Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 28

Author Topic: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants  (Read 304967 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants
« Reply #115 on: March 18, 2025, 04:45:48 PM »
The following are some of the declarations that are pertinent, from Denzinger:

1.  God predestines no one to evil (Denz 1567).
2.  He wills, on the contrary, the salvation of all men (Denz 623).
3.  Christ did not die solely for the predestined or the faithful (Denz 2005, 2304, 2430).
4.  There is a grace that is truly sufficient and that is a true gift of God (Denz 2306).
5.  The grace of conversion is offered to sinners (Denz 1542).
6.  They only are deprived of it who, failing in their duty, refuse it; this is something which God permits but of which He is by no means the cause (Denz 1556, 1567,2866).


To sum up, one must say that the Church affirms particularly three truths against Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism:
(1) The cause of predestination to grace or justification is not the divine foreknowledge of naturally good works that are performed by men, neither is the cause preliminary to any act of the natural order that prepares man for salvation. This efficacious calling is due solely to God. It is initiated by Him because of His divine largesse.

(2) Predestination to glory is not a result of foreseen supernatural merits that would continue to be effective apart from the special gift of final perseverance.

(3) Predestination, viewed in its totality, that is, the entire series of graces from beginning to end, is gratuitous, and hence previous to the foreseen merits of man. In a word, that some are saved is the gift of Him who saves (Denz 623).


Against the various forms of predestinationism the Church teaches that:
(1) God sincerely wills the salvation of all men and thus makes the fulfillment of His precepts possible for all.
(2) There is neither predestination to evil as a final end nor predestination to any evil deed in particular.
(3) Christ died for all men without exception.
(4) Nevertheless, God has decreed from all eternity to inflict eternal punishment for the sin of final impenitence, which He has foreseen for all eternity. He is by no means the cause of the impenitence, but merely permits it.


In the words of St. Prosper, "That many … perish is the fault of those who perish; that many are saved is the gift of Him who saves."
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants
« Reply #116 on: March 19, 2025, 08:43:37 AM »
Decem, putting aside all that i've written, what are your comments about my last post?  From Denzinger?  The Denzinger info is 0% mine and 100% from an article I found.

Forget everything i've said on the topic (I probably don't write clearly enough)...I agree 100% with the post on Denzinger.  Do you?
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants
« Reply #117 on: March 19, 2025, 10:39:04 AM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 19, 2025, 08:43:37 AM

Decem, putting aside all that i've written, what are your comments about my last post?  From Denzinger?  The Denzinger info is 0% mine and 100% from an article I found.

Forget everything i've said on the topic (I probably don't write clearly enough)...I agree 100% with the post on Denzinger.  Do you?

First, I appreciate the second paragraph particularly. It suggests to me a change or developing of your position. I have held positions in the past that I reject now, so I know I myself have changed my views on things because I've been wrong.

But I think I've changed my views in response to distinctions or reasons that exposed those views as false, distinctions or reasons founded on genuine evidence that I could not in good conscience deny, no matter how much I wanted to by inclination.

My darker side comes out when I am "discussing" something and my "opponent" fails to appreciate a critical distinction that they either ignore or purposely evade because it is damaging to their inclined view, so reason be damned. I sometimes feel you do that in discussion, and I get frustrated with you. But again, I've done the same myself in the past.

Sorry for any attacks of a personal nature.

As  to Denzinger, yes I agree with all of those propositions. Where did you get the list, or how did you put it together?  Interesting.

However, some of those items must be properly understood. The ones that jump out at me are:


Quote
He wills, on the contrary, the salvation of all men (Denz 623).

God sincerely wills the salvation of all men and thus makes the fulfillment of His precepts possible for all.

As I pointed out in this discussion, there is a group of men who can't be saved: infants who died in infancy during a time or in a place where baptism was not available to them. This is a necessary conclusion from Church dogma that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for a child or infant who does not reach maturity or the "age of reason" for salvation. It would seem to me that salvation would also be impossible for adults in the same time and place, though I know St. Thomas argues for the possibility of an "angel" being sent to them internally or spiritually so that the requisite faith in Christ and desire for the sacrament can be received . . . I am dubious of that. I do not see any clear Magisterial decision in that regard, and see that as an open question. In any event, there is clearly a group (the infants) for whom salvation appears closed - if you take with sufficient respect to what is reasonable the dogmas about baptism and the necessity of the sacraments and their necessary or at least only reasonable (in my view) inferences.

As  to the two points above, and getting back there, the infants again make the two propositions, if taken in a plain sense of "all men" - as in every individual man - false. But both are true in a proper sense.  St. Thomas talks about the first, and as usual he explains it very well:

Quote
Article 6. Whether the will of God is always fulfilled?

Objection 1. It seems that the will of God is not always fulfilled. For the Apostle says (1 Timothy 2:4): "God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." But this does not happen. Therefore the will of God is not always fulfilled.

. . .

Reply to Objection 1. The words of the Apostle, "God will have all men to be saved," etc. can be understood in three ways.

First, by a restricted application, in which case they would mean, as Augustine says (De praed. sanct. i, 8: Enchiridion 103), "God wills all men to be saved that are saved, not because there is no man whom He does not wish saved, but because there is no man saved whose salvation He does not will."

Secondly, they can be understood as applying to every class of individuals, not to every individual of each class; in which case they mean that God wills some men of every class and condition to be saved, males and females, Jews and Gentiles, great and small, but not all of every condition.

Thirdly, according to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 29), they are understood of the antecedent will of God; not of the consequent will. This distinction must not be taken as applying to the divine will itself, in which there is nothing antecedent nor consequent, but to the things willed.


To understand this we must consider that everything, in so far as it is good, is willed by God. A thing taken in its primary sense, and absolutely considered, may be good or evil, and yet when some additional circuмstances are taken into account, by a consequent consideration may be changed into the contrary. Thus that a man should live is good; and that a man should be killed is evil, absolutely considered. But if in a particular case we add that a man is a murderer or dangerous to society, to kill him is a good; that he live is an evil. Hence it may be said of a just judge, that antecedently he wills all men to live; but consequently wills the murderer to be hanged. In the same way God antecedently wills all men to be saved, but consequently wills some to be damned, as His justice exacts. Nor do we will simply, what we will antecedently, but rather we will it in a qualified manner; for the will is directed to things as they are in themselves, and in themselves they exist under particular qualifications. Hence we will a thing simply inasmuch as we will it when all particular circuмstances are considered; and this is what is meant by willing consequently. Thus it may be said that a just judge wills simply the hanging of a murderer, but in a qualified manner he would will him to live, to wit, inasmuch as he is a man. Such a qualified will may be called a willingness rather than an absolute will. Thus it is clear that whatever God simply wills takes place; although what He wills antecedently may not take place.

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The will of God (Prima Pars, Q. 19) (newadvent.org)

As to the second proposition, and God making the fulfillment of his precepts "possible," indeed He does. As Trent tells us, God gives man the grace that it is possible for him to fulfill God's commands. We know this from experience when we, on occasion, resist lust or sin. The power or capacity is indeed given to do so, as experience shows.


However, it is also true that, because of his nature, man will fail to keep the law and be "perfect" and keep ALL the commandments as he is commanded to do, despite the capacity and grace that makes it "possible."

Therefore, for any man to be saved, and keep (in God's eyes, via and in Christ) all the precepts of the law, God must gratuitously elect them to save them by robing them in Christ's perfection via repentance, faith, utilizing the means provided, sacraments, prayer, etc. The only ones who do so received the grace of final perseverance, a grace they do not deserve and cannot achieve absent an extraordinary grace reserved to the elect alone.

I hope we can reach agreement.


Logged

Online Gray2023

  • Supporter
Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants
« Reply #118 on: March 19, 2025, 11:40:29 AM »
Very interesting discussion.

A couple questions for my own clarity.

1) How are Job and Plato different from each other? Job believed in God. Did Plato? I thought the assumption is Job is in Heaven and Plato is in the top portion of Hell.

2)  As for infants who die before Baptism, I thought it was taught that in God's mercy, He allows this because if they lived they might have a worse spot in Hell. How does this fit with the discussion?

Please ignore if you think the answers will derail the conversation. 
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants
« Reply #119 on: March 19, 2025, 01:18:39 PM »

Quote
1) How are Job and Plato different from each other? Job believed in God. Did Plato? I thought the assumption is Job is in Heaven and Plato is in the top portion of Hell.
Job was an Isrealite who followed God's Law.  Plato was a pagan (who some say lived a 'naturally good life').  The difference is night and day.  Similar to a Catholic vs a 'good natured Hindu'.

Quote
2)  As for infants who die before Baptism, I thought it was taught that in God's mercy, He allows this because if they lived they might have a worse spot in Hell. How does this fit with the discussion?
Yes, this is the pious belief.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 28
« previous next »