SALVIFIC WILL. - It is the will by which God wills the supernatural salvation of men. It is universal, serious, sincere and operative, since Christ died for all and God gives to all the grace sufficient 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 he loves all (Wis. 11:24-26; 12:18-20). He wills the conversion of the sinner (Sir. 33:11). The promise of redemption is without restrictions. The messianic kingdom is set forth 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 salvific will is clearly affirmed by St. 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 adduced exclude any 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 (Jn. 1:9); he died for all (I Jn. 2:1-2, cf. 4:10; I Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9; II Cor. 5:14-15; Rom. 5:15-19).
The Fathers unanimously taught the universalism of the salvific will and of the Redemption. This is acknowledged even by the adversaries, who see an exception in St. Augustine, to whom they try to link the restrictionist thesis.
The Fathers refer to the biblical texts, to the divine goodness, and to the fact that God is the creator of all. He gives to all, even to hardened sinners (cf. Rouet de Journel, Enchir. Patrist., 14th ed., Freiburg im Br. 1947, theological index, no. 346) and to unbelievers (ibid., no. 347), sufficient Grace. To explain why some are lost, the Fathers have recourse to the abuse of freedom and to the 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). St. John Chrysostom distinguished the first will, «ut non pereant qui peccarunt», and the second, «ut pereant qui male egerunt» (In Eph. 1, 3). St. John Damascene introduced the distinction of antecedent will, by which «Deus vult omnes salvos esse», and consequent will, by which «peccantes puniri vult» (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 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 (De corrept. et gratia, XIV, 44), to men of every people and condition (Enchir., 103). He did not change his thought, but modified the meaning of the term will. There is, in germ, the distinction between antecedent and consequent will. In De spir. et litt., no. 58, he understood the divine will as conditioned and held that God wills the salvation of all. After 418, he understood it as absolute will, which is always fulfilled; he therefore restricted it to some. He was in fact struggling against the Pelagians, who made salvation depend on the human will; he therefore had to defend the consequent and absolute divine will, by which the predestined are saved, and it was in this sense that he understood, forcing it, the passage I Tim. 2:4. In giving the new interpretations, however, he did not retract the previous doctrine and interpretation; indeed he affirmed that he accepted any commentary, provided 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. Julianum, 6; Opus imperf. c. Jul., 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 restrictionist attempts.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says, without restrictions, 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, cann. 2-3). The Council of Trent condemned the predestinarianism of Calvin (sess. VI, cap. 12, cann. 15, 17) and, without treating directly the problem of the salvific will, in cann. 2, 3 taught the universality of the Redemption. Important clarifications were brought by the condemnation of the Jansenist propositions. The 5th proposition of Jansenius: "Semipelagianum est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse" was condemned by Innocent X as "false, temerarious, scandalous and, understood in the sense that Christ died only for the salvation of the predestined, as impious, blasphemous, calumnious, injurious to the 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. DOCTRINE OF THE THEOLOGIANS
Theological investigation has deepened the problem of the sincerity of the salvific will and of the distribution of the grace necessary for salvation.
The early Scholastics did not determine the nature of the salvific will, but they recognized its universalism. The restrictions of some are rather verbal. St. Thomas adopted, illustrating it, the distinction of Damascene between antecedent and consequent will. This distinction must not be placed in the divine will, but in the objects. The antecedent will regards the object, considered strictly in itself; the consequent will regards the object in the concrete, with its circumstances; an object, good in itself, can, by reason of circumstances, be evil and therefore no longer willed. God with antecedent will wills that all be saved, with consequent will wills that the wicked be damned, according to the demand 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, it does not answer to the conditions of its reality. It is not, however, a sterile will, because it prepares for all the means necessary for salvation.
After St. Thomas, all theologians make use of this distinction, although they conceive it differently. The principal divergences are between Thomists and Molinists, who seek to adapt it to their own system on predestination (v.). Differences of detail also occur within the ambit of one and the same system. However the distinction be conceived, in order to safeguard the sincerity of the universal salvific will, it is necessary to admit that God prepares and confers on all the means necessary for salvation.
Theologians have particularly studied the problem of sinners, both ordinary and obstinate, of unbelievers (v.) and of children who die without Baptism (v.). They agree in establishing the fact, namely 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 must be sought in the obscurities proper to the mystery, which is hidden in the problem of the salvific will.
Bibliography15 works
Vincenzo Carbone