Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[Clare]

God wills all to be saved, but saves only those who freely obey him. You can't leave out the "but".

God causes all good (and chooses it), but it is carried out by men freely.

God permits all evil, but does not cause it or hamper man's freedom.

Yes, I can accept this.

[Non Nobis]

James, Clare, and Michael,

I apologize for my last post (repeated here) as it combined a reply to James with other considerations for Michael and Clare. A little confusing..

NN

And this is incorporated into the Church's teaching on predestination.  Predestination only concerns the elect.  All else are left to their natural state.  Predestination is an act of Mercy.

Not "all else" - those who are damned to eternal torments are not just left in their natural state. They are positively punished for their sin. "Eternal torments" are not the natural state. (The state they are in does not include only the absence of Sanctifying grace, but also eternal torments).

Here is St. Thomas' brief description of predestination and reprobation:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article3

...as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (Question 22, Article 1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.

St. Thomas talks about predestination and reprobation together, and shows that the root of reprobation is the permission of man's sin.  James, I think your definition is seriously flawed by trying cover the elect and then covering "all else" with no distinctions. When the word "predestination" is used, as it sometimes is, to cover both the damned and the saved (e.g. in the title of Garrigou-Lagrange's book), the permission of sin is an essential topic.


Clare and Michael,

I think St. Thomas' careful description of reprobation is a good base for the discussion of this topic.  Reprobation is PERMISSION, infallible because God is God, but in no way causing man's sin or breaking his will.  Punishment is not DUE to (on account of) reprobation, but to sin.

"reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin."

==
God wills all to be saved, but saves only those who freely obey him. You can't leave out the "but".

God causes all good (and chooses it), but it is carried out by men freely.

God permits all evil, but does not cause it or hamper man's freedom.

To me the problem is how man's freedom is unhampered by God's causality.  "God wills all to be saved" I don't see as a serious issue if you accept that man is free, and that God only saves those who freely obey Him.

I see the puzzle of  "if you aren't elect you are reprobate" but that is just a logical consequence.

WHO God elects is a mystery. If we COULD accept that God can make this eternal choice wisely (taking HIS view of all creation, not ours) I think that the rest of the problems would be minimized.

I know this does not satisfy you and I appreciate your thinking.  It is hard - I don't think I am "on top of it" but I do my best.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Just my two cents both on grace and predestination:

All "classic" systems of grace, whether Thomist, Molinist, or Congruist, and their corresponding systems of predestinations, incorporate the same two false assumptions, which is why everyone has been battling it out for centuries with no solution in sight.  Of course universalism is not an answer either, but it is not surprising at all to me that some should end up embracing it, given the real problems of the classic systems.  The main false assumption (regarding grace) is this: since resistance to grace is an evil, non-resistance must be a good which must therefore come from God, the source of all good.  The true metaphysical premise underlying this is that evil is a privation of a good which ought to be there.  The logic is faulty.  If the evil lies in an accident of some entity, then it is true the evil is removed if the accident is removed or changed.  It is also true the evil is removed if the entity fails to exist.  For instance, it is an evil if a car drives the wrong way and causes a crash.  The accident is going the wrong way; it would be a good if instead the car drove the right way and thereby didn't crash.  But the crash also wouldn't occur if the oncoming car didn't exist at all, or weren't in motion at all.  So, relevant to grace, non-resistance is the absence of something, and therefore needs no metaphysical source.  AFAIK, the first one to realize this was Fr. Francisco Marin-Sola, O.P., in the early 20th century.

Once this is understood, all the classic problems vanish into thin air and the official Catholic teaching can be accepted in its entirety (cf. Council of Orange) without recourse to sophistic rationalizations of what each system is implicitly denying, even though their partisans protest otherwise.

Efficacious grace is efficacious of itself, bringing about the willing and the doing.  It could have been resisted, true, but (contra Molinism) it does not derive its causal efficacy from non-resistance, which is a non-entity, anymore than a car driving down a street derives its cause of motion from the fact that a car isn't coming in the opposing direction and crashing.  Efficacious grace is God's gift, alone, for which humans can not glory in at all, in any respect, as though it were of themselves.  "What hast thou that thou hast not received?"  Yet it is human fault alone if grace is resisted and one thereby falls into sin.  "Man has nothing of his own save vice and sin."  That is why increase in holiness goes hand-in-hand with a turn away from self: "He must increase, but I must decrease."  Yet (contra Thomism) is nothing is lacking from God when grace is resisted, as though He failed to do what He needed to in order to render the grace efficacious.

I'll continue with predestination a little later.

[Michael Wilson]

Are you saying that God can't save certain people, or that God has decided not to save certain people?

Neither.
I'm saying that as far as He is concerned wills to save all men; but He wills that the creature makes (under His grace) a free election to choose Him and eternal salvation; or to reject Him.

[Michael Wilson]

Non,
the way you explain it is fine.
I do not believe that God wills the damnation of any Angel or man, except as a consequence of their deliberate sin. Therefore I believe that God grants to all, those graces that are necessary to obey Him and not to sin.
If there is a fault, it lies entirely on the part of the creature and not of God.
QRM,
thanks for your input; and I look forward to your future posts. 

[Michael Wilson]

James,
here is an excerpt from the article "Predestination" in the C.E. Which describes P.P.M.
You can read the whole article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

The theory of predestination post prævisa merita

This theory defended by the earlier Scholastics (Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus), as well as by the majority of the Molinists, and warmly recommended by St. Francis de Sales "as the truer and more attractive opinion", has this as its chief distinction, that it is free from the logical necessity of upholding negative reprobation. It differs from predestination ante prævisa merita in two points: first, it rejects the absolute decree and assumes a hypothetical predestination to glory; secondly, it does not reverse the succession of grace and glory in the two orders of eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time. This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit. — It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved.

This view not only safeguards the universality and sincerity of God's salvific will, but coincides admirably with the teachings of St. Paul (cf. 2 Timothy 4:, who knows that there "is laid up" (reposita est, apokeitai) in heaven "a crown of justice", which "the just judge will render" (reddet, apodosei) to him on the day of judgment. Clearer still is the inference drawn from the sentence of the universal Judge (Matthew 25:34 sq.): "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat" etc. As the "possessing" of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the "preparation" of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed. The same conclusion follows from the parallel sentence of condemnation (Matthew 25:41 sq.): "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat" etc. For it is evident that the "everlasting fire of hell" can only have been intended from all eternity for sin and demerit, that is, for neglect of Christian charity, in the same sense in which it is inflicted in time. Concluding a pari, we must say the same of eternal bliss. This explanation is splendidly confirmed by the Greek Fathers. Generally speaking, the Greeks are the chief authorities for conditional predestination dependent on foreseen merits. The Latins, too, are so unanimous on this question that St. Augustine is practically the only adversary in the Occident. St. Hilary (In Ps. lxiv, n. 5) expressly describes eternal election as proceeding from "the choice of merit" (ex meriti delectu), and St. Ambrose teaches in his paraphrase of Rom., viii, 29 (De fide, V, vi, 83): "Non enim ante prædestinavit quam præscivit, sed quorum merita præscivit, eorum præmia prædestinavit" (He did not predestine before He foreknew, but for those whose merits He foresaw, He predestined the reward). To conclude: no one can accuse us of boldness if we assert that the theory here presented has a firmer basis in Scripture and Tradition than the opposite opinion.

[Quaremerepulisti]

(Continued)

The second questionable assumption is that sufficient grace is a potency per modum actus rather than something which exists all the time.  Again, the true metaphysical premise is that the order of grace is distinct from nature.  But the logic is faulty.  To be sure, the potency to receive grace is not intrinsic to human nature in the same way reason is, or walking is.  It does not follow from that that God has not, by elevating human nature in potency (which must be admitted given a universal salvific will), given it a habitual potency to receive grace (that it would not have had He not so elevated it).

If this is admitted, then all the problems with the varying systems of predestination and how to reconcile with God's salvific will likewise disappear into thin air.  Just like a seed is a full-grown plant in potency, and is ordered to becoming a full-grown plant by its nature, although it may per accidens fail to actualize (not enough rain may fall, an animal may eat it while still a seedling, etc.)  So, likewise the potential of salvation may fail to actualize per accidens (a baby dies before Baptism, or one resists grace and falls into sin and then resists the grace of repentance).  Yet it is still God's will alone and His efficacious grace alone which cause salvation for baptized babies and virtuous adults.

Of course, one could still press the point, if God is omnipotent, why didn't He will that the baby stay alive until its baptism, or why didn't He simply prevent the man from falling into sin in the first place?  A system of predestination, no matter how satisfactory, is not a theodicy.  If one wants to discuss this I suggest a new thread.

[Cantarella]

James,
here is an excerpt from the article "Predestination" in the C.E. Which describes P.P.M.
You can read the whole article here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

From that link, this is what is most important, summarized as follows:

The Catholic dogma

Reserving the theological controversies for the next section, we deal here only with those articles of faith relating to predestination and reprobation, the denial of which would involve heresy....

According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events, all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact. Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil. Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all, not only for the predestined, or for the faithful, though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption. Though God preordained both eternal happiness and the good works of the elect, yet, on the other hand, He predestined no one positively to hell, much less to sin. Consequently, just as no one is saved against his will, so the reprobate perish solely on account of their wickedness. God foresaw the everlasting pains of the impious from all eternity, and preordained this punishment on account of their sins, though He does not fail therefore to hold out the grace of conversion to sinners or pass over those who are not predestined. As long as the reprobate live on earth, they may be accounted true Christians and members of the Church, just as on the other hand the predestined may be outside the pale of Christianity and of the Church. Without special revelation no one can know with certainty that he belongs to the number of the elect.

This is also very important:

The process of predestination consists of the following five steps:

1. the first grace of vocation, especially faith as the beginning, foundation, and root of justification;
2. a number of additional, actual graces for the successful accomplishment of justification;
3. justification itself as the beginning of the state of grace and love;
4. final perseverance or at least the grace of a happy death;
5. lastly, the admission to eternal bliss.

If it is a truth of Revelation that there are many who, following this path, seek and find their eternal salvation with infallible certainty, then the existence of Divine predestination is proved (cf. Matthew 25:34; Revelation 20:15). St. Paul says quite explicitly (Romans 8:28 sq.): "we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the first born amongst many brethren. And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified." (Cf. Ephesians 1:4-11)

[Non Nobis]

Non,
the way you explain it is fine.
I do not believe that God wills the damnation of any Angel or man, except as a consequence of their deliberate sin. Therefore I believe that God grants to all, those graces that are necessary to obey Him and not to sin.
If there is a fault, it lies entirely on the part of the creature and not of God.
QRM,
thanks for your input; and I look forward to your future posts.

Hmm, I think if I spell out more precisely what I mean here maybe you will not so readily agree:

God causes all good (and chooses it), but it is carried out by men freely.

God permits all evil, but does not cause it or hamper man's freedom.

These must mean that:

- God causes the good and salvation of the elect and from eternity chooses who they are: He even causes the very heart of good free willing; He causes the will's choosing of good. These things are what is MOST good in man.

- God chooses whom He will permit to die in sin.  He gives them sufficient grace, but from all eternity infallibly permits them to freely reject it. "It is sufficient but not if men reject it" you will accept; "It is sufficient but not if God infallibly permits men to reject it" you will probably deny: but they are the same. It is man and not God who causes the rejection.

- The elect God causes to certainly die in grace; the reprobate God permits to be certainly finally unrepentant.  This is from all eternity; the numbers are fixed; God doesn't sit back to see what man does. And yet both the elect and the reprobate are free.  The numbers and the "whos" and the "whys" are rooted in God's infinite Wisdom about all of creation; not something we should delve into.

Fit these things with the rest of what I've said.

None of this contradicts what you have said.

[Non Nobis]

...relevant to grace, non-resistance is the absence of something, and therefore needs no metaphysical source.  ...

Grace insistently demands a response from man's free will; if it is not given (the absence of acceptance), it is resistance, unless man is inculpably ignoring it (sleeping, thinking about something else).  The non-resistance response is not "nothing" it is "letting in God's grace", which is good and needs to be caused.

[Clare]

... the numbers are fixed; ...

That is what makes me ask, "What is the point in doing good, evangelising, etc?"

Of course, if it's only the numbers that are fixed, and I want to be in that number, then that means pushing someone else out!

[Stubborn]

... the numbers are fixed; ...

That is what makes me ask, "What is the point in doing good, evangelising, etc?"

Of course, if it's only the numbers that are fixed, and I want to be in that number, then that means pushing someone else out!

The point in evangelizing and etc. is according to the justice of God. The reprobate will see in eternity the chances God gave them to convert, and they will see that of their own free will they rejected the grace. The souls in hell cannot blame God for their own perdition, they will know that they can blame only themselves for rejecting the grace of God.

Conversely, the souls in heaven will rejoice that God sent them someone to preach and that of their own free will they accepted, corresponded and converted. In their eternity, they praise God for sending that preacher.     

The numbers are only fixed because from eternity, God knows who will and who will not, of their own free will, correspond to His graces. God has sufficient grace waiting for every man in the world, would he but take it. Were God to see that he would take it were it offered to him, it would be given.
 

[Clare]

... the numbers are fixed; ...

That is what makes me ask, "What is the point in doing good, evangelising, etc?"

Of course, if it's only the numbers that are fixed, and I want to be in that number, then that means pushing someone else out!

The point in evangelizing and etc. is according to the justice of God. The reprobate will see in eternity the chances God gave them to convert, and they will see that of their own free will they rejected the grace. The souls in hell cannot blame God for their own perdition, they will know that they can blame only themselves for rejecting the grace of God.

Conversely, the souls in heaven will rejoice that God sent them someone to preach and that of their own free will they accepted, corresponded and converted. In their eternity, they praise God for sending that preacher.     

The numbers are only fixed because from eternity, God knows who will and who will not, of their own free will, correspond to His graces. God has sufficient grace waiting for every man in the world, would he but take it. Were God to see that he would take it were it offered to him, it would be given.

Yes, I accept all that. I just struggle to reconcile the idea that everyone has a chance of being saved with the idea that God only elects a few, knowing that the others actually don't have a chance, because they can't be saved without being elected. Everyone has a chance, but most people don't.

[Michael Wilson]

Ok Non.

[Quaremerepulisti]

...relevant to grace, non-resistance is the absence of something, and therefore needs no metaphysical source.  ...

Grace insistently demands a response from man's free will; if it is not given (the absence of acceptance), it is resistance, unless man is inculpably ignoring it (sleeping, thinking about something else).  The non-resistance response is not "nothing" it is "letting in God's grace", which is good and needs to be caused.

There are myriad philosophical and theological problems with the above.  It attempts to avoid the problems of Thomism but only succeeds in making things even worse.  First, this is mere argument by assertion.  No proof is provided.

Instead of simply having grace causing the consent of man's free will (as I do and as Thomism does), you now have a separate "response" of free will apart from grace.   Thus, this response must be from nature.  Thus, grace makes a supernaturally good act possible, but unelevated nature actualizes it.  This is philosophical and theological nonsense.  It makes efficacious grace, by its very definition, miraculous in the strict sense (not in the broad sense in which we say a conversion of a great sinner is a "miracle of grace"; it is a "miracle" only in the broad sense of being unusual but not in the strict sense, since at least according to Thomism and sound philosophy grace has the natural power in itself to convert sinners).  Why?  Because the definition of a miracle is when God bypasses the normal secondary order of causality and does something directly.  Changing water into wine is a miracle, for water has no such natural power to spontaneously so transform.  So unelevated human nature has no power to do anything at all in the supernatural order.