Into the Wardrobe

I've read Wright's rapture article before. I disagree with some of his presuppositions and he seems to go through a pretty arduous journey to explain that the 1 Thessalonians passage doesn't mean what it seems to mean.

I'm not saying I have all the answers or buy into everything that the Left Behind books proclaim. But I'm still pretty confident in a rapture event.

Of course, our focus needs to be on our primary responsibility of being and making disciples, not on how the end of this age is going to play out.

- Dan -

It's very difficult to understand why different people find different systems of interpretation more convincing. I have always thought the dispensationalist was highly implausible. Of course there have always been preterists and futurists and there have always been people opting for some kind of spiritual interpretation. I read Augustine years ago and surely he is mostly a futurist - and again some of his interpretations feel stretched to me. But if we are to look the matter in the eye we need to ask: if the Bible so clearly teaches that there will be a rapture with the saints removed from the earth during a tribulation lasting 7 years then why had no one heard of it until John Nelson Darby proclaimed it in the early 19th Century?

...and no protestant, Luther, Darby of Wright should make final rejections on any theological proposition based solely on that argument since all of them were captured by some kind of revisionist discoveries and made inovative revision an integral part of christian history.

I would add that important impetus behind this particular controversy (Wright vs. dispensationalism) is friction between eschatological optimism vs. pessimism.

Wright hears God's call to christians to actively join in His renewing project for the world which is in progress and will continue until triumph. Dispensationalist finds the world in a hopless state and in the future sees the "baptism" of fire for the world who needs to die in judgment in order to ressurect in the new life (Church for the purposes of redemption can't participate in that judgment, thus the meaning of the rapture).

Practical outcome is that dispensationalist calls the elect out of a hopless world into the Church while tacitly neglecting social, ecological and other aspects of salvation; while "wrightian" christian takes on the problems of the world in the name of Christ, tacitly neglecting devastating track record of any human-driven attempt to solve the problems of the world in whatever name there be.

Yes, I think Boromir has the differences right, although I'd venture to say that the Wrightian view doesn't hold that Christians can 'solve' the world's problems: that is for Christ alone. But we are called to help alleviate suffering and bring the love of Christ to a hurting world, not only by proclaiming the gospel, but also by working for the gospel concerns of peace, justice, poverty, etc. I do think more dispensationalists are concerned with these matters now than ever before, and that's a good thing.

I think part of what has happened is that dispensationalism has been so strongly associated with the Christian right in the US that it has come to seem that certain kinds of political ideas like a lack of concern for environmental issues arise from dispensationalism but if you see this world as something on loan from God there's no ultimate reason why you should think it doesn't matter what kind of condition you return the gift in. I also have to note that some of the fiercist critics of dispensationalism have been the reconstructionists who are even further to the right.

Okay, flame me if you want, but I haven't yet taken the time to read all 5 pages of posts on this matter. I did however read the article in Time which started it all. It was delightfully brief and to the point. If nothing else, Rev. N.T. Wright knows how to get his point across within the attention span of the average American ... an amazing feat in and of itself.

Moreover, I find I really disagree with him on only a few points, and one of those is purely semantic.

He describes an "intermediate state", but what He calls the intermediate state is precisely what I have always called "Heaven". (I believe that "Paradise" was a part of "Sheol" that existed before Christ's ressurection, but that it has passed away when Christ arose and those who were there are now in "Heaven". An in-depth discussion on this may be outside the scope of this thread.)

So, I agree that there is an "intermediate" state. I just believe that the intermediate state is, in fact, Heaven.

The final state, what Rev. Wright calls "Heaven" is what we Evangelicas call collectively "The Millenial Reign" followed by "The New Heaven and New Earth". Yes, we will be raised bodily, and at that point "Heaven" is not where we will want to live. We will want, and be allowed, to live on the transformed Earth and, after 1,000 of Chirsts reign a brand-new newly created Earth.

Heaven is a place for spirits, like angels or humans with no bodies. They are full of joy there. But like God Himself, we are triune beings, sprit + soul + body (We are, after all, created in His image). Without our bodies, we are not really complete. We are only 2/3 of what we are meant to be. Our final fulfillment will not occur until the resurrection of the dead.

I do think there will be a 7 year tribulation between the initial rapture and the establishment of the Millinial Reigh, but those will be 7 years on Earth. I'm not sure if the time will pass in Heaven at all. 7 years here may be the blink of an eye or less in Heaven.

I would like to point out that someone on this thread asked why the concept of the "Rapture" was such a recent invention. I would contend that it wasn't. The basic ideas have always been there, but the history of the church shows that the ideas are always being expressed in ways that best communicate the unmutable truth to new generations.

The idea that we will be raised bodily has never left the church. If you have ever recited the Apostle's Creed in church, you have stated that you "believe in ... the resurrection of the body and life everlasting". The belief in the "Rapture" has always been there. We just haven't used that word until recently.

Another thing I would disagree with Rev. Wright on would be his eschatology. I do belive in a pre-millinial and pre-tribulation rapture. However, I think Rev. Wright was speaking primarly of what happens when we die, not at the end of the age, so that's a bit outside the scope of his article.

The last thing I would mention is that I am not sure if you was merely mentioning the idea of purgatory or endorsing it. Since he is Anglican, he probably believes the concept.

This, I must say, is where I would have the most serious disagreement. For Hebrews 9:28 says that Christ was sacrificed to "take away" our sins. 1 Corinthians 6:11 says we are "sanctified" in the name of the Lord Jesus. Moreover, 1 Corinthians 1:30 states that it is CHRIST that is "our righteousness, holiness and redemption". If CHRIST is our righteousness, what possible need could there be for a "purgatory"?

2 Corinthians 5:17 says that if you in Christ, you are a new creation and the old has "passed away". Psalms 103:12 says that He has removed our transgressions from as "as far as the east is from the west". If my sins are that far from me, what is left to purify?

I know Lewis expressed the idea that we needed to be made "ready" for Heaven (I know he believed in Purgatory), but scripture says we will be changed "In the twinkling of an eye". Christ will make me "ready" for Heaven instantly, just as He saved me instantly. It's not as if I could do it.

As far as hell, there are also two states for that. There is "[i]Gehenna[/]" (spelling?) which is where the unsaved dead go for now. The literal "Gehenna" was the refuse dump outside Jerusalem where the fires to burn the refuse never went out, but the word is also used for the holding place of the unrighteous dead.

But, just as there will be a "New Heaven and New Earth", so there will be a "New Hell" known in Revelation as the "Lake of Fire". It will be, amazingly, even worse than the first.

I don't think the idea of it being a place where we get what we want, to our eternal torment, is really scriptural. Although, it did form the basis for one of my favorite episodes of "The Twilight Zone".