no time to repent

[megamattman1]

Is it a hard truth that you run the risk of losing your soul by sinning even though you might have maybe or even probably would have converted? There is that verse where Jesus said something to the effect, "you fool, don't you know this very night your life will be taken from you"

What do you think. Does God judge you based on whether you would have eventually converted from a sinful life regardless of if you died before you repented?

Is it fair that with two people in equal conditions that lived and would have lived the same life, that one person had the chance to eventually convert, while the other may have simply had a fluke death or was murdered and the so the unrepented will be condemned?

Edited November 19, 2005 by megamattman1

[Aloysius]

the progression of time is THE tool God has given us for answering the question He always poses to his Creation (to the Angels, he gave one moment to decide, to us, he gives a certain length)... whether or not to accept Him

Jesus spoke a parable one time about the workers who came late... everyone that was there at the payment time got equal pay. anyone who had left, even 20 minutes from the payment time, gets no pay.

anyway, yes, I think we are creatures of time and thus the state of our soul at the time of our death is the final "answer" to the question God has posed to us-- serve Him or not, be with Him or against Him.

[megamattman1]

Do you think it's fair? To this many might say, we shouldn't question God. His ways are His ways. True, but is it wrong to think His ways are not fair?

I suppose on the one hand, it's fair that both people had a theoretical chance of dying. But this seems ultimately like the luck of the draw. Does God's mercy fall on those who happen to be lucky?

Again, I know His ways are His ways, but is this the case mercy for the lucky? Again, wrong to think His ways are not fair? Or, even if it's not wrong to think His ways are not fair, are His ways objectively not fair or? Is it really fair, but the rationale a mystery? It'd have to be a mystery the way it appears to me if it's fair.

Edited November 19, 2005 by megamattman1

[Socrates]

[quote name='megamattman1' date='Nov 19 2005, 12:59 PM']Is it a hard truth that you run the risk of losing your soul by sinning even though you might have maybe or even probably would have converted? There is that verse where Jesus said something to the effect, "you fool, don't you know this very night your life will be taken from you"

What do you think. Does God judge you based on whether you would have eventually converted from a sinful life regardless of if you died before you repented?

Is it fair that with two people in equal conditions that lived and would have lived the same life, that one person had the chance to eventually convert, while the other may have simply had a fluke death or was murdered and the so the unrepented will be condemned?
[right][snapback]795157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Like the other folks here said.

People are saved or damned depending on whether they are in a state of grace at the moment of their death. They cannot be saved (or damned) based on on (unperformed) theoretical future actions.
The "would have" does not exist.

One may be saved after committing mortal sin, has true perfect contrition before he dies and is forgiven and saved by God's grace, but he cannot be saved if "he would have repented" sometime down the road.

If we were to say this, then we would have to also say that people could be damned because of unperformed "future sins." If someone lived a good life and died in God's grace, but if he lived would've later "gone over to the dark side," God does not condemn him to hell.

[Aloysius]

death is not luck of the draw, it's guided by the providential hand of God. You have as much time as you are given, individually. It is not relative to how much time this or that other person had. I mean, the angels had only ONE MOMENT to decide. Are we going to say it's not fair that lucifer wasn't given another moment to repent? Nope.

Persevere in the Christian life always, and you will be persevering at the time of your death.

[Norseman82]

Why risk it????

[megamattman1]

Agree not good to risk. More just wondering but yeah.

So you guys are basically saying again that the time you have is the time you have. But that doesn't address the issue of fairness. I know God's ways are God's what but what are we to think?

Also, I would say that if one would have eventually left and sinned, then they maybe should have been damned though at a time they were in a state of grace. It seems like there should be some kind of better eternal standard beyond when they happen to die.

But thinking about it there are a few ways the mystery of it being fair is fair. Maybe there aren't any situations like my hypothetical of two people in equal situations. Everyone has their own circumstances that can't be compared. But that doesn't address the issue of an ultimate more eternal standard other than when they happen to die. Well, I guess that's what Al meant by the hand of Providence? Maybe a mystery is that we all play out that objective standard in our lives whether it seems likely that that's possible or not; by the time we die, we made the choice we would have ultimately made in some crazy hypothetical extended life anyway.

If you guys don't agree with me construing it like this, I am interested in your thoughts on the issue more. How could it be made into a fair situation? Do you think it's fair already? How? If you just say God's ways are His ways, that's not an answer. Think about it for awhile. If all you got is we can't know, then say that and not just say God's ways are God's ways. (which sort of implies we can't know, but ya know kinda vaque and can mean a lot of things)

Edited November 20, 2005 by megamattman1

[scardella]

I hate to be cliche, but to be cliche:

Who ever said life was fair?

[son_of_angels]

Life is not fair as we experience it, but God is fair, i.e. fair to the subjects involved.

I should think that if one had true perfect contrition at the time of death, any sin can be forgiven. Part of that contrition however is the intent and willingness to confess that sin.

[TheoGrad07]

Well, "fair"? I don't like that word -- implies too much of kindergarten for my taste. No insult intended. Theologically speaking, just is much more in my taste. After all, God is perfectly just and perfectly merciful; no one ever said anything about perfectly fair.

But to answer megamattman1's question ...

It's just that we die when we die. The Church teaches that every person is given sufficient grace: that is, every person receives all the grace necessary for him to live and die in such a way as to reach eternal salvation. Time doesn't really enter into the equation, since it's grace that counts. Of course, since we're in time, that grace is give us throughout the course of our life. But in the end, we all receive enough grace to make it to heaven, whether we live 20 years or 90 years. Of course, as someone pointed out earlier, we are free to accept or reject the grace as God gives it. And it doesnt' always come as a big neon sign ... or being knocked off a horse ... more often than not, it's just little impulses, or even imperceptible. Augustine and Thomas went so far as to say man can do nothing without God's grace.

Hope this helps.

[megamattman1]

Thanks for addressing the core issue Theo. I think I'll draw it out more though, perhaps.

Sort of like my "when they die they would have repented or not as they would have regardless of how they hypothetically lived longer" argument.

To connect your grace answer to my scenario at the initial post to make it make sense to me, the person who died earlier had more grace for a shorter period.
But if you were to say every human at every second has equal grace as anyone else that they need to convert, that sort of bring us back to my original point that the person with the longer life had longer time with grace. That wouldn't seem fair.
Now, I would say everyone has at every second the same as everyone else sufficent grace to convert. That's God's graciousness. But to say it's all equal, I don't know
More grace with less time seems fairer. And the grace thing is something that is hard to measure so it's possible definitely.
Perhaps this is thinking in human standards beyond what I should be..

Edited November 22, 2005 by megamattman1

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='megamattman1' date='Nov 22 2005, 01:43 AM']Thanks for addressing the core issue Theo. I think I'll draw it out more though, perhaps.

Sort of like my "when they die they would have repented or not as they would have regardless of how they hypothetically lived longer" argument.

To connect your grace answer to my scenario at the initial post to make it make sense to me, the person who died earlier had more grace for a shorter period.
But if you were to say every human at every second has equal grace as anyone else that they need to convert, that sort of bring us back to my original point that the person with the longer life had longer time with grace. That wouldn't seem fair.
Now, I would say everyone has at every second the same as everyone else sufficent grace to convert. That's God's graciousness. But to say it's all equal, I don't know
More grace with less time seems fairer. And the grace thing is something that is hard to measure so it's possible definitely.
Perhaps this is thinking in human standards beyond what I should be..
[right][snapback]797487[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hmmm ... I think you're thinking too quantitatively about grace. I don't think either "more grace for a shorter period" or "every human at every second has equal grace" works. I think it's simply that every person at all times has the grace sufficient for who he is, his situation, etc. And I don't think more grace with less time is fairer ... I don't think time is really an issue. I think you are thinking too much on human terms. I think it really is simply that at all times every person has the grace he needs. We don't know how much grace that is -- perhaps someone with a short life has a really tough life, and needs tons of grace to get through it, while someone with a long life has an easy life and so doesn't need tons; or it could be the other way around -- but both these examples fall into the error of thinking quantitatively about grace. Grace isn't measured by quantity, but by sufficiency.

I think this distinction is something many people in our society -- with its emphasis on "equality" -- have a very difficult time understanding. What's so difficult about it?

[Guest T-Bone]

There is the "baptism of desire." If a man is on his way to be baptised and is hit and killed by a car, he had the geniune desire to be baptised and because God is a loving and just God, the man will most likely be saved.