God’s Universal Salvific Will A Reflection and Summary
A Catholic [Liberal] theologian often finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place while shaping his theology. On the one hand, he must remain faithful to Scripture; on the other, to Tradition—which, though it upholds the authority of Scripture, cannot itself serve as a sole foundation. Instead, it must run as a parallel track, offering a balance necessary to support the structure of Catholic theology.
Vatican II did offer some breathing space, allowing Catholic theologians a bit more freedom. Yet even that freedom remains constrained—not necessarily by Scripture, but by Tradition.
What surprises me, as a layperson, is this: although Vatican II opened the door for dialogue with the non-Catholic world, that opening too remains subject to interpretation—once again, by theologians. How one reads and understands Vatican II depends on the interpretive lens of the commentator.
Still, it is encouraging to see that some Catholic [Liberal] theologians go the extra mile, offering their own critical readings of the commentaries on Vatican II. In doing so, they acknowledge a profound truth: true spirituality does not yield to anyone’s interpretation. I not only enjoyed reading the chapter but appreciated how the author went that extra mile—helping us understand what we ought to do with our own traditions, which shape our identity and worldview. This is especially important when we seek to construct our faith and identity on the solid foundation of God’s Word, rather than merely on inherited structures.
I’ll share just one section from this long paper by Fr 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 [see: https://dayanandbharati.in/gods-universal-salvific-will/
—for those interested in exploring the full chapter, one must get this book and read, which I believe is not available online. As I am neither a theologian nor a scriptural scholar, I won’t offer my own commentary—it may not do justice to the author’s original thought. However I will share my reflections at the end.
Summary of C. Abel’s “God’s Universal Salvific Will”
Fr. Kees Abel’s chapter, “God’s Universal Salvific Will,” offers a nuanced perspective on God’s desire for all to be saved. His exploration is grounded in the work of Karl Rahner, who developed the idea of the “supernatural existential,” a concept that is central to understanding Abel’s argument. [p.294]
In simple terms, Abel proposes that all humans, whether they are aware of it or not, live under the continuous offer of God’s grace. This grace isn’t something that is only given once we explicitly come to know Christ—it is already present in our lives, shaping our very existence. This grace is an inherent part of the human experience, a divine gift that comes even before any sacramental or extra-sacramental intervention. [p.297]
Abel draws on the idea that salvation history is not a detached “metahistory” floating above our human reality. Rather, salvation is embedded in our history, woven into the fabric of human freedom and the choices we make. Each person’s life, every moment of human history, is where salvation can be lived out and encountered. Abel emphasizes that salvation history is not restricted to the Church alone but is coextensive with all of human history, where God’s will to save is continuously offered. [p.294]
One of the most striking parts of Abel’s work is his focus on human relationships. We are not isolated beings, but relational by nature. This relational aspect is crucial for salvation. It’s not just about individual salvation; it’s about how we exist with one another in community. For Abel, this “being-with-others” (Mitsein) is integral to the human experience. Salvation, then, is not merely personal but social, deeply embedded in how we interact with others and the world around us. [p.294]
Abel also provides an important reflection on the place of non-Christian religions in God’s universal plan for salvation. He doesn’t see non-Christian religions as outside the scope of salvation. While they may not fully align with Christian teachings, these religions are still part of the broader history of salvation, offering genuine responses to God’s self-revelation. Abel highlights that God’s grace works beyond the visible boundaries of the Church, extending to other religious traditions as well. This is not to say that other religions are equal to Christianity, but they represent real, albeit imperfect, responses to the divine. [p.298f]
The unity of salvation history, according to Abel, is founded on the person of Jesus Christ. Christ’s life and work reveal the fullness of God’s plan, and through Him, humanity is united before God. Yet, this unity does not mean that other religious histories are invalid or useless. In fact, they are shown to have their own intrinsic value, pointing toward the ultimate truth that is revealed in Christ. [p.298f]
Abel’s work ultimately opens up a vision of salvation that is both inclusive and deeply rooted in the Christian tradition. It invites us to view the world and human history not through a narrow lens, but with a broader, more expansive understanding of how God’s grace operates. It challenges the Church to recognize that salvation is not confined within its boundaries and that the entire human race is involved in this ongoing story of grace. [p.298]
That said, this is just one way of approaching the concept of salvation within the Catholic theological framework. For instance, in Hinduism, salvation is typically individualistic rather than social. Each person is expected to work out her own salvation in a way that aligns with her unique nature. While one’s social relationships may help or hinder her pursuit of salvation, ultimately, it remains a deeply personal endeavor.
However, in certain sampradayas (traditions), the social dimension of salvation is also acknowledged—both in this life and in the Further Shore. Yet, even in these traditions, the stages and experiences of salvation in the Further Shore vary, depending on each individual’s personal effort and spiritual maturity—though always undergirded by divine grace.1
Interestingly, Abel notes that “the destruction of other religions as social and religious structures would be the equivalent of theological colonialism” (p. 299), and he insists there is no place for such an approach in the mission of Christianity (p. 300). He writes:
“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 appendix, but as a real element of its Christianity.”
(Cf. H. R. Schlette, Towards a Theology of Religions, pp. 103–105; J. Heislbetz, Theologische Gründe, pp. 214f.)
This is a bold and generous vision. It affirms that the Church must be transformed through its engagement with other religions—not by assimilating them superficially, but by allowing their truths to become part of its own living expression. At the same time, this formulation remains deeply ecclesiocentric. It presumes that the Church is the final interpretive horizon into which other traditions must ultimately flow. From a Catholic theological perspective, this is perhaps inevitable—even in its most liberal expressions, the Church cannot but imagine itself as the eschatological community in which all truth must be fulfilled. Yet this also means that other religions, while respected, are still seen in relation to the Church rather than on their own terms.
Moreover, from a comparative theological standpoint—say, in dialogue with Hinduism—this framework encounters limits. Hindu soteriologies are often deeply individual2 and pluralistic, emphasizing liberation that does not depend on ecclesial structures or communal salvation. In such a context, Abel’s view may not feel like a true mutual encounter but rather a one-way openness: the Church transforms by taking in elements from the other, but the other remains unnamed, untransformed, and uncentered in the process. Therefore, while I resonate with Abel’s spirit of openness, I also see the need to question the framework from which that openness is offered.
Conclusion
In conclusion, whether one takes a liberal or orthodox stance, when it comes to Catholic theology and missiology, everything must be of the Church, for the Church, and by the Church. There is nothing wrong with upholding such theological orthodoxy. Yet, while the spirit of Abel’s paper leans in this direction, the letter of the text may give a different impression—unless one is able to read that orthodoxy between the lines.
May 10, 2025, Ashram
Notes
The quotes from Dasgupta, Klostermaier, and Prabhu regarding the graded nature of mukti and the ultimately individualistic conception of salvation in Indian traditions directly support the point made here. As noted in the introduction to Dasgupta’s discussion, even Buddhism—despite its emphasis on compassion and the ideal of the Bodhisattva who chooses to delay personal nirvana to help others—ultimately conceives of salvation as an individual achievement. The same applies to Hinduism. Though devotional elements and notions of grace exist, final liberation (moksha) remains something each soul must attain on its own.
It may be tempting to compare the Bodhisattva of Mahāyāna Buddhism with the Jīvanmukta of Advaita Vedānta—both having transcended bondage yet remaining in the world for the benefit of others. Given that Śaṅkara lived in the 8th century CE, well after the Bodhisattva ideal had been fully developed in Mahāyāna literature, one might ask whether this influenced his conception of the liberated sage. While Śaṅkara was certainly influenced by Buddhist thought—so much so that Madhava in the Sarvadarśanasaṅgraha famously branded him a “Crypto-Buddhist” (prācchanna bauddha)—it is striking that even Madhava does not draw a parallel between the Bodhisattva and the Jīvanmukta or Ramanuja refers about it. Nor do modern scholars appear to have explored this connection explicitly, perhaps because of a fundamental doctrinal difference: the Bodhisattva voluntarily postpones final liberation, whereas the Jīvanmukta is already fully liberated, continuing to live in the body only until its natural dissolution.
The Bodhisattva ideal in Mahāyāna Buddhism, for example, presents a figure who deliberately renounces final nirvana to remain in saṃsāra for the benefit of others, being reborn repeatedly to guide them. While this reflects self-sacrificial compassion, each person’s path to enlightenment is still their own—the structure of salvation remains fundamentally individualistic.
1. The devotee attains exemption from further transmigration and his identification with the deity, gradually through four stages; viz. Sālōkya (being in the same world with the deity), Sāmīpya (nearness to the deity), Sārūpya (assimilation to the deity), and Sāyujya (intimate union with the deity). The Śiva Purāṇa also adds Sārṣṭi (equality in rank or power) as one of the grades of mukti. — Ancient Indian Tradition and Mythology, tr. Board of Scholars, ed. J.L. Shastri, Motilal Banarsidass, 2002, Vol. Vidyeśvara Saṁhitā, Notes 33, p.45.
2. Moksha, on the other hand, seems to be concerned mainly with the individual… not to be pursued exclusively and directly by an individual unless and until he has duly satisfied all his social debts (ṛṇaḥ) or obligations. — Pandharinath H. Prabhu, Hindu Social Organization, [1940] Reprint 2004, pp. 82–83.
3. No one who sought the absolute freedom of his own self… could have much scope for any active manifestation of universal friendship… the altruistic ideal can therefore at best be merely a disposition… a person who holds such an individualistic notion of salvation cannot… have any leisure or opportunity for the doing of active good to others. — S.N. Dasgupta, Hindu Mysticism, 1927, Reprint 1992, pp. 98–99.
4. The Purāṇas already introduce a more individualistic view of salvation… promising eternal existence in heaven as a reward… Viṣṇu traditions always insist on the perpetuation of the individual jīva: the ultimate state is personal relationship between the jīva and the Supreme. — Klaus K. Klostermaier, Mythologies and Philosophies of Salvation in the Theistic Traditions of India, 1984, p. 262.
Appendix
Fr Kees Abel, ‘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
Leave a Reply