SALVIFIC WILL. — It is the will by which God wills the supernatural salvation of men. It is universal, earnest, sincere, and efficacious, since Christ died for all and God gives to all sufficient grace for salvation. The universality of the salvific will has been denied by predestinarianism (v.).
I. THE DOCUMENTS OF REVELATION
In the Old Testament it is said that God has mercy on all, because all (Wis 11:24-26; 12:18-20). He wills the conversion of the sinner (Ezek 33:11). The promise of redemption is without restriction. The Messianic kingdom is presented by the prophets as universal. Salvation will be announced to all nations (Isa 49:6, 8; 42:6). The same is affirmed in the Psalms: all peoples will turn to God (Ps 21:28; 85:9). In the New Testament the universality of the salvific will is clearly affirmed by St. Paul: “God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:4-6). The context and the reason given exclude any limitation. The conception of Jesus regarding His Messianic kingdom is universalistic: “He commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations” (Matt 28:18); “He is the light that enlightens every man” (John 1:9); “He died for all” (1 John 2:1-2, cf. 4:10; 1 Tim 2:6; Heb 2:9; 2 Cor 5:14-15; Rom 5:15-19).The Fathers unanimously taught the universalism of the salvific will and of the Redemption. Even its adversaries acknowledge this, though they see an exception in St. Augustine, to whom they attempt to link the restrictive thesis.
The Fathers refer to biblical texts, to divine goodness, and to the fact that God is the creator of all. He gives to all, even to hardened sinners (cf. Rouët de Journal, *Enchir. Patrist.*, 14th ed., Freiburg in Br. 1947, theological index no. 346) and to unbelievers (ibid., no. 347), sufficient grace. To explain why some are lost, the Fathers resort to the abuse of freedom and to bad will, which rejects the means of salvation. Tertullian distinguished in God goodness, and prior according to nature, and severity, and posterior according to cause (Adv. Marc. 2, 11). St. John Chrysostom distinguished the first will and a will not antecedent to those who sin, and a second will, and a will that those who do evil should be punished (In Eph. 1, 3). St. John Damascene introduced the distinction between antecedent will, by which “God wills all to be saved,” and consequent will, by which “He wills sinners to be punished” (De fide orth., II, 29).
St. Augustine, before 418, held that Christ died for all (De catech. rudibus, no. 52; In Io. tr., 12, 12) and explained the text 1 Tim 2:4 universally (De spir. et littera, no. 58). In his later works he restricted the scope of the text to those who are saved (Epist., 194, 6; 217, 19; C. Iulianum, IV, 24, 44; De praed. Sanctorum, VIII, 14; Enchir., 103), to the predestined (De corrept. et gratia, XIV, 44), to men of every people and condition (Enchir., 103). He did not change his mind, but modified the sense of the term “will.” There is, in embryo, the distinction between antecedent and consequent will. In *De spir. et litt.*, no. 58, he understood the divine will as conditional and held that God wills the salvation of all. After 418, he understood the absolute will, which always comes to pass; he therefore restricted it to some. He was indeed fighting against the Pelagians, who made salvation depend on human will; he therefore had to defend the consequent and absolute divine will, by which the predestined are saved, and he interpreted, somewhat forcedly, the passage 1 Tim 2:4 accordingly. However, in giving these new interpretations he did not retract the previous doctrine and interpretation; indeed, he affirmed that he admitted any commentary, provided that the divine will was not frustrated (Enchir., 103). Even after 418, to prove the existence of original sin in all, he affirmed that Christ died for all (C. Iulianum, 6; Opus imperf. c. Iul., II, 64, 163, 174, 175). This evidently presupposes the universalism of the salvific will.
II. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH
In its magisterium, the Church has often affirmed the universality of the salvific will against restrictive attempts.The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol says, without restriction, that Christ for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. The Council of Quierzy (v.) asserted against Gottschalk (v.) the universal value of Christ’s death and the universalism of the salvific will. Men are lost through their own fault (can. 3-4; cf. Council of Valence, canons 2-3). The Council of Trent condemned Calvin’s predestinarianism (sess. VI, cap. 12, can. 15, 17) and, without directly addressing the problem of the salvific will, in canons 2, 3 it taught the universality of the Redemption. Important clarifications were provided by the condemnation of Jansenist propositions. The 5th proposition of Jansenius: “It is always semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died for all men absolutely or shed His blood” was condemned by Innocent X as “false, temerarious, scandalous and, if understood in the sense that Christ died only for the salvation of the predestined, as impious, blasphemous, calumnious, injurious to divine goodness, and heretical” (Denz. U, 1096). Alexander VIII condemned the Jansenist error, which restricted the value of Christ’s death only to the faithful and denied that God grants sufficient grace to all (prop. 4-5; Denz. U, 1949-51). Cf. the propositions 26-32 of Quesnel condemned by Clement XI (Denz. U, 1376-82).
III. DOCTRINE OF THEOLOGIANS
Theological inquiry has deepened the problem of the sincerity of the salvific will and the distribution of the grace necessary for salvation.The early Scholastics did not determine the nature of the salvific will, but recognized its universalism. The restrictions of some are rather verbal. St. Thomas adopted, and illustrated, the distinction of the Damascene between antecedent and consequent will. This distinction must not be placed in the divine will itself, but in the objects. The antecedent will regards the object, considered strictly in itself; the consequent will regards the object in concreto, with its circumstances; an object, good in itself, may, because of circumstances, be evil and therefore no longer willed. God, with antecedent will, wills that all be saved; with consequent will, He wills that the wicked be punished, according to the exigency of His justice. The antecedent will does not always obtain its effect. It is called *velleitas*, because it regards the object under a particular aspect, not answering to the conditions of its reality. It is not, however, a sterile will, because it prepares for all the necessary means of salvation.
After St. Thomas, all theologians use this distinction, though they conceive it differently. The main divergences are between Thomists and Molinists, who seek to adapt it to their own system on predestination (v.). Differences of detail recur even within the same system. However the distinction is conceived, to safeguard the sincerity of the universal salvific will, it is necessary to admit that God prepares and confers on all the necessary means of salvation.
The theologians have particularly studied the problem of sinners, both common and obstinate, of unbelievers (v.), and of children who die without Baptism (v.). They agree in establishing the fact that the salvific will extends to all these categories of persons and that God grants them sufficient grace. They disagree, however, in assigning the manner. The reason for these divergences is to be sought in the obscurities proper to the mystery that is concealed in the problem of the salvific will.