NT Wright's view on Heaven

[JonC]

He has it. He hasn't stated whether he's read it yet. He got it at my behest. I always told him that if he was unhappy with it, I'd buy it from him.

Wright argues that Christians incorrectly focus too much on life after death (heaven) when they should be focusing on life after life after death (new creation). So whatever you think Wright is saying about heaven, his point in Surprised By Hope is that we, like Paul and Isaiah and the author of Revelation, look for the restoration of all things and the new creation which has broken into the present in the resurrection of Jesus!

With that said, the OP did not state correctly what Wright believes about either heaven or new creation (the 2 not to be confused). What a perpetual problem here on the BB--people misrepresenting NT Wright.

If that’s true then perhaps this thread is a premature investigation (and no, they don’t make medicine for that disorder ) of the book.

I have Surprised by Hope, and although I confess I have started but not finished it, I have found Wright’s insights on the topic enlightening. At first I disagreed that the western church looked at salvation primarily in terms of “getting to Heaven” and that Heaven we’re getting to is some spiritual world we arrive at when we die. It didn’t take me long to figure out I was wrong and Wright was right that our churches have adopted a fantasy idea of Heaven. I do need to finish the book. Perhaps I’ll start anew this evening.

 

[Greektim]

Not just heaven... so much of western theology and philosophy comes right out of neo-platonic thinking. Gnosticism still roots its ugly head when people focus on "going to heaven" and ignore the fact that God made us to have bodies, God created a place to dwell with humans (not the other way around), and the Bible ends with new creation not heaven.

 

[JonC]

Not just heaven... so much of western theology and philosophy comes right out of neo-platonic thinking. Gnosticism still roots its ugly head when people focus on "going to heaven" and ignore the fact that God made us to have bodies, God created a place to dwell with humans (not the other way around), and the Bible ends with new creation not heaven.

I almost mentioned that Surprised by Hope is not merely about Heaven. And I absolutely agree that Gnosticism has firmly planted itself within many ideas of heaven and the lack of focus on our bodily resurrection and the new creation.

But before the torches are lit, the tar is heated, and the feathers plucked and made ready....Wright is far from alone on this one. His conclusions are echoed in by men like D.A. Carson and John Piper (and, of course, the Apostle Paul). Smile

 

[evangelist6589]

C.ool, What did you think of it?

I have only read around it. But I did dig it out iff the basement and its on my desk and ready to be started. From what I read when I bought the book, he's a difficult read. Not a light weight like authors like Ray Comfort, Ron Rhodes, David Jeremiah, among others that I usually read.

 

[evangelist6589]

He has it. He hasn't stated whether he's read it yet. He got it at my behest. I always told him that if he was unhappy with it, I'd buy it from him.

Wright argues that Christians incorrectly focus too much on life after death (heaven) when they should be focusing on life after life after death (new creation). So whatever you think Wright is saying about heaven, his point in Surprised By Hope is that we, like Paul and Isaiah and the author of Revelation, look for the restoration of all things and the new creation which has broken into the present in the resurrection of Jesus!

With that said, the OP did not state correctly what Wright believes about either heaven or new creation (the 2 not to be confused). What a perpetual problem here on the BB--people misrepresenting NT Wright.

I have only read around it. However I did dig it out of my bookshelf in the basement and its on my desk. I was reading a book by Paul Washer among other authors. I guess one can never read enough! However I did finish the John Piper book I was reading "Five Points." That was a light weight Piper read, at least compared to Desiring God. Wright is a deeper read.

 

[evangelist6589]

I almost mentioned that Surprised by Hope is not merely about Heaven. And I absolutely agree that Gnosticism has firmly planted itself within many ideas of heaven and the lack of focus on our bodily resurrection and the new creation.

But before the torches are lit, the tar is heated, and the feathers plucked and made ready....Wright is far from alone on this one. His conclusions are echoed in by men like D.A. Carson and John Piper (and, of course, the Apostle Paul). Smile

Yes lets just focus on this topic, and avoid his other views such as what he says about Justification. I do not have that book and so no point in going there.

Well I better get back to reading.

 

[JonC]

I have only read around it. But I did dig it out iff the basement and its on my desk and ready to be started. From what I read when I bought the book, he's a difficult read. Not a light weight like authors like Ray Comfort, Ron Rhodes, David Jeremiah, among others that I usually read.

I think you'll like the book. When you get done we can discuss it.

BTW, Desiring God was another good read. And re-read....and re-re-read.

 

[rsr]

I almost mentioned that Surprised by Hope is not merely about Heaven. And I absolutely agree that Gnosticism has firmly planted itself within many ideas of heaven and the lack of focus on our bodily resurrection and the new creation.

But before the torches are lit, the tar is heated, and the feathers plucked and made ready....Wright is far from alone on this one. His conclusions are echoed in by men like D.A. Carson and John Piper (and, of course, the Apostle Paul). Smile

You mean like: "For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies."

 

[JonC]

You mean like: "For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies."

Yep....like that. Also, Creation waits with eager longing.

As Wright points out, "Redemption doesn’t mean scrapping what’s there and starting again from a clean slate but rather liberating what has come to be enslaved.""

 

[Aaron]

And yet in the Resurrection, we will be like the angels: no marriage, no procreation, and by implication, no male or female. So, it isn't a mere restoration. It is a transformation. The New Heaven and New Earth will be such as that which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has entered into the heart of man.

That song "I Can Only Imagine" ? . . . unscriptural hogwash.

 

[Greektim]

I almost mentioned that Surprised by Hope is not merely about Heaven. And I absolutely agree that Gnosticism has firmly planted itself within many ideas of heaven and the lack of focus on our bodily resurrection and the new creation.

But before the torches are lit, the tar is heated, and the feathers plucked and made ready....Wright is far from alone on this one. His conclusions are echoed in by men like D.A. Carson and John Piper (and, of course, the Apostle Paul). Smile

Quite right... however Piper not so much. I'm a big JP fan. And while he does maintain a view on new creation and resurrection (cf. his last few chapters in Future Grace for example), he doesn't seem consistent in his language. I mean that Piper uses heaven language quite frequently without making much if any distinction with new creation.

 

[JonC]

And yet in the Resurrection, we will be like the angels: no marriage, no procreation, and by implication, no male or female. So, it isn't a mere restoration. It is a transformation. The New Heaven and New Earth will be such as that which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has entered into the heart of man.

That song "I Can Only Imagine" ? . . . unscriptural hogwash.

I agree. It's also (and primarily) a reconciliation of all things and all things are made new (not replaced). I believe that this is one way God's glory is reflected (in His re-creative act). Scraping what was "made good" and starting all over again is not exactly right, IMHO.

 

[JonC]

Quite right... however Piper not so much. I'm a big JP fan. And while he does maintain a view on new creation and resurrection (cf. his last few chapters in Future Grace for example), he doesn't seem consistent in his language. I mean that Piper uses heaven language quite frequently without making much if any distinction with new creation.

Yea...you're right. This may sound a bit odd, but there are times when Wright is more clear to me than Piper. Sometimes I need to read both twice, but most of the time I can get Wright after a second reading or so. But with Piper, sometimes I read something and days later driving down the road it hits me what he was saying.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe it was NT Wright that said in a book that Heaven will not be some space in the universe but will be the here and now and earth. So when we die we will wake up on the earth, but in paradise. What do you think of this?

Does Wright believe in 'soul sleep'? That is, does he believe that those who die are unconscious until the Last Day? That would seem to be contradicted by verses like Luke 23:43 and 2 Corinthians 5:8.

However, if Wright is talking about where we shall be in the Eternal State, then the view that it will be on the New Earth is not peculiar to him. An excellent book on eschatology (especially if you happen to be Amil ) is The Bible and the Future by Anthony A. Hoekema, written in 1979. We shall be resurrected with new, material bodies and we shall live upon a new earth. 'Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.' Why would we want to inherit this present doomed world? We don't go to heaven; heaven comes to us! Revelation 21:1-3. God and the Lamb are present with us (Revelation 22:1-5), and the new heavens and the new earth are effectively one.

'And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold and not another. How my heart yearns within me!' (Job 19:26-27).

 

[evangelist6589]

Reading chapter one. I am a little confused on what it's about. Is it about Hope? Does he state his thesis on page 5? His writing style or my reading abilities make him and Hell under Fire challenging reads.

But it's good to challenge myself over reading simple authors like Ron Rhodes, Comfort, Lutzer, and Jeremiah.

 

[JonC]

Does Wright believe in 'soul sleep'? That is, does he believe that those who die are unconscious until the Last Day? That would seem to be contradicted by verses like Luke 23:43 and 2 Corinthians 5:8.

However, if Wright is talking about where we shall be in the Eternal State, then the view that it will be on the New Earth is not peculiar to him. An excellent book on eschatology (especially if you happen to be Amil ) is The Bible and the Future by Anthony A. Hoekema, written in 1979. We shall be resurrected with new, material bodies and we shall live upon a new earth. 'Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.' Why would we want to inherit this present doomed world? We don't go to heaven; heaven comes to us! Revelation 21:1-3. God and the Lamb are present with us (Revelation 22:1-5), and the new heavens and the new earth are effectively one.

'And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold and not another. How my heart yearns within me!' (Job 19:26-27).

From what I gather, Wright is saying that scripture does not focus on where we go when we die but instead looks to that new creation. He says that the early church looked towards God doing to all of Creation what was done in Christ at Easter which I understand to be a new heaven and a new earth....and a new us, but not necessarily a replaced heaven and a replaced earth and a replaced us. That's my understanding (and why I agree with him). And no, he doesn't teach 'soul sleep' from what I can tell.

 

[The Biblicist]

...spoken like a true blue ever so judgmental Landmarker.

What in the world has this to do with being a "Landmarker"??? I have taken the time to read what Wright says concerning justification. I have read his views on the sacraments. He make himself extremely clear about his views of the sacraments in relationship to salvation. I have carefully studied his careful definitions of "without works" in Romans 4 and he preaches precisely what Paul condemned as "another gospel" but does it skillfully so that many are deceived into thinking he has some new insights on the true gospel. He does not! He has simply repacked the false gospel in new language.

 

[The Biblicist]

is that different from what NT Wright teaches on Heaven?



BTW, Evan, there is a bit of disagreement regarding NT Wright. While many (including myself) don't find everything he holds to be true (Wright being Anglican and I being Baptist makes that a bit obvious ), some almost lean towards espousing nothing he holds as holding benefit to the Church. Others reject some doctrines (most notably, his view of Justification) while recognizing his contributions in other areas. Piper, for example, wrote a book countering Wright's view of justification while praising both his scholarship and contributions to the Church (The Future of Justification). It is also interesting that some (including Piper) who argue that Wright's position is confusing and perhaps incomplete as a doctrine also stop short of declaring what he has actually concluded as false.

I'd recommend picking up "Surprised by Hope" and reading it slowly alongside scripture. You may be surprised Biggrin.

This pretty much sums up my opinion:
http://kuyperian.com/reformed-people-read-n-t-wright/

His scholarly abilities or training is the problem. The issue is his very skillful interpretations of specific Biblical passages that are designed by the Holy Spirit to be definitive in order to protect a given truth. The worst kind of heretic is not the person who simply contradicts what the scriptures teach. The worst kind of heretic imaginable is the person who takes those Biblical passages which are designed to be definitive statements to protect and defend a certain truth and skillfully reinterprets them to say the very opposite of what they actually are designed by God to protect. N.T. Wright has accomplished that with regard to the doctrine of justification especially his interpretation of Romans 4:5-11, 16-22. You would think that his unprotected and clear sacramental teaching would wake people up to his real soteriology, but many seem to be so enchanted by his "new" approach in packaging a false gospel in such a scholarly way, that they simply dismiss the obvious.

 

[The Biblicist]

From what I gather, Wright is saying that scripture does not focus on where we go when we die but instead looks to that new creation.

If what you say is true about him, then he is a sly deceiver indeed, as the scripture have a great deal to say about where we go when we die. Both Christ and Paul have a great deal to say about that subject. Obviously a soul-sleeper would attempt to shift the focus of his readers from what the scripture says about where one goes when they die to the more lovely subject of the final new creation without sin.

Of course the Second Adam is going to ultimately restore much more than what the first Adam lost. But it is how He does it that many are completely ignorant. The point of tremendous ignorance is concerning the Biblical issue of death. Such scholars don't grasp either the full impact of the first death much less the nature of the second death. One cannot properly understand "life" until they first understand the true nature and consequences of death. For example, look carefully at Matthew 10:28. Jesus is not merely denying that man's soul ceases to exist at physical death, but he is just as clearly denying that the soul ceases to exist between physical death and final judgment which does not occur until after the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[Greektim]

Does Wright believe in 'soul sleep'? That is, does he believe that those who die are unconscious until the Last Day? That would seem to be contradicted by verses like Luke 23:43 and 2 Corinthians 5:8.

However, if Wright is talking about where we shall be in the Eternal State, then the view that it will be on the New Earth is not peculiar to him. An excellent book on eschatology (especially if you happen to be Amil ) is The Bible and the Future by Anthony A. Hoekema, written in 1979. We shall be resurrected with new, material bodies and we shall live upon a new earth. 'Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth.' Why would we want to inherit this present doomed world? We don't go to heaven; heaven comes to us! Revelation 21:1-3. God and the Lamb are present with us (Revelation 22:1-5), and the new heavens and the new earth are effectively one.

'And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, that in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold and not another. How my heart yearns within me!' (Job 19:26-27).

Not at all in regards to soul sleep.

And he never claims his view is unique, only that the church has lost its emphasis on new creation and traded it for a disembodied heaven.