An Orthodox/Catholic Eschatology: The Hopeful Inclusivism of Hans Urs Von Balthasar and Metropolitan...

Rethinking Hell Conference Fuller Seminary, June 2015

An Orthodox/Catholic Eschatology:

The Hopeful Inclusivism of Hans Urs Von Balthasar and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware

Rev. Dr. Brad Jersak1

Introduction

The former monopoly of infernalism2 in Evangelical theology is giving way to a

collegial round table of eschatologies represented at Fuller’s ‘Rethinking Hell’ conference.

The current trend is to distill and transpose the spectrum of ‘traditionalist,’ ‘conditionalist,’

and ‘universalist’ biblical texts into corresponding doctrinal positions. Theologians are

prone to dogmatize the Scriptures they prefer to give priority, and then justify how they

subordinate or marginalize the remainder. That is, we tend to take the raw data of

Scripture, form three columns of texts, and then align ourselves with one of those columns

(often for pre-‐existing theological, philosophical or emotional reasons). This is, in part,

natural and necessary because one cannot easily harmonize the biblical data without

negating or at least subordinating some of the texts. Then opponents typically

counterpunch using those very texts, generating more heat than light. And yet in our

preferential use of point-‐counterpoint data, I believe we prematurely enter the debate and

the quest for ‘a doctrine’ wearing lenses that cannot perceive the role of paradox or bow

before an inscrutable mystery. Yet the mystery itself represents, in fact, a major stream

within the Great Tradition—a possibility that holds our greatest hopes with an open hand. I

am referring here to ‘hopeful inclusivism,’ an eschatology I propose to exegete through the

thought of the Roman Catholic theologian, Hans Urs Von Balthasar and Orthodox

Metropolitan, Kallistos Ware.

1 Brad Jersak (M.A. Biblical Studies, M.Div., Ph.D. theology) was an ordained Mennonite-‐Evangelical-‐Charismatic pastor and church-‐planter for twenty years. He was then chrismated and ordained ‘Reader Irenaeus’ in the Orthodox Church (OCA). After earning a Ph.D. in theology at Bangor University (Wales), he joined the faculty of Westminster Theological Centre (Cheltenham, UK), where he teaches New Testament and Patristics. He spent time in 2014 as a visiting scholar at the University of Nottingham, doing post-‐doc research on kenosis and patristic Christology. He also serves as senior editor of CWR magazine at Plain Truth Ministries, Pasadena, CA. 2 ‘Infernalism’ is the term Hans Urs Von Balthasar used for the doctrine of eternal conscious torment, rather than ‘traditionalism,’ since the latter is a misnomer given the eschatological breadth of both the New Testament and Patristic theology. While infernalism was meant as a descriptor rather than a pejorative, I will hereafter use the abbreviation ‘ECT’ to avoid offence.

That we should consider a theologically sanctioned orthodox perspective from two

iconic theologians within the ‘Mother Church’ tradition—churches representing 1.3 billion

Christians and 2000 years of church tradition—seems to me an obvious given.3 It hasn’t

always been, so I am grateful to Fuller for allowing me to speak for them.

Hans Urs Von Balthasar

Hans Urs Von Balthasar (1905-‐88) was a prolific 20th century Swiss Catholic

theologian. Though not invited to Vatican II, by 1969, Pope Paul VI had named Balthasar to

his International Theological Commission. Along with Josef Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), Henri

de Lubac et al, he co-‐founded the theological journal, Communio (1972) and launched the

Nouvelle Théologie (or ressourcement) movement. His magnum opus was a supposed trilogy

(The Glory of the Lord, Theo-‐Drama, and Theo-‐Logic), published in fifteen volumes!

He has been called Pope John Paul II’s favorite theologian4 and some count Benedict

XVI among his disciples.5 John Paul II named him a cardinal of the Catholic Church in 1988,

but Balthasar passed away in the days just prior to the ceremony. When Ratzinger gave the

homily at his funeral, he explained John Paul’s intention, “What the pope intended to

express by this mark of distinction, and of honor, remains valid. No longer only private

individuals but the Church itself, in its official responsibility, tells us that he is right in what he

teaches of the faith.”6

Beyond the Vatican, Balthasar was also a friend, interlocutor and interpreter of Karl

Barth and has also shown a profound influence on thinkers such as Anglican Archbishop of

3 Not that all in either tradition ascribe to HI—indeed, they may be prominently infernalists—but unlike their Evangelical counterparts, Balthasar and Ware are more likely to be beatified than accused of heresy. Indeed, their position is represented in both Catholic and Orthodox catechisms and well within the bounds of the great creeds. 4 “25 Cardinals From 18 Nations Named by Pope,” Los Angeles Times, May 30, 1988. <http://articles.latimes.com/1988-‐05-‐30/news/mn-‐2459_1_american-‐cardinals>; Stratford Caldecott, “Introduction to Hans Urs Von Balthasar,” <http://www.christendom-‐awake.org/pages/balthasa/introduc.html> 5 On the influence of Balthasar on John Paul II and Benedict’s thought, see Gerard Mannion (ed.), The Vision of John Paul II: Assessing His Thought and Influence (Liturgical Press, 2008), 162-‐168; Henrici, Peter SJ. “A Sketch of von Balthasar’s Life,” David L. Schindler (ed.), Hans Urs von Balthasar: His Life and Work (San Francisco: Communio Books, Ignatius Press, 1991); Karen Kilby, Balthasar: A (Very) Critical Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012); John Allen, “The Word from Rome,” National Catholic Reporter 3.14 (Nov. 28, 2003). <http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word112803.htm>. 6 J. Ratzinger, “Homily at the Funeral Liturgy of Hans Urs Von Balthasar,” David L. Schindler (ed.), Hans Urs von Balthasar: His Life and Work, 295.

Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the Radical Orthodoxy movement (via John Milbank).7

Thus, Balthasar is properly considered one of the most important theologians (Catholic or

otherwise) of the 20th century.

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware

Timothy Ware was raised in the Church of England, but joined the Orthodox Church

when he was 24-‐years-‐old (in 1958). He pilgrimaged to the major Orthodox sites in the East

(including Greece, Mt. Athos and Jerusalem). He also spent time at the Monastery of St. John

the Theologian (at Patmos). In 1966, he was ordained priest and tonsured as monk

Kallistos. That year, he began a 35-‐year tenure at Oxford University, teaching Eastern

Orthodox Studies until his retirement, which only released him to a broader and busier

ministry (to this day). In 1982, he was consecrated as the titular Bishop of Diokleia, and

then in 2007, titular Metropolitan of Diokleia, in the Ecumenical Patriarchate's ‘Archdiocese

of Thyateira and Great Britain.’

His massive written contribution8 includes perennial classics, such as The Orthodox

Church, The Orthodox Way, and Ware’s monumental work as co-‐translator and editor the

four-‐volume (so far) English edition of the Philokalia.9 Some consider him the leading

Orthodox theologian alive today.10 Archbishop (ret.) Lazar Puhalo of the Orthodox Church in

America rightly describes Ware as a “living institution.”

Happily, he has kindly engaged me directly about this paper to ensure I am

representing him aright. In recent correspondence, he wrote,

I am much attracted by the phrase "hopeful inclusivism". The view that I

express in my article 'Dare we hope for the salvation of all?' still remains my

firm conviction. In particular, I would wish to underline the point: we should

not say that all must be saved, for that would be to deny to human beings the

7 Joel Garver, “Hans Urs Von Balthasar,” Joel Garver.com, <http://www.joelgarver.com/writ/theo/balt.htm>. 8 For a partial, but overwhelming sample, see “Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia,” Orthodox Wiki. <http://orthodoxwiki.org/Kallistos_%28Ware%29_of_Diokleia>. 9 Kallistos Ware, G. E. H. Palmer and P. Sherrard, The Philokalia. The Complete Text compiled by St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth (London: Faber & Faber, 1979-‐95), 4 vols. 10 Ancient Faith Radio. <http://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/lectures_by_metropolitan_kallistos_ware>.

freedom of choice; but it is altogether legitimate to hope that all may be

saved. St Isaac the Syrian is right to insist that God's love is inexhaustible. …

I think that von Balthasar and I are in agreement, but it is some time since I read his

statements on this subject.11

Provisional Summary of Hopeful Inclusivism

“Hopeful inclusivism” has become the shared label for two different, but related

ideas. First, there is the hopeful inclusivism represented by John Wesley, whose sermons

indicate he thought it “possible to be justified through Jesus Christ without explicit or

complete knowledge of who he is.”12 This type of hopeful inclusivism is set over against

Pluralist Universalism and Exclusivism.

The second version, proposed in this paper, is a descriptor for the eschatology of

Balthasar, in his book, Dare We Hope that All Men Be Saved?13 and Kallistos Ware, in his

article, “Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All?”14 This type of hopeful inclusivism (hereafter

HI) stands in distinction from ECT, Conditionalism and Christian Universalism, while

nodding to the possibility of all three. Since this distinct position was held by JP2’s ‘favorite

theologian’ and is the published conviction of the Orthodox Church’s ‘leading theologian,’ it

should not be on the margins of the discussion.

At this point, we must leak a provisional definition for ‘hopeful inclusivism’ by each of

these men from their own works.

In Ware’s words,

Our belief in human freedom means that we have no right to

categorically affirm, “All must be saved.” But our faith in God’s love makes us

dare to hope that all will be saved.

Is there anybody there? said the traveler,

Knocking on the moonlit door. 11 Kallistos Ware to Brad Jersak, Feb. 4, 2015. 12 Kevin Jackson, “The Case for Inclusivism,” (Jan. 25, 2012); “Wesley the Inclusivist,” (Jan. 25, 2012) Wesleyan Arminian. <https://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/wesley-‐the-‐inclusivist>. Cf. “The Sermons of John Wesley (1872 edition),” Wesley Center Online, Sermon 69, 106, 125 in which he imagines how pagans, Muslims, Jews and even Roman Catholics might benefit from Christ’s saving work. <http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-‐wesley/the-‐sermons-‐of-‐john-‐wesley-‐1872-‐edition/the-‐sermons-‐of-‐john-‐wesley-‐thomas-‐jacksons-‐numbering>. 13 Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Dare We Hope that All Men Be Saved? with a short discourse on Hell, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988. 14 Bishop Kallistos Ware, “Dare we hope for the salvation of all?” The Inner Kingdom (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 193-‐215.

Hell exists as a possibility because free will exists. Yet, trusting in the

inexhaustible attractiveness of God’s love, we venture to express the hope—it

is no more than a hope—that in the end, like Walter de la Mare’s Traveller, we

shall find that there is nobody there. Let us leave the last word, then, with St

Silouan of Mount Athos: “Love could not bear that … We must pray for all.”15

Similarly, Balthasar, who quotes his colleagues when defending his position most

clearly, writes:

Karl Rahner is … right when he says: “We have to preserve alongside

one another, without balancing them up, the principle of the power of God’s

general will for salvation, the redemption of all men through Christ, the duty to

hope for the salvation of all men and the principle of the real possibility of

becoming eternally lost.” And as far as preaching the Gospel is concerned, it is

necessary that, “along with clear emphasis on hell as the possibility of

permanent hardening, there should also be fully equal stress on

encouragement to hopeful and trusting surrender to God’s infinite mercy.” The

certainty that a number of men, especially unbelievers, must end in hell we

can leave to Islam, but we must likewise contrast Christian “universality of

redemption to Jewish salvation-‐particularism.” Hermann-‐Josef Lauter poses

the uneasy question: “Will it really be all men who allow themselves to be

reconciled? No theology or prophecy can answer this question. But love hopes

all things (1 Cor. 13:7). It cannot do otherwise than to hope for the

reconciliation of all men in Christ. Such unlimited hope is, from the Christian

standpoint, not only permitted but commanded.”16

We can now summarize the basic perspective of HI before unpacking its various

paradoxes and examining its mysteries. Balthasar and Ware agree on the following points17:

1. We cannot presume to know that all will be saved or that any will not be saved.

2. The revelation of God in Christ includes both:

15 Ware, “DWH,” 215. 16 Balthasar, DWH, 212-‐13. Citing K. Rahner, “Hölle,” Sacramentum Mundi (Freiburg, II, 1968), 737-‐38; Rahner, “Erlösung,” Sa. Mundi, 101; H-‐J Lauter, Pastoralblatt (Colgne, 1982), 101. 17 Adapted from Brad Jersak, Her Gates Will Never Be Shut: Hope, Hell and the New Jerusalem (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 10.

a. real warnings of the possibility of divine judgment for some (because of man’s

inviolable will), and also,

b. real hope of the possibility that redemption may extend to all (because of God’s

unfailing love).

3. We not only dare hope that God’s mercy would finally triumph over judgment for the

salvation of all; the love of God obligates us to hope, pray and preach God’s everlasting

love as a means to that end.

From this first glimpse of their eschatological spire, we now segue to Balthasar and

Ware’s main supporting pillars and corresponding paradoxes:

1. the Scriptural pillar: the paradox of universalist and judgment texts;

2. the theological pillar: the paradox of divine love and human freedom, and the

monistic nature of divine judgment;

3. the patristic tradition: the heresy and orthodoxy of apokatastasis;

4. the mystical-‐monastic tradition: revelations of post-‐mortem torment and

universal salvation;

5. the catechetical tradition: eternal separation and prayers for all

I. The Scriptural Pillar: the paradox of universalist and judgment texts

A. Ware on the New Testament. Both theologians portray and model HI as holding

two strands of Scripture in tension. Ware says,

It is not difficult to find texts in the New Testament that warn us, in what seem

to be unambiguous terms, of the prospect of never-‐ending torment in hell. …

Yet these and other “hell-‐fire” texts need to be interpreted in the light of

different, less frequently cited passages from the New Testament, which point

rather in a “universalist” direction.18

Of the first strand, he cites the words of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels:

Mark 9:43, 47-‐48. “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for

you to enter life maimed than to have two hands and to go to hell, to the

unquenchable fire... And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear it out; it is

18 Ware, “DWH,” 195-‐96.

better for you to enter the Kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes

and to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not

quenched” (cf. Mt 18:8-‐9; Is 66:24).

Matthew 25:41 (from the story of the sheep and the goats). “Then He will say

to those at His left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from Me into the

eternal fire.’”

Luke 16:26 (the words of Abraham to the rich man in hades). “Between you

and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass

from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.”

While these passages employ metaphors not to be taken literally, they nevertheless

stand as dire, deadly serious warnings. On the other hand, Ware reminds us of a second

strand, beginning with the Pauline texts that portray a parallel between the universality of

sin alongside the universality of redemption.19

1 Cor. 15:22 – (Paul’s analogy between the first and the second Adam): “As all

die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.”

Rom. 5:18 – “Just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one

man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.”

Rom. 11:32 – “God has imprisoned all in disobedience, that He may be

merciful to all” (11:32).

In these texts, Ware says, Paul suggests more than a mere possibility; he expresses a

confident expectation. He does not say, “All may perhaps be made alive,” but rather, “All will

be made alive.”20

To these he adds two more universalist passages. First, Origen and Gregory’s key

text, 1 Cor. 15:28. Christ will reign, says Paul, until,

“God has put all things in subjection under His feet … And when all things are

made subject to the Son, then the Son himself will also be made subject to the

Father, who has subjected all things to Him; and thus God will be all in all.”

For Ware, the phrase “all in all” (panta en pasin) “definitely suggests not ultimate

dualism but an ultimate reconciliation.”21

19 Ware, “DWH,” 1967-‐97. 20 Ware, “DWH,” 196-‐97.

He also alludes to John Wesley’s inclusivist favorite from the pastoral epistles: “It is

the will of God our Savior... that all should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth”

(1 Tim 2:4). Ware admits that the passage does not guarantee the salvation of all, but he

asks, “Are we to assert, however, that God’s will is going to be eventually frustrated? As

before, we are being encouraged at least to hope for universal salvation.”22

B. Balthasar on the New Testament. Hans Urs Von Balthasar begins with the duality

of New Testament texts along nearly identical lines. He 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; the first series speaks of being lost for eternity; the second, of

God’s will, and ability, to save all men.23

Balthasar likes to address the NT statements by stringing together one catena after

another, creating an impressive chain of universalist passages that we cannot reproduce

here. However we can synopsize his use of these texts into three major points he wishes to

make.

1. Pre-‐ versus post-‐resurrection perspectives. First, very cautiously, Balthasar

distinguishes particular words that can be attributed to the pre-‐Easter Jesus from those

which represent a clear post-‐Easter perspective. The pre-‐Easter synoptic Jesus uses

language and images familiar to Jews at that time, “in keeping with their understanding, as a

trial with a two-‐fold outcome.24 In their NT context, these OT and late Jewish motifs are

radicalized as Jesus presents them, not as a report of a someday event, but as a “disclosure

of the situation in which the person addressed now truly exists.”25 That is, Christ reveals

that even now, his listeners stand before their Judge in existential krisis. Their trial consists

in being confronted with a potentially irrevocable decision. The question is not, “What will

happen later?” but “What will you do now?” Christ further escalates matters by making the

criteria for judgment (i.) unrelenting love and compassion for one’s neighbor, displayed in

Jesus (as in Matt. 25 and Luke 16), and (ii.) belief in God’s only begotten Son (as in John 5

21 Ware, “DWH,” 197. 22 Ware, “DWH,” 197. 23 Balthasar, DWH, 29. 24 Balthasar, DWH, 29. 25 Balathasar, DWH, 32.

and 8). Those who falter in the face of this high-‐stakes challenge face ‘the outer darkness,’

‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:51; 25:30).

On the other hand, the NT also reveals a post-‐resurrection perspective that affirms

divine judgment, but also ministers words of consolation and encouragement, even

alongside the most extreme threats (e.g., Heb. 6:4ff; 10:26ff). Within the post-‐resurrection

perspective (largely the Johannine and Pauline corpus), Balthasar identifies a sweeping

array of universalist verses. Alongside the gravity of the minatory passages, Balthasar

claims, “This does not hinder the fact that the universalist series of texts possess an

ineradicable gravity.”26 This leads to his second point:

2. Objective versus subjective redemption. On this point, Balthasar raises the many ‘all’

passages within the NT, noting how his opponents minimize their force by the objective-‐

subjective distinction. He counters,

The “all” that recurs again and again in them cannot be limited to a merely

“objective” redemption that would simply leave open the matter of acceptance

by particular subjects.27

He argues that if “God our Savior … desires all men to be saved” and if “Christ Jesus …

gave himself as a ransom for all,” (1 Tim. 2:4-‐5), then this is exactly why Paul exhorts the

Church to make “supplications, prayers, intercessions … for all men” (1 Tim. 2:1). Are our

hopes and prayers too broad if applied to ‘all’? Balthasar answers from the same epistle,

“We have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those

who believe” (1 Tim. 4:10). Those of God’s household may assure themselves in a special

way, but what is expressed for those beyond our walls? This Scripture declares the hope set

on the Savior of all.

Again, Balthasar confronts the objective/subjective distinction:

Once again, distinctions could be brought in here: between an absolute and a

conditional will for salvation on the part of God, between an objective

redemption through Christ and its subjective acceptance. But at least two texts

remain above and beyond these distinctions.28

26 Balthasar, DWH, 35. 27 Balthasar, DWH, 35. 28 Balthasar, DWH, 39.

Here he refers to the passage in Rom. 5 and knits another lengthy catena from John’s

Gospel. On the Romans text, he emphasizes a crescendo through the nine occurrences of ‘all’

to the exultant predominance of grace.

The whole passage gradually intensifies, into a true hymn of triumph in

which, through a continual “much more” the surpassed state of balance that

distinguished the previous, two-‐sided judgment rises to a perduring “all the

more,” “above and beyond everything.”29

Turning to John’s Gospel, Balthasar cites Jesus’ promise, “And I, when I am lifted up,

will draw all men to myself (12:32). Launching from there, he floods us with texts on the

universality of the divine will for salvation.30 His Johannine study raises his third point.

3. Dualistic versus monistic judgment. For Balthasar, the pre-‐Easter dualism of two

places (heaven/hell; inclusion/exclusion) must be held in tension with the post-‐Easter

perspective of a monistic judgment, because:

“Judgment” is nothing other than love (and love is “truth”). That applies

also to the function of the Holy Spirit in “convincing” the world of the

truth of Christ (16:8) … who guides us “into all the truth” of Christ and

the Father (16:13-‐15). … “So that the world may believe (17:21); so that

the world may know” (17:23).31

Balthasar summarizes his sketch of the NT, gathering these points to say,

The predominantly pre-‐Easter aspects cannot be merged with the post-‐Easter

ones into a readily comprehensible system; that the fear of the possibility of

being lost, as call for by the first series of texts, is by no means superseded, in

favor of a knowledge of the outcome of judgment, by those of the second

aspect; but that the Old Testament image of judgment—which is … strictly

29 Balthasar, DWH, 40. 30 John 6:37-‐39 with 17:2; 3:16; 5:24; 6:40; 17:6. 31 Balthasar, DWH, 43. Ware goes into detail about the twofold meaning of ‘world’ as that which wills unbelief and those Christ came to save.

two-‐sided—may well have become clearer (the Judge is the Savior of all), and

… as a result, hope outweighs fear.32

I will reintroduce Metropolitan Ware to round out the NT pillar and make way for the

next—the theological pillar—in which we address the issue of divine sovereignty and

human freedom.

Some passages present us with a challenge. God invites but does not compel. I

possess freedom of choice: am I going to say “yes” or “no” to the divine

invitation? The future is uncertain. To which destination am I personally

bound? Might I perhaps be shut out from the wedding feast? But there are

other passages which insist with equal emphasis upon divine sovereignty. God

cannot be ultimately defeated. “All shall be well,” and in the end God will

indeed be “all in all.” Challenge and sovereignty: such are the two strands in

the New Testament, and neither strand should be disregarded.33

II. The Theological Pillar: the paradox of divine love and human freedom, and the

nature of divine judgment

As with the NT witness, HI’s second, theological pillar presents us with a paradox.

Two tenets of Christian orthodoxy—though challenged by some significant Christian

theologians—stand, for now, in an uneasy tension.

1. Divine Love: That an all-‐powerful and all-‐loving God wills for all to be saved … his

grace is sufficient and efficacious. Or as Robin Parry has said, ‘If God can save us

(because he is all-‐powerful) and if he wants to save us (because he is all-‐loving),

then he will save us.’

2. Human Freedom: That in God’s hospitable love, he operates by consent rather than

coercion and will not violate human freedom, even that freedom which rejects his

saving love.

Along with these principles, HI posits three corollaries:

32 Balthasar, DWH, 44. 33Ware, “DWH,” 297.

There is no possibility that God’s mercy will not endure forever; that his

lovingkindness shall not be everlasting; or that his love should ever fail.

Simultaneously, however unlikely, there is a real possibility (in principle) that some

may persist in their rejection of the love of God, perhaps even when that will is freed

to behold Christ as he is.

The love of God will finally be all and all, and therefore, the judgment (or trial) by

fire is more properly God’s glorious presence. That is, the glory of God’s love is the

river of consuming fire that flows from his throne. One’s orientation to that glory

defines the experience of that judgment.

These points raise two all-‐important questions—sobering but hopeful

questions—regarding human freedom and the nature of judgment.

A. Divine love and human freedom

Kallistos Ware enters the paradox with a summary of the major arguments for and

against universal hope. In favor of universal hope, he offers (i) the power of divine love, (ii)

the essence of hell, and (iii) the non-‐reality of evil. Against universal hope, he lists (i) the

argument from free will, (ii) the point of no return;34 (iii) the argument from justice; and (iv)

the moral and pastoral argument.

Of these lists, he believes the first argument from each—God’s love and human

freedom—bears the most weight. On the side of divine love, he reminds readers of God’s

infinite compassion and immeasurable patience.

He compels no one, but He will in fact wait until each and every one of his

creatures voluntarily responds to His love. Divine love is stronger than all the

forces of darkness and evil within the universe, and in the end it will prevail.

“Love never fails” (1 Cor. 13:8); it is never exhausted, never comes to an end.35

That said, Ware describes the free will argument against universal hope and admits

that it is also strong, precisely because it, too, is based in God’s love. 34 For Catholics and Orthodox, death is a point of no return, but because Christ now holds the keys to death and hades, it is not the end of the story. What the story is beyond death is a mystery, but it does include a judgment (Heb. 9:27). Part of our judgment is that the life we have lived is what we have to present to God. But hell, too, is not the end of the story. As part of the created order, it must either pass away or be transfigured, for God alone is eternal, and only that which he fills abides forever. Thanks to Fr. Michael Gillis for these thoughts. 35 Ware, “DWH,” 210.

Because humans are free, it is argued, they are at liberty to reject God; He will

never take away from us our power of voluntary choice, and so we are free to

go on saying “No” to him through all eternity. … God can do anything except

compel us to love him; for love is free.36

This is not the final word for Ware, for, as we’ll see shortly, he is not merely an

agnostic suspended between the horns of the dilemma. But neither is he cavalier with the

dilemma: “How are we to bring into accord the two principles God is love and Human beings

are free? For the time being,” he says, “we cannot do more than hold fast with equal

firmness to both principles at once, while admitting … their ultimate harmonization remains

a mystery beyond our present comprehension.”37

Ware applies Paul’s words in Rom. 11:33 to this paradox: “O the death of the riches

and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how

inscrutable His ways!” (Rom. 11:33). Ware refuses to collapse the paradox of divine love and

human freedom into categorical affirmations in which all must be saved. Nevertheless, he

continues to embrace the hope that all might be saved as a firm conviction.38

Balthasar, too, is ‘warey’ (sic) of breaking the tension. “Here we come to deep waters,

in which every human mind begins to flounder. Can human defiance really resist to the end

the representative assumption of its sins by the incarnate God?”39 Balthasar responds: If we

say a flat “Yes,” then we end up with strange distinctions within God’s will for grace: a

‘sufficient grace’ that is sufficient for salvation but capable of being rejected (and therefore

not sufficient to achieve its goal), and ‘an efficacious grace’ that can actually achieve the goal

of grace for all. But on the other hand, according to Balthasar, we cannot say efficacious

grace “takes the sinner’s will by surprise, since his assent is freely given. … Without my

consent, given that I am a free person, nothing can just have its way with me. But how, then,

are we to understand the grace that is effect through the … work of Christ?”40

In his hopeful inclusivism, Balthasar does venture a tentative theory that I would dub,

“illuminative grace and the freed will.” He imagines the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of absolute

freedom), opening the eyes of our heart (our free spirit) to see what our own true freedom

36 Ware, “DWH,” 212. 37 Ware, “DWH,” 214. 38 Email correspondence, Feb. 4, 2015. 39 Balthasar, DWH, 208. 40 Balthasar, DWH, 209.

would be in its highest possibility (vis-‐à-‐vis the bondage and delusion of godless autonomy).

And having been freed at last to see that reality in relation to the grace of Christ, would we

not also be inspired to say our willing “Yes” according to our deepest natural desire? Is this

not exactly what Paul deems necessary for salvation in 2 Cor. 4:4-‐6? Is this not precisely

what Paul also experienced at his conversion? And what prophecy implies for all in the

phrase, “And every eye shall see him?” (Isa. 35:4; Lk. 21:27; Rev. 1:7)? Balthasar lays this

out against the alternative:

If one wishes to keep the distinctions [sufficient vs. efficacious grace], then one

would have to say: grace is “efficacious” when it presents my freedom with an

image of itself so evident that it cannot do other than freely seize itself, while

grace would merely be “sufficient” if this image did not really induce my

freedom to affirm itself but left it preferring to persist in it’s self-‐contraction.41

B. The nature of Divine Judgment

With that we have passed into the second theological question: the nature of divine

judgment. While Christianity, and indeed all religions, frequently defaults to the lowest

possible version of justice: violent vengeance or retribution, a minority report has

consistently whispered of a justice identical to, rather than opposite of, mercy. Ware argues

that while eye-‐for-‐an-‐eye retribution does appear in the biblical narrative, Christ explicitly

rejects it (Matt. 5:38) and both preaches and demonstrates restorative justice as more

powerful, more beautiful and, indeed, more divine. For the Eastern Church, the judgments of

God are usually taught as restorative, remedial, therapeutic … for God in Christ is the Great

Physician of our souls. “He may inflict suffering upon us, both in this life and after our death;

but always He does this out of tender love and with a positive purpose, so as to cleanse us

from our sins, to purge and heal us.”42 If so—if the ‘punishments’ of God are for our

correction and healing—then when the correction and healing is complete, the punishment

ends. As Ware says, “In a never-‐ending hell there is no escape and therefore no healing, and

so the infliction of punishment in such a hell is pointless and immoral.”43 If we’re to imagine

41 Balthasar, DWH, 209. 42 Ware, “DWH,” 204. 43 Ware, “DWH,” 204.

a post-‐mortem purgative process, it “should be envisaged as a house of healing, not a

torture chamber; as a hospital, not a prison.”44

Ware’s boldest, overt universal hope shows through his affection for Isaac of Ninevah,

an ancient Syrian monk and hopeful inclusivist (7th century), who describes post-‐mortem

judgment as the ‘scourgings of love.’ Isaac rejects a literal, materialist interpretation of the

gnashing teeth, gnawing worms and flames of fire. Rather, these images describe a state of

inner, spiritual anguish—the pangs of conscience we suffer upon seeing that we’ve rejected

perfect love.45 Ware quotes as series of Isaac’s aphorisms on this theme. For example, “Even

those who are scourged in hell are tormented with the scourgings of love … So it is in hell:

the contrition that comes from love is the harsh torment.”46 Isaac, too, suggests an

eschatological monism, when he writes:

It is wrong to imagine that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God … [But]

the power of love works in two ways: it torments those who have sinned, just as

happens among friends here on earth; but to those who have observed its duties,

love gives delight. So it is in hell: the contrition that comes from love is the harsh

torment.47

And yet Isaac believes the scourgings of love will come to a good end and “wonderful

outcome”—for two reasons. First, because retribution and vengeance are utterly foreign to

God’s nature. “Far be it, that vengeance could ever be found in that that Fountain of love and

Ocean brimming with goodness!”48 And second, since God’s love and compassion are

unquenchable and all-‐powerful, it will overcome evil and extend to all creation and through

all eternity to everyone: “No part belonging to any single one of [all] rational beings will be

lost.”49

Close to Ware and Isaac’s scourgings of love, Balthasar conceives judgment as a face-‐

to-‐face encounter with the fire of truth—a self-‐judgment in the presence of divine Truth.

Quoting Matt. 25:37 and 1 Cor. 4:3-‐4, he sees each person in existential crisis, suddenly

recognizing the meaning of their lives, including their guilt and imperfection—but also in

44 Ware, “DWH,” 205. 45 Ware, “DWH,” 207. 46 Ware, “DWH,” 207. He cites Isaac’s Homilies (tr. Wensinck) 6, 26-‐27, 65, 76. 47 Ware, “DWH,” 207. From Homily 27(28): tr. Wensinck, 136; tr. Miller, 141. 48 Ware, “DWH,” 207. 49 Ware, “DWH,” 208. (Isaac, Homily 40.7, tr. Brock, 176).

light of a more comprehensive judgment.50 This self-‐judgment “follows in view of the great

revelation of the truth as it ultimately is, namely, in view of the revelation of the Cross as the

truth of what the world has done to God and what God has done for the world.”51

This “even now” element of judgment appears in Balthasar’s book about prayer under

the theme of the contemplative gaze—

[an] overpowering manifestation of God’s infinity and truth, his majesty and

love. … [The contemplative] wanted to approach Jesus in order to see him

(“Come and see!”), and now, under the gaze of Jesus, he finds that it is he who

has long been observed, seen through, judged and accepted in grace by Jesus.52

Similarly, Ware has said,

IF there is an assignment of people to heaven and hell, there must first be a

preliminary sifting process where we understand the deeper implications of our life.

It would be undesirable to frame this as retribution. This is about self-‐knowledge, not

punishment, but there is the pain of seeing what we have done wrong or joy of seeing

what we’ve done right.

I prefer the fourth Gospel, which treats judgment as going on all the time. When

we sin, we’re already judged in this life and when we obey, already enter eternal life.53

Surely this is the same move—universalizing, contemporizing and

internalizing the final judgment—that Jesus makes already in Mark’s gospel:

If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the

kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR

WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. For everyone will be salted with fire.

Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it

salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.” (Mark 9:47-‐

50)

None of this negates a “final judgment,” but instead, constitutes a preview of

and preparation for it. On that “the great and dreadful day of the Lord,” when “every

50 Balthasar, DWH, 90. Citing Betz, Eschatologie, 212. 51 Balthasar, DWH, 91. 52 Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Prayer (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), 8-‐9. 53 Ware, personal interview, Oct. 2015.

eye will see him, everyone who pierced him, and all the tribes of the earth will wail

on account of him” (Rev. 1:7), the Truth of Christ will be the consuming fire. Jesus

said, “I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. The Word I have

spoken will be the Judge on the Last Day” (Jn. 12:47ff). What might that mean? Here,

Balthasar punts to his old Communio colleague, then Cardinal Ratzinger, who speaks

of a “final purification of Christology and concept of God”:

Christ allocates ruin to no one; he himself is pure salvation, and whoever

stands by him stands in the sphere of salvation and grace. The calamity is not

imposed by him but exists wherever man has remained distant from him; it

arises through continuing to abide with oneself.54

This begs the question: if the final judgment involves passing through the consuming

fire of the love and truth Christ himself (Deut. 4:24; Isaiah 33:14ff; Heb. 12:29), might we

hope that the fire of divine love would consume the wood, hay and stubble of self-‐

destructive lies which bind us to defiance; refine and purify us into the gold, silver and

precious stones of our true selves (Mal. 3:2-‐3; 1 Cor. 3:12-‐15); and awaken us to God’s

saving mercy, even as through fire? If, as Balthasar had suggested, grace might illumine our

hearts, free our wills and inspire our desire for God’s love, could such a process be effective

for salvation without violating the will? How might that work? I believe we hear the

influence of Balthasar’s HI through Ratzinger, in his second encyclical as Pope Benedict XVI.

The 2007 encyclical was entitled Spe Salvi, an allusion to the Latin phrase in Rom. 8:24, Spe

salvi facti sumus—“in hope we were saved.” By this time, Balthasar’s universal hope had

come into full and authoritative bloom in an official papal epistle. In what may have been a

discreet tribute to Balthasar, section 47 summarizes HI’s theological pillar:

Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and

saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Savior. The encounter with him is the

decisive act of judgment. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This

encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to

become truly ourselves.

All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure

bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity

54 Balthasar, DWH, 91.

and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze,

the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation

“as through fire.” But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love

sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus

totally of God. . . . The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy.

The judgment of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is

grace. … The incarnation of God in Christ has so closely linked the two

together—judgment and grace—that justice is firmly established: we all work

out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Nevertheless grace

allows us all to hope, and to go trustfully to meet the Judge whom we know as

our “advocate”, or parakletos (cf. 1 Jn. 2:1).55

III. The Patristic Tradition: the heresy and orthodoxy of apokatastasis

Having dipped into the biblical and theological paradoxes identified by Ware and

Balthasar, we move to our third pillar of hopeful inclusivism: the patristic tradition. Space

restricts our study to a brief definition of apokatastasis and how Ware and Balthasar

perceive the Church’s paradoxical response to Origen (condemning him with 15 anathemas,

allegedly at the fifth ecumenical council in 55356) and Gregory of Nyssa (naming him “a

father of fathers”57 and “divine luminary of Nyssa”58). Ware and Balthasar both engage

Origen and Gregory explicitly, and each contributes interpretative assessments that I find

helpful. First, a brief definition.

The word apokatastasis appears in Acts 3:21, with Peter preaching Christ, “whom the

heaven must receive until the ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων” – that is, “the restoration

(reconstitution, restitution or return) of all things.” As a general theological tradition,

55 Pope Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 47. 56 In 553 A.D. “The Anathemas Against Origen,” ed., Henry Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, NPNF2-‐14, 318-‐19. <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ix.html>. On doubts about whether the anathemas were formal charges affirmed by the 5th council, whether they accurately represent Origen himself, and the machinations of Justinian in the process, cf. Balthasar, DWH, 59ff and Ware, “DWH,” 198ff. 57 The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nyssa, tr. John Mendham (London: William Edward Painter, 1850), Session 6, session 5, 382. <http://books.google.ca/books?id=5sCqMrxtjBAC>. 58 Nicacan Synod 11, Act VI; Nikephoros Kallistos, Ecclesiastical History, xi. 191. Cited in “St Gregory of Nyssa,” The Great Synaxaristes of the Orthodox Church: January (Buena Vista: Holy Apostles Convent, 2007), 259. <http://www.orthodoxprayer.org/Articles_files/Lord%27s%20Prayer/Gregory%20of%20Nyssa.pdf>.

apokatastasis carries the idea that everyone, in the end, will be saved (as in Christian

universalism) or may be saved (as in HI). A number of major theologians from the patristic

era believed in and taught on apokatastasis; the most notable were Origen of Alexandria and

Gregory of Nyssa.59 In her monumental tome, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, Ilaria

L.E. Ramelli references Origen’s Commentary on John to define the essence of apokatastasis

as he understood it. Quoting Ramelli,

αποκατάστασις explicitly refers to the eventual restoration of all, when there will be

no evil left, and all enemies will be no more enemies, but friends, in a universal

reconciliation. But the last enemy, death, which is not a creature of God, will be utterly

annihilated, according to Paul’s revelation in 1 Cor. 15:24–26.60

This particular citation holds three-‐fold significance:

1. it associates apokatastasis with 1 Cor. 15:24-‐26, as was common;

2. it goes no further than Gregory of Nyssa’s uncondemned proposals in On the Soul and

the Resurrection; and

3. it includes none of the Origenist features condemned in the fifteen anathemas,

including anathema 14 that specifies heretical elements of “this pretended

apokatastasis.”

Thus, general apokatastasis is not what the fifth council addressed or condemned—it is not

what caused Origen’s posthumous problems—since the same convictions posed no problem for

St Clement,61 St Macrina and her brother St Gregory62 (and possibly St Gregory Nazianzus63 and

Maximus the Confessor64). Most scholars now agree that the anathemas, delivered over three

59 Both Origen and Gregory show their dependence on Clement of Alexandria. We can also cite St Macrina the Younger and possibly Gregory of Nazianzus of the Cappadocians. Later, we have a modified version in St Maximus and again, the bold statements of St Isaac. 60 Ilaria L.E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis (Leidon/Boston: Brill, 2013), 3. 61 Clement, Strom. 7.16.102; 6.6.46, where all God’s judgments are corrective. 62 Cf. her intimate deathbed conversation with Gregory in his On the Soul and the Resurrection. 63 Suggested by Balthasar in DWH, 63, citing Nazianzus, Orations 40.36; Poemata de seipso, PL 37, 1010, where Nazianzus raises the question of ultimate redemption suggestively. 64 Hotly contested but argued by Balthasar, DWH, 64n38. Maximus was absolutely anti-‐Origenist, but conceives of a “restoration (apokatastasis) directed toward the Idea in God (logos), which determined our creation.” Balthasar says, “In this conception, then, through the mediation of Christ, man becomes God—so Maximus declares—in the same degree God becomes man. (Ambiguorum liber 7 PG 91, 1080c) in Balthasar, DWH, 234-‐35.

centuries after Origen’s death, were addressed to extremist interpretations of later Origenists,

such as Evagrius of Pontus and Didymus the Blind.65

Kallistos Ware weighs in at this point.66 As I understand him, the crux of the problem lays

in the question, “restored to what?” If, with Clement, Gregory and Maximus, you answered

simply, “to God” (in the sense of reconciliation) or “restored to our original state”67 or “restored

to life through the resurrection,”68 there was no objection. But if, with the Origenists (and indeed

Origen himself69), you interpreted “back to God” to imply the pre-existence and fall of souls prior

to creation or conception, or along with this, “the transmigration of souls,” this was condemned.

The first anathema expresses this as the anti-Origenists’ (Justinian and Jerome) chief concern:

“If anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration

(apokatastasis) which follows from it: let him be anathema.”70 What tarnished Origen’s brand of

apokatastasis was the fact that his hope expressly “followed from” the heresy of pre-existence.

That is, his eschatology was derived from his protology, so both were condemned together.71

Gregory’s apokatastasis, on the other hand, is left unscathed, because he specifically repudiates

the pre-existence of the soul in On the Soul and the Resurrection.72 The point is that apokatastasis

as a general universal hope cannot simply be dismissed with the wave of a synod, which had

particular extremes in mind.

Ware’s second observation concerns the humility of hope in Origen that exceeds that of

later Origenists and anti-Origenists alike:

Again and again in his treatment of the deeper issues of theology, Origen bows his head in

reverent wonder before the divine mystery. … This humility is evident in particular when

he speaks about the Last things and future hope. “These are matters hard and difficult to

understand,” he writes, “… We need to speak about them with great fear and caution,

discussing and investigating rather than laying down fixed and certain conclusions.”73

65 Andrew C. Itter, Esoteric Teaching in the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria (Danvers, MA: Brill, 2009), 179. 66 Ware, “DWH,” 198-‐200. He prefaces the discussion by noting the considerable doubt whether the fifteen anathemas were formally approved by the council, or if they even represent Origen accurately. 67 Gregory, Catechetical Oration 26. 68 Itter, Esoteric Teaching, 177. 69 Cf. Origen, De Prinipiis 1.5.3; 1.7.4; Commentary on John 2.25 70 “The Anathemas Against Origen,” 318. 71 Ware, “DWH,” 200. 72 Ware, “DWH,” 205n20, citing Gregory, On the Soul and the Resurrection, PG 46:109b-‐113b. 73 Ware, “DWH,” 198-‐99, citing also Origen, On First Principles 1.6.1.

Balthasar makes these very same points on Origen’s protology and his humility.74 He

notes that Origen,

“speaks largely hypothetically, and his leading idea is the ancient Greek one

that the end of things must correspond to their first beginnings. … he aims to

approach the question “with prudence,” and indeed, “with fear and caution,”

“more to examine and discuss it than to define and establish anything.”75

Origen hardly sounds like a dogmatic universalist here. In fact, perceiving the pastoral

perils of his speculative hope, he calls for discretion when discussing it. “The doctrine of

apokatastasis, he advises, ought to be kept secret; for, if preached opening to the immature,

it will lead them to become careless and indifferent.”76 Or as Ware jests (quoting Christian

Barth), “Anyone who does not believe in the universal restoration is an ox, but anyone who

teaches it is an ass.”77

Ass or not, Gregory of Nyssa’s uncondemned, open boldness outmatches Origen’s

humble confidence. Again and again he affirms the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 15:28, “and thus

God will be all and in all.” Ware provides an example of Nyssa’s grand vision of hope:

When, through these long and circuitous methods the wickedness which is now

mingled and consolidated with our nature has been finally expelled from it, and when

all those things that are now sunk down in evil are restored to their original state, the

will ascend from the entire creation a united hymn of thanksgiving … All this is

contained in the great mystery of the Divine Incarnation.78

As Ware points out, Gregory’s vision of the final restoration embraces even the devil.79

Yet, unlike Origen, Gregory’s radical apokatastasis, has never been condemned by any synod

to this day. Rather, we’re seeing once again the earlier appreciation for Origen and a

rehabilitation of his profound mind and ministry. Though not technically a saint or church

74 Balthasar, DWH, chapter (3) on Origen and Augustine. 75 Ibid, 59. Citing Peri Archon 1.6.1-‐2. 76 Ware, “DWH,” 214, citing Origen, Against Celsus 6.26. 77 Ibid, 214. 78 Ibid, 206, citing Gregory, Catechetical Oration, 67.7-‐11. 79 For Origen, cf. Peri Archon 1.6.1-‐2; 3.6.5, tr. Harl, Dorival and Le Boulluec (Paris, 1976), 67. For Gregory, “the originator of evil himself will be healed,” Cat. Orat. 26, ed. James Srawley (Cambridge, 1903), 101. For a counter-‐argument, in which Gregory’s universalism is reduced to hopeful universalism, cf. Mario Baghos, “Reconsidering Apokatastasis in St Gregory of Nyssa’s On The Soul And Resurrection and the Catechetical Oration,” Phronema, 27.2 (2012) 125-‐62.

father, Benedict included him in his book on The Fathers as a “crucial figure,” “a maestro,” “a

brilliant theologian,” and an “exemplary witness of the doctrine he passed on.”80 Rather than

dismissing him as a heretic, the Pope describes him “brilliantly countering the challenges of

the heretics, especially the Gnostics and Marcionites.”81

I say all this as a counterpoint to the simplistic (but sufficiently rare) syllogism that

claims (i) Origen was a universalist, (ii) Origen was a heretic, and therefore (iii)

universalism is a heresy. Ware responds with much more moderation, “Doubtless, Origen’s

mistake was that he tried to say too much. It is a fault that I admire rather than execrate, but

it was a mistake nevertheless.”82 In reality, Origen is probably best described as a hopeful

inclusivist, Gregory of Nyssa as a full-‐blown Christian universalist, and apokatastasis proper

is less heretical than it is patristic—a patristic pillar upon which Balthasar and Ware gently

lean.

IV. The Mystical-‐Monastic Traditions: The paradox of universalist and

infernalist revelations

Mother Church believers (including Catholics, Orthodox and High Anglicans) take

their mystics and monastics very seriously—sainting them to formalize their place in the

‘Great Tradition.’ They treat their revelations as an authentic source of theology, sometimes

referring to them as “doctors” of the church, rather than odd charismatic sideshows. Ware,

and Balthasar even more so, treat the mystical-‐monastic tradition as a fourth pillar of their

hopeful inclusivism, citing the visions and divine dialogues of Catherine of Sienna, Teresa of

Avila, Julian of Norwich, Therese Lisieux, Edith Stein, Siluoan the Athonite and Adrienne Von

Speyr, to name just a few. In fact, Balthasar was responsible for converting Von Speyr, who

then partnered with him as the mystic behind the theologian.83 Her mystical experiences of

Christ’s descent into hades profoundly influenced his theology. So too, we hear in Ware the

hopeful inclusivism of St Silouan, who coined the enigmatic phrase, “Keep your mind in hell,

and do not despair.”

For our purposes, we need only make a few observations concerning a mystical

paradox that leads to hopeful inclusivist convictions. Namely, many of the mystics named

80 Benedict XVI, The Fathers, (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2008), 35. 81 Ibid, 40. 82 Ware, “DWH,” 215. 83 Regis Martin, “Von Speyr’s Life of Grace,” Christendom Awake. < http://www.christendom-‐awake.org/pages/balthasa/vonspeye.htm>.

above experienced both (i) visions of the torments of ‘hell,’ and (ii) revelations of universal

redemption. In other words, none of them denied the reality of hell—in fact, they

emphasized it because they claimed to have experienced it somehow. On the other hand,

these visions could also function as the means to their assurance of genuine universal hope.

How so?

1. First, the mystics would enter mystically into the torments of fiery judgment.

This would arouse compassion and empathy for the lost masses of humanity.

2. Second, compelled by love, they would resist what they saw and beseech Christ

for mercy—often they would offer to take the place of the damned.

3. Third, the Lord would respond to their intercession—their willingness to

emulate Christ in laying their own lives down for the salvation of others. His

reply was assurance of universal hope.

4. Fourth, God seemed to envelope their intercession into the work of Christ as a

means toward universal redemption. Not that they supplemented Christ’s

finished work, but were mystically incorporated into it.

5. Finally, teachers such as Ware and Balthasar note the biblical precedents in the

life of Moses (Exod. 32:32) and Paul (Rom. 9:3), whose offer to be “accursed and

cut off for the sake of my brethren” is preceded by the joy that “nothing can

separate us from God’s love” (Rom. 8:39) and followed by the confidence that

“so too, all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26).84

Balthasar gives many examples of this process in chapters 6-‐7 of Dare We Hope. I will

close out this discussion with a sample from St Catherine (a Catholic) and begin the next

with St Silouan (an Orthodox saint), because they articulate the mystical-‐monastic pillar of

hopeful inclusivism.

First, from St Catherine85: St Catherine: How could I ever reconcile myself, Lord, to the prospect that a single one

of those whom, like me, you have created in your image and likeness should be come

lost and slip from your hands? … I want them all to be wrested from the grasp of the

84 Balthasar, DWH, 209. 85 Balthasar, DWH, 214-‐15. Citing Vie de Sainte Catherine de Sienne par le bienheureux Raymos de Capoue, (Paris, n.d.), 479, 481.

ancient enemy, so that they all become yours to the honor and greater glorification of

you name.

The Bridegroom [suggestively]: Love cannot be contained in hell; it would totally

annihilate hell; one could more easily do away with hell than allow love to reside in it.

St Catherine: If only your truth and justice were to reveal themselves, then I would

desire that there no longer be a hell, or at least that no soul would go there. If I could

remain united with you in love while, at the same time, placing myself before the

entrance to hell and block it off in such a way that no one could enter again, then that

would be the greatest of joy for me, for all those whom I love would then be saved.

Thus, the mystics and monastics do not deny the possibility of hell—whatever that

means (for they vary greatly)—but they also hope that, through their prayers, mercy will

triumph over judgment.

V. Hopeful Inclusion in the Catechisms: eternal separation and prayers for all

What is amazing in the Catholic-‐Orthodox tradition is that the hopeful inclusivism of

these mystics makes its way into approved catechisms of the Church.

For example, Fr. Alexandre Turnicev includes the wisdom of St. Silouan (with

commentary) in an approved French Orthodox catechism (already in 1964):

“If the Lord saved you along with the entire multitude of your brethren,

and one of the enemies of Christ and the Church remained in the outer

darkness, would you not, along with all the others, set yourself to imploring

the Lord to save this one unrepentant brother? If you would not beseech Him

day and night, then your heart is of iron – but there is no need for iron in

paradise.”

And St. Paul, who was so truly united to Christ that he was able to

affirm: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me,” – did he not say

that he was ready to be “separated from Christ for his brothers”?

Must not each of us plead with the Lord in the same way: May all my

brothers be saved along with me! Or otherwise, may I also be damned along

with them! Does not our Lord also wait for us to pray such a prayer? And

would not this prayer also be the solution to the ‘problem’ of hell and

damnation?86

So too, we find hopeful inclusivism in the Roman Catholic Catechisms. For example,

Neither the Holy Scripture nor the Church’s Tradition of faith asserts with

certainty of any man that he is actually in hell. Hell is always held before our eyes as a

real possibility, one connected with the offer of conversion and life.87

Even after describing hell as “eternal separation from God,” the official Vatican

catechism says,

The Church prays that no one should be lost: ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If

it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be

saved’ (1 Tim. 2:4), and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26)”88 (1058).

Summary

At the end of the day, is hopeful inclusion substantially different from evangelical

universalism? While even Balthasar might imply the different is between possibility and

presumption, I would argue for a finer and more charitable line: the difference between

hope and faith. That is, the conviction towards hope in HI has, in evangelical universalism,

become a convinced faith, both finding their focus in the enduring mercies of Jesus Christ.

That said, there is nevertheless a fairly precise distinction, as clarified by Dr. Lucy

Peppiatt:

Is there a possibility that some humans could yet refuse to repent even in the

face of a full revelation of God in Christ? Is it possible that there are humans

that will embrace evil/darkness/non-‐existence in the face of good? If one

86 Olivier Clément, Dieu est Vivant: catéchisme pour les familles par une équipe de Chrétiens Orthodoxes (Editions du Cerf, 1979), 103. My translation. 87 Balthasar, DWH, 11. Citing The Church’s Confession of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), 346. 88 Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1058. <http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm>. I noticed this point in Stratford and Léonie Caldecott, “Balthasar and the Problem of Hell,” Second Spring: A Journal of Faith and Culture. <http://www.secondspring.co.uk/articles/scaldecott35.htm>.

thinks it is, then one is still a hopeful inclusivist. If one thinks that it will not be

possible to resist the love of God, then one is a universalist in the end.89

In summary, neither Balthasar nor Ware teach us to assume there is no hell, that there

is no one in hell, nor that anyone is in hell. Rather, they argue on the basis of five pillars—

Scripture, theology, the patristics, the monastic-‐mystic tradition and the catechisms—for a

hopeful inclusion in which God’s love dares us and even obligates us to hope, pray and work

for the salvation of all.

Balthasar closes out his argument with the Carmelite mystic, Edith Stein, who writes,

All-‐merciful love can thus descend to everyone. We believe that it does so. And

now, can we assume that there are souls that remain perpetually closed to

such love? As a possibility in principle, this cannot be rejected. In reality, it can

become infinitely improbable. … faith in the unboundedness of divine love

and grace also justifies hope for the universality of redemption, although,

through the possibility of resistance to grace that remains open in principle,

the possibility of eternal damnation also persists. … Human freedom can be

neither broken nor neutralized by divine freedom, but it may well be, so to

speak, outwitted. The descent of grace to the human soul is a free act of divine

love. And there are no limits to how far it may extend.90

Dare we hope for the salvation of all? HI hopes so, not with the hope of wishful

thinking but an active, effective and blessed Hope, Christ himself.

89 Adapted from email correspondence, Mar. 11, 2015. 90 Balthasar, DWH, 219-‐221. Citing Edith Stein, Welt un Person (Frieberg, 1962), 158ff.

An Orthodox/Catholic Eschatology: The Hopeful Inclusivism of Hans Urs Von Balthasar and Metropolitan...

Documents

Transcript of An Orthodox/Catholic Eschatology: The Hopeful Inclusivism of Hans Urs Von Balthasar and Metropolitan...