N.T. Wright: Christian Don't Go to Heaven

Pilgrim · #1 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 02:16 AM

k.seymore · #2 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 03:25 AM

I think saying NT Wright doesn't believe "Christian Don't Go to Heaven" is a bit deceptive... I haven't read this book (so maybe I'm speaking too soon), but I was in a bookstore the other day, saw it in the new books and read the first chapter. At least in this chapter he does say Christians go to be in the presence of God at death, but he says an "otherworldly" heaven is not the final destination. The final destination is when heaven and the world are one (the kingdom comes fully on earth as in heaven) and we are resurrected to live on earth. Even the World Net Daily article itself quotes him as saying, "that the period after death is a period when we are in God's presence but not active in our own bodies." What reformed believer doesn't believe that as well?

Surely we all know people who think of the final destination of humans as being simply heaven or hell, which, in the case of believers is defective thinking. I know as a child I thought this, and I'm sure others did as well. But in my case reformed theology came to the rescue in the form of the Westminster Confession, which teaches that human life in heaven after death is deficient because we don't have our bodies:

"The souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies..."

Thus we await resurrection into a redeemed world, a created world, and this world is where humans were created to dwell with God in the first place.

It seemed to me, at least in the chapter of the book that I read, that this was what NT Wright was getting at as well. I'll try reading a few more chapters at the bookstore if I get the chance and see if that is what he is trying to say (or if my assumption is totally off).

AV1611 · #3 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 07:02 AM

I think you need to read the original interview

Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop - TIME

Blueridge Baptist · #4 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

I think you need to read the original interview

Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop
- TIME

I read that interview and am really confused at what he's trying to say. But that's the usual thing from Wright. He's "ever learning but unable to come to the knowledge of the truth".
Methinks that Wright is a heretic. This along with NPP is enough. Some of the intellectuals among acedemia who still believe the Word of God need to open both barrells up on this bird.

AV1611 · #5 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I read that interview and am really confused at what he's trying to say. But that's the usual thing from Wright. He's "ever learning but unable to come to the knowledge of the truth".

I think that his point is that the "popular" concept of heaven as being some sort of spiritual place where we just float around doing nothing but sing is wrong.

Ivanhoe · #6 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 07:39 AM

he is saying the exact same thing that Anthony Hoekema is saying: We live forever in the renewed earth. Heaven is not a neo-platonic abstraction where we airily float on clouds discussing Plato and the Confession.

This is also Russell Moore's view at SBTS.

Blueridge Baptist · #7 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

he is saying the exact same thing that Anthony Hoekema is saying: We live forever in the renewed earth. Heaven is not a neo-platonic abstraction where we airily float on clouds discussing Plato and the Confession.

This is also Russell Moore's view at SBTS.

Are they teaching that we have a conscience existance with God after death? Maybe I have misunderstood him. I will read it again. I had the impression he was teaching some kind of soul sleep.

Blueridge Baptist · #8 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 07:55 AM

Would Wright be in agreement with this? Would Dr. Moore affirm it?

Chapter 31: Of the State of Man after Death and Of the Resurrection of the Dead
1. The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness, are received into paradise, where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell; where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day; besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
( Genesis 3:19; Acts 13:36; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:1, 6,8; Philippians 1:23; Hebrews 12:23; Jude 6, 7; 1 Peter 3:19; Luke 16:23, 24 )

2. At the last day, such of the saints as are found alive, shall not sleep, but be changed; and all the dead shall be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and none other; although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever.
( 1 Corinthians 15:51, 52; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Job 19:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 15:42, 43 )

3. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour; the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honour, and be made conformable to his own glorious body.
( Acts 24:15; John 5:28, 29; Philippians 3:21 )

Kevin · #9 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

he is saying the exact same thing that Anthony Hoekema is saying: We live forever in the renewed earth. Heaven is not a neo-platonic abstraction where we airily float on clouds discussing Plato and the Confession.

This is also Russell Moore's view at SBTS.

Are they teaching that we have a conscience existance with God after death? Maybe I have misunderstood him. I will read it again. I had the impression he was teaching some kind of soul sleep.

No, he is not teaching soul sleep. I have only read the Time interview, not the book, but I thought it may be an important issue to discuss.

I know that the fact that Tom Wright said it is enough for some people to assume it must be heretical.

But we would all agree (I think we would

) that the final state is not often taught about in our churches. And what passes for teaching/preaching on this topic in the broader evangelical church is terrible.

It is a fact, that the average 'born again" christian believes that the final resting place for believers in some cloud castle type of heaven. If you ask "what happens after our bodies are ressurected?) you mostly get blank stares.

The fact that the Bishop has writen on this subject means that this will be THE ISSUE that people will be talking about in the church in the comming few years, and we had better get ready. Count on it that some heretics are already writing up the ancient heresies for a new generation. After all this was in Time magazine, this will be a hot topic.

Kevin · #10 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Would Wright be in agreement with this? Would Dr. Moore affirm it?

Chapter 31: Of the State of Man after Death and Of the Resurrection of the Dead
1. The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous being then made perfect in holiness, are received into paradise, where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell; where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day; besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
( Genesis 3:19; Acts 13:36; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Luke 23:43; 2 Corinthians 5:1, 6,8; Philippians 1:23; Hebrews 12:23; Jude 6, 7; 1 Peter 3:19; Luke 16:23, 24 )

2. At the last day, such of the saints as are found alive, shall not sleep, but be changed; and all the dead shall be raised up with the selfsame bodies, and none other; although with different qualities, which shall be united again to their souls forever.
( 1 Corinthians 15:51, 52; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Job 19:26, 27; 1 Corinthians 15:42, 43 )

3. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour; the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honour, and be made conformable to his own glorious body.
( Acts 24:15; John 5:28, 29; Philippians 3:21 )

based on the article I have read (about Tom Wright) I would say, yes.

SRoper · #11 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 12:26 PM

From what I've read, I don't have a problem with what Wright is saying. As far as the LBC/WCF, I agree with the teaching, but I'm not sure I would use the same language. Affirming that we have an immortal soul that returns to God is a bit too precise for me. I think it's better to say that we are spiritually in the presence of God when we die.

danmpem · #12 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 01:01 PM

I've heard Wright's argument before, except from others. There's no proof text that says "when Christians die, they go to Heaven". At least not the way that someone who is not a Christian or a new believer would think about it.

k.seymore · #13 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

I think you need to read the original interview

Yes, thanks for the link. This interview appears to be what WorldNetDaily was responding to, and it shows that the WND article is overly sensationalistic if not downright misleading. Notice what Blueridge Baptist said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I had the impression he was teaching some kind of soul sleep.

Reading the WND article does leave that impression, and maybe the person who wrote the article simply didn't understand what soul sleep is. It appears that whoever wrote it may have focused in on the following statement and heard "soul sleep" when Wright says "asleep":

"We know that we will be with God and with Christ, resting and being refreshed. Paul writes that it will be conscious, but compared with being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep."

Soul sleep is the teaching that our souls are unconscious after death until the resurrection. Notice that that is not what Wright is saying above. He says he believes we will be in the presence of God and "be conscious." Then he points out that, in comparison to our body being alive, it is "like sleep." Notice how clever it is to phrase it like that. There are many who do believe soul sleep because they take passages in the new testament quote-un-quote "literally." Wright relativizes their understanding of passages referring to the dead as being "asleep." He says that relative to a body being alive, death is like sleep. Now a person who may hold to soul sleep has a new interpretive grid with which to read the passages about the dead being asleep and awaking.

Just to see if I was off, I did a quick search and found another Wright quote which seems to confirm how I was reading what he said above:

Wright: "[Paul] uses the regular image of falling asleep for death, enabling him to speak of people who have fallen asleep but will one day wake again, and to do so with echos of Daniel 12:2... This has led some interpreters to speak of 'the sleep of the soul', a time on unconcious post-mortem existence prior to the reawakening of resurrection. But this is almost certainly misleading – another case of people picking up a vivid Pauline metaphor and running down the street and waving it about. ...in fact, if we were speaking strictly, we should say that it is the body that 'sleeps' between death and resurrection; but in all probability, Paul is using the language of sleeping and waking simply as a way of contrasting a stage of temporary inactivity, not necessarily unconsciousness, with a subsequent on of renewed activity." ["The Resurrection of the Son of God" p.216]

py3ak · #14 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 06:01 PM

I don't know if he came up with it, but N.T. Wright has used the line, "going to heaven is great, but it's not the end of the world". And in saying that I took him to be affirming the same thing as Albert Martin when he said that the object of the Christian's hope is not the intermediate state but the resurrection.

Zenas · #15 (**permalink**) 02-19-2008, 06:06 PM

The general perception I get from N.T. Wright is he likes to make statements that are true upon further inspection, but sound entirely heretical on their face. Case in point: the title of this thread.

I guess he wants attention or something, or he simply cleverly names his books and articles.

wsw201 · #16 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008, 10:43 AM

It would be interesting to know what he thinks happens to those who are not resurrected to live on the new earth. Does anyone know if he believes in eternal punishment?

Kevin · #17 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wsw201

It would be interesting to know what he thinks happens to those who are not resurrected to live on the new earth. Does anyone know if he believes in eternal punishment?

Yes. To the best of my knowledge he does.

Stephen · #18 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

I read that interview and am really confused at what he's trying to say. But that's the usual thing from Wright. He's "ever learning but unable to come to the knowledge of the truth".

I think that his point is that the "popular" concept of heaven as being some sort of spiritual place where we just float around doing nothing but sing is wrong.

If this is Wright's only argument, I would agree with him completely.

Stephen · #19 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008, 11:53 AM

If you read the article Wright may be more right

then we think. He is simply stating that the believer at death is in the intermediate state. This is Pauline theology and is in agreement with our Reformed confessions. Paul teaches there are three states: 1. The Present, 2. The Intermediate State, and 3. The Future State. The second state is temporary and awaits the resurrection. Both believers and non-believers remain in this state until the final judgment. The future state is the goal of God's redemption. At the judgment some will be resurrected to life (heaven) and some will be resurrected to death (hell).

Ivanhoe · #20 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008, 12:21 PM

Craig Blaising in Three Views on the Millennium had a good summary of the hermeneutics:

1 Spiritual Vision Eschaton means that we will float on cloud castles and enjoy "spiritual" (read non corporeal) blessings

2. Creational Eschatology means we live on the renewed cosmos. It was the view of Ireneaus, Justin, and others. It has an earthy, healthy view of creation. Modern day proponents include almost all historic premies, covnenantal dispies, some postmils, and some amils (Hoekema being the best).

danmpem · #21 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by k.seymore

Wright: "[Paul] uses the regular image of falling asleep for death, enabling him to speak of people who have fallen asleep but will one day wake again, and to do so with echos of Daniel 12:2... This has led some interpreters to speak of 'the sleep of the soul', a time on unconcious post-mortem existence prior to the reawakening of resurrection. But this is almost certainly misleading – another case of people picking up a vivid Pauline metaphor and running down the street and waving it about. ...in fact, if we were speaking strictly, we should say that it is the body that 'sleeps' between death and resurrection; but in all probability, Paul is using the language of sleeping and waking simply as a way of contrasting a stage of temporary inactivity, not necessarily unconsciousness, with a subsequent on of renewed activity." ["The Resurrection of the Son of God" p.216]

I mostly agree with this, but I must wonder when Wright said this. So many people considered Wright to be pretty solid in his earlier days, before his theology took a 'new perspective'.