Critiquing: #062 — Facebook has questions: New creation, souls in heaven and Torah

April 22, 2021 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

New creation — Disembodied soul — Biblical interpretation — Christian narrative — Heaven’s stages

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The episode accurately references biblical texts and theological concepts, reflecting scholarly consensus on many points. However, it occasionally lacks citations for more contentious claims, which could provide a more robust foundation for the arguments presented.
Degree of Coherence	B	The discussion maintains a logical flow with clear transitions and connections between topics. The coherence is supported by well-structured arguments and explanations, though some points could be elaborated further for clarity and deeper understanding.
Absence of Fallacies	B-	Generally free from logical fallacies, though some assertions could benefit from a more nuanced approach to avoid overgeneralizations. For instance, equating certain theological interpretations with Platonic ideas might oversimplify the diversity within Christian thought.
Degree of Evidence	C+	While the episode provides scriptural references and theological reasoning, it would benefit from additional scholarly sources and a broader range of perspectives to substantiate its claims more robustly. The inclusion of counterpoints and alternative interpretations could enhance the credibility of the arguments.
Degree of Testability	C	Theological claims, by nature, are often not empirically testable. The episode remains internally consistent within the Christian framework, though it could better address how these claims might be evaluated within different theological traditions and contexts.
Rational Confidence	B-	The confidence in the episode’s claims is mostly justified, assuming agreement with its theological premises. However, it occasionally assumes a consensus where there may be significant theological debate, which could be addressed by acknowledging the diversity of views within the Christian tradition.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence:

The discussion could benefit from more robust evidence to support certain theological claims. For example, the explanation of the stages of heaven and the disembodied soul relies heavily on biblical interpretation without addressing alternative viewpoints or providing additional scholarly references.

“The funny thing is that the Bible doesn’t use the word heaven to describe either of those stages.”

This statement is accurate within the context of specific biblical passages, but it does not consider the broader theological and historical interpretations that have evolved over centuries. Including references to theological debates and scholarly work on the topic would strengthen the argument by providing a more comprehensive view of the interpretations of “heaven” across different Christian traditions.

2. Degree of Testability:

The nature of the theological claims discussed makes them inherently difficult to test. This could be addressed by acknowledging the limitations of theological assertions and distinguishing between faith-based beliefs and empirical evidence.

“So the New Testament does use the word which we translate as soul, but it doesn’t mean the Platonic, constantly immortal thing.”

This interpretation aligns with certain scholarly views but could benefit from a discussion on how different Christian traditions have understood the concept of the soul. Highlighting the diversity of interpretations within Christianity would provide a more comprehensive view and acknowledge the complexity of theological discourse on this topic.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments:

Argument #1: Heaven and Its Stages

1. Premise 1: The Bible does not use the word “heaven” to describe the stages after death.
2. Premise 2: Jesus and Paul describe different stages involving being with Christ and the new creation.
3. Premise 3: Popular interpretations of “heaven” often reflect Platonic views rather than biblical ones.
4. Conclusion: The concept of heaven should be understood as two stages: a temporary resting place and a final new creation.

Counter-Argument:

The interpretation of biblical texts is subject to various theological perspectives. While the argument presented distinguishes between stages of heaven, other theological traditions may offer different interpretations that also align with biblical texts. Additionally, the reliance on specific passages may overlook the broader context and the diverse range of interpretations within Christian theology. For instance, Catholic, Orthodox, and various Protestant traditions have nuanced views on the afterlife that incorporate both scriptural interpretation and theological development over centuries. The argument might be seen as reducing complex theological constructs to a binary framework, which may not fully capture the richness of Christian eschatology. Therefore, while the argument is coherent within its framework, it may not account for all theological perspectives or the complexity of biblical interpretation.

---

Argument #2: Disembodied Soul

1. Premise 1: The idea of a disembodied soul is more Platonic than biblical.
2. Premise 2: The New Testament refutes the concept of an immortal soul.
3. Premise 3: The New Testament uses “soul” to mean ordinary life, not a Platonic immortal entity.
4. Conclusion: The notion of a disembodied soul should not be equated with biblical teachings.

Counter-Argument:

The concept of the soul has been debated throughout Christian history, with various interpretations existing within both Eastern and Western traditions. While the argument criticizes the Platonic influence on Christian thought, it does not fully engage with the historical development of the doctrine of the soul in Christian theology. For example, early Church Fathers such as Augustine and Aquinas engaged deeply with the concept of the soul, integrating elements of Platonic thought with Christian doctrine. The argument could benefit from acknowledging these historical developments and how they have shaped contemporary understandings of the soul. Additionally, the argument might oversimplify by categorically rejecting the Platonic influence without recognizing its nuanced integration into Christian theology. Thus, while the argument is valid within its critique of Platonic influence, it may oversimplify the complexity of the theological and historical context.

◉ Addressing Confusion with Platonism: The Clarity of Divine Revelation

The Need for Clarity in Holy Texts

The assertion that a single clarifying verse could have prevented significant theological confusion is a compelling critique of the Bible’s supposed divinity. An omniscient God—aware of future heresies—would presumably provide unequivocal guidance to prevent such misunderstandings. The lack of explicit clarity, particularly concerning distinctions from Platonism, raises questions about the nature and purpose of holy texts.

Mystery vs. Clarity

There is often a celebrated virtue in the mystery of divine revelation. However, when this mystery leads to widespread theological confusion and the emergence of heresies, the value of such ambiguity becomes questionable. Heresies like Arianism, Pelagianism, and Gnosticism might have been mitigated or avoided with clearer doctrinal statements in the Bible. The argument posits that any genuine God would not communicate through vague or cryptic messages, especially if the goal is to convey essential truths for salvation and right living.

The Mark of Divinity

The lack of clarity in addressing key theological issues suggests that the Bible may not possess the mark of divinity one would expect from an omnipotent and omniscient being. The divine hallmark would presumably include clear, unambiguous instructions on critical matters of faith. Here are some debated doctrines that could have benefited from simple, unequivocal statements in the Bible:

1. The Nature of the Trinity: Explicit clarification on the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit could have prevented early Christian controversies and the development of doctrines deemed heretical.
2. Salvation by Faith or Works: A direct statement resolving the apparent contradictions between Pauline emphasis on faith and the Epistle of James on works would have clarified the nature of salvation.
3. The Role of Women in the Church: Unequivocal guidance on the roles and status of women in church leadership could have preempted centuries of debate and division within Christianity.
4. Eschatology: Clear descriptions of end-time events and the nature of the afterlife would address the myriad interpretations that have led to various eschatological movements.
5. Predestination vs. Free Will: A definitive statement on whether human actions are predestined by God or if humans possess free will would have significant theological implications and resolve ongoing debates.

Theological Implications

The suggestion that divine communication should be clear and direct challenges the traditional view that holy texts are necessarily cryptic or open to interpretation. If the purpose of these texts is to guide humanity towards truth and divine understanding, clarity would be an essential attribute. The absence of this clarity undermines the claim of divine authorship and suggests a more human origin for these texts, reflecting the cultural and historical contexts in which they were written.

Conclusion

The argument that an omniscient and omnipotent God would provide clear, unequivocal guidance to prevent theological confusion is a strong critique of the Bible’s divinity. The celebration of mystery is challenged by the practical need for clarity in understanding essential doctrines. The absence of explicit guidance on critical theological issues raises significant questions about the divine nature of the Bible.

---

We warmly welcome your thoughts and invite you to discuss this topic further in the comments section below.