What is Reddit's opinion of Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? With a Short Discourse on Hell?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

Yeah, there's a line between hope and belief and I'm not 100% sure that "belief" is allowed -- I haven't finished reading von Balthasar's book. That's one reason I couch my statements as "insofar as possible" or "(perhaps) believe".

"Hope" I think we can absolutely affirm. "Belief" may be too strong, but I'm not sure.

> 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?.

Some argue that existence is ultimately good, so God continually sustaining your existence is still preferable to your annihilation. Still others argue that it's not outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy that all will be saved (in the Catholic view, that would be that all people would undergo purification post-death, but few or none would go to Hell).

See, for example, Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar's Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? That is, it's permissible to hope that all will be saved (in the above view, the person being scorched by God's love would eventually be turned around, in essence making his experience Purgatory, not Hell), but we would (and will) never teach it as doctrine, because Christians are still instructed to work out our salvation "with fear and trembling," and we're given harsh warnings from Christ Himself about following His commandments. I hope von Balthasar is right, but I won't change the way I act or talk about the Gospel based on that hope.

We still hold out the possibility that someone could conceivably reject God for all eternity, totally and completely, making Hell (or at least annihilation) a logical necessity if we're to believe in free will.

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.

>This leads me to two possible conclusions: 1. Christianity is not true. 2. Christianity is true, but being a Christian is not required to go to Heaven. It is more about being a good person that gets you to heaven. And you don't need religion to be a good person. This verse possibly backs it up: John 3:17 - "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." 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. Sounds like condemning the world from a cruel God. Not saving the world from a loving God.

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.

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.

I'm a believer in purgatorial universal reconciliation. I'll see what I can do with your questions.

1 - PUR (Purgatorial Universal Reconciliation) isn't really a denomination. The belief can actually be held in many different Christian denominations. So really it is something that isn't denomination specific.

2 - http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/pdf/Hope_Beyond_Hell_Unabridged.pdf - Please see Appendix I for scripture references. This whole .pdf is an excellent resource on this subject. I highly suggest reading it.

3 - Origen himself wasn't really condemned as a heretic. There were some beliefs that were partly his, and partly from his disciples/followers, that were condemned. Origen himself was a genius of a man and I believe his teachings on Apocatastasis were brilliant, as well as most of his work.

4 - Possible? Sure. I mean I don't believe there will be any who will remain unsaved, but I would be foolish to completely discount the possibility.

5 - I don't believe in a libertarian free will. To people who use this line of argumentation I usually try to supply an analogy. Something like this: Say there's a blind man standing before two different paths. On the left is a path that leads to a paradise but it goes through a small patch of jungle that sounds really scary. On the right is a path that leads of a cliff, but it is filled with happy bird song and the fluttering of butterflies. The blind man is given the choice of choosing his path. Since he can't see he tries to trust the senses he has and goes with the happy sounding path, which sadly leads to a cliff that he falls off of. Now, would it be so bad if before given the option the blind man's blindness was healed so he could clearly see the choice available? This is how it is with man. We are blinded by sin, so the clear path to God seems like a bad idea. Once that sin is removed it doesn't really matter what obstacle lies in the way we will go down the path to the paradise with an all good God. There's really no good reason why we would instead choose death.

6 - I already gave a link to the book "Hope Beyond Hell", I think Gerry Beauchemin is an amazing man and great writer. Someone else to check out is L. Ray Smith or http://www.bibletruths.com. His eschatology is a bit off, and he's pretty brash in his writing, but there is some really awesome stuff on his page and in his writings. Two other people who aren't exactly universalists, but who should still be read, are Hans Urs von Balthasar (Roman Catholic) and Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev. Here are the relevant books by them on this subject:

Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? With a Short Discourse on Hell by Hans Urs van Balthasar

Christ the Conqueror of Hell: The Descent into Hades from an Orthodox Perspective by Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev

If you have any other questions just let me know. I hope this helps! Read "Hope Beyond Hell", it's awesome.

That's why the Catholics talk about nonbaptized babies going to heaven.

https://www.amazon.com/Dare-Hope-Saved-Short-Discourse/dp/0898702070

>Meanwhile most humans to have ever lived are sent to Hell instead

This is not a given at all. The range of permissible Catholic theological opinions on this matter is so broad as to permit works such as master theologian Hans urs von Balthasar's Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? (spoiler alert: yes).

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.