# Four Views on Heaven



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2022)

Wittmer, Michael. ed. _Four Views on Heaven_. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022.

Of the Zondervan Counterpoints volumes, this is one of their better ones. It addresses one of the most practical of subjects, but it also shows the current outlooks on heaven among conservative scholars. The scope of the book is on the final destination of believers, not on the intermediate state. John Feinberg represents the traditional view, Richard Middleton the New Earth view, Michael Allen a heaven on earth view, and Peter Kreeft the Catholic view.

The four views are:

Traditional: John Feinberg. This chapter is the most disappointing in the book. Whatever the traditional view of heaven might be, Feinberg has written a chapter on timelines in dispensational eschatology. When he actually discusses heaven, I agree. He affirms an intermediate state, a body-soul duality, and a resurrected body that will exist in the New Heavens and New Earth. All of that is good. 

Neo-Kuyperian: J. Richard Middleton. His actual position is “New Heavens and New Earth,” but it is better seen as a Neo-Kuyperian view. 80% of his essay is quite good. He points out, no doubt in line with scholars like Beale, that God is constructing the earth as a cosmic temple and that is where we will be in the New Earth. To be sure, for Middleton, we will only be on the New Earth. Whatever the New Heavens is, and he is not sure, we will not have access to it. This is where his problems begin, as will be evident in the responses. He also rejects the idea of the soul and intermediate state.

Feinberg’s response: Middleton says we have no access to the New Heavens because, as he notes, Scripture’s language about the New Heavens is metaphorical and we cannot draw any inferences from that. Feinberg points out that he misunderstands what metaphor means. All metaphors have a referent, and we have cognitive access to this referent. Middleton’s desire is to avoid being too literalistic, yet he also admits that language about the New Earth is metaphorical, yet this does not prevent him from saying we will live there. He cannot have it both ways.

Allen’s response: Middleton should be careful not to dismiss a key teaching of the church without any interaction with the thinkers from that view and the actual texts themselves. Jesus’s words to the thief clearly teach an intermediate state. Sure, I can grant that Paradise refers to a Garden-like existence, but Jesus actually tells the thief that “today” you will be “there.”

Like many Neo-Calvinists, Middleton downplays the church and corporate worship.What will we be doing in heaven? Cultural activity. Any kind of worship then (and now) is merely to prepare us for that cultural activity. Middleton’s argument is that the prophets condemn any kind of worship that neglects justice. However, as Allen points out, the admonitions to justice in the prophets do not actually tell us how to worship God, and in any case the prophets called Israel back to the covenant, not to justice in the abstract.

If I can make an aside. We all know that there will not be sex or marriage in heaven. That is a given. However, on the Neo-Calvinist gloss there will still be cultural activity, including “healing the nations” and the “wealth of nations,” if read literally. So, there will not be sex but there will be business transactions. Or so they say.

Heaven on Earth. Michael Allen. Allen’s position is close to Middleton’s, but with a few key differences. Both say we will be in resurrected bodies on the New Earth. For Allen, however, we will also have access to the Beatific Vision and probably to the New Heavens. I side with Allen in this volume.

Roman Catholic. Peter Kreeft. Half of Kreeft’s essay is a riff on his lifetime of musing about C.S. Lewis, and for that half it is quite good. The other half is Purgatory. That is not good. Kreeft’s argument falls apart if the Reformed claim that “believers at their deaths are made perfect in holiness.” If I am made perfect in holiness, then I do not need Purgatory.

I truly enjoyed this book and it made me want heaven even more.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 5


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 26, 2022)

The problem I've noticed in many of the volumes in this series is having writers who either do not really hold the view they've been asked to represent, or they represent that view so ineptly, that it might as well have been left out of the book entirely.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2022)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> The problem I've noticed in many of the volumes in this series is having writers who either do not really hold the view they've been asked to represent, or they represent that view so ineptly, that it might as well have been left out of the book entirely.



True. Most of the contributors actually blasted the editor for letting Feinberg write an end-times eschatology piece when the actual requirement was to explain the traditional view of heaven.


----------



## Tychicus (May 26, 2022)

What's your view?


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2022)

Tychicus said:


> What's your view?



Michael Allen. Heaven on Earth. Standard Reformed view. We have resurrected bodies on the New Earth, but this does not rule out some form of the Beatific Vision.


----------



## Taylor (May 26, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Heaven on Earth. Standard Reformed view.


I actually talked about this with my pastor a couple weeks ago. Wasn’t there some variation in the Puritans about where we will be in the new heavens and new earth? It seems that some of the Puritans, as I have read them, believed we would be in heaven—i.e., not on earth—for eternity in the consummate age.

Practically speaking, it doesn’t matter to me. I want to be wherever Jesus is.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2022)

Taylor said:


> I actually talked about this with my pastor a couple weeks ago. Wasn’t there some variation in the Puritans about where we will be in the new heavens and new earth? It seems that some of the Puritans, as I have read them, believed we would be in heaven—i.e., not on earth—for eternity in the consummate age.
> 
> Practically speaking, it doesn’t matter to me. I want to be wherever Jesus is.



Yes, or so I've been told. If I am not mistaken, I think Michael Spangler holds to that view via Petrus van Mastricht. I'm not an expert on Mastricht, so I can't say. I think it is the opposite extreme of the Neo-Kuyperian view.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (May 26, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> Yes, or so I've been told. If I am not mistaken, I think Michael Spangler holds to that view via Petrus van Mastricht. I'm not an expert on Mastricht, so I can't say. I think it is the opposite extreme of the Neo-Kuyperian view.


I listened to Michael Spangler’s sermon on heaven a while back and he makes a convincing case! It’s an edifying sermon, well worth listening to.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2022)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I listened to Michael Spangler’s sermon on heaven a while back and he makes a convincing case! It’s an edifying sermon, well worth listening to.



I'll see if I can get around to listening to it. This is where Middleton made a good point: The New Jerusalem comes down to earth.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (May 26, 2022)

RamistThomist said:


> I'll see if I can get around to listening to it. This is where Middleton made a good point: The New Jerusalem comes down to earth.


I'm pretty sure he addresses texts related to that; I actually want to listen again too, since this topic has come up a few times lately.


----------



## MChase (May 26, 2022)

I didn’t find Spangler’s lecture convincing. He takes the view that the earth will be utterly destroyed and the believers sole eternal home is in the third heaven. 

I find it hard to accept a position that reserves a greater change in state for the wicked at the day of judgment than the believer. I also find it incredibly hard to square with the end of Revelation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2022)

MChase said:


> I didn’t find Spangler’s lecture convincing. He takes the view that the earth will be utterly destroyed and the believers sole eternal home is in the third heaven.
> 
> I find it hard to accept a position that reserves a greater change in state for the wicked at the day of judgment than the believer. I also find it incredibly hard to square with the end of Revelation.



Agreed. There was a thread on PB relating to this topic and that was the standard criticism of Spangler's position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2022)

This is the thread.





Where do we spend eternity?


In the last few years I've grown a lot in my knowledge of the Christian faith (and Reformed doctrine in particular); but for whatever reason, I've given scant attention to end-times matters, or to pondering heaven itself. Perhaps I subconsciously shy away from eschatological debates as being...




www.puritanboard.com

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 26, 2022)

I was going to pitch in on this topic, but I see that in the above thread mentioned by Jacob, "Where do we spend eternity?", I have said more than I can at present, based on Scripture.


----------

