VOLONTÀ SALVIFICA. — It is the will by which God desires the supernatural salvation of human beings. It is universal, earnest, sincere, and efficacious, since Christ died for all and God grants all sufficient Grace for salvation. The universality of the V. s. was denied by predestinationism (v.).
I. THE DOCUMENTS OF REVELATION
In the Old Testament it is said that God has pity on all, because he loves all (Sap. 11, 24-26; 12, 18-20). He wills the conversion of the sinner (Ec. 33, 11). The promise of redemption is without restrictions. The messianic kingdom is presented by the prophets as universal. Salvation will be announced to all nations (Is. 49, 6, 8; 42, 6). The same is affirmed in the Psalms: all peoples will turn toward God (Ps. 21, 28; 85, 9). In the New Testament the universality of the V. s. Paul: «Deus omnes homines vult salvos fieri et ad agnitionem veritatis venire. Unus enim Deus, unus et mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus, qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus» (I Tim., 2, 4-6). The context and the reason given exclude every limitation. Jesus’ conception of his messianic kingdom is universalistic: he commanded the Apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations (Mt. 28, 18); he is the light that enlightens every man (Io. 1, 9); he died for all (I Io. 2, 1-2, cf. 4, 10; I Tim. 2, 6; Hebr. 2, 9; II Cor. 5, 14-15; Rom. 5, 15-19).The Fathers unanimously taught the universalism of the V. s. and of Redemption. This is also acknowledged by their opponents, who see an exception in s. Augustine, to whom they attempt to link the restrictionist thesis.
The Fathers refer to the biblical texts, to divine goodness, and to the fact that God is the creator of all. He gives to all, including hardened sinners (cf. Rouet de Journel, Enchir. Patrist., 14th ed., Fribourg in Br. 1947, theological index, no. 346) and unbelievers (ibid., no. 347), sufficient Grace. To explain why some are lost, the Fathers appeal to the abuse of freedom and to evil will, which rejects the means of salvation. Tertullian distinguished in God goodness, « prior secundum naturam », and severity, « posterior secundum causam » (Adv. Marc. 2, 11). S. John Chrysostom distinguished the first will, « ut non pereant qui peccarunt », and the second, « ut pereant qui male egerunt » (In Eph. 1, 3). S. John Damascene introduced the distinction between antecedent will, by which « Deus vult omnes salvos esse », and consequent will, by which « peccantes puniri vult » (De fide orth., II, 29).
S. Augustine, before 418, held that Christ died for all (De catech. radibus, no. 52; In Io. tr., 12, 12) and interpreted the text I Tim. 2, 4 in a universalistic sense (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. Julianum, IV, 24, 44: De praed. Sanctorum, VIII, 14: Enchir., 103), to the predestined (Decorrept. et gratia, XIV, 44), and to men of every people and condition (Enchir., 103). He did not change his thought, but modified the meaning of the term will. Here there is, in embryo, the distinction between antecedent and consequent V. In De spir. et litt., no. 58, he understood the divine V. as conditional and held that God wills the salvation of all. After 418, he understood the absolute v., which is always fulfilled; he therefore restricted it to some. He was in fact fighting against the Pelagians, who made salvation depend on the human v.; he therefore had to defend the consequent and absolute divine v., by which the predestined are saved, and understood the passage I Tim. 2, 4 in this sense, forcing its meaning. In offering the new interpretations, however, he did not retract the earlier doctrine and interpretation; indeed, he affirmed that he accepted any commentary, provided that the divine will was not frustrated (Enchir., 103). Even after 418, in proving the existence of original sin in all, he affirmed that Christ died for all (C. Julianum, 6: Opus imperf. c. Jul., II, 64, 163, 174, 175). This evidently presupposes the universalism of the V. s
II. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH
In her magisterium she has often affirmed the universality of salvific will against restrictionist attempts.The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed states, without restriction, that Christ for us men and for our salvation descended from heaven. The Council of Quierzy (v.) GODESCALCO D'ORBAIS (v.) the universal value of Christ’s death and the universalism of 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, chap. 12, canons 15, 17) and, without dealing directly with the problem of salvific will, taught the universality of the Redemption in canons 2 and 3. Important clarifications were supplied by the condemnation of the Jansenist propositions. The 5th proposition of Giansenio: « Semipelagianum est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse » was condemned by Innocent X as « false, rash, scandalous and, understood in the sense that Christ died only for the salvation of the predestined, impious, blasphemous, calumnious, offensive to divine goodness, and heretical » (Denz-U, 1906). Alexander VIII condemned the Jansenist error, which restricted the value of Christ’s death to the faithful alone and denied that God grants sufficient Grace to all (prop. 4-5: Denz-U, 1294-95). Cf. propositions 26-32 of Quesnel condemned by Clement XI (Denz-U, 1376-82).
III. TEACHING OF THE THEOLOGIANS
Theological inquiry has deepened the problem of the sincerity of the salvific will and of the distribution of the Grace necessary for salvation.The first Scholastics did not determine the nature of the salvific will, but they recognized its universal character. The restrictions imposed by some are rather verbal. S. Tommaso adopted and elucidated the Damascene’s distinction between antecedent and consequent will. This distinction must not be located in the divine will, but in its objects. The antecedent will concerns the object considered strictly in itself; the consequent will concerns the object in concreto, together with its circumstances. An object that is good in itself may, because of its 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 damned, according to the demands of his justice. The antecedent will does not always obtain its effect. It is called velleitas, because it concerns the object under a particular aspect and does not correspond to the conditions of its reality. It is not, however, a sterile will, because it prepares for all the means necessary for salvation.
After s. Tommaso, all theologians made use of this distinction, although they conceived it differently. The principal divergences are between Thomists and Molinists, who seek to adapt it predestination (v.). Differences in detail also occur within the scope of a single system. However the distinction may be conceived, in order to preserve the sincerity of the universal salvific will, one must admit that God prepares and confers upon all the means necessary for salvation.
Theologians have studied particularly the problem of sinners, both ordinary and obstinate, unbelievers (v.), and 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 in which this occurs. The reason for these divergences must be sought in the obscurities proper to the mystery concealed within the problem of the salvific will.