Reaching heaven is a matter of chance

[celluloid]

People lose their lives at various ages, and usually no one can predict when someone will pass away. With the exceptions of suicide or martyrdom, causes of death are involuntary and subject to chance occurrences. The vast majority of deaths are attributable to various causes such as natural or manmade events, human biological limitations and pure chance.

If it is the case that all who die as infants or in the womb attain heaven (perhaps via purgatory), then it is their good fortune to die so young, since they don’t have to face the possibility of either a difficult, painful life, and more importantly, avoiding the possibility of committing mortal sin and not being saved.

The important point here is that infants who die do not get any chance to merit heaven or hell, yet they surely are innocent of any wrongdoing, and I imagine that most people believe that they are given the free pass to heaven.

Further, there are similar problems for others who die at a relatively young age. If they mortally sinned as a young adult and died soon after, they are unfortunate to not have a chance at a full life and a chance to redeem themselves. Conversely, if they lived a righteous life and died young, they were fortunate to be denied the opportunity to fall into sin at a later time, assuming they attained heaven. A Christian cannot deny that possibility given the existence of free will.

The reason I point out this difficulty is my perception that Christian salvation beliefs seem to make some sense for those with average lives and average lifespans, but breakdown as capriciously absurd in the instances illustrated here. And those instances are hardly special.

Consider these statistics from the CDC:

“Overall, U.S. women are currently averaging 2.0 live births, 0.7 induced abortions, and 0.5 miscarriages and stillbirths, or a total of 3.2 pregnancies each, of which only 1.8 are wanted births…”

For every 100 live births there are about 60 aborted or miscarried babies. And that is for the U.S. In third world countries, where medical care is poor, infant mortality is much higher as are miscarriages.

It may be that in the entire history of humankind, souls who have lived and died in the womb outnumber those who lived to old age.

How do you, as a catholic, reconcile that a very large percentage of souls in heaven may be aborted or miscarried children? That’s not to mention deceased older children. Or, if you believe they aren’t saved, how do you reconcile innocents missing out on heaven through no fault of their own?

How could you not think that going to heaven is at least largely a matter of chance?

 

[Writer]

People lose their lives at various ages, and usually no one can predict when someone will pass away. With the exceptions of suicide or martyrdom, causes of death are involuntary and subject to chance occurrences. The vast majority of deaths are attributable to various causes such as natural or manmade events, human biological limitations and pure chance.

If it is the case that all who die as infants or in the womb attain heaven (perhaps via purgatory), then it is their good fortune to die so young, since they don’t have to face the possibility of either a difficult, painful life, and more importantly, avoiding the possibility of committing mortal sin and not being saved.

The important point here is that infants who die do not get any chance to merit heaven or hell, yet they surely are innocent of any wrongdoing, and I imagine that most people believe that they are given the free pass to heaven.

Further, there are similar problems for others who die at a relatively young age. If they mortally sinned as a young adult and died soon after, they are unfortunate to not have a chance at a full life and a chance to redeem themselves. Conversely, if they lived a righteous life and died young, they were fortunate to be denied the opportunity to fall into sin at a later time, assuming they attained heaven. A Christian cannot deny that possibility given the existence of free will.

The reason I point out this difficulty is my perception that Christian salvation beliefs seem to make some sense for those with average lives and average lifespans, but breakdown as capriciously absurd in the instances illustrated here. And those instances are hardly special.

Consider these statistics from the CDC:

“Overall, U.S. women are currently averaging 2.0 live births, 0.7 induced abortions, and 0.5 miscarriages and stillbirths, or a total of 3.2 pregnancies each, of which only 1.8 are wanted births…”

For every 100 live births there are about 60 aborted or miscarried babies. And that is for the U.S. In third world countries, where medical care is poor, infant mortality is much higher as are miscarriages.

It may be that in the entire history of humankind, souls who have lived and died in the womb outnumber those who lived to old age.

How do you, as a catholic, reconcile that a very large percentage of souls in heaven may be aborted or miscarried children? That’s not to mention deceased older children. Or, if you believe they aren’t saved, how do you reconcile innocents missing out on heaven through no fault of their own?

How could you not think that going to heaven is at least largely a matter of chance?

I was with you at first, but you seemed to go a different direction with your argument than I anticipated. I thought you were writing about what assurance of salvation means for a Catholic, but I don’t understand the purpose of the question. Yes, Catholics (as well as most Christians) believe that the very young (babies, for instance) are welcomed into heaven. I believe that there was actually a clarifying statement from the Church regarding this issue last year. If we accept that God has foreknowledge of the event, one could argue that “chance” is worked into the overall good of God’s plan for us. It is small comfort to the grieving parent, but I don’t understand your concern…

 

[celluloid]

I was with you at first, but you seemed to go a different direction with your argument than I anticipated. I thought you were writing about what assurance of salvation means for a Catholic, but I don’t understand the purpose of the question. Yes, Catholics (as well as most Christians) believe that the very young (babies, for instance) are welcomed into heaven. I believe that there was actually a clarifying statement from the Church regarding this issue last year. If we accept that God has foreknowledge of the event, one could argue that “chance” is worked into the overall good of God’s plan for us. It is small comfort to the grieving parent, but I don’t understand your concern…

Doesn’t it strike you as the least bit unfair for those of us with a normal lifespan, if many are in heaven without merit but for the sole reason that they died young?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

I’m confused as well. Are you saying that our works merit heaven and that it’s unfair because the unborn go to heaven without merits?

 

[celluloid]

I’m confused as well. Are you saying that our works merit heaven and that it’s unfair because the unborn go to heaven without merits?

Yes, there’s that and the absurdity of so many souls in heaven that never had a real lifetime. Why have life at all with all its risks, when you could get lucky for eternity?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Yes, there’s that and the absurdity of so many souls in heaven that never had a real lifetime.

Well the Church does not teach that we merit Heaven by our works. So we need to start at square one if this is going to go anywhere.

 

[celluloid]

Well the Church does not teach that we merit Heaven by our works. So we need to start at square one if this is going to go anywhere.

Does the Church teach that going to heaven is always a matter of chance?

 

[Writer]

Doesn’t it strike you as the least bit unfair for those of us with a normal lifespan, if many are in heaven without merit but for the sole reason that they died young?

(1) None of us can earn our way to heaven. It is through God’s grace, and I certainly don’t care how God in His wisdom decides to dispense this grace.

(2) The mystery of “chance” is there everywhere we look. Even the chance of which sperm finds which egg. That’s the way the natural world was set in motion by its Creator.

 

[John_Henry]

no one can predict when someone will pass away.

In fact, some one does know when everyone will pass away. And under the Catholic system, that person is known as God. God is Love and desires the salvation of all. Consequently he gives sufficient grace to all. This means that, of all the people who die, all of them at one point or another have had an opporunity to accept or reject his grace.

We believe that God so orders our lives that everyone, not only had a shot at salvation, but had the best shot.

 

[celluloid]

(1) None of us can earn our way to heaven. It is through God’s grace, and I certainly don’t care how God in His wisdom decides to dispense this grace.

I would hope you do care a little. It is something to think about.

Considered alone, this just sounds like Calvinism to me. Please elaborate a little?

AFAIK, in Catholic teaching, we are responsible for our own salvation. We are all given God’s grace.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

*The Universality of Actual Grace

The universality of grace does not conflict with its gratuity, if God, in virtue of his will to save all men, distributes with sovereign liberty his graces to all adults without exception.*

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think you are merely saying that God does the heavy lifting for our salvation (the salvation of humankind as a whole through Christ’s sacrifice), which is consistent with Catholicism.

But what I refer to in this thread is also a part of Catholic doctrine, i.e. the smaller part we play to attain personal salvation, and that is still an important part. It is an unequal yet crucial ability we have for our own salvation. The point I bring up here is that some souls escape that smaller yet crucial duty we have to do to earn salvation, whether by faith, works or both. (and I use the word “earn” in the sense of bare sufficiency, not in the sense of complete fulfillment)

This is not even a grey area in Catholicism. It’s a huge gap in consistency. Some people are held accountable, and others are clearly not. Whether deceased infants all go to either heaven, hell or limbo doesn’t matter. They either enjoy or suffer an involuntary ultimate fate. Whether by God’s will or by natural luck, there is a fundamental disparity in the purpose of human life.

(2) The mystery of “chance” is there everywhere we look. Even the chance of which sperm finds which egg. That’s the way the natural world was set in motion by its Creator.

To exist as a result of randomness is morally acceptable, but is it morally acceptable that, once existing, a person’s salvation may be subject to random events?

 

[celluloid]

In fact, some one does know when everyone will pass away. And under the Catholic system, that person is known as God.

Of course I meant our own lack of knowledge.

God is Love and desires the salvation of all. Consequently he gives sufficient grace to all. This means that, of all the people who die, all of them at one point or another have had an opporunity to accept or reject his grace.

I don’t see how fetuses can conscientiously accept or reject God.

We believe that God so orders our lives that everyone, not only had a shot at salvation, but had the best shot.

“Best shot” sounds like there’s an element of luck involved.

 

[batteddy]

Yes, there’s that and the absurdity of so many souls in heaven that never had a real lifetime. Why have life at all with all its risks, when you could get lucky for eternity?

It’s not getting lucky. It is Providence, pure and simple. Perhaps the* best* example we have of Providence is when God chooses to have us die. It is the Act of Providence par excellence.

God lets those die because perhaps he knows they would go to hell otherwise, and the lowest level of heaven (for the haven’t merited any glory, obviously) is better than hell. And maybe he lets us live because he sees that, while we might go to hell, we also have a chance (that perhaps he saw the others wouldnt) of earning even more merit and doing even more good.

We cannot question the will of History’s Sovereign.

We believe that God so orders our lives that everyone, not only had a shot at salvation, but had the best shot.

Exactly.

And that doesn’t imply there is an element of luck. It implies there is a variable God doesn’t control, namely our Free Will. If there is a chance of earning greater glory and doing greater good…God will let us live. But as soon as we no longer have any possible future timelines in which we would choose to repent…we will die, so that we don’t earn any additional punishment in hell.

It is all for the Best.

I don’t see how fetuses can conscientiously accept or reject God.

As much as an infant is capable of recieving Sanctifying Grace through the Ordinary Means (water baptism), I’m sure a fetus is likewise capable through extraordinary channels of grace. God’s grace is a free gift. Infants, fetuses, and anyone…simply has to be passively open to it, implicitly. Just think; an infant (or anyone for that matter) doesnt have to explicitly Will baptism for it to work…and I doubt a fetus would have to explicitly Will grace to recieve it. All one has to do to validly recieve baptism is Not Explictly Will Against It. Otherwise…grace flows where it is not impeded.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Doesn’t it strike you as the least bit unfair for those of us with a normal lifespan, if many are in heaven without merit but for the sole reason that they died young?

Read Matthew Chapter 20 vs. 1-18. Jesus addresses the question you raise in a parable.

 

[Mijoy2]

Doesn’t it strike you as the least bit unfair for those of us with a normal lifespan, if many are in heaven without merit but for the sole reason that they died young?

No. The parable of the Men in the Fields helps understand this.

 

[Mijoy2]

Yes, there’s that and the absurdity of so many souls in heaven that never had a real lifetime. Why have life at all with all its risks, when you could get lucky for eternity?

This is the way I used to think. That we are here for a **** shoot and we hope we through the right die at the dight time.

Cllulopd, we are here to share in Christs redemtion, not just benefit from it. We are called to desire to contibute to His sufferings. Be honored by His asking to share His cross. We shouldn’t attempt to avoid it or envy those who by no conscience effort of thier bypassed this life.

Sharing Christ’s cross is an honor, not a burden.

Think of it this way. There is a terrible storm on coming. There are people who are working hard to board up windows, put down sandbags etc to lessen the impact of the storm. When the storm is passed, wouldn’t you want to be among those who worked hard to help the others. Or would rather be one who simply benefitted from the hard work of the others?

Poor analogy in many respects I am sure. But best I could come up with for now

 

[celluloid]

It’s not getting lucky. It is Providence, pure and simple. Perhaps the* best* example we have of Providence is when God chooses to have us die. It is the Act of Providence par excellence.

Again Calvinism is invoked.

Does Providence include manipulating events such as sending whole families on vacation to a beach in 2004 Indonesia, only to be wiped out by a tsunami, along with the entire population of a native village? Most of the dead were women and children, but the point here is that if this is Divine Providence, it is hard to imagine God designating someone’s early death sometimes by a single cancerous cell that affects one person only and at other times, clumsily erasing entire population segments.

No sir, that is better explained by natural chance.

God lets those die because perhaps he knows they would go to hell otherwise, and the lowest level of heaven (for the haven’t merited any glory, obviously) is better than hell. And maybe he lets us live because he sees that, while we might go to hell, we also have a chance (that perhaps he saw the others wouldnt) of earning even more merit and doing even more good.

And that doesn’t imply there is an element of luck. It implies there is a variable God doesn’t control, namely our Free Will. If there is a chance of earning greater glory and doing greater good…God will let us live. But as soon as we no longer have any possible future timelines in which we would choose to repent…we will die, so that we don’t earn any additional punishment in hell.

If God knows what a fetus would do had he/she lived, then that makes life rather unnecessary, don’t you think?

That would mean that a fetus or blastocyst is deserving of hell because God calculates what they would have done had they lived. This is not simply God being outside of time and merely observing the future. This is God identifying predetermined evilness in infants. It means they are inherently evil or good, from the moment of conception, without any thought or action on their part. But what did they actually do to deserve it?

It is all for the Best.

As much as an infant is capable of recieving Sanctifying Grace through the Ordinary Means (water baptism), I’m sure a fetus is likewise capable through extraordinary channels of grace. God’s grace is a free gift. Infants, fetuses, and anyone…simply has to be passively open to it, implicitly. Just think; an infant (or anyone for that matter) doesnt have to explicitly Will baptism for it to work…and I doubt a fetus would have to explicitly Will grace to recieve it. All one has to do to validly recieve baptism is Not Explictly Will Against It. Otherwise…grace flows where it is not impeded.

So there is no real need of the rite of baptism. Talk about throwing out the baby with the baptismal water.

 

[celluloid]

This is the way I used to think. That we are here for a **** shoot and we hope we through the right die at the dight time.

Cllulopd, we are here to share in Christs redemtion, not just benefit from it. We are called to desire to contibute to His sufferings. Be honored by His asking to share His cross. We shouldn’t attempt to avoid it or envy those who by no conscience effort of thier bypassed this life.

Sharing Christ’s cross is an honor, not a burden.

A thoughtful post, but then there is the problem of that very honor is not shared by those who die so young. The problem is the difference in the quality and substance of life due to such obvious disparity. And it’s not just lifespan, there are people born in different cultures, religions, rich/poor, abilities and so on. Neither the burdens of life nor the honors or pleasures of life are equally distributed, not even close. For better or worse, we are not granted the same or even equivalent opportunities and pitfalls.

Infant death is just the starkest example I can come up with to illustrate the more general problem of disparity. You can’t compare the quality of life of an infant to that of someone who lives a full life (not to mention all those in between). The usual rules can’t apply to them which is why the Church is avoids the question by saying it is up to God’s mercy to decide their fate. They can’t resolve the question because it is logically impossible.

 

[celluloid]

No. The parable of the Men in the Fields helps understand this.

There are two principles at work in the parable that I can see. One is that we accept that others may be given a gift and we need not envy the good fortune of others. The other is that we should be satisfied with what is considered reasonable and not expect more, just because someone else has more.

But what is a reasonable wage when it comes to salvation? Is it heaven or hell? The stakes are much higher in life. There’s a big difference between being satified with a fair wage and facing the prospect of eternal torture. What if some of the men in the parable were tortured for shabby work while others were paid nicely without even working? That would be a closer analogy.

 

[visavismeyou]

1. The bible does not teach that we earn heaven, rather, Jesus’ sacrifice grants us heaven. What heaven is, we dont actually know (any metaphors are merely that, metaphors).
2. celluloid: “But what is a reasonable wage when it comes to salvation? Is it heaven or hell? The stakes are much higher in life. There’s a big difference between being satified with a fair wage and facing the prospect of eternal torture. What if some of the men in the parable were tortured for shabby work while others were paid nicely without even working? That would be a closer analogy.”

Perhaps change this to “Due wage” and who is to decide?

Actually though you ought to be paying better attention to this analogy. Jesus is saying that all will be paid something, what that something is is not up to us to decide, nor will we be able to comprehend, or guess, what we are going to receive so we ought not to assume.

Do babies go to heaven without “suffering” through life first? Well I have a more important question… If you get to heaven, will you remember your life? Moreso, will you be conscious that you are actually in some place or will you just be in some sort of consciousness where you are aware of God and God alone? The obvious answer is we have no clue, we just know that it is something we ought to work towards. Finally that we ought not to need to know, for if we were to know this it’d put us equal to God, since wanting to be equal to God is inheriently prideful and therefore sinful, we ought to avoid such adventures.

 

[tdandh26]

It is not chance but rather a choice. Remember that not all people in heaven receive the same, although while all are full some are capable of receiving more sanctifying grace than others.

Id be willing to bet that if you could ask one of those infants that is in heaven if they are glad they died at birth or if they would have prefered to run the gauntlet. They would say run, because we could have received more merit and thus more grace.

Id also say that if it were possible to feel jealousy in heaven, those infants might feel the same way as you do at your chance to obtain merit while they did not,