Do we all go to heaven even if we're not religious but good at heart? Can we be a 'good person' even if we don't go to church?
I am going to assume that the reason the question is worded like this is because the person who wrote it knows that Christians are made "good" by having the bad stuff they've done paid for by Jesus, and is asking if there is a second way to heaven for those who manage to be good enough on their own part and therefore don't need Jesus.
The short answer is that Jesus said "I am the way...No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) In other words, no there is no second way.
This may seem unfair on those who live "good" lives without being Christian. But it's actually much more unfair on people to say that if they live good lives they might get to heaven. Everyone has a different definition of a "good" life. It's all about pressure to perform. It's destined to fail. Because get this: God is perfect. Heaven is perfect. The moment you do one tiny screw up, you're imperfect. Name one person who's perfect by that definition. No, I can't think of anyone either (except Jesus, but He decided to take on our imperfections). There can't be imperfection in heaven. This isn't because God thinks He's too cool for imperfect people. He doesn't. He loves us all. Simply put, the nature of heaven is perfect and imperfection can't exist there.
For want of a better example, let's look at vomiting. When you vomit, it's not because your tummy feels like being a snob towards your food. It's because the food was imperfect and by its very nature could not remain in your stomach. The same thing happens with imperfection in heaven. God's not a snob. He simply created a heaven where imperfection, by its nature, can't exist (and when we get there, we'll enjoy this feature). Furthermore, just to make sure we know He isn't being snobby, He sent Jesus to pay with His life for every bad thing we've ever done so that anyone can have the option of being perfect and going to heaven. All you have to do is choose to go there.
Let's look at what Jesus said about this. This verse you may know: "For God so loved the world, that He sent His only Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16). I like this verse. It says that if you believe that God sent Jesus to pay for your sins then you're going to heaven. Sounds good to me. Beats trying to be perfect all your life. Of course this is only one thing Jesus said. So just to prove I'm not a heretic who takes things out of context and makes his own theologies, let's look at what else Jesus said so we can have a holistic view of His teaching.
Jesus also said, "do to others what you would have them do to you..." (Matthew 7:12). If we all did to others what we'd have them do to us, we'd be living in a pretty sweet world. Is Jesus saying "try as hard as you can to be perfect"? No! He's just saying treat others the way you'd have them treat you. Common sense!
Jesus said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength ... Love your neighbour as yourself." (Mark 12:30). These are also common sense. If you believe God sent Jesus to pay for your sins so that you could go to heaven then it's natural that you would love God! Who wouldn't love someone who enabled them to go to a perfect heaven? And loving your neighbour is the golden rule all over again. More common sense.
One more thing Jesus said. "Go and make disciples of all the nations ... and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20). Jesus is saying, "Okay, so you guys know that to go to heaven, you need only believe God sent me to pay with my life for you to go there. You know that the best way to live is to love God and to treat other people the way you want them to treat you. Now go tell other people about this so that they can do it too."
So that's what I'm doing. I'm telling you about it cause you're asking if there's a second way to heaven, which is actually harder than God's way! Why spend decades working at being perfect (and still failing in the end) when God made sure that all you had to do to get there was believe that Jesus paid for your ticket? God did this on purpose. There's a good reason it takes a single decision to get entry to heaven and a lifetime to treat others the way you want them to treat you. Because we're not in heaven! Apart from the decision to believe Jesus paid for you to go there, you're actually supposed to think about Earth. You can enjoy heaven when you get there. In the meantime, rather than wasting your life trying and failing to be perfect, just treat others the way you want to be treated and tell them that they can live the same way. Yes, as a result you will spend a lot of your time being "good", but with a completely different approach! As a Christian, you do good things out of love for God and others, rather than doing them in order to get to heaven. Talk about a weight off your shoulders!
Josh Thompson (edited slightly)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It would seem God is not that loving if God condemns people, who sincerely try to live good lives but don't have faith, to eternal damnation, so what about the concept of purification of the soul after death, ie purgatory? What is your view on that?
If there is no purgatory, or such, where you learn the error of your ways, and are purified, is God not egotistical? You must have faith in God to get to Heaven, yet for many the existence of God can't be proven, so they go to hell for not believing. Believe in me, without absolute proof, or be damned... Egotistical?
Oh, and if you do get to heaven, is it actually you who gets to heaven? Our (perceived) imperfections and differences make us who we are. (At our essence, we are "imperfect".) Perhaps we are, in fact, perfect in our (perceived) imperfection. Otherwise, are you saying that God's creations, which are all part of God's eternal plan, are imperfect? We cannot comprehend the plan, but to say God has created imperfect beings whose, ahh, essence "he" then destroys to let them into heaven seems blasphemous. I would assume we are all perfect cogs in a perfect whole, designed to God's plan.
On a different tangent, even Lucifer must operate to God's design. You can't have a God, a creator, who knows everything, and then say that God did not foresee Lucifer's opposition. God designed Lucifer that way. To state otherwise is illogical.
If God creates beings whose essence "he" eliminates to allow them entry to heaven, and also creates a being designed to draw out "negative" traits in humans, which lead to their eternal damnation, what does this do to our concept of morality? These seem pretty nasty things to do. Can we consider God a moral being. God is an absolute, but is God moral?
Oh, I was using purgatory as an illustrative example, as in the traditional Catholic view, I would expect not believing in God would be considered a venial sin, which would thus eternally damn one automatically.
I also believe that I may have heard in Church that where the word of God has not spread, God will not damn those people just because they do not know "him". So it seems a small step to say it is not necessary, yet you have quoted Biblical passages which strongly imply it is necessary to know God. Now, I know many Biblical passages have been incorrectly translated, but I don't know if any of the ones you have quoted have been. What to believe?
Your last paragraph appears to posit that people who don't believe in God will spend their entire lives trying to be perfect so that they can get to heaven. If they don't believe in God, why would they believe in heaven, or your conception of it anyway? You also posit a motivation for people being "good" is getting to heaven - again, if they're not Christian, getting to your conception of heaven cannot be their motivation.
Please utilise logic to explain these apparent contradictions in thought.
This is probably covered in theology, but I don't know where:
How did people get to Heaven before Jesus came and died for our sins? Did they not?
Hi anonymous..
The article assumes the existence of God and heaven, as it is impossible to answer every relevant question in one article.
Before Jesus died for our sins, the Jewish people made animal sacrifices and a plethora of other kinds of offerings in order to atone for their sins. If you want the details of these, read the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament from the beginning.
Any animals the Jews sacrificed for their sins had to be "without defect". This is the crucial factor of why we can be saved by Jesus. Jesus never sinned, and as such he was "without defect". And of course from there it follows that only the divine Son of God could be that perfect and thus die for the sins of everyone forever.
Now here's an interesting question:
If you refused to believe in God while you were alive on earth, why would you then say that God is not loving if you doesn't let you into heaven? Heaven is where you can be with God after you die, if you didn't want to be with Him while you were alive on earth, surely He's doing you a favour by not forcing you to be with Him after you die? I don't understand why people don't want to believe in or know God then call Him unloving for not letting them hang out with Him once they die. They don't want to hang out with Him! They're getting their wish. Admittedly, the alternative of hell is pretty terrible, but what else would you have? Some kind of middle place that isn't hell but where you don't have to put up with God like you would in heaven?
Ahh, now that's where purgatory comes in I suppose. The thing about purgatory is that there's no mention of it in the bible. The bible mentions both heaven and hell, but if there is such a place as purgatory, God didn't see fit to notify us of its existence in His word, so I can only assume that if the idea of purgatory didn't come from God, it must be a man-made concept. For purgatory to be real would require someone going to purgatory and coming back again to notify us of its existence, and as far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened.
Another important thing is that hell wasn't made for people. It was made for lucifer.
I disagree with your idea that our imperfections make us who we are. Genesis says we are made in the image of God. Our differences make us unique, which is wonderful, even uniqueness is part of God's image. If we were all the same, then we wouldn't be made in God's image because there is no one like God, He is unique. But I don't think our imperfections make us who we are. Our imperfections merely prevent us from being who we are able to be. Our essence is not imperfect. In fact, I'm not sure that we have an "essence" at all, in the sense of an essence being some overriding default setting that we are called to follow. Yes, believe we have an imperfect sinful nature, and that it is a nature. But I think we have more control over it than if it were an "essence". Ultimately at the core of our being, we are created by God, created to be loved by Him and to love Him. That is the essence of who we are. And that's not something God would have to destroy to let us into heaven.
On the subject of lucifer I can only say that yes indeed, God does know everything, and why events have panned out they way they have, with lucifer's involvement is certainly something I'm looking forward to being able to comprehend when I get the opportunity to ask God about it in heaven. All I know is that God made lucifer an angel, He didn't make him a devil. Lucifer did that part himself.
On the subject of whether God is moral, like I said, I don't think God has to eliminate our essence at all. And I certainly don't believe that God made lucifer as a pre-packaged devil. So I see no need to question God's morality on either count.
When it comes to people where the word of God has not spread, we have to remember that God is a bit smarter than us. Where we're prepared to try and be clever and say "haha, what about the people who haven't heard about You, how are they gonna get to heaven, whoops, you messed that one up God!", God actually has it sorted. God is perfectly capable of revealing Himself to people without our assistance if He needs to. Yes, they may not have bibles, and they certainly won't know Him by the names of Jehovah or Jesus, but that doesn't mean they can't experience His existence. Important to remember is that they also have the option of rejecting Him and turning to the ways of satan. Obviously some of them do, as we know for a fact that there are people groups in the world who were discovered by the western world, having never heard God's word, practicing cannibalism.This doesn't mean they didn't know any better. It could equally mean God revealed Himself to them and they rejected Him. What I'm getting at is that God doesn't have to have sympathy on them because no missionaries came and gave them the opportunity to know Him. God can decide based on what they did with their own revelation of Him, without missionary help. This is simply a theory I have heard from someone else and am repeating. Either way, I believe God has it covered.
I think I'm about on the last point of yours that needs answering. You ask why people would want to be "good" if they don't believe heaven exists. Well, for one thing, go and ask them yourself whether they think it's important to be good if you don't believe in heaven. Then secondly, I didn't say heaven was a reason to be good at all. On the contrary, I said that once we've made the decision to accept what Jesus did that enables us to go to heaven, we should actually focus on earth.
Here's my challenge to anyone who doesn't believe in heaven:
Test God by doing what you can without having to believe in heaven. You don't need to believe in heaven to be able to read Jesus teachings and follow them. Get a bible, read the book of Mark or Matthew. Try following through on the things Jesus says about how to live. I guarantee it'll work and you'll see some happy faces as a result. You'll make a difference in people's lives by following Jesus teachings, without even having to believe in heaven to do so. Now here's my question: If Jesus teachings work, then why should He be right about them, but wrong about heaven existing? You'd think he'd get it right on both counts wouldn't you.
Regarding people who haven't heard about Jesus, the Bible does give us the answer to this one. Check out these verses in particular:
Romans 1
Romans 2:13-15
God is both just and kind, and he reveals himself to every single person.
"Any animals the Jews sacrificed for their sins had to be "without defect". This is the crucial factor of why we can be saved by Jesus. Jesus never sinned, and as such he was "without defect"."
Why did God give his only son if we could just sacrifice animals to wash away our sins? Can animals really be without defect? They are not divine, or comparable to Jesus.
"If you refused to believe in God while you were alive on earth, why would you then say that God is not loving if you doesn't let you into heaven? Heaven is where you can be with God after you die, if you didn't want to be with Him while you were alive on earth, surely He's doing you a favour by not forcing you to be with Him after you die?"
It may be a refusal to believe, yes, but the refusal to believe comes about because there is no proof either way. One can't prove or disprove the existence of any god, Christian or otherwise. As this is the case, many choose to be agnostic, or to believe in nothing. It's not that they don't want to be with him. It's that they don't believe, or have enough faith. There's a difference. Perhaps there's nothing more they would like than to believe in a higher power and have that comfort, but they can't bring themselves to have enough faith because they hold to a higher standard of proof.
As well as this, there are differences in doctrine, and even outright conflicts. For example, your comment on purgatory denies it exists, yet the Catholic Church says, or said, it does. With such differences in belief amongst the different Christian sects, is it that hard to forgive people for lacking faith?
"The thing about purgatory is that there's no mention of it in the bible." You realise the Bible is comprised of cherry-picked scriptures, right? As well as this, the Bible is, apparently, according to my friend who has studied in this area, poorly translated. It's hard to take it as the whole reality of the Christian God, given this.
"Another important thing is that hell wasn't made for people. It was made for lucifer."
Then why do people end up there, if it was specifically made for Lucifer? God knows everything, which leads to the conclusion that God knew people would end up there, which leads to the further conclusion that God made hell for people as well.
"All I know is that God made lucifer an angel, He didn't make him a devil. Lucifer did that part himself."
You say God knows everything. God knew Lucifer would fall, and in fact left the flaw in Lucifer, or allowed him to fall, yet God didn't make him a devil. God may not have made him a devil, but it certainly seems God set him up to be one. I have also heard it said that angels didn't have free-will. I'm not sure where that's from though...
"Yes, they may not have bibles, and they certainly won't know Him by the names of Jehovah or Jesus, but that doesn't mean they can't experience His existence."
This theory leaves the interpretation of the Christian God very open. Without reference to the Bible, or primary figures of the Bible, they can be believers? Anybody from any religion then, or anybody who believes in a higher power, they just know God in a different form? If not, how do you choose who is a follower? I guess that's up to God to do. Yet, your theory seems one of arbitrariness.
And also, if they don't know Jesus or have a story of equivalence, how can they get to heaven? "Jesus said "I am the way...No one comes to the Father except through me."" Can they sacrifice animals? How will they know to do so?
"I didn't say heaven was a reason to be good at all."
You imply, at least, that heaven is a reason for being good: "I'm telling you about it cause you're asking if there's a second way to heaven, which is actually harder than God's way! Why spend decades working at being perfect (and still failing in the end) when God made sure that all you had to do to get there was believe that Jesus paid for your ticket?" You might try and live your life as best you can, but you aren't going to live it that way because of heaven. The question didn't ask if you could not believe in God, and work towards getting to heaven, because that would be ridiculous, given that a belief in heaven only works with a belief in God, and vice versa. It basically asked if you could not believe in God and still go to heaven (if it exists). If you don't believe in God, then you aren't going to spend decades trying to be perfect (being good) to get to heaven without going through God, and that was your implication.
"Now here's my question: If Jesus teachings work, then why should He be right about them, but wrong about heaven existing? You'd think he'd get it right on both counts wouldn't you."
Well no, it doesn't logically follow that because you're right, or insightful, about one thing, you'll be right, or insightful, about another, especially two relatively unrelated things. One is a way of living your life by certain principles, and another is a belief about the existence of life after death, and what it will be like.
“Why did God give his only son if we could just sacrifice animals to wash away our sins?”
The point isn’t really the animals, it’s the Law itself. “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” (Rom 3:20) The Law was never enough. Jesus’ death and resurrection was so much more than a substitution for sacrificing animals. It was actually a whole new deal. It’s being free from sin entirely – as in, before Jesus came, even animals were only an atonement. They weren’t a rescue. They pointed to the real rescue, Jesus. Jesus’ resurrection was a victory over not just death, but sin. “For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.” (Rom 6:14) What this means, is that while the law showed us how to live, it didn’t save us from sin. Sacrificing animals provided forgiveness, but not freedom. It didn’t provide a new, changed life. Jesus was always going to come, he had to, and the whole Old Testament points to him. Does that make sense?
“It may be a refusal to believe, yes, but the refusal to believe comes about because there is no proof either way.”
In terms of reasons for not believing, while I see what you’re saying, I actually don’t think that’s the issue. I’m not sure if you read the verses I put up before, so I’ll just quote one of them here: “what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Rom 1:19-20) In Ecclesiastes it also says God has placed eternity in our hearts. God is pretty clear about having revealed himself to all of us.
You’re right though, it’s definitely up to God to judge who’s a believer and who isn’t. Totally agree with you on that.
For differences in doctrine, I can only say to look to the Bible. I have not the slightest idea where the purgatory concept came from, but it’s not biblical in any way – not just because it’s not there, but because it totally contradicts the whole message of the Bible, about forgiveness from God and freedom through Jesus. I don’t know about Catholicism in general, but I know Catholic Christians who don’t believe in purgatory. I know that some denominations of Christianity interpret other things in the Bible different ways, such as what will happen in the end times, but that’s different to believing something contradictory to the Bible. For example, some ‘Christian’ groups don’t believe Jesus was the son of God. Some things are central to being a follower of Jesus – who Jesus was is one of them, end time events aren’t.
The Old Testament was what the Jews always had, right up till Jesus and afterward. These were translated from Hebrew, and they’re the ones we’re absolutely sure are authentic. There is no question about the scripture that’s in the old testament, historians vouch for that. The only other things that could be called scripture are what’s known as the Apocrypha, which is other writings that aren’t in the OT. These weren’t in Hebrew, and we aren’t sure of either their authenticity or their truth. Some of them may be authentic and true, we aren’t sure. But if they contradict what’s in the OT, then they aren’t true. With the New Testament, there’s also no conflict between scriptures. What’s there was carefully preserved over a long period of time, and you can read about the whole process of putting it all together. Other letters and things that have been discovered do not have the same historical reliability as the ones that were chosen, and some of them outright conflict with them. In terms of translation, it is true that there are many translations and some errors in places, but I know for a fact that the errors in translation are incredibly minor, relating only to specific word meanings etc, and none of them change or alter the message of the Bible and Jesus in any way.
I hope this discussion is helpful. If you’re in Wellington and you’d like to meet up with someone sometime to talk more, please let us know!
Post a Comment