Church Contradiction on Baptism of Desire

[Michael Wilson]

The Father would not be able to give anybody to the Son, if the Son had not first offered an infinite reparation to His Father for the sin of Adam and for all the sins of mankind.

1. Necessary, but not sufficient.  God has to predestine the elect to be saved by Jesus Christ.

Yes, but in God's providence; in virtue of the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross; offers to every man the opportunity to obtain eternal salvation;

2. see above on children before the age of reason.

otherwise Christ would only have died on the Cross for the elect;

3. The propitiation of Christ's sacrifice is only applied for the elect, though it is sufficient for all.  Thus the controversy in the Church of "for many" or "for all" at the words of consecration.  Did you oppose them changing that back?

James,
You have stated that if a man has never heard of the Church then: "Barring a miracle from God, there is nothing he can do. God created him in a situation that is not congruent with his being saved.  He is lost, just as there is nothing an unbaptized child can do before the age of reason."
But this is wrong. A man that reaches the age of reason can cooperate with the sufficient graces that God offers him and save his soul; an infant cannot.
The "sufficiency vs. Efficacy" distinction only enter in, when a person either accepts God's grace and is saved, or rejects it, and is lost. If you are claiming that God does not offer some men sufficient grace to save their souls, then this is identical to the Jansenist position.
re. 1.  But your position is that God has positively predestined some men to be damned by placing them in a situation where salvation is impossible.
2. The children before the age of reason are a case apart from those who do reach the age of reason; which is what we are discussing.
3. No, the propitiation is offered "for all", but is only efficacious "for many", because not all men will cooperate with the graces that God sends them, and are lost.
You appear to be stating that God does not send all men sufficient graces to save their souls. Is this your position; or have I misunderstood?

[james03]

A man that reaches the age of reason can cooperate with the sufficient graces that God offers him and save his soul;

Due to his free will he CAN.  Due to his circumstances, he WON'T.

The "sufficiency vs. Efficacy" distinction only enter in, when a person either accepts God's grace and is saved, or rejects it, and is lost.

Cite?  Never heard that one.  Also, you fall into the single "grace" fallacy.  God sends grace"s".  The elect may receive 100,000 graces during his life, and may even reject 75,000 graces.  The reprobate may only receive a single grace, reject it, and that's that.  Might even be an act of mercy.

1.  But your position is that God has positively predestined some men to be damned by placing them in a situation where salvation is impossible.

That is not the definition of positive predestination.  I most definitely hold that only those whom God predestines will go to heaven.  The rest will infallibly go to hell (and yes, non nobis, limbo is part of hell).

2. The children before the age of reason are a case apart from those who do reach the age of reason; which is what we are discussing.

I reject your fait accompli.  Children who die before the age of reason are not saved; through no fault of their own.  If your soteriology can not deal with these cases, then it suffers from a false premise, and it is incumbent upon you to identify your false premise.

You appear to be stating that God does not send all men sufficient graces to save their souls. Is this your position; or have I misunderstood?

I am not a thomist when it comes to predestination, but a molinist, and so don't differentiate between sufficient and efficacious.  But if you want to use Thomistic terms, I'll state this:  God sends sufficient graces to all, but only efficacious graces to the elect.

[Non Nobis]

It is ALSO true that he is reprobate because HE freely rejects God's graces, NOT because God put him in a situation that is not congruent with salvation.

Children without access to baptism who die before the age of reason are reprobates by definition.  God put them in a situation where they would not be baptized.

I will gladly modify my quote to make it more clear to you:

It is ALSO true that he is reprobate (if he is a reasoning adult, able to use his free will) because HE freely rejects God's graces, NOT because God put him in a situation that is not congruent with salvation.

Unbaptized babies are not sent to eternal torments, because they cannot reason and so are unable to reject God's grace.  For reasoning adults God always provides sufficient grace for salvation and does not put them into situations where they cannot possibly attain salvation.

Your answer to my post was far from satisfactory.  You did not even attempt to answer St. Thomas. As I said, St.Thomas was not talking about babies (and neither was I).

[Non Nobis]

...you fall into the single "grace" fallacy.  God sends grace"s".  The elect may receive 100,000 graces during his life, and may even reject 75,000 graces.  The reprobate may only receive a single grace, reject it, and that's that.  Might even be an act of mercy.

All God's graces are an act of mercy.  "One grace" is sufficient for salvation.  Just because in your estimation the man will reject it doesn't mean he must. That the elect receive more graces and typically reject many of them does not mean that receiving only "one grace" is a guarantee of damnation.

People often speak of "God's grace" and not just "God's graces". Sufficient grace means sufficient over a lifetime, whether there is only "one grace" or more. (It seems more reverent to speculate that God gives each man an abundance of grace, not just "one grace", even if some receive much more)

And it is not just about accepting or rejecting individual actual graces. It is about Sanctifying Grace, a state, not in itself temporary.  If a man dies with Sanctifying Grace, he is saved. If a man is given and accepts just one great actual grace - the grace to repent - he is restored to the state of Sanctifying Grace and is saved if he dies (by my speculation, as needed God will give him explicit knowledge to make an act of faith as he is dying).

So I think speaking of "the single grace fallacy" is a red herring.

[Non Nobis]

A man that reaches the age of reason can cooperate with the sufficient graces that God offers him and save his soul;

Due to his free will he CAN.  Due to his circumstances, he WON'T.

Perhaps his circumstances make it more difficult for him, but the CAUSE for his not cooperating is NOT his circumstances but his free will ("due to his free will he DOESN'T").

God is the eternal CAUSE of the goodness in the elect.  But He is not the CAUSE of the evil in the reprobate, He only eternally permits it.  He does not arrange that the reprobate sin and are damned "by means of" arranging their circumstances. God's predestination of some and reprobation of (all) others is a extremely difficult theological topic, and ultimately a mystery, but you are turning it into something un-Catholic.

"Making something more likely to happen" is not a cause of making it happen.  Circumstances do not cause sin. Man is free to choose good or evil regardless of external circumstances.  God is free to work His graces in any man regardless of his external circumstances.

[james03]

Unbaptized babies are not sent to eternal torments, because they cannot reason and so are unable to reject God's grace.  For reasoning adults God always provides sufficient grace for salvation and does not put them into situations where they cannot possibly attain salvation.

The lack of punishment for children in hell is a non-sequitur.  My point remains:  They are not saved because of God's Sovereign Plan.  Do you concede that children who die unbaptized before the age of reason are not saved due to God's Sovereign Plan?

Your answer to my post was far from satisfactory.  You did not even attempt to answer St. Thomas. As I said, St.Thomas was not talking about babies (and neither was I).

Please rephrase with questions like Michael did above.  I apologize for missing your question, I generally try to answer all questions.

[james03]

All God's graces are an act of mercy.  "One grace" is sufficient for salvation.  Just because in your estimation the man will reject it doesn't mean he must. That the elect receive more graces and typically reject many of them does not mean that receiving only "one grace" is a guarantee of damnation.

It shows that our rejection/acceptance of Grace is not a criteria for predestination.  Every sin is a rejection of grace.  Add it up, we reject a lot of Grace.  This is the single grace fallacy.  "Accepting Grace" gets reduced to a Protestant altar call.  It ignores the Church, sacraments, charity, repentance, and the whole of Catholicism.

[james03]

Perhaps his circumstances make it more difficult for him, but the CAUSE for his not cooperating is NOT his circumstances but his free will ("due to his free will he DOESN'T").

So you are saying that perhaps Pope Francis, JPII (we love you !!!), Vatican II, Rahner, and Schillebeekx might be correct?  That perhaps a jew worshipping his talmud demon, a moslem worshipping his demon allah and blaspheming the Blessed Trinity 6 times a day, that buddhists who worship a demon statue that is grinning because of all the souls he drags to hell, and the insane hindus who worship a plethora of demons, these people have the same level of difficulty at accepting grace as a Catholic who receives the sacraments?

You position is perhaps this is right?

If this is not your position, then do you admit that they were born in their circumstances due to God's Sovereign plan?

[Michael Wilson]

A man that reaches the age of reason can cooperate with the sufficient graces that God offers him and save his soul;

Due to his free will he CAN.  Due to his circumstances, he WON'T.

The "sufficiency vs. Efficacy" distinction only enter in, when a person either accepts God's grace and is saved, or rejects it, and is lost.

Cite?  Never heard that one.  Also, you fall into the single "grace" fallacy.  God sends grace"s".  The elect may receive 100,000 graces during his life, and may even reject 75,000 graces.  The reprobate may only receive a single grace, reject it, and that's that.  Might even be an act of mercy.

1.  But your position is that God has positively predestined some men to be damned by placing them in a situation where salvation is impossible.

That is not the definition of positive predestination.  I most definitely hold that only those whom God predestines will go to heaven.  The rest will infallibly go to hell (and yes, non nobis, limbo is part of hell).

2. The children before the age of reason are a case apart from those who do reach the age of reason; which is what we are discussing.

I reject your fait accompli.  Children who die before the age of reason are not saved; through no fault of their own.  If your soteriology can not deal with these cases, then it suffers from a false premise, and it is incumbent upon you to identify your false premise.

You appear to be stating that God does not send all men sufficient graces to save their souls. Is this your position; or have I misunderstood?

I am not a thomist when it comes to predestination, but a molinist, and so don't differentiate between sufficient and efficacious.  But if you want to use Thomistic terms, I'll state this:  God sends sufficient graces to all, but only efficacious graces to the elect.

Re. "He can but due to circumstances he wont"; But the Church does not teach that all those who are not actual members are lost. As Non stated, God can reach anyone anywhere with His graces. If what you are saying is true, then God does not send graces to some men. This is wrong; because Christ died for all men and God wills the salvation of all men, and offers all men the opportunity to save their souls. Of course, Catholics enjoy a vast advantage over those who are not members of the Church.
re. Children in Limbo; the Council of Trent deals with this in their decree on Baptism, where it states that adults are not to be Baptized right away unlike infants, because they (adults) can attain eternal salvation through Baptism of desire; but infants cannot.

re. Sufficient vs. Efficacious graces: The Molinists also use these two terms; however the Molinist hold that there is no "intrinsic" difference between the two; a grace that is accepted, is "efficacious" one that is rejected is only "sufficient". For the Thomists, there is an essential difference between the two.

[Michael Wilson]

Perhaps his circumstances make it more difficult for him, but the CAUSE for his not cooperating is NOT his circumstances but his free will ("due to his free will he DOESN'T").

So you are saying that perhaps Pope Francis, JPII (we love you !!!), Vatican II, Rahner, and Schillebeekx might be correct?  That perhaps a jew worshipping his talmud demon, a moslem worshipping his demon allah and blaspheming the Blessed Trinity 6 times a day, that buddhists who worship a demon statue that is grinning because of all the souls he drags to hell, and the insane hindus who worship a plethora of demons, these people have the same level of difficulty at accepting grace as a Catholic who receives the sacraments?

You position is perhaps this is right?

If this is not your position, then do you admit that they were born in their circumstances due to God's Sovereign plan?

In God's sovereign plan, Adam and Eve and the bad Angels were supposed to co-operate with His graces and in the case of the wicked Angels, to enter immediately into the beatific vision with the good angels. They were placed in exactly the same circumstances as their fellow Angels; and yet through their free will, they rejected God's grace and were lost. God did not antecedently will their loss; not did He deal with them differently than their fellow Angels before they fell. 
The same goes for Adam and Eve: God placed them in circumstances that would be most favorable to their salvation and yet they fell through their wickedness. Cain and Abel were in the same circumstances and yet Cain did wickedly and Abel virtuously.
What was the difference? Adam, Eve and Cain rejected God's graces and sinned; Abel co-operated with God's graces and was saved. God sent Adam, Eve and Cain, graces to repent and return to His friendship; Adam and Eve co-operated and were saved; Cain again rejected God's graces and was lost.
As far as J.P. II, Rhaner et. al. Are concerned; they are wrong, in that they posit that all men are infallibly saved. But Catholic theologians do not. But they do hold that God does grant all men sufficient graces to save their souls; even those in the most abject of circumstances and most distant from the Church. That is why Pius IX in "Quanto Conficiamur" speaks of these souls.
"One grace vs. Many"; Non is correct; God sends some men only one grace, others he sends many; He does this through His own hidden counsel. Some men are saved with just one grace; others are lost despite thousands of graces; and vice-versa.

Re. Circumstances and salvation: Yes, they play a part, and yet one cannot infallibly declare that just because one is born in a Catholic family and even enters Religion etc. He will be saved; the same goes for another who is born in the wilds of America or Borneo, before the missionaries arrived; that they will be infallibly lost.

[Michael Wilson]

All God's graces are an act of mercy.  "One grace" is sufficient for salvation.  Just because in your estimation the man will reject it doesn't mean he must. That the elect receive more graces and typically reject many of them does not mean that receiving only "one grace" is a guarantee of damnation.

It shows that our rejection/acceptance of Grace is not a criteria for predestination.  Every sin is a rejection of grace.  Add it up, we reject a lot of Grace.  This is the single grace fallacy.  "Accepting Grace" gets reduced to a Protestant altar call.  It ignores the Church, sacraments, charity, repentance, and the whole of Catholicism.

"One grace = Protestant altar call"; No, the Protestants (some at least); hold that all men that are saved are saved through the "one grace"; but the Catholic Church teaches that some men are saved through one grace and some through many; and some are lost, despite receiving many graces or even after only receiving and rejecting one grace. God is free in His distribution of Graces to souls.

[Michael Wilson]

James stated:

I most definitely hold that only those whom God predestines will go to heaven.  The rest will infallibly go to hell (and yes, non nobis, limbo is part of hell).

This would be correct if you would add that God sends those who are not predestined to Heaven sufficient graces to save their souls. This is the Thomistic position. You appear to be stating that God does not do this.

[james03]

If what you are saying is true, then God does not send graces to some men.

I stated that God sends sufficient grace to all, only efficacious grace to the elect, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

re. Sufficient vs. Efficacious graces: The Molinists also use these two terms; however the Molinist hold that there is no "intrinsic" difference between the two; a grace that is accepted, is "efficacious" one that is rejected is only "sufficient". For the Thomists, there is an essential difference between the two.

Correct, and I'm a Molinist.  There is no difference between graces, acceptance depends on the situation of the person.

[james03]

So let's look at the Thomistic teaching: Barrack and Akmed, moslem savages.  We'll start with Barrack.  It's Wednesday night, and Barrack has left his nighttime blasphemy session whereby he explicitly denied the Trinity.  As is his custom for Wednesday night, Barrack hunts up a little boy to savagely sodomize.  So Barrack captures a boy, who wails and screams.  God sends Barrack sufficient Graces for Barrack to have prudence and follow natural law.  He complies and let's the boy go.

The next day he tells his fellow headhunters about it, and they tell him he is not a good moslem since he is doubting what allah has told them.  They say he needs to go sodomize a boy right away.  Barrack, out of human respect, ignores his conscience and goes sodomize another boy.

Barrack received sufficient graces to repent, but he did not.  He had enflamed passions and a weak will.  Why?  Because he is human, and that is his natural state.

[james03]

Akmed, same deal.  Next day he is conversing with his fellow head hunters.  God sends him efficacious grace to strenghten in fortitude and the stirrings of Faith in Jesus Christ.  When he is berated for not trusting allah, he says, "that is not right.  It is unmanly and it is wrong."  "WHAT!?  How dare you argue against allah."  So they drag him to the iman.  More graces are sent, as akmed is close to wavering, but God floods him with grace, strengthening his will and enlightening his intellect, and damping his passions (fear).  So he won't recant and is dragged off to be stoned.

During the stoning, he has a rapture and sees Christ, and a representation of the Trinity.  He has Faith in Christ, and repents for his sins.  He also has an ardent desire to be baptized and become Catholic.  The Lord gives him Sanctifying Grace and dwells within him.  Akmed dies serenly with a grin upon his face.

Akmed received efficacious grace.