This entry is in regards to Bishop Robert Barron's webpage on the issue of reasonable hope.
I have long been challenging Bishop Barron in comments over his vain speculation for the hope that all men will be saved. (As a side note, as I mentioned elsewhere, in 2017, I had the opportunity to ask a member of the CDF whether von Balthasar/Bishop Barron's position is tenable for a Catholic. His reply was the doctrine is absurd and certainly will not reflect reality. He plainly told me there are at least 3 people he is certain are in Hell. He was concerned when I told him there is a bishop teaching this "reasonable hope".)
Bishop Barron disabled comments to his YouTube video where he insists the children of the church are able to hope "reasonably" that Hell will be empty of human beings (strange concept to defend in this age of suicide bombers, terrorism, rampant abortion, adultery, clerical sex abuse, euthanasia etc.)
I assert that, despite the insistence of people like Bishop Barron and other disciples of von Balthasar, the doctrine that there is a reasonable hope that all be saved is outside the limits of orthodoxy since its denied by Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 48) and Trent (Session VI, Chapter 3) and contradicts the plain reading of the Gospel (Matthew 7, Luke 13), in effect, making the words of Christ into false threats, making the Savior a liar.
There are many reasons the bishop could have disabled comments.
The page states:
As church history attests, several theologians were praised at one time and even thought to be within orthodoxy, only later to be anathematized. This was the case with the Origen (who Barron seems to conveniently omit was anathematized repeatedly), and Theodore of Mopsuestia (who was considered with in orthodoxy at the Council of Chalcedon, but anathematized by the Pope and Second Council of Constantinople in the Three Chapters controversy). That is to say, even if bishops or even popes said positive things about a theologian, or even explicitly defend him as orthodox as the Pope did once with Theodore of Mopsuestia, this can be corrected in the future. God willing, this will be done with von Balthasar.
Returning to the bishop's page's quotes.
First, R.R. Reno's:
Pope Pius XII reject the doctrine of von Balthsar--the kenotic doctrine:
I have long been challenging Bishop Barron in comments over his vain speculation for the hope that all men will be saved. (As a side note, as I mentioned elsewhere, in 2017, I had the opportunity to ask a member of the CDF whether von Balthasar/Bishop Barron's position is tenable for a Catholic. His reply was the doctrine is absurd and certainly will not reflect reality. He plainly told me there are at least 3 people he is certain are in Hell. He was concerned when I told him there is a bishop teaching this "reasonable hope".)
Bishop Barron disabled comments to his YouTube video where he insists the children of the church are able to hope "reasonably" that Hell will be empty of human beings (strange concept to defend in this age of suicide bombers, terrorism, rampant abortion, adultery, clerical sex abuse, euthanasia etc.)
I assert that, despite the insistence of people like Bishop Barron and other disciples of von Balthasar, the doctrine that there is a reasonable hope that all be saved is outside the limits of orthodoxy since its denied by Vatican II (Lumen Gentium 48) and Trent (Session VI, Chapter 3) and contradicts the plain reading of the Gospel (Matthew 7, Luke 13), in effect, making the words of Christ into false threats, making the Savior a liar.
There are many reasons the bishop could have disabled comments.
1) They were getting vile. There were numerous obnoxious, insulting comments against Bishop Barron, but this didn't stop him for years. Perhaps, it was getting to be too much.
2) He was tired of repeating himself. Also, possible, some thought he was overtly teaching universalism. Then, again, I've seen times where the Bishop misunderstood people as thinking the bishop believed all might be saved. Regardless, it was done over and over.
3) He made many bad arguments. He made awful arguments in the comments, and even had to resort to suggesting the private revelation of Fatima might have been wrong. An opinion that is very unwise for any cleric to suggest. Lately, it seems he has reinterpreted the vision of Hell to just be a warning only, and does not necessarily reflect the actual state of Hell. Which would seem to make it a pious fraud, should no one really go to Hell. He made several other awful arguments that I will address later.
4) Some arguments he could not refute. I know I provided him with Trent and Vatican II on his idea of Hell. He dismissed Trent as stating a hypothetical--which it was not using hypothetical language at all. He simply did not respond to my argument from Vatican II which is even more direct against his position.Whatever the reason may be, Bishop Barron has created a special page on his website to explain/defend his position. Much of the page is dedicated to repeating his view is only speculation and that Hell is a dogma of faith, though he believes it might not really be for humans at all, thus disabling it as dogma. The page is full of half baked defenses for his position, even to the point where it borders on being dishonest, ignoring contrary evidence, selectively using quotes. Perhaps, this is why the page is written in the third person, so in case the statements contained therein are ruled heresy, the bishop can simply distance himself from his own webpage saying an employee wrote it.
The page states:
The purpose of this FAQ page is to provide a one-stop source for honest people looking for clarity on the issue. In particular, our intention is to clarify what Bishop Barron believes about hell, damnation, and salvation, and to confirm that his views are within the confines of orthodox Catholic teaching.As I mentioned before, I personally informed a member of the CDF 2 years ago about Bishop Barron's position, which greatly concerned the bishop in the CDF, who said certainly Hell is populated. I could only hope that this encounter, of those of others had some effect. However, the bishop is still defending his position online, insisting its within orthodoxy, though never dealing with magisterial texts like the ones I posted. His treatment of Christ's text on the broad way to damnation require him to use John 12:32 to interpret Matthew 7:14.
Since, Bishop Barron bases his position on a man that was likely an apostate, who nonetheless managed to be appointed a cardinal, and being struck dead just before his installation, he has to defend Hans Ur von Balthasar, and make no mention of Balthasar's even more serious heresies like his Arianistic view of the incarnation with the kenotic doctrine. On von Balthasar, the page states:
What about the negative things said about the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar?
This is a valid question, but we must remember that every prominent thinker has critics. That includes St. Augustine, St. Thomas of Aquinas, St. Catherine of Siena, G.K. Chesterton, John Henry Newman, and Pope Benedict XVI—and Jesus himself. But having critics does not make one a heretic—having heretical doctrine does.
The important consideration is, are the critics correct in their critiques?
Balthasar was a deep thinker and a speculative theologian in certain respects. He tested ideas to see if they could stand, in the long run, with the final authorities of Sacred Scripture and Church teaching; that’s what theologians do. But as R.R. Reno reaffirms about Balthasar:
John Paul II and Benedict XVI felt no reservations celebrating Balthasar’s intellectual contributions to the Church. Balthasar may have been wrong or one-sided when he was bold and unconventional, but he was not rejecting or undermining magisterial teaching.
Avery Cardinal Dulles affirmed the same thing about Balthasar’s position:
The page makes no mention of von Balthasar's heretical views of Holy Saturday or the Kenotic doctrine, though if you read the links to FirstThings you can read about it, both having Protestant influence, the former being Calvinistic (via Balthasar's friend Karl Barth), the latter being more Arianistic and therefore seemingly apostate and was explicitly condemned by the Papacy of Pius XII. There is much more that can be said about these views.This [dare we hope] position of Balthasar seems to me to be orthodox. It does not contradict any ecumenical councils or definitions of the faith. It can be reconciled with everything in Scripture, at least if the statements of Jesus on hell are taken as minatory rather than predictive. Balthasar’s position, moreover, does not undermine a healthy fear of being lost.
As church history attests, several theologians were praised at one time and even thought to be within orthodoxy, only later to be anathematized. This was the case with the Origen (who Barron seems to conveniently omit was anathematized repeatedly), and Theodore of Mopsuestia (who was considered with in orthodoxy at the Council of Chalcedon, but anathematized by the Pope and Second Council of Constantinople in the Three Chapters controversy). That is to say, even if bishops or even popes said positive things about a theologian, or even explicitly defend him as orthodox as the Pope did once with Theodore of Mopsuestia, this can be corrected in the future. God willing, this will be done with von Balthasar.
Returning to the bishop's page's quotes.
First, R.R. Reno's:
John Paul II and Benedict XVI felt no reservations celebrating Balthasar’s intellectual contributions to the Church. Balthasar may have been wrong or one-sided when he was bold and unconventional, but he was not rejecting or undermining magisterial teaching.However, the Catechism of the Catholic Church's section of the descent to hell was written explicitly to state the Church's teaching was not that of von Balthasar. As Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) and Christoph Schoenborn state in "Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church", cited by Lyra Pitstick:
“The brief paragraph on Jesus’ descent into hell keeps to what is the common property of the Church’s exegetical tradition. Newer interpretations, such as that of Hans Urs von Balthasar (on the contemplation of Holy Saturday), however profound and helpful they may be, have not yet experienced that reception which would justify their inclusion in the Catechism.”--Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p 74-75As I will go to at length later on, Pope John Paul II explicitly rejects von Balthasar's view of damnation in Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
Pope Pius XII reject the doctrine of von Balthsar--the kenotic doctrine:
There is another enemy of the faith of Chalcedon, widely diffused outside the fold of the Catholic religion. This is an opinion for which a rashly and falsely understood sentence of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (ii, 7), supplies a basis and a shape. This is called the kenotic doctrine, and according to it, they imagine that the divinity was taken away from the Word in Christ. It is a wicked invention, equally to be condemned with the Docetism opposed to it. It reduces the whole mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption to empty the bloodless imaginations. 'With the entire and perfect nature of man'--thus grandly St. Leo the Great--'He Who was true God was born, complete in his own nature, complete in ours' (Ep. xxviii, 3. PL. Liv, 763. Cf. Serm. xxiii, 2. PL. lvi, 201).--Pope Pius XII, Sempiternus Rex Christus, Paragraph 29, September 8, 1951 (for more on this see Light in Darkness
Now for Cardinal Dulles' comment cited by the bishop's page:
This [dare we hope] position of Balthasar seems to me to be orthodox. It does not contradict any ecumenical councils or definitions of the faith. It can be reconciled with everything in Scripture, at least if the statements of Jesus on hell are taken as minatory rather than predictive. Balthasar’s position, moreover, does not undermine a healthy fear of being lost.This is a partial citation, which does not even seem that confident that Balthasar is orthodox (eg "seems to me to be orthodox"). The Cardinal Dulles is wrong about not contradicting an ecumenical council, since a hypothetical Hell for humans contradicts lesser known sections of Trent and Vatican II. But, first let's see the rest of the citation by the Cardinal which continues as follows:
But the position is at least adventurous. It runs against the obvious interpretation of the words of Jesus in the New Testament and against the dominant theological opinion down through the centuries, which maintains that some, and in fact very many, are lost. --Cardinal Dulles (emphasis mine)Though the Cardinal did wrongly claim the position of holding to possibility an empty Hell is within orthodoxy, he admitted also, its a tough position to hold to and seems to contradict Christ Himself, and Catholic tradition. The position requires a lot of Bible twisting. The Cardinal, as with Barron, and most universalists historically, appealed to St Paul's writings, and largely downplayed Christ's--a concept that is contrary to Catholic tradition. As a side note, Cardinal Dulles was a Jesuit, an order that has had members doubting Hell, as was von Balthasar. Dulles himself was another high level Jesuit that accepted the red hat of a Cardinal (as did von Balthasar) despite the Jesuit Constitution's instructions that Jesuits are not to accept higher office. Balthasar at least refused to be made a bishop first, but accepting the appointment as a cardinal still is contrary to the Constitution's spirit.
Bishop Barron's use of Church Fathers
On this webpage, Bishop Barron, or at least one of his people, state:
What is also often overlooked, in light of these great saints and doctors in the Latin West, is the prominent speculations of the Eastern Church. The conviction that hell may be empty has been advocated by the likes of Origen of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Maximus the Confessor, and Isaac the Syrian.
Before addressing all of the Fathers, let me first say, his citation of St Maximus the Confessor requires evidence on the part of Bishop Barron. Likely, him, or his camp, are just repeating an opinion of von Balthasar concerning St Maximus, since there is no writing of his that people can point to that clearly teaches universalism, only opinions that it must "logically" do so. Von Balthasar debated Brian Daly as to whether St Maximus was a universalist. St Maximus' commentary on the Lord's prayer seems to clearly deny the concept of Hell being extinguished:
Indeed there exists but one happiness, a communion of life with the Word, the loss of which is an endless punishment which goes on for all eternity. And that is why abandoning his body and whatever is the body’s he strives intensely toward that communion of life with God, thinking that the only loss – even he were master of everything on earth – would be in the failure of the deification by grace which he pursues. --St Maximus the Confessor, Commentary on the Our FatherVon Balthasar, himself admits Maximus the Confessor did not clearly teach universalism but insists he believed it anyway:
"Maximus is not in favor of proclaiming a universal restoration in the straightforward way in which Gregory of Nyssa and even Origen himself did it, despite their assurances to the contrary. The history of Origenism was proof enough of the bad effects of such a lack of prudence....Beginners and the imperfect should not simply be guided by kindness and by glimpses of the depths of [God's] mercy; they need fear as well."--Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor, Hans Urs von Balthasar, page 357 translated by Brian Daley, SJAlso, see Brian Daly's article. Clearly, St Maximus was not of the belief that Hell extinguished, I cannot for certain say yet if he believed necessarily there will be people in Hell.
The first on his list the Bishop's list is Origen, who is sometimes considered the author of universalism, though it likely pre-existed him. Origen was post-humously anathematized with his writings condemned by several ecumenical councils in the strongest of terms:
If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema.--Constantinople II (AD 553), Anathemas against the "Three Chapters", Canon XI
We reject along with them Severus Peter and their interconnected band with their many blasphemies, in whose company we anathematize the mythical speculations of Origen, Evagrius and Didymus, as did the fifth synod, that assembled at {5}Constantinople.==Nicaea II (AD 787), Definition
we anathematize Severus, Peter and Zoharas the Syrian, as well as Origen with his useless knowledge, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Didymus along with Evagrius, who also, although of the same or different opinions, were ensnared in the same pit of damnation.--Constantinople IV (AD 869), Definition
It also embraces, approves and accepts the fifth holy synod, the second of Constantinople, which was held in the time of our predecessor most blessed Vigilius and the emperor Justinian. In it the definition of the sacred council of Chalcedon about the two natures and the one person of Christ was renewed and many errors of Origen and his followers, especially about the penitence and liberation of demons and other condemned beings, were refuted and condemned.--Council of Florence, Session XI: Bull of union with the Copts, February 4, 1442
Needless to say, citing Origen does him no actual favors.Many of the Origenist/universalist made Gehenna a purgatory like the Jews have, though the Jews made avadon the eternal place of torment, however, the Jews believe some to be annihilated, the Origenists believe everyone will be saved, usually including the demons.
Bishop Barron lists St Gregory of Nyssa as being in his camp. Generally, it is agreed he is a universalist at least in some of his writings, however, as the International Theological Commission notes, he does not seem to believe an unbaptized infant will go to heaven, though he won't say the child will be in Hell either. When he did preach universalism, it seemed to be more along the lines of Origen, a doctrine Bishop Barron acknowledges as false. St Gregory of Nyssa is not a good example to be used by Bishop Barron.
Isaac the Syrian is cited by Bishop Barron's site, a man that probably was not Catholic, but likely outside the Church, despite him being considered a saint by the Chaldean Catholic Church. Using Isaac as an example is even worse than Origen in the sense that Isaac's doctrine would logically be doubly condemned. Isaac held in high regard the writings and doctrines of Theodore of Mopsuestia.Isaac the Syrian quoting Theodore of Mopseustia states:
From the blessed Theodore, the Interpreter. After other luminous statements he says:
“In the world to come, those who have chosen here what is good, will receive the felicity of good things along with praise; whereas the wicked, who all their life have turned aside to evil deeds, once they have been set in order in their minds by punishments and the fear of them, choose the good, having come to learn how much they have sinned, and that they have persevered in doing evil things and not good; by means of all this they receive a knowledge of religion’s excellent teaching, and are educated so as to hold on to it with a good will, (and so eventually) they are held worthy of the felicity of divine munificence. For (Christ) would never have said ‘Until you pay the last farthing’ unless it had been possible for us to be freed from our sins once we had recompensed for them through punishments. Nor would He have said ‘He will be beaten with many stripes’ and ‘He will be beaten with few stripes’ if it were not (the case) that the punishments, measured out in correspondence to the sins, were finally going to have an end”.--Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian), 'The Second Part, Chapters XXXIX:8, page 166-167. translated by Sebastian BrockIsaac quotes Theodore of Mopsuestia in his pro-Pelagian writing Against those who say that sin is ingrained by nature (CPG 3860) who in addition to believe in the Pelagian heresy, was anathematized by ecumenical council and called a blasphemer (Constantinople II [AD 553] The Sentences of the Synod). Ironically, despite Theodore and likely Isaac the Syrian being Pelagians, Pelagius himself rejected Origenism, as is clear in St Augustine's account of Pelagius appearing before a tribunal of eastern bishops.Theodore of Mopsuestia was hostile to some Origenist ideas, but not totally with apokatastasis. Yet, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Isaac the Syrian were both sympathetic to Origen;s idea of a Hell burning out and Pelagianism.
The theology of a hope for an empty Hell is incompatible with Bishop Barron's view since Isaac and Theodore's Hell is emptied at the end of time a view that was anathematized by the Pope and Patriarchs in Justinian's time, and reaffirmed by later councils and the current Catechism. It is interesting the bishop wishes to cite sources that simply do not work, obviously the Bishop would object to the salvation of the devil!
And it is clear that He does not abandon them the moment they fall, and that demons will not remain in their demonic state, and sinners will not remain in their sins; rather, He is going to bring them to a single equal state of completion in relationship to His own Being in a state in which the holy angels are now, in perfection of love and a passionless mind--Isaac the Syrian, The Second Part, Chapter 40:4, translated by Sebastian BrockSuffice it to say, Bishop Barron really ought not to have cited Isaac the Syrian (for many reasons).
St Edith Stein
Barron's page cites St Edith Stein in this Q&A:
How was Hans Urs von Balthasar’s view on hell different than Bishop Barron’s?
In his book, Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?, Balthasar cites with approval these words from St. Edith Stein:
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—precisely through what preparatory grace is capable of effecting in the soul.
Bishop Barron would not go so far as to say it is “infinitely improbable” there are people in hell. That language is too strong. But he does agree with Balthasar’s main thesis, affirmed by the Catechism, that we can pray, and hope hell is empty of people.
s pointed out in this blog. This is a very convenient copy and paste, considering the Saint did not publish this and furthermore revised her wording:
Schenk, “Factical Damnation,” p. 150, n. 35, points out that while Balthasar makes this his final position, it was not the final position of Edith Stein herself. Schenk points out that these were passing comments in a work that she herself never published, and that in 1939 in her spiritual testament, she significantly modifies. “The possibility of some final loss appears more real and pressing than one which would seem infinitely improbable.” Hauke, “Sperare per tutti?” pp. 207-8, makes the same point as well as the additional point that not everything a saint or Doctor wrote is honored when they are recognized as saints or Doctors.--From the Musings of a Pertinacious Papist blog
Continuing on, another Q&A reads:
So does Bishop Barron think hell is empty, or that all people will be saved?
No. Again, Bishop Barron’s position is one of hope—not of thought, certainty, expectation, or even probability. While hoping and praying for hell to be empty of men, he does not know whether hell is empty, think hell is empty, or expect hell to be empty.
Bishop Barron simply agrees with Pope Benedict XVI’s position:
It seems to me that Pope Benedict’s position—affirming the reality of hell but seriously questioning whether that the vast majority of human beings end up there—is the most tenable and actually the most evangelically promising.
He also agrees with Pope John Paul II, who in a 1999 statement in the L’Osservatore Romano said:
Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.
Note the inclusion of the word
“whether,” which confirms Pope John Paul II considered the possibility
that hell might be empty. When the statement was included in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis,
the word “whether” was removed by editors, but its original inclusion
affirms that Pope John Paul II held this outcome to be a real possibility.
Bishop Barron's second quote is a staple in Balthasarian sympathizers circles. To the bishop's credit, he actually admits the text was corrected to remove the impression that universal salvation is possible, something many in his camp conveniently omit. This was actually an audience Pope John Paul II delivered, the text initially on the Vatican site in English and Italian include the word "whether" but the "Acta Apostolicae Sedis" omitted it. Perhaps, the Pope did not intend it, or misspoke. As far as the edit, for all we know the Pope himself, or the head of the CDF at the time Cardinal Ratzinger was the one to have it excluded! Furthermore, Pope John Paul II did not believe in the possibility of an empty Hell and explicitly called out people like Origen and von Balthasar in his Papal Encyclical, Crossing the Threshold of Hope:
"The problem of hell has always disturbed great thinkers in the Church, beginning with Origen and continuing in our time with Sergey Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory of the "final apocatastasis," according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which indirectly abolished hell. But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew's Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The silence of the Church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, "It would be better for that man if he had never been born" (Mt 26:24), His words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.).”—Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Chapter 28: Does Eternal Life Exist? c.AD 1994 (emphasis mine)In this Pope John Paul II left no room for von Balthasar's "hope," despite wanting to make him a Cardinal. Critics think appointing him to a Cardinal is necessarily approval of all his theology, however, the Pope appointed many problematic prelates. Regardless, Pope John Paul II in alluding to Matthew 25 has what Lumen Gentium had in mind when using the grammatical future to describe damnation.
The Pope Benedict XVI quote they provide doesn't even mention the idea that maybe no one will be damned. In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger, as I showed Bishop Barron before stated:
“This is why God’s all-embracing desire to save people does not involve the actual salvation of all men. He allows us the power to refuse.”— Joseph Alois Cardinal Ratzinger, “Gott ist uns nah. Eucharistie: Mitt des Lebens” (God is Near Us: The Eucharist, The Heart of Life), Chapter II: God’s Yes and His Love Are Maintained Even in Death, point 2, p. 37 (concerning pro multis in the Mass.) Published June 1, AD 2003
Bishop Barron's page gives a list of scripture that are believed to suggest universalism, or as he tries to downplay it as "hope" for it.
What biblical evidence is there that all people might be saved?
Some examples of “salvation of all” texts include:
“And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)
“He has made known to us the mystery of his will . . . as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.” (Eph. 1:9-10)
“This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. 2:3-4)
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22).
“For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.” (Col. 1:19-20).
“Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” (Rom. 5:18-19).
“For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.” (Rom. 11:32).
In regards to 1 Corinthians 15:22 we see St John Chrysostom state:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
What then? Tell me; did all die in Adam the death of sin ? How then was Noah righteous in his generation? And how Abraham? And how Job? And how all the rest? And what, I pray? Shall all be made alive in Christ? Where then are those who are led away into hell fire? Thus, if this be said of the body, the doctrine stands: but if of righteousness and sin, it does so no longer.
Further, lest, on hearing that the making alive is common to all, you should also suppose that sinners are saved, he adds,
"But every man in his own order."
For do not, because you hear of a resurrection, imagine that all enjoy the same benefits. Since if in the punishment all will not suffer alike but the difference is great; much more where there are sinners and righteous men shall the separation be yet wider.
"Christ the first-fruits, then they that are Christ's;" i.e., the faithful and the approved.--St John Chrysostom, Homily 39 on First Corinthians,If read in isolation these passage would even seem to plainly say all men will be saved, and give the impression there is 0 chance of it not happening.
1 Timothy 2:4 only speaks of God's desire, that is He does not desire men to be damned. Though not dogmatic, a local council mentioned in Denzinger, the council explicitly cited this verse as not saying all will be saved. As we see:
"Omnipotent God wishes all men without exception to be saved [1 Tim. 2:4] although not all will be saved. However, that certain ones are saved, is the gift of the one who saves; that certain ones perish, however, is the deserved punishment of those who perish."—Council of Quiersy chapter 3, AD 853, (Denz. 318)
2 Peter 3:15-18 issued a warning about this very matter of using Paul for false teaching. Considering 2 Peter is an epistle of fire and brimstone, and end times, these things were likely in mind when warning people to read St Paul carefully.
Furthermore, what should be noted more is that this is the same reading of "all" in the Romans' verses that Protestants latch on to in order to declare Mary a sinner.
Barron's page makes several shocking claims about von Balthasar that they think are worth quoting, but the Bishop does not come out and say this is his position too, but will use von Balthasar to defend the absurd position, nonetheless.
Considering the bishop's team cited firstthings as a source, it is my reasonable hope that he reads Lyra Pitstick's critiques of von Balthasar's doctrines, like Christ's Descent into Hell. See here website at http://lyrapitstick.com/ One might also refer to Ralph Martin's book.
To be continued....
Part 1
Part 2
Barron's page makes several shocking claims about von Balthasar that they think are worth quoting, but the Bishop does not come out and say this is his position too, but will use von Balthasar to defend the absurd position, nonetheless.
Considering the bishop's team cited firstthings as a source, it is my reasonable hope that he reads Lyra Pitstick's critiques of von Balthasar's doctrines, like Christ's Descent into Hell. See here website at http://lyrapitstick.com/ One might also refer to Ralph Martin's book.
To be continued....
Part 1
Part 3
Part 4
No comments:
Post a Comment