Author Topic: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants (Read 304954 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #110 on:** March 18, 2025, 02:58:48 PM »

Quote

I am not questioning the dogma of EENS. I don't know what the reward of the just consists of. I suspect it is Paradise, aka "the New Earth" discussed in Apocalypse 21-22.

Adam, Noah, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Abraham, the Good Thief, St Joseph -- these were all "just" men because....a) they believed in the coming Redeemer, b) practiced God's religion and c) were circuмcised (if applicable).

Plato was not "just".

How do you not know what the reward of Adam, Noah, Moses, etc is?

The Old Testament "saints" are surely saved.

Quote

All of the OT "Fathers" that were in "Abraham's bosom" were unbaptized. They died before the Sacrament was instituted.

Of course they were unbaptized. But the fulfilled the OT Law requirements ... a) they believed in the coming Redeemer, b) practiced God's religion and c) were circuмcised (if applicable).

Plato did not fulfill the Old Testament Law. He was not an Israelite, but a pagan Greek. He may have lived a "natural law good" life, but that's the extent of it (there is no record of him converting on his death bed to Judaism). Assuming he didn't convert on his death bed, he cannot go to heaven. He cannot be called "just".

DecemRationis · « **Reply #111 on:** March 18, 2025, 04:21:27 PM »

Quote from: Angelus on March 18, 2025, 01:04:05 PM

Look, I may be wrong. I don't claim infallibility. But all you do is present your opinion. You don't substantiate your opinion with any Church-approved sources. In fact, you reject the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas because you claim "there's not a consensus." What is your proof that there is not a consensus? Show a source. Or did you just make up this "consensus?"

Just like the opinion above, you then opine how Plato "is not in the Limbo of the Just." Again, giving no Church-approved support for your argument. But you state it as if it is absolute truth. Why do you do this?

You've noted his mark, Angelus. He spins things out of his own brain, or uses threads he's gathered from other spinners.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #112 on:** March 18, 2025, 04:24:18 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 18, 2025, 08:24:20 AM

It is an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Faith that God wills that all men be saved.

The exception proves the rule, my man. You're arguing about infants, which are an exception. And...you admit they aren't damned. So it's a non-sequitur.

A. God wills all men to be saved.
B. God gives all men the graces necessary for salvation.
C. Ergo, any man who is damned, is so because he rejected God's grace.
---- The above is catholic doctrine ----

In the case of an infant, the logic is this:

A. Unbaptized infants die before God gives them grace to accept salvation.
B. Unbaptized infants do not have the capacity to sin or to accept grace, therefore they are not damned.
C. Unbaptized infants are neither saved nor damned and thus, are not a contradiction of God's salvific will.

I'll note where we agree, and then summarize our essential disagreement for clarity.

We agree that all men who are damned are damned by virtue of mortal sins they commit. God does not desire that any individual man, qua an individual man, go to hell. Those in hell were not so marked individually and personally destined to be there, and God did not have to predestine them individually to go there. They are there by virtue of their own lusts and sinful actions. (Agreement)

I say that the men who go to heaven, among other differences they have from the men who go to hell, were chosen by God individually, known to him"by name" before the foundation of the earth, elected to be with Him eternally in heaven. This has nothing to do with a foresight by God of the good they that would do or be inclined to, which is a consequence of His choice. The elect are determined and chosen ante praevisa merita. (DIsagreement)

You say that all men receive "adequate grace" so that they can do all that is necessary to choose a path that ends up being their ultimate salvation, without any differentiating or extraordinary grace that is not a result of their effort. God does not choose them before the foundation of the world in the sense of His choice being determinative for them; rather, He is responsive to their actions, via His foresight of them. (Disagreement)

Now some of the consequences of our disagreement, as I see it.

First, I made the obvious point that some men, namely infants who die in infancy, do not receive this "adequate grace" individually and personally. The grace of salvation is available to them through the sacrament of baptism only, which they do not receive as a result of no fault of their own.

You blithely dismiss the latter point by saying they are an exception, considering the exception of no, or minor, consequence.

It is not a minor consequence because it means salvation is closed to a group of men who could never be saved by their decisions or actions, despite God's desire to save "all men" in your sense. For example, all infants who died in the Americas, or Asia, before the possibility of the general sacrament of salvation being made available to them for thousands of years - those infants could never be saved by virtue of things beyond their control. Thus, your interpretation of God personally and individually desiring to save "all men" is belied by fact.

Again, you blithely dismiss the upshot of this "exception" in these infants by saying, God is merciful, and doesn't damn them. I agree. But not being tormented in hell is not experiencing the beatitude of the beatific vision, i.e. salvation in and with Christ. But, hey, it's an
"exception" that is no obstacle for Pasc's God desiring the salvation - note, not not desiring the torments of hell - of "all men" nonetheless.

You say this shows God's mercy, in that he foresees that these infants would commit damnable mortal sins, and die in that state, so He ends their lives early. And when I point out that this ignores the fundamental question, and actually proves my point, you, again, blithely ignore that. For, even if you were right, God also foresees the mortal sins of other men - or does He not foresee all? - and nonetheless permits them to go on to adulthood, in distinction from those other infants who would be in hell if not for God's mercy.

How can you not see that this "distinction" between two groups of infants who would, if both groups were allowed to mature to a responsible age, be in the same hell, is absolutely and totally due to the gratuitous choice of God? Otherwise both infants are the same, in terms of their human "actions" - though it is rather absurd to refer to actions that are never committed. I also wonder whether the infants themselves would not have a "fairness" objection to God: "you say I would have done that, but you never gave me the chance." Such is the absurd implications of Pasc's doctrine.

Thus, your own argument provides a basis or proof of the gratuity of God's choices regarding some men - though you of course can't see it. But you show it in regard to these infants, and I say it is in regard to the elect. My position has the backing of Scripture, the great doctors St. Augustine and St. Thomas and others, and your position has the backing of . . . Pasc.

But, I grant you could be right, and them wrong. I could, if not for Scripture and reason upending you, and no Magisterial teaching defying reason in support.

I hope this discussion may sow some seeds of reflection in others.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #113 on:** March 18, 2025, 04:28:38 PM »

And it's exceedingly ironic, Pasc, that you think God gives "all men" adequate grace for salvation when you believe that all who are saved receive the physical waters of baptism.

That would work in my view, since, like all those infants over the centuries before the Gospel was spread throughout the Americas, Asia, etc., the impossibility of the sacrament of baptism to adult males in those centuries just shows that God did not elect them to salvation and the receipt of the sacrament He has determined necessary.

In your view . . . not so much.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #114 on:** March 18, 2025, 04:35:11 PM »

Decem, what is your point? That the mystery of "free will" vs "Divine Providence" cannot be adequately explained?

I've already admitted that there is a 'catholic predestination' ideal (as explained by St Augustine, and others). But trying to "explain" predestination is (as St Augustine said later in his life) leads to a "vortex of confusion" because no man can understand God's ways.

So, again, if there is a 'catholic predestination' which God practices, this does not contradict "free will" nor does it contradict "God's will to save all men". It is only an apparent contradiction to our human minds.

So again, I ask you, what's your point?
a. That God is unfair?
b. That free will doesn't exist?
c. That God doesn't desire all men to be saved?

I think your point should be that we can't understand salvation, because it's a spiritual mystery.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants (Read 304954 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants

DecemRationis

Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants

DecemRationis

Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants

DecemRationis

Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants

Pax Vobis

Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants