Evil is privation of good. Yes or No
Yes, however it is a decision of will, not a place of privation. More specifically it is privation of due good, bonum debitum. Good and Evil is natural inclination of creatures with free will, it is not natural expression of other creation such as rocks, trees or even invisible ones such as Hades. All these created things are automatically "good" as they were declared such by God in Genesis, they lack nature and ability of privatio.
God is absent from Hell in terms of grace and beatitude, Yes or No?
No, Hell/Hades is an invisible place created by God and thus cannot be absent of God. Even under Thomism God's grace is part of his essence, so uncreated grace or other operation of God is in effect even in Hell. Hell is absent of sanctifying grace, but that is Thomistic created effect meant for humans. Not all places or creatures that lack sanctifying grace are hell.
But beware. If you are using Thomistic framework, the relations of persons within ousia of godhead are unlike any created effects. Divine glory or love or grace flowing between persons in the godhead are uncreated, and unlike anything outside. God can withdraw sanctifying grace, but he cannot withdraw the divine uncreated grace flowing between person of the Godhead. Christ cannot be spacially diferentiated from Father or Holy Spirit. Again, there is no "Divine Separation" as an attribute of the Holy Trinity.
Additionally while God can withdraw some created attributes such as sanctifying grace from creation, he cannot withdraw everything as it would functionally mean annihilation. Not-God place is nothingness and impossibility.
Hell is the subjective experience of God’s uncreated glory and presence by those who reject Him, Yes or No?
Yes AND. As with other things, hell is also a place created by God. One word can have multiple referential points.
Hell is far from God in affection, spirit, and beatitude, Yes or No?
Yes and No depending on what you want to say.
Also these stupid Yes/No questions are exactly the source of false dialectic that poison the mind of many modern thinkers and especially protestants. Let me give you an example of similarly stupid question:
"Killing is against God's law, Yes or No"
I am not saying that Hell or Evil is a substance in and of itself, which is what you keep arguing against. Anything that exists has the grounds of that existence in God. But Hell is defined by having a separation from God and a lack of the beatific vision.
Incorrect. Beatific vision is something that is going to happen after eschaton with certain exception such as angels or saints etc. It does not mean that everything that does not have beatific vision is Hell. This is exactly what I wanted to say, this stupid theology dangerously skirts Gnosticism and Nestorianism due to incorrect Christology.
By calling evil a lack, I'm avoiding giving it a substance of its own.
No, you give it substance by tying it to a place. Place does not have will to deny God.
God in the place that is defined by God's absence
Again, this is the main point. There is no such thing as God's absence even in Satan. There is only refusal of God or accepting God, but the ontology is always as privatio, an act of will, there is no ontological substance to rebellion. There is no ontological reality to refusal of God, some "God's absence" realm. Refusal is act of will, not an ontological reality. God created everything and named it as Good. There is no corner of created or uncreated world where the God is absent. This is important as it impacts Christology. Christ did not descend to Not-God place. He has command over all creation and preached gospel to the dead. I just want to point out that Bishop Barron draws heavily from Hans Urs von Balthasar, and these are considered as heterodox theology that runs close to denying several established dogmas with Church Fathers and dogmas established by various councils. It is one thing to claim metaphorical language of "Not-God" as internal experience of somebody severed from Grace. It is another to posit ontological power of such severance to create a "space" or "realm" where damned reside collectively and which is cut off from the God completely. In classical view, Jesus waltzed into Hades and preached gospel to individual trapped souls. He did not walk to unassailable "evil" Manichean prison outside of God's creation to free the souls. That is dangerously close to Manicheanism and assigning evil the ontological status, thus even promoting Satan to some sort of ontological Evil God who creates his own "realm" of Not-God in Hades.
Because there is already an eternal "space" of self-giving love between Father and Son, that space can stretch to encompass the finite distance created by human sin. The abandonment on the Cross is not a sudden rupture of divine love, but the manifestation in historical reality of the divine, self-emptying love that exists eternally within God.
In the theology there is a difference between God uncreated attributes, powers and operations and human ones. You can love your neighbor and it is analogous to Father loving his Son. But it is not the same. And it does not matter if you look at it through Thomist Absolute Divine Simplicity or Palamas Essence-Energy distinction, "energies" or operations of God such as Divine Glory, Mercy etc. are either divine essence or uncreated energies and thus outside of purview of not only humans but also angels and any other creatures. In that sense there is no "space" of self-giving love between Father and Son. Divine love is either consubstantial part of Divine Essence eternally present between Son and Father or it is Palamian uncreated energy that is the operation of divine nature of both of them. This is important trinitarian dogma. As in John 16:15
All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
This includes Divine love, which is operation of divine nature. There is no "space" between The Father and The Son. There are distinctions between persons such as Jesus being begotten and Father being the source and archaea. But these are relation of opposition inside the ousia of the Trinity, there is no space inside the trinity as an extra attribute dictating this relationship inside Thomism, that would be against Absolute Divine Simplicity. Palamism says that Father and Son share uncreated divine energies, however these are operations of divine nature of persons within Trinity. In the same way as it is appropriate to human nature to let's say talk or breath (an operation of human nature), it is natural for Father and Son and Holy Spirit to express Divine Love.
There is no space there as some independent variable, there is no "Divine Space" between persons of Trinity outside of it, dictating operations of God. Wherever Son is, Father and Holy Spirit are also fully in their consubstantial form, they are there 100%, no "spatial distance" can diminish it to 99.9999% as space is not an attribute dictating operations of God as said above. That is the main point of retarded view of PSA - if Father punishes the Son, he punishes himself and the Holy Spirit, he cannot separate himself from the other and do "Divine Punishment" operation on them as that would break Trinity. That is why PSA is Nestorian heresy trying to divide Jesus in his human/divine hypostasis as if it was separate created "human Jesus" who descend to Hades while "divine Jesus" rested at the right hand of his Father somehow watching his alter ego doing stuff in Hades or maybe laying and chilling in the tomb or whatever.
Church Fathers had it correct, you start with Christology which is deeply tied to overall Christian theology. And then the rest flows out naturally. You cannot change soteriology (as it depends on Christ and his resurrection) even ecclesiology (it posits Christ as the head of the Church) as it has butterfly effects on Christology and Theology, eventually distorting the overall view.
Again, when Jesus conquered death in his dual human/divine (in his hypostatic union) nature healing the rift brought upon human nature by Adam, he came as a victor to Hades - a created realm by God (Niceno-Constantinoplitan creed names God as creator of of all things visible and invisible) to preach gospel to individual souls who now had healed human nature. They had the same opportunity as we healed humans have now through baptism and deification. They could participate in Gods's grace individually - maybe some did and some didn't. It is not as if Jesus took away redeemed souls of prophets and other righteous from "Not-God" realm of Satan toward the "Yes-God" realm of creation or something like that. It was individual choice of each soul in the same way we now have on this Earth now. We are not living in Not-God realm if there is overwhelming sin around us as in Sodom, where the sin creates some splinter-reality of "Not-God" and where the space or air is imbued by this ungodly property, it is incredibly heterodox thought.
Oh, here we are. Famous Paul 2 Timothy 2:14. Because matters of Trinity and Christology are "petty arguments" and pure logomachia. I don't give a shit about fake piousness and tone policing.
You are living in your head, this conversation never happened.
Again, an invented conversation that never happened and completely disrespectful.
Again, this conversation never happened. Why you have a need to invent whole paragraphs of false literally strawman conversations and fake arguments?
So finally, after all these fictional stories in your head we arrive at conclusion. No, Jesus did not travel into a Not-God place. As I argued before. Also, this low tier emotionalist theology and fake protestant tone policing does not work.
Just state your argument.
More options
Context Copy link