Please comment on each section of the essay with your feedback. What is good about it, needs work, could be improved and how, how does it meet the requirements of the mark scheme and your general thoughts?
‘Everyone deserves to be saved and go to Heaven’ Discuss.
Taken from Matthew 25, when discussing the afterlife Jesus states ‘Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life’. This clearly eludes to a Divine judgement about which afterlife is suitable to each individual. But how is this decided? Is it possible to change your afterlife or is it unescapable? This essay will explore why not everyone deserves to be saved and go to Heaven and what other options there are.
Firstly, before considering the fact that not everyone deserves to be saved and go to Heaven it is rational to question what actually is Heaven? In Revelations, Heaven is described as ‘The great street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass’ but there are multiple different interpretations. Traditional Catholicism favours the ‘beatific’ vision as described by Aquinas meaning we have a face to face experience with God in the afterlife. He also believed perfect happiness is not achievable in this life, only in the afterlife where we live eternally in perfect bliss. This indicates that in this view everyone is saved and goes to Heaven as it the only place where happiness can be achieved. He taught the soul as a sort of life principle that forms the distinctive characteristics of all different living things. It is our soul that allows us to reach our full potential and accomplish our purpose in life and only once humanity has done this can we live eternally in the presence of God. This is a similar belief in Protestantism that Heaven is an everlasting existence where we exist with God and our loved ones in a type of eternal worship. However, Aquinas can be interpreted as stating not everyone goes to Heaven only those who have reached their full purpose with their soul and so he goes against the idea that everyone deserves to be saved and to go to Heaven. Regardless of this ostensibly idyllic perception of Heaven there are criticisms against the concept of Heaven as whole. Bernard Williams questioned if a perfect eternity is as perfect as it sounds. By having a perfect resurrected ‘spiritual body’ and no limitations surely, we would get bored after a while. This view was shared by Karl Rahner, a Catholic Theologian, who elaborated upon the issue believing it is the limits in our earthly life that make it so special and meaningful. This could be interpreted as saying the afterlife is meaningless and so it doesn’t truly matter if everyone deserves to be saved and go to Heaven or not. This classic depiction of Heaven shows that the faithful who have followed and finished their full purpose deserve to be saved and receive the eternal happiness and everlasting life of Heaven, but not necessarily everyone.
The idea that everyone deserves to be saved and go to Heaven is very broad and universal, but it’s also unrealistic that everyone will go to the same afterlife regardless of our actions in our earthly life. If this was the case then our actions are meaningless and society would descend into chaos with no fear of consequence. This implies that there is a judgement process. Also taken from Matthew 25 it declares that God ‘will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.’ The ‘sheep’ are the good and helpful and the ‘goats’ are merely people who aren’t evil just not as upstanding as they could be by, for example, not donating to charity. This judgement process shows that not everyone deserves to be saved and go to Heaven, only the sheep. There is no middle ground between ‘goats’ and ‘sheep’ and also no consideration for faith or belief in God which is interesting for such a typically Christian view. But is this fair? Eternal punishment does not seem like a fitting punishment for simply failing to take certain opportunities of kindness so this judgement is not fair. This goes against the idea of a classic theistic God that is omnibenevolent as they would not punish for simply a lack of sufficient good deeds. An omnibenevolent God should be all-loving therefore everyone should deserve to be saved and go to Heaven but this is not the case presented in the Bible.
Everyone doesn’t deserve to be saved and go to Heaven but what is the process to separate the ‘sheep’ and ‘goats’? Some Christian theologians pose the idea of election or predestination. Limited election means that due to their omnipotence, before we are even born God has chosen our eternal destiny of salvation or damnation. It is argued by the likes of Augustine that this occurs due to us being seminally present in Adam and Eve and should therefore still be punished for Original Sin but this makes God appear petty as if they are holding a grudge against humanity. On the contrary, Pelagianism claims we are born clean slates and are not tainted by the Fall and it is our choose if we are good or evil without any intervention from God; if God has no say in our actions or choices, is it right that they can damn us to Hell? Initially, Augustine believed God knew all our freely chosen actions due to their omnipotence but later changed his mind to the harsher idea that a recognisable sign of God’s Grace is the decision maker in who is saved and so not everyone deserves to be saved and to go to Heaven. This is supported by John Calvin who believed that God is in total, unwavering control and we are predestined for either salvation or damnation. Although influential in Protestantism it is often rejected or criticised by Christians as if we are predestined for a certain afterlife why should we put in any effort at all? Conversely to this, unlimited election believes everyone deserves to be saved and to go to Heaven. Karl Barth raises the point that in dying on the cross Jesus brought salvation for all humanity and it is through Jesus you are elected. Evangelical Christian John Hick pioneered a more universalist view stating everyone of any religion can go to Heaven in the end. All religions are expressions of love and desire for a God like figure and so it is not a case of a right God and a wrong God, it is simply cultural. Furthermore, he adopted the view of Irenaeus that everything is about growth and the afterlife is where our faith in God grows. This argues that everyone deserves to be saved and go to Heaven. On the other hand, Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) rivals this by saying if everyone from any religion deserves to be saved and to go Heaven then Jesus’s sacrifice was all for nothing and therefore only Christians selected via limited election deserve to be saved and to go to Heaven.
If it is wrong to say everyone deserves to be saved and go to Heaven, where do they go? One potential answer to this is the early Catholic teaching of Purgatory. Early Christian thinkers such as Augustine believed in purgatory as a healing and cleansing process. When souls are not in a sufficient state for Heaven, they require a cleansing. This can be done in life via confessions and repentance or in the afterlife in Purgatory. The idea is believed to originate from Pope Gregory in the 6th century and the Biblical extract ‘anyone who speaks a word against the Son Of Man will be forgiven…either in this age or in the age to come.’ He interpreted this as a note of forgiveness for all either in this life or in a form of afterlife and purgatory best fits this description. Therefore, everyone has a chance to be saved and to go to Heaven. One part of purgatory is the potential for pain or suffering but it will not be eternal and inescapable as depicted in Hell. Once again, Karl Rahner adapted this concept with his argument that before judgement the soul becomes suddenly aware of the consequences of individual sin and the pain of purgatory is self-inflicted as the result of recognising your earthly wrong-doings. This provides a strong argument that maybe everyone goes to Heaven eventually but not immediately as they must be purged of their sins before entry. This is a kinder perspective than the ‘goat’ and ‘sheep’ ideology which seems unfair and unforgiving. However, Protestants disagree with this concept as it is not a directly Biblical concept. Furthermore, the subsequent salvation of Jesus dying on the cross is meaningless if our sins are cleansed in the afterlife regardless of our actions. The argument for purgatory appears to support the statement that everyone deserved to be saved and to go to Heaven as it encourages forgiveness and second chances even though the journey to Heaven is not immediate.
Another alternative to everyone deserving to be saved and go to Heaven is the creation of Hell. It is described both as a fiery pit of sulphur and a rubbish dump in it’s few Biblical mentions. This acts as an inescapable and eternal punishment for sinful, evil people. Similarly, to the idea of ‘goats’ this does not show a classic theistic omnibenevolent God. This is the point raised by David Hume as a finite sin does not always deserve an infinite punishment which calls into question the entire concept of God’s justice furthering the idea that if Hell exists God can not possibly be omnibenevolent. Hell portrays God as ruthless and unforgiving which is the point argued by John Hick. He views Hell as a metaphorical or symbolic method of control making people afraid to disobey religious orders and authorities and so to maintain order. A God of infinite love and mercy would not doom his creations to such an awful fate. With no chance of escape or redemption what does Hell actually achieve? The idea of Hell as a physical existing separate location is pointless as it achieves nothing and makes God appear cruel and brutal. However, the idea that Hell is a spiritual place where there is merely a lack of God rather than a physical punishment is less absurd. Instead of a physical Hell, an epistemic distance or just an absence of God seems less cruel and damning and so is more of a spiritual afterlife than a physical one. If Hell is physical, metaphorical or spiritual it is still an argument that not everyone deserves to be saved and to go to Heaven because if universal salvation was a possibility then Hell would be redundant and it is unlikely an omnipotent, omniscient God would create something so detailed and specific for it to never be used.
To conclude, not everyone deserves to be saved and to go to Heaven as if this was the case there would be no need for Hell either spiritual, metaphorical or physical. Similarly, there would be no need for purgatory or redemption if everyone was deserved to be saved and to go to Heaven. The idea of limited election and judgement seem to be the most rational views posed because they acknowledge that some will go to Heaven should they deserve it but those who don’t will not. As said in Matthew 25 ‘Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life’.