I feel that one should not spend too much time thinking about this.  It's easy for our puny brains to misunderstand this mystery and can lead to various issues.  I believe it was St. Francis des Sales who was tempted to despair over it for some time.  It's highly disputed regarding how this works, and we'll likely never solve the question.  Even the Church refused to rule on it definitively.  Especially scrupulous types should avoid this subject entirely.

Very good, indeed. The most important aspects explained lucidly and succinctly, using good examples.


At the beginning there is an error, but it's effectively corrected later on:

True is: God gives the sufficient grace to save their souls to all just (not to all men). Correction:

The issue identified in the subject of this thread was broached by Forlorn in a current thread on baptism of desire. In his last post in that thread, Forlorn wrote:


In that post, Forlorn refers to a discussion I pointed him to in another Catholic forum, here:


1 Timothy 2:4 (forumotion.com)

I told Forlorn I'd move the discussion here, and I will begin it with a citation in Denzinger (Deferarri translation, 1954) to the central passage of Scripture with regard to God's will to save "all men," 1 Timothy 2:4, which states:

The passage is cited in Denzinger 318, where the Council of Quiersy states:



The only other time the verse is referenced in Denzinger is by the First Vatican Council Council at 1794, where it is cited with reference to the Church's divine mission (see my remarks below), the part of the verse there cited being God's desire that "all men" "come to the knowledge of the truth."

The first thing I want to note regarding 1 Timothy 2:4 is the link between God's desire to save "all men" and His desire that the same group "come to the knowledge of the truth." As the second citation to the verse by the First Vatican Council indicates, the divine mission of the Church to "all men" - which we know is Scripturally framed as Jєω and Gentile, male, female, etc. (see Galatians 3:26-29 etc.) - is being addressed here.

The question which Forlorn raised implicates whether God's desire to save "all men" is broader than merely an indication that His salvation is universal and open to "all men" without racial or any other distinction via the Church - i.e., does it encompass every single soul that has been generated in the womb or thereafter born which dies before baptism, the "only remedy" to men not capable of what Pius XII referred to as the "act of love" that requires rational choice and mature, informed and responsible will (as to the only remedy, see Denzinger 712 (Florence), 791 (Trent))?

The second point I want to make is as to the the language of the Council of Quiersy cited above. Note that the Council, after citing 1 Tim. 2:4, states "that certain ones perish, however, is the deserved punishment of those who perish" (emphasis added).

As Ladislaus pointed out in his response to Forlorn in the above-referenced thread, infants who die without baptism do not "perish" and suffer the damnation and torment of the damned who "deserve" it (Quiersy), but go to Limbo. I believe that is why the doctrine of Limbo, while not defined as de fide dogma, is essential to the truth and consistency of our Catholic faith.

Of course, this prescinds from the point raised by Forlorn, since those infants, while not damned, are indeed not "saved" in heaven.

I will continue with a discussion of St. Thomas's reflections on the meaning of 1 Tim 2:4's reference to God's desire to save "all men" in the Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 19, Article 6.

Of course I open this up for comment and the reflections of others who have studied the Scriptures and the Church's teaching on this issue.

DR

Terrible. In My Catholic Faith the same kind of baptism is mentioned as a theory; called Baptism by Illumination. Now we have a fourth baptism!

The notion of predestination comprises two essential elements: God's infallible foreknowledge ( prœscientia ), and His immutable decree ( decretum ) of eternal happiness. The theologian who, following in the footsteps of the Pelagians, would limit the Divine activity to the eternal foreknowledge and exclude the Divine will, would at once fall into Deism, which asserts that God, having created all things, leaves man and the universe to their fate and refrains from all active interference. Though the purely natural gifts of God, as descent from pious parents, good education, and the providential guidance of man's external career, may also be called effects of predestination, still, strictly speaking, the term implies only those blessings which lie in the supernatural sphere, as sanctifying grace, all actual graces, and among them in particular those which carry with them final perseverance and a happy death. Since in reality only those reach heaven who die in the state of justification or sanctifying grace , all these and only these are numbered among the predestined, strictly so called. From this it follows that we must reckon among them also all children who die in baptismal grace, as well as those adults who, after a life stained with sin, are converted on their death-beds. The same is true of the numerous predestined who, though outside the pale of the true Church of Christ, yet depart from this life in the state of grace as catechumens, Protestants in good faith, schismatics, Jєωs, Mahommedans, and pagans. Those fortunate Catholics who at the close of a long life are still clothed in their baptismal innocence, or who after many relapses into mortal sin persevere till the end, are not indeed predestined more firmly, but are more signally favoured than the last-named categories of persons.


Predestination - Encyclopedia Volume - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online

The notion of predestination comprises two essential elements: God's infallible foreknowledge ( prœscientia ), and His immutable decree ( decretum ) of eternal happiness . . .

Though the purely natural gifts of God, as descent from pious parents, good education, and the providential guidance of man's external career, may also be called effects of predestination, still, strictly speaking, the term implies only those blessings which lie in the supernatural sphere, as sanctifying grace, all actual graces, and among them in particular those which carry with them final perseverance and a happy death.

St. Augustine, A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints, Book II

Chapter 18.—But Why Should One Be Punished More Than Another?

    “But if,” it is said, “it was necessary that, although all were not condemned, He should still show what was due to all, and so He should commend His grace more freely to the vessels of mercy; why in the same case will He punish me more than another, or deliver him more than me?” I say not this. If you ask wherefore; because I confess that I can find no answer to make. And if you further ask why is this, it is because in this matter, even as His anger is righteous and as His mercy is great, so His judgments are unsearchable.

Augustine, Saint. The Complete Works of St. Augustine: Cross-linked to the Bible and with in-line footnotes (p. 9452). Kindle Edition.

Pope Innocent III (Denzinger 410)


But through the sacrament of baptism the guilt of one made red by the blood of Christ is remitted, and to the kingdom of heaven one also arrives, whose gate the blood of Christ has mercifully opened for His faithful. For God forbid that all children of whom daily so great a multitude die, would perish, but that also for these the merciful God who wishes no one to perish has procured some remedy unto salvation. . . . As to what opponents say, (namely), that faith or love or other virtues are not infused in children, inasmuch as they do not consent, is absolutely not granted by most. . . . some asserting that by the power of baptism guilt indeed is remitted to little ones but grace is not conferred; and some indeed saying both that sin is forgiven and that virtues are infused in them as they hold virtues as a possession not as a function, until they arrive at adult age. . . . We say that a distinction must be made, that sin is twofold: namely, original and actual: original, which is contracted without consent; and actual which is committed with consent. Original, therefore, which is committed without consent, is remitted without consent through the power of the sacrament; but actual, which is contracted with consent, is not mitigated in the slightest without consent. . . . The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell. . . .


https://sensusfidelium.us/the-sources-of-catholic-dogma-the-denzinger/innocent-iii-1198-1216-the-effect-of-baptism-and-the-character/

Hope, faith, and love are (first) infused when a man receives the sacrament of baptism. Man is not able to have the (supernatural) faith and do God pleasing deeds, without sanctifying grace. So I agree, God doesn't predestine based on these. But, what about man's freely willed decision to cooperate with grace? What about the voto mentioned by the Council of Trent. God foreknows the will, the voto.

There is no merit involved, since all merit comes from the blood of Christ, and is communicated (Trent) to the candidates.

I can't understand, why predestination should be that mysterious. God has revealed who will be saved:

We know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good (Rom 8:28)

For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son (Rom 8:29)

he who endures to the end will be saved (Matt 24:13)


St. Thomas Aquinas avoids to consider the role of the of the free will, although he mentions it without further consideration:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Rom.C8.L6.n707

Thomas mentions the way in which "God's choice is determined in some way by man" (DecemRationis). God would prefer to predestine all men, since he wills to do so. But he is limited by man, since the predestined have to freely assent to the call (excepting exceptions). God cannot predestine someone who doesn't want to assent (or who later backs down).

I don't understand why St. Thomas doesn't infer that God's foreknowledge of this assent of the predestined is key to solve the "mystery" of predestination.


Your point ...

... is not concerned. Since even a less mysterious predestination doesn't invalidate it.

Article 8. Whether the will of God imposes necessity on the things willed?


Objection 1. It seems that the will of God imposes necessity on the things willed. For Augustine says (Enchiridion 103): "No one is saved, except whom God has willed to be saved. He must therefore be asked to will it; for if He wills it, it must necessarily be."

Objection 2. Further, every cause that cannot be hindered, produces its effect necessarily, because, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 84) "Nature always works in the same way, if there is nothing to hinder it." But the will of God cannot be hindered. For the Apostle says (Romans 9:19): "Who resisteth His will?" Therefore the will of God imposes necessity on the things willed.

Objection 3. Further, whatever is necessary by its antecedent cause is necessary absolutely; it is thus necessary that animals should die, being compounded of contrary elements. Now things created by God are related to the divine will as to an antecedent cause, whereby they have necessity. For the conditional statement is true that if God wills a thing, it comes to pass; and every true conditional statement is necessary. It follows therefore that all that God wills is necessary absolutely.

On the contrary, All good things that exist God wills to be. If therefore His will imposes necessity on things willed, it follows that all good happens of necessity; and thus there is an end of free will, counsel, and all other such things.

I answer that, The divine will imposes necessity on some things willed but not on all. The reason of this some have chosen to assign to intermediate causes, holding that what God produces by necessary causes is necessary; and what He produces by contingent causes contingent. This does not seem to be a sufficient explanation, for two reasons.

First, because the effect of a first cause is contingent on account of the secondary cause, from the fact that the effect of the first cause is hindered by deficiency in the second cause, as the sun's power is hindered by a defect in the plant. But no defect of a secondary cause can hinder God's will from producing its effect.

Secondly, because if the distinction between the contingent and the necessary is to be referred only to secondary causes, this must be independent of the divine intention and will; which is inadmissible. It is better therefore to say that this happens on account of the efficacy of the divine will. For when a cause is efficacious to act, the effect follows upon the cause, not only as to the thing done, but also as to its manner of being done or of being. Thus from defect of active power in the seed it may happen that a child is born unlike its father in accidental points, that belong to its manner of being. Since then the divine will is perfectly efficacious, it follows not only that things are done, which God wills to be done, but also that they are done in the way that He wills. Now God wills some things to be done necessarily, some contingently, to the right ordering of things, for the building up of the universe. Therefore to some effects He has attached necessary causes, that cannot fail; but to others defectible and contingent causes, from which arise contingent effects. Hence it is not because the proximate causes are contingent that the effects willed by God happen contingently, but because God prepared contingent causes for them, it being His will that they should happen contingently.

Reply to Objection 1. By the words of Augustine we must understand a necessity in things willed by God that is not absolute, but conditional. For the conditional statement that if God wills a thing it must necessarily be, is necessarily true.

Reply to Objection 2. From the very fact that nothing resists the divine will, it follows that not only those things happen that God wills to happen, but that they happen necessarily or contingently according to His will.

Reply to Objection 3. Consequents have necessity from their antecedents according to the mode of the antecedents. Hence things effected by the divine will have that kind of necessity that God wills them to have, either absolute or conditional. Not all things, therefore, are absolute necessities.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm#article8

Article 4. Whether the will is moved of necessity by the exterior mover which is God?


Objection 1. It would seem that the will is moved of necessity by God. For every agent that cannot be resisted moves of necessity. But God cannot be resisted, because His power is infinite; wherefore it is written (Romans 9:19): "Who resisteth His will?" Therefore God moves the will of necessity.

Objection 2. Further, the will is moved of necessity to whatever it wills naturally, as stated above (Article 2, Reply to Objection 3). But "whatever God does in a thing is natural to it," as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi, 3). Therefore the will wills of necessity everything to which God moves it.

Objection 3. Further, a thing is possible, if nothing impossible follows from its being supposed. But something impossible follows from the supposition that the will does not will that to which God moves it: because in that case God's operation would be ineffectual. Therefore it is not possible for the will not to will that to which God moves it. Therefore it wills it of necessity.

On the contrary, It is written (Sirach 15:14): "God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel." Therefore He does not of necessity move man's will.

I answer that, As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) "it belongs to Divine providence, not to destroy but to preserve the nature of things." Wherefore it moves all things in accordance with their conditions; so that from necessary causes through the Divine motion, effects follow of necessity; but from contingent causes, effects follow contingently. Since, therefore, the will is an active principle, not determinate to one thing, but having an indifferent relation to many things, God so moves it, that He does not determine it of necessity to one thing, but its movement remains contingent and not necessary, except in those things to which it is moved naturally.

Reply to Objection 1. The Divine will extends not only to the doing of something by the thing which He moves, but also to its being done in a way which is fitting to the nature of that thing. And therefore it would be more repugnant to the Divine motion, for the will to be moved of necessity, which is not fitting to its nature; than for it to be moved freely, which is becoming to its nature.

Reply to Objection 2. That is natural to a thing, which God so works in it that it may be natural to it: for thus is something becoming to a thing, according as God wishes it to be becoming. Now He does not wish that whatever He works in things should be natural to them, for instance, that the dead should rise again. But this He does wish to be natural to each thing—that it be subject to the Divine power.

Reply to Objection 3. If God moves the will to anything, it is incompatible with this supposition, that the will be not moved thereto. But it is not impossible simply. Consequently it does not follow that the will is moved by God necessarily.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2010.htm