How to Go to Heaven

CatholicAnswers ^ | May 12, 2015 | Jimmy Akin

[Salvation]

How to Go to Heaven

Jimmy Akin

May 12, 2015 |

---

Sometimes people make it sound like the Catholic understanding of how to get to heaven is really complex.

It’s not.

While you can go into any of Christ’s teachings in a lot of very rich detail, he made sure that this one can be understood even by a child.

I can summarize it in two sentences.

The two sentences are these: To come to God and be saved, you need to repent, have faith, and be baptized. If you commit mortal sin, you need to repent, have faith, and go to confession.

That’s it. That’s all there is to it. And we can show each of these things from the Bible.

The need to repent is shown by the fact that, right at the beginning of his ministry, Jesus began preaching the gospel, saying “repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15).

The need for faith is shown when the author of the letter to the Hebrews writes that “Without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Heb. 11:6).

And the need for baptism is shown when St. Peter flatly tells us: “Baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21).

So that’s what you need to do if you want to come to God and be saved: Repent, have faith, and be baptized.

If you do these things, you’ll be in a state of grace, and as long as you remain in a state of grace, you’ll go to heaven.

But we still have free will, and we can still turn our backs on God and fall from grace, to use St. Paul’s phrase (Galatians 5:4).

St. Paul is very clear about the possibility of us committing mortal sin. He tells us: “Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

To turn away from God and commit mortal sin is the opposite of repenting. So when we fall into mortal sin, we need to turn back to God—to repent again.

We also need to have faith.

And then we need to go to confession. This is something Jesus indicated just after he rose from the dead. He came to his disciples, breathed on them, and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:22-23)

So Jesus empowered his ministers to forgive or retain sins. In order for a priest to know whether he is to forgive or retain a sin, he needs to know about the sin and whether we have repented of it. That means we need to go and tell him these things, and so we have the sacrament of confession.

So that’s what you need to do. To come to God and be saved, you need to repent, have faith, and be baptized. If you commit mortal sin, you need to repent, have faith, and go to confession.

It’s all thoroughly biblical.

[avenir]

Excellent. All Scripture is God-breathed...and beautiful.

[caww]

I remember a Pastor once saying...”When the student is ready God provides a teacher”.....In retrospect God knew I was seeking him...”in all the wrong places”...but ‘the desire of my heart’ was to know the truth as God wanted me to know it Because I wanted to know Him.....thus I spent hours and hours pouring over the scriptures before I met the retired Pastor....I say this because it is so important that people read and study the Scriptures on their own with God alone.

It was actually comical at times as I began expressing myself out loud to God when I came across something in his word that at that moment seemed to solidify the false former teachings I had gotten along the way...’ I’d say.. “Well there it is God, says it right there!”...only to read further on or into the next day and He showed me that teaching was wrong after all..... it was quite remarkable as in doing so I had begun “a relationship” and didn’t even know it.

I share this because I learned then , without an instructor, ...that Scripture does indeed interpret scripture IF you stay the course in reading further and in seeking the truth as God wants you to know it....He will never disappoint a heart seeking after Himself.

Your testimony too was touching....and I’m sure much more in depth then those few lines given, none the less hearing someone speak of their moment of salvation just reaches beyond words and touches the very Spirit of a persons Soul.

” God’s power to change a life.”..Indeed! and Amen

[terycarl]

Are you familiar with the ‘church’, the ekkelsia, which Jesus Christ founded with His resurrection? It is older than the catholic church.

No it isn't....Christ funded the Catholic church while He was alive....The Eucharist, for example was at the last supper......Thou art Peter, and upon this rock i will build my church.....long before the resurection...

[caww]

....”To simplify everyone’s quest - all that matters in the end is ‘what happens to you’ on the day of judgment”....

Well you probably should be speaking for yourself on the matter of Judgement since for myself,and I’m certain others here, any Judgement against a believer has already been accomplished at the Cross...”It is Finished”...As is written There is Now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.” ..Romans 8

What we shall behold and enjoy is the face of Jesus Christ in all His glory.

[caww]

The church our Lord established is built 'on him" - on the fact that he is God's Son',.... Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other!

...For no one can lay 'any' foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ...and God has written....See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation... Have you never read in the Scriptures: "'The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?....Jesus is "'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.'...

Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other!

ICor 3:11..Isaiah 28;16...Matt 21;42..Mark 12:10..Acts 4;11

[Springfield Reformer]

There appear to be at least three major schools of thought regarding this passage:

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
(John 15:2-4)

1) One view says that "every branch in me" refers to genuine Christians who fail to remain in Christ and are removed for kindling, which, under this view equates to losing salvation.  I assume this is your view.  Whether it is the Roman view, I have no idea, as Rome doubtless has no official view of this passage. Hence, if it is your view, it is no better than any Protestant/evangelical opinion.

2) Another view is that "every branch in me" refers to people affiliated with Christ's Kingdom, but not necessarily saved, because while it says they are "in Him," it does NOT say He is in them.  This then would be analogous to the situation in James, where some have a kind of faith in Christ, but it is a dead faith, producing no fruit.  Whereas those with a living faith will produce some fruit, however small or great.  

3) The third view is this pertains to sanctification.  The "branches in me not bearing fruit" are said to be genuine believers, but the being taken away does not refer to a loss of salvation but a loss of reward, as here, where nearly the same exact imagery is used:

If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
(1 Corinthians 3:15)

The problem is, however you interpret this, it has to come out consistent with other passages that speak more directly to the question of salvation, such as this:

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
(John 6:37)

Notice here we have the same exact group of people moving through all three phases of the process:

A)  The Father gives them to Jesus.
B)  Those given to Jesus will definitely come to Him.
C)  Those that come to Jesus are NOT going to be cast out.

That is an unqualified certainty.  If you are one of the ones the Father gave to Jesus, you are not going to be cast out. Period.  Keep in mind this is from the pen of the same author who wrote John 15, and who wrote:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
(1 John 2:19)

John is not speaking of losing anything in the epistle.  He is talking abut the revelation of a preexisting truth.  This is exactly analogous to the parable of the wheats and tares, in which the viewer is allowed to peek behind the curtain and see that these two groups were always different, which difference we recognize as being made by God Himself in giving these souls to Jesus, per John 6:37.  

So why did Jesus instruct the eleven "wheats" to remain in Him? Because God ordains the means as well as the ends.  To change the metaphor, His sheep hear His voice, and will follow Him, but will not follow another. See John 10:27.  He calls us, and we follow.  He warns us to not be like the tares, that we need to remain in Him to bear fruit, and we take it seriously and remain in Him.

And any fruit at all will keep us from being fruitless branches:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
(Galatians 5:22-23)

Any believer experiencing the above manifestations of the Holy Spirit can be well assured they are a fruit-bearing branch, and while they may be pruned to become even more fruitful, they will neither lose their salvation, nor enter Heaven without reward.

Conclusion:

Option 1 above is impossible, because it would set up a contradiction with many other passages, only a small portion of which I have cited here.  And not only that, but if true, it would prove too much.  Most advocates of a works-conditional salvation allow that a person can return to a state of grace after a lapse.  But the analogy of the branch does not convey that, but rather says that the failure to produce fruit is a failure with no remedy.  You get one chance and it's over.  No coming back for salvation over and over again.  This would seem to preclude even purgatory.

Option 3 is problematic, but not impossible. It is problematic because the removal of the dead branches seems too much like the failure of dead faith in James.  In both cases, it seems to be expressing a difference in kind, a branch that has some connection to Christ, but not a life-giving connection, not a connection that produces fruit.

Which is why I am inclined to accept Option 2. This option reconciles well with the doctrine of the wheats and tares, the "not being of us" principle in John's epistle, and the statements that clearly declare the purpose of God to not lose any of His sheep.  The elect will persevere, and may need to be pressed into action by warnings to remain in Christ, but come harvest time, the truth will out, that they were wheats all along, and had rightful assurance of the same, because they had a living faith, and the Spirit of the living God abiding in them.

Peace,

SR

[Iscool]

When Jesus spoke of his second coming and judgment, he warned that among those deserving punishment some would “be beaten with many blows” and others “with few blows” (Luke 12:47-48).

But here's the point...They ALL get beaten...And again, as Paul points out,

Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

A murderer may get a more severe punishment in hell than a drunkard, but they are both going to hell...There's no difference with God...Sin is sin...

But thank God he sent his son to take away that sin...Who took ALL of our sin and put it upon himself that we may be presented before God as holy and righteous...

[mitch5501]

"Who took ALL of our sin and put it upon himself that we may be presented before God as holy and righteous..."

"Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen" (Jude 24-25)

[Tax-chick]

LOL! At least he wore the same clothes the whole time.

[daniel1212]

To me, daniel1212’s learned posts demonstrate the limitations of this medium. I've hinted in this and other threads that the differences between Catholics and some Protestants are VERY deep and extensive. To me this means, functionally, that I cannot give daniel1212’s expositions the respect they deserve. What they require, IMHO, is for us to schedule TWO (at least) three day conferences, a year apart. Papers by the presenters would be sent out a month in advance, so that the presentations would be about clarifications and questions. THEN, The Protestants and the Catholics would caucus — maybe the evening of the second day, and try to identify that disagreement — you know the kind — which leads members of each side to say to one another, “Did you catch that? There they go again!” The last day would be winnowing these “objections” down to maybe two or three per side.

Well, it sounds appealing if challenging. But didn't Catholics try that among themselves in V2? As one poster wryly

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

I think I would benefit from listening to and praying with Xtians who disagreed with me so much that many thought I wasn't fit to be called Xtian.

Which humility is very refreshing. However, as noble as your thought is, my experience (as one who was manifestly born again while still a RC and remained active therein for 6 years after) is that there are very very few that we find fellowship in Christ with. (And one prayer to Mary or some saint is going to nuke that.) For while we often enjoy spontaneous rejoicing on meeting a fellow evangelical type, die to a shared life giving conversion with its profound changes in heart and life, and relationship with the Lord, and Scripture-based walked, with Catholics there is no such fellowship. Instead if they say anything then it is about their One True Church®, and exalting the Eucharist and Mary or indifference or antagonism in inquiring about salvation. But there are exceptions, usually among those of simple faith.

Fellowship with mainline Prots is also seldom realized, as they also know nothing experientially of the transformative New Birth. But regards what Prots can realize re Christ-centered ecumenism, I will let the famous "prince of preachers" speak:

Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitfield and John Wesley. (C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Vol. 1, p. 173, in “A Defence Of Calvinism,” The Banner Of Truth Trust edition)

Now I hate High Churchism as my soul hates Satan; but I love George Herbert, although George Herbert is a desperately High Churchman. I hate his high Churchism, but I love George Herbert from my very soul, and I have a warm corner in my heart for every man who is like him. Let me find a man who loves my Lord Jesus Christ as George Herbert did, and I do not ask myself whether I shall love him or not; there is no room for question, for I cannot help myself; unless I can leave off loving Jesus Christ, I cannot cease loving those who love him. (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 12, p. 6; http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs668.pdf)

[daniel1212]

See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3314962/posts?page=550#550

[kinsman redeemer]

Place Mark

You nailed it.

[Mad Dawg]

To be brutally brief, one important difference between VatII and this would be that this would be only about understanding difficult differences. I have nothing like reaching a conclusion in mind.

Also, I do not think the kind of Catholic who would be of any use in this conference would be so stupid as to call on the intercession of the saints in any plenary gayhering5.

[Elsie]

We ask for her prayers.

So; you pray TO her and ask her to pray 'the same thing' as you ask?

[Elsie]

If God will bring with Jesus those who have died in Christ, then those who have died in Christ will need to be somewhere in the neighborhood of where Jesus is now, before coming here in the Air to get the Bride and the bridesmaids who are ready.

One might think this; but only if Dead In Christ Will RISE is somehow passed over.

---

[Elsie]

So the structure formed up around 15 mysteries getting 10 Aves apiece == 150 — as many Hail Marys as psalms. St. J2P2 the Great broke that connection when he proposed 5 new mysteries.

Volume over content?

This poor, ol' dumb prot thinks that Hail JESUS' would be a LOT more effective.

But what do I know; as I've not been assured of the MYSTERY involved here.

[Elsie]

They SAY that the development of the Rosary was at least partially influenced by wanting to give illiterate people a way to share in the devotions of the literate monks for whom the psalms were (and are) a major feature of daily prayer.

DEVELOPMENT?

It didn't fall from Heaven fully formed?

[Elsie]

Come to the Dark Side...

...we have cookies...

...sometimes served on a sheet...

[Elsie]

I'm sure you meant well. :-)

INDEED!

But remember; we have OTHER folks that read this stuff to (we are praying!) and perhaps they might NOT check it out for themselves.

We're merely trying to emulate Paul...

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

[Elsie]

I’ve already bought the field.