A possible problem for some Christian views according to which free choice is necessary for salvation

 A possible problem for some Christian views according to which free choice is necessary for salvation

In what follows, I'll assume (with the Catechism of the Catholic Church does) that there is no pre-existence, i.e. the existence of human beings starts the moment in which starts this earthly life. Clearly, under this assumption, children under a certain age can't have already made a 'free choice' of any sorts. They have no personal sin but they have also yet to make virtuous acts. Regarding the fate of children that died without Baptism, the Catechism states this: 

" As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261; source: https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/1261)

The above paragraph from the current Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to me intentionally ambiguous about the fate of unbaptized children (at least those who die before reaching a maturity sufficient to distinguish right and wrong). The reason for this ambiguity is perhaps that the Catechism still holds that Baptism (either of water, desire or blood) is necessary for salvation (par. 1257-60; source: https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/1257-1260). Given that children under a certain age arguably can't make a conscious desire for or against God, it would appear that these human beings can't be saved. However, matters are not so simple. Consider this paragraph:

"We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell.""  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033; source: https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/1033 )

Here, the Catechism seems to say that in order to be 'united with God' we must freely choose to love him. And, at the same time, final damnation occurs when a choice of definitive self-exclusion is made. Clearly, unbaptized children do not have the ability to make a true 'free choice' and, hence, it appears that they can't be excluded from the communion with God. Hence the ambiguity: while they didn't take part in Baptism, they still can't damn themselves. 

But, as it happens, I believe that there is also another problem. Paragraph 1033 states clearly that in order to be 'united with God', we have to freely choose to love God. But, arguably, children (under a certain age at least) can't freely choose and, it would seem that, according to paragraph 1033, they can't be saved. But given that children, no matter how young, are human beings, if a baptized children sufficiently young to be unable to freely choose dies and is saved, it follows that 'a free choice' for God isn't a necessary condition to be saved for human beings. Indeed, the following couple of proposition is an inconsistent:

1) Baptised children under a certain age cannot freely choose and if they they die before that age they are saved

2) Freely choosing to love God is a necessary condition for human beings in order to be saved

It seems to me that (1) and (2) are logically inconsistent. (2) clearly contradicts (1) as baptised children that die under a certain age could not be saved if 'free choice' were a necessary condition for salvation. 

Interestingly, enough, in the early fifth century St. Augustine also said that the necessity of free choice for salvation would contradict the salvation of baptised children who die under a certain age:

"Now, when we ask for the reason why not all are saved, the customary answer is: "Because they themselves have not willed it." But this cannot be said of infants, who have not yet come to the power of willing or not willing. For, if we could attribute to their wills the infant squirmings they make at baptism, when they resist as hard as they can, we would then have to say that they were saved against their will. " (Enchiridion, 97; source: https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/augustine_enchiridion_02_trans.htm)

So if one holds the belief that there is no pre-existence (as both the current Catechism does and Augustine did) and the belief that baptized children who die before reaching the ability to choose are saved, it follows that the free choice isn't a necessary condition for the salvation of human beings. 



  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ in Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ [1] in  Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia Introduction *Update (12/08): an updated version of this post can be found here:  https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of.html   * In this text, witnesses of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Diodore of Tarsus’ eschatological ‘universalist’ views, are reported.  As shall we see, the attestations of Diodore’s endorsement of a form of apokatastasis are always accompanied by an attestation of his disciple, Theodore, endorsing the same view. All these common testimonies are from Syriac sources, both Eastern-Syriac - Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7 th century in his Second Part, 39.7-14; for Theodore only in his Second Part, 3.3.94 ), Solomon of Basra (fl. 13 th century in his book of the Bee, 60 ), Theodore bar Konai (fl. 8 th century in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63 ) - and Western-Syriac - John of Dara (fl. 9 th century...
Read more

On the presence of universalism in East Syrian tradition

On the presence of universalism [1] in East Syrian tradition *Update (12/08) : An updated version of this post can be found here: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/05/on-presence-of-universalism1-in-church.html * East Syrian theologians were influenced by Diodore of Tarsus (fl. 4 th century), his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4-5 th century) who is called the ‘Interpreter/Exegete/Expositor’ in the East Syrian church (also called ‘Church of the East’), and Evagrius Ponticus (fl. 4 th century) [2] .  The point of this text is to show that there a was significant prevalence of the idea in this tradition (this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a majority view). For more details about Diodore and Theodore see my previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html A testimony of an opponent: Babai the Great (fl. 6 th century): Let me start with the testimony of an opponent of ‘universalism’ in the Eas...
Read more

On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors

  On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors *Update(12/08): an updated version of this post can be found here:  https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/08/possible-traces-of-universalism-in.html   * Introduction In what follows, I’ll present some evidence for the presence of a doctrine or a sympathy of universalism (i.e. the belief that all human beings will be ultimately saved) in some Latin Fathers. There are some suggestive passages in the writings of Ambrose of Milan and John Cassian. Also, Rufinus of Aquileia, in his quarrel against Jerome of Stridon, while admitting that the fate of the wicked is a mystery shows a clear sympathy for the doctrine of universalism. However, it should be noted that none of the figures I quote in this post have been cited as universalists (as far as I know) before the 19 th century and, also, the interpretation of their texts never seem to have caused controversy among later writers...
Read more