The REAL PROBLEM with Hoping HELL is EMPTY

In this episode, Trent examines the biggest problem with those who focus on hoping that Hell is empty.
Support this podcast: trenthornpodcast.com
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
00:22 What is Universalism?
00:44 The Problem with Universalism
01:59 "Dare We Hope" View
03:27 What does Bishop Barron teach...?
04:00 What does Pope Francis say...?
04:10 What are the counterarguments to the 'Dare We Hope' view?
05:08 What is 'my' position on the 'Dare We Hope' view?
05:29 What is the big problem with the 'Dare we Hope' view, and how should we respond?

[@Immorticus]

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins. Lead all souls into heaven, especially those most in need of thy mercy.

[@pjelpers]

Putting this prayer in context with the video, if we can't have a reasonable hope for the salvation of all, wouldn't a prayer asking to "lead ALL souls to heaven, especially those in need of thy mercy" be an unreasonable prayer? If I say "I hope I win the lottery", I'd think most would consider this a reasonable hope, provided I've bought a lottery ticket. But if I haven't bought a ticket, it would be unreasonable to say "I hope I win the lottery". Because it's expressing hope in an impossibility. And that seems to be the main beef with the "reasonable hope" view; people see hell as being empty of human souls as an impossibility, and so hoping for it (and praying for it) would seem unreasonable (or even irrational, using Trent's term).

[@anabrito1693]

In her memoirs, Sister Lucy says that they, the seers, understood that the prayer meant the Souls in Purgatory. That's why in Portuguese many people say "lead all little souls to Heaven", because that's a traditional and tender way that we use to mention the Souls in Purgatory.

[@anabrito1693]

The memoirs were written by her by the request of the Bishop in order to have a testimony about her and her cousins, as no one knew how long she would live and also for Jacinta and Francisco's canonisation cause.

[@femaleKCRoyalsFan]

​@@anabrito1693that makes sense actually

[@carlose4314]

thy mercy not they mercy

I do hope that all are saved, but I try to remain aware that there is a real possibility that I become the first to enter hell.

[@etienne-victordepasquale668]

+1

[@levrai944]

There are many in hell, even if you were damned (God forbid) you would definitely not be the first. There are many souls there

[@joelpenley9791]

Do you also hope that Satan is saved and not in hell? Why or why not?

[@marietav7342]

If your hope is great, you will not be damned but saved.

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

​@@levrai944you cannot say that with the certainty of theological faith. You are free to conjecture. But you must hope, with the theological virtue of hope, that hell will be empty, because you must hope that all men will accept the grace of conversion. Otherwise, you would be hoping that some will not.

[@curiouschris98]

I think that Bishop Barron would really appreciate this response to his view. It’s well articulated and very respectful. I would love to see a dialogue between Bishop Barron and Trent Horne on this topic. I think it would be very fruitful and insightful. Good video, Trent!

[@etienne-victordepasquale668]

No, it wouldn't. Trent is increasingly becoming legalistic and is falling into the error of hyper-rationalism. While his service has been precious, he is now corrupting it with a Pharisaic approach that besmudges his Christianity.

[@tmur3403]

Honestly, I think it's one of Trent's sloppiest takes. His analogies are poor and his main argument is that hope makes you presumptuous.

[@zuzaninha]

'How many will be saved' is a name of a sermon from 1 year ago where Bishop Barron talks about this topic once again. It is very clear - he is not talking about expectation, he is talking about hope. And the source? The Catechism of the Catholic church paragraph 1821 - In hope, the Church prays for all men to be saved.

[@peterbengtsson]

I would also like to see that dialogue in the future.

[@emilio6425]

@@tmur3403i wouldnt agree thats his main argument. I think hes just discussing the view and problems with it. I think if asked he would say his main argument is its consistency with in christian tradition and the bible. He seems to point to that referencing Jesus mention of narrow vs wide path.

[@bleachissweet1]

Im baptist and i like this channel. This guy seems to be one of the more honest and reasonable Catholic KZbinrs that i have seen.

[@tonyl3762]

Name a dishonest and unreasonable Catholic KZbinr.

[@MarianMetanoia]

He’s my favorite apologist, for sure.

[@milko540]

As an Orthodox, I also love Trent’s videos.

[@jayguevara6153]

@@milko540 resepect for you and Eastern Orthodoxy from this Roman Catholic. God bless.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Also a non-Catholic Christian and Trent is one of God's own. I loved his debate and follow up talk w/ Pastor Gavin Ortlund. They show admirable brotherly love, despite doctrinal differences. Building bridges, showing grace and love to all in the body of Christ, is what we are exhorted to do. God bless.

[@michaelrome3527]

The Holy Father is likely dreading the thought of anyone being separated from God for eternity.

[@kelsi8593]

This was my initial thought too, it's possible he knew that people would freak out and that's why he clarified "this is not dogma...."

[@gda86pl]

As all should be

[@MusicManTrailersx]

Call no sinful man Holy Father for God the Father is the only Holy Father

[@michaelrome3527]

@@MusicManTrailersx “call no man father” in Matthew yet Paul calls himself our father in Corinthians. Obviously a difference with distinction

[@MusicManTrailersx]

Does he call himself Holy Father?@@michaelrome3527

[@TheQCR]

I think that out of love for every brother and sister, one must hope everyone's saved. In fact, this is how I understood the Pope. Not making an argument as to how likely that is. I don't see the connection between hoping something and thinking that that would be the case... In fact, I struggle to think how we could NOT hope that others are saved... Shouldn't we all hope that hell is empty? To me, this is not a problem. The problem is relaxing and thinking that it PROBABLY is empty or almost empty, which I haven't heard the Pope say or imply...

[@drjanitor3747]

No we shouldn’t hope that hell is empty, because we know for a fact that it isn’t. It is equivalent to hoping that Christ was wrong when he said few are saved. It’s false hope based in faithlessness.

[@michaeljefferies2444]

Thanks for the fair treatment of this subject. Bishop Barron has clarified that he doesn’t think it’s likely, citing the worst figures in history and the ways in which people in everyday experience seem to be closed off to God. Also, few people are more devoted to evangelization than Bishop Barron.

[@codyeby]

I can’t believe how badly people will misconstrue Bishop Barron over this topic. He is a prominent evangelist who is trying to reach people about Jesus, yet people will insist that he is a universalist (who wouldn't need to evangelize)

[@michaeljefferies2444]

@@codyeby It's a true tragedy. I heard a critic of Catholicism lump Bishop Barron and Fr. Martin together as liberals that we shouldn't take seriously or as representative of Catholicism and the Catholic he was dialoguing with didn't correct him.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Very true. He is a good man. God bless him.

[@lucillejerome5511]

@@michaeljefferies2444 I don't pay attention to critics of Catholicism anymore - it was a hard lesson. The Catechism is clear, and I bring questions to my priest.

[@wprothwell]

Agree with this. Barron is clearly one who sticks to mere "hope" and dedicates his life to the hard work of evangelization. His "hope" also seems to me part of his evangelical effort in response to the common "I could never believe in a God who would send such-and-such type of person to Hell" rejection of the Gospel.

[@roundtable3501]

I share such reservations. Although bishop Barron definitely doesn’t allow a view to hold back on evangelizing, as word on fire has helped many souls. Personally with the hope thing, I don’t think hope needs to be qualified with any adjective at all. Just simply you hope that all are saved.

[@lucillejerome5511]

Thank you.

[@AveMaria.GratiaPlena]

It is the danger of presumption. I also have concerns with homilies that focus only on the mercy of God without prefacing it with the justice of God. The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, a fear out of love is necessary.

[@lucillejerome5511]

Well in the old days of the 1940s and 1950s, the focus was on justice almost to the exclusion of mercy. To me, what's happening is a correction to that view, and we'll eventually get to a balance. That will probably happen when you and I are no longer around and unable to return to share information.

[@observingyt6159]

I actually side with Bishop Barron's view mostly. However one of the Psalms says this: If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with you, that you may be feared Psalm 130 3-4 RSV CE 2 It says that because God is the one who will be merciful that is why he is feared.

[@OxyCleanForYourBrain]

“I hope hell is empty” vs “I hope hell is full”. Non-Christians have classically mocked us saying victims will have to be in heaven with victimizers as a denouncement of heaven and eternity - without an ounce of understanding of mercy and that we all need it. I think where people misstep is when they imply humans are more merciful or just than God. If and when we are merciful, it’s a grace gifted from God’s ocean of mercy. C.S. Lewis called it - if anyone is in hell, it’s because he chose to go there. But I should add: Jesus called us to be vigilant and that we must be perfect like the Heavenly Father is perfect. “Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom”. I used to have a very casual attitude towards Purgatory - until the good Lord corrected that in a very vivid dream that made me sit up and take notice. We are supposed to purge our sin NOW in THIS life and seek heaven and seek to take others to heaven as our primary objective. We must be virtuous and grow in holiness to displace vice. Otherwise, how can we share in the glory of God and His kingship if we aren’t On-Mission with Him?

[@ShiniGuraiJoker]

I would argue that if people worry about being with those who did legitimate harm against another, it is not understanding that trauma will no longer exist in heaven. They also probably have a rigid or unthought out ideology on crime and punishment. Mr. H was allegedly devoted to Christ. If this is true and your god is real, that would be one of the highest feats of forgiveness and repentance. If it could be proven, this would bolster the validity of the Christian god and Jesus' messianic claims. True forgiveness is moving past the worst atrocities done by humans. If that conception is not fully understood; I question the faith of anyone.

[@bruh-dg5yw]

It is important to note that Paul is currently in heaven with the Christians he victimized and murdered before he was transformed by God.

[@femaleKCRoyalsFan]

@@bruh-dg5yw You know I like how they portrayed the ending of the movie “Paul apostle of Christ”. it Shows Paul meeting Stephen and it seems that Stephen has forgiven him because he embraces him.

[@kellysoo]

Thoughts Well put together thank you

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

I find it interesting and encouraging as a non-Catholic Christian myself, that so many Catholics obviously respect C.S. Lewis enough to quote him so often. It goes to show, we are all in this together as the body of Christ. There are many Catholics, whether laity or ministry that I admire too. God bless all, and let us pull together in these perilous times.

[@stevencass8849]

I heard someone use this analogy: I can hope my favorite baseball team goes 162-0 at the beginning of the regular season, but the odds of that happening are so low it’s almost zero.

[@femaleKCRoyalsFan]

The best record I believe it was set in 2001 by the Mariners - they went 116 and 46 and then they fell to the Yankees in the playoffs.

[@kinghoodofmousekind2906]

Mhm, it is more of a matter of clarifying why to hold it as a 'firm belief' rather than a personal hope is dangerous. Trent's point addresses why we should not entertain it too much or in depth.

[@heistbros8575]

​@@kinghoodofmousekind2906we definitely shouldn't because it's kinda deceptive. The church has always recognized hell is full of people who rejected God. To pull the "well maybe or I hope" makes it seem like God is more focused on mercy for everyone then enforcing justice. For over thousand years the church held the verbatim belief, " there is No salvation outside the church"

[@OtherSideAus]

Christianity isn’t about “hope” and “odds”. It’s about certainty and truth. And it’s about forgiveness and redemption - the MAIN THING that sets it apart from other religions and philosophies and makes it so profound.

[@thatgirlray2765]

Sure but your team doesn’t have infinite mercy. Gods mercy is beyond anyone’s comprehension. That’s like saying you have no hope of Jesus Resurrecting because the number of men who have been raised from the dead so far is astronomically small. Yet you believe he did that. With God anything logical is possible.

[@jamessgian7691]

“For children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.” G. K. Chesterton

[@tonyl3762]

Just finished reading the chapter in Brothers Karamozov where Ivan rejects the harmony and concord in God's plan between victim (especially children) and perpetrator (chapter before The Grand Inquisitor). Seems Ivan, no friend of God, would also oppose the "dare we hope" view but from a different perspective.

[@rafal2959]

That's an evil quote. No wonder most children go to hell under traditional Catholic beliefs (i mean, every mass we ask that our trespasses get forgiven as we forgive others and children love justice more than forgiveness so God casting all unbaptized and some baptized children into eternal fiery torment would be just!).

[@sneakysnake2330]

@@rafal2959Yap yap yap

[@robertkolinsky1286]

​​@@rafal2959no unbaptized child goes to hell.

[@brandanimations3790]

@@rafal2959 " No wonder most children go to hell under traditional Catholic beliefs" absolute braindead and objectively wrong.

[@tonyalongi4409]

I respectfully disagree with the worry that the "Dare we hope" view inspires laziness and is a threat to evangelism and spiritual life. I have found that hope is a motivator for prayer, not a disincentive. Part of what makes universalism a heresy is that it removes all necessity for prayer and evangelization, while the "Dare we hope" perspective, taken together with Christ's teachings, underlines the urgency of both, since Hell is a very real possibility and that, as von Balthazar said, everyone stands under judgment and, as we all know, we are not saved by anyone other than Christ. Which makes prayer and evangelization all the more important. That's why I think the opposite view (a.k.a. the "Crowded Hell" view), is a disincentive. If we secretly thought that Hell is crowded, it would tend toward despair, which would cause the very laziness and harm to spiritual life you're worried about. Why bother evangelizing or praying if it wouldn't help a lot of people anyway? Think about it. If one believed that there was a reasonable hope that all could be saved, I would think that would motivate Catholics all the more. All we need to do is have that hope within the context of the rest of the Church's teachings. If we can do that, I don't think there's anything to worry about.

[@Deuterocomical]

I also think it’s good to distinguish between faith and hope. Having hope that all are saved is different than having faith that they are.

[@ianlim2384]

I think this is the most important view. To hope means that thing is not true yet, and we have to work to it. To have faith means to believe something to be true. We hope, and therefore we do what we can to make it a reality.

[@igorlopes7589]

Hope is desire with expectation of the desire coming true. The desire part is good, noble and mandatory, we MUST desire the salvation of all. The expectation part is the problem because we can’t expect something when Jesus already told us otherwise. Our Lord said many pass through the gates of destruction

[@Deuterocomical]

@@igorlopes7589 Exactly! And Scripture tells is that God desires all to be saved, so we ought to as well. Yet, He also tells us this isn’t what will happen, so we must also submit to that.

[@igorlopes7589]

​@@DeuterocomicalThe point is that those who say they hope hell is empty are either changing the definition of hope to remove expectation or are unironically expecting something God said is didn't/won't happen. Either way its certainly scandalous.

[@DVN5381]

@@igorlopes7589The Lord wants none to perish, so why would it be scandalous for us to hope none perish? 2 Peter 3:9 “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

[@Kevin-vi4mh]

In defense of Bishop Barron's statement, and I've heard him clarify this. He states and I'm paraphrasing "yes, there's a hell and yes people certainly go there. But according to the CCC 1821, I have "hope" "all men to be saved" and "we can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him." He states that his hope that hell is empty, is directly based on the CCC. Perhaps Bishop Barron is simply using this paragraph in the CCC as support of his opinion or he's only trying to follow the CCC? I think we should certainly air on the "hope" his statement is of good will and not malicious in nature. I for one will pray that is the case. God Bless.

[@lesanon919]

What I'm getting out of this is kind of a pastoral steering of the ship away from the more earlier focus of the church on the reality of hell. There are metric truckloads of commentaries on hell, how awful it is, how easy it is to go there, how you should fear it and do absolutely everything you can to avoid it coupled with horrifyingly vivid descriptions in art, music, and writing throughout the churches history. All of that is true, but it doesn't exactly reach out to or play well with modern sensibilities. So they shift focus to the equally true hope that God does everything he can to save as many of his beloved, precious, infinitely valuable children as allow themselves to be touched by his grace. Bishop Barron and Pope Francis aren't being duplicitous or malicious here. They simply believe that this shift in focus will be more fruitful for the time that we're in and it comports with their general sensibilities. There is the danger of spiritual laziness or indifference in the dare to hope position, especially when stretched to a mass populated level where the nuances of the theology can get watered down. But I don't think that's something our bishops mean when they take or espouse the position in the first place.

[@roundtable3501]

Right, and the CCC paragraph simply uses the word “hope” without any adjectives. I think if Barron dropped “reasonable” and just said he hoped all were saved, his position wouldn’t be viewed as controversial.

[@ajmeier8114]

And this is the problem with those that try to sound philosophical and theological...just keep it simple. If Bishop Baron is certain that people are in Hell, he shouldn't have a hope it is empty. It logically does not make sense

[@sleepystar1638]

that like saying i hope Jesus isn't really gonna judge our works, because that the only way 99% would get to Heaven.

[@paulywauly6063]

@@lesanon919 Pope Francis is not denying the reality of Hell ... Hew simply says that he prefers to see hell as empty .. That would correspond with the virtue of hope .. a hope which sees all men receive Gods mercy. We need to understand nuance in such statements.

[@Fothiarna]

Has Bishop Barron neglected evangelization because of his endorsement of the hope? Has Hans Uhrs von Balthasar, one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century, neglected evangelization? Is there ANY spiritual authority that would subscribe to the hope for universal salvation AND neglect preaching the Gospel because of that, or is that just a speculation? If no particular person is beyond hope, then all of humanity is not beyond hope either. It would require of me to be a heartless sociopath to lack that hope.

[@Mac-ci3py]

Exactly. Bishop Barron is one of the greatest living evangelists!

[@anthonymangiaracia8692]

This "hope" may have actually hurt his evangelization efforts. Have you seen his interview with Ben Shapiro? He horribly failed to evangelize Ben Shapiro. However, I believe Bishop Barron to be a good man who means well. Listen to what Fr. Mike Schmitz has to say about all of this. Like him, I believe the seriousness of us and our neighbors going to hell needs to be at the forefront of our thoughts. There has to be some urgency in saving souls

[@thomasmichael6509]

It absolutely hurts the evangelization process. If Hell has managed to be empty up to this point, there’s probably no need to evangelize.

[@Fothiarna]

@@thomasmichael6509 Untrue. If it turns out there are no people in hell, our evangelizing is one of the reasons why.

[@thomasmichael6509]

@@Fothiarna I don’t know what world you live in but it’s clearly not reality.

[@PaxMundi118]

1) "God desires that all shall be saved and have a perfect knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy). 2) God is free, omnipotent and all-loving -- and created all things ex nihilo with their destiny in mind. 3) Therefore, all are saved.

[@carakerr4081]

Amen 🙏

[@tylercurtis764]

"Lead all souls to Heaven." Why should we pray for something that we cannot hope for?

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

A desire, i have always attributed the Fatima prayer to mean those who are still able to be led to heaven, like the living and those in purgatory

[@tmur3403]

That's not what 'all' means.

[@tylercurtis764]

@@johnisaacfelipe6357 that's one possible interpretation, the same one that people use to argue that "all" in the Bible just means all believers, not all people. This part of the Fatima revelation seems to indicate that God is willing to rescue souls who are already in Hell: "You see Hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to my Immaculate Heart."

[@FrhrVonFalkenstein]

We can always choose not to follow the leader, or the Good Shepherd, in this case. We were given free will. Leading is not the same as forcing.

[@tylercurtis764]

@@FrhrVonFalkenstein Indeed. And we can hope that the Good Shepherd will always search for His lost sheep.

[@eustacelittle5044]

I feel like the "I like to think of hell as empty" and the "We can reasonably hope all men are saved" views have nuances that differentiate them. The way i understood Barron's "dare we hope all be saved" was thinking in terms of, would there be a single individual soul that I would come across in all of history that I wouldn't hope would be saved? Even if I had met Hitler in 1940 or Judas on his way to the potters field, does not the theological virtue of charity call us to desire for them their salvation? I feel there's an important consideration here that would be good to reflect on. Also, I think Bishop Barron's one of the last people we could say does not emphasize enough the call to evangelization for every baptized person. I understand not touching on everything in one video, but people are going to take this video as a criticism of Barron in that regard, which is an unfair criticism of him,

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

I used to pray as a child for the whole world to be saved. I can understand the wish that we could all go to heaven. The more mercy shown to us, the more we want to respond in kind w/ mercy. I also had a brush w/ universalism and liberalism and was getting sucked into it for a few years. God pulled me back out of that. Bishop Barron really does speak like a liberal universalist, in so much of his language. I'm surprised more Catholics don't notice it, because it leaps out to me that he's not that orthodox. Same w/ Francis, but it's blatant enough that many Catholics do notice and are alarmed and chagrined by it. Same w/ a lot of protestants, who though they don't believe in the papacy (like myself), we recognize that even to non Catholics and non believers, the world is listening and being influenced. So having a pope like that is not just an influence to Catholics.

[@eustacelittle5044]

The heart of my statement appears to have totally gone over your head...

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@eustacelittle5044 It could be, but you seem to have made yourself clear enough. I was trying to make my own points about it clear. I have some experience w/ universalism, and I shared it. It's too much of a blight on society. Someone w/ as big a platform as Bishop Barron, or esp. the pope needs to be more careful about orthodoxy. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. They spread a lot of leaven. It's far more serious when they misspeak.

[@eustacelittle5044]

The point of my comment is exactly that I don't think bishop Barron misspoke, although I do agree it's important for these people to avoid misspeaking. The problem isn't that Bishop Barron is universalist, because he's clearly not. The problem is, people have interpreted him as being one. It's the same fallacy as when people say Francis is pro g@y marriage, he may say things that pro g@y marriage people say and emphasize, but his statements on what is allowable with regards to marriage and what is sinful have been quite clear. There are radical traditionalists who have very problematic views that they need to stop expounding, that doesn't mean everyone who says or does something resembling what the radical traditionalists say or do is a radical traditionalist. As I tried to refer to in my original comment, Trent Horn makes a good point about how universalism can lead to people not fulfilling their call to evangelize, but this criticism cannot be levied against Barron because a) he's not a universalist and most importantly b) he's way too often called people to evangelize.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@eustacelittle5044 I think Barron has a lot of universalist flavour to the way he talks and thinks. That's the reason he makes Christians like me uncomfortable and I stopped listening to him. Yes, he evangelizes, and there's some orthodoxy there. There wouldn't be so many of us thinking he sounded universalist if he staunchly wasn't. You never hear that about other certain priests or pastor. Same w/ Francis as pope. You never heard about Benedict or John Paul being pro-gay, because they didn't constantly soft peddle their stance on it like Francis does. I find Barron reinforces the universalist camp in their beliefs and he makes them really comfortable. That's why so many non-Christians and new agers will listen to him. And w/ Francis, why so many of the pro-alphabet people listen to him. He makes them comfortable in their sin.

[@roinois]

Sometimes it seems like the actual problem people have is not the likelihood of the hope, but that it is something to be hopeful of at all. Bible makes it clear that God wants the salvation of all but some people reject this, and hope for the damnation of others. I know this likely comes from people being hurt by injustices in this world and hoping for justice in the next so we should try to be understanding. But at the same time, we should be pointing out the correct view that we should hope for the repentance and salvation of all.

[@GabrieleDiClemente]

My question is: if it is good to HOPE that, eventually, everyone will be saved; if it is good to HOPE that, eventually, everyone will be reconciled with God; if it is good to HOPE that we will all rejoice in seeing all people sharing the infinite mercy and beauty of God in heaven and being spared from an eternal, conscious torment; if all of that is granted, aren’t we implicitly saying that this outcome is best of all the possible outcomes regarding our “eschatological fate”? And, if so, shouldn’t we expect God to fulfill our hope as God is much more merciful than us and would rejoice more that anyone in knowing that none of his children have been eternally lost?

[@drjanitor3747]

No it isn’t good because such an idea contradicts the authoritative teaching of the church.

[@carakerr4081]

Yes and amen 🙏

[@koffeeblack5717]

I'm not convinced hopeful universalism negatively impacts evangelical efforts. Case in point: Bishop Barron,a hopeful universalist, is the most successful Catholic evangelizer of our times.

[@erric288]

I think what you are missing is that the Dare We Hope view does not make any claim on the proportion of saved souls. It's not about that at all. It's about God's infinite mercy. If we believe that it's impossible that some souls can be saved, then that is going to negatively affect how we evangelize and how we interact with other people. It leads us to have prejudice against certain people we might deem to far gone or not worth the effort because we think they are probably going to hell anyway. If we believe in God's infinite mercy, then we can reasonably believe that it's possible no one would freely reject it. We are obliged therefore, to have this hope, lest we have no charity in our hearts for our fellow brothers and sisters. It is this theological virtue of hope, upheld by our charity for our neighbor, that is demanded from us by our love of Christ.

[@lesanon919]

That view can't be about God's infinite mercy ultimately. I would actually say it is unreasonable to assume that due to the infinite nature of God's mercy it might be possible for no one to object to it. He made us truly free and truly respects that freedom. He gives us everything we need to come to him and accept his incomprehensible mercy and unfathomable grace. We not only can, but often positively delight in throwing that back in his face and rejecting him wholeheartedly. That said, true Christian hope is rooted in understanding how much of an infinite loss each lost soul is. God created them out of an abundance of love and personally died to redeem them from sin and death. This fundamental understanding of human dignity compels us to work, hope, and pray for the salvation of all, principally to give honor and glory to God. But nowhere in this does the dare to hope position ever come into play. It's too focused on balming ones conscience to the end state and not nearly enough on aggressively doing what's best now to help souls get to heaven and avoid hell.

[@erric288]

God is love, love in action is mercy and forgiveness, this is the source of our hope (specifically Christ's sacrifice on the cross). If we use the powerball analogy Trent uses, we could argue that because it's so unlikely a grave obstinate sinner could be saved, there would be no point in playing the lotto at all. But in this case we don't actually know how likely or not that person would be saved, and if we don't attempt to do the work to save them, then we are withholding the love and mercy that we have received from God and are obliged to give to others. We are all guilty, to one degree or another, and all rely on God's infinite mercy and grace for salvation. We cannot give up on any particular soul. And to say even one soul is definitively in hell is to say there is no hope in God for that person. This is so obviously wrong I don't understand why anyone has a problem with Balthasar. You say such a hope in God's infinite mercy is unreasonable. On what grounds? God is the judge of man, not us. We cannot say who is damned, if anyone. And again, no where in Balthasar does he say that this means we can just sit and presume God's mercy will save all (that would be universalism). In fact, he says that his position positively inflames evangelization because it maintains that we are all under judgment and very well may end up in hell, but because we know salvation is possible for all, we can be steadfast and confident in pursuing that salvation for all. We can go forth confidently and preach Christ crucified as Paul did and show them His merciful Love which endures forever.

[@lesanon919]

@@erric288 I agree with just about everything you said and so does the church, which is why she has never definitively identified that any particular person is in hell. Where we differ is in the population of hell. I wholeheartedly hope for the salvation of each and every individual (living and dead, since our prayers can be applied backwards in time) and beg God's mercy and kindness for them. I aggressively evangelize anyone who will listen because we have such good news of great joy to share with them that God eagerly wants us to share. Despite all of that, though, I not only believe that hell is probably packed to the gills but that there. Is a special spot of dishonor reserved especially for me because I take Jesus words about the wide path to destruction seriously, especially when combined with human weakness. Again, this does nothing to dampen my hope for the salvation of others because, like the church affirms, we cannot know who is in hell, so that prompts us to work tirelessly to bring the good news to people and let them know the wonderful things God has prepared for those who choose to love him. Also, regarding God's infinite mercy, it isn't believing that God's mercy is infinite that is the unreasonable part. That is incontrovertibly true. What is unreasonable is assuming that Because God's mercy is infinite that everyone will ultimately end up accepting that mercy. That flies in the face of just about every warning Christ gave us about what it means to be saved. We can only enter heaven by being perfect as his father is perfect through the person of Christ Jesus. Unfortunately he let us know that not everyone is going to freely choose that path and many are going to freely choose to reject striving for that until the bitter end.

[@erric288]

@@lesanon919 well it's good that hoping that all are saved has no claim about expectations that all are actually saved. It could very well be that the vast majority are damned, but again that's not the issue. The issue is having certainty that any one person is or will be damned. I don't think it's possible to love as Christ loves, if I were to hold to that view. I don't love other people because I'm trying to save them from damnation. I love them for their own sake. In the same way I don't love God because I'm afraid of hell or hoping for the pleasures of heaven, but because of God Himself. How can I will the good of the other if I am certain they are beyond reach of that love? Considering that God is outside of time and our prayers can provide grace across time, our intercessory prayers truly ought to be able to be received by all, even those who might end up being damned. But if I write them off as surely damned, then how could I still will their good? And to the point of evangelization again, Bishop Baron has devoted his life to it while holding to a form of Balthasar's position, so it seems not to be an impediment. And it was John Paul II who made Balthasar a Cardinal (not that he explicitly endorsed his position however). Honestly it seems we are looking at the same glass of water and arguing over whether it is half empty or half full.

[@texasballistics]

Trent I’m glad your addressing these recent topics and not scared to do it. May God continue to give you grace to do so.

[@janjakolenc7634]

I often pray even for the most wicked ones. But in the end, I feel like some people have been taken over their narcissism or psychopathy (or plainly.. the devil) so much that, even when God presents himself when they die, they will deny him. I remain hopeful for their change, but it feels like it's a small chance for most of them. On the other hand it's narcissistic of me to think I'm so much better. So, I also try and fail and try and fail and.. hope in the end I succeed to be in God's grace

[@thereluctantphilosopher5454]

So God's omnipotent will can be frustrated by a creature? For Augustine and Aquinas grace is not extrinsic but works within causing people to choose freely. Hence why Augustine rejects any kind of account you just gave for why people go to hell (Enchiridion 95-105).

[@krdiaz8026]

The problem is a lot of people want a very simple kindergarten level catechism that can never be misunderstood even by the most simple-minded person. This is fine for children, but the older you get, the deeper your understanding of the faith ought to be, and that requires understanding what exactly the words mean. I remember a non-Catholic once commenting that Pope Francis is absolutely wrong in saying that charity is the most important virtue. This person had understood 'charity' to mean helping the poor, yet when a Catholic says this word, it can indeed mean helping the poor, but it can also mean the theological virtue of charity. We need to ask ourselves before disagreeing with someone if we had understood them correctly because words can have several meanings, or we might've missed the context.

[@amb_.]

Exactly. Thank you for having an intelligent response. You don’t see that often anymore

[@videonmode8649]

We hold out hope and pray for the salvation for everyone to be reunited with God. Although we can reasonably certain that not every single person can or wants to be saved, we should always pray for those in most need of God's mercy.

[@jasonrhtx]

I have to disagree with Trent on this one, though I admire his apologetics. The idea of “dare we hope that all may be saved?” does not preclude evangelization nor presume that all will be saved. Nor does it promote a false hope for random salvation (as random and unlikely as winning the lottery) or encourage people to lead a sinful life with a plan to repent all sins near/after death and attain salvation through purgatory. Rather, we should do our best to evangelize to everyone possible and hope and fervently pray for the ultimate salvation of everyone, the thief, the murderer, the Prodigal Son, the prostitute, the tax collector, everyone despised for their sins…. God alone will judge who will be in Heaven or Hell.

[@carakerr4081]

Amen 🙏 I agree 100 💯

[@jasonscranton2756]

I'd love to see you and Bishop Barron discuss this openly. Please, Lord, bless us with the spirit of your wisdom!

[@swedensy]

You religious wakos!!! Santa aint real!!

[@lisabeck6264]

Great video Trent. You scripting these makes all the difference !!

[@TravisD.Barrett]

Two questions: 1) If it doesn’t change their motivation for evangelism, do you think a Christian can PRAY that hell will be empty? (Is it a result we should even desire?) 2) Does hoping that hell will be empty affect any other doctrines, like Theology proper?

[@sovereigndayyouthkafir3943]

My mother's brother left the faith and she is his caregiver now. She and i pray for him often. My younger brother also has left the faith, and I've tried evangelizing him back to Christ, but he's rejected my overtures; I don't know what more I can do beyond praying for him at this point.

[@johnchrysostom330]

I'm frustrated that Trent didn't bring up CCC 1821, "...In hope, the Church prays for "all men to be saved."

[@MeZimm]

I've discovered that once you start applying math to theology, you can be sure you've made a major mistake somewhere and need to rethink everything. There is no "probability" regarding whether someone goes to Hell. If they go to Hell, it is because - after God did everything in his power to save them - that person still chose to reject him. If God (the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent source of all being who transcends time itself) couldn't get that person to change their mind, there's really no way they were ever going to change their mind after all. That's why lottery analogies always fail: they don't account for the fact that, far from being a matter of blind probabilities, the only reason salvation is possible is because God loves us and wants us back. Likewise, the "lost at sea" analogy implies that God is as indifferent as the ocean over whether we are saved or lost. I have a similar complaint when I see Protestants defend cringey attempts at proselytism by drawing an analogy with "warning someone that they're falling off a cliff" or "pushing someone out of the way of an oncoming truck/train" - as if God, like the cliff/truck/train, didn't care at all whether that person lived or died. (The truck analogy is particularly poignant since I can point out that at least a truck driver would probably slam on the brakes and possibly swerve to avoid hitting someone - and shouldn't God, who holds the very laws of physics in being, be far more in control of whether someone "gets hit" than a truck driver?) I would further point out (in response to the point made at 0:57) that universalism does not in any way imply that "the lost" didn't need saving. Christian universalists generally still acknowledge that everyone WOULD go to Hell if it weren't for Jesus. Lastly, Trent's main argument here seems to be that "hopeful universalism" is bad because it results in bad outcomes: namely, it encourages laziness. And there is probably something to be said for this. Fear can be a powerful motivator. But my own experience tells me that fear is still a BAD motivator when it comes to evangelism - not that it is ineffective, but that it results in a harmful mentality based on a skewing of what to regard as important. And, it may even derive from subtly blasphemous falsehoods regarding the character of God. When I saw God through the paradigm of fear, I viewed him as a stern, cold, and distant judge, who either doesn't understand why we act the way we do, or worse - that he knows, and just doesn't care. There's something deeply sinister about this idea of God, who is supposed to be, as St. Anselm put it, "the being than which none greater can be conceived." Now, maybe other people don't have this problem. Maybe the idea of "stern judge" God had never occurred to them. Or maybe they find it somehow better. But I can certainly say that my faith has vastly improved after doing away with it, and instead seeing God from the perspective that he is love and that all he commands and does is from his love for us. Using this other paradigm - based on love, which "casts out fear" - allows me to see how it could be possible that every sinner might be redeemed. And so it gives me a sense of hope that all MIGHT be saved after all. I don't think you can expect too much from an all-good, all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful God. There's always more to say but this seems a good place to end this comment, at least for now.

[@tibet499]

All this just to say that you trust god because of god. Has it occurred to you that despite his "omnis" people still leave? Have you even given yourself a time to think about each omni? People like you are actually one of the most, if not the most dangerous. Blind followers. People who refuse to think for themselves. You might not directly engage in evil but you are one of those voices in the crowd who would've hailed as the bishop set ablaze his next set of witches. (you still burn those 'witches' in our time just in another fashion) And you scare me! Not the Bishop. You! You don't think that you are a sinner just like the others. No! You think that just like you the others are sinners. And even if there is a heaven, I would not want to share it with someone who thinks that it is justified that his wife, parents, children or any one close to him should burn for eternity because they were not convinced by a god that doesn't exist outside of the mind.

[@paracosm4197]

We need more videos like this! Rejecting the concept of Hell redirects our focus to social work, but embracing its reality compels us to be soul-saving miracle workers, not mere social workers. We're not here to offer empty platitudes and toxic positivity; we're called to be saints, living the gospel authentically. The true mission of the church and Catholics has always been the latter - soul-saving. Unfortunately, the current papacy and lay evangelizations seem to overlook this crucial emphasis. We must be reminded that we are all sinners, yet God's love seeks our conversion. Falling into either of Satan's deceptions - believing we're already saved or thinking we're unworthy of salvation - is a dangerous trap. As we face death, God will scrutinize the essence within us. Let our prayers be that He finds only Himself reflected in our souls.

[@SterlingJames]

Thank you Trent! Go bless you and your family.

[@MarkusFlaviusAntonius]

Hey Trent Thanks for your videos. Even though I was brought up Catholic and was blessed with a good education, it sometimes helps to listen to somebody with a very deep understanding of the subject.

[@RaimundoSantos79]

Pope Francis didn't say hell is empty. He only said that he would like it to be empty. And this is exactly what Scripture teaches us: "...For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, 4 Who WILL HAVE all men to be SAVED, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus:..." I Timothy, 2:3-5 And also in the Fatima Prayer, which is usually prayed together with the Glory be to the Father: "...O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, SAVE us from the fires of hell, lead ALL SOULS to HEAVEN, especially those in most need of your mercy..."

[@joelpenley9791]

Except that is not all scripture teaches. Jesus said the road to hell is wide and easy and taken by many. The road to heaven is narrow and taken by few. Praying to Jesus and asking Him to lead all souls to heaven, is not saying that all will be saved. We pray for “all” because we don’t know exactly who will be saved. God is the judge and there will be many goats according to Matthew 25:

[@bertpenney3526]

@@joelpenley9791 You missed his point.

[@RaimundoSantos79]

@@joelpenley9791 Yes, I agree with you. But pope Francis didn't say that "all will be saved". People are misinterpreting what he said. He only said he likes to imagine that the hell is empty. Isn't this an expression of good will and mercy? That's exactly what it reads in 1 Timothy, in which God wishes all to be saved. I don't see any error on the words of pope Francis.

[@Tttb95]

​@@RaimundoSantos79"I like to think hell is empty" is straight up delusional. Its what happens when we focus on being nice, instead of being good.

[@RaimundoSantos79]

@@Tttb95 I agree with you. But that's not what pope Francis meant to say. He only expressed a wish.

[@annahitch0]

This analysis was both reasonable AND rational. Thanks Trent!

[@rudyagresta]

I enjoy all of your podcasts. Your explanations are clear, logical, and sorely needed today. God Bless!

[@springinfialta106]

There are two problems with those who don't believe in universal salvation: 1) No matter how evil a person is or how much death and destruction they were responsible for, the amount of harm they did is finite. Hell for eternity is infinite punishment which seems unjust for a finite amount of evil. 2) Those who deny universal salvation usually have a set of beliefs that if followed to their logical conclusion would imply that only a very tiny percentage of mankind ends up in Heaven. They will say that no one can know who will end up in Hell, but their theology pretty much says that almost everyone is going to Hell. It's sort of the reverse of the "dare I hope" concept. It's more like "dare I tell" everyone I meet that based on my theology they are almost certainly going to Hell.

[@user-sf8mn9ed3d]

You have two presumptions that non-universalists wouldn't necessarily agree with. The first is that the evil was finite. If you limit your definition of evil to harm to other created beings, then possibly you're correct. If your definition includes "rejecting the infinitely good source of goodness itself" as evil, then you have a potentially infinitely evil act. The second assumption is that people would be in hell solely for some singular act (e.g., murder, or genocide), but if they are in hell because they continually refuse to repent of their evil (either they don't think it is wrong and refuse to acknowledge it, or they see it is wrong but still refuse to repent for it) then I don't think it would be unjust to continue punishment. If we had a way of knowing perfectly if some criminal was repentant or not and discovered that they felt no remorse for their prior crime and would commit it again if given the chance we may very well keep them locked up forever.

[@whelperw]

​@@user-sf8mn9ed3d, but condition is still accepting Christ, if you don't, you go to Hell regardless of what you did in your life. Which is why there are universalists, because they are terrified of idea, that most people are going to Hell for being non-christian. For them, THIS is not what All loving God will do.

[@CappieBG]

The Bible does talk more about Annihilationism actually. ECT turns people away from God. No one can walk around with their atheists friends around knowing they would burn for eternity and keep his sanity. Also to add to your point he says " I will have mercy on whom I have mercy". Paul and Jesus in the parable of the talents talk more about a person being judged by the amount of knowledge and etc. So while we know that Sin must be punished with a substitute atonement in the OT and therefore the sacrifice of Jesus in the NT. He might judge people like the Jews back in the days of WW2 by a lower standard.

[@charlesudoh6034]

Bishop Barron has repeatedly clarified his position on this issue. Most people keep choosing to misrepresent him. The position is an orthodoxy one. However, I love Trent’s take on the issue. Maybe the problem is with the way it is worded. If it is worded differently (e.g rational hope), then the misrepresentation would stop.

[@BrewMeister27]

Vague language has been an increasing problem over the years. Prominent Catholics, and even the magisterium, will say something that's _technically_ orthodox but misleads many people. Phrases like "Christianity is the privileged path" or "the possibility of blessing same-sex couples without officially validating their status" insinuate something that is contrary to the Catholic faith.

[@stevetyndall]

How about Paul’s view in his first letter to Timothy? 1 Timothy 4:10 (RSV): For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. That said, I think it’s tragic thinking to refuse belief and be unwilling to follow our Lord and Savior.

[@SponsaChristi]

Thank you for your balanced response to this topic.

[@metamentality9818]

Lord I pray for all the souls of all of those who live, who have lived, and who will live. ✝️

[@jdotoz]

Counterpoint to the "many find the road of perdition" argument: I did find the road to perdition and was happy to walk down it for at least a decade. By the grace of God, I think I can say that I stopped. So it seems to me that, at least as I read it in English, that "many" could still enter the gate and walk the road while there is still time to change, which means that they could all potentially change in time. I don't think this hypothesis is particularly likely based on what I see as a human in the world. But it has one good argument for it: it's clearly the result God wants.

[@ShinAkuma204]

As Christians it is our duty to save as many as possible, even if we know that to save all may not be possible. Hell won't be empty, but we should do everything we can to try and make it so. Save your friends and family. Pray for humanity.

[@mikesarno7973]

Mr Horn, I cannot think of a single person who is hoping that hell is empty and is not simultaneously working to make that a reality through evangelization. Sorry, brother, you and I are just going to have agree to disagree on this one. I still pray for you, by name, every night. You're one of the best living Catholic apologists and have done much to help me sift through a number of ideas. This video, though, needed a bit more thought before it was posted.

[@carakerr4081]

Agreed 👍

[@ethanmiller5487]

I would think that the Church would realize that the churches salvation requirements don't matter to God when they remember the parable of the vineyard owner. The church doesn't give salvation, God does, and it's His Church. Let Him have control over His creation.

[@metalwall3090]

I’m mean this with no disrespect. This is the problem I have with Catholicism, The keys to heaven were given to Peter, as is written in Matthew chapter 16 . According to the catholic faith the pope is directly and divinely given the same power and Authority. This seems to means he has the authority to save all the souls, yet they still claim that all other non catholic Christians are incorrect in regard to not believing that the Pope has that authority. Maybe i am wrong in that line of thinking but I don’t see how one can claim that Sola Scriptura is bad because of disagreeing viewpoints, and then have a different view from the Pope..

[@ethanmiller5487]

@metalwall3090 I'm not Catholic and don't know all their reasons. I'm attacking Trents words and meaning. He, along with all Catholics, seems to think that salvation can come from the church/pope. This is anti-biblical. Only God saves. God can use a person to save others. That still means God is doing it. This has to be true, or else we could boast in our works.

[@markpaalman275]

Trent, I hear you, but I can’t help but feel that you are straw-manning Bishop Barron’s position. I feel that his “reasonable hope” , if perhaps a bit pollyannish, clearly is not meant to exclude or discourage the faithful from orthodoxy and evangelization. His life and ministry are a living testament against that. Good bless you! ✝️

[@zita-lein]

Really good! Let us work to prevent the worst and hope for the best. Glory to God! ❤️💙

[@tiannawilliams1040]

I know people who, at this point in their lives, have willingly chosen hell, and in some ways are already living there. It’s horrifying to witness. I truly believe that God’s grace and mercy is great enough to obliterate even the most grievous sin and rejuvenate even the most obstinate sinner-but ultimately he cannot force us to love him. How can someone be happy in heaven if they do not love God?

[@GustavoAndresHerrera]

It makes sense. Bishop Barron has clarified time and time again that he doesn't mean "universalism" and made some of this very same points (don't take it for granted, don't be negligent, etc. etc.) but not everybody follows him with enough nuance to understand that.

[@BrewMeister27]

Which is why Catholic leaders shouldn't try to soften the teachings of the Church or make the truth sound more palatable. It just creates confusion, scandalizing the faithful and misleading non-Catholics.

[@drjanitor3747]

Yes heretics love that N word.

[@87PenguinsInBlack87]

I wonder if Pope Francis’ intention was to say that hell is nothingness rather than to say that hell is empty of souls. Just a thought. Thank you for your insight, as always, Trent!

[@kimfleury]

Thank you for making sense of this.

[@Matias-op3nv]

Let’s not forget the (Church approved) apparitions of Fatima. Our Lady showed the children a vision of hell and told them “you have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go.”

[@edoardocono166]

The pope just said it has nothing to do with faith, it is just a thing he likes to think about. Thats it. I like to think about going to Heaven, that doesnt mean I know will be there. Faith and Thinking/Hoping is 2 different things.

[@johnmendez3028]

I wonder if when Pope Francis’ says “I like to think of Hell being empty” if he is actually viewing it from a Christ centered hope. In a manner of speaking Jesus also has a similar hope for Hell to be empty. Ultimately both hopes are tied to our following Jesus. Both hope hopes would be similar to the way a farm or garden hopes do a good plentiful yield.

[@polaroctoct7429]

Thank you Trent for your videos!

[@pedroiturralde1458]

Thank you for the respect! Very well put and articulated video. Through this display of respect and constructive arguments is that the church flourishes. I'm personally more inclined to bishop's Barron point of view, but I'm also very glad to see this video. It certainly gives something valuable to chew on, as well as reinforce hope that we as a church and as christians might be more united, and gain further knowledge of our god and our religion. Blessings and love❤.

[@Godschild-ft4nr]

If hell is empty, then Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Ho, Nero, etc... all live happily now in heavens regardless 100 million innocent people they have killed and there is no longer need to be Catholic. Very sad...

[@cfban]

The biggest problem with Pope Francis' comment is that it was in response to someone asking about the difficulty of reconciling a loving and merciful God, with a God who sends someone to Hell. Instead of taking the opportunity to preach about God's justice and mercy, and about our need for repentance, His Holiness basically said that he personally agrees with the premise. We should expect more from the Supreme Pontiff.

[@christinemcguiness9356]

Great video Trent, thank you and God bless🙏

[@sn0wy180]

Trent gives the best examples to explain his points.

[@observingyt6159]

I am partial to Bishop Barron's take on hoping this way so this might be a harder watch for me. Trying to be fair. I do not think hell is emtpy but because of the love and mercy of God I hope for each soul. Commenting before watching may edit after edit: dare we hope does not lessen my desire to work for the salvation of souls. Look at Bishop Barron, he is working for God with all his days

[@DIBBY40]

I never see why it should be that we suddenly become unable to learn in the other realms.

[@milko540]

Rich Man and Lazarus

[@DIBBY40]

@@milko540 It's a teaching story. Not a description of the after death state.

[@milko540]

@@DIBBY40 And what is it teaching us?

[@DIBBY40]

@@milko540 Compassion

[@MusicalMind9]

​@@milko540 It could be an inversion on exclusivist language the Pharisees would be using at the time. Immediately before the parable, Jesus is being mocked by them. He could be explaining how the kingdom is being taken from them and being given to the Gentiles. Especially if you link the rich man with Israel and Lazarus with Gentiles.

[@joeterp5615]

Trent, I completely get your point and largely agree with the possible negative impacts of this “hopeful” way of thinking. However, I don’t think we should ignore potential positive impacts. This way of thinking emphasizes the love and mercy of God, rather than thinking of God as a “punisher.” Those “stuck” in sin can feel hopeless. They might see their efforts to live a Christian life as a battle merely to avoid the looming punishment of God. Of course, the Christian life is supposed to be much more than this, as it is about communion with He who is Love itself! For those who’s framework of the Christian life is fundamentally fear-driven and for the overly scrupulous, a little reorienting of their thoughts can be a good thing. It is good to emphasize that God deeply desires for ALL to know him. He would have come and died for any single one of us alone. He DESIRES for all of us to be with Him in heaven. He desires this more than any of us can possibly conceive. After all, God - literally the all-powerful creator of the universe - become man and suffered so that we, his creation, can call Him Father, and even Brother in the person of Jesus. We need to remember that God is all-merciful, and that we can not actually conceive of a situation where He could be MORE merciful. That is impossible. All in hell are there because it is their choice. They do not want to be in heaven. God in the fullness of His mercy and love WANTED them in heaven, but they choose otherwise. We must be more and more driven by a desire for union with God, and less by a fear of punishment. And in our evangelization, we must strive to have the same love for souls that God does, which is a sacrificial love beyond all understanding. This love we are called to is one which is not limited by the bonds of friends, family, and like-minded people, but is supposed to be so steadfast in its nature - as is the love of God - so as to extend to even our worst enemies, those who despise us and cause us great suffering. We are told to avoid sin, not because life is some big test that we are scored on at the end, but because each sin is a choice, and ultimately some sins reflect a choice to reject God and His love. Yet despite this God’s love is constant, and He will welcome back any soul that repents and returns to Him. I think if this TRUE message of hope accompanies the stated hope that all souls will end up in heaven, then there can be positive impacts. We need to remember just how much God loves us and every soul, so that we can be the ambassadors of Christ that we are called to be - living out the fullness of the gospel and being a light to the world, showing the way of God and to God.

[@UrsulaPainter]

Thank you for concise, thoughtful commentary!

[@mattkinsch4180]

I agree 100% with everything Trent said here. But I still hope that all might be saved. I agree that's it's like hoping to hit the lottery etc, buts its a lottery where the prize is so dang beautiful and good that I can't help hoping to win it. Seems impossible, "but with God all things are possible."

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

If God wills that all be saved then I try to do the same. I tend to assume the dare to hope position is trying to articulate that, with faith that it is justified even if we cannot quite grasp every nuance.

[@thereluctantphilosopher5454]

So if God wills all to be saved then why aren't they? Can God's will be frustrated by a creature? Aquinas and Augustine hold not. (Cf. q. 19, a. 6: "Since, then, the will of God is the universal cause of all things, it is impossible that the divine will should not produce its effect.")

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

@@thereluctantphilosopher5454 If reality were just two dimensional (figuratively, not scientifically speaking) then yes. But that would be kind of pointless and we would be effectively just robotic automotons. Bearing in mind that reality is caused by the will of God, who is Truth/Love - these being words we use to indicate the connectivity/integrity of all things - it becomes obvious to anyone who knows love that freedom of choice/self-determination must be involved. You can't force someone to love. You also can't force anyone to be moral even if you can sometimes limit their choices to rule out immoral action. A murderer in jail does not necessarily become moral just because they stop murdering. So God created us to love and be truthful but this involved freedom to choose. Choosing wrong knowingly is like tipping the first domino. We can't reverse the choice and it becomes increasingly difficult to choose right over wrong. God has created a solution. He condascended to become one with us and enter into our suffering and defeat death and give us a way out. Again though, this has to be a free choice. God wills that we all choose it and the deepest part of us does desire it but if we allow our pride and attachments and passions to overrule this then we can indeed disobey God's will for us to be saved, according to His will that we be free to love.

[@partydean17]

For me Balthazar and Barrons explanation fills me with the hope i need to do evangelism. For me its not so much the ship wrecked are already on a paradise island but that they are still alive and capable of being saved. Its possible and use that hope to reach out to those that seem impossible to reach to my pessimistic default

[@ProjectMysticApostolate]

Great video Trent. God bless you.

[@NathanSkifton]

A very good response from the Councel. Bishop Barron has had a lot of influence on my spiritual growth and I’ve become sympathetic to the “dare we hope’ view. I, however, am very quick to let go of things outside my control or purview. People’s eternal destination is not for me to know or judge. I think people linger too much and try to extrapolate worldviews from a small hope. In fact, I think the focus should be the perception of hope. So Pope Francis has a fool’s hope in his personal life. Oh no! The horror! The hope is the worldview, not necessarily the factuality of the emptiness of hell. What is the alternative, hope that people are in hell? Furthermore, I would argue that ”empty” doesn’t necessarily mean a population of 0 either. If 20,000 people show up to the Super Bowl, we would call that empty. CS Lewis has a great image of hell as a wide “empty” city because no one wants to live next to each other. I always say there is value in what Barron and Francis have said, though I understand the concern from the populous.

[@lebeccthecomputer6158]

What we can know: a loving and all powerful God will have done everything he possibly could to save each individual person. So if they aren’t in heaven, there was no other possible way it could have been

[@Ark_bleu]

Well said

[@WinstonSmithGPT]

Yes and if they aren’t it would be very sad, so it’s natural to hope everyone makes it.

[@beutner]

Well said, Trent! I appreciated that the “reasonable hope” thought could bring comfort to grieving family members who have lost someone to suicide and/or overdose deaths. I do think there is a “reasonable hope” in these cases as opposed to an automatic assumption of eternal damnation. However, to hold a “reasonable hope” that ALL are saved always stuck me as incredibly naïve. I would never opine that a specific person is damned but there is too much discernable evil in the world and outright rejection of faith for there not be consequences for it.

[@taggartaa]

You missed the whole point I think. The question is not whether there are consequences, but whether there are indefinite consequences for it. For instance, let's say a child lied to their parent, and the parent puts them in time out for 30 minutes. Would you say that there was no consequences for the childs actions since eventually the timeout will be over?

[@gerrymccarthy9568]

Excellent and sensible view point Trent.

[@Notbraydendantin]

Trent, have you read Dr Trent Pomplun’s essay on DBH’s book? It’s called “Heat and Light” and he proposes some interesting ideas about the magisterial language about hell and how it’s possible to interpret it as an incalculable amount of time instead of unending

[@howardl9790]

Brayden

[@bayreuth79]

If you are confident of your position, Trent, you should debate David Bentley Hart about universal salvation. But of course you won't debate D B Hart because you know perfectly well that he would demolish you. St. Augustine, who was a universalist at the beginning of his Christian life and only later changed his views, wrote that the "plurimi" (the many) believed in universal salvation in his time. Ilaria Ramelli has demonstrated that most of the Church Fathers before the late Augustine believed in universal salvation, either explicitly like St Gregory of Nyssa or more implicitly like St Maximos the Confessor.

[@derfelcadarn8230]

I've heard and read wonderful things about Ilaria Ramelli's work, especially her enormous volume on the "Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis": would you consider her work as definitive? The scholarship looks mightily impressive, dare I say, but I've also read that she sometimes distorts the views of certain Fathers and other theologians to "promote" universalism.

[@bayreuth79]

@@derfelcadarn8230 Her book is a massive survey of the Church Fathers on universal salvation so I would be very surprised if all of her judgements were accurate. However, I think she has demonstrated, at the least, that universal salvation was widespread in the early church, as St Basil and St Augustine confirm in their own writings. What I disliked about Trent's position is that he is too confident of infernalism when its not clearly taught in scripture or tradition.

[@thereluctantphilosopher5454]

I'm skeptical of her treatment of Augustine but her work on Nyssa, Maximus, and Basil seems to check out very well. Negelected is her volume 2 of a larger hope with Robin Parry. Take a look at that-it's fascinating. @@derfelcadarn8230

[@thereluctantphilosopher5454]

Trent doesn't even understand that a classical thinker like Thomas or Augustine did not and cannot have a free will defence. It wouldn't even be a debate it would be a massacre.

[@carakerr4081]

Yes and amen. DBH would demolish Trent 😅

[@user-uw1nu3so8y]

Great video, Trent! I agree with your position. I think it is also important to note that Bishop Barron seems to do more for evangelization than most, so his view doesn't seem to leave him inattentive to the work of evangelizing. He might say the hope we have lies in God's mercy and the work that each Christian does for His kingdom.

[@carolsanders4252]

This is such a great way to explain this and I appreciate this video. I was thinking of the verses at the end of Matthew 25 as well while you were explaining this. I have family who are not believers and I don't just hope they will saved some how, I pray every day for their souls. They are good, kind, generous, loving people. Everything about their lives could indicate they are good enough to be accepted into heaven. However they feel no need to believe in the saving work of Christ on the cross. They do not believe or read God's word. They see no need to confess their sins and call upon the Lord to save them. It breaks my heart, and I know hope is comforting, but I also know I need to pray for them to soften their hearts and be open to God's Spirit drawing them to Christ and seeing their need for Him. I will never stop praying and do what I can to evangelise them and others because the wages of sin is death.

[@brianstacey2679]

Trent, I think you're missing the point of a "dare we hope" philosophy. This philosophy stands opposite of the common view on salvation for many protestants and far too many Catholics. To them, salvation has nothing to do with grace and justification has nothing to do with faith and works (or faith alone from the protestant perspective). Instead, the individual himself is the final arbiter on salvation and everyone else's salvation is based on where they stand on the theological issues in relation to said individual. "I am saved," a person says. Who else is saved? "People who agree with me," the person responds. Who is not saved? "People who disagree with me on too many things," the person says. This is the argument protestants make when they say Catholics aren't saved. This is the argument that radical traditionalist Catholics used against Bishop Barron when he talked about "dare we hope" with Ben Shapiro. "Dare we hope" bothers them because according to them it is heaven that is empty, not hell, since the only people who are saved are them and people who agree with them. They take the "non-prodigal son" view of life and react negatively when someone dares to save the prodigal son. "Dare we hope" is not some fast-track pass into heaven as you argue late in your video; the fast pass is actually the "agree with me and be saved" perspective discussed above...that is easy. "Dare we hope" puts salvation back in its proper perspective. We are saved by the grace of God alone; we are justified by our faith and works. That is very hard, but it is achievable by everyone. Will everyone achieve it? Almost certainly not. Doesn't mean we cannot hope that everyone achieves it. After all, eternal life is not the "In Club for the cool kids" as so many protestants teach.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

Although I kind of think I understand what you say, I don't think you've understood the major concern this teaching has spiritually. It's not good enough to say: I advance teaching A to counter teaching B if both A and B are damaging. To entertain the 'dear we hope' privately (as we all could do) is fine. To voice it publicly is a no-no in my opinion. I am a popesplainer, so this is not meant to bash our Holy Father or anything - but I remain convinced that just the *idea* that going to hell is not likely is very dangerous. We must also consider the implication of Jesus' ministry and teaching - could it really be that Jesus simply talked about hell to *reduce* the time in purgatory? Then he will basically be lying? If we are to take Jesus seriously, which is kind of the point of being Christian, we must expect *more* people in hell than in heaven. That is the idea we should promote - I don't see any upside in talking about 'dare we hope', even if it is true!

[@Tttb95]

Dare we hope is straight up delusional and unbiblical. Jesus literally says many are called, few are chosen and that the road to heaven is narrow. Feeding in to delusion does not help anyone in the long run. Only being honest and delivering the truth saves souls. Going to hell is easy, and many have gone that route. Is it 20% of people? 40%? 80%? Not a clue. We dont and cant know that yet. But hell is a real possibility and we need to stay awake and be prepared for when we are called to judgement. > "Dare we hope" bothers them because according to them it is heaven that is empty, not hell, since the only people who are saved are them and people who agree with them. They take the "non-prodigal son" view of life and react negatively when someone dares to save the prodigal son. This is sheer and utter nonsense. You make a claim that the trads simultaneously hold that heaven is empty, but that some people are still saved?? What?? Also you need to reread the prodigal son. The prodigal son was repentant. I bet you couldnt even find me a single orthodox theologian who thinks people who repent are eternally damned.

[@joelpenley9791]

I would also add that the “dare we hope” philosophy is what led Bishop Barron to tell Ben Shapiro that Jesus is the privileged way.

[@DavidLarson100]

It's always been almost impossible for me to conceive of God sending someone to be tormented for eternity with no chance for mercy, forever. My mind and spirit just have never been able to accept it. The times I think I was closest to accepting it, I was sent into a deep despair and wondered how a good God could create person after person that He knew was going to go to hell. It makes no sense, especially the Massa Damnata view where almost everyone goes to hell but a few super-Catholics. That's an insult to God's goodness. Would you create a world where you knew beforehand it would lead to the unending suffering of billions? I hold hell as a possibility but it seems so unlikely that God would actually carry this extreme sentence out on anybody considering how much He loves each of His creatures. And this hopeful view is very easy to hold without rejecting any dogmas on hell or mortal sin. I think most are easily covered by invincible ignorance, which prevents the full knowledge needed for mortal sin. Then those advanced in the faith who do approach full knowledge (not convinced we can ever get there fully in this life to know what it would mean to definitively reject God in any particular act) often choose lesser goods over God due to passions/addictions/habits/social pressures that mitigate the "complete consent of the will" requirement. Regardless, any time I commit a grave sin, I go to confession, even if I can't be sure when it's mortal or not, and I try to bring others to the faith. So being hopeful hasn't made me reject taking the faith seriously. In fact, I think I would have rejected the faith as ridiculous and contradictory if I had to believe God is good and merciful yet throws weak confused souls like trash into an incinerator over finite acts. I pray daily for the salvation of all and will stand with the advocate not the accuser on judgment day calling for mercy on each soul. If that makes me not "based" or sufficiently trad or whatever, fine.

[@whelperw]

Well, you can take it even further and say "why God created Adam and Eve fully knowing, that they will disobey him and allow fall to happen, with everything bad, which it caused".

[@phillipnewton7292]

Well said. I like the focus on the vocabulary as the largest difference. There is really little difference, as the two people addressed do evangelize. If I am wrong how I view others, I want to always err on the side of mercy, while never letting my hope all to deter my evangelism or slip into universalism. For myself, I want to err on the side of sanctity to avoid the sin of presumption.

[@angelic_radiis]

Hey trent, I love your videos and have been following for a while, you have helped me tremendously in accepting my faith! I'm a younger catholic and am still learning and was wondering if you could do a video on gnosticism? It's a subject I've been having trouble on and something that I do see becoming more popular especially in my generation (gen z). Again awsome video and keep up the great work!

[@berserkerbard]

Bishop Barron is very evangelical in his ministry and he is definitely not ‘relying’ on the idea that hell could be empty. I understand the argument for the laity though, we can’t assume hell is empty and not fight for our souls and the souls of others.

[@ianlim2384]

Bottom line whichever view makes you preach the Gospel, is the view that you should take. My persevereance to share the Gospel and guide people to Christ is based on this hope that all could possibly, however unlikely, be saved. Using the same analogy of the lottery, it would be like me hoping to win, except that I'm doing whatever I can increase the odds, because I have hope. Maybe I won't win, but the actions I take to increase the odds is basically me going around trying to bring people to Christ, and for sure that is still a better outcome than if I just felt hopeless about the situation.

[@Andy-yk9xu]

Many are called but few are chosen . Very clear

[@dynamic9016]

Really love this channel..

[@tonyl3762]

*REPENTANCE.* That is the key word/concept. We should love mercy for the repentant, but not even God will give mercy to the unrepentant. Many in our Church, even among our leadership, are losing touch with the need for repentance first before mercy. Hell is full of the unrepentant. To think that hell is empty is to think everyone will repent, which is HIGHLY unlikely.

[@Corolla97ww]

Good point.

[@WinstonSmithGPT]

You are devoting a lot of thought to scrutinizing the repentance of others. Just sayin.

[@tonyl3762]

@@WinstonSmithGPT You have absolutely no idea who I am or what I devote "a lot of thought to." You think you can judge a complete stranger and what they devote a lot of time to by one YT comment??

[@Datroflshopper]

I would say I fall into the category of "hopeful universalism" but you still have to acknowledge that some people will just genuinely want to reject God even upon seeing him, and this is an attitude that plays out during their lifetimes right up until their last breath. That being said I don't want to write on other people's hearts things I don't know 100%, and it's not impossible or heterodox to hope that their hearts aren't as hard as we think they are. So yeah, buy the powerball ticket if you want (I'll do it) but don't skip confession or mass just to go to the convenience store!

[@angrypotato_fz]

Thanks, Trent, I think it's a good, respectful response. When I started to think about this issue (in the context of free will, the moment of death, timeless spiritual reality, God's power and God's will to redeem everyone) I tried to seek a good argument against universalism. I didn't "feel" it works, but I hoped for some good reasoning. Unfortunately, most priest and theologians I asked or read gave very weak response - often strawmanning the argument or even making fun of the others ("isn't it obvious?! pff") Even the charitable ones failed to see the reasoning of, for example, bishop Barron, and responded against a view that they imagined, not the one I asked about. I think there are some good questions/thoughts/hopes behind universalism, that shouldn't be ridiculed. The best argument I found (which I didn't see to appear often) is that Jesus said it straight forward, that some will rise to be condemned (for example John 5:29). It doesn't matter how many, who exactly - I believe it's not something I should try to predict, similarly as said in the video. There is no conditional there, no probability - some unfortunately will be condemned.

[@apoc9ify]

It's good Trent is addressing this. While the Church did not proclaim anybody to be in hell specifically it stands against reason to believe or even hope hell would be empty given the warnings of Our Lord, the Blessed Mother (in various apparations), Saints, Doctors of the Church and upon reflecting on wrong doings of past and present day.

[@dannybaseball2444]

Doesn't the charity of praying for the souls 'most in need of thy mercy' supersede our doubt as to who receives it?

[@marietav7342]

The Church has not condemned or censored the book of Hans Urs Balthasar "Dare We Hope that All Men be Saved?" It means this book contains nothing contrary to faith. The Church even elevated Hans Balthasar by declaring him Servant of God. It means he is on the way to sainthood.

[@robertlaprime6203]

Just because the church hasn’t formally condemned or censored something that doesn’t mean it didn’t teach heresy. I’m not saying it does I’m just saying that your reasoning is false. Also we have had saints that have believed in what we would now consider to be heresy. For example St. Thomas Aquinas denied the immaculate conception before it was defined by the church. Technically speaking the Summa Theologiae one of the most influential Catholic theological texts, the one they put on the altar with the scriptures at the council of Trent technically contains heresy. Although I’ll admit as in “Dare we hope” he did St. Thomas Aquinas also seemed to indicate that it was an open question the he wasn’t dogmatic about but it seemed hard for him to reconcile the immaculate conception with certain parts of scripture. And keep in mind this is not only a saint but a doctor of the church and in the writing which the church has held with greatest esteem he teaches heresy at one part. This immediately refutes the idea that “Dare we Hope” couldn’t have taught heresy.

[@anthonyhulse1248]

@@robertlaprime6203 explain the heresy that Von Balthasar was teaching, with examples and citations from his books.

[@marietav7342]

@@robertlaprime6203 If St. Thomas taught heresy, why did the Church canonize him? Your reasoning is incompatible with church teaching, hence, you were wrong. No. St. Thomas had not taught heresy because if he did, the Church would not have canonized him. No unrepentant heretic can be canonized by the Church and be made Doctor of the Church. His unbelief of the Immaculate Conception was not a heresy because the Church did not yet officially declare the Immaculate Conception as church dogma at that time. If that book of Balthasar contained heresy, the Church would have banned it long before as She did to other books. St. Augustine taught errors too but those are not heresies.

[@marietav7342]

@@robertlaprime6203 If that book of Balthasar contained heresy, then, Balthasar would be considered heretic by the Church and he would not be declared Servant of God. What is heresy? After a teaching on faith and/or moral is proclaimed OFFICIALLY then to disagree and teach others becomes heresy.

[@marietav7342]

@@robertlaprime6203 St. Thomas Aquinas did not teach heresy. If he did, the Church would not have canonized him. His unbelief of the Immaculate Conception was not heresy because this Church Dogma was not yet proclaimed officially at that time.

[@kenmarron1938]

Man o man is Trent Horn smart. I have seen a few videos discussing this very topic but Trent gives the smartest layout of the problem with a reasonable hope view.

[@jessewilliams15]

Well said. God bless!

[@Serquss]

The problem with desiring a 'reasonable hope', or 'hoping hell is empty' is that you come really close to questioning God's justice. A human's hope could never be greater or more just than God's hope in you.

[@ExpiditionWild]

Now you’re starting to get it

[@greengandalf9116]

The problem with not hoping hell is empty is you come really close to questioning God's mercy.

[@josephsarto689]

If we have hope that hell is empty, why did Robert Barron even become a priest at all? He would have to conclude that what he does is pointless

[@kurtschneider4202]

​@josephsarto689 We can flip that around and ask, "If almost everyone is going to hell anyway, why evangelize at all?"

[@josephsarto689]

@@kurtschneider4202 If hell is empty, then Barron's priesthood, the mass, the sacraments, and the Catholic Church itself are all pointless

[@chesspro960]

Trent, please make shorts So that your content reach more people 🎉

[@user-pv2tl2ne9e]

I'm catholic and I know that hell ain't empty , but there is hope that it might be empty ,the same way the Bible says in John 3:16 ".... Who ever believes MIGHT be saved ,not WILL BE saved". So everyone hopes for the best in this case we hope those who died are in heaven..but we do know people go to hell .

[@josephmartin6219]

This answer from Trent is really close to what St. Thomas Aquinas would say on the matter! Thank God for your gift!

[@thereluctantphilosopher5454]

No it's actually not at all. STA is a pure predestinationist who holds that God creates the reprobate from the outset and witholds the grace required for them to turn to God. Apart from God's action the creature cannot turn toward him, and this action is given selectively. But this is 'just' because God owes the creature nothing, so even saving a single person in all reality would be perfectly 'just.' Cf. ST I-I q. 23, aa. 3-5, ST II-II q. 109, a. 10, esp. ad. 1, and De Ver. q. 6.

[@josephmartin6219]

@@thereluctantphilosopher5454 that's good to know