Part 1: The Dangers of Orthodoxy

Was man originally created with an immortal soul, and do the souls of God’s people ascend to Heaven after death? To begin to question these things is not only to intrude upon widely-held beliefs but also our emotional responses over what occurs to us after death. However, do the Scriptures teach that man was created with an immortal soul? If not, what happens to our loved ones? Where are the church fathers? Where are the martyrs?

This is a doctrine that I have taught with conviction to children. The first song I wrote when working with children at a local church, entitled Heaven’s Streets of Gold, was composed to encourage children to seek Heaven as their ultimate destination. Thus, I fully embraced and taught others that an integral part of the ‘good news’ was that a saved soul ascends to Heaven after physical death. 

But it is evident now to me that the Bible does not teach this. The destination for the dead is not Heaven, either at death or resurrection. What changed my mind? I began to study the Scriptures on this matter more intently. In the past I assumed that a treasured doctrine defended by most denominations, and one defended throughout all of church history, must have actual biblical proof, even if I were not aware of it.

However, is it sufficient to accept something simply because of what others have believed and embraced in the past? Are their writings not to be compared with the exact wording found in the Bible? Should a specific church doctrine defended by the church fathers prohibit others from disagreeing because they have discovered something contrary? If so, then the Scriptures become of secondary value and the church fathers’ writings should be read in church services instead of the Bible.

Upon investigating the issue of ‘soul immortality’, I became increasingly alarmed not to find a single explicit reference in the Bible of ‘immortal soul’ or that souls ascend to Heaven at death. On the one hand, how can this cardinal doctrine be lacking in the Scriptures, and on the other hand – as I formerly did – be taught by many?

There are many ‘proof-texts’ used – most of which will hopefully be referred to in this essay – but even among these texts there seems to be no unequivocal statement of what is considered a fundamental doctrine (the most commonly used ‘proof-texts’ don’t even use the word ‘Heaven’). 

There are clear references to salvation by grace through faith, the Lordship of Jesus Christ, His substitutionary death, His resurrection, His continued intercession for His people as High Priest, His Second Coming, the forgiveness of sins, our resurrection, etc.; but no statement seems to explain, or even paraphrase, the doctrine of man’s soul going to Heaven at the point of death. Rather, I feel that the doctrine is assumed and several ‘proof-texts’ are suggested as touching upon this ‘truth’, and thus these verses are used to build upon a doctrine that was never biblically established in the first place.

Bearing in mind the reasonable claim that an absolute reference to the doctrine is elusive within the Bible, is it not alarming that most of the church consider it a fundamental part of the good news of Jesus Christ? Why is it the automatic response of many to defend the prevailing view instead of taking more time to consider the weight behind an alternative understanding? Why is the alternative view sometimes given the same response a cult doctrine would receive? 

It seems that the rule of thumb today is to judge the substance of a doctrine by setting it against the backdrop of its popularity within orthodox Christianity. The tendency to validate doctrines in this manner ought to generate more suspicion than when someone challenges the doctrine of going to Heaven. Why do we rush to defend a cherished viewpoint when our method of validating that viewpoint is at best questionable itself? 

God’s Word is not subject to a popularity contest when interpreting its doctrines. The revered saints from key moments in church history – justifiably or not – have been subject to these kinds of tests. Their acceptance within Christendom has been determined by the content of their teaching, but their popularity is no proof within itself that their teaching was biblical.

Calvin and Wesley would have disagreed on doctrines that are considered of importance to many in the faith, and yet few today would label either a ‘heretic’. Most people who subscribe to either extreme in the differing theologies of these men would not go as far as insulting their ‘opponents’ in this way. Why is this the case? Presumably it is because they agreed upon what are today considered to be ‘fundamentals’. The doctrine that involves man’s soul going to Heaven would, no doubt, be among these agreements. 

The continued lack of challenge to this view throughout church history has therefore created the potential for many to fear openly questioning it. It is not presented as a doctrine worth testing by Scripture and serious debate, and yet my own experiences lead me to believe that it is considered biblical because it is orthodox. This orthodoxy, in my view, causes us to impose doctrines upon biblical texts that do not concern the doctrine in question. 

In short, I am challenging the prevailing notion that a doctrine’s widespread acceptance – whether geographically or historically – is sufficient as a defence of the doctrine itself. The only respect in which I should be concerned with what Spurgeon had to say about ‘going to Heaven’ is the biblical evidence he used. The same can be said for any other revered name. 

In other words, what does the Bible say? Orthodoxy prevented all of God’s people, bar two, from entering the Promised Land. Orthodoxy led God’s people into captivity. Let us not assume that the church today is incapable of forming orthodox views at the expense of God’s truth. 

For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. (Galatians 1:10)