Who will go to Heaven? Salvation by Faith or Works

Abstract

Christians argue that faith not works admits the Christian to heaven, but forget that the heavenly gate is narrow while the gate to hell is broad, which implies that there are other criteria besides faith, or that God can see when faith is insincere. Christians frequently say that it is sensible to believe because belief is rewarded while unbelief is punished. They do not seem to think that their Most High God might not be impressed by such a mercenary faith. That is because they are encouraged to accept that faith is sufficient.

There are Atheists in Heaven!

Sometime in the latter half of the last century, an archbishop of Canterbury said he expected to meet some atheists in heaven. This met with a strong outcry both from those Christians who objected to atheists going to heaven, and from those who knew that any archbishop who thought he would meet atheists there was being presumptious in thinking he would go there himself. None of these people would have had any doubt that they themselves would go to heaven, even if the archbishop did not, and the archbishop was noted as a humble man.

The point is that all Christians are certain about that one thing above all. Christians go to heaven because they are Christians—they believe, and that is the only requirement—they think. It shows that they do not understand the basis of their own beliefs, or they chose to ignore the unpalatable bits.

They will argue that faith not works admits the Christian to heaven, but forget that the heavenly gate is narrow while the gate to hell is broad, which implies that there are other criteria besides faith, or that God can see when faith is insincere. Christians frequently say that it is sensible to believe because belief is rewarded while unbelief is punished. They do not seem to think that their Most High God might not be impressed by such a mercenary faith. That is because they are encouraged to accept that faith is sufficient.

Equally, they will rush to judge the archbishop for his assumption and the atheists for their unbelief, yet the archbishop seems to think that there are some atheists at least who might well be better Christians than some Christians, or at least as good as them. Did the archbishop get to his elevated office by being ignorant, or are some Christians getting only part of the story? The rush to judgement itself, according to the bible, is wrong. “Judge not lest ye be judged” must be known by all Christians but they are happy to play God in judging others, and they have a long and sooty history of it.

What too is the basis of their judgement? Their own god was adamant that outward appearances were deceptive, so that the appearance of piety itself could be meant to deceive. The worst Pharisees today, in the Christian sense of those putting on shows of piety, are the disgusting Christian Right in the US who believe entirely in the show of their own peculiar brand of Christianity quite divorced from anything that can be justified from the words or deeds of their supposed God, a humble dissident preacher whose main principles were poverty and meekness. Not one of their leadership cares two hoots about Christ. That sort of stuff is for the flock not the shepherds. Their idea of Christ is Rambo, not anything to be met in the Christian gospels.

If the archbishop believed in Judgement, he will have realised that Christians of the Rambo variety were unlikely to be destined for the balmy place, while some utter infidels, by leading worthy lives might get preferred. This is no more than a variation of the story of the rich man and Lazarus, but it is lost on them. The archbishop saw that an honest atheist could be nearer to God than an arrogant Christian deluded by their own sense of sanctity.

Jon Ronson, a journalist who is Jewish but with Teutonic features, explored the ranks of right wing zealots and fanatical bigots in Them: Adventures with Extremists. All of “them” believed they were acting out God’s will. Not all were Christians, but everyone who thinks like this is dangerous to society, if not insane for believing they were God, or God’s will on earth, which amounts to the same delusion. For sane people, that should be as good a reason for disdaining religion as any.

Last uploaded: 04 November, 2009.

Interact

Click and copy the address of this page from your browser’s address bar and safely send it to a friend using email the web.
Considered contributions, criticisms and discussion can be made privately via email [†]
Publication Policy. Interesting general contributions will be listed anonymously, unless the contributor is happy to be named, in the discussion—E-pistle—pages of this website, or if specific to a particular article, on the same webpage, as an addendum to the article.
. E-mail a Comment.
Or, use the AskWhy! Whiteboard, password: “newinaskwhy”

Other Websites or Blogs

God’s Own Summary of the Bible—Magi Mike’s Blog
I explain here in a criticism of a book by F S Collins: “We will see that Christ gave two answers when asked for the most important commandment, and the reason is that the two… ”
Magi Mike’s Blog—http://mikemagee.wordpress.com/.
AskWhy! Blogger at Blogspot.

Short Responses and Suggestions

New. No comments posted here yet. Be the first one!

Before you go, think about this…

Scientists are always blamed for the atomic bomb, but scientists opposed the use of the bomb in anger. The Franck report was prepared by seven top scientists on the wartime Manhatten project to devise a nuclear weapon and sent to the US Secretary of War in June 1945. It warned: “If the US were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destructionm on mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.” President Truman explicitly admitted the decision to use the bomb was entirely his.