Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?

Last night was week #9 of 10 for my Theology II class at Ashland Theological Seminary.  The evening presented one of the more interesting challenges in my theological education thus far.  Our assignment was two-fold: First, we were to  read Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved? by Hans Urs von Balthasar.  Second, we were to come prepared for a formal debate.  The proposition in the affirmative? That Christians should hope that all men be saved. 

There were a few secondary wrinkles that made this assignment even more interesting.  I am in a very small class of only six students.  So there is no place to hide.  We were divided up into two teams of three students.  Our position would be determined by a coin toss.  That meant that we had to prepare for both sides of the debate and that we wouldn't know until we showed up exactly which side we would be on.  Finally, at the end of the evening, we were required to turn in our own individual reports arguing our personal viewpoint on the issue, which very well could have been the opposite of what we had just argued in class.

By virtue of the flip of a nickel, my team was placed in the affirmative position.  That meant that I had to argue convincingly and from Scripture why we should hope for the salvation of all men.  Want to know what I really thought?  Want to see my debate prep?  Click "continue reading" to see a reproduction of my work.

This document is a summary of some of the issues that this student has wrestled with as a result of reading Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved” by Hans Urs Von Balthasar.  The challenge for this student will be to keep the paper to the requested four to five page limit.  If one could see this student’s copy of the book, he would see it to be well worn with many notes written in the columns.  While this theologian would disagree with many of the points made by Von Balthasar, the work required in preparation for this paper and for the debate that will follow in class was well worth the effort.

Before moving to specifics, this writer would note some general comments about the book.  First, it was a difficult read.  Beyond the difficulty of the deep theological issues that the topics of hell and judgment and salvation raise, the writing style was difficult.  The book is a translation, so the English reader is not reading in the original language.  The writing style itself is dense, with long paragraphs that beg to be divided up.  The order of the book is all wrong.  The first two chapters plunge the reader into a debate without knowing the issues, the parameters, nor who is on which side.  The second part of the book, “A Short Discourse on Hell,” would have been a much preferred opening as it laid out nicely the very issues that are then to be argued.  While the author wrote the Short Discourse second, any good editor would have provided the last part first.  The merciful course instructor, knowing this, could make such a suggestion to future classes.

There are many presumptions that Von Balthasar makes in his book that, if one were not to grant, would dash his conclusions, or at the very least, make them much more challenging to hold.  On page 29 Balthasar writes, “It is generally known that, in the New Testament, two series of statements run along side by side in such a way that a synthesis of both is neither permissible nor achievable.”  This student would challenge that presumption.  It would be more accurate to state that there are two statements that run along side by side that appear not to be congruous.  If one views the Bible as God’s self revelation and, in some way, believes God to be the author, then such incongruous statements need to be reconciled.  This, indeed, is often the difficult job of one who pursues a systematic theology.  

And, in fact, Balthasar himself is inconsistent with his own presumption of “un-synthesis” by immediately working to synthesize the statements of Jesus speaking, on the one hand, of people being lost for all eternity and, on the other hand, of all men being saved.  How does he synthesize such seemingly opposing statements?  By the unlikely explanation of a pre-Easter Jesus and a post-Easter Jesus.  The pre-Easter Jesus is harsher, more judgmental, more ready to condemn some men to Hell, while the post-Easter Jesus, who apparently in Bathasar’s mind has now been to Hell in what is known as a “Holy Saturday,” is more likely to know that Hell is only a possibility and not a certainty.  This student would disagree with this pre- and post-Easter Jesus distinction as well as with the presumption that Christ went to Hell on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

Even Balthasar immediately seems to back tread: “That this distinction can be drawn only with caution, and not categorically, is obvious...”  The reader wants to cry out, “Please find a place to land.  Please be consistent in your argument.”  If the Bible student finds a place where the post-Easter Jesus is making a more certain statement about judgment (Mark 16:16, “Whoever does not believe will be condemned,”) or a place where the pre-Easter Jesus is making a less harsh, less condemning statement (John 12:47, “I did not come to judge the world but to save the world,”) Balthasar would respond: “The distinction cannot be drawn categorically.”

Another presumption basic to Balthasar’s argument - so presumptuous that he fails to recognize it by definition at any place in his book - is the presumption of unlimited atonement.  He presumes that everyone would simply grant the premise that Christ’s atoning work on the cross is potentially available to all.  Certainly there are many scriptures that seem to point in this direction, and there appears to be (to this historian and theologian) a majority opinion both now and in history of the presumption of unlimited atonement.  For the reformed theologian in particular, unlimited atonement is not a presumption at all.  The reformed theologian would ask, “Is Christ a real Savior or merely a ‘potential’ Savior?”  In multiple places throughout the book, this student wrote: “Not a problem for the reformed theologian.”  For example, Balthasar writes much about the distinction between knowing and hoping, again with the assumption that one really cannot “know” whether he or she is saved or not.  Any good Calvinist would argue that one can indeed know on the basis of the power of the cross and Christ’s work upon the cross - NOT upon the basis of one’s own work or effort.  On page 27 Balthasar even pens the words considered heresy to Reformed theologians: “the ultimate futility of the cross.” (Italics added.)

Another argument raised by Balthasar is the testimony of great men and women of the faith, who wished themselves condemned if it might save the soul of another man or woman.  (See chapter 6, pages 97-113.)  He opens his argument with the statement by Paul in Romans 9:3 that Paul could wish himself “accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of [his] brothers, [his] kinsmen according to the flesh.”  Balthasar then proceeds with the testimonies of remarkable saints throughout history uttering self-sacrificial words in hope of others.  Balthasar notes one godly woman of the church, “who declared herself ready to lay down her own life ‘a thousand times a day’, to go without heaven if just one single soul could thereby be saved.” (p.107)  Balthasar’s argument, therefore, would be this: if other Christians, now considered great, and even the Apostle Paul himself wished upon themselves personal suffering in the hopes of saving others, should we not then also hope that all men be saved?

Two statements must be made about the wishes for personal hell in hopes of securing another’s salvation.  First, in regards to Paul’s statement in Romans 9:3, numerous word studies of the sentence, “ηὐχόμην γὰρ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς,” (For I could wish that I myself were accursed) have been made.  The word ηὐχόμην, meaning “I could wish” or “I was wishing” is written in the imperfect tense and “has a tentative force, implying the wish begun, but stopped at the outset by some antecedent consideration which renders it impossible, so that, practically, it was not entertained at all” (Word Studies in the New Testament.)  That this word ηὐχόμην has an ambiguous meaning is also noted by Dunn in the Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 38b, Wuest’s Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, by John Witmer in the Bible Knowledge Commentary, and even by Robert Mounce in the New American Commentary on Romans.  Further, when one considers that this statement by Paul is made within the context of Romans 9, where the whole intent of Paul’s argument is that God’s sovereign choice will have primacy, that God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy, one strains at the incredulity of Balthasar to even raise this quote to support his argument.

Secondly, the testimonies of many well-meaning people throughout the centuries, that they would be willing to suffer if it might mean the salvation of other people, might be well-intentioned, but is unfortunate and demonstrates a lack of understanding of a crucial theological imperative.  In the margin of page 107 of Balthasar’s book this student wrote these words.  “These actually make me angry for they suggest that somehow the sacrifice of God’s Son might somehow be inadequate.  Would God the Father EVER respond, “I’ll not save this person on the basis of my Son’s sacrifice, but I will because of yours?’  Is this not an affront to Christ?”

This student despairs that his last page is upon him, for he has only just now warmed up to the exercise.  Repeatedly questions are asked and assumptions are made that should simply not be an issue.  For example, in Blondel’s Dilemma, this question is asked (p. 117):  “Can man, by virtue of his actions (which can also include renunciation and suffering), bring himself to final perfection, or does he require for this a (divine) form of assistance that he cannot provide for himself or even claim as something owed to him?”  Must this be asked?  Is not Paul MOST clear on this very point?  Or this (p.166): “Along with words of threat, Holy Scripture also contains many words of hope for all, and that to transform the former into objective facts would mean that the latter would lose all sense and force.”  So we take what we like or agree with and call them facts, but ignore other words?  Is it really that impossible to reconcile opposing Scripture verses without losing “all sense and force?”  Or this (p. 164): “I think that the most serious thing that exists is not God’s punitive justice but rather his love.”  For one to argue that one aspect of God is “the most serious thing” and that another characteristic of God is not is to be in grave danger of making God an idol - the hopes and wishes that we want to make Him to be, rather than the recognition of the disconcerting parts we find difficult to reconcile.  There are many qualities of God the theological student will struggle to reconcile: God’s omnipotence with His handling of evil, God’s choice of some and His rejection of others, God’s three persons with His oneness, God’s unchanging nature with His change of mind, God’s immanence with His transcendence.  The humble theologian learns the need to think more, to be open-minded, to admit the mysteries of God, but never, ever to state that this characteristic of God is “the most serious thing.”

Debate Preparation for March 3rd Class

Arguments in Favor	Arguments Against
Proposition that we as Christians should hope that all men be saved.	No, our hope for ultimate salvation is limited, since we know, indeed it is dogma, that a number of men/women languish in Hell.
There is a difference between hoping for all men to be saved and universalism.  One may affirm that universalism is rejected and still hope for all men to be saved.	To hope that all men be saved requires one to hope for universal redemption. apokatastasis
God Himself wishes all men to be saved according to Scriptures such as John 3:16, 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9	These Scriptures speak of God’s desires or God’s will, but does not require that such result will be the case.
God so loved the world... that whoever believes.  Jn 3:16	Requires “whoever” to believe.  Does not say that all men will believe.  Yes, God loves the world.
(God our Savior) desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Tim. 2:4.  Surely if God desires all people to be saved, why cannot men desire the same thing?	One must distinguish between the desire of wishing for something and the hope of believing in the reality of it.  To “hope” that all men be saved would be to wish for what is not promised in Scripture.  “All people” in 2:4 could be referring to all people who will be saved, especially since the letter is written to believers.  Paul, especially, would use “all people” as in Gentiles too, not just Jewish people.
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9  God is good and gracious and loving.  Should we be anything less?	This same author who penned 2 Peter 3:9 also wrote in 2:3 that “Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.”  The overall thrust of the letter is that some will be condemned and others will be saved.  Is it right to hope for the 3:9 and not recognize the reality of 2:3?  One can also argue the difference between the decretive will (the sovereign efficacious will of God, which cannot be resisted), the preceptive will (the precepts, commands of God, which can be resisted), and the will of disposition (that which pleases, delights God and can be resisted.)  This most closely resembles the will of disposition, which means it can be resisted.  What God wishes for does not always happen.
Balthasar points out that many others have agreed with him throughout history, wishing that all men might be saved. (p. 168)	That others agree with you is by itself never the decisive argument.  What does God say?  Does He agree with you?
Saints such as Teresa of Avila have prayed for compassion for all men.	The Psalms teaches us that we may pray for anything.  God allows this.  Praying is not hoping.
Jesus’ atonement is wasted upon some if we do not hope them to be saved.  Shall we argue that Christ’s atonement is only for some and not for others?  To whom would you ever refuse hope on the basis of Christ’s atoning work on the cross?	For reformed theologians, Christ’s atonement can be assumed to be limited.  Christ is not a potential savior of all but a real savior of some.  For those not reformed, Christ’s unlimited atonement must not be twisted into universalism, which the church has rejected as heresy.
Yes, Jesus does speak of Hell.  But there is a difference between the pre-Easter Jesus, who talks about the possibility and the post-Easter, who provides hope.	Scriptures, especially from Jesus, that talk about the certainty of Hell and that people will be sent there.  The distinction between the pre-Easter and post-Easter Jesus is not supported in Scripture (eg. Mark 16:16 and John 12:47.)
Matthew 25 is an example of a pre-Easter Jesus.  Once he died and resurrected, he also then provided hope for those destined to hell.  Why can we not also hope this way?	Matthew 25 speaks of the certainty of the coming judgment day where the goats (condemned people) will go away into eternal punishment.  We should not hope against what Jesus prophesied.
The NT is filled with references to all. John 12:31, Titus 2:11, 2 Peter 3:9, Heb 9:28, Rom 11:32 Rom 11:26, Col 1:20, Eph 1:10, Phil 2:10.  Without ever going so far as to teach universalism, isn’t it possible, just on the basis of these “all” passages, just to hope that all men might be saved?	The distinction between hoping for all men to be saved and believing in the doctrine of apokatastasis is so slim as to be non-existent.  How is it even logically possible to hope for something that you believe is doctrinally not possible.
To argue that one may not hope for all men to be saved merely on the basis of presuming doctrinal error is in reality to hope that some men be in hell.	Not at all.  This is anathema.  We believe what Scripture teaches.  Scripture teaches that people will be in hell, so we accept it.  This is very different than hoping for it.
14 passages in the NT speak of the word hell, mostly words by Jesus in the gospels. Matt 5:22, 5:29, 5:30, 10:28, 16:18, 18:9, 23:15, 23:33, 9:43, 9:45, 9:47, Luke 12:5, James 3:6, 2 Peter 2:4.  Not a single one say with certainty that men will be there.  It’s always a warning.  So... why not at least HOPE?	There is a reason why the passages on Hell are present in Scripture AND why they are mostly made by Jesus AND why they are a warning.  Because it is a REAL possibility.  To hope against it would be to hope that what is written about in these 14 passages amount to a FALSE warning, because no person would actually go to hell.
The “hell for others” argument.  It can be taken as a motif running through history of theology that, whenever one fills hell with a “mass damnata” of sinners, on also through some kind of conscious or unconscious trick places oneself on the other side.	Hell psychology is a very real phenomenon.  Admitted.  Hell is also a very real phenomenon.  My inability to place myself there does not mitigate the reality that I might be there someday.
How can one truly affirm that one loves his neighbor, while at the same time not hoping that he and all others escape Hell?	That one can love his neighbor at all is done on the basis of Christ’s love instilled in our hearts.  It’s never through our own ability.  Christians can love all they encounter, yet at the same time realize that not everyone they encounter will escape hell.
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man is simply an allegory with the emphasis to have mercy upon the living.	That Jesus tells the story with such clarity and description (the rich man wanting just a drop of water) should tell us something of the certainty.
Should not, therefore, the parable of Lazarus, horrify one to hope that no one ever experiences such a place?	Should not, therefore, the parable of Lazarus, horrify one to the reality that some will experience such a place?
To hope for all people to be saved would be to protect God from the argument that He no longer loves the damned. (p. 202)	God does not protecting.  Romans 9 makes clear that He will have mercy on whom He has mercy.  The fact that ANY receive mercy is itself the evidence of God’s incredible love.  To state the opposite, that ALL MEN must be saved in order to be loved by God presumes upon God and his love and mercy.  We cannot know as God knows.
Paul himself wished to be accursed and cut off if it might mean salvation for others. Rom. 9:3	The verb “wished” is written in the imperfect tense with a tentative meaning. Ambiguous.  Does not mean Paul really wished this.  He was stopped at the point of doctrine, in the same way that we would wish it if it were possible.  But it’s not.
The “Am I my brother’s keeper?” argument.  We should do everything we can to make certain that no one goes to hell.  I cannot truly do this while at the same time allowing myself NOT to hope.	This is not at all the same thing as Cain and Abel.  Cain was the murderer who excused himself from his sin.  The Christian does not condemn anyone to hell by the failure to hope.
Love hopes all things. 1 Cor. 13:7	A complete misuse of context.  One does not ever force love upon another or it would not be love.  To believe that love wins in the end is to believe that all men will freely choose Christ.  Scripture doesn’t teach this.  History doesn’t support this.