Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[Quaremerepulisti]

I think the second point was about all of us being born without Sanctifying Grace and under certain dominion of the Devil as Catholic dogma teaches, so in that sense, God does not owe us anything.

But that isn't the whole story.  There is also a Redemption and, in that sense, God does owe us something.

If the Father does not draw us to Him, it is not because He purposely intends our damnation but because he is simply allowing our "default" state of Original Sin runs its proper course.

And this is the standard Thomist-Banezian nonsense.  It is Limited Atonement minus the name.  If the Father does not efficaciously draw us to Him, it is because we put an obstacle in the way.  Nothing is ever lacking to God.

But in order to enter the state of Sanctifying Grace, which is necessary for salvation (not Actual Grace, but Sanctifying) then God must draw us to Him, as Jesus Our Lord undoubtedly teaches us in Holy Scripture. Such a Grace is a true undeserved gift from Heaven and it is given to us regardless of our merits.

Undeserved by us, but deserved by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

[Quaremerepulisti]

1.  Without Grace, man is not constantly sinning.

No, but without grace, man cannot avoid all mortal sins.

2.  With Grace, man sins.

Man can still sin venially with sanctifying grace, true, but he cannot sin with the presence of the efficacious actual grace causing the opposite act of virtue: that is a contradiction in terms.

Jesus does not offer himself up for all men. 

This is heresy.  Pure and simple Calvinism.

His propitiatory sacrifice is only applied to those who have Faith in Him and are baptized. 

Then how do any of the unbaptized ever attain Faith and receive baptism?

His Sacrifice is sufficient to save all men, true, but it does not apply to those not in Sanctifying Grace. 

Of course it does.  From where else would graces of repentance come from?

Only the elect are saved.

That is a tautology, since the "elect" are defined as those who are saved.

The Justice is towards Jesus.  Mercy towards the sinner.

Yes.

For the sinner, the Justice is his Faith in Jesus Christ.  However the Faith of the sinner is granted as an act of Mercy also.

So his conversion is both just and merciful.

[Cantarella]

If the Father does not efficaciously draw us to Him, it is because we put an obstacle in the way.  Nothing is ever lacking to God.

No, the obstacle is already there by default. We are all born with it. It is the damnation brought by Adam and Eve caused by Original Sin.

[james03]

This is heresy.  Pure and simple Calvinism.

Ignorance on your part.  I believe you are accusing me of believing in Limited Atonement.  I'm not.

Then how do any of the unbaptized ever attain Faith and receive baptism?

The Father calls them.  However until they are baptized, they are outside of the New Covenant and are not redeemed.

That is a tautology, since the "elect" are defined as those who are saved.

Germane to our discussion, it's more than that. The elect are also predestined by God, and that is the deciding factor.

There is also a Redemption and, in that sense, God does owe us something.

Now you're changing your tune again.  You previously said that God owes Jesus, not us.

[james03]

No, the obstacle is already there by default.

Key point.  Everyone has the obstacle of Original Sin.  Some God saves, the majority He leaves in their natural state.

[Non Nobis]

Past sins, while indeed acts freely chosen by man, DO entail the absence of the graces which would have caused the man to instead choose acts of virtue. 

It seems to me that you are saying God in justice, having Redeemed the world must give graces that CAUSE (not just influence) man to choose acts of virtue every time.  I suspect this is not what you want to be saying.

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 overcome this resistance.  The sinner can't claim that from eternity God must by justice not permit his sin, and  otherwise is a cruel monster who refuses him grace.  God doesn't owe the sinner grace; because He freely gives grace to others gives the sinner no right to say "it is Your fault, because You REFUSED me grace You gave to others".   "Refused" is an absurd word for a sinner to use (or for us to use it for him).  It is the sinner who refuses grace (sufficient grace), not God who does not stop him. In freely refusing sufficient grace man in effect refuses all grace; God is not bound to prevent his refusal..

[Quaremerepulisti]

Past sins, while indeed acts freely chosen by man, DO entail the absence of the graces which would have caused the man to instead choose acts of virtue. 

It seems to me that you are saying God in justice, having Redeemed the world must give graces that CAUSE (not just influence) man to choose acts of virtue every time.  I suspect this is not what you want to be saying.

Yes it is what I am saying, as long as man puts no obstacle in the way.

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 overcome 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.

The sinner can't claim that from eternity God must by justice not permit his sin, and  otherwise is a cruel monster who refuses him grace. 

Of course not.  But our disagreement is on the precise implications of that statement.

God doesn't owe the sinner grace; because He freely gives grace to others gives the sinner no right to say "it is Your fault, because You REFUSED me grace You gave to others".   

But the sinner has every right to say this if the sin were the result of God's refusal to grant grace and only that.  God can't make the avoidance of sin a metaphysical impossibility and then punish the sinner for the sin.  That would be unjust, no matter how hard you pound the table about how God doesn't "owe" the sinner anything.

"Refused" is an absurd word for a sinner to use (or for us to use it for him).  It is the sinner who refuses grace (sufficient grace), not God who does not stop him. In freely refusing sufficient grace man in effect refuses all grace; God is not bound to prevent his refusal..

Then we had better be sure that whatever system of grace we end up embracing that nothing whatsoever is lacking from God.  If something IS lacking from God then sin and damnation are His fault, notwithstanding all the sophistry in the world used by its defenders.

[Quaremerepulisti]

If the Father does not efficaciously draw us to Him, it is because we put an obstacle in the way.  Nothing is ever lacking to God.

No, the obstacle is already there by default. We are all born with it. It is the damnation brought by Adam and Eve caused by Original Sin.

This is nonsense.  It is saying, if the Father does not efficaciously draw us to Him, it is because of the "obstacle" of not already being with Him.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Ignorance on your part.  I believe you are accusing me of believing in Limited Atonement.  I'm not.

Well, you might say you don't believe in Limited Atonement, but your statement

Jesus does not offer himself up for all men. 

is Limited Atonement and is heresy.  It's not enough to avoid the charge of Limited Atonement to say that the sacrifice of Jesus is of infinite value and therefore sufficient in that sense for the salvation of all.  All Protestants admit that much.  But Calvinists say He died for the elect only.  That is heresy.

The Father calls them.  However until they are baptized, they are outside of the New Covenant and are not redeemed.

And how can the Father call them if they are not redeemed?

Germane to our discussion, it's more than that. The elect are also predestined by God, and that is the deciding factor.

No one denies the predestination of the elect.  The question is of course how to reconcile God's foreknowledge, His aseity, His immutability, and His will to save all men.

There is also a Redemption and, in that sense, God does owe us something.

Now you're changing your tune again.  You previously said that God owes Jesus, not us.

That's not a contradiction.  If you get arrested and the bail is way more than you could to afford to pay, but then I step in and pay your bail for you, both you and I have every right in justice to demand the court set you free.

[james03]

It's not enough to avoid the charge of Limited Atonement to say that the sacrifice of Jesus is of infinite value and therefore sufficient in that sense for the salvation of all.  All Protestants admit that much.  But Calvinists say He died for the elect only.  That is heresy.

You are just wrong on this:

"Christ is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect."

But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His 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.

Christ's Passion is super abundant in sufficiency, but it is only communicated to the elect, and those justified who later fall away.  Otherwise everyone would be saved, or at least receive Sanctifying Grace.  In fact, they'd be born with Sanctifying Grace.  What you claim is absurd.

Also, Prots believe Christ suffered all the punishments for sin, and don't believe in the propitiation.  Calvinists believe that He suffered the punishments for the Elect only.  So you are wrong there.

Furthermore, between the two of us, you are the one flirting with Calvinism, in your case with Total Depravity.

And how can the Father call them if they are not redeemed?

By sending Actual Graces.

The question is of course how to reconcile God's foreknowledge, His aseity, His immutability, and His will to save all men.

Simple.  Free Will.  That men go to hell is proof Free Will exists.

If you get arrested and the bail is way more than you could to afford to pay, but then I step in and pay your bail for you, both you and I have every right in justice to demand the court set you free.

False analogy.  Using your example, Jesus has an over-abundance of bail money, earned from His Passion.  He is willing to pay your bail IF you enter into the New Covenant with Him.

[Quaremerepulisti]

You are just wrong on this:

You are refuted by your own quote.

But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His 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.

If you deny that Christ died for all (which you did) you are a heretic.

Christ's Passion is super abundant in sufficiency, but it is only communicated to the elect...

No one denies this.

And how can the Father call them if they are not redeemed?

By sending Actual Graces.

But He would not send actual graces ordered towards their justification if they were not already redeemed in the first place!

Simple.  Free Will.  That men go to hell is proof Free Will exists.

It is not that simple.  No one here denies free will.

False analogy.  Using your example, Jesus has an over-abundance of bail money, earned from His Passion.  He is willing to pay your bail IF you enter into the New Covenant with Him.

The bail has already to be paid first before I can be invited to enter into the New Covenant.  That's part of the New Covenant itself: the Redemption of mankind.

[james03]

If you deny that Christ died for all (which you did) you are a heretic.

To be clear, I believe what the Church believes: The merit of Christ's passion is only communicated to those in the New Covenant.  In that sense, He did not die for all men.  As far as God's antecedent Will that all men be saved, and the sufficiency of the Propitiation, we can say Christ died for all men.  And I was very clear on this:

"Jesus does not offer himself up for all men.  His propitiatory sacrifice is only applied to those who have Faith in Him and are baptized.  His Sacrifice is sufficient to save all men, true, but it does not apply to those not in Sanctifying Grace."

I believe you would not have a problem with the above.

Since we know from Trent that the merits of Christ's propitiatory Sacrifice are not communicated to all men, we see this statement is false:

When the Son of God offers Himself for the Redemption of all men such is owed IN JUSTICE, not indeed to us, but to Him.

If the merit is not communicated to everyone, then it is not an act of injustice for God not to save someone.

But He would not send actual graces ordered towards their justification if they were not already redeemed in the first place!

Makes no logical sense.  You have the potential to be redeemed.  True, if that POTENTIAL was not there, then actual graces would be worthless.

The bail has already to be paid first before I can be invited to enter into the New Covenant.  That's part of the New Covenant itself: the Redemption of mankind.

Again, if the bail is actually paid, then you are a free man.  Using your analogy, all men are born with Sanctifying Grace, or God is unjust.  That is false.

The correct analogy is that Jesus has the bail money, in fact enough for the entire human race, but only pays it for those in the New Covenant.  That is why our justice is Faith in Jesus.

It is not that simple.  No one here denies free will.

But you didn't mention it.  Free will explains why God's antecedent will to save all men does not mean all men are saved.

[Quaremerepulisti]

To be clear, I believe what the Church believes: The merit of Christ's passion is only communicated to those in the New Covenant. In that sense, He did not die for all men. As far as God's antecedent Will that all men be saved, and the sufficiency of the Propitiation, we can say Christ died for all men.

This is not what the Church believes.  The Church believes that while the merits of Christ's passion are only communicated to many, He died for all simpliciter.

"Jesus does not offer himself up for all men.  His propitiatory sacrifice is only applied to those who have Faith in Him and are baptized.  His Sacrifice is sufficient to save all men, true, but it does not apply to those not in Sanctifying Grace

I believe you would not have a problem with the above.

Jesus does offer Himself for all.  Jesus offers Himself up for those not in sanctifying grace so that they may obtain sanctifying grace.

Since we know from Trent that the merits of Christ's propitiatory Sacrifice are not communicated to all men, we see this statement is false:

When the Son of God offers Himself for the Redemption of all men such is owed IN JUSTICE, not indeed to us, but to Him.

The Redemption is not the COMMUNICATION of Christ's merits to men.  That is justification.  The Redemption is the earning of the merits by which we might become justified.

If the merit is not communicated to everyone, then it is not an act of injustice for God not to save someone.

Of course, but the reason the merit is not communicated to a particular person is an obstacle he himself puts in the way, not a prior will by God not to communicate it.  That sort of prior will would be unjust.

Makes no logical sense.  You have the potential to be redeemed.  True, if that POTENTIAL was not there, then actual graces would be worthless.

No, it is because you are redeemed that there is the potential to be justified.

Again, if the bail is actually paid, then you are a free man. 

As you know, this does not happen automatically.  A judicial act must follow freeing you.

Using your analogy, all men are born with Sanctifying Grace, or God is unjust.  That is false.

The analogy is false.  All men are born with the potential to be justified and receive sanctifying grace.  If that were not true, God would be unjust.

The correct analogy is that Jesus has the bail money, in fact enough for the entire human race, but only pays it for those in the New Covenant.  That is why our justice is Faith in Jesus.

It is not the correct analogy.  It is the paying of the bail which set up the New Covenant in the first place and gave the potential of being in it.

Free will explains why God's antecedent will to save all men does not mean all men are saved.

No, it doesn't, since God works the willing and the doing.  If God has an antecedent will to save all men, then why don't all men freely choose Him?

[james03]

Of course, but the reason the merit is not communicated to a particular person is an obstacle he himself puts in the way, not a prior will by God not to communicate it.

Define "obstacle", that is a weasel word.

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

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

[james03]

The analogy is false.  All men are born with the potential to be justified and receive sanctifying grace.  If that were not true, God would be unjust.

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

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. 

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.

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.