Getting into heaven.

daveharnett

1: Is there a generally accepted list of criteria a person needs to meet in order to get into heaven? (By generally accepted, i mean common to different flavours of christianity)

2: Am i correct in saying that catholicism considers the pope to hold the keys (IE any rules he makes will be upheld by god)?

SuperSean11

daveharnett wrote: »

1: Is there a generally accepted list of criteria a person needs to meet in order to get into heaven? (By generally accepted, i mean common to different flavours of christianity)

2: Am i correct in saying that catholicism considers the pope to hold the keys (IE any rules he makes will be upheld by god)?

All you need to do is beg forgivness at the pearly gates

*fingers crossed

kelly1

daveharnett wrote: »

1: Is there a generally accepted list of criteria a person needs to meet in order to get into heaven? (By generally accepted, i mean common to different flavours of christianity)

Hello Dave, happy new year to you.

From a Catholic perspective, nobody merits entry into Heaven. This grace was solely won for us by Christ's death on the cross. In order to gain entry into Heaven we need to die in a state of grace and this means dying without any unforgiven mortal sins on our souls. (Sanctifying) grace is first received in baptism and can be restored if lost (by mortal sin) in the sacrament of reconciliation (confession). Once we have this grace in our souls, it is kept there by avoiding mortal sin i.e. by keeping the 10 commandments and the commandments which derive from these.

daveharnett wrote: »

2: Am i correct in saying that catholicism considers the pope to hold the keys (IE any rules he makes will be upheld by god)?

According to scripture, Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom and he was also given the power to loose and bind. So whatever the Pope proclaims "ex Cathedra" will be upheld in Heaven because God guarantees that the Pope cannot speak error when officially proclaiming matters of faith and morals. And it is the Holy Spirit which gives the Pope this charism.

God bless,
Noel.

robindch

dave wrote:

1. Is there a generally accepted list of criteria a person needs to meet in order to get into heaven?

No. Different denominations have rules which are quite distinct from each other.

dave wrote:

2: Am i correct in saying that catholicism considers the pope to hold the keys (IE any rules he makes will be upheld by god)?

Not quite. So far as I'm aware, the catholic church still fully holds to the doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, by which it asserts that 'salvation' (aka staying alive forever in heaven) is only achievable through itself. It also asserts that when delivering doctrine ex cathedra, the pope is incapable of making an error. As the extra-ecclesiam is an official doctrine, and the pope hasn't repealed it, I would assume the pope believes that any doctrine that he delivers will be upheld by god, since he would believe that it originated with god too, and hence, that the pope must believe that he effectively holds the keys to staying alive after death.

Protestants, orthodox and many other varieties of christianity disagree strongly with the catholic church's position.

BrianCalgary

daveharnett wrote: »

1: Is there a generally accepted list of criteria a person needs to meet in order to get into heaven? (By generally accepted, i mean common to different flavours of christianity)

Contrary to what robin says Christianity does not have different rules. Christianity states that you are saved buy the grace of God, through your faith in Jesus Christ and thereby following His teachings.

That is what we all agree on. Where we have debates is on what teachings can you not follow which can cost you your salvation.

Ie. alcohol consumption, card playing, dancing are some of my favourites.

daveharnett wrote: »

2: Am i correct in saying that catholicism considers the pope to hold the keys (IE any rules he makes will be upheld by god)?

That is my understanding of strict orthodox RC teaching, that the only way to salvation is through the RC church.

robindch

Well, in addition to what our esteemed moderator says, the Vatican still holds to “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, though in a diluted form from its original.

Quoting from the Vatican's website here:

Cardinal Kasper in 2004 wrote:

[...] there are found outside of the Catholic Church not only individual Christians but also “elements of the church”, indeed churches and ecclesial communities which, although not in full communion, rightly belong to the one church and possess salvatory significance for their members [...]

Which, as far as I can understand it, basically says that if you don't belong to the catholic church but want to stay alive after you die, you must belong to a church which effectively belongs to the catholic church, or which contains parts of the catholic church.

It looks to me like they watered down the Extra-ecclesiam, but only slightly.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

Well, in addition to what our esteemed moderator says, the Vatican still holds to “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, though in a diluted form from its original.

Quoting from the Vatican's website here:Which, as far as I can understand it, basically says that if you don't belong to the catholic church but want to stay alive after you die, you must belong to a church which effectively belongs to the catholic church, or which contains parts of the catholic church.

It looks to me like they watered down the Extra-ecclesiam, but only slightly.

Now that is an interesting quote. I read it to say that the RC recognizes that salvation can occur outside the RC church. They are however guarded against such things. I am curious as to what constitutes 'part of the RC church"?

Run_to_da_hills

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Contrary to what robin says Christianity does not have different rules. Christianity states that you are saved buy the grace of God, through your faith in Jesus Christ and thereby following His teachings.

I totally agree with this.

If you try to get in to heaven any other way you are a "thief" and a "robber". "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." John 10:1

The world is filled with thieves and robbers, who are attempting to sneak into Heaven "some other way." through organised religion. Jesus plainly stated that He alone is the DOOR into Heaven in John 10:9."I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." There is ONLY one way into Heaven through the Lord Jesus Christ!

robindch

Brian wrote:

Now that is an interesting quote.

Indeed

Brian wrote:

I read it to say that the RC recognizes that salvation can occur outside the RC church. They are however guarded against such things. I am curious as to what constitutes 'part of the RC church"?

I don't believe they've ever said what they really mean by this. Do feel free to ask an RC priest -- I'm sure they'd know -- and let us know the answer?

kelly1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The world is filled with thieves and robbers, who are attempting to sneak into Heaven "some other way." through organised religion. Jesus plainly stated that He alone is the DOOR into Heaven in John 10:9."I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture." There is ONLY one way into Heaven through the Lord Jesus Christ!

I agree that Jesus is the only way to God but how does this rule out "organized religion" as you put it? What's wrong with being organized? Jesus founded a Church to teach the truth and to distribute the fruits of His sacrifice on the cross. It is through the Church that the new covenant is maintained.

Can I take it that you're not part of any church? A lone ranger?

kelly1

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Now that is an interesting quote. I read it to say that the RC recognizes that salvation can occur outside the RC church. They are however guarded against such things. I am curious as to what constitutes 'part of the RC church"?

Hello Brian, I found this document that you might find useful.

http://melbourne.catholic.org.au/eic/documents/SalvationoutsidetheChurch-URandNAatVatII_000.doc

God bless,
Noel.

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

Jesus founded a Church to teach the truth and to distribute the fruits of His sacrifice on the cross.

Given that Jesus would not even have known what a 'Church' was this is highly unlikely. His followers of 'the Way' in Acts do not constitute a 'Church'. If the man had left instructions to form a 'Church' there is a need to explain why his first followers failed to do so.

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

Given that Jesus would not even have known what a 'Church' was this is highly unlikely. His followers of 'the Way' in Acts do not constitute a 'Church'. If the man had left instructions to form a 'Church' there is a need to explain why his first followers failed to do so.

Are you trying to be deliberately confrontational again? Ever since you joined this forum you seem to have done nothing but promote a warped view of Christianity. Sorry , but you are deluded.

PDN

SubjectSean wrote: »

Given that Jesus would not even have known what a 'Church' was this is highly unlikely. His followers of 'the Way' in Acts do not constitute a 'Church'.

Funny that, particularly since Jesus said "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18) and also spoke about how to exercise discipline within the church (Matthew 18:17).

His followers of 'the Way' in Acts do not constitute a 'Church'. If the man had left instructions to form a 'Church' there is a need to explain why his first followers failed to do so.

The book of Acts refers to these followers as a 'church' as early as Acts 5:11. :rolleyes:

robindch

PDN wrote:

also spoke about how to exercise discipline within the church (Matthew 18:17).

That bit of Matthew is quite interesting:

Matthew wrote:

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

I wonder if you could clarify by what treatment is covered by "treat him as you would a pagan"? It sounds rather ominous to me.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote: »

That bit of Matthew is quite interesting:I wonder if you could clarify by what treatment is covered by "treat him as you would a pagan"? It sounds rather ominous to me.

For me it would be as one who is outside the body of believers, which is really no differnt than anyone else needing salvation.

robindch

Brian wrote:

For me it would be as one who is outside the body of believers, which is really no differnt than anyone else needing salvation.

Well, I don't really think the text says that at all.

The text does tell believers to treat people they disagree with as 'tax-collectors', which were at the time, I believe, basically legally-instituted thieves. So, I'm interested to find out exactly what this treatment consists of since PDN says that this particular sentence is an example of how to exercise discipline.

As I said, in the context of thieves, this sounds quite threatening.

Nerin

I wonder if you could clarify by what treatment is covered by "treat him as you would a pagan"?

grumble

stevejazzx

Originally Posted by robindch
That bit of Matthew is quite interesting:I wonder if you could clarify by what treatment is covered by "treat him as you would a pagan"? It sounds rather ominous to me.

briancalgary wrote:

For me it would be as one who is outside the body of believers, which is really no differnt than anyone else needing salvation.

The window of eternal slavation seems to have been quite speedily closed by Jesus on that one. One minute he says
'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone' and here he says if the man sins and does not repent quickly ostracize him...how does this resolve to his other teachings, it seems slightly contradictory to me.

PDN

It must be the season for bathing pigs - that would explain the amount of hogwash that is swishing around this thread.

Robin wrote:

The text does tell believers to treat people they disagree with as 'tax-collectors', which were at the time, I believe, basically legally-instituted thieves. So, I'm interested to find out exactly what this treatment consists of since PDN says that this particular sentence is an example of how to exercise discipline.

As I said, in the context of thieves, this sounds quite threatening.

Robin, sorry to disappoint you, but there is no sinister Mafia-like implication here.

First of all, the text does not tell believers to treat people they disagree with as 'tax-collectors'. The text tells people how to follow sensible principles of conflict resolution so as to be reconciled to those with whom they disagree. However, if such attempts at reconciliation fail then the matter is to be judged by the whole church and, if someone persists in opposing the will of the entire church congregation, then they are to be disfellowshipped.

Tax collectors, like pagans, were excluded from participating in Jewish acts of public worship. They were denied entrance into the synagogue and could not participate in any of the feasts or sacrifices.

The severest form of discipline that the Church in the New Testament could exercise was to treat someone as a pagan or a tax collector. This meant that they were excluded from fellowship, and so could not attend church meetings, could not share in the communion meal, and probably also missed out the material help the church gave to its members when in need (distributing food to widows etc).

We see this in action in Paul's epistles where a man who was committing sexual sin was to have his privileges of church membership removed (1 Corinthians 5:1-5) and, after he had repented, to have them restored (2 Corinthians 2:1-11). As a church pastor I can assure you that this 'last resort' of church discipline is still applied today.

Steve wrote:

The window of eternal slavation (sic) seems to have been quite speedily closed by Jesus on that one. One minute he says
'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone' and here he says if the man sins and does not repent quickly ostracize him...how does this resolve to his other teachings, it seems slightly contradictory to me.

No contradiction - and no implications as regards eternal salvation. The Church is to treat the unrepentant sinner in a particular way in order to help him/her realise their error. This has nothing to do with their eternal salvation which lies in the hands of God, not the church.

I think even the critic who is most determined to twist Scripture so as to attack Christianity will have to admit that forbidding the Pharisees from stoning a woman to death is slightly different from telling someone they can't come to church next Sunday.

SubjectSean

PDN wrote: »

Funny that, particularly since Jesus said "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18) and also spoke about how to exercise discipline within the church (Matthew 18:17).

Yes it is extremely funny given that Jesus or his followers had no word or concept for 'Church'. Are you suggesting that the author of Matthew has substituted the word 'Church' for what would have undoubtedly been a long winded explanation of the concept?

Nerin

you dont believe what we believe/werent born into our religion?
unlucky,god allows us to let you starve.

daveharnett

OK, so in answer to the original question, the requirements for entry to heaven (according to catholicism) are:

1: State of grace (no unforgiven sins).
2: Faith in a compatible christian god (some form of the trinity i presume).
3: Communion with a compatible church.

Am i more or less correct so far?
I assume that part 3 must include some sort of baptism/induction ritual?

Thanks

PDN

SubjectSean wrote: »

Yes it is extremely funny given that Jesus or his followers had no word or concept for 'Church'. Are you suggesting that the author of Matthew has substituted the word 'Church' for what would have undoubtedly been a long winded explanation of the concept?

Ever hear of the Septuagint, Sean? It was the Greek translation of the Old Testament, available freely in Palestine in Jesus' day and so certainly well-known to Christ and his disciples. The Septuagint uses the word ekklesia (literally 'the called out ones') repeatedly to refer to the assembly, or congregation, of Israel.

This same word, ekklesia, is the one Jesus used in Matthew's Gospel to refer to the Church, and it is consistently used throughout the New Testament to refer to the church.

kelly1

daveharnett wrote: »

OK, so in answer to the original question, the requirements for entry to heaven (according to catholicism) are:

1: State of grace (no unforgiven sins).
2: Faith in a compatible christian god (some form of the trinity i presume).
3: Communion with a compatible church.

Am i more or less correct so far?
I assume that part 3 must include some sort of baptism/induction ritual?

Thanks

It's important to distinguish between venial sins and mortal sins. Mortal sin ejects the Holy Spirit from the soul and leaves the soul deprived of sanctifying grace. So being in a state of grace means not having the guilt of mortal sin in ones soul. Ordinarily (for a Catholic), they would also have to be baptized which gives the soul sanctifying grace (until it is lost through mortal sin), live charitably in keeping with the commandments (so as not to lose grace and God's favour) and receive the sacraments of the Church (confession and Holy Communion) according to Church's precepts.

Faith in Christ is of course absolutely essential because Christ is the only way to Heaven. Prayer is also essential because it is what obtains for us spiritual strength and the grace required to persevere in holiness to the very end.

If a person is serious about doing God's will, it would be crazy to look at doing the bare minimum in order to gain Heaven because this is just totally selfish.
And selfishness is the root of all evil.

God bless,
Noel.

daveharnett

kelly1 wrote: »

If a person is serious about doing God's will, it would be crazy to look at doing the bare minimum in order to gain Heaven because this is just totally selfish.

I'm looking at this from the another angle Noel. I'm thinking about a person who lives his life virtously, and entirely in accordance with "the spirit of chrisitianity" without actually believing in christ?

I reckon that most people here would feel that anyone who makes an informed decision to reject christ is not eligible for salvation.

But what about those who have never had the oppertunity to accept him? I am thinking about children who are too young to understand the notion, or members of remote communities who have never seen a missionary or a bible?

kelly1

daveharnett wrote: »

I'm looking at this from the another angle Noel. I'm thinking about a person who lives his life virtously, and entirely in accordance with "the spirit of chrisitianity" without actually believing in christ?

I reckon that most people here would feel that anyone who makes an informed decision to reject christ is not eligible for salvation.

But what about those who have never had the oppertunity to accept him? I am thinking about children who are too young to understand the notion, or members of remote communities who have never seen a missionary or a bible?

Yes salvation for these people is possible or at least the Church doesn't rule it out. People who through no fault of their own have never heard the message of the Gospel, can't be held responsible for not believing in Christ and redemption that only He has achieved. As regards the requirement for baptism, God is not constrainted by His own sacraments meaning that God can baptize someone because of their desire to please the supreme being whom they believe to be God.

robindch

kelly1 wrote:

People who through no fault of their own have never heard the message of the Gospel, can't be held responsible for not believing in Christ and redemption that only He has achieved.

If god will redeem everybody who hasn't heard of Jesus, then why did god send Jesus in the first place? Why not let nobody know about Jesus, and avoid all the religious bloodshed down the years?

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

If god will redeem everybody who hasn't heard of Jesus, then why did god send Jesus in the first place? Why not let nobody know about Jesus, and avoid all the religious bloodshed down the years?

I didn't say God would redeem everybody who hasn't heard of Jesus. For someone who hasn't heard of Jesus to be saved, they would have to live according to what they believe to be good and that means following their conscience. What can thy do if they have no other moral guidelines to live by?

Everybody who has been or will be saved, is only saved by the blood of Christ. There is no other way because only Christ's blood can atone for any sin no matter how small.

Catholics also believe in merit (the treasure that is stored up in Heaven according to the Gospel) meaning that works done in a state of grace are accepted by God as though they had been done by Jesus (because of the person's membership of the Body of Christ). Every good deed done by us in union with Christ for love of God and neighbour will be rewarded by a greater degree of glory in Heaven. This can be though of in terms of a vessel that we bring with us to Heaven. The more good works we do, the bigger the vessel becomes and the bigger the rewards we are capable of receiving when we get to Heaven.

The point I'm making is that ones merits can't increase unless you believe in Jesus and perform good works in union with Him.

God bless,
Noel.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

I think even the critic who is most determined to twist Scripture so as to attack Christianity will have to admit that forbidding the Pharisees from stoning a woman to death is slightly different from telling someone they can't come to church next Sunday.

It's not about forbidding the stoning, it is about saying (instructing) that he who is without sin should cast the first stone thereby acknowledging sin as a common trait amoung everyone. How can he then teach that one sinner can punish another? Becasue that's what happens in the example (the one Robin posted from Matthew) a guy commits a sin against his brother and Jesus tells him if it can't be resolved then the guy who committed the sin gets punished. My question therefore is: aren't we all sinners? What gives one sinner the right to punish another?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

It must be the season for bathing pigs [...]

Ritually cleaning the ritually unclean?

PDN wrote: »

First of all, the text does not tell believers to treat people they disagree with as 'tax-collectors'. The text tells people how to follow sensible principles of conflict resolution so as to be reconciled to those with whom they disagree.

Perhaps I wasn't very clear in asking the question I did. Yes, that's exactly what the first part of the text says and there's nothing startling there. A general recommendation to talk it over at bigger and bigger levels, then get serious if the disobedience persists. Perfectly reasonable and arguably a touch on the obvious side.

PDN wrote: »

However, if such attempts at reconciliation fail then the matter is to be judged by the whole church and, if someone persists in opposing the will of the entire church congregation, then they are to be disfellowshipped.

Well, that quote from Matthew doesn't say 'disfellowshipped', and that's what my original question to clarify exactly what was meant by "treat him as you would a pagan". I'm interested because Jesus is quite explicit about what to do with disobedient people in Luke 19:26-28:

Jesus wrote:

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem.

And it seems at least plausible that the bible is calling for people who disagree with the majority opinion of the church to be treated far more seriously than just being asked not to attend any more religious services or whatever.

Likewise with your quote from 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, where the church membership is instructed to deliver certain fornicators "unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh" which sounds rather less like revocation of the "privileges of church membership" and rather more like a call for peasants with torches and pitchforks to advance up the street to the fornicators door.

Bearing in mind these quotes, do you accept that the bible isn't perfectly clear on what to do in this situation?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I'm interested because Jesus is quite explicit about what to do with disobedient people in Luke 19:26-28

Robin, are you trolling?

You know very well that what you are quoting is a detail from a parable where Jesus describes the response of a 'hard man' king to a slothful servant. It is no way describing how Christ Himself viewed disobedient people or is it prescriptive as to how anyone should treat others. To pretend otherwise is either incredibly stupid or extremely dishonest.

Do you really want to debate issues on this forum or do you want to persist in this kind of nonsense? I've made a New Year's resolution not to waste time debating with trolls. Should I make you #2 on my troll list?

Likewise with your quote from 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, where the church membership is instructed to deliver certain fornicators "unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh" which sounds rather less like revocation of the "privileges of church membership" and rather more like a call for peasants with torches and pitchforks to advance up the street to the fornicators door.

Bearing in mind these quotes, do you accept that the bible isn't perfectly clear on what to do in this situation?

The New Testament worldview is that believers have been delivered from the Kingdom of darkness into the protection and safety of the church. Therefore, to be expelled from church fellowship is to be handed back to Satan. I think that is perfectly clear to anyone who is interested in learning what the New testament actually teaches.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

It's not about forbidding the stoning, it is about saying (instructing) that he who is without sin should cast the first stone thereby acknowledging sin as a common trait amoung everyone. How can he then teach that one sinner can punish another? Becasue that's what happens in the example (the one Robin posted from Matthew) a guy commits a sin against his brother and Jesus tells him if it can't be resolved then the guy who committed the sin gets punished. My question therefore is: aren't we all sinners? What gives one sinner the right to punish another?

It is absolutely about preventing a stoning. Read the whole passage in John chapter 8 instead of trying to rip a verse out of context to construct a pretended contradiction.

The church is supposed to exercise discipline within its members to ensure that they observe sound doctrine and moral behaviour. This is taught in the Gospels and in Paul's epistles. Nowhere, of course, is violence enjoined or even hinted at for Christian believers. The discipline is simply to exclude from fellowship. They are told to have nothing to do with those who profess to be Christians yet peddle false doctrine or commit immorality.

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

It is absolutely about preventing a stoning. Read the whole passage in John chapter 8 instead of trying to rip a verse out of context to construct a pretended contradiction.

I'll rephrase becasue you seem to be having great difficutly understanding my point
'It's not about preventing a stoning' - I said this in relation to to what we were discussing i.e people sinning against people - not in relation to the John chapter 8 and it's overall massage.

PDN wrote:

The church is supposed to exercise discipline within its members to ensure that they observe sound doctrine and moral behaviour. This is taught in the Gospels and in Paul's epistles. Nowhere, of course, is violence enjoined or even hinted at for Christian believers. The discipline is simply to exclude from fellowship. They are told to have nothing to do with those who profess to be Christians yet peddle false doctrine or commit immorality.

Yes but hold on in Robins example Jesus tells a guy to ostracize his borther if his brtoher sins agaist him, my simple question was:
Isn't this contradictory seeing as they are all sinners? This a fact which is pointed out by Jesus in other passages like for example the stoning. So why is Jesus giving one guy the license to punish his brother, by this logic they all should be punishing/ostracizing one another as, I repeat, they/we are all sinners.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

It is absolutely about preventing a stoning. Read the whole passage in John chapter 8 instead of trying to rip a verse out of context to construct a pretended contradiction.

The church is supposed to exercise discipline within its members to ensure that they observe sound doctrine and moral behaviour. This is taught in the Gospels and in Paul's epistles. Nowhere, of course, is violence enjoined or even hinted at for Christian believers. The discipline is simply to exclude from fellowship. They are told to have nothing to do with those who profess to be Christians yet peddle false doctrine or commit immorality.

This was always my understanding. Reading the actual verse it is difficult to argue with the logic.

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yes but hold on in Robins example Jesus tells a guy to oscracize his borther if his brtoher sins agaist him, my simple question was:
Isn't this contradictory seeing as they are all sinners? This a fact which is pointed out by Jesus in other passages like for example the stoning. So why is Jesus giving one guy the license to punish his brother, by this logic they all should be punishing/ostracizing one another as, I repeat, they/we are all sinners.

I wouldn't have thought so. Matthew 18 seems to me to encourage reconciliation rather than condemnation or punishment. Jesus outlines a process to attempt to reach that goal of reconciliation. If, however, reconciliation isn't achieved, the person who wilfully rejects the teachings of Christ is asked to leave. It's as simple as that, really. Indeed, you would be doing well to remain an employee beyond one warning if you seriously rejected a company's code of conduct.

In this passage I don't see anything mentioned about punishment, nor is there any express mention that the person can never again re-enter the church. The very fact that God welcomes repentant sinners would suggest that that person would be welcomed like a prodigal son (at least by God) if they returned.

On the other hand, I read John 8 as emphasising conscience (with respect to hypocrisy) and possible forgiveness.