Can atheists go to heaven?

[Holoman]

I recently watched an old debate between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell and was struck by something the Cardinal mentioned. He was asked whether atheists can go to heaven and not only did he say yes he seemed utterly convinced of it. He didn't elaborate any further.

I thought that accepting Jesus was the only way to be saved and that God would respect the wishes of someone that rejected him. Is there anyone that agrees with the Cardinal and on what is this view based?

 

[Albion]

I recently watched an old debate between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell and was struck by something the Cardinal mentioned. He was asked whether atheists can go to heaven and not only did he say yes he seemed utterly convinced of it. He didn't elaborate any further.

I thought that accepting Jesus was the only way to be saved and that God would respect the wishes of someone that rejected him. Is there anyone that agrees with the Cardinal and on what is this view based?

Something generally along the lines of the Cardinal's view is commonplace among Roman Catholics now. The reasoning is that Christ died for the sins of the world, so that probably (it's not an official teaching yet) covers those who never had a chance to know Jesus or the Bible and, possibly also, those who did but weren't believers.

The supposition has been that if pagans didn't outright reject Christ and did live up to the dictates of whatever religion they belonged to, they might be included, somehow, in God's plan of salvation.

When it comes to Atheists who have heard the Gospel but reject Christ anyway, I'd call the Cardinal's answer a bit out of the ordinary, however. All of this, of course, is speculation, which probably accounts for why he didn't elaborate but left it as a personal feeling.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

It also leaves the answer in the form of following the law, trusting that human goodness will find acceptance, rather than abiding in Christ in the new heart of flesh that is the new covenant, a new covenant that was brought about because the old covenant was insufficient.

 

[Albion]

It also leaves the answer in the form of following the law, trusting that human goodness will find acceptance, rather than abiding in Christ in the new heart of flesh that is the new covenant.

Not exactly. It still presumes that salvation is possible only because it was won on the Cross. There is that suggestion that the pagan could be saved by the blood of Christ so long as he is a good pagan--which I think is your point--but although this may be illogical as well as unscriptural, I think the idea is still supposed to be that the good works of that person don't earn anything, just that he's vaguely sincere about wanting to know God, although his circumstances make it impossible.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Not exactly. It still presumes that salvation is possible only because it was won on the Cross. There is that suggestion that the pagan could be saved by the blood of Christ so long as he is a good pagan--which I think is your point--but although this may be illogical as well as unscriptural, I think the idea is still supposed to be that the good works of that person don't earn anything, just that he's vaguely sincere about wanting to know God, although his circumstances make it impossible.

That does seem to be your assumption from your previous post but not perhaps what the OP was asking. Perhaps Romans is the key when it includes nature testifying of God's existance, but that precludes a negative response from an athiest who doesn't believe God exists.

 

[Wgw]

"I will have mercy on who I will have mercy" seems to suggest that we might hope for the salvation of atheists, pray for it even, either through illumination in this life or divine forgiveness. We should not however dogmatize this into a Universalist position that insists that all must be saved, which is monergistic.

 

[Albion]

That does seem to be your assumption from your previous post but not perhaps what the OP was asking. Perhaps Romans is the key when it includes nature testifying of God's existance, but that precludes a negative response from an athiest who doesn't believe God exists.

What I was doing was commenting on the Cardinal's surprising POV. That is what I chose to offer in response to the OP's question, "Is there anyone that agrees with the Cardinal and on what is this view based?"

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Circumstances make things impossible for some, but only God knows the heart. I think that those who believe that Jesus existed at a point in time, yet view Him as a prophet, will also have had the opportunity to examine Him more at length to see if the Christian is true in the claim that He is God. No other religion professess that God is the author of their faith. Instead they have a prophet to whom they are to go thru to get to God. (Understandably why this view is typical of Catholic teaching if that is the case, since they go thru Mary)
But having an opportunity kinda puts the onus on that person imo.
Again, Romans does say that those who don't believe are w/o excuse because God can be seen in creation.
I also believe that the prayers of the righteous can accomplish much, but believe that is accomplished in the 1000 yr millenium that is yet to take place and has nothing to do with eternity.
The cross is where regeneration is found.

 

[Berean777]

Those who have been accepted by God the Father are those who have been adopted into his family through his Son Jesus Christ.

Paul writes we were once foreigners to the commonwealth of Israel but now in Christ we are heirs together with him.

Christ says we MUST remain in him and if we love him then the Father will also love us.

The question of being saved is to whether our adoption is approved of by God the Father.

Jesus says that even amongst the believers many are called, yet very few are chosen.

To be choosen we need to accept Christ and then be baptised in the trinity and recieve the Spirit of God who begins the cleansing process in our life long sanctification journey.

A non believer whether he/she has heard about Christ will not be processed by God through his orderly plan of salvation into adoption as a family member until he/she accepts Christ in their heart and loves their God with all their hearts, mind and soul.

The story of the Bible is an eternal love story between the Father and the Son and we are being invited in adoption to this love story. If one doesn't love Jesus Christ then there is no portion for that individual within the love story.

A non believer can be a model person yet if he/she is not family then he/she is not family and he/she will be grouped with the Adamites. We however born of the Spirit are not Adamites, Adam is not our father, rather God is our Father where we cry out ABBA.

We unlike the rest if the world are not Adam's family. We are God's family because we are the temple of the Holy Ghost.

The person has sinned by saying non believers are saved.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

I recently watched an old debate between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell and was struck by something the Cardinal mentioned. He was asked whether atheists can go to heaven and not only did he say yes he seemed utterly convinced of it. He didn't elaborate any further.

Pope Francis uttered something similar to that and it was quickly swept up by the cardinals. It was almost like a red flag being raised, actually.
There is no real official statement, in Catholicism or otherwise mainstream Christianity that atheists can be saved.
A lot of Christians have been considering and weighing the idea, however, and I think it's due to current pressure. I saw that debate, and it was a slippery slope- if he said no, their would be backlash, and if he said maybe, he would lose confidence- so he went with yes.

The obstacle with saying atheists can be saved is that it makes baptism, church, and accepting and living in Christ- the things commanded in scriptures- a bit obsolete or replaceable.

 

[Berean777]

Jesus said no to the pharisees of his time and the backlash was that he was crucified.

John 15:18-20
18“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.20Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also

We shall never make compromises with the world, backlash or no backlash for the reason that we are servants of the Lord and not the world.

The pope and others who make compromises in order to avoid backlash are of the world becoming. If so then at what point are they no longer servants?
hmmmmmmm........

A very fine and dangerous line to tow.

 

[Berean777]

With all the mass hysteria happening around the world we are whether Christians want to believe it or not at war. There is being waged a spiritual war and these offences being committed by leaders of denominations are early signs of the chink in the armor and if we as the laity see this and do nothing then we are taking part in this apostasy with the leaders.

It is high time that we peacefully discard leaders who compromise the faith and place the flock of Christ in harms way. It may require the whole congregation signing a petition to abolish leaders who continue in this legacy to sell out Christ in exchange to find their place in the world.

Remember what we do from now on Christ is watching. Who is for him and who is against him. I am certainly starting to turn against leadership who are starting to compromise the faith and to side with the world.

 

[hedrick]

Pope Francis uttered something similar to that and it was quickly swept up by the cardinals. It was almost like a red flag being raised, actually.
There is no real official statement, in Catholicism or otherwise mainstream Christianity that atheists can be saved.
A lot of Christians have been considering and weighing the idea, however, and I think it's due to current pressure. I saw that debate, and it was a slippery slope- if he said no, their would be backlash, and if he said maybe, he would lose confidence- so he went with yes.

The obstacle with saying atheists can be saved is that it makes baptism, church, and accepting and living in Christ- the things commanded in scriptures- a bit obsolete or replaceable.

I'm not sure that this statement about Catholicism is right. There have been several official statements that provide some hope for atheists. See particularly section 16 of Lumen Gentium, from 1964: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html. The date suggests that it's not just "current pressure."

Many Protestants also believe that Christ died for the whole world, and that this may well include those who don't know him now.

This does not imply salvation by works, for no one can earn what Christ did for us. Living a good life doesn't merit salvation, but may show evidence of it. That is, someone who follows the Good to the extent that he knows it, and repents when he does something wrong, may be showing that the Holy Spirit is at work in him. We don't know the limits of God's mercy, though we do know that we are shown to be his followers (justified, in one of several meanings of that term) by faith in Christ.

The Kingdom of God as we see it here on earth is just a foretaste of the eternal Kingdom. How can it be "obsolete" to participate now in something that more people will participate in eventually? Christ has given us the responsibility of being his agents in reconciling the world. I think that's an important job. Christianity is about more than just avoiding hell. It's about doing what Christ has called us to do.

In some sense having received and believed the Gospel puts us at risk in an extra way. We know what Christ demands of us. We'll be judged based on that knowledge. See Luke 12:47-48.

 

[Berean777]

The name of Christ-ianity is unity in Christ and not unity with the world that knows not Christ.

If we consciously prevent ourselves from preaching to those that know not Christ and accept that they are right the way they are in their current lack of relationship with Christ, then we are promoting disunity in Christ.

It is this simple for we are either for Christ or against Christ and that no lukewarm attitudes will be tolerated by Christ. As it is written Christ will spew out lukewarm attitudes.

From here and onward there is a line drawn and people need to realise that.

 

[Berean777]

In fact if we accept those who know not Christ and do not have a relationship with him by saying they are ok the way they are, so let us just accept them as brothers, then we are in disobedience to the great commission prerogative to preach Christ and to make disciples of the world.

Those who put down the arms of the preaching of the gospel and retreat to the ways of this world are counted as deserters. We know what the King will do with deserters.

 

[Berean777]

When I go to make peace and reconciliation with my neighbour I come in the name of Christ. In matters of faith and not politics the name of Christ is the stamp of approval to make peace and reconciliation. If we use another rubbery stamp with another name flogged out by the political people of the world, then this has nothing to do with Christianity. So in that respect it is unlawful to use the name Christianity to broker a worldly reconciliation and peace in the absence of the name of the Prince of peace.

It goes to show how the leaders of today have strayed and betrayed the name of the Prince of Peace by manufacturing another rubbery name that all the world can accept which is in non compliance with the Father's unconditional ultimatum.

Did I ever mention that God the Father is at war with the world and that he has given a name above all names to his Son and this peace agreement requires an unconditional complete and utter surrender by those who want to save themselves from his wrath.

Maybe many Christians today wish to play down God's wrath, by making light of the unconditional surrender ultimatum of the world to the Son. We are all on borrowed time brothers and sisters we need a sense of urgency because if we do not make the world prisoners of Christ then they are goners to say the least.

The thread says can Atheist go to heaven? This question begs belief and I dare say that today's leaders have tried to make Christ's enemies his Father's friend, this is preposterous and diabolical.

 

[Gary the Kid]

Actually Mark15:38. The Temple is open, anyone can come unto the Father in Heaven........Try and go in yourself. No one can, but everyone may..........

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Actually Mark15:38. The Temple is open, anyone can come unto the Father in Heaven........Try and go in yourself. No one can, but everyone may..........

That really needs to be taken in context
Hebrews 10:19-21

A Call to Persevere in Faith
19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,

 

[bbbbbbb]

Of course, anyone can be saved, but, assuredly, not everyone will be saved.

 

[Chris B]

Is there anyone that agrees with the Cardinal and on what is this view based?

Not me. If I'm right there isn't a heaven to go to, and If I'm wrong I don't qualify to get in.

I could always at the end of my days go berserk with a sword in my nursing home, to cover the "outside chance" Valhalla option.

Chris