What If The Devil Became Truly Repentant...

Here's something to ponder. What if the devil became truly repentant. Would God forgive him and if so, how would that change things?

 

Yeah, forgiveness ... It's the simplest commandment, and the toughest, if public opinion is anything to go by.

 

Not a great deal, I would have thought. We're quite good at making bad choices, without outside interference!

 

Witnesses???

Perhaps, but what of the question? Would God forgive the devil if he became truly repentant?

 

Oh, ok.

 

OK. As a theoretical answer to a theoretical question: If the devil became repentant, then forgiveness is possible.

A Catholic theological answer to the question is no, as Scripture seems quite definite on that point. To understand that would require a Catholic understanding of the nature of angels, which is different from the nature of man. St Thomas Aquinas is called 'the Angelic Doctor' because he wrote more about angels than anyone else, and argued reasonably, rationally and logically about what constitutes an angel, and what that constitution implies. Angels are creatures of pure intellect, in that they have no material body. From this he argues, for example, that each angel is its own species, there are no two angels of the same species (they would be indistinguishable if there were).

Thomas goes on to argue that a thing is known according to what it is, and what it is makes itself known according to its 'act' – thus a demonic intellect is demonic because that's what it is, but because it is what it is, it cannot repent, because a good thing cannot arise from the bad. (This same argument, which is philosophically rational, reasoned and sound, also knocks the 'sinning to get closer to God' excuse into touch.)

So if the devil is pure evil, how can the devil repent, as repentance is contrary to its nature ... ?

 

Thanks Thomas. For once I was looking forward to your response.

Yeah that's more or less the Christian view as well. My thinking is, God could no more forgive Satan than Satan could become repentant, because there may be nothing for God to forgive and nothing for Satan to repent for. That is, Satan's rebellion may have been part of God's plan all along and Satan may have done exactly as he was created to do. Provide the contrast between good and evil that would ultimately shape mankind.

My father was one rotten SOB. To say he made life difficult for us growing up is a gross understatement. I harbored ill feelings for him long after his passing until I had occasion to ask a Hindu Soothsayer why my father did the things he did. Much to my surprise I was told that my father did exactly as he was supposed to do and that if he hadn't, I wouldn't have become the person I was and a lot of people would be much the worse because of it. He than proceeded to give me specific examples that completely changed my way of thinking...

 

The degree to which our fathers shape us is almost incalculable.

 

I can never buy this argument. It would equally apply to humanity as well, in which case all the great spiritual traditions which speak of 'sin' have got it wrong.

Who needs the contrast? Not God, and not man. A god who requires the degree of suffering in the world that is evident is a pretty crap god, in my opinion.

Hmmm ...

 

Not really. Even if Satin was predisposed to sin, it is still up to us whether or not to allow his influence to lead us astray.

Without it, there's no depth. No right or wrong. Everything is one dimensional. Contrast gives us a cleaner view to choose from.

 

Can you then explain (apart from why God would will something against His own will – and for our benefit is not an answer) why if Satan's predisposition to sin is OK, ours is not? Why do we get punished for doing stuff that's OK for Satan to do?

Sorry no, this is an 'ends justifies the means' argument. God does not need the contrast, any more than He needs to know He is right. Nor does man need the contrast to know instinctively what is good. Therefore ...

If that were true, we could only be happy according to the amount of pain we have experienced.

 

Why ask the question if you've already rejected the answer? I never said it was ok for Satin to sin. Only the possibility he was predisposed to do so. Doing something seeming contrary for our benefit does not necessarily mean it goes against God's will.

This is where we disagree. No worries, just a contrast of opinion.

Experiencing pain is certainly not paramount to happiness and that's not what I'm saying. Only that, if one experiences sin first hand and the consequences there of, they are less likely to derive pleasure from it and strive to avoid it. Thereby giving us maximum opportunity to choose good over evil and taking away any excuse to do otherwise.

 

I always seek to expand my understanding and challenge my thinking. It's the only reason I continue here, really.

S'fine. Just checking the logic.

Actually that's not true. There are many instances where the opposite is so often the case it almost a given.

Perhaps, but that's a humanist/moral line of reasoning really doesn't cut it with Christ, or on a spiritual path. One should love the good for its own sake. Nothing else comes close, or goes so far.