A reader writes:
Can a sincere atheist get saved? I’m convinced he can, since God won’t punish somebody for not knowing something he genuinely never knew, but it seems to me that his salvation requires that his choice be made after his death, since presumably he never saw the choice while he was alive. I think anybody has to at least say, "God, whoever or whatever you are, forgive my sins and take me to be with you." This lets in Moslems and (I suppose) Hindus and what-have-you — Christ has a long reach – but the real athesit wouldn’t ever have occasion to say that.
I keep thinking of the bit in 1 Peter 3, where Christ preaches to the "spirits in prison." Since they needed preaching-to, it seems that their consequential decision was not yet made, but there they were in some Purgatory-like situation.
I always agree with Protestants — mostly while discussing Purgatory — that a person is saved or damned at his death, with no second chances, but now I wonder if people who truly never had the occasion to choose God while alive get that choice after they die. I suppose they might each have got a clear sight of it during their lives, and rejected it, but a lot of atheists seem to be completely honest.
The idea that someone at least has to say something like, "God, whoever or whatever you are, forgive my sins and take me to be with you" is found in the book of Hebrews, where we read 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].
Based on this, many have conjectured that belief in God is an indispensible prerequisite for salvation and thus that atheists are damned.
There is a question, thoug, about whether the author of Hebrews means his statement to be an absolute statement about salvation that admits of no exceptions or whether it is meant in a looser sense that could allow some without an explicit belief in God to be saved.
This was a matter of discussion in Catholic theology prior to the Second Vatican Council, but Vatican II seemed to answer that, in addition to Jews and Muslims and others who believe in God, it was possible for people who do not believe in God to be saved:
Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life [Lumen Gentium 16].
"Those who . . . have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God" would seem to include not only members of non-Abrahamic religions but also atheists.
The constitution Gaudium et Spes also stressed the universal possibility of salvation:
[S]ince Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery [Gaudium et Spes 22].
The question is: In what way does God offer this possibility of salvation? Is it something that comes to people after this life if they never heard the gospel during it or is it something that comes in this life?
The passage that you refer to in 1 Peter is one that has often been taken as suggesting that there is a kind of second chance after death for at least some people, and it is easy to see why. The passage reads:
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the
unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the
flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of
Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight
persons, were saved through water [1 Peter 3:18-20].
If the preaching that Christ does in this passage is the preaching of the gospel so that they may be saved then it would seem that there is a second chance after death for at least some people (i.e., those who died in the Flood). On the other hand, this may not be what Peter is referring to. He might mean something else. Possibilities could include:
1) The preaching is that the time of release has come. In this case it might be that the spirits who disobeyed in the past–although saved–were held in a kind of purgatorial prison and that now that Christ has died their time of purification is over and they will be going to heaven.
2) The preaching is a bare declaration of Christ’s coming, with no offer of salvation. In this case it would seem to be a vindication of God’s justice and/or mercy in the face of those who refused it. In other words: "God would have saved you from your sins if you had turned to him, as he has now proven by sending his Son to die for the sins of the world. You refused to repent and turn to God, so your condemnation is just."
3) These aren’t human spirits at all and so aren’t subject to redemption. They might be the spirits that Jude refers to as "the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper
dwelling [and] have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom
until the judgment of the great day" (Jude 6). Peter might then be linking the non-human spirits with the sins that brought on the Flood. In this case Christ might be preaching to them the fact that he has now come and redeemed mankind, despite their attempt to so corrupt mankind that it would be completely wiped out and destroyed.
In each of these cases, there would be no second chance after death.
Because of the ambiguity in the passage–as well as the general impression that Scripture gives that we have only this lifetime to make our peace with God–it has remained a perpetual conundrum for Bible interpreters.
For its part, the Catholic Church has seen death as the definitive moment at which each must choose for or against God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or
rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ [CCC 1021].
I haven’t been able to verify an infallible definition of this point (though there may be one; something in my memory is saying that I’ve seen a claim that there is one, though I’d have to see the original source document to see if this particular point was defined). If there is no definition then it could be possible that there is a post-morten second chance for at least some, but the overall tenor of Catholic theology–with its focus on death as the definitive moment of life–is against it.
It strikes me that it would be easier to account for the salvation of atheists along the lines of an implicit openness to God.
In other words, if an atheist sincerely says to himself, "I want to do whatever is right–that is the controlling axiom of my life; whatever is ultimately true and good, that is what I intend to follow" then this atheist has fundamentally opened himself to God such that if he knew the truth of God’s existence he would believe in and follow God. Due to his circumstance, though, he is unaware that God is what is ultimately true and good.
Thus any atheist who could say, "I don’t think that God exists, but if I was shown convincing reasons to believe that he does then I would go and get baptized immediately and become one of his devout followers" then this person’s heart is such that God will not hold his ignorance against him and will allow him to be saved.
On the other hand, if an atheist says, "Even if there is a God, I’ll still refuse to believe in him and I’ll spit in his face when I die" then this person is toast.
Between the two would be atheists who display some openness to God but who also to one degree or another resist compelling reasons to believe that he exist when they encounter such reasons. These individuals would seem to be in an ambiguous condition. If their openness to believing in and following God is their more fundamental motive then they would be open to his grace and be saved. If their resistance to believing in or following God is their more fundamental motive then they would be closed to his grace and thus lost.
Or that’s how it seems to me.
It’s still a matter for debate.
