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.pd
f>.  
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.