Reddit reviews Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? With a Short Discourse on Hell
We found 14 Reddit comments about Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? With a Short Discourse on Hell. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
> Hans Urs Von Balthasar taught the possibility of universal salvation
The book to read is Dare We Hope that All Men Be saved by von Balthasar. He doesn't go so far as to say with certitude universalism, but he concludes that we may be "hopeful universalists" given the reading of Scripture and various, Pre-Augustinian church fathers.
It's a big, tough read, but Hans Urs Von Balthazar's Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? is a solid, theologically profound, well thought out, rooted-in-the-ancient-faith study that addresses your question. Von B. was a Roman Catholic theologian - JPII's favorite theologian - brilliant but deep writer.
I'd add Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?
>This leads me to two possible conclusions:
These options do not seem exhaustive. For example, it could (logically) be the case that all people go to heaven, not just the ones who lived good lives on earth. You find individual thinkers and traditions throughout the history of Christianity that have endorsed or entertained this option, including in antiquity Origen and in the modern day John Hick. Prominent Catholic theologian (with an awesome name) Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote a famous book on the issue: https://www.amazon.com/Dare-Hope-Saved-Short-Discourse/dp/0898702070
As for the second option, this is one that has been very seriously entertained by Christians at various points. One of the most important documents to come out of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) was the Lumen Gentium. (Not to be confused with the Lumen from The Strain) Lumen Gentium declares that:
>Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.
(Lumen Gentium can be found here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html )
This is also an issue that many protestant theologians have thought seriously about. (Although until at least the 17th century, the official Lutheran position was that all people had heard the Gospel, since Jesus in Acts says to the disciples that "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." (Acts 1:8) ) There have been various proposals from more or less serious theologians, such as that Jesus during the three days spent with the dead preached to them, thus offering a path to salvation by hearing the gospel to those already dead.
>If belief in Christianity was required, the vast majority of the world's population that lived from 30 AD to 2018 would go to Hell.
Those who view belief in Christianity as required tend also to view going to hell as the default option for members of a sinful humanity. That is, to them, the alternative to Christianity would not be everybody going to heaven, but everybody going to hell. As such, the scenario you describe definitely seems preferable, even as the best of two really bad scenarios for humanity.
>If Christianity is not required, then what is the point of being a Christian? If it is easy, if you enjoy being Christian, then no problem. But what if it is hard? Your motivation begins to fade once you realize it is not required.
You seem to assume that the only viable motivation for being a Christian is the expectation of hedonist rewards. Pleasure is not the only reason to do things, and it is not the only goal with which we act in our everyday lives. For example, there is the goal of truth. If the doctrines of Christianity are true, then that should by itself be a reason to believe them. Another reason might be gratitude. If God has created a world where everyone goes to heaven, then that seems to be a pretty good reason to display (authentic) gratitude towards God. Following God's commands and worshipping God seems to be pretty good ways of expressing such gratitude. I'm sure there are many other potential reasons.
I believe in the reality of the possibility, but I have a hope based in a merciful God that it is not actualized.
Basically, my answer is go read your von Balthasar
Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?
http://www.amazon.com/Dare-Hope-Saved-Short-Discourse/dp/0898702070
It has some of the longest sentences I have ever read and is pretty deep from my view but it is a good book for thought on the subject.
> Sorry again for the delay and length of the response, that was a pretty dense article for somebody who has been out of the game for a while.
Forgive me but your nihilist flair and admission of a Protestant past makes me ask for some clarification: Do you have a problem with the Catholic view and/or Protestant view of predestination? Is such doctrine a reason your now identify as a nihilist? I took a long journey like that in the past.
I once read a book titled: Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? With a Short Discourse on Hell. I thought it was a good but difficult read and may enlighten you further if this is a huge stumbling block for you.
Looking at some of your responses to others the crux of the matter seems to be; if/why God saves some and not all is incompatible with an all loving/knowing...;? I am not sure what you are after as a nihilist but it seems clear Catholics and Protestants look at predestination very differently. I have never thought of my or anyone's salvation as predestined. I/all must cooperate with grace and mercy. If I (anyone) fail or refuse to cooperate I am assured of nothing despite my Baptism or lack thereof.
The only references to conditional predestination I have come across in Catholic theology that I can think of is blaspheming the Holy Spirit and the last of the 15 promises of the Blessed Virgin Mary. One destination is hell and the other is heaven, but both are still conditional to an act of will on our part.
There was a Polish Catholic nun who died in 1938 at the age of 33 from tuberculosis; she had mystical visions of heaven, and she records in her diary visions and conversations with Jesus.
> 1728
> Write: I am Thrice Holy, and detest the smallest sin. I cannot love a soul which is stained with sin; but when it repents, there is no limit to My generosity toward it. My mercy embraces and justifies it. With My mercy, I pursue sinners along all their paths, and My Heart rejoices when they return to Me. I forget the bitterness with which they fed My Heart and rejoice at their return.
> Tell sinners that no one shall escape My Hand; if they run away from My merciful Heart, they will fall into My Just Hands. Tell sinners that I am always waiting for them, that I listen intently to the beating of their heart…. When will it beat for Me?
> Write, that I am speaking to them through their remorse of conscience, through their failures and sufferings, through thunderstorms, through the voice of the Church. And if they bring all My graces to naught, I begin to be angry with them, leaving them alone and giving them what they want.
God wants all souls to be saved but we have a part to play in our salvation.
> A Certain Moment, May 12, 1935
> 424
> In the evening, I just about got into bed, and I fell asleep immediately. Though I fell asleep quickly, I was awakened even more quickly. A little child came and woke me up. The child seemed about a year old, and I was surprised it could speak so well, as children of that age either do not speak or speak very indistinctly. The child was beautiful beyond words and resembled the Child Jesus, and he said to me, Look at the sky. And when I looked at the sky I saw the stars and the moon shining. Then the child asked me, Do you see this moon and these stars? When I said yes, he spoke these words to me, These stars are the souls of faithful Christians, and the moon is the souls of religious. Do you see how great the difference is between the light of the moon and the light of the stars? Such is the difference in heaven between the soul of a religious and the soul of a faithful Christian. And he went on to say that, True greatness is in loving God and in humility.
> 425
> Then I saw a soul which was being separated from its body amid great torment. O Jesus, as I am about to write this, I tremble at the sight of the horrible things that bear witness against him….. I saw the souls of little children and those of older ones, about nine years of age, emerging from some kind of a muddy abyss. The souls were foul and disgusting, resembling the most terrible monsters and decaying corpses. But the corpses were living and gave loud testimony against the dying soul. And the soul I saw dying was a soul full of the world‟s applause and honors, the end of which are emptiness and sin. Finally a woman came out who was holding something like tears in her apron, and she witnessed very strongly against him.
> 426
> O terrible hour, at which one is obliged to see all one‟s deeds in their nakedness and misery; not one of them is lost, they will all accompany us to God‟s judgment. I can find no words or comparisons to express such terrible things. And although it seems to me that this soul is not damned, nevertheless its torments are in no way different from the torments of hell; there is only this difference: that they will someday come to an end.
> 427
> A moment later, I again saw the child who had awakened me. It was of wondrous beauty and repeated these words to me, True greatness of the soul is in loving God and in humility. I asked the child, “How do you know that true greatness of the soul is in loving God and in humility? Only theologians know about such things and you haven‟t even learned the catechism. So how do you know?” To this He answered, I know; I know all things. And with that, He disappeared.
> 428
> But I could no longer get to sleep; my mind became exhausted by thinking about the things I had seen. O human souls, how late you learn the truth! O abyss of God‟s mercy, pour yourself out as quickly as possible over the whole world, according to what You Yourself have said.
> 741
> Today, I was led by an Angel to the chasms of hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw:...I, Sister Faustina, by the order of God, have visited the abysses of hell so that I might tell souls about it and testify to its existence....But I noticed one thing: that most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a hell. When I came to, I could hardly recover from the fright. How terribly souls suffer there! Consequently, I pray even more fervently for the conversion of sinners. I incessantly plead God‟s mercy upon them. O my Jesus, I would rather be in agony until the end of the world, amidst the greatest sufferings, than offend You by the least sin.
> Why this one instead of any other one?
For starters, Kierkegaard sees the uniqueness of the incarnational narrative: God entering time in abject humility, the Almighty disarming the powers of this world through enacting powerlessness. See especially Practice in Christianity.
> I had a friend die who was Jewish
I’m sorry for your loss.
> and Christianity teaches that anyone who doesn't believe in Christ suffers eternal damnation.
Doctrinally, though, there is nothing inherent to Christianity that commits us to pre-mortem incorporation into Christ. Some Christians have maintained that God may grant some or all nonbelievers a clarifying vision between death and the general resurrection. Others have espoused a view of ‘implicit faith’, so that some nonbelievers are already part of the Church without knowing it, confessing it, etc. Still others hold a universalist position, or at least maintain that it is rational to hope for a universalist conclusion.
Your comment is simply wrong. The Catholic Church, its leaders, and its leading theologians explicitly affirm that people who die as non-believers can attain salvation.
Citing Augustine, Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 endorsed the idea of salvation for non-believers. See the Zenit article, "Nonbelievers Too Can Be Saved, Says Pope," as well as the text of the general audience in which the comments were made.
One of the greatest Catholic theologians of the 20th century, Hans urs von Balthasar (who died shortly before he was to be made a cardinal) proposed that, within the Catholic theological tradition, it is entirely possible for Catholics to hope that all will be saved and that hell is, in fact, empty. He authored a book titled, "Dare We Hope that All Men Be Saved?" (spoiler alert: yes).
Cardinal Avery Dulles, writing in First Things, summarized our position thusly:
>The universal evidences of the divine, under the leading of grace, can give rise to a rudimentary faith that leans forward in hope and expectation to further manifestations of God’s merciful love and of his guidance for our lives. By welcoming the signs already given and placing their hope in God’s redeeming love, persons who have not heard the tidings of the gospel may nevertheless be on the road to salvation. If they are faithful to the grace given them, they may have good hope of receiving the truth and blessedness for which they yearn...
>Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.
> But Catholicism seems to have better answers with more room for interpretation for them (for example: universal or purgatorial reconciliationism).
Catholicism doesn't teach (and will never teach) as dogma universalism--but we don't bar the possibility. See, e.g. Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?.
Well, most Christians worldwide are Catholics, and yes, it's Catholic teaching that it's possible for atheists to be saved.
> Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.
Further reading:
The assumption under which this argument functions is that others are in hell. So "maximal happiness" would be "as much happiness as is possible, even though some other people, not being united to God, are in hell."
Edit: wording. In any case I do hope that there are very few people in hell; indeed it is possible in Catholic theology to speculate that all might be saved.
https://www.amazon.com/Dare-Hope-Saved-Short-Discourse/dp/0898702070
No, merely observing there's an apparent contradiction isn't anything special. I just called them "uber Trads" because even though Barron has made similar statements before for years in public forums, it's only recently that people have begun to "call him out" on it, specifically in "uber Trad" circles.
Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote a book on that very topic, so I'm sure that if people were really interested in merely obtaining information about this apparent contradiction, they'd have ample resources, both in the book and in the discussions and controversy surrounding it.
Joseph Ratzinger, in an early article called The New Pagans and The Church also suggested a way to bridge the contradiction.