Does everyone have an equal chance for salvation?

I understand there are a few exeptions (Mary). But I mean generally speaking.

I really do not think so; wasn’t there two brothers in the old testament , One that he love and another that he hated.
I mean really, are we all equal? If so, then why do some get the gift of prophecy and another the gift of tongues and yet another beloved brother nothing else at all. Why?, do some never receive sight to see the Church while others are given sight. Why? do some have ears which can not hear? Why?, Does he have elect while others are damned. Equal chance at Salvation? I think that he is the one that gives grace and it is the same at salvation…it is his chose who is acceptable and who is not. However, I could have a misunderstanding and be in error. Perhaps, a philosopher will answer. Untill then pray.

Yes - & no (sorry :o)

God’s Will that all be saved is equally sincere for all - the degree of love He grants to each, is not equal. IOW - God loves some more than others. This is what distinguishes between one person & another. However, all are given all the graces they need; there is no unfairness here - and no one sins or is lost except by his own fault: grace is entirely from God - our destruction is entirely from ourselves.

BTW - there is no such thing as chance :slight_smile: Not in a universe which is governed to its tiniest detail by a God Who is All-Wise, Almighty, & the Sovereign Lord & Creator & Preserver of each & every created being. With God, there are no accidents :smiley:

No. It’s possible to do evil. If you do evil to someone then generally they will do evil in return.

I think some of you may have misunderstood my question.

I’m not saying if someone who has committed mortal sin and someone who hasn’t have an equal chance of salvation. That I know. What I’m asking is, to use an example, if you looked at any amount of children being born (I’m using infants so the question of how sinful the person is removed), do they all have equal opportunity to get into heaven at the end of their lives, whether it be 10 minutes or 80 years? Do any of them have advantages over the other?

I should think it is obvious. A passing familiarity with the biographies of any of the saints should serve to demonstrate that God, in His infinite wisdom, bestows graces on some of His children that the rest of us are simply not privy to. These extra graces may serve to facilitate the salvation of those who are so gifted. This is not to say that salvation is out of reach for those who have not been granted these extra graces, merely that their road will be harder. The proper conclusion to draw, therefore, is that while salvation is available for all, the means by which God deems we ought to achieve it are far from equal.

Second question.

Is it possible to have an unfair disadvantage for salvation? Would, for example, someone born in a morally corrupt setting have no realistic possibility for heaven?

The means for salvation are available to all. I suppose that one might imagine an individual who is brought up in such a depraved environment that it stunts him psychologically to the end that he or she becomes some sort of sociopath. We may then trot in all sorts of statistical arguments that might presume to show that this sort of person has no reasonable expectation of salvation. This argument presumes, however, that that God does not provide at least the minimum amount of grace required for each individual to come to Him. As such it is blasphemous in that it denies God’s love for man.

Is it that God bestows extra graces on these saints out of favoritism, or is it that they, by especially cultivating their relationship wth Him, open themselves up more to His grace in a way we all could do - if we all worked on our relationship with God more? :hmmm:

After all, Jesus said everyone who followed Him would (or could) do works that were as great or greater than His own. Seems to me that there are equal opportunities and graces available for all then, just that not all choose to receive them.

Since some of us inheriet the sins of our Fathers (that is a worldly Father and not spiritually(–NO Pun intended)). MY first outlook would be too say no… however, This is a difficult question since at one point you say children and then at another point in your argument you say 80 years. Now let us take a realistic example…If one Christian family have a child and one Muslim family has a child and both die…will one go to heaven and the other one not. My reply is this: How can anyone possiblely be called a christian and know that…even some of the christian groups which I would call heritics…the Holy Roman Catholic Church does not condemn but in fact say they do not know rather they go to heaven or not. I think this certaintly would go a long the lines of do not judge unless thou be judge. Could you be more specific with your question? I love to see some of the arguments both pro and con.

Really? I thought he provide the least the greatest amount and the greatest the least amount…after all who needs the doctor. Yelp! that is right! the sick sociopath and not the physciatrist or lawyer.

Absolutely. All people have been given sufficient grace in order to be able to respond through their will to God’s persistant and efficacious call. If they respond God grants them efficacious grace (saving grace) thereby saving them.

Paul speaks of those Gentiles who “do not have the law” (haven’t been given divinely revealed truth through the law as did the Jews)
still are a “law unto themselves” (keep the truth they have been given from God, even if it isn’t much; Luke 12:48…much is given much is required)
and that they can obey that truth because they “have the law by nature” (the natural moral law of God)
and whether they obeyed the truth they received is a question only God knows for sure.
14"For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus."
Verse 15 mentions that the “demands of the law (the moral law of God, aks the natural law) are written on their hearts” (written on their hearts means that they know right from wrong like Cain who killed Able before the Mosaic law was given yet he knew it was wrong because God had put it into his heart as Paul says.
And that their “conscience” will on the day of judgment either “accuse” them or “defend” them on that day.

So, everyone (who is of sound mind) has a chance to obededient to the grace they received, Luke 12:48. Granted some have received more grace than others (Christians have received more grace than Muslim) but all have received some grace in order to follow what they know to be true or reject that grace they have been offered.

And since God is a just God who a fair judge to all, ergo all have an equal chance to be saved, although some have an easier chance.
Deuteronomy 32:4 “The Rock–how faultless are his deeds, how right all his ways! A faithful God, without deceit, how just and upright he is!”

In other words, the situation is then this: it is not necessarily true that a Catholic has a better chance of being saved than a Protestant. Take the following example:

There was a Young Teens Catholic Conference. A prominent Catholic apologist was talking to the teens and he asked them, “Does a Catholic have a better chance of being saved than a Protestant?” Most of the teens, in ignorance, said yes. The apologist replied, “Not necessarily.”

He probably would’ve explained as follows: the chances a person has of being saved depend on many factors beyond a person’s religion (although a person’s religion does incorporate several of the factors). The factors, amongst others, would include the following:
*]How much of the truth does the person know?
*]How much of the truth does the person have reasonable access to?
*]How much, if any, of what the person believes is doctrinally erroneous in a matter of faith?
*]How much, if any, of what the person believes is doctrinally erroneous in a matter of morals?
*]How well does the person respond to the Actual Graces of God. That is: How diligently does the person seek the truth? Of the truths that the person does have, how much effort does he exercise in following them? How well does the person try, along with his effort, to let God help him? (Does he know he needs God’s help?)
*]How much Sanctifying Grace does the person have? Moreover, seeing as that the Sacraments are the primary vehicles of an increase in Sanctifying Grace, how many Sacraments does the person have access to, either implicitly or explicitly? (Hint, there are Seven: Baptism, Confession, Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, Marriage, and Anointing of the Sick; Protestants only have Two: Baptism and Marriage)
*]What obstacles exist in the person’s life that render persecution in living these truths?[/LIST]Given the above, let’s compare:

Person A: the typical, liberal, indifferent, ignorant, lax US Catholic who lives in a neo-pagan, U.S. city in the year 2000

Person B: a very devout, knowledgeable, serious Baptist who is not too off-base in his doctrinal beliefs and who lives in a small, devout, Baptist village in rural early 19th century Germany
Given the above comparison, person B has much, much more chance of being saved than person A, simply by going through the list:

Person A knows very little about the truth. He knows there is only one God and that, in some sense, Jesus is the Savior, but what all this means and how it applies to real life, A has virtually no clue. He doesn’t know his Catholic faith worth a darn because his parents, being lapsed, dissenting Catholics and themselves ignorant, never taught him the faith. His Catechism was so watered down and devoid of any real content that it’s a wonder he knows anything. Basically all he got in Catechism was a bunch of mushy platitudes about “peace and love” and “sharing and caring”. Moreover, person A has, on the other hand, access to all the truth about God that can be found, i.e., in solid, orthodox Roman Catholic dogmas and teaching. He has instant, organized access to this information through the now, all-famous Catechism of the Catholic Church, which can be purchased for the price of less than half a common video game at any major bookstore. For that matter, he could simply go on the internet to any of the major search engines on the web and type in “summary of Catholic doctrine” and get more than enough summarized information which could, after examination, lead him to more detailed sources through footnotes. But whereas A has access to so much truth at the tips of his fingertips, his ignorance is his own fault, for he doesn’t care what is true religiously anymore. He only lives for physical gratification and vain accomplishments (i.e., fornication, beer, video games, and sports).

On the other hand, Person B knows a lot of the truth. He has the Sacred Scriptures at his disposal and yearns more than anything on earth to truly understand them and live them. He devours his Bible every day to correctly understand Paul’s writings and the Gospels. Moreover, despite the fact that he thinks that God will directly enlighten him on what they truly mean (without the aid of an extra-Scriptural authority, which he deems, in Anti-Catholicism, to be non-existent), his Baptist beliefs are not too off-base with regards to the matters of justification to render a serious threat to his salvation…

Oh, but a Catholic does have a much better chance. For instance: I teach my child that smoking pot is bad for him and some one else demostrate to the child through actions that are different, then of course the child brought up properly will have a better advantage.So if one was brought up to the truth then he will be in the truth. If one was brought up in a lie then of course his father will be the father of lies. Now in your arguments, you started out with saying that a person chance of being saved depend on many factors beyond a person’s religion. It would seem to me this is the sole reason for a person being saved, why else make an argument contrasting religion with being saved, is this not the whole reason for religion – that is being saved. Of course it is! That is why one should bring his children up in a proper environment.

Everyone has been given sufficient graces for salvation.

ah yes, the parents can raise, and the child can not care about religion. To whom much is given, much is expected. Mom has two sons, she teaches em Catholicism both thoroughly, one becomes saint, the other goes to hell. Because one sought after and used what was given him., the other didn’t seek to cooperate with actual grace.

You seem to have taken this out of context. Saint Paul was talking about the Jews of that time who was still under Judiac laws(the old testament) because Jesus had just either been risen or was still alive. However, this can no longer apply today because all must come under the New Covenant. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

but not the same types and degrees of graces. hence, all are not roses (the Little Flower said this). St. Thomas Aquinas got big graces, big head knowledge. St. Maria Goretti, probably not nearly as deep a knowledge. But with what she had, she did much.

Similarly, a savage who sought the Divine Will and Assistance, will be little flower compared to the splendid Rose that was St. Agnes.

There will be varying degrees of grace in heaven. Everyone will be beautiful, but some more, some less.

So this passage has no meaning us today?

St. Thomas, Doctor of the Church, disagrees with you. I go w/ St. Thomas, not you.

Thank you for that further clarification. I didn’t want to go that route (note the emphasis on the sufficient), but your statements are nevertheless true.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit