Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[Quaremerepulisti]

Define "obstacle", that is a weasel word.

No, it isn't.  An obstacle is something which impedes motion.  Just like a car going the wrong way down a one-way street is an obstacle to a car going the right way.

And is it a single obstacle?  We're back at the one grace fallacy.

In the final analysis, yes, since it is a single grace which converts a sinner.

Finally, are people not saved because God CAN'T save them, or because He WON'T save them?

Because He can't.  We've had this discussion before.  If it is because He won't save them, then He didn't really die for them.  It is pure sophistry to say He died for their salvation but then refused to save them.

As for the objection that saying He can't save them denies His omnipotence, even God can't do the logically impossible.  God can't save someone who has the determination to reject Him.  To the argument that God could change that determination, it is responded that one could have the determination to reject that change.

[james03]

We actually have not had this discussion, maybe I'm forgetting.  To nail this down, please clarify whether you mean God can't save everyone, or whether God can't save a particular person.  I agree God can't save everyone, GIVEN the other truths, such as Free Will.  But God can save any particular person.  Are you saying that for those in hell, there was no way God could save them?

If it is because He won't save them, then He didn't really die for them.

You just proved my point, but we'll get to that.  He "really" didn't die for everyone, else everyone would be saved.  However, His atonement was more than sufficient to save the entire human race.

[Quaremerepulisti]

In my analogy, all men have the potential to be bailed out and receive freedom.  Analogy still stands.

No, because even if Christ didn't come to earth they would still have that potential.

If God has an antecedent will to save all men, then why don't all men freely choose Him?

I have never quite figured out why the "opposition" has problems with this.  I'm being sincere.  There are MANY factors involved, not JUST His antecedent will that all men be saved. 

Well, it seems there is just one: cooperation.

For example, if men do not freely choose to cooperate, then they are not saved.  This is on account of God's decree for Free Will.

Right, but if this cooperation is a a real good which must be anteriorly willed by God, then it is pure sophistry to talk of an "antecedent will for salvation" without an antecedent will for this cooperation without which salvation would not occur.  The only way out of this conundrum is to say that "cooperation" is in fact a lack of something (rather than a something) and thus not something anteriorly willed by God.

One other factor that must be accepted before considering predestination is that in hell everyone receives perfect justice.  Therefore, if NO MAN is saved, by definition, all men are treated in justice.  That anyone is saved is an act of Mercy.

That salvation is an act of Mercy, admitted; that damnation is an act of Justice prescinding from and anterior to consideration of a man's sins, denied.  Damnation is an act of Justice because of a man's sins.

[james03]

In the final analysis, yes, since it is a single grace which converts a sinner.

However the sinner frequently falls into mortal sin in a vast majority of the cases.  Each time he is forgiven, he is justified and would go to heaven.  Each time he is in mortal sin, he'd go to hell if he died.  So there are a multitude of graces involved in order to obtain final perseverance. 

[james03]

No, because even if Christ didn't come to earth they would still have that potential.

That violates Trent:

-they were so far the servants of sin, and under the power of the devil and of death, that not the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated, or to arise, therefrom; although free will, attenuated as it was in its powers, and bent down, was by no means extinguished in them.

CHAPTER II.
On the dispensation and mystery of Christ's advent.

Whence it came to pass, that the heavenly Father, the father of mercies and the God of all comfort, when that blessed fulness of the time was come, sent unto men, Jesus Christ, His own Son-who had been, both before the Law, and during the time of the Law, to many of the holy fathers announced and promised-that He might both redeem the Jews who were under the Law, and that the Gentiles, who followed not after justice, might attain to justice, and that all men might receive the adoption of sons. Him God hath proposed as a propitiator, through faith in his blood, for our sins, and not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole world.

CHAPTER III.
Who are justified through Christ.

But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His [Page 32] death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated. For as in truth men, if they were not born propagated of the seed of Adam, would not be born unjust,-seeing that, by that propagation, they contract through him, when they are conceived, injustice as their own,-so, if they were not born again in Christ, they never would be justified; seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion, the grace whereby they are made just.

Never means no potential without His passion being communicated.

[james03]

Right, but if this cooperation is a a real good which must be anteriorly willed by God, then it is pure sophistry to talk of an "antecedent will for salvation" without an antecedent will for this cooperation without which salvation would not occur.

Since cooperation is required for salvation, an antecedent will for cooperation is contained in an antecedent will for salvation.  However there are other factors such as Free Will, the fact that God is Truth, and other considerations that were not revealed.  For one thing we know from life experience that hardship is a good thing.  Look what happens to the bulk of rich kids living off a trust fund.  Therefore we live a life of hardship and it develops virtue in us.  However virtue implies the risk of failure, again because God is Truth.

[Quaremerepulisti]

We actually have not had this discussion, maybe I'm forgetting.  To nail this down, please clarify whether you mean God can't save everyone, or whether God can't save a particular person.  I agree God can't save everyone, GIVEN the other truths, such as Free Will.  But God can save any particular person.  Are you saying that for those in hell, there was no way God could save them?

First of all, are you really saying the salvation of someone entails, as a logical consequence, the damnation of another?  Because if not, if God can save any particular person, He can save all.

Anyway, I am saying that, for those in hell, given their determination to reject Him, there was no way to save them, for it is a logical impossibility.  I am also saying that God can't simply will that determination out of existence, for that is also a contradiction in terms.

If it is because He won't save them, then He didn't really die for them.

You just proved my point, but we'll get to that.  He "really" didn't die for everyone, else everyone would be saved.  However, His atonement was more than sufficient to save the entire human race.

James, this is heresy.  It is Catholic dogma that Christ died for all.  There would simply be no theological debate raging on for centuries if the theologians had simply accepted the proposition that Christ didn't really die for all.  And that's of course exactly what the Calvinists and Lutherans did in order to evade the problem.

[Quaremerepulisti]

No, because even if Christ didn't come to earth they would still have that potential.

That violates Trent:

No, it doesn't.  The actualization of the potential would be an impossibility.  That doesn't mean the potency doesn't exist.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Since cooperation is required for salvation, an antecedent will for cooperation is contained in an antecedent will for salvation. 

(playing "Devil's advocate" here)

Well then if God antecedently wills salvation for all, and antecedently wills cooperation with grace for all, then all are saved.

However there are other factors such as Free Will, the fact that God is Truth, and other considerations that were not revealed.  For one thing we know from life experience that hardship is a good thing.  Look what happens to the bulk of rich kids living off a trust fund.  Therefore we live a life of hardship and it develops virtue in us. 

An omnipotent God could will the virtue to exist even without such hardship.

However virtue implies the risk of failure, again because God is Truth.

There is no such thing as "risk" as applied to an omniscient and omnipotent God.  "Risk" is something we humans have only due to our lack of knowledge.  There would be no "risk" of investing money in the stock market if we had infallible foreknowledge of what the market would do, right?

[james03]

First of all, are you really saying the salvation of someone entails, as a logical consequence, the damnation of another?  Because if not, if God can save any particular person, He can save all.

Not at all.  I'm saying from what has been revealed that Free Will means men go to hell.  For the sake of argument (and I reject this), we'll say the only other consideration besides God's desire for all men to be saved is His decree of Free Will.  Since men go to hell, we can conclude that Free Will results in damnation.

Anyway, I am saying that, for those in hell, given their determination to reject Him, there was no way to save them, for it is a logical impossibility.

This is easily proven false.  Any man who attained justification can go to heaven if God kills him.  Hitler, assuming (quite likely) that he is in hell, was baptized and would have gone to heaven if God killed him in his youth.  He didn't. 

Are you proposing "once saved, always saved"?  Hitler, if he went to hell, went there because of an invalid baptism?

James, this is heresy.  It is Catholic dogma that Christ died for all.

What does the Church mean by this phrase "Christ died for all"?  It means that God PROPOSES Christ as a propitiation for all men, however only some have the merit of His death communicated to them.  This is Trent and I firmly believe it.  I also believe that God gives graces for all men to be saved, but He allows some to reject His grace.  However for a particular person He could overcome this rejection, or prevent it, such as killing them while they are in a state of justification.

[james03]

No, it doesn't.  The actualization of the potential would be an impossibility.  That doesn't mean the potency doesn't exist.

The actualization potency IS an impossibility.  What happens is the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity which is separate from the individual, obviously.

[james03]

Well then if God antecedently wills salvation for all, and antecedently wills cooperation with grace for all, then all are saved.

Not with Free Will.

An omnipotent God could will the virtue to exist even without such hardship.

I don't know if that is logically possible.  First, it appears to violate justice.  Second, it appears to violate Prudence, that is Truth.  Contra to this is the Virgin Mary, whom God removed Original Sin and also subordinated her passions to her intellect.  However look at the price she paid.

But even if this it is true that God could have just decreed virtue, God has chosen to deliver virtue through sacrifice, so that we really are virtuous.  This also provides an avenue for congruent merit.  In heaven, we will view the Beatific Vision knowing that we freely chose to Love Him without seeing Him.  That will be a great Beatitude.

Furthermore, we would not be in Original Sin, and arguably we would not be humans.  We would be some sort of angelic creature, nay even higher than angels.

[james03]

Here's an analogy.  Suppose I have a wooden shaft that I want to make into an arrow to penetrate a tough hide.  However no matter how sharp I get the point, it won't penetrate.  The wooden shaft has no potency to penetrate the hide.  However if I add to the shaft a metal broad head, it now has the potency to penetrate.  The broad head is the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity.

It would be correct to say that after the Passion, man has a potency to have Sanctifying Grace.  However on his own, even with the Passion, he lacks the potency to view the Beatific Vision.  He must be reborn in Christ.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Not at all.  I'm saying from what has been revealed that Free Will means men go to hell.  For the sake of argument (and I reject this), we'll say the only other consideration besides God's desire for all men to be saved is His decree of Free Will.  Since men go to hell, we can conclude that Free Will results in damnation.

This is quite confused.  Sure, rational creatures have free will by nature, and God willed to create rational creatures, so in this sense He "decreed" free will.  However, only rational creatures are capable of salvation, so it is not true that He could have created creatures capable of salvation without free will, as though free will only exists in rational creatures via His "decree".

Also, what EXACTLY is meant by God's "desire" for all men to be saved?  In human terms, a "desire" is something we would will if we could.  Therefore, God's desire would mean that He would will the salvation of all if He could.  Since He is omnipotent, it cannot be lack of power on His part but something which somehow makes the salvation of the damned logically impossible, as God cannot will the logically impossible.

This is easily proven false.  Any man who attained justification can go to heaven if God kills him.  Hitler, assuming (quite likely) that he is in hell, was baptized and would have gone to heaven if God killed him in his youth.  He didn't. 

This is not nearly as "easily" as you might think.  Any man who attains justification needs to not fall into mortal sin the instant before his death in order to be saved.  You do not know this would not have happened had Hitler died in his youth.

Now, all the justified are bound under pain of mortal sin to pray for the grace of final perseverance.  If they make such prayer, they will infallibly obtain it and be saved.  If they refuse, they are already in mortal sin prior to any consideration of what happens at the moment of their death.

What does the Church mean by this phrase "Christ died for all"?  It means that God PROPOSES Christ as a propitiation for all men, however only some have the merit of His death communicated to them. 

PROPOSES to whom?  To Himself?  Of course what the Church means by the phrase is that Christ died for the purpose of the salvation of all, as a means to an end, and a cause to an effect.

[Non Nobis]

Man resists the grace first (in some sense), and God BECAUSE he PERMITS this resistance from eternity, does not give the grace that would have prevented this resistance. 

God can't give "grace that would overcome resistance".  That is a contradiction in terms.  If resistance is present, grace is not efficacious, by definition.

I should have said prevented rather than overcome (fixed in my quote above). (In any case, once grace succeeds in overcoming resistance, there is no resistance)

But we don't agree on the meaning of efficacious.  For you it is "the grace is working because man places no obstacle", for me it is "the grace works by its own power and overcomes obstacles".  I think there is grace that is not efficacious (sufficient grace), but of course we just disagree.