make several errors and false conclusions. The account of the Fall nowhere says that Adam & Eve had a “desire to act in an irrational manner.” They were deceived by Satan into eating the fruit. Adam’s sin is his disobedience to God’s command, and, not stopping his wife’s sin.
You claim that it is possible for those in hell “not to suffer while not being with God”. The reason that they suffer is because they are not with God. This is the cause of their torment and suffering. At death, they experience God’s Glory (the Beatific Vision,) they reject this pure Love, and they spend eternity knowing what they gave up. “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs” (CCC, para. 1035).
You referred to “Catholic theology” several times, so, you should know this. Again, there is no unjust sentencing by a judge who shows no mercy, we are responsible for our reward, or punishment.
Your understanding of 1 Samuel 15, and the Old Testament in general, is flawed, as well. Putting other tribes under the ban, or jerem in Hebrew, had religious as well as military significance. Putting the Amalekites to the sword was meant to stop their idolatry; destroying all of their livestock and goods was to discourage going to war because of greed. Also, God is the giver of life, so, He may take it whenever, and however, He so pleases. As the Decalogue shows, there are worse things than death: disobedience to God.
I think I covered everything. God Bless!
My reply is coming, Vidar. I hope!
Hello, spam-filter? Where’s my post?
@Nick, that is how you define a mortal sin. Preferring an inferior good to God. My point was that most sinners would like to have both God and their inferior good. They do not choose the inferior good out of a hatred for God but out of desire/passion/belief that the inferior good will make them happy. If this belief is wrong, would not God do better curing them of their misperception, rather than sending them to hell?
As for the Adam and Eve story, of course they desired to act in an irrational manner. It was irrational to want something that would cause them to die. Eve saw the temptation of the snake as desirable, and because of that desire she used her free will to eat of the fruit. But objectively speaking it was not desirable, as it would cause her to die. She might just as well have found it desirable to jump of a cliff. Irrational. Free will does not explain her misperception of reality. Taking the story at face value, she must have been a flawed creation, and so must Adam.
You also ignore why I said that it is possible not to suffer without living with God. It is quite possible to live without God here on earth and not experience fire-like torment because of it. You assert that the “danmed” experience the beatific vision when they die. First, this claim is contrary to Catholic theology. Second, if it were true, God could spare them a lot of suffering by not exposing them to it.
Your argument about the judge ignores the fact that God is the law giver, not merely the sentencer. I pointed out that infinite punishment for finite acts is unjust, which means that any such law would be unjust.
Finally you defend genocide in 1 Samuel 15. Tell me, did little babies worship idols? Does not the almighty God have other ways of dealing with idolatry than slaughtering little babies? Furthermore you are in contradiction to the text which expressly says the reason for the genocide is what the forefathers of the Amalekites did to the israelites 300 years earlier.
You also neglect the role of the israelites in this: They are the ones who would have to run into homes, killing screaming women, children and infants. What kind of people can bring themselves to do something like that? And should they trust the voice in their head (or from their prophet) purporting to be God? Even supposing that a God of infinite love and compassion would want to slaughter a whole people for the sins of their fathers, could he not do so himself, being almighty and all? Instead he requires that the israelites pierce little babies and their mothers with the sword? Did he perhaps grant them the divine grace of not having a conscience?
Vidar,
“@Nick, that is how you define a mortal sin. ”
No, that is how the Catholic Church defines mortal sin. Did you read the paragraphs of the CCC to which I referred? The Church doesn’t teach that those who chose the inferior good do so because of their hatred of God. Your assertion is a straw man.
This leads us into your faulty understanding of the Fall.
“As for the Adam and Eve story, of course they desired to act in an irrational manner. It was irrational to want something that would cause them to die.”
Again, they did not desire to act irrationally; the text says no such thing. The only time “desire” is mentioned is in Gen. 3:6, when Eve sees “that the tree was to be desired to make one wise”. Satan lies about God to Adam & Eve. The doubt he sows causes our first parents to disobey God’s Word, because they had free-will. They were FREE to believe God, or Satan. They chose badly. Through their disobedience, death and sin entered the world.
And, so, it is after the Fall that concupiscence (the disordered desires of the flesh) enters the human family. Paragraphs 2514-2516 of the CCC explain this better than I could in this limited format.
“Eve saw the temptation of the snake as desirable [...].”
It doesn’t say “snake.” It says “serpent,” which should be thought of more like a dragon-like leviathan, as Saint John refers to Satan in the Apocalypse.
“It is quite possible to live without God here on earth and not experience fire-like torment because of it.”
I don’t know what you mean by “to live without God” or “fire-like torment,” so, it is hard for me to comment. We live because of God. He brings us into existence. “If God stopped thinking about you at any instant, you would immediately disappear; you would cease to exist.” I don’t know the origin of this statement, but, it accurately shows our dependence on God for our existence. Although, it takes great humility to except such a concept.
“First, this claim is contrary to Catholic theology.”
Yes, I seem to have erred in making such an assertion about the Particular Judgement and the Vision of God. My apologies. I’m not sure from where I got this idea, unless, I was confusing it with the Last Judgement, when all will be in the presence of Christ (CCC, para. 1039). As to your second point, God doesn’t inflict suffering. Suffering is a result of Original Sin and the Fall.
“Your argument about the judge ignores the fact that God is the law giver, not merely the sentencer.”
Yes, God gives the law, as pathway to do good, just as a real path is meant to keep you from falling down steep inclines, and other dangers. But, again, God is not the “sentencer,” we sentence ourselves. If you jump off a very tall bridge, you don’t defy the law of gravity. You prove its existence. The consequence, or sentence, of such a decision is death. Physics didn’t condemn you to death, you did that all by yourself, by deciding to jump.
“Finally you defend genocide in 1 Samuel 15.”
I didn’t realize there was anything to defend. Besides, the point of that chapter is to show King Saul’s disobedience to God, and why he lost his kingship. You need to study the Hebrew jerem (anathema,) being laid under ban, and herem warfare. This is a very complex subject which cannot be thoroughly covered in a comment thread.
I would add, though, that you seem to think the Israelites enjoyed killing women and infants. Why would you assume such a thing? I prefer to look at these examples as a punishment the Hebrews must endure because they are too weak to resist the pagan idols, and, for their continued disobedience. God’s original plan was to have Israel live amongst the Canaanites, to be an example to them of God’s goodness. It was after the sin of Baal of Peor that God allowed Moses to make a second law, i.e., Deuteronomy, to allow certain evils because of “the hardness of their hearts,” e.g., divorce & the ban.
Because of Israel’s weakness, He allows them to act like the Canaanites, intruders who have occupied the lands of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, i.e., the Promised Land. Instead of living among the pagans, they are to put them under the ban and destroy them, like Jericho. But, Achan sinned, and took booty from Jericho. The Israelites didn’t really follow the command to subdue the Promised Land until David finally conquered Jerusalem, some three centuries later.
Also, read about God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice his only son, Isaac. God gave Isaac to Abraham, so, God had every right to demand his life, according to Hebrew understanding. Again, there are things much worse than death and suffering. Not keeping God number one in one’s life is at the top of the list: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Ex. 20:3).
People who live under a materialistic view of the world think that death is the worst thing that can happen to someone. They are wrong.
God Bless!
@Nick, I shall try to be brief. This discussion has gone on long enough.
“No, that is how the Catholic Church defines mortal sin”. Yes, and you choose to accept that definition and quote it to me.
My “straw man” was an answer to the claim that people who go to hell do so because they do not want to be with God, and he does not force them. My point was intended as a refutation of this idea. You seem to disagree with it as well, since you say that people in hell suffer because they do not get to be with God and realize what they are missing. If that is the case, then they are in hell against their will, as an eternal punishment for a finite sin. If not, they could simply choose to be with him and the suffering would end. I have argued above why an eternal punishment is unjust (finite sin, infinite punishment), cruel (the suffering serves no purpose, no reform is possible) and therefore irrational. You have not provided an adequate response, in my opinion. Merely asserting that we judge ourselves does not solve the problem, nor does quoting a catechism.
As for Adam and Eve (again), the point is not whether the text says they acted in an irrational manner. Clearly acting against one’s own interest is irrational. The _serpent_ tempting Eve does not solve the problem of why she felt eating the fruit was desirable. If it had not been desirable to her, she would not have chosen to do it. She used her free will, and by it chose to follow this particular desire. But the free will does not account for her desire/wish to disobey God, believing that it would be beneficial (making her “like God”). You can argue that the tempter is to blame, but she would still have to take his word over that of her creator, which means that she mistakenly thought his words to be more trustworthy. An error of judgement. Also, who tempted the serpent? You cannot have an infinite regress of tempters…
As for the genocide of 1 Samuel 15, the fact that you feel there is nothing to defend speaks volumes in and of itself. I did not say, nor did I imply that the Israelites enjoyed killing women, children and innocent babies. Rather, if I must spell it out, I believe that only person with a severe lack of compassion and decency could even contemplate doing something like that. And no God of love would ever command it.
The rest of your points are largely irrelevant with regards to the points I have been making. God has the right to demand a sacrifice of Abraham’s son, you say. Why a God of love would ask a man to kill his own son to test him is beyond me. Actually wanting to obey such a command would be failing the test, in my opinion. Abraham should have said “No way”, and a God of love would have said “Well done! You did not do evil even it came from the highest of authorities!”
And what if someone today had taken their son up into the mountain to sacrifice him because he heard voices in his head, telling him to kill his child? Would child protective services perhaps let him off the hook when he said that he heard another voice in his head telling him not to do it anyway, it was a test of loyalty? :)
At any rate, we are not going to agree on this. You will defend anything in the Bible, no matter how horrible, because it is dogma that the book is inerrant. And in the end that dogma is part of a system that makes you feel good and secure. It provides you with purpose and meaning in your life. Doubting it would take you out of your comfort zone. And perhaps that is your trial :) Perhaps God wants people to choose good above their own personal sense of comfort and security, even if it means the dark night of the soul? I don’t know, but I guess it is possible.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
Vidar,
“Why a God of love would ask a man to kill his own son to test him is beyond me.”
This statement explains your trouble, because the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ is beyond you, I’m afraid. You don’t understand the Sacred Scriptures, nor, the teachings of the Catholic Church. (Which is why I quote the CCC, it explains these things better than my feeble attempts.)
If you are truly interested in what the Church teaches, you would read the paragraphs to which I referred. And, you would look at all the blog-posts Mr. Akin has produced on these subjects.
I wish you well on your journey towards the Truth, Vidar. I, also, thank you for the discussion. I learned that my understanding of the Particular Judgement was flawed, thanks to you! The Holy Spirit used each of us to proclaim the Truth.
Praise the Lord!
This is turning out to be a contest between Bible believers and dear Vidar..Sorry Vidar I believe the Bible. It says that God created man in His own image.. That is a crowning glory.. also we have a soul.. also we have the ability to choose good or evil.. animals choose by their instincts..
I have lived by the The Bible, and I believe that it is the Word of God.. Jesus is the Word made flesh. And although I have let Jesus down on countless occasions He has never left me down since I asked Jesus Christ to come into my heart some 46 years ago.
God bless you and I hope you will be able to find the precious jewels that I and other Christians have discovered right down through the the last 2000 years. I am now signing off on this argument and discussion.
Is the spam-filter asleep again?
Yoo-hoo? Has anyone seen my comment? Bueller?
Vidar,
I made this comment the same day that you replied, but, it was never posted. If it double-posts, disregard this copy.
“Why a God of love would ask a man to kill his own son to test him is beyond me.”
This statement explains your trouble, because the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ is beyond you, I’m afraid. You don’t understand the Sacred Scriptures, nor, the teachings of the Catholic Church. (Which is why I quote the CCC, it explains these things better than my feeble attempts.)
If you are truly interested in what the Church teaches, you would read the paragraphs to which I referred. And, you would look at all the blog-posts Mr. Akin has produced on these subjects.
I wish you well on your journey towards the Truth, Vidar. I, also, thank you for the discussion. I learned that my understanding of the Particular Judgement was flawed, thanks to you! The Holy Spirit used each of us to proclaim the Truth.
Praise the Lord!
@Nick, Michaek Jaffray, I have learned a great deal from Jimmy Akin, and also from this conversation. I thank you for it. But having read the entire (catholic) bible from cover to cover (and also a great deal of modern biblical scholarship), I cannot believe it is inerrant. There is too much divinely sanctioned evil in it, and this is far more important than mere contradictions. That does not mean it is meaningless or “uninspired”. Like I said, there are great truths in it.
When it comes to absolute truth, I am always journeying towards it, but I suspect it cannot be fully understood by my poor monkey mind. Suffice it to say that I am not an atheist. But neither do I believe in eternal punishment of God’s creatures. I do not believe that a God of love would be capable of allowing such senseless cruelty.
When it comes to Christianity, I do not know know how to separate the apostolic testimony of Jesus from the actual historical person(and neither does anyone else). The Jesus seminar also starts with presuppositions. If they did not, it would be very difficult to know what is and is not “historical”, in their view.
In the end I believe in compassion, peace and love for all living creatures. I also believe that any religion that cultivates positive mental states is working for good. And any religion creating hatred, fear and anger is working for evil (most religions mix both). If I am wrong I will in good conscience stand before my maker and answer for my beliefs.
Vidar,
Forget all those “modern” Biblical scholars. Stick with the classics. Read the Early Church Fathers, e.g., Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Augustine of Hippo, Jerome, to name but a few.
Many of them knew the Apostles, or, were taught by those who were taught by the Apostles.
Again, good luck on your quest, and take care.
Vidar writes, on Friday, Feb 8: “I cannot believe [the Bible] is inerrant. There is too much divinely sanctioned evil in it, and this is far more important than mere contradictions.” Good point. But what do you mean by “evil”? Many object to the destruction of “innocents” in the Flood, or in Jericho. Is that what you have in mind?
Also: “But neither do I believe in eternal punishment of God’s creatures. I do not believe that a God of love would be capable of allowing such senseless cruelty.” Neither does the US Constitution, nor the laws of most other “civilized” countries; it’s a case of double jeopardy. “The wages of sin is death”- Gen 2:17, 3:19; Rom 5:12-14, 6:23. To continue punishment of a sinner after that- by hellfire or any other punishment- is considered wrong by mere men. Is God not greater than we are, especially in all good qualities? Or does the inspired record say, ‘And we created God in our image…’?
Doug! Where have you been?
You never responded to my reply, in the Slaughter of the Innocence thread. Why not?
Here’s the link, in case you forgot:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-the-slaughter-of-the-innocents-really-happen/
I look forward to any answers that you may provide.
God Bless!
Nick: Prolix post with t(w)o many errors at the very start:
“Holy Spirit” is “just a title.” I show you that one of the Holy Spirit’s many names is “Paraclete.”
It IS a title, that is, comforter is a common word used here as an noun, modified by the adjective holy. The Greek doesn’t appear in any English Bible, nor should it. Distraction, not exegesis.
“Jesus” is translated as “God is Salvation”. No, Jesus goes back to the Hebrew “Jehovah is salvation.” Jesus Gk is Jehoshua Heb, meaning Jehovah is salvation. Jesus and Jehovah are personal names for two separate people. Distraction, and an old an lame one at that.</em>
The OP: Yes, I believe it did, as does Jimmy. He, though, has a commitment to a blog, so he writes at lenght on the topic; his privilege. I say, at the risk of sounding bumperstickerish, ‘It happened because the Bible says it did.’ Very little of what I believe about God and his purposes and his methods requires a tenth of the verbiage you put into explaining the man-made doctrines you’ve adopted.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to establish this for the lurkers and tweeters.
Doug,
You could have posted this in the original thread, if you wanted.
Now, your circular reasoning concerning the use of “Paraclete” in the Gospel According to Saint John still makes no sense, I’m sorry. And, your objection to Greek is absurd. Much of the New Testament was written in Greek. Including John, according to many scholars.
“No, Jesus goes back to the Hebrew ‘Jehovah is salvation.’”
That’s not Hebrew, that’s English. In Hebrew it would be “YHWH yasha,” or, I AM is salvation, in English (i.e., Ye-shua, Jesus).
Besides, you are not addressing the point I was making (again). Don’t you understand that Hebrew names are sentences? In the same way American Indians have names that mean “Running Bear” or “Sitting Bull” in English. Get it?
So, to claim that the Holy Spirit is not a name, shows a complete lack of knowledge concerning the Hebrew language, Jewish history, and the Old Testament Scriptures.
You also didn’t address your errors, Doug. What about your bogus claim that the Holy Spirit “is not in evidence” in the Apocalypse? I gave you several examples that show He is very much in evidence. I also provided proof that John refers to Christ as God, several times, throughout the Book of Revelation.
What about the other verses of Scripture that I provided? Like Saint Thomas calling Christ “my Lord and my God”? How can you dismiss such strong evidence contained in the Word of God, Doug?
Does God allow starships in heaven,
Can we fight Klingons up there?
With phasers and photon torpedos,
And not even muss up our hair.
Does Starfleet of the Federation,
Beat all the bad guys they meet?
Where battles are glorious and no one gets hurt,
All conflicts wrapped up nice and neat.
And when all the fighting is over,
And we’ve locked up all our ray guns,
Can we all beam down together,
To Omicron Delta for fun.
Is there a bar we can go to,
That serves us green beer and blood wine?
Where heros and villains can laugh for all time,
And upon roasted targ we will dine.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.