Reaching heaven is a matter of chance

[Writer]

The only further thing I’d add at this point is that, if we look at salvation in terms of some kind of heavenly lottery with an aim to do the minimum and slide by, we are disregarding the nature of an ominiscient God. If God can see straight through to the innermost places of our heats, than it’s impossible for us in any way to decieve God into opening heaven for us. It is also important to note that what constitutes sliding by for us might be a full effort for someone else. I don’t think the separation of the sheep from the goats is going to be done by a simple replay of pivotal points or decisions of one’s life, but by God’s piercing knowledge of the nature and struggles of our hearts.

A good example of what I am trying to explain concerns a relative of mine. It is one thing for a Protestant to remain where he is if he has no certainty of the truth of the Catholic Church. If the Protestant agrees that the Catholic Church is correct and fails to make the move, however, I fear that the Protestant puts himself in jeopardy. What’s right for one is not right for the other.

 

[celluloid]

Again, you’re limiting yourself to ‘eternal heaven’ and ‘eternal hell’. Just as a possible scenario, would you object to the unfairness of universal salvation if certain people had to go experience purgatory before attaining it?

No, I wouldn’t object. As long as the final result is universal salvation, then that is a positive and loving final creation. Every child, every person going to heaven is fine by me.

Here the parable works and we just have to put up with a temporary adversity along the way.

 

[Writer]

No, I wouldn’t object. As long as the final result is universal salvation, then that is a positive and loving final creation. Every child, every person going to heaven is fine by me.

Here the parable works and we just have to put up with a temporary adversity along the way.

It’s tempting logic. Reminds me of an episode of an old British comedy called “Bless Me Father”, where the priest is played by the late Arthur Lowe. A particular episode ends with the priest’s defense of the Church’s position on hell, but then he adds that we’d be screaming lunatics if we believed there to be anyone there.

But the problem with universal salvation is that it makes Christ’s sacrfice purely unnecessary. If it were unnecessary, that would put into doubt and question everything we know and understand about the nature of salvation and the nature of being a follower of Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

Maybe “most people” give infants a free pass, but “most people” aren’t God. God knows the hearts of every infant who dies, and He alone decides their fate.

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

Because I know that God is in charge.

 

[celluloid]

The only further thing I’d add at this point is that, if we look at salvation in terms of some kind of heavenly lottery with an aim to do the minimum and slide by, we are disregarding the nature of an ominiscient God. If God can see straight through to the innermost places of our heats, than it’s impossible for us in any way to decieve God into opening heaven for us. It is also important to note that what constitutes sliding by for us might be a full effort for someone else. I don’t think the separation of the sheep from the goats is going to be done by a simple replay of pivotal points or decisions of one’s life, but by God’s piercing knowledge of the nature and struggles of our hearts.
.

I agree that if God exists, then He would have complete understanding of why we do what we do. God would have deeper insight into our individual behavior than we have. Complete insight.

As an infinitely understanding God, He would also be forgiving. His mercy would have no bounds for that reason.

 

[Nullasalus]

No, I wouldn’t object. As long as the final result is universal salvation, then that is a positive and loving final creation. Every child, every person going to heaven is fine by me.

Here the parable works and we just have to put up with a temporary adversity along the way.

Just one question in addition, then.

You talk a lot about chance. Do you deny free will in any form then? All of us, at any given time, can only make one choice even though we have the appearance of being able to make many?

 

[batteddy]

Yet tsunamis are not mysterious. We know they occur when the earth moves under oceans and we know why the earth moves. We have completely explained tsunamis.

No. You have explained some proximate causes for tsunamis. You have not explained any Final Cause. Why did that tsunami happen then? Why was the universe created in such a way that there was even an Indonesia to destroy, or a techtonic plate to build up in such a way. You have not explained why that event occured out of all possible events.

You are proposing that a good God would deliberately cause an event that kills, and in doing so, denies some from exercising free will.

It doesnt deny any act of free will at all. At least no more than simply not creating them in the first place. Nothing is denied if the situation never comes up.

God is not denying me the free will to steal a million dollars from my brother simply because my brother doesnt have a million dollars! Denying free will would have to mean that someone was in the situation and he didn’t let them choose. But not putting someone in every possible situation…happens all the time.

If a deceased baby goes to heaven it is rewarded. To paraphrase your own words, you can’t actually reward them for things they never end up attempting. That is my point.

Heaven is a gift, not a reward. You can’t earn it. It’s not two sides of the same coin (I suggest you research Fr. Most’s “New Answers to Old Questions”) Heaven is entirely unmeritable, but Hell is only meritable. Heaven is only on account of God’s goodness, though hell is only on account of our evil.

Now, degrees of glory in heaven (which are merited once we are freely given the initial Sanctifying Grace which allows us to merit in the first place) would not be present in anyone dead before the age of reason. They get to heaven without ever facing the chance to choose hell, but in exchange…they are at the lowest degree of glory.

However, God saw that AT BEST they would only get to the lowest degree anyway…and AT WORST they would go to hell. So he took their soul before that happened.

With us, however, even though there may be situations where we might choose hell, there are also situations that we might merit more and choose greater good. And God provides for those until there is either no more chance of us repenting, or until we’ve earned our maximum merit.

 

[VociMike]

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?

In my opinion, your assumption (which is also that of many others) is false. We know that God gives adults the choice to be with Him or separate from Him. We know God gave that choice to the angels as well. So it only makes sense that, when they die, He gives that choice to the young and the mentally incompetent as well, in addition to giving them the information and capacity to make an informed choice.

Of course, we cannot imagine how a baby who dies in the womb can make such a choice, but we have the example of John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Spirit and leaped in the womb in the presence of Jesus. Just because we cannot imagine a thing does not mean God cannot do it.

So this whole question only makes sense if all beings are given the opportunity to choose their destiny, including those whom we think are not capable of making that choice. The alternative is that God compels these people, alone of all His ensouled creatures, to be with Him (or perhaps, as some Protestants beleive, that He compels them to be away from Him). But Love does not compel. God does not choose for any person.

 

[VociMike]

I agree that if God exists, then He would have complete understanding of why we do what we do. God would have deeper insight into our individual behavior than we have. Complete insight.

As an infinitely understanding God, He would also be forgiving. His mercy would have no bounds for that reason.

Would an infinitely understanding God compel every human and every angel to be with Him, despite their own wishes? Would He hold any being against its will?

 

[visavismeyou]

If you don’t know what heaven is, then I’ll leave you to your own hopes and comforting speculations.

My point is that I am not going for “hopes” or “speculations” I am going on trust (faith) bassed on the belief and attained-through-reason assertions that there ought to be a God, that there is a God, and that this God has revealed to us that we ought to want to follow the example he has laid out to us (Jesus’ life). That merely defines the actions we ought to perform while we are in the state we are currently in.

I, though, have come to the realization that things which are inheriently outside of my understanding (as the concept of “up” ought to be above the understanding of a theoritical 2-d being) are things which I ought to have faith about. Striving to know exactly what another person is actually feeling is a waste of time as I am not telepathic. I can guess, I can get understanding, but I cannot ever truely know.

I use the definition: Heaven is a desirable state of being and eternal communion with God in the afterlife.

The definition may be imperfect, but I think that basically fits what most Catholics are taught.

Sure, this is a fine metaphor… but it is still… as I said… a metaphor.

Have you ever seriously considered universal reconciliation? Universalism makes some sense to me.

If I am correct this is a matter of everyone will go to heaven eventually regardless of their actions on earth. Well if this is true then people ought to just go slit their wrists now and get through this life as quickly as possible… Whats the point of suffering through this life if you will get to nirvana no matter what?

Exactly, universalism = wishful thinking. God has proclaimed to us we ought to act good and we ought to act like Jesus did. Why? because it will create the best possible society in which we can be happy in this existance. Do babies who die in utero get a free ticket? This whole concept you are voicing is bassed on the assumption that it is not a blessing to live our lives, or that it is a curse to have lived our lives. Again, this is a matter of the house telling the architect where to place the wall. You have no capacity to understand these things, you have no ability to make a moral judgement upon that which created your concept of morality, thus you cannot say, nor can you comprehend, if an unborn goes straight to heaven “Free of the risk”.

concurrently:

And yet some don’t have to work towards it as I’ve shown. Or they are denied the opportunity, whichever way you want to look at it. They get a qualitatively different deal.

You use the word “qualitatively” in just the way that I am describing you cannot use it. If you look back at the scripture of Matthew 20 1-18 we see clearly that no matter the duration of work we do, the amount of work we do, the dedication we do, we will get paid what we wish to get paid. The guys who were hired first wished to get paid the amount they agreed upon, it was not up to them what the other people got paid. Translation: Mind to your own business. Other people will mind theirs. This is exactly why when atheists talk to me about “When I go to hell will you be laughing at me” or some other absurd statement, I continually respond with an expression about it is not up to us to know who goes to hell and who does not, nor is it in our grasp to know if anyone is in hell or not and not even to know if hell is some sort of place! We just know that we ought to act in a certain way.

One therotical approach is to say that those who would, as we understand it, earn hell, actually are merely blinked out of existance. Furthermore, babies may never exist fully, perhaps the soul does not “form” until a child is congnitave (5 years old or so) and thus a child who dies before his/her soul is formed does not go to hell or heaven… Again, this is all ground which we just purely cannot know the true answer to. We cannot know if a child goes to heaven any more than we cannot understand what heaven will be like. These are concepts which we ought to understand are above us. We can theorize - as I have done - but we just cannot know. Just as in our courts of law, people ought not make decisions bassed on presumption alone. A friend of mine hates God because he feels God is not justified to send all non-Christians to hell. He is making a presumption, though he wont admit it, about God’s judgement, what hell is, and again violating the “House telling the architect where to place the wall” concept and this presumption is very very weak yet very very important and he just wont admit it.

 

[visavismeyou]

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?

Again, celluloid, you are making the false assumption that anyone can “merit” heaven. That needs to be reevaluated.

 

[celluloid]

Again, celluloid, you are making the false assumption that anyone can “merit” heaven. That needs to be reevaluated.

Replace “merit” with “being in active acceptance of grace”. Everything I posted still applies.

 

[Mijoy2]

I can’t see how God would deliberately create a final existence of haves and have nots, with some in eternal hell and others in eternal heaven as is envisioned from the perspective of conventional Christian beliefs.

Which ever way you arrange the rules for who goes where, the result is permanent disparity, if literal heaven and hell exist.

.

Possibly Lewis’s The Great Divorce might help with this. I’m not sure it is theologically sound, but I think it helps in understanding how some of us willfully reject Heaven.

 

[Writer]

My point is that I am not going for “hopes” or “speculations” I am going on trust (faith) bassed on the belief and attained-through-reason assertions that there ought to be a God, that there is a God, and that this God has revealed to us that we ought to want to follow the example he has laid out to us (Jesus’ life). That merely defines the actions we ought to perform while we are in the state we are currently in…

Exactly, universalism = wishful thinking. God has proclaimed to us we ought to act good and we ought to act like Jesus did. Why? because it will create the best possible society in which we can be happy in this existance. Do babies who die in utero get a free ticket? This whole concept you are voicing is bassed on the assumption that it is not a blessing to live our lives, or that it is a curse to have lived our lives. Again, this is a matter of the house telling the architect where to place the wall. You have no capacity to understand these things, you have no ability to make a moral judgement upon that which created your concept of morality, thus you cannot say, nor can you comprehend, if an unborn goes straight to heaven “Free of the risk”.

concurrently:

You use the word “qualitatively” in just the way that I am describing you cannot use it. If you look back at the scripture of Matthew 20 1-18 we see clearly that no matter the duration of work we do, the amount of work we do, the dedication we do, we will get paid what we wish to get paid. The guys who were hired first wished to get paid the amount they agreed upon, it was not up to them what the other people got paid. Translation: Mind to your own business. Other people will mind theirs. This is exactly why when atheists talk to me about “When I go to hell will you be laughing at me” or some other absurd statement, I continually respond with an expression about it is not up to us to know who goes to hell and who does not, nor is it in our grasp to know if anyone is in hell or not and not even to know if hell is some sort of place! We just know that we ought to act in a certain way.

One therotical approach is to say that those who would, as we understand it, earn hell, actually are merely blinked out of existance. Furthermore, babies may never exist fully, perhaps the soul does not “form” until a child is congnitave (5 years old or so) and thus a child who dies before his/her soul is formed does not go to hell or heaven… Again, this is all ground which we just purely cannot know the true answer to. We cannot know if a child goes to heaven any more than we cannot understand what heaven will be like. These are concepts which we ought to understand are above us. We can theorize - as I have done - but we just cannot know. Just as in our courts of law, people ought not make decisions bassed on presumption alone. A friend of mine hates God because he feels God is not justified to send all non-Christians to hell. He is making a presumption, though he wont admit it, about God’s judgement, what hell is, and again violating the “House telling the architect where to place the wall” concept and this presumption is very very weak yet very very important and he just wont admit it.

Good points… But I have to take exception with the comments about babies blinking out of existence. Here is a quote from the Catechism, which appears to imply otherwise.

“The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God—it is not “produced” by the parents—and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235”

Isn’t the reason that we oppose abortion because of the existence of the child’s soul–in other words, that it is murder of a human being (who, by his nature, has a spirit).

Getting back to the idea of universal salvation. I am stunned that rational Catholics can entertain this idea. While it has a certain allure at first glance, it is a profound lie (shrouded in the truth of God’s mercy). If we accept universal salvation, then Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was without any meaning. (As an aside, doesn’t the Apostle’s Creed itself oppose this heretical view when it reminds us of Christ’s descent to hell to free those who died under the old covenant? That is, we can’t say the cross was without meaning while, at the same time, agreeing that Christ did indeed set those captives free.) The loss of the significance of the Cross would create Sacraments based on a lie and would make God himself a liar. When Christ asked in the Garden whether this cup might pass from Him, can you imagine any reason to proceed, if everyone could simply be given a pass to heaven without any further trouble? It makes no sense–any way you slice it.

 

[Riley259]

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?

We can be assured that because of God’s perfect justice and perfect mercy, everything that happens including whether one is saved or not will be perfectly fair and just as it should be. God is not fickle and He doesn’t throw dice with his beloved creatures. Trust that everything that happens will be as it should be. Also,pray for the grace to better understand this awesome mystery.

 

[Nullasalus]

Writer:

Getting back to the idea of universal salvation. I am stunned that rational Catholics can entertain this idea. While it has a certain allure at first glance, it is a profound lie (shrouded in the truth of God’s mercy). If we accept universal salvation, then Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was without any meaning. (As an aside, doesn’t the Apostle’s Creed itself oppose this heretical view when it reminds us of Christ’s descent to hell to free those who died under the old covenant? That is, we can’t say the cross was without meaning while, at the same time, agreeing that Christ did indeed set those captives free.) The loss of the significance of the Cross would create Sacraments based on a lie and would make God himself a liar. When Christ asked in the Garden whether this cup might pass from Him, can you imagine any reason to proceed, if everyone could simply be given a pass to heaven without any further trouble? It makes no sense–any way you slice it.

Well, someone could make the argument that if Christ died for the salvation of some, He could just have easily died for the salvation of all.

Nevertheless - while I was talking about universal salvation, I’m only mentioning that it is entirely possible. If it weren’t possible for every human to have salvation, wouldn’t we be Calvinists? Still, it’s clear that sin, regardless of the particulars, is harmful to the soul. As Catholics, we’re also obliged to believe that sins will be answered for one way or the other, and that we are therefore bound to avoid it and the temptation to it, imperfect as we are. Others have already talked about the willfulness of damnation, which I would agree to. Will it be permanent and eternal? I can only assume the possibility is there, even if I can’t really fathom the circumstances required for an individual to earn it.

 

[visavismeyou]

Good points… But I have to take exception with the comments about babies blinking out of existence. Here is a quote from the Catechism, which appears to imply otherwise.

Yea I know what the Catholic Church teaches, I am born protestant and converted at the age of 21 via RCIA. Typically I keep the teachings of the Church on the tip of my tongue and use theoritical possibilities as explanations in the style of metaphores, not as referece to Church teaching nor Scripture. After all the Catechism does not say for such answers “The Church knows it to be scientific fact…” They are going on extrapolations and possibilities bassed on scripture of Christ’s teachings.

In context, I was makeing a reference to this whole scenario where celluoid is saying that a child who dies inutero gets one over on all of us by just going straight to heaven. My comments were not intended to reflect scripture or teaching.

Getting back to the idea of universal salvation. I am stunned that rational Catholics can entertain this idea.

Yea, like I said Universalism = wishful thinking. The first time I heard of this the first thing I thought about was just like when I first heard about extremist calvinism. Why not do what ever you pleased? It does not matter if you are saintly or hellish in this life, either way you’re afterlife is already set in stone, what you do now is irrelevent…

 

[visavismeyou]

Well, someone could make the argument that if Christ died for the salvation of some, He could just have easily died for the salvation of all.

Nevertheless - while I was talking about universal salvation, I’m only mentioning that it is entirely possible. If it weren’t possible for every human to have salvation, wouldn’t we be Calvinists?

We can quickly turn to scripture to find guidance and understanding about this whole salvation thing. One great section talking about all of this is all of Romans 6. The metaphor of death = sin and sin = death is really great. One bumper sticker catch phrase I saw bassed around this chapter stated: “He died for me so I live for him.” That sums it up well. See what Rom 6 is stateing is that death, both death literally and death figurativly, sin, hold no power over Christ since his death and resurrection. This is what is allowing us into heaven, our actions no matter how great or small, however evil or good do not warrent our entry into heaven or curse of hell. Does this mean everyone goes to heaven? as I stated earlier, we are given an example to follow and told to follow it. That we know for sure, we are also told that Heaven would be wonderful to get to and we ought to strive to go there (serve God and follow Christ’s example) and hell would be horrible to go to and we ought to strive to not go there (rebel against God). These are the things we can comprehend, these are the things we ought to spend our time doing.

 

[visavismeyou]

Replace “merit” with “being in active acceptance of grace”. Everything I posted still applies.

Well, not quite…

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?

What is a normal lifespan and what need we do in order to “Merit” heaven? Here are some quick theoreticals for you (I Love theoreticals)

What if Judas did not hang himself? What if he, 10 years after Christ’s death and resurrection, began to lament opulently and wrote a wonderful accurate Gospel of everything Christ said that he heard? To continue with this alternate timeline, what if Judas got back ‘in good’ with the Peter and the other Apostles of Christ and began to work with them and spread Christ’s message to thousands of people. What if he told his tale of how he betrayed Christ and how he fully expects to go to Hell when he dies, however, he knows that he OUGHT to proclaim Christ’s message and that he ought to bring people to Christ’s flock? Would Judas have gone to Heaven? If he fully believed in his heart that Christ was the Messiah and that he accepts the grace which God offers to all and submits his sins to God for judgement and humbles himself before God for 30 years after his betrayal. Is this sufficient to forgive his betrayal?

What if just as Hitler began to figure out that he was going to lose the war he got scared. Scared to the point that he was knocked out of his psychotic haze and began to realize that everything he had been doing was wrong and dropped to his knees and proclaimed to Christ that he is sorry for misusing His name and he laments the numerous people he slaughtered and he begs for forgiveness for 10 minutes and then one of his generals, after seeing that the war was lost, storms into Hitler’s chambers enraged and shoots the kneeling Hitler and makes it look like a suicide.

Would Hitler go to heaven? He only had 10 minutes to lament, Judas had 30 years… what is sufficient time? What is the difference? Would God give Judas and Hitler a second chance? Would he give these babies a chance to “Merit” heaven? Perhaps children who die too young to understand anything or the severaly mentally retarded (from birth) are given a “second chance” as a different person… Sort of a reincarnation bit. Which is it?

 

[batteddy]

Replace “merit” with “being in active acceptance of grace”. Everything I posted still applies.

Yes, everything would.

Luckily, Catholics dont believe in “being in active acceptance of grace”…

All that is minimally necessary is “being in passive acceptance of grace”

Though active cooperation once you get the First Grace (which allows you to merit and cooperate actively in the first place) can gain you more merit and glory…to reach heaven, all that is needed is passive acceptance of grace. A baby doesn’t need to positively will baptism, as long as he doesn’t positively NOT will it.

An explicit acceptance of grace is not necessary. Merely the lack of an explicit rejection. The sacraments work ex opere operato.