Posted on 09/07/2016 9:10:47 AM PDT by ebb tide
This is a follow-up to Friday's more general post on Bishop Robert Barron's apologetics. Here I want to specifically evaluate one aspect of Barron's views on Hell.
Before beginning, I want to head off one possible misunderstanding. In the following, I talk about the chances or "odds" that an individual person or a group of people may be saved. In doing so, I don't mean to imply that those chances may ever be known in any particular case, nor even that they are chances in the conventional sense - that eternal salvation is metaphysically equivalent to, say, a coin flip. What I do want to do, among other things, is to point out the logical consequences of language. You can't claim both X and Not X. If A implies B and B implies C, then you can't claim both A and Not C. And so on.
Or to anticipate, if you claim there's a "realistic hope" of X happening, that means something. For example, among other things, it doesn't mean "there's virtually no chance" of X happening or "there's only a minuscule possibility" of X happening, etc.
In a number of well-known videos and articles (see here, here, here and here), Catholic apologist Bishop Barron argues that while Catholic doctrine (claims) that Hell exists . . . the Church has never claimed to know if any human being is actually in Hell. Barron, cites the views of Hans Urs von Balthasar:
Balthasar argued that . . . we may reasonably hope that all people will be saved . . . we may entertain the lively and realistic hope that all people will eventually be drawn into the divine love. And then writes: My own conviction is that Balthasar has this more or less right. But Barron adamantly claims that the Balthasar/Barron view is not universalism - the view that everyone will be saved, or the view that we know in the case of each person that he will be saved. Instead:
When the Church says that Hell exists, it means that the definitive rejection of God’s love is a real possibility. All of this is of course utter obscurantist nonsense.
Let's put Hell aside for a moment and ask a series of abstract questions having to do with odds.
When you flip a coin, is it realistic to hope that it might come up heads?
Yes.
When you flip a different coin, is it realistic to hope that it might come up heads?
Yes.
Is it realistic to hope that both coins will come up heads?
Probably. It depends what is meant by "realistic."
Okay, what about flipping 106 billion coins and getting heads on all of them?
The answer to the last question is No. At some point between 1 to 1 odds and 105,999,999,999 to 1 odds our hope becomes unrealistic.
The previous answers assume that there's a 50% chance on any flip of getting heads. But what if we're using a "trick" coin that, say gives a 99% chance of heads? In that case, we might have a realistic hope of getting all heads if we flipped 10, 20, 50, 100 or even 200 coins.
But we would still have no realistic hope for that 106 billion. The odds of getting 106 billion heads even with a coin that came up heads 99% of the time are over a billion to one.
Indeed, even if we define "realistic" conservatively as having, say, at least a 1% chance (which might be "realistic" but is still pretty small), then to have a realistic hope of getting heads on all 106 billion flips, the chance of getting heads for one coin would have to be on the order of 99.9999999%, give or take a few nines. That's not certainty, of course, but it's as close to certainty as virtually anything ever gets.
If I (being the ingenious and clever sinner that I am) use a magnet on a slot machine, giving me a 99.9999999% chance that I will come up a winner, in common-sense language, I would be perfectly within my rights to say that I know or I'm certain that I will win.
I would.
On one estimate, there have been approximately 106 billion human beings born on earth since 6,000 BC.
To say that we have a realistic hope that all of those were or will be saved, then (see above) there would have to be at least a 99.99999999% chance for each one of us, considered individually, to be saved.
It follows that there would be only a .00000001% chance (if that) for each one of us to go to Hell. To claim that that amounts to a "real possibility" is an abuse of common-sense language.
The main point is that the "realistic hope" of universal salvation contradicts the "real possibility" of individual damnation. You just can't assert both things at the same time. Or, rather, if you do, you're talking nonsense.
A subsidiary point is that Barron's "realistic hope" makes him for all extents and purposes a universalist. Or if he is not technically a universalist - for each person, there's a whopping .000000001% chance that he will not be saved - then he's a watered-down universalist. His giant frothing mug of universalism contains one atom of water.
Lastly, of course, those incredibly low "odds" for damnation are in complete contradiction to the words of Jesus, the opinions of the Church Fathers and the traditional formulations of the doctrine of hell by the Church.
I hope I'll be saved. I hope you'll be saved. I hope that that drunken, abusive guy who had a fatal heart-attack while in bed with his mistress will be saved. If I am a true Catholic and a magnanimous fellow, then I hope (or should hope) that Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot will be saved. Perhaps in some sense it is "realistic" to hope for Napoleon, etc. After all, God will forgive anyone if they sincerely repent.
But it isn't realistic to hope for all of them to be saved in sum. If Christianity is true, then they won't be. Not all of them.
Maybe Barron should have taken a statistics course.
Why does all of this matter? Well, obviously, logic matters and the truth matters, whatever one's purpose.
But beyond that, I think what we might call Barron's trickery is obvious. And I do mean trickery. It is incomprehensible to me that a man of at least middling intelligence, such as Barron, cannot see what he is doing. Obviously, Barron thinks scaring people with Hell is medieval or low-class or fundamentalist or whatever. Respected contemporary theologians or apologists just don't do it. And you know how much he wants to be respected.
Or to be more charitable, perhaps he thinks scaring people with Hell just won't work to convert them or get them to stay. (As I argued a few days ago, there's no evidence for that, whatsoever. Indeed, the opposite is much more likely.)
But he can't explicitly ditch Hell since it's such an obvious Church teaching. Hence, the bait and switch.
Traditional Catholicism is often criticized for putting inordinate importance on being Catholic. But of course, for the Church, being Catholic has always been a means to an end. The end (or at least one of the primary ends) is the salvation of one's soul. Or as the Church used to put it for the first 98% of its existence before people like Barron came along, the salvation of as many souls as possible.
The irony is that it's the anti-traditionalist Barron who really seems to have the fetish for being Catholic, without really telling us what it's for. By strongly implying that everyone will be saved, he's jettisoned the practical importance of saving people, and thus eliminated at a stroke what the Church historically affirmed as its most important mission.
And he calls himself an evangelist?
Traditional Catholicism is often criticized for putting inordinate importance on being Catholic. But of course, for the Church, being Catholic has always been a means to an end. The end (or at least one of the primary ends) is the salvation of one's soul. Or as the Church used to put it for the first 98% of its existence before people like Barron came along, the salvation of as many souls as possible.
I have heard this version of everyone going to heaven for years..I always ask the question...So,it`s okay to rape women,kill blacks and rape children??? God allowed Nazis and KKK into heaven after murdering innocent humans,right? If everyone goes to heaven,we can act any way we want.... No one has to act good,which is a lot harder than being bad.
People (rightly) rebel against the noble pagans of the world ending up in severe torment, so they try to squeeze them all into heaven, and run over centuries of Christian doctrine in the process.
Why not just go back to the old idea of Limbo? A place where the just of whatever religion can exist in natural happiness?
Heaven being a place of supernatural happiness, you cannot go there without supernatural grace. Period, end of story.
A good person need not fear hell to be good.
The author appears to have a real hatred for Bp. Barron. Although I too have been frustrated by some of Bp. Barron’s more lofty and fluffy generalizations, this is really over the top. The author’s whole rant is based on some sloppy probabilistic calculations which have no bearing whatsoever on God. As a absolutely powerful and omnipotent being who completely loves every human being who has ever lived, nothing is random and no probabilistic calculation is even applicable. Bp. Barron consistently qualifies his statements on this topic as being his personal opinion and wish. Indeed, we should all hope an pray that none of our brothers and sisters under God go to Hell. Anything less is a failure of hope and charity.
I do not belong to any demomination as Jesus said those who believe in me shall have eternal life.
I do not know what heaven or hell is but i know they both exist because Jesus talks about them.
For instance he said fear not man because he can only kill the
body but rather fear GOD because he can destroy both the body and soul in hell.
So we know there is a hell what ever it is and why would there be one if every one was going to heaven, what ever that is.?
Jesus also said many would be called but few chosen, and that his Gospel would be preached to all of the world and then the end would come.
There was a time when i went to Church because i believe in Jesus Christ and there are still Churches i would go to but my chosen one is about 6oo miles away and on top of that i have too much controversy in Bible study in other Churtches.
I believe there will be many people in hell and a few in heaven and those few in heaven will no doubt suprise even me.
A precher said he dreamed that he went to heaven and while he expected he was going to meet all of his congregation and all of his friends, but that was not the case.
Instead many there were the ones he had considered uncouth, the ones who went to the bars, the hobo type of people, who never went to Church and so on.
So it gave him great concern, something he had to think about.
It finialy made sense and he was most astonised that he was included in the number called.
One of the most beautiful hyms i have ever heard was played in a bar, it brought tears to every ones eyes because they knew they were sinners.
I was only a kid when i heard it so my memory may let me down but i think it was the death march or something like that.
I am not suggesting going to bars but only saying that believers are where you find them as long as they are not in a place which is forbidden by God.
Are you are universalist or a Catholic? You can’t be both.
I think neither the author, nor I, hate Bishop Barron. What I do hate is Barron’s false teaching. And that teaching appears to be what the author is attacking.
Do you consider Holy Scripture to be "sloppy"?
Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham' s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell.
Matthew 23:33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?
What about "faith"? Do you think Holy Scripture (regarding Hell) is a lie?
+1
This relates back to this ancient question:
Is God’s power absolute (depends only on His will), or ordained (destined by the eternal order/intellect, as revealed in Scripture)?
Absolute: more modern concept; “all things possible with God”; He could save everyone; God could even ok things like rape; so — also Islamic-like
Ordained: more ancient (like Aquinas) concept; God saves only those who meet an unchanging standard, laid down by Christ in the Gospel (enabled by His dying and resurrection)...
Thoughts?
Actual quotes from Bishop Barron:
https://youtu.be/dmsa0sg4Od4
“Bishop Barron on whether Hell is Crowded or Empty”
http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/homily/the-narrow-gate/5249/
“The Narrow Gate”
Barron is just the result of 50+ years of non-Catholic Vatican II teachings on religious freedom and ecumenism.
Putting your rude and fallacious Ad Hominem attack aside, you really should look up the definition of the word catholic.
Not at all, just the author's faulty reasoning and your weak exegesis. The passage in Luke you reference refers not to Hell in the post-resurrection context but to Sheol which in Hebrew means roughly "lower levels". Your second verse does nothing to further the author's original argument.
Neither the bible, nor the Catholic Church, nor Jesus himself ever definitively said that anyone is in Hell. Although I personally think that it is likely that there are souls condemned there, I hope that no one is permanently separated from the love of God. I am sorry that you and the author apparently hope that there are poor souls in Hell and wish to attack those who hopes otherwise.
Also, if you would like for me to reply to you again then do not reply with five different posts. Doing so makes the thread difficult to read. If you reply with more than one post to me I will assume that you are more interested in lobbing insults than you are in engaging in meaningful discussion.
Pure B.S.
I didn't think you were a Catholic. You've apparently proved me right. This is a caucus thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.