In Search of a Coherent Thomism
where Hell is concerned
Below is my response to Fr Aidan Kimel, Eclectic Orthodoxy
The Infernal Quarantine of Love
Below are the most salient points that I tried to make in my conversation with Fr J.D. on the previous “Choice Model” thread. They seem relevant here.
1) Even as the objective evil of rejecting God refers to an infinite reality, the subjective aspect of that rejection remains finite and could only warrant a proportional remedy.
2) If one affirms realities like predestination & impeccability, as most Thomists do, then one, by definition, does not & could not have sufficient knowledge to freely & completely reject God, unless there are beatific contingencies.
3) If one maintains, as some Thomists do, that a character – disposition based contingency for “seeing” the beatific vision is incoherent, then one must employ a divine indwelling based beatific contingency.
4) A divine indwelling based beatific contingency would only be coherent
in certain approaches to the relationship between nature & grace (e.g. stances in the auxiliis controversy). So, there are no coherent accounts of beatific contingency for those who reject an artificial extrinsicism, again, as some Thomists do.
5) If one accepts that evil is privative & only parasitic on goodness & being, then a virtuous or vicious secondary nature refers to a habitus that’s situated between our final potencies & formal acts, variously fostering or hindering the reduction of those potencies to loving acts but never obliterating them. One’s character cannot be thus frozen & rendered immutable, especially if one properly employs a universal or pneumatic hylomorphism, as most Franciscans & Eastern Fathers do. Because some Thomists affirm a survivalist stance regarding the intermediate state, arguably, mutability’s sustained post-mortem, even per their account, and in a manner not inconsistent with impeccability.
6) Fr J.D.’s argument that the mere metaphysical possibility of hell would be justified, if all ended up being saved per predestination, quite misses the point of DBH’s game theoretic analysis re the moral modal collapse. Even though the objective evil would be avoided, the subjective intent vis a vis that infernal conditional necessity would remain.
7) Hell has no reference in my own systematics, which on their own terms do otherwise employ concepts like impeccability, predestination, election, efficacious grace & even nuanced divine hierarchical conceptions. But those notions refer strictly to degrees of intimacy & holiness.
8) It’s clear, then, that Stump is just another one of those antipaninancaritabilitarians, huh Father?
Finally, I like Thomism, even love certain schools. It just doesn’t lead me to the same convoluted conclusions regarding postmortem theological anthropology as, well, Aquinas.