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



## Pilgrim (Feb 19, 2008)

Bishop: Christians don't go to heaven


----------



## k.seymore (Feb 19, 2008)

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 (Feb 19, 2008)

I think you need to read the original interview 

Christians Wrong About Heaven, Says Bishop
- TIME


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Feb 19, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2008)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> 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.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 19, 2008)

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 Believer (Feb 19, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> 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 Believer (Feb 19, 2008)

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 (Feb 19, 2008)

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Feb 19, 2008)

Blueridge Baptist said:


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




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


----------



## SRoper (Feb 19, 2008)

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 (Feb 19, 2008)

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 (Feb 19, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> 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:



Blueridge Baptist said:


> 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 (Feb 19, 2008)

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 (Feb 19, 2008)

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 (Feb 20, 2008)

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 (Feb 20, 2008)

wsw201 said:


> 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 (Feb 20, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Blueridge Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > 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".
> ...



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


----------



## Stephen (Feb 20, 2008)

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).


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 20, 2008)

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 Dispensationalists, some postmils, and some amils (Hoekema being the best).


----------



## danmpem (Feb 20, 2008)

k.seymore said:


> 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'.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 20, 2008)

danmpem said:


> k.seymore said:
> 
> 
> > 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]
> ...



he wrote that in 2003 or 2004


----------



## danmpem (Feb 20, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> 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 Dispensationalists, some postmils, and some amils (Hoekema being the best).



Do you know of anyone who currently holds to the Spiritual Vision Eschaton teaching? I mean, anyone credible?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 20, 2008)

danmpem said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Craig Blaising in _Three Views on the Millennium_ had a good summary of the hermeneutics:
> ...



No one will admit to holding to it because it sounds gnostic. But men do construct their eschatologies on it without realizing it.


----------



## Stephen (Feb 20, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



But this is the idea that is often presented in evangelicalism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2008)

I just remembered, the Reformed church's leading amillennial commentator, G. K. Beale, holds to the same view as NT Wright. 

Beale defines heaven as where God, or God in Christ as we see in the NT, is. The Temple in the Old Testament was the place where heaven met earth. Jesus is the New Temple and explicitly identifies his body with the true temple. Jesus bridges heaven and earth. He is Jacob's Ladder.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2008)

Beale explains regarding the cosmic symbolism of the torn veil. Noting that the veil had upon it the starry heavens, its tearing would represent the destruction of the old world. The veil's destruction fits admirably with the darkening of the sun, earthquakes, dead rising, etc. at Jesus' death. 

Consequently, his resurrection is literally seen as the new creation. So when he tells the thief they are going to paradise, he is in fact leading the thief on the pathway to the new creational Eden.

_The Temple and the Church's Mission_, 189-190


----------



## Stephen (Mar 27, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Beale explains regarding the cosmic symbolism of the torn veil. Noting that the veil had upon it the starry heavens, its tearing would represent the destruction of the old world. The veil's destruction fits admirably with the darkening of the sun, earthquakes, dead rising, etc. at Jesus' death.
> 
> Consequently, his resurrection is literally seen as the new creation. So when he tells the thief they are going to paradise, he is in fact leading the thief on the pathway to the new creational Eden.
> 
> _The Temple and the Church's Mission_, 189-190




I like Beale and agree with his position, but the thief on the cross was promised immediate paradise. Lazarus in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was already in paradise. Certainly heaven is in the future state but all believers at death are at home with Christ.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 27, 2008)

Matthew says:

"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32) and in another place, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" John 8:56

Wright said in the article:

"[The Apostle] Paul is very clear that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead already, but that nobody else has yet."

Further, the quote in John 3:13 in the article is from the critical text, not from the Protestant Bible which reads:

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

The emphasis on the different readings in the text plays a big part in the interpretation of these things.

Scripture is clear that many have been resurrected with Christ (Matthew 27:52-53), they seem to account to about 144,000 souls (Revelation 14:1-5, 7:4-8). My hypothesis is that these may very well be the children slain by Herod, or maybe even including those slain by Pharoah as well. (Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16). This event seemed to cause Hymeneaus to misunderstand the teachings of Paul on the resurrection.

But to say that nobody else has been resurrected isn't correct. The place the critical text and his position on interpreting Paul must all be taken into account with Wright, because the soul sleep of the Old Testament dispensation certainly isn't carried over into the new creation under Christ.

Beware of this fellow - he works corruption and if he can get you to agree with one of his interpretations someplace, he probably has an agenda and will use that to lead you into other intepretations he has. Everything is line upon line and precept upon precept, when you start making changes they may seem small on the surface, but when they finish their work up through the building of doctrine they come out the other side as something big.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 27, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> 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.



Well some of us would not mind floating around discussing Plato


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 27, 2008)

D.A. Carson knew N.T. Wright during their student days. Carson claims Wright was a 5 pt. Calvinist and inerrantist. Now he is neither.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Beale explains regarding the cosmic symbolism of the torn veil. Noting that the veil had upon it the starry heavens, its tearing would represent the destruction of the old world. The veil's destruction fits admirably with the darkening of the sun, earthquakes, dead rising, etc. at Jesus' death.
> ...



I think that was my point. I am arguing against a Kantian, ghostly view of heaven.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> D.A. Carson knew N.T. Wright during their student days. Carson claims Wright was a 5 pt. Calvinist and inerrantist. Now he is neither.



Inerrant has a different meaning in his circles than it does in ours. He would have no problem saying the bible is infallible. In his circle that is tantamount to saying inerrant. Having read 4,000 pages of Wright, you cannot fault him on his commitmment to Scripture.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Plato is the enemy of biblical creationism. Read _Phaedo_ and _Phaedra_. His *soma sema* says it all for me.


----------



## holyfool33 (Mar 27, 2008)

I blogged about this months a go quite a sad state of affairs.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 27, 2008)

Could you be more specific?


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 27, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > D.A. Carson knew N.T. Wright during their student days. Carson claims Wright was a 5 pt. Calvinist and inerrantist. Now he is neither.
> ...



Yes, I'm aware of the British reluctance to use the term. However, Carson was saying more than this. He said that when Wright was at Oxford and Carson was at Cambridge, they used to speak of their theological positions quite often. Back then, Carson claims that Wright was a 5 pointer AND an inerrantist. Nowadays, Carson says you can really tick Wright off if you get him on the subject of inerrance (that "strange American doctrine").

Carson opined on Wright in a three part lecture I am listening to currently regarding the NPP.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 27, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



Notice I did not say "believing Plato" but "discussing Plato"...


----------



## Stephen (Mar 28, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



Thanks, brother. I would agree with you on that.


----------

