The Eschatological Judgment of Christ

The Hope of Universal Salvation and the Fear of Eternal Perdition in the Theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar

Karlson

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781498297820
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

Hans Urs von Balthasar hopes that all might be saved. Critics say that makes Balthasar a universalist, and his universalism has become a hindrance for the evangelical mission of the church. Why would anyone evangelize and seek to convert others to the Christian faith if it is assured that everyone will be saved?Balthasar, throughout his writings, denied he was a universalist. He said that there is no way to know if all will be saved or not. Since God desires all will be saved, we can hope all will be, but until everyone has been judged, there will be no way to know if God's desire will be accomplished. Why? Because God does not force salvation on anyone. God gave humanity freedom, and he will not remove it from anyone, even if it means he risks losing some to perdition.Balthasar's critics believe his denial was merely a pretense, so that his speculations would not be condemned. They do not take his denials seriously. But should they? Does he really believe it is possible some might be damned? If so, how? By what means would anyone be damned?

I

Introduction

Preliminary Remarks

Hans Urs von Balthasar’s eschatology has been greatly misunderstood by many of his critics and supporters alike. While critics recognize that he tried to give nuance to his eschatology, they still tend to portray him as a representative of universalism, albeit a “light” form of universalism. Ralph Martin, in his book, Will Many Be Saved, believes that this is the case with Balthasar, saying that Balthasar only stops short of formal acceptance of the theory of apokakatasis, that is, formally stating all will be saved.1 Those who have a natural affinity with such a universalism also perceive him in this fashion, giving ammunition to his critics, because they will say that even those supporters understood Balthasar as a universalist (ignoring those who reject such a portrayal of him).

Sadly, not enough scholarly studies have taken Balthasar seriously when he said that he rejected universalism. The way he addressed the possibility of hell is hardly seen in such presentations, making it seem as if it was ignored by Balthasar, giving support to those who would suggest he was simply a universalist.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

Hell was real for Balthasar. He often made it clear in his writings that hell is something all should fear. There is no pretend with hell. Its reality was proven by the work of Christ. No one’s eschatological fate is known until they are judged by Christ. Presumption of perdition but also salvation is not just erroneous, but spiritually dangerous. Christ has provided what everyone needs in order to be saved, giving everyone reason why they can hope for their own salvation. Such salvation is not certain. Sin can still cause someone to be lost for eternity. Christ’s grace must be freely accepted for salvation to take effect. Sin, if obstinately held, can turn a sinner away from Christ, and if they perpetually hold on to their sin, they can find themselves stuck in hell, constantly turning away from Christ and his offer of grace.

While there have been a few scholarly works which reflect, at least in part, Balthasar’s considerations on eternal perdition, such theological examinations have not been given the reading they deserve. In popular parlance, Balthasar continues to be seen as a universalist. In order for Balthasar’s theology to be given adequate consideration, this one-sided approach to his eschatology needs to be rejected and a more comprehensive presentation of his over-arching eschatology needs to be done. This small book intends to help deal with this problem by giving greater emphasis on Balthasar’s theology of perdition, showing how it is tied with and intricately connected with his hope that all might be saved. Its main purpose is to provide a better picture of Balthasar’s eschatology and to answer some of the simplistic charges aimed at him by his critics. It will focus considerable attention on Balthasar’s own words, more than what might otherwise be seen as the norm, because it will help bring together to the reader texts which are otherwise overlooked or not seen in connection to each other, allowing them to come together to highlight Balthasar’s theological beliefs. Moreover, through Balthasar, concerns which the modern age has raised over the theology of hell will be addressed, showing that instead of disregarding the notion of hell, it can and should play an important part in contemporary theological exploration; the last section of the book, after exploring Balthasar’s theology in depth, will briefly explore the practical application of his opinions to the theological enterprise today as well as show the questions which remain open and are worth asking for future reflection.

Hans Urs von Balthasar can be very difficult to engage. He wrote theology in a reflective, almost meditative fashion, making it hard for someone to pick up a text of his, read a few pages, and then easily state what he believed. His works often read like poetry, providing some of the same difficulty as poetry has for interpreting his meaning. He liked to take a topic and explore it in many different angles, making it difficult to discern which of those angles, if any, he actually held to himself. Readers of his theological works often find themselves lost in this multi-layered approach and end up feeling as if they know less as to what he believed when they finish reading a text than they did before they started reading it. His views are very hard to pin-point. They do not follow the typical categories critics want to use to examine his writings, as the editors of The Cambridge Companion to Hans Urs von Balthasar explained, “his positions cannot be easily categorized. Neither liberal nor conservative as those shopworn terms are normally understood, his theology is in fact extremely subtle and learned, so much so that it cannot be aligned with any contemporary trend, but sits uneasily inside any school of thought in the history of theology.”2

Balthasar was “unsystematic” in his approach to systematic questions. He liked to engage mysteries of the faith as paradoxes, and he did not think it was wise to break down a paradox to find some sort of “resolution” behind them. Instead, he ended up presenting the paradox itself, leaving the reader to contemplate it and address it in their own thoughts.3 An example of this can be found in the way Balthasar reflected upon the implications of the two natures of Christ upon Christ’s consciousness:

From the standpoint of the single consciousness, he is on earth, a limited man under obedience, while in heaven he is the ruler of the world. However, these speculations lead nowhere: their only result is to bring our attention to the striking fashion how deep the mystery of Kenosis lies. Just as the ancient ontic theology was impotent to render credible the idea that the Incarnation was a “complementary factor” added to the immutable divine nature (for Kenosis is not a harpagamos, a gain), so too the theology of consciousness—whether in speculative or empirical guise—did not succeed in finding a “third” position from which the interplay of the divine and human consciousness might be surveyed. The paradox must be allowed to stand: in the undiminished humanity of Jesus, the whole power and glory of God are made present to us.4

Because Balthasar believed that the truth was best presented through such paradoxes, his position which he believed was found in that paradox often seems vague to a typical first-time reader. Often, he would discuss a theological problem from one side of a paradox, and then from the other, without showing how both sides correlate. This can easily lead a reader to think that Balthasar was not making any particular point when he actually was doing so. A reader will have to ask himself or herself, “What is it Balthasar is trying to say? What is it he is affirming or denying?” They will have to search for answers, and even then, they might come out perplexed, feeling as if an answer cannot be found. Balthasar expects a lot from his audience, to be sure, but this aspect of his style, however beautiful it might be, however necessary it might end up being, does get in the way with a reader’s comprehension of his theological explanations.

Another difficulty a reader has with Balthasar is that he left behind a large collection of writings.5 To get a basic understanding of what he believed on a particular issue often requires the reading of several different works. Just reading one text, however significant it might be, is not enough, especially for something as complicated as his understanding of perdition. He did not want to deny traditional theology, he did not want to be considered unorthodox, but he did question how perdition had come to be taught, leading him to explore the concept and establish some rather unusual explanations for it. This can be seen in the topic at hand and how he famously stated that he hoped that all would be saved. He was clear in saying that this hope must be seen only as a possibility. It must not be seen as a necessary conclusion. To make it necessary would remove from free will...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: The Hope That All Would Be Saved
• Chapter 3: Dramatic Soteriology
• Chapter 4: The Judgment of Christ
• Chapter 5: Freedom to Establish Ourselves
• Chapter 6: Perdition
• Chapter 7: Summary and Analysis of Balthasar’s Eschatology
• Chapter 8: Critical Concerns Over Balthasar’s Eschatology
• Chapter 9: Concluding Remarks
• Bibliography