http://www.romancatholicism.org
|
|
Does
God Want All To Be Saved? And
Does He Want Rational Creatures To Sin? That
Is, Is The Innocence And Glory Of Rational Creatures A Priority With God? Sts. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas taught that God
does not want all to be saved. We shall attempt to gain some perspective on
this matter by considering God’s options at the Creation, the Falls, the
Redemption and the Judgements, with regard to the states in which rational
creatures were, are or will be constituted. We shall reason on the basis of
known facts of the Faith and with reference to the teaching of St. Thomas
Aquinas. God’s Options at the Creation God could have created all rational creatures in
the free yet blessed and confirmed, glorified state. That is to say that He could have created them in
the state in which the holy angels and the saints are now, that is, in that
state in which they have free will and yet it is incompatible with their
blessed and confirmed state that they should sin and fall away. God could have created all rational creatures in that
state even though they would not have merited their glory. For instance,
infants who die baptised are glorified without having ever merited, as are
severely retarded adults who die baptised. Nor is He obliged to allow the rational creature
the opportunity of sinning and falling away. We again cite the aforementioned
infants and adults. They die without having ever reached the responsible
state of reason or having acquired the ability to merit or to sin. So, at the creation, God was free to create all
rational creatures confirmed in glory. He knew that if He created the
rational creatures blessed and confirmed, then they would never sin and would
be glorified blessed forever. And He knew that if He created them
unconfirmed, they would be able to sin and liable to damnation. Indeed, as God foreknows even the free actions of
rational creatures (as was defined at Vatican I), He knew that a third of the
angels and almost all humans would be damned if He created them such as He
did. He could foresee the course which history would take and the end result. As evidence of the damnation of almost all humans
we cite the following scripture: “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide
is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there
are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that
leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!” (St. Matthew 7:13-14)
And we further refer the reader to the
saintly tradition on the matter. So, God freely chose to create rational creatures
in an unconfirmed state with the possibility of sinning, while knowing that a
third of the angels and almost all humans would be damned if He did. He did not have to do that, but freely chose to.
He could have instead created them in a confirmed state and all would have
blessed forever: He freely chose not to. Consequently a third of the angels fell and are
damned and almost all humans will be too. It is true that their damnation is due to their
freely committed sins, or at least to original sin if they are without
personally committed sins; but it is also true that their damnation depended
upon God choosing to create them such as that sin and damnation were
possible, and moreover while knowing that they would be damned if He did,
when He could have created them otherwise and with a contrary result. God’s Options upon the Falls Given God’s choice at the creation, with His
foresight of the free acts of His rational creatures, a third of the angels
fell. How did He respond to that? He freely chose to use the fallen angels to
tempt men. He did not have to do that. As a consequence of
Him doing that, the possibility of men sinning was, and is, greatly
increased. He used the fallen angels for that purpose even
prior to the Fall of man and indeed as the context of that lapse. It is possible that the first couple had sinned
venially prior to being subjected to demonic temptations, for which God
punished them by so subjecting them. But nevertheless, even if that is so, He
did not have punish them at all, but He freely chose to; for He is not
obliged to punish any sin but can simply forgive; as St. Thomas Aquinas
wrote: “For a judge, while preserving justice, cannot
pardon fault without penalty, if he must visit fault committed
against another – for instance, against another man, or against the State, or
any Prince in higher authority. But God has no one higher than Himself, for
He is the sovereign and common good of the whole universe. Consequently, if
He forgive sin, which has the formality of fault in that it is committed
against Himself, He wrongs no one.” (Summa Theologica III, Q. 46, art. 2) The first human parents fell. God was free to
simply forgive them, but He chose not. The posterity of the first parents fell with
them. Adam and Eve sinned and God freely chose to hold all of their posterity
guilty – except Mary – of the original sin. He did not have to do that. It
was undoubtedly just that He did. But He could have preserved them all from
original sin and from all of its punishments, if He had so willed. We cite
the example of Mary, whom God gratuitously preserved from participation in
the guilt of original sin. And while God did not preserve them from the
guilt of original sin at their conception, as He did Our Lady, He could still
have forgiven them shortly afterwards. He forgives infants at their baptism
without any repentance on their part and He could have likewise forgiven them
all just after their conception without any repentance on their part. But He
freely chose not to. He chose, rather to hold them guilty and to
punish them for the original sin. In punishment for the original sin, God withdrew
from humans the grace of original justice, which was the obstacle to the
concupiscence and sins which result from an otherwise disordered soul; this
greatly increases the likelihood of them sinning, as St. Thomas taught: “A certain inclination to an inordinate act
does follow from original sin, not directly, but indirectly, viz. by the
removal of the obstacle, i.e. original justice, which hindered inordinate
movements. [...] It is a habit “inborn” due to our corrupt origin.
[...] As, in good things, the intellect and reason stand first, so conversely
in evil things, the lower part of the soul is found to take precedence [here
due to concupiscence], for it clouds and draws the reason.” (Summa
Theologica I, II, Q. 82, Art. 1, 3) “Sin can be the punishment of sin [...] when one
sin is the cause of another, by removing an impediment thereto. For
passions, temptations of the devil, and the like are causes of sin, but are
impeded by the help of Divine grace which is withdrawn on account of sin.
Wherefore since the withdrawal of grace is a punishment, and is from God, the
result is that the sin which ensues from this is also a punishment.” (Summa
Theologica I, II, Q. 87, Art. 2) So, as well as freely choosing to subject humans
to demonic temptations, God freely chose to give them over to concupiscence,
which greatly increases the likelihood of them sinning and being punished for
those sins. He did not have to do that, as He was free to
simply forgive Adam and Eve and to preserve or free their posterity from the
guilt of original sin and from the concupiscence that results from it. But He
freely chose to. And indeed, He could have created them glorified, which
would have avoided the whole situation, but chose not to. It is true that men freely commit the sins which
they commit while tempted by demons and weakened and debased by their own
concupiscence from original sin. But it is also true that God knew that His
free choices would greatly increase the likeliness of sins; indeed he
foreknew that His choices would result in untold sins. As a consequence of God punishing humans for the
original sin in the way in which He did, with the possibility of them sinning
being greatly increased, very few of them will be saved. “Since their eternal happiness, consisting in the
vision of God, exceeds the common state of nature, and especially
in so far as this is deprived of grace through the corruption of original
sin, there is a select few who are saved. In this especially,
however, appears the mercy of God, that He has chosen some for that
salvation, from which the utmost many [the superlative is used] in
accordance with the common course and tendency of nature fall short.” (Summa
Theologica I, Q. 23, Art. 7) So, having freely allowed the original sin to
take place by creating humans unconfirmed, God then punished them for it as
He did, while foreseeing that the result would be that many of them would
fall into untold further sins and be guilty of them, damned, for all
eternity. He did not have to, but freely chose to. God’s Options at the Redemption God mercifully gave a Redeemer, Christ Our Lord,
to redeem us from our sins. The Redemption was of infinite merit and was of
sufficient merit that God could have done the following due to it: - he could have preserved all humans in the grace
of original justice; - he could have preserved all humans from
original sin and its guilt as He did Our Lady; - he could have taken away from all humans
concupiscence and the temptations of the devils, even retroactively for those
conceived before the Redemption; - he could even have retroactively constituted
all in a blessed and confirmed state – either from the time of the Creation
of man and prior to the performance of the original sin, which then would not
have taken place, or else following the Fall. It is true that He could have done all of these
things without a meritorious cause, as we have seen above; indeed His will
has no cause (Summa Theologica I, Q. 19, Art. 5). But it is also true that He
could have freely done them in view of the merits of the Redemption which
were sufficient that all be done in their regard; and He could have been
pleased to use those merits in that way. It is true that the very context of the
Redemption, such as it happened, involved that God would not do the above
listed things. But it is also true that God could have redeemed man in some
other way or context. Indeed, as Our Lord was divine, anything which He did
was of infinite merit. “On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xiii):
‘We assert that the way whereby God deigned to deliver us by the man Jesus
Christ, who is mediator between God and man, is both good and befitting the
Divine dignity; but let us also show that other possible means were not
lacking on God's part, to whose power all things are equally subordinate.’
[…] Therefore, speaking simply and absolutely, it was possible for God to
deliver mankind otherwise than by the Passion of Christ, because ‘no word
shall be impossible with God’ (Lk. 1:37).” (Summa Theologica III, Q. 46,
art. 2) It is also true that God has freely chosen that
His justice must be propitiated but that was the precise point of the
Redemption, which was of infinite propitiatory value. Even the requirement of propitiation is arbitrary
and God need not punish anyone for transgressing His law even without a
propitiation. He could have forgiven the first couple without propitiation
and have not inflicted any punishment upon them or their descendants, such as
the withdrawal of the grace of original justice and the giving of
concupiscence. To quote more of a passage already quoted: “Even this justice depends on the Divine will,
requiring satisfaction for sin from the human race. But if He had willed
to free man from sin without any satisfaction, He would not have acted
against justice. For a judge, while preserving justice, cannot pardon
fault without penalty, if he must visit fault committed against another---for
instance, against another man, or against the State, or any Prince in higher
authority. But God has no one higher than Himself, for He is the sovereign
and common good of the whole universe. Consequently, if He forgive sin, which
has the formality of fault in that it is committed against Himself, He wrongs
no one: just as anyone else, overlooking a personal trespass, without
satisfaction, acts mercifully and not unjustly. And so David exclaimed
when he sought mercy: ‘To Thee only have I sinned’ (Ps. 50:6), as if
to say: ‘Thou canst pardon me without injustice.’” (Summa Theologica III, Q.
46, art. 2) God knew that if He applied the merits of the Redemption
such as to constitute all men as blessed and confirmed from the time of the
Creation, then they would not sin and would be glorified blessed forever. And
He knew that if He applied the merits of the Redemption such as He in fact
did, then they would be able to sin, and indeed have a strong concupiscent
tendency to commit sin, which sin affords their damnation. Indeed, as God foreknows even the free actions of
rational creatures, He knew that almost all humans would be damned if He
applied the merits of the Redemption such as He did, all else being the same
as it is. He chose to apply the merits of the Redemption
such as to leave all men in an unconfirmed and fallen state with the guilt of
original sin (except Our Lady), with concupiscence and the temptations of the
devil: that is, He left them with the strong tendency of sinning and while
knowing that almost all humans would be damned if He did. He did not have to do that, but freely chose to.
He could have done the opposite and freely chose not to. Consequently almost all humans will be damned,
because of God’s free choice. It is true that the likelihood of men sinning or
being damned is sometimes diminished by the call to the Faith and by the
justifying graces which men sometimes receive through the Faith as a result
of the Redemption. However, God chose to leave concupiscence within even the
Faithful and even within the justified Faithful and to leave them subject to
demonic temptations. Another foreseen consequence of that God applied the
merits of the Redemption in the way that He did, leaving concupiscence in the
Faithful, is that almost all of the Faithful will be damned too, as
is also testified to by a saintly tradition. He did not have to do
that but freely chose to. The merits of the Redemption were sufficient that
concupiscence be removed from the Faithful. Again, it is true that the damnation of humanity
and even of the Faithful is due to either original sin or to the sins that
they have personally freely committed. But it is also true that their
damnation depended upon God choosing to apply the merits of the Redemption
such as that it was possible for them to sin and be damned and in fact while
knowing that they would be if He did, all else being as it is, when He could
have acted otherwise. The angels were, it seems, never given a
possibility of Redemption or Salvation although the Christian Redemption,
being of infinite merit, was sufficient for them to have been retroactively
preserved them from their fall and to have effected their glorification even
at their creation. God could have applied the Redemption such as that all of
the angels would have been glorified, but He chose not to, while knowing that
as a consequence, a third of the angels would freely rebel and be damned. Again, it is true that the very context of the
Redemption involved that God did not apply the merits of the Redemption to
the angels in the ways mentioned: but it is also true that the Redemption
could have been performed in some other way or even not have been performed
at all. God’s Options at the Judgements We have seen that God is not obliged to inflict
punishment. It is just when He does but it is not unjust when He does not.
Therefore when God subjects the damned to the pains of deprivation and of
sense, as He does, He does so freely and without any obligation to do so. God could have rather given them blessings. He
could have left the damned in situations of manifold natural goods, as He
leaves for a while the rich in this world who have many sins. And He could even have given them the Beatific
Vision, which includes within itself all goods, of which natural goods are
but an imperfect reflection, as no human will would refuse it upon having it,
as it is perfect and desirable in every aspect. “Wherefore if the will be offered an object which
is good universally and from every point of view, the will tends to it of
necessity, if it wills anything at all; since it cannot will the
opposite. If, on the other hand, the will is offered an object that is not
good from every point of view, it will not tend to it of necessity. And since
lack of any good whatever, is a non-good, consequently, that good alone
which is perfect and lacking in nothing, is such a good that the will cannot
not-will it: and this is Happiness. Whereas any other particular goods,
in so far as they are lacking in some good, can be regarded as non-goods: and
from this point of view, they can be set aside or approved by the will, which
can tend to one and the same thing from various points of view.” (Summa
Theologica I, II, Q. 10, art. 2) God forces many things upon men which they do not
desire and He could give them the Beatific Vision without their previous
consent and then they would necessarily consent to it and be freely blessed
for all eternity. So, at the judgements, God has the options of
punishing those who die in mortal sins or of blessing them and He chooses to
punish them for all eternity with deprivation and fire. And those who die in
original sin only He does not give the Beatific Vision to, but freely
punishes them at least with deprivation. Summary, Recap of the Proceeding and
Consideration of the Questions The foreseen consequence of God’s freely chosen
course of action with regard to the Creation, Falls, the Redemption and the
Judgements is that a third of the angels and almost all of humanity, and even
of the Faithful, will spend eternity punished in a state of damnation, many
with untold sins. Humans are often afforded a long life in which to add up
their sins. God did not have to act as He did. Indeed He
could have acted in a manner He foresaw would have meant that all rational
creatures, angels and men, would have been blessed for all eternity. God chose the course of action which He foreknew
would mean that a third of the angels and almost all of humanity would be
damned. At the Creation and Redemption, He could have chosen a course of
action which would have meant that all rational creatures would have been
blessed for all eternity. And upon the Falls He knowingly acted such as that
untold more sins would be committed, when He need not have so acted. And at
the Judgements, He acts so as to inflict eternal punishment when He could
instead give eternal blessings. God is free and chose freely. He freely chose
that a third of the angels and almost all humans would be damned, when He was
free to chose that they would all be glorified. Does God Want All to be Saved? The foregoing affords some perspective to the
question as to whether God wants all men to be saved and all rational
creatures to be glorified. To recap: God could have created all rational
creatures in the free yet blessed and confirmed, glorified state. He knew
that if He did, then they would not sin and would be glorified blessed
forever. And He knew that if He created them unconfirmed they would be able
to sin which affords their damnation. Further, God freely chose to use the
fallen angels to tempt humans and He also chose to hold all of the posterity
of the first couple guilty of original sin – except Our Lady – and to give
concupiscence to them as a punishment thereof, which greatly increases the
likelihood of them sinning and of their damnation. Moreover, the Redemption
was of infinite merit and was of sufficient merit such that God could have
applied the merits so as to constitute all humans as blessed and confirmed,
and then they would have been glorified blessed forever. The angels were
apparently never given a possibility of Redemption or Salvation even though
the Christian Redemption was sufficient to have preserved them from their
fall and to have effected their glorification even at their creation. And at
the Judgements, God could forgive the fallen angels and humans and bless them
forever. Instead He freely chose to punish them. He freely chose to do none
of this. The foreseen consequence of God’s freely chosen course of action
with regard to the Creation, Falls, the Redemption and the Judgements, is
that a third of the angels and almost all of humanity, and even of the
Faithful, will spend eternity punished in a state of damnation. Twice, at the
Creation and Redemption, He chose the course of action which He foreknew
would mean that a third of the angels and almost all of humanity would be
damned, when He could have chosen a course of action which would have meant
that all rational creatures would have been blessed for all eternity. And
upon the Falls, He knowingly chose the course of action which increased the
likelihood of sin and damnation, when He could have acted otherwise. And He
freely chose to inflict the punishments of damnation at the Judgements. It has not been defined that God wants all men to
be saved nor that He wanted all of the angels to be saved. The Biblical
saying, that God wills that all men be saved, (I Timothy 2:4) is
placed in quotation marks in the systematic index of Denzinger’s, Sources
of Catholic Dogma, as its meaning is not defined or definitively clear.
The Bible has an holy obscurity and is not subject to private interpretation.
There is a sense in which the saying is true and there are other senses in
which it is not true. We shall state the Thomist understanding of it below. Does God Want Rational Creatures to Sin? The foregoing affords us some perspective to the
question of whether God wants rational creatures to sin. To recap: God chose to create rational creatures
in an unconfirmed state with the possibility of sinning. Further, God freely
chose to use the fallen angels to tempt men. He also chose to give
concupiscence to all of the posterity of the first couple, except Mary, as a
punishment for the original sin, which greatly increases the likelihood of
sinning. Moreover, the Redemption was of infinite merit and was of sufficient
merit that God could have applied the merits even retroactively so as to
constitute all men as blessed and confirmed, such as that they would never
have sinned. And it was of sufficient merit so that all men might have been
preserved from original sin as was Our Lady; but God did not so apply it,
while knowing that consequently almost all humans be conceived in sin.
Further, God could have applied the merit of the Passion so as to remove the
concupiscence from men which draws them into many sins, but He did not, while
knowing that consequently untold sins would be committed. Again, he could
have applied the merits of the Redemption so as to preserve the angels from
sin, but He did not, while knowing that consequently a third of them would
sin. He apparently gave them no possibility of Redemption or Salvation with
the result that the full third of them eternally remains guilty of sin. The
foreseen consequences of God’s freely chosen course of action with regard to
the Creation, Falls and the Redemption are that a third of the angels would
sin and eternally remain guilty of sin; and that almost all humans would sin
or at least be conceived in sin, and would have concupiscence and the
temptations of the fallen angels to draw them into untold sins should they
reach the state of reason, and almost all of them would remain guilty of sin
for all eternity. Four times He chose the course of action which He foreknew
would mean in sum that a third of the angels and almost all of humanity would
sin and eternally remain in sin and many in untold sins. Twice, at the
Creation and Redemption, He could have chosen a course of action which would
have meant that none of them would have sinned, and upon the Falls He could
have acted not such as to greatly increase the likeliness of men sinning and
being guilty of untold further sins for all eternity. We take it as granted that He does not want men
or angels to sin for the sake of sin. The question is rather whether God
willingly and freely chose to permit them to sin and indeed put them in the
state in which they were liable to sin – and had almost all men conceived in
sin – and will have a third of the angels and almost all men eternally guilty
of sin – for some other purpose which directly depends upon their sinning,
namely, their just damnation which He freely and justly inflicts upon them
for their sins at the Judgements. It may be that God has some other, higher
priority which is simply incompatible with Him preserving all rational
creatures from sin and glorifying them. Conclusion – Either Way It is clear that the glorification of all
rational creatures and their preservation from sin are not the foremost priorities
with God. If they were, then all rational creatures would have been preserved
from sin and glorified, as He could have acted such as to achieve those ends.
Rather, He twice chose the course of action which entailed a third of the
angels and almost all men being damned and eternally guilty of sin. At the
Falls He acted such as to greatly increase the likeliness of untold further
sins being committed. And at the Judgements He freely punishes them. Indeed, as almost all humans are justly damned
due to the choice of God, it is clear that their glorification is very much
not a priority with Him. He wills the situation as it is, in which almost all
men are damned, rather than that they should all be saved: that is His free
choice. Neither the Thomist nor the Molinist theory of
grace alters our conclusion as to the divine salvific will. Facts are facts,
regardless of whether grace is efficacious intrinsically or extrinsically.
But by the same token, one cannot conclude the truth of either system from what
we have concluded regarding the salvific will, as it is compatible with them
both. We shall now very briefly consider what might be
a higher priority with God than the beatification of all rational creatures
and their preservation from sin, and we shall do so with particular reference
to the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on the subject. What Might be a Higher Priority with God than the
Beatification of all Rational Creatures and Their Preservation from Sin? According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God wills to
manifest His goodness in creation to the utmost by expressing it through the
diversity of creatures, wherefore He permits some rational creatures to be
damned so that the goodness of His justice unto the damned might be
manifested as well as the goodness of His mercy unto the saved. And He
permits and facilitates that some rational creatures sin, so that, likewise,
His mercy might be evident in forgiveness and His justice in punishment. Accordingly, antecedent to any further
consideration, God wants all men to be saved in so far as it is a good for
each of them to be saved; but consequent to His consideration of the greater
good, viz. how His glory can be exhibited to the utmost, He wants only some
of them to be saved and to permit others to be damned. As it is put:
according to His antecedent will He wants all to be saved but
according to His consequent will He does not want all to be saved –
and likewise with regard to the preservation of rational creatures from sin.
In other words, he actually does not want all to be saved or that all should
be kept from sin. On the contrary. And He is, it would seem, quite sovereign with
regard to the fates of men. We have outlined the Thomist perspective at some
length in the article, St.
Thomas Aquinas on Predestination and Invincible Ignorance and we
refer the reader to that. However, even if the glorification of rational creatures and the salvation of fallen men is not the highest priority with God because He wills to permit some to be damned so that the good of His justice may be manifested, that does not of itself tell us whether the Thomists or the Molinists are correct concerning the theory of predestination prior to foreseen merits: God’s objective would be achieved regardless of how the cooperation of the human will in the salvific act is effected. |
The
Angelic Doctor |
|
|
