"It's not about being good, it's about accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour" declared a student of mine who belonged to an evangelical fellowship. She was voicing a view that there is a belief requirement for heaven. As evangelicals believe only in heaven and hell, by implication she believed that non-Christians fry in Hell. She is not alone in this commonly held belief. But it is not belief universally held by Christians. The Catholic Church has for a long time thought about non-Christians who live righteously. Without Christian faith can they go to heaven? But must not a just and good God recognize their virtues?
Catholics came up with the doctrine of limbo. Convinced that baptism and faith in Christ were necessary for salvation, they were reluctant to condemn good-living non-believers to Hell, so an intermediate state for virtuous non-Christians was postulated. Some thinkers regarded limbo as a less miserable version of Hell, but later thinkers regarded it as a lesser version of heaven.
However, more recently Pope Francis reminded us that heaven is a gift of God. As Christians who have accepted Christ we have already accepted God's offer, but this does not exclude God's being able to extend his gift to virtuous non-Christians. Our view of the afterlife must do justice to the goodness of God and to the freedom that he has given humans. God's goodness implies that he offers eternal life to all, but humans are free to accept or reject his love.
Now here comes the reason for my disagreeing with my student. Yes, she and I both accept Jesus as our personal saviour, but I do not confine acceptance of Christ to acceptance of a specific formula. There is a distinction between acceptance of a conceptual formula, a set of words, and acceptance of a person. Verbal formulae are aids to accepting a person, but alone they are not enough. It is possible to have expert knowledge of theology and world religions, but have no personal acceptance of God. Deep academic knowledge can sadly be combined with a shallow prayer life. We need to accept the person of God. This means turning mind and heart to him.
As we are saved by turning heart and mind to God there is no place in Catholicism for reliance on sacred rituals and places. While Catholicism is rich in ritual and sacred sites, they are aids to religious life and are pointless unless they aid the proper direction of heart and mind to God.
I have addressed this fundamental question through the lens of my Catholic faith. I cannot do otherwise, for there are no neutral standpoints in religion or philosophy. Readers may disagree from their own standpoints. Feel free to do so. I hope for vigorous discussion.
Comments
Human affairs are complex and we cannot be responsible for all consequences that ensue from an action where the decisions of others are involved.orders can have unpredictable consequences as well
The past couple three years the phrase that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission appears to have been popular in film contexts.
For example, Magnum PI and his two pals defy a direct order because they think that they can save a fellow serviceman's life. They not only do not save him but cause other deaths. They express sorrow but they also justify what they did, somewhat in line with if I had to do it over, I'd do it again.
Would it be forgivable that they're sorry that fellow servicemen died instead of surviving but that they're not sorry that they didn't sit back and do nothing?
I forgot to say that I am in full agreement with your view that heaven and hell can be right here in the present life, but I would say that they begin here and are fulfilled in the next life.
Human theories, yes, but not entirely subjective, for our human theorising/speculation is derived from our reasoning and an understanding of the ultimate reality. For example, those who believe in karma are working on a perfectly credible belief that good and evil are rewarded and punished. This view, like all others in this subject, is justifiable, but not certain. We are dealing with metaphysics here, an area in which mere human minds grope darkly.
Christianity rests on the belief that God was revealed in Jesus Christ, who knew God intimately. This can be held rationally, but not proved with certainty. Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism are perfectly rationally credible belief systems and their afterlife beliefs can be held without breaking the rules of rationality. Ultimately each one of us must find the belief system that seems the most credible.
My own opinion is that Jesus was special, but I do not delude myself that Christian thinkers have got everything right. They have not, and sometimes our own thinkers have done us a lot of damage.
I value your opinions because whenever you have commented you make your point rationally, wisely and politely. You are confident in your views, but respectful in disagreement.
Frankbeswick - I believe most of it are human interpretations. Heaven and Hell can be right here -where you are, on earth. And yet, I believe Buddhist interpretations of higher realms. You reap the rewards in higher realms and pay for your crimes in lower realms. Justified and within logic. I also believe that one cannot escape from their sins and the Karma.
The British usage is the same as the American.
Some words have different connotations in the U. S. than in England. Here, a vice is something harmful that one has a penchant to repeat, that harm might be physical as smoking or moral.
I think that vice was used thus after the sexual revolution of the1960s.
Great article Frank, as ever. i certainly hope for the happy ever after.
I am interested in the discussion about the concept of "vice ". I think the term " vice " was used in the past almost as an accolade.
It is an inscription in honour of those unjustly executed. I think that there is a tradition tthat if thee rope breaks the miscreant goes free, but the Catholics were considered traitors, so Wrenno's hanging went ahead. .