Author Topic: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants (Read 26163 times)

Angelus · « **Reply #105 on:** March 18, 2025, 12:10:58 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 18, 2025, 11:04:42 AM

You're missing the point. Whether or not "Abraham's Bosom" remains (as a place) is different from whether it is USED (as a holding place for people). Some say the Garden of Eden still remains (as a place), but it's no longer used (except for maybe Enoch/Elias...waiting for antichrist...but it's not USED in the same way as Adam/Eve used it).

The purpose of Abraham's Bosom was a temporary place of waiting til one can get to heaven...it was a waiting room for Christ. It is no longer used for that purpose, as there is no longer anyone from the Old Testament who is "justified" but unbaptized. And there is no longer a wait for a Redeemer. So, with the termination of the Old Law, so the purpose of the OT Limbo is terminated.

St Thomas' comments on whether or not the place still remains, is irrelevant to my point. The purpose is gone.

You said "the Limbo of the just was temporary." That statement does not conform to what Aquinas said. Can you at least admit that your opinion differs from St. Thomas Aquinas?

Regarding the "purpose" of the "limbo of the Fathers," here is Aquinas's response to Objection 2 (just below the earlier quote I provided), Aquinas says:

Quote

Reply Obj. 2: The place of rest of the holy fathers was called Abraham’s bosom before as well as after Christ’s coming, but in different ways. For since before Christ’s coming the saints’ rest had a lack of rest attached to it, it was called both hell and Abraham’s bosom, wherefore God was not seen there. But since after the coming of Christ the saints’ rest is complete through their seeing God, this rest is called Abraham’s bosom, but not hell by any means. It is to this bosom of Abraham that the Church prays for the faithful to be brought.

If you will read Aquinas carefully, I think you will see that the purpose of the "limbo of the just" does not go away after the Resurrection of Christ, and therefore, as Aquinas says there is nothing that prevents the "limbo of the just," called Abraham's bosom, from still being there "after Christ's coming."

Just as you are incorrect about "the limbo of the Fathers," you are incorrect about "the Garden of Eden," aka Paradise. That is still the place of reward for the saints who overcome in the end times.

St. John makes it clear that Paradise will be the destination of those who overcome [Apocalyps 2:7]:

Quote

7 He, that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him, that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God.

In his description of the New Heaven and the New Earth, St. John says in Apocalypse chapter 22:

Quote

2 In the midst of the street thereof, and on both sides of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yielding its fruits every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
...
14 Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #106 on:** March 18, 2025, 12:33:01 PM »

Quote

If you will read Aquinas carefully, I think you will see that the purpose of the "limbo of the just" does not go away after the Resurrection of Christ, and therefore, as Aquinas says there is nothing that prevents the "limbo of the just," called Abraham's bosom, from still being there "after Christ's coming."

St Thomas isn't the only saint to comment on this theory. There's not a consensus on if the "Limbo of the Just" is still in use AFTER Christ's Ascension.

This is all irrelevant to my point, which is that a non-baptized person (i.e. Plato) is not in the "Limbo of the Just", as he is not (nor will ever be) on the path to heaven. He would be in the "common Limbo", the upper part of hell, which is distinct from the "Limbo of the Just".

Angelus · « **Reply #107 on:** March 18, 2025, 01:04:05 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 18, 2025, 12:33:01 PM

St Thomas isn't the only saint to comment on this theory. There's not a consensus on if the "Limbo of the Just" is still in use AFTER Christ's Ascension.

This is all irrelevant to my point, which is that a non-baptized person (i.e. Plato) is not in the "Limbo of the Just", as he is not (nor will ever be) on the path to heaven. He would be in the "common Limbo", the upper part of hell, which is distinct from the "Limbo of the Just".

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?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #108 on:** March 18, 2025, 01:14:17 PM »

Quote

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."

I didn't reject St Thomas. I simply said there's not a consensus. He could be right or wrong. It's not a Church doctrine, so there's room for debate.

Quote

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?

Based on the thrice-defined DOGMA of EENS, how can an unbaptized person such as Plato gain heaven? Please explain.

Because St Thomas (and others) describe the post-Resurrection "Abraham's Bosom" as a holding place for the "just" who are waiting to gain heaven, until the world ends/Last Judgement.

Even according to St Thomas, there's no way that Plato can be "waiting for heaven" because he's unbaptized. Ergo, he's NOT/can't be in "Abraham's Bosom". He has to be in the "common limbo" which has been (piously) believed by the Church to contain unbaptized infants and good-willed non-catholics.

Unless you deny EENS and believe that unbaptized persons go to heaven...

Angelus · « **Reply #109 on:** March 18, 2025, 02:29:30 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on March 18, 2025, 01:14:17 PM

I didn't reject St Thomas. I simply said there's not a consensus. He could be right or wrong. It's not a Church doctrine, so there's room for debate.

Based on the thrice-defined DOGMA of EENS, how can an unbaptized person such as Plato gain heaven? Please explain.

Because St Thomas (and others) describe the post-Resurrection "Abraham's Bosom" as a holding place for the "just" who are waiting to gain heaven, until the world ends/Last Judgement.

Even according to St Thomas, there's no way that Plato can be "waiting for heaven" because he's unbaptized. Ergo, he's NOT/can't be in "Abraham's Bosom". He has to be in the "common limbo" which has been (piously) believed by the Church to contain unbaptized infants and good-willed non-catholics.

Unless you deny EENS and believe that unbaptized persons go to heaven...

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.

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

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.

Pax Vobis · « **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."

Pax Vobis · « **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?

DecemRationis · « **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.

Gray2023 · « **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.

Pax Vobis · « **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.

Author Topic: God's salvific will to save "all men" and the death of unbaptized infants (Read 26163 times)

Angelus

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

Angelus

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

Angelus

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

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

Pax Vobis

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

DecemRationis

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

Gray2023

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