God’s Universal Salvific Will

Kees Abel, ‘God’s Universal Salvific Will’, pp. 293–298 in Non-Christian Revelation and Christian Worship, pp. 257–303, in Gispert-Sauch, S.J. (ed.) God’s Word Among Men, papers in honour of Fr. Joseph Putz, S.J., Delhi: Vidyajoti, 1973

God’s Universal Salvific Will

Fundamental for our whole discussion is the fact that God’s salvific will is extended toward all men and is active in all periods of human history. This is clearly indicated in the New Testament.247 God offers every human being the possibility of salvation, and this possibility remains fruitless only through the fault of the person; the acceptance of this offer does not make it a merely human fulfillment, but leaves it divine and supernatural.249 (p.293)8

Therefore, preceding any justification by sacramental or extra-sacramental grace, man lives under the continuous offer of grace, which is a real determination of his existence, although remaining a divine gift. This “supernatural existential” is the same as saying that man is more than nature, in the order of concrete existence.²⁵⁰ The “supernatural existential” necessarily has its own history throughout man’s life, which indicates already that salvation history is coextensive with the history of man.²⁵¹ The unity of man’s history is founded on the humanity of Jesus Christ, in whom it has been revealed that mankind is one before God.²⁵² In this way, there is not only a special salvation history in Israel and in the Church, but also a general salvation history: to be outside of the historical ecclesial community does not mean to be outside of salvation history.²⁵³

It would be wrong to conceive of this salvation history as a “metahistory”, taking place outside of world history, outside of man’s history. This would represent a dualistic supranaturalism, and this is not the view of the Catholic faith; on the contrary, God, in creating the world, has founded the history of man as a possibility of freedom.²⁵⁴ In other words: the possibility of salvation, and its offer, extend as far as the history of human freedom—the unthematic horizon against which man’s spiritual existence realizes itself. This again means that salvation history takes place, necessarily, within the history of man.²⁵⁵

This general salvation history does not remain a vaguely spiritual reality, does not remain abstract. Man is a spirit in such a manner that he realizes himself by going into what is “other”; this is the structure of man’s spirituality.²⁵⁶ The body should not be viewed as an objectivation of the soul, but as a moment of the soul itself. Man is not placed in space and time as on a stage, but space and time belong to the structure of man, the “given” which he encounters and has to encounter, whether it is produced by him or not. On the basis of this, man’s concrete material existence is determined by “others”; the being-with-others (Mitsein) belongs to the being (p.294) of man.²⁵⁷ Thus, when man exists and acts, necessarily, in space and in time, in communication with other persons, he is radically historical: from this follows that if he wants to be religious, his religiosity will have to be experienced and lived with others.²⁵⁸

This means: when man’s historicity is an existential of man, and when this historicity (among others) is lived as communication, then the realization of the general salvation history cannot remain a merely interior-subjective event, but the real possibility of salvation must realize itself in a social structure, and therefore in the form of religions.²⁵⁹

In other words: the individual human person must have the possibility of participating in a real and salvific encounter with God, and this at all times of history. Were this denied, then the universal salvific will of God would become an empty phrase. We have to add that, given man’s social nature, the concrete human being cannot realize this possible encounter with God in a subjective interiority, and without reference to the existing religions of his environment.²⁶⁰

On the basis of the foregoing considerations, we can state that the non-christian religions constitute a possibility for man which has been willed by God, and which therefore should be called legitimate. From the beginning, man, as individual and as social being, is called to the supernatural life of grace, and this call has not been lost through the history of sin and pride. The general history of salvation in the pre-supposition of the special salvation history in Christ: the Christian faith means a positive “yes” to the other religions.²⁶¹

We have to emphasize that this attitude of Catholic theology views the other religions as social movements, as structures, as totalities of rites, of doctrines, and of moral rules. It is especially the approach of K. Rahner in the perspective of general salvation history, which has overcome religious individualism and shown that, in religions as social and historical objectivations, must be accepted without losing sight of the dark sides of these same religions.²⁶²(p. 295)

This same view is also present in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Council proclaims the highest destiny of man and also champions the godlike seed which has been sown in him.263 The Declaration on Non-Christian Religions speaks of the perception of the hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human life: this perception has existed from ancient times among diverse peoples and cultures of this world. At times, even a recognition of a Supreme Divinity can be found.264 The same document emphasizes that the Church does not reject anything which is true and holy in these religions; the Church is said to look with sincere respect to the rules and teachings which, although different from those of the Church, often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.265

According to Catholic theology, the believers of other religions are not viewed as non-Christians, but rather as anonymous Christians. In that case, however, revelation has taken place—as the a priori horizon of all spiritual realization—before the missionary word has been delivered. Thus, the revelation which comes from the outside is not a proclamation of what was unknown until then, but is the objective-intellectual expression of that which man has actualized (or could actualize) in the depth of his spiritual existence. If this is true, and if at the same time there is no salvation without the grace of Christ, then no one can merely be an anonymous theist; he must be, in the real sense of the word, an anonymous Christian.266 In the “supernatural existential,” in the fact that man exists while God’s grace hovers over his freedom, we are dealing with revelation; and man’s answer, although very unthematic, should be called faith in the Christian sense of the word.267 Precisely because the “supernatural existential” is not simply given with man’s natural existence, we are dealing with what is called grace in Christian theology.268

The basis for these considerations is the emphasis in modern theology on the central position of Jesus Christ in creation and in salvation history—an emphasis founded on Scripture and Tradition.269 This Christocentric emphasis means that Jesus Christ is the living center of all revelation. (p.296) and of all acts of God.270 He is not only mediator before the creation of the world (Jn 17:24), and mediator in the redemption of mankind, but also mediator in creation itself (Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2). It follows from the unity of creation and redemption that God’s revelation outside of the special salvation history (cf. Rom 1:18–32; 2:14–16; Acts 17:22–23) finds its basis and ground in the same mediator Jesus Christ, and refers in a concrete manner to the only possible salvation in this world.271

God’s grace, operative in the general salvation history, should not be seen as a rather “extrinsic decree” of God, but as a real determination of man, which comes to his existing nature as grace. And because all grace is oriented to the grace of Jesus Christ, man always and already is directed toward sacramental and extra-sacramental justification.272 A merely natural happiness of man cannot be understood in this theological perspective: the salvation offered to the non-Christians is a supernatural salvation, is the salvation of Jesus Christ.273 When man accepts this supernatural salvific revelation, he makes an act of supernatural faith, for the Church teaches that it is impossible to obtain salvation without supernatural faith.273

The same theology has been expressed by the Second Vatican Council. In the Constitution on the Church, the bishops stated that “God himself is not far distant from those who seek the unknown God in shadows and images, for it is He who gives to all men life and every other gift, and who as Saviour wills that all men be saved.”276 The Constitution goes on to say that the goodness and truth in these religions is seen by the Church as preparation for the Gospel; the Church regards those qualities as given by Him who enlightens all men.

The thinking of the Catholic Church has been summed up by K. Rahner:

“Whatever be the manner in which this development may have taken place, whatever the theological justification for it, in any case at least after Vatican II it is no longer to be doubted that the faith-awareness of the Catholic Church considers that the possibility of justification and of attaining to supernatural salvation is given also to men of good will who, from the point of view of the categorical, the historical, the kerygmatic, and the institutionally ecclesial, are simply not Christians. It is to be noted that this possibility is being positively asserted; it is not merely (p.297) added in a negative way to a theology of the necessity of the Gospel and baptism for salvation in the sense that the stress on this necessity does not set any limit to the sovereign freedom of God.”277

Relations with Non-christian Religions

Until now, we have discussed the theological “attitude” of the Church regarding the non-christian religions. We will now have to consider the relations between the Church and these religions, after which we may be able to draw some tentative conclusions concerning our particular question.

The missionary activity of the Church is not based on the presumption that where the missionary Church has not been no encounter with God and no salvation in Christ takes place. On the contrary, the missionary Church is aware that salvation, whenever and wherever it takes place, occurs only as free grace of God in Jesus Christ, who is the foundation of the Church and whom the Church proclaims as its Lord.278 The Church’s missionary activity is above all an eschatological sign of what will be ful-filled in the future; at the same time, this sign indicates that the final realiza-tion is still to come. 279 We add that it would be incorrect to view the mis-sionary effort of the Church in the perspective of a final triumph in this world; if the NT reveals anything in this matter, it is to say that before the End the greatest need will arise. 280 The question of when and how the other religions will capitulate before the Christian Church is not relevant. For us at this moment the religions are relevant precisely as social struc-tures, with their doctrine, rules, and rites. As such, the non-christian religions will never be confronted with the eschatological message of the Christian faith, although individual human beings will find themselves in this situation. This means: the religions remain as possibilities of sal-vation (viae salutis), as long as there are people who adhere to them in a sincere manner. Even after confrontation with the Christian Church, these religions do not lose their function as legitimate possibilities of salva-tion, at least for those whose refusal to embrace the Christian faith is not the result of a subjective and personal responsibility, 281

A second consideration is important: the concrete and existing Church, as a believing community, is itself the result of missionary effort. We can say that we owe our faith to this effort. We too once existed within the general salvation history, and because of God’s grace, and not our own (p.298)goodness, we were elected to exist in the Church, to be part of the special salvation history. 282

On the basis of these considerations, the continuing relevance of the missionary Church lies primarily the free presentation and offer of eschato-logical grace; any other aim, v.g. the destruction of the other religions as social and religious structures, would be the equivalent of theological colonialism. 283 This does not mean that the Catholic Church simply has to adopt the other religions of the world, for this would fall short of its function as eschatological sign. It means that the Church necessarily exists in a dialogue with the other religions.)

In this context, there is the relevant question of the “paidagogia”: is it possible to view the other religions, in what they possess as anonymous Christian elements, as a preparation toward Christ, as the early Christian writers asserted about much of their spiritual and intellectual environment?

According to H.R. Schlette, we have to be careful in this matter. It is by no means certain that such a convergence of religions within human history, is willed by God. Furthermore, the recognition of the “prepara-tion” by the early Christian authors, was a post factum conclusion; it does not mean that such a process will necessarily take place again. To deny this would be to forget the basic differences between the ancient Medi-terranean civilizations and the present (and historical) Indian civilization. Finally, in this process there always is a metamorphosis of the Church, which is the realization of its catholicity: the culture and spirituality of other religions are not added to the Church as some kind of exterior appen-dix, but as a real element of its Christianity. 285

If we view the “preparation” in a material perspective, we have to pre-sume that the fulfilment will not be repeated in an identical manner, and also that such a development, if it takes place, will be recognized only after-wards. If, on the other hand, we consider this “preparation” in a formal way, if it means that in other religions, although anonymously, real Chris-tian traces are present and struggle for historical stature, such a “prepara-tion” must be granted in principle to all legitimate religions. The reason for this: in these religions, man’s religiosity as necessary for salvation, is lived, believed, and celebrated. 286 In any other explanation, the universal salvific will of God would be difficult to maintain.

To presume such “preparation” does not imply as a condition the con-version of a religion as such to the Christian faith. The example for this is the Jewish religion; although the “preparation” in it is clearly recog-(p.299) nized by Christian theology, it has not as such admitted its orientation to the event of Christ. The dividing lines between general and particular salvation history appear to be fluctuating and not absolute 287

The OT religion, in a certain sense, can function as model or as prece. dent for the evaluation of non-christian religions: these religions can be viewed as legitimate possibilities to, and historical preparations for the encounter with the Christian faith, and yet this encounter does not neces sarily mean their surrender to Christianity. 288

Notes Footnotes:

248 Cf. 1 Tim 4:10; 2:1–6; Jn 1:29. For more texts see K. Rahner, “Heilswille Gottes” in LThK², Vol. 5, cols. 165–168; for ecclesiastical statements, cf. Heislbetz, Theologische Gründe, pp. 30–39.

249Cf. K. Rahner, “Kirche, Kirchen und Religionen,” in Schriften zur Theologie, Vol. VIII, Einsiedeln 1967, p. 358.

250. Cf. K. Rahner, “Existential, übernatürliches” in LThK² 3, col. 1301. Cf. also M. Seckler, Instinkt und Glaubenswille nach Thomas von Aquin, Mainz 1962, p. 247; K. Rahner, “Concerning the Relationship between Nature and Grace”, in Theological Investigations, vol. 3, Baltimore/London 1961, pp. 311 ff.
251. Cf. K. Rahner, “Kirche, Kirchen und die Religionen”, pp. 360 f.
252. Cf. J. Feiner, “Kirche und Heilsgeschichte”, in H. Vorgrimler (ed.), Gott in Welt, Festgabe für Karl Rahner, Freiburg/Basel/Wien 1964, vol. II, p. 322.
253. Cf. J. Feiner, “Kirche und Heilsgeschichte,” pp. 317 f.
254. Cf. H.R. Schlette, “Die Kirche und die Religionen”, p. 297.
255. Cf. K. Rahner, “History of the World and Salvation History”, in Theological Investigations vol. V, Baltimore/London 1966, pp. 102 ff; A. Darlapp, “Heilsgeschichte”, LThK² 5, col. 154.
256. Cf. K. Rahner, Hörer des Wortes. Zur Grundlegung einer Religionsphilosophie, München 1963, p. 159. (E.T.: Hearers of the Word, London/Sydney, 1969).

• Cf. J. Heislbetz, Theologische Gründe, p. 72. Cf. also K. Rahner, Spirit in the World, London/Sydney 1960; A. Halder, “Mensch: II. Philosophisch”, LThK² 7, cols. 281 f.
• Cf. J. Heislbetz, Theologische Gründe, p. 72. Cf. also K. Rahner, “Religion: III. Der theol. (normative) Begriff der Religion”, LThK² 8, cols. 1168 f.; A. Darlapp, “Geschichtlichkeit”, LThK² 4, cols. 780–4.
• Cf. H.R. Schlette, Towards a Theology of Religions, p. 77 f; J. Feiner, “Kirche und Heilsgeschichte”, p. 317.
• Cf. K. Rahner, “Christianity and non-Christian Religions” in Theological Investigations, vol. V. p. 120.
• Cf. H. Fries, “Absolutheitsanspruch des Christentums: (3) das Christentum und die Religionen”, LThK² 1, col. 73. Cf. also J. Feiner, “Kirche und Heilsgeschichte”, pp. 317 f.
• Cf. K. Rahner, “Christianity and non-Christian Religions” in Theological Investigations, vol. V, pp. 115–34. Cf. also H.R. Schlette, “Einige Thesen zum Selbstverständnis der(p.295)Theologie angesichts der Religionen”, in H. Vorgrimler (ed.), Gott in Welt, Festgabe fur Karl Rahner, Freiburg/Base/Wien 1964, vol II, p. 311; H. Kung, Christenheit als Minderheit, p. 43

• Cf. Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, n. 3.
• Cf. Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate, n. 2.
• Cf. ibidem.
• Cf. K. Rahner, “Christianity and Non-Christian Religions,” Theological Investigations, Vol. V, pp. 131f.
• Cf. K. Rahner, “History of the World and Salvation History,” ibid., pp. 104f.; “Kirche, Kirchen und Religionen,” pp. 358–360.
• Cf. K. Rahner, “Anonymous Christians,” in Theological Investigations, Vol. VI, p. 392.
• Cf. J. Heislbetz, Theologische Gründe, pp. 340f.
• Cf. H. Küng, “Christozentrik,” LThK², vol. 2, col. 1169. Cf. also K. Rahner, “Anonymous Christians,” Theological Investigations, vol. VI, pp. 392ff.
• Cf. M. Seckler, “Nichtchristen,” in HThG, vol. II, pp. 239f.; cf. J. Heislebetz, Theologische Gründe, pp. 40ff.; cf. also J. Auer, “Gnade,” in HTG, vol. I, pp. 558ff.
• Cf. K. Rahner, “Anonymous Christians,” in Theological Investigations, vol. VI, p. 394.
• For the relationship between anonymous Christians and missionary activity, cf. K. Rahner, “Anonymes Christentum und Missionsauftrag der Kirche,” in Schriften zur Theologie, vol. IX, Einsiedeln, 1970, pp. 498–519.
• Cf. Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, n. 16. Translation from W.M. Abbot & J. Gallagher (eds.), The Documents of Vatican II, New York, 1966, p. 35.
• Cf. ND 1532; DS 2121.

• Cf. Second Vatican Council, LG, n. 16.  The translation is from W. M. Abbot-J. Gallagher (eds.), The Documents of Vatican II, New York 1966, p. 35
• 277. K. Rahner, “Bemerkungen zum Problem des ‘anonymen Christen’”, Schriften Zur Theologie, Vol. X, Einsiedeln 1972, p. 535. Cf also H.R. Schlette, “Reli-gionen”, p. 449.

• 278. Cf. J. Feiner, “Kirche und Heilsgeschichte”, p. 331.

•  Cf. H.R. Schlette, “Einige Thesen zum Selbstverstandnis”, pp. 312 f.
•  Cf. ibidem, p. 313. Cf. also H. Küng, Christenheit als Minderheit, pp. 52 f.; J. Feiner, “Kirche und Heilsgeschichte”, p. 312.

281. Cf. H.R. Schlette, Towards a Theology of Religions, pp. 97-100.

282. Cf. H. R. Schlette, ibid, pp. 89-94. Cf. also Second Vatican Council AG, n. 2.

283. Cf. H.R. Schlette, “Die Kirche und die Religionen”, p. 305.

284. Cf. H. Küng, Christenheit als Minderheit, pp. 55 f.

285. Cf. H.R. Schlette, Towards a Theology of Religions, pp. 103-5.

286. Cf. J. Heislbetz, Theologische Gründe, pp. 214 f.

287. Cf. A Darlapp, “Fundamentale Theologie der Heilsgeschichte”, in J. Feiner-M. Löhrer (eds.), Mysterium Salutis, Grundriss heilsgeschichtlicher Dogmatik, Einsiedeln Zurich/Köln 1965, vol. I, pp. 80-6.

288. Cf. J. Heislbetz, Theologische Gründe , p. 217.