Similar Posts:

• The Forgotten Gospel of the End Times
• Tom Schreiner on the Millennium . . . and So Much More
• Why I Don't Teach Preterism
• A Near Death Experience? A Theological Evaluation of Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven”
• Is the Hyper-Preterist Gospel a Different Gospel?

“With this doctrine of exaltation or human deification, though, Joseph Smith wasn’t actually moving away from Judeo-Christian tradition. He was returning to a forgotten strand of it. For ancient Christians and Jews also had a doctrine of human deification, which scholars call ‘theosis.’”

Scholars do indeed use the term theosis for what can be called a doctrine of human deification. Specifically, this term has its customary or primary usage with reference to the doctrine of deification taught in the Eastern Orthodox theological tradition. The roots of this Eastern Orthodox doctrine are to be found in the teachings of the early church fathers, especially (though not exclusively) the Greek-writing ones. This is the context in which Peterson offers brief quotations from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (2nd century), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen (all third century), and Jerome (fifth century).

It is not an accident that Peterson’s article includes more quotations from the church fathers (six) than from all of his other sources combined (two from the New Testament, one from the Book of Mormon, and one from a medieval Jewish text). The church fathers did indeed teach a doctrine of deification. The question is what they meant by it and whether it provides any support for Peterson’s claim that Joseph Smith’s doctrine of deification was a restoration of an ancient doctrine that had been forgotten.

1. The church fathers whom Peterson quotes were, from the LDS perspective, part of the Great Apostasy.

We may start with an ironic observation. The church fathers whom Peterson quotes were among the leading architects of the religious and theological tradition that Mormons regard as the Great Apostasy. These were all theologians, not prophets. The very writings in which an explicit Christian doctrine of human deification first appears are the earliest documents from what the LDS Church teaches was a growing apostasy, a spiritual and theological darkness that overcame the Christian movement in the second, third, and fourth centuries. This should be just about the last place Mormons would want to look for ancient precedent for their “restored” doctrines! Yet this is where Peterson draws the majority of his quotations. The problem may be illustrated by the following comments from Spencer W. Kimball:

“Many men with no pretense nor claim to revelation, speaking without divine authority or revelation, depending only upon their own brilliant minds, but representing as they claim the congregations of the Christians and in long conference and erudite councils, sought the creation process to make a God which all could accept. The brilliant minds with their philosophies, knowing much about the Christian traditions and the pagan philosophies, would combine all elements to please everybody. They replaced the simple ways and program of the Christ with spectacular rituals, colorful display, impressive pageantry, and limitless pomposity, and called it Christianity. They had replaced the glorious, divine plan of exaltation of Christ with an elaborate, colorful, man-made system” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 425).

The traditional LDS position is that this corruption of Christianity was largely an accomplished fact already in the second century. LDS apostle and teacher Bruce R. McConkie claimed, “In the Old World the great apostasy was complete sometime during the second century A.D.” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, 477). Similarly, LDS theologian Stephen E. Robinson states that “Latter-day Saints trace the Apostasy to roughly the second century and reject subsequent orthodoxy” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow [New York: Macmillan, 1992], 400). Yet Peterson’s earliest explicit examples of a Christian doctrine of believers becoming “gods” come from the second half of the second century, and most come from the third century or even later.

Of course, it is theoretically possible that the church fathers might have been right about humans becoming gods and wrong about other things. A Mormon could argue that the Great Apostasy led to the loss of divine authority and to the gradual loss of some doctrinal truths but not others, with the doctrine of people becoming gods as one that was not lost right away. This might seem a sufficient explanation for how it was that the church fathers believed in humans becoming deified even while they also taught what Mormons regard as false doctrines. However, this explanation doesn’t really address the point, which is that the church fathers were the first Christian teachers to articulate an explicit doctrine of the deification of believers.

The fact that Peterson can document a patristic (church fathers’) tradition of deification from the second, third, and fifth centuries leads to another problem.

2. The doctrine of theosis cannot be “restored” because it was never lost.

The writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome have played an ongoing, continuous role in theological studies and reflection throughout church history. We are not talking here about long-lost writings like the Nag Hammadi “Gnostic gospels” or miraculously restored texts such as Mormons believe the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham to be. We are talking about the writings of men whose writings have never stopped circulating and that have been cited, quoted, and discussed in every generation from their own time to the present.

Moreover, the specific patristic idea of deification, or theosis, was never lost in any sense. It has been taught continuously in the Eastern Orthodox Church throughout its history with no interruption. It was being taught in Eastern Orthodox congregations in Joseph Smith’s day (although the first such congregation was not established in the continental United States until 1857, thirteen years after Joseph’s death).

3. The church fathers’ doctrine of deification lacked all of the distinctive elements of Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation and explicitly differed from his view in crucial respects.

Establishing that the early church fathers taught a doctrine of deification does not, in and of itself, show that Joseph Smith’s doctrine of deification is a restoration of ancient truth. One must compare the substance of the two doctrines of deification in order to determine if the two doctrines are at all close in meaning. To that end, I will repeat here the seven specific doctrinal elements of Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation:

1. God has not always been God; it is not true that he has been God from all eternity (though he may have existed from all eternity, he has not always existed as God).
2. God was once a man like us before becoming God our Heavenly Father.
3. God became God and is an exalted man, an exalted being.
4. Human beings are the spirit offspring of God, our Heavenly Father. We lived in heaven with God before becoming physical beings here on earth.
5. We became human beings precisely so that we would have the opportunity to attain exaltation just as God did.
6. Human beings can become “gods” in the sense of becoming exalted beings fully like Heavenly Father in all essential respects, just as he did before us.
7. As exalted beings or gods, we can become creators and have all the power, glory, dominion, and knowledge that God the Father has (in the worlds we create).

Read through Peterson’s quotations from the church fathers and you will quickly see that they express none of these seven doctrinal elements. Readers lacking some background in the theology of the church fathers might wonder if some of the quotations at least might reflect an acceptance of the last two doctrinal elements, but nothing in the quotations would even suggest to any reader a belief in the first five elements listed above. Here are Peterson’s quotations:

Justin Martyr: “All men are deemed worthy of becoming gods, and of having power to become sons of the Highest.”

Irenaeus: “We have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods. … (Jesus Christ) became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”

Clement of Alexandria: In the “future life” we will be among “gods … those who have become perfect … and become pure in heart … They are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior.”

Tertullian: Through divine grace the saved “shall be even gods.”

Origen of Alexandria: He believed in “the Father as the one true God,” but acknowledged “other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God.”

Jerome: “God made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. … They who cease to be mere men, abandon the ways of vice, and are become perfect, are gods and sons of the Most High.”

There is no suggestion in any of these quotations that God the Father was a man who progressed to Godhood, or that God has not always been God. There is also no notion in any of these statements that human beings preexisted in heaven as gods in embryo prior to their physical lives here on earth. The core theological and anthropological premises of Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation are completely absent from these patristic quotations—and indeed are absent from the corpus of the church fathers’ writings as a whole.

Justin states that all people may “become gods,” and similarly Tertullian says that those saved through God’s grace “shall be even gods.” But what do these statements mean in context? They did not mean that believers will become deities possessing the same powers as the Creator of the universe. Let’s look at their statements in context. Justin wrote:

“But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point [the fall of Satan], but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming ‘gods,’ and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 124, emphasis added).

We see here that Justin specifies precisely what he means by “gods”: that human beings were created with the intention that they be “free from suffering and death.” In other words, to be “gods” in this context means to be immortal beings. That is all that one can fairly understand Justin to mean by this language here. Furthermore, according to Justin, we are not already God’s children (as the LDS Church teaches), but may become his sons. What Justin teaches here is incompatible with the LDS doctrine that we were God’s preexistent children in heaven and that we came here to make progress toward “growing up” to become full-fledged Gods like our Heavenly Father.

Tertullian’s statement that “we shall be even gods” also does not mean that humans will become the same kind of beings as God:

“Truth, however, maintains the unity of God in such a way as to insist that whatever belongs to God Himself belongs to Him alone. For so will it belong to Himself if it belong to Him alone; and therefore it will be impossible that another god should be admitted, when it is permitted to no other being to possess anything of God. Well, then, you say, we ourselves at that rate possess nothing of God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do— only it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we shall be even gods, if we shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, I have said, You are gods, and, God stands in the congregation of the gods. But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us, because it is He alone who can make gods” (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 5, emphasis added).

Tertullian here insists that certain properties belong to God alone, and that human beings will never possess those unique properties of deity. They will be “gods” only in the sense that God will declare those to be “gods” whom he graciously deems deserving of this honor, not by virtue of them attaining “any property” that qualifies them as deities. The point here must be understood very precisely. Tertullian is not merely saying that human beings can become gods only by God’s “grace.” The LDS Church could (and in some contexts does) use these same words. Tertullian, however, means by this statement that human beings are accorded a status of “gods” as a gracious honor and not, as Joseph Smith taught, that they are transformed (even if by “grace”) into beings possessing the same properties as God.

Every quotation that Peterson (and other Mormon scholars and apologists before him) quote from the church fathers is like the ones just considered from Justin and Tertullian. If one reads the statements in context, one discovers that they express a doctrine that in substance is obviously different from the doctrine of Joseph Smith.

4. The view of God, man, Christ, and salvation taught by the church fathers is radically opposed to Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation.

The difference between the patristic doctrine of deification and Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation can be fully appreciated only by placing these doctrines in their larger theological and worldview contexts. A full-blown treatise on this point is out of the question here; I will content myself with a brief summary and a few example statements from the church fathers.

The doctrine of God. In Joseph Smith’s teaching, all humans and all other spirit beings in our world are eternal beings that had no beginning and no creation. Thus, the idea that God is an eternal being is, for Mormonism, in no sense unique. Furthermore, God, though he has existed eternally, has not always been God, but instead became a God by a process of exaltation that we can also undergo. God, according to Joseph Smith (notably in the Book of Abraham), was also not the sole creator or maker of the world. Rather, a plurality of Gods got together and “organized” this world into its present form. God the Father is a physically embodied being, an exalted, immortal Man of flesh and bones, of the same species or kind of being as we are but in a perfected state.

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the writings of the church fathers knows their view of God was radically different. For them, God is the only being with no origin, no beginning; he is the only uncreated, unbegotten, unoriginated being. God is the sole creator and everything else, including all other intelligent beings, exist solely as the result of his creative will. God is by nature an incorporeal being who transcends space, and who has been God from all eternity, and who is eternally unchanging in his divine being.

So, according to Justin Martyr, “That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things—that, indeed, is God” (Dialogue with Trypho 3). Justin denies that God is a physical or embodied being. “And again, when He says, ‘I shall behold the heavens, the works of Thy fingers,’ unless I understand His method of using words, I shall not understand intelligently, but just as your teachers suppose, fancying that the Father of all, the unbegotten God, has hands and feet, and fingers, and a soul, like a composite being; and they for this reason teach that it was the Father Himself who appeared to Abraham and to Jacob” (Dialogue 114). Robert M. Grant comments on Justin’s theological reasoning here: “Justin absolutely rejects a literal interpretation of biblical metaphors: God does not have hands, feet, fingers, or soul, for he is not composite (Dial. 114, 3); he is not moved nor does he walk, sleep, or wake. Though he can be said to be ‘in the heavens’ or ‘above heaven’ or ‘above the universe,’ he is not really located in space at all (Dial. 127, 3)” (The Early Christian Doctrine of God [Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1966], 22).

Other church fathers also taught that God is the sole uncreated Creator of all else that exists. Here are a couple of examples:

“Our God did not begin to be in time: He alone is without beginning, and He Himself is the beginning of all things. God is a Spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things” (Tatian, Address to the Greeks, ch. 4).

“But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who has made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him have received a beginning” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.8.3).

Doctrine of Christ. According to Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ was one of God’s billions of spirit children, but the first to become a God alongside God the Father. When Christ became a physical man on earth, he was progressing toward a fuller or more complete realization of his divine potential because the Father himself is an exalted man of flesh and bones. Deity and humanity are simply two different phases of the same species or kind of being.

In the teaching of the church fathers, however, the Son was already fully God before he became a man, and he was God’s “Son” in an absolutely unique sense. To be “the Son” meant that he was of the same nature as God the Father—that he was deity by nature, just as the Father was. The Incarnation was God the Son’s gracious act of humbling himself for our salvation and the Father’s honor, not a stage of the Son’s own full deification. In becoming a man, Jesus Christ assumed human nature united perfectly and uniquely to his divine nature. Thus the incarnate Son is a paradoxical person, the union of infinite deity with finite humanity.

We see this doctrine expressed in startling clarity very early in the second century: “Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes” (Ignatius, To Polycarp 3.2 [short version]). According to Irenaeus, the Logos (John’s name for the preincarnate Christ in John 1:1, 14) “took up man into Himself, the invisible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffering” (Against Heresies 3.16.6).

If God the Son, the Logos, was eternal, invisible, impassible Deity, who then became incarnate as a man in order to be a visible, material human being and suffer in history for our salvation, then Christ is the only human being who was or ever will be Deity. He is not a man who became a God, but was rather God who became a man for our sakes. The patristic doctrine of Christ, understood in its full context, is absolutely incompatible with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation.

Doctrine of man. We have already touched on some of the obvious differences between Joseph Smith’s doctrine of man and that of the church fathers. For Joseph Smith, human beings have existed from eternity, with no beginning; they are uncreated beings. Moreover, they were gods in embryo existing in heaven before coming to the earth for the purpose of continuing their maturation toward becoming full-fledged Gods.

For the church fathers, human beings are creatures made by God and having a definite beginning to their existence. Most of the church fathers were very clear on the point that human existence begins with our physical lives, not as preexistent spirits (the third-century Origen was a notable exception, though even he believed those spirits were created beings). Human beings are not naturally disposed toward becoming gods, but God graciously adopts humans as his children and bestows on them immortality so that they may live as honorary “gods” with eternal life. A clear statement of the sharp divide between God and man is offered, for example, by Clement of Alexandria:

“But it has escaped their notice, though they be near us, that God has bestowed on us ten thousand things in which He does not share: birth, being Himself unborn; food, He wanting nothing; and growth, He being always equal; and long life and immortality, He being immortal and incapable of growing old” (Stromata 5.11).

Doctrine of salvation. In Joseph Smith’s teaching, we were already eternal beings before coming to the earth. We came as mortals here in order to become resurrected beings with physical immortality, which is what Joseph Smith taught that God the Father had done. To become “Gods,” in his doctrine, meant to become omnipotent beings, to become beings of the same nature as our God and with the capacity to do the same sorts of divine acts (e.g., creation) as our Heavenly Father.

For the church fathers, as we have already seen, we are physical, temporal beings by nature, created as such by God, though with the intended purpose that God would eventually make us immortal. Through our faith relationship and spiritual union with Christ, we who are redeemed will participate in God’s immortality, incorruption, and holiness, and in that sense will be “gods”; but we will not become Gods by nature, that is, omnipotent beings of the same nature as God that will be able to do the same sorts of divine acts that God alone does. Irenaeus explained:

“For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality” (Against Heresies 3.19.1).

When all is said and done, the church fathers’ doctrine of deification is more notable for its sharp contrasts with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation than for its superficial verbal similarities to some of the things that Joseph said. G. L. Prestige, in his classic textbook on the patristic doctrine of God, offers an exceptionally clear statement of the nature of their view of deification:

“All such expressions of the deification of man are, it must be remembered, purely relative. They express the fact that man has a nature essentially spiritual, and to that extent resembling the being of God; further, that he is able to attain a real union with God, by virtue of an affinity proceeding both from nature and from grace. Man, the Fathers might have said, is a supernatural animal. In some sense his destiny is to be absorbed into God. But they would all have repudiated with indignation any suggestion that the union of men to God added anything to the godhead. They explained the lower in terms of the higher, but did not obliterate the distinction between them. Not only is God self-dependent. He has also all those positive qualities which man does not possess, the attribution of which is made by adding the negative prefix to the common attributes of humanity. In addition, in so far as humanity possesses broken lights of God, they are as far as possible from reaching the measure and perfection with which they are associated in the godhead. Real power and freedom, fullness of light, ideal and archetypal spirit, are found in Him alone. The gulf is never bridged between Creator and creature. Though in Christ human nature has been raised to the throne of God, by virtue of His divine character, yet mankind in general can only aspire to the sort of divinity which lies open to its capacity through the union with the divine humanity. Eternal life is the life of God. Men may come to share its manifestations and activities, but only by grace, never of right. Man remains a created being: God alone is agenetos [without origin].”—G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1959), 74-75.

In conclusion, Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation was not in any meaningful sense a restoration of a lost doctrine of theosis. The doctrine of theosis was never lost, and the doctrine of deification taught by the church fathers was radically different from the doctrine Joseph Smith taught. Joseph taught that God was once a mortal man who became exalted to Godhood, and that we can do the same thing and become Gods of the same nature and powers as our God. The church fathers taught that God is the only uncreated, eternal Being, existing eternally and unchangeably as God, and that he created human beings to become “gods” in the sense that they may be adopted as his children and receive immortality as the gift of his grace.Similar Posts:

• Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part One: The Mormon Doctrine of Exaltation
• Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Three: The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s Doctrine of Exaltation
• Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Four: Esoteric Jewish Theology and Joseph Smith’s Doctrine of Exaltation
• Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Two: The New Testament and Joseph Smith’s Doctrine of Exaltation
• In What Sense Are Jesus and the Father One? Part III: One in Purpose? C: John 17:21-23

Ignore: v. the act of not responding to the calls of another when you know they are beckoning for your attention and you are able to respond.

The other day my three-year-old son Zach and I were talking about God and he said out of nowhere, “I don’t hear him.” ”Hear who?” I said. ”God. Why doesn’t he talk?” Now that is a good question. Just the type of question that you would expect from a child. It is reasonable enough.

I don’t know of anyone in this world that I have such a peculiar relationship with as the one I have with God. I talk to him, but I have never heard him respond. I don’t know what his voice sounds like. I can’t read his facial expressions. In no way have my five senses been alerted to his presence like they are with every other relationship I experience in life.

I doubt there is anyone, young or old, who has ever escaped the subject of “divine hiddenness.” Maybe you have not termed it as such, but you have often wondered why God does not reveal himself in a way that is more satisfactory to our longings for experiential intimacy with him. “With him” may not be the right way to put it. A better, more inclusive, way to say it for our purpose here would be that we long for experiential intimacy with “the other side”: God, Jesus, heaven, angels, demons, loved ones who have crossed the bridge of death, and the like. As someone has once said, “One out of every one people die.” These are pretty good odds. We know that one day we will die and experience that which awaits us beyond death. Yet this life is virtually void of definite signs from the “other side.” When we do get a sign, it is rather allusive. In a way, all we have to work from is what Phillip Yancey terms “rumors” of another world. There is quit a bit of mystery, even for Christians, as to what exactly ”the other side” will be like—what it will be like to see and hear God. This can scare us. In fact, it can scare us so badly that we avoid death at all costs and suspend our beliefs about God and the “other side” until after death.

Of course, as Christians, we do have faith that this “other world” is real and that heaven is an actual place where God awaits us. We also have faith that God, from this “other world,” has spoken to us through Scripture. Yet we long for an experiential intimacy that parallels the norms of our lives today. We want to hear the voice of God. We have questions for him. I have questions for him. We desire a sense experience that is often referred to as “empirical.” We want to see vivid signs of the other side that will solidify our faith and alleviate any residue of doubt that might does exist.

Is he ignoring us? Why is God so silent?

Wrong Answers:

Wrong answer #1: God is not silent. I hear his voice all the time. The better Christian you are, the more you should expect to see his face and hear his voice.

As Christians, God’s silence—God’s hiddenness—should not come as any surprise. In other words, no one, no matter how good a Christian should expect to hear or see God.

Yes, I might do things differently. Were I on God’s board of directors, I might give him some gentle encouragement to be a little more open to showing himself, especially to his own children. But the fact is that we should not expect to see God, hear God, or touch God in the way we so desire. If we did, the Christian worldview would be compromised as the Scripture tells us that our faith will not be verified though such empirical means.

Peter says, “And though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls” (1Pet. 1:8-9). You see, Peter here assumes that those in his day—even those so close to the life and death of Christ—have not seen Christ (or God or the Holy Spirit). Peter’s point would be moot if he did not mean to include all other forms of experiencing God empirically. The fact is that when Christ ascended into heaven, that was the last we have seen or heard from him in such a way. The door to the “other side” was shut.

If Peter’s statement was not enough, the Apostle Paul also says that the Christian life is a life following after the unseen: “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (2 Cor. 4:18). He goes on by telling us that we “live by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). Christ even told Thomas, who needed to see him before he believed, ”Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” The “those who have not seen” are us, and we are many. John could not be more clear here: “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen (1 John 4:20, emphasis mine). John does not say, “Whom he has probably not seen.” He works under the assumption that everyone reading his letter has not seen God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and (if I can be so bold) the “other side.”

Finally, the author of Hebrews defines faith as something hoped for which is not seen: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). The very definition of our faith is that we have conviction about truths that cannot be empirically verified. This does not mean that faith is irrational, as we will see. It just means that we should not expect to have it verified through our senses.

Wrong answer #2: God cannot be evidenced in any way. Faith is a blind leap into the dark.

When I say that we should not expect to see God with our eyes, please understand I did not say “That God was only active in biblical times.” Big difference. The point is that we do not and will not directly experience God through our eyes, ears, or hands until Christ returns. 

There are a lot of things I believe in that I can never see. For example, just about every event in human history prior to 1972 is beyond my ability to personally experience in any way. But this does not mean that there is not sufficient evidence for these events. I did not see the discovery of electricity, but there is sufficient reason (indeed, obligation) for me to believe that some time in history past electricity was discovered? Why? Because while I don’t experience its discovery, I do experience its effects. I have lived in Oklahoma all my life, but I did not experience the Oklahoma Land Run of 1889. But you know what? I believe it happened and am justified in doing so. Other things I believe in which I have never seen: wind, my heart, and cold fronts. But, like the others, I believe in these because I both see and experience their effects.

When it comes to our faith, while it is very doubtful that we will ever experience God or “the other side” first hand in this life, this does not make belief in such unwarranted. Creation itself screams for a creator. The very existence of Christianity calls for a resurrected Christ. The intelligence needed to write this argument (limited though it may be!) beacons for a greater intelligence to explain it.

I was driving down the road the other day with my kids. My daughter got upset because she left her No.2 pencil that she needed for her homework at home. She asked me to pray that God would intervene and make it so that she did not leave it. I accommodated with a short prayer. She looked again and, alas, still no pencil. I said to her afterward, “Katelynn, I don’t think God exists anymore. I mean, think about it. Isn’t he powerful enough to make a pencil you forgot appear? And isn’t he good enough to want to grant you this small request? Nope, there is no God.” “But dad,” she quickly responded, “If there was no God, then there would not even be a pencil to forget in the first place.” Good girl. She recognizes the indirect necessity of God’s reality even when we don’t see him directly.

While we don’t see God with our eyes, we do experience his reality in so many ways.

My Answer

So why doesn’t God allow us to hear him with our ears and see him with our eyes. Faith would be so much easier, wouldn’t it?

Allow me to take an all too familiar turn here for a moment.

Following my sister Angie’s first attempt at her life six years ago, she felt great shame. The shame itself seemed to be enough motivation for her to try again. “I tried to kill myself, Michael!” she said when I tried to encourage her. “Everyone is always going to think I am crazy. I am crazy!” “You are not crazy Angie,” I responded, not really knowing what to say. She quickly answered, “Yes, but you have never tried to kill yourself.” I was not sure what this meant, but it was obvious that her definition of “crazy” was based upon a comparison of herself to those who, in her mind, were sane. “You are right,” I said, “I have not ever tried to kill myself. But there are circumstances where I might.”

Under what circumstance might I try to kill myself? When would I consider suicide?

[Just hang with me. I think this is going somewhere.]

You must remember that, among other things, death is a crossing point to the “other side.” It is the point where “rumors” of another world fade into the reality of the other world. I was watching my all time favorite show Justice League with my son Zach the other day. It was an episode where Flash went so fast that he actually began to die and cross over to the “other side.” The molecules in his body were completely unstable and he was stuck between this world and the next. When prodded to come back, Flash had a hard time. He said, “But it is so beautiful over here.”

You see, the lines were blurred between this life and the next and Flash wanted to go to the next. He could not concentrate on this world any longer due to his exposure to the next. In other words, he wanted to die due to his empirical exposé to the “other side.” He needed to have an experiential breach between this life and the next in order to remain here and accomplish his mission (gettin’ them bad guys).

I don’t think this make believe story is too far from reality. You and I also need an experiential (empirical) breach from the “other side.” We need not to see Jesus. We need not to talk to Jesus. We need not to hear Jesus.

The disciples, understandably, did not want Jesus to die. When he spoke of his death, they were so bold as to desire to die with him. Thomas, of all people,—doubting Thomas—when he thought Jesus was going to die, said to the other disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with Him” (John 11:16). I love the simple faith this expresses. Peter was no different (Lk. 22:33). All who were with Jesus had experienced the “other side” in the person of Christ and they were not willing to let that go, even to death. In Acts 1:6, they still had hope that Christ had blurred the lines permanently: “Is it at this time you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” But they had to watch as Christ was taken into the sky, never to be seen again until his second coming (Acts 1:9-11). The point is that the disciples would have gladly gone on a suicide mission with Christ if it meant a continuation of their exposure to the “other side” in the person of Christ.

You and I would do the same. Were God to show himself in the ways we so often think he should,—were he to do things the way we would do them—we would never be able to accomplish our mission. We would continually be wanting to die in order to cross over. We would be like Flash, having empirical involvement in the world to come, but still having one foot in the previous world. However, unlike Flash (who had Superman and Wonder Woman pulling him back), we most definitely would cross over. Why wouldn’t we? The mysterious would be unmysterious. The lines between this life and the next would be so blurred that we would not hesitate to take that extra step of death, even by our own hand.

While I don’t claim to have all the answers as to why God does not allow us to experience him in such empirical ways, I suspect there is some truth to what I have said here. It is odd to say, but God’s silence may actually preserve his mission for us. The ability to be stable here in this life is actually facilitated by God’s (empirical) silence. I am not saying this is the only reason God is silent, but it does make sense.

Most importantly, while we should not expect to see God with our eyes nor hear him with our ears, God is not ignoring us. His presence is evident and he is not silent.Similar Posts:

• Why is God So Silent?
• Why is God So Silent in My Life?
• The Anatomy of Belief (8): First-Hand Conviction or “God Things”
• Learning to Live with Your Doubts
• Questions I Hope No One Will Ask: “Will God Protect My Children?”

All sin is so bad that even the smallest of sins deserves eternal punishment in hell. It does not matter if it is losing your temper at a lousy referee, not sharing your Icee, or speeding 36 in a 35, every sin deserves eternal torment in Hell. Why? Although it may seem unreasonable to us (as depraved as we are), it is fitting for a perfectly holy God who cannot be in the site of sin, no matter how insignificant this sin might seem to us. In fact, there is no sin that is insignificant to God. Because He is infinitely holy, beyond our understanding, all sin is infinitely offensive to Him. Therefore, the punishment for all sin must be infinite.

I have to be very careful here since I am going against what has become the popular evangelical way to present the Gospel, but I don’t believe this is true. Not only do I not buy it, I think this, like the idea that all sins are equal in the sight of God, is damaging to the character of God, the significance of the cross, and I believe it trivializes sin. Let me explain.

First off, I don’t know of a passage in the Bible that would suggest such a radical view. It would seem that people make this conclusion this way:

Premise 1: Hell is eternal
Premise 2: All people that go there are there for eternity
Premise 3: Not all people have committed the same number or the same degree of sins
Conclusion: All sin, no matter how small, will send someone to hell for all eternity

The fallacy here is that this syllogism is a non-sequitur (the conclusion does not follow from the premises). Could it be that people are in Hell for all eternity based upon who they are rather than what they have done?

Think about this. Evangelicals such as myself believe that Christ’s atonement was penal substitution. This means that it was a legal trade. God counted the sufferings of Christ and that which transpired on the Cross as payment for our sins, each and every one. Therefore, we believe that Christ took the punishment that we deserved. But there is a problem. We are saying that we deserve eternal Hell for one single sin, no matter how small. I don’t know about you, but I have committed enough sins to give me more than my share of life sentences. I have committed sins of the “insignificant” variety (I speed everyday) and significant variety (no description necessary!). So, if Christ were only to take my penalty and if I deserve thousands upon thousands of eternities in hell, why didn’t Christ spend at least one eternity in Hell? Why is it that he was off the Cross in six hours, payment made in full? Combine my sentence with your sentence. Then combine ours with the cumulative sentences of all believers of all time. Yet Christ only suffers for a short time? How do we explain this?

You may say to me that I cannot imagine the intensity of suffering that Christ endured while he was on the cross. You may say that the mysterious transaction that took place was worse than eternity in Hell. I would give you the first, but I will have to motivate you to reconsider the second. Think about it. Do you really believe that the person who has been in hell for 27 billion years with 27 billion more times infinity would not look to the sufferings of Christ and say, “You know what? Christ’s six hours of suffering was bad. It is indeed legendary. But I would trade what I am going through any day for six hours, no matter how horrifying it would be.” You see, what makes hell so bad is not simply the intensity of suffering, but the duration. Christ did not suffer eternally, so there must be something more to this substitution idea and there must be something more to sin.

I believe that Christ did pay our penalty. I believe that hell is eternal. But I don’t believe that one sin sends people to hell for eternity.

Sin is trivialized in our day. Sin is first something that we do, not something that we are. In other words, people think of God sitting on the throne becoming enraged (in a holy sort of way) each time that someone breaks the speed limit. It is only the cross of Christ that makes Him look past the eternally damning sin and forgive us. Don’t think that I am undermining the severity of sin, but I am trying to bring focus to the real problem that has infected humanity since Eden.

The real problem is that we are at enmity with God. From the moment we are born, we inherit the traits of our father Adam. This infectious disease is called sin. This disease issues forth into a disposition toward God that causes us to begin life with our fist in the air, not recognizing His love for us or authority over us. It is rebellion. While this rebellion does act according to its nature, the problem is in the disposition, not so much the acts. When we sin, we are just acting according to the dictates of our corrupt nature. But the worst of it—the worst sin of all—is that we will never lower our fist to God. We are “by nature, children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3; emphasis added) and as a leopard cannot change his spots, so we cannot change our rebellious disposition toward our Creator (Jer. 13:23). We need a new nature. We need a new head of the human race to identify with.

Our disposition outside of Christ is that of a fierce enemy that cannot do anything but fight against its foe. Paul describes this:

Romans 8:7-8
“For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (emphasis added)

We are of the “flesh,” therefore we commit deeds according to the flesh. Does this mean that the person in this state does no good at all? Well, it depends on what you mean by “good.” Can an enemy of God love his neighbor? Of course. Enemies of God can and do all sorts of acts that the Bible would consider virtuous. But from the standpoint of their relationship with God, they cannot do any good at all (Rom. 3:12). Giving a drink to someone who is thirsty with the left hand while having your right hand in a fist clinched toward heaven does not count as “good” before God. Why? Because we are in rebellion against Him. This is our problem. It is our nature.

This, I propose, is what keeps people in Hell for all eternity. Hell not is filled with people who are crying out for God’s mercy, constantly hoping for a second chance. People are in hell because they have the same disposition toward God that they had while they were walking the earth. They do not suddenly, upon entrance into Hell, change their nature and become sanctified. They still hate God. People are in hell for all eternity, not because they floated a stop sign, but because their fists are eternally clinched toward God. They are not calling on His mercy. They are not pleading for a second chance. They are in hell for all eternity because that is where they would rather be. It is their nature. As C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.”

Christ, on the other hand, was the second Adam. He did not identify with the first either in disposition or choice. He gained the right to be called the second Adam who would represent His people (Rom. 5:12ff). He is not spending eternity in Hell because he was never infected with the sinful nature which caused him to be at enmity with God. His fist was never clinched toward the heavens.

Will one white-lie send someone to Hell for all eternity? No! To say otherwise trivializes sin and makes God an overly sensitive cosmic torture monger. Sin does send people to Hell. People will be punished for their sins accordingly. But the sin that keeps people in Hell for all eternity is the sin of perpetual rebellion.Similar Posts:

• Do you really believe in hell?
• Would Christ have died had he not been killed? (2)
• "When We Get to Heaven, We Will Be Timeless" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• "In Heaven, We Will Be Bowing Down Before the Throne of God 24/7" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Five: Early Church Fathers and Joseph Smith’s Doctrine of Exaltation

Similar Posts:

• Credo Clip: What is Theology?
• Credo Clip: Can Christians Doubt?
• Credo Clip: Is the Bible Reliable?
• Credo Clip: What is the Gospel (Michael Patton)
• Credo Clip: What is a Commentary?

The latest book to top the lists (indeed the New York Times best seller list) is called Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy’s Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back, by Todd Burpo. It was published in 2010 by Thomas Nelson. It is just over 150 pages. I read it this afternoon.

Summary

Colton Burpo, the three-year-old son of Todd (the author) and Sonja Burpo, spent time in heaven and came back to talk about it. Colton’s experience was not the traditional NDE (near death experience) since he never actually died. The first half of the book is the story of the events leading up to Colton’s visit to heaven. His dad, Todd, a Wesleyan minister, gives the nail biting story (especially for those of us who have young kids) of dealing with his son’s stomach ache that was misdiagnosed as the flu. After many days of pain, trips to the doctor’s office, and multiple hospitals, they finally find out that Colton has a ruptured appendix that has been poisoning his body for days. At the edge of death, the doctors rush him into surgery while the parents are on their knees before God.

Colton survived. The medical reports give no indication that his heart ever stopped. While it was a very close call, the surgery was a success.

Over the next months, even years, Colton began, to the surprise of the parents, to explain what happened to him while in surgery. The rest of the book is filled with account after account of Colton telling his bewildered parents about his time with Christ in heaven. Things that Colton should not have known and had never been taught came to the surface as this three-year-old boy processed his faith as confirmed through his time with God.

Main Events

Let me give you a quick low-down on the parts of the story about heaven that stood out to me most.

• He sat in Jesus’ lap
• He met his sister who died in his mother’s womb (whom his parents had never told him about)
• He saw John the Baptist
• There is a coming battle with Satan (he is a futurist!)
• There are thousands of colors we have never seen
• He met his great granddad (who told him things about his father that his father had never told him)
• He saw Jesus’ “marks” on his hands and feet
• All the people had wings of various sizes (including Colton) and flew around (except Jesus who moved up and down as if on an escalator)
• Jesus had the most beautiful eyes, a beard, a white gown, a purple sash, and a crown
• All the people had a light above their head (halo?)
• Jesus sits on a throne at the right hand of God and Gabriel is on the left
• He sat by God the Holy Spirit (who he could not describe) and explained to his dad that God is a Trinity
• It never gets dark in heaven because God the Father and God the Son are the lights
• There were all kinds of animals everywhere
• Nobody is old in heaven and no one wears glasses
• Jesus “shoots” power down from heaven to his father while he is preaching (like I hope he is doing for me while I am blogging!)
• The gates to heaven were made of gold and pearls
• He was actually only there for three minutes (timelessness in heaven?)

Evaluation

I have often said that left unchecked, experience is the most powerful and compelling source for theology. You can argue with logic, facts, evidence, and the like, but it is almost impossible to argue against subjective experience. However, if our experience comes in direct contradiction with correctly interpreted Scripture, Scripture should always win. That is what we mean by sola Scriptura. The Scriptures are our final and only infallible source of authority. It is the “norm that norm which is not normed.” However, this does not discount experience. Neither does it say that God does not use experience to confirm his truth to his people. We need to tread very carefully with these types of things, opting neither for outright acceptance or complete dismissal.

The Father of Colton and Writer of the Book, Todd Burpo

 This was not my experience nor the experience of my son. I am sure that if I had the experience myself or if it was my son’s, I would have a much harder time dismissing many of these things (which is not my purpose). However, one thing that stood out to me immediately was the composure of the boy’s father, Todd. As I said before, he is a Wesleyan minister. I was immediately impressed by his theological astute evaluation of many things. Not all, but many. For example, he struggled with the idea that his son said that this all happened in three minutes. He toys with the thought that heaven may be timeless, but he also seems to understand the implication of God alone existing in a timeless eternity.

As well, most of the events were well reflected upon and compared to the Scriptures. For example, as bizarre as it sounds to say that people’s heads shine (as in having a halo), he does reference many times where people “shine” with a heavenly glow in the Bible.

His more than expected critical evaluation and reflection on what his son described endeared me to the testimony of his son. I don’t know how to take much of what his son said about heaven, but I really appreciate that his father, many times, does not seem to know how to take it as well. That is a mark of authenticity.

Colton

I suppose that this is what intrigued me most about this book and the testimony. I have read other books where people claim to have seen heaven and their description is easily written off due to its reflection of common cultural folklore. However, his son was not even four-years-old.

Right now, my son Zach is about the same age as Colton was when these events took place. I cannot imagine him saying the things that Colton said, even after countless hours of trying to teach him about our faith. It is hard enough to get Zach to refrain from saying Chuck-e-Cheese, not God, made him! Those of you who have three-year-old children can relate, I am sure.

This seems to be the position of both the father and the mother. The question that comes up repeatedly is “How does he know this?” How did he know who John the Baptist was? How did he know about his sister who died? How could he talk about “Pop,” his great-granddad, and identify him in a photo? How did he know about the Trinity?

These are all questions that leave me scratching my head.

Jesus

I found it rather humorous and fascinating when the parents, upon discovery that Colton saw Jesus, were obsessed (my word, not theirs) with finding out what Jesus looked like. For years they pointed to modern pictures of Jesus saying, “How about this one?” only to be shot down by Colton’s critique. After a couple of years, they came across a young girl named Akiane who also claimed to have a vision of Christ and heaven. She was an artist and painted a picture of Jesus. Upon showing this to Colton, he said, “That is it! That is Jesus.” So, this is what Jesus really looks like according to Colton and Akiane Kramarik:

What do you think?

The Events

Putting my theological cap on for a moment, let me say a few words.

While there is nothing that is described by Colton that is impossible or that outright contradicts Scripture, there are many things that don’t square with what I suppose to be true about heaven.

First, we must distinguish between the “intermediate state of existence” and the New Earth (both of which we often call “heaven”). The intermediate state of existence is the place people go between death and the resurrection. Christians go to a place called “Paradise”(Luke23:43). It is not entirely improper to call it “heaven”; we don’t want to confuse this place with the New Earth that will be our eternal abode and only appears after judgment. There is not much that the Bible tells us about the intermediate state. We know that we will be with Christ (2 Cor. 5:6; Luke 23:43) and it will be better than being on earth (2 Cor. 5:8). The New Earth does not appear until Revelation 20:1-3. The intermediate state is where Colton would have gone, not the New Earth. However, like with so many of these “I saw heaven” experiences, people describe what seems to be the New Earth which, for lack of a better way to put it, has not been built yet. The streets of gold, gates made out of pearls, and the like, which Colton describes, are attributes, literal or not, of a place that is not yet in existence.

As well, the description of people with wings is very odd. While I am not denying that people could have wings in the intermediate state, this is no where hinted at in Scripture. This, along with people not looking old, while not necessarily problematic, does raise some theological eyebrows. After all, were not Samuel, Elijah and Moses all recognizable (1 Sam. 28:15; Matt. 17:1-9). Did not the witch of Endor recognize Samuel? And upon being asked what he looked like, didn’t she say, “An old man wearing a robe is coming up” (1 Sam. 28:14, emphasis mine).

There were just many things like this that fit better with common folk theology than with biblical testimony. But who am I to say that some folk theology could not be true?

Are They Lying?

This question always has to be asked, doesn’t it? After all, these types of things can get a person rich really quick. I don’t think that either the father or the son is lying. This does not mean that what is being said accurately reflects what we can expect the intermediate state to be like, nor does it dismiss all alternative explanations. It just means that I believe there is no compelling reason for me to say that this story is a fabrication.

Near-Death-Experiences and the Christian Faith

You must understand, there are tens of thousands of “I saw heaven” claims out there. The most famous of which is Emanuel Swedenborg’s (1688-1772), father of the cult Swedenborgianism or The New Church. He claimed to have been given permission to freely visit heaven and hell for 28 years. His testimony is filled with unorthodox beliefs, not the least of which was a denial of the Trinity. 

Today, studies of near-death experiences are on the rise and becoming more accepted. The International Association of Near-Death Studies (IANDS) has gathered over 900 accounts with 280 of these just coming last year! These are very nice when they parallel with what you already believe. The problem is that these experiences are not only being testified to by Christians, but Muslims, atheists, Hindus, and those of every faith. Each account has its own unique testimony that fits well within their religious idealism. Muslim’s see virgins. Mormon are comforted by Joseph Smith. Catholics are aided by Mary. Even atheists are found being drawn by a bright light down a long tunnel.

I don’t dismiss these types of things outright. I think they are fascinating. But neither do I hold on to them too tightly. Though I will continue to read about and reflect on people’s ”I saw heaven” testimonies, I will never hang my hat on them. Neither should you.

In the book, it is told that a baby sitter heard Colton’s testimony. She was a Christian who was wavering in her faith, riddled with doubt. As the story goes, her faith was confirmed by Colton’s experience. This is the type of stuff that scares me. When our faith is built on this type of tabloid theology, true or not, we can expect to have a tabloid faith. We do not need stories about people who have come back from the great beyond to confirm our faith and we certainly don’t need these as the foundation of our faith. So, from an apologetics standpoint (defending the faith), please don’t hand this type of book out to your unbelieving friends.

Conclusion

Heaven is for Real is a very well written page turner. I look to the Burpo family and sigh in relief that Colton was delivered from death. As a father of four, that testimony itself was encouraging and worth the price of the book. I would also like to thank Todd for being open and honest about his battle with God in the emergency room. That is as real as it gets. 

I recommend this book for its ability to cause you to think, wonder, and process. While I don’t think it has much, if any, apologetic value, the truth is that we do believe in an afterlife. Perhaps Colton did catch a glimpse of heaven just as Paul did.

2 Cor. 12:2-5
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. 3 And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. 5 On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses.Similar Posts:

• A Near Death Experience? A Theological Evaluation of Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven”
• Questions I Hope No One Will Ask: What Will We Be Doing in Heaven?
• "When We Get to Heaven, We Will Be Timeless" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• "In Heaven, We Will Be Bowing Down Before the Throne of God 24/7" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• Book Review: Evidence for God

Thus far in human history, outside of Jesus Christ (and possibly Elijah and Enoch), one out of every one people die. We are all painfully aware of this fact and assume that one day it will happen to us as well. For many, this creates great anxiety. For others, it is a fact filled with wonder and excitement. Still, for some, there is false hope and expectations that will not be recognized. Books about what happens after we die always do well. In fact, if you want a guaranteed place on the New York Times best seller list, simply die, come back to life and tell about your adventure. These are called near death experiences (NDEs). People will line up for miles to ask “What was it like?” “Who did you see?” “Where did you go?” One of the great cult movies when I was a teenager was Flatliners with Keefer Sutherland and Julia Roberts. In it, a group of young med students conspired to kill themselves with the hopes that the others would bring them back to life after a short stint in the afterlife. When they came back, they told others about their experiences in the great beyond.

A Brevity of Christian “Personal Eschatology”

Christians believe in the afterlife. While it is true that one out of every one people die, according to the Christian worldview, one out of every one people will continue their conscience existence even after their bodies lose life. In short, we believe that if Christ does not come first, we will all die and experience a time of existence without a body. For believers in Christ, this time will be spent in a place currently called “heaven” or “Paradise”. Unblievers will be some place awaiting judgement. We call this time between death and the resurrection of our bodies the “intermediate state of existence.” 

Intermediate State of Existence

The intermediate state of existence is probably the most mysterious of all issues of what we might call “personal eschatology.”

What we know about the intermediate state of existence for Christians:

• We will be with Christ (2 Cor. 5:6; Luke 23:43).
• It will be better than being on earth (2 Cor. 5:8).

What we don’t know:

• What we will be doing.
• If we will have an “interim” body, though it does seem we will find extension in space and be “recognizable” (1 Sam. 28:15; Matt. 17:1-9).
• Where it is (it is not really up or down geographically; it could be some sort of scifi parallel plane of existence).

What I am pretty sure of is that most modern accounts of near-death-experiences (NDEs) don’t give a biblical picture of what the intermediate state is like (but that is a different story).

The New Earth

This intermediate state will be cut short when we are rejoined with our physical bodies at the resurrection of the dead (John 5:29; 1 Cor. 15:13-22; 1 Cor. 15:51-53; 1 Thes. 4:17). Some believe that this will immediately be followed by a thousand years where Christ reigns on the present Earth, then a second resurrection (Rev. 20:12-15), then judgment, then the (re)creation of a new universe (including the earth). Some Christians believe the same minus the thousand year thingy.

No matter what your position regarding the particulars, all roads of orthodox Christian “eschatology” (the doctrine of the last things) converge on a new or recreated earth where the presence of God is evident and real unlike any time since Adam roamed Eden.

Rev. 20:1-3
“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them.”

It is in this new earth that we will spend eternity. Yes, that is right—eternity. Christians believe that all humanity shares in an immortal spiritual existence. While we are not eternal as God is eternal (i.e. timeless), we are everlasting (i.e. once created we will never cease to experience conscience existence). Of all the things that are difficult—indeed, mind bending—to comprehend, I think everlasting existence on the new earth has to rank pretty high. It is not simply a really, really long time. It is time without end. As the old hymn goes, “When we’ve been there ten-thousand years bright shining as the sun, we’ve no less day to sing God’s praise than when we first begun.” While there is no such thing as an infinite going into the time-bound past, there can be an infinite going into the time-bound future. And that is what we have in store for us. An infinite future. Forever and ever.

This begs the question of the hour: “What will we be doing for all eternity?” Won’t we run out of things to do? Won’t we get bored?

Wrong Answers

When we die we become angels

This is a common misconception of religious folklore. People do not become angels. Angels do not become people. They are separate creations with their own attributes, characteristics, and purposes.

We will eventually be annihilated

Though it would seem that this goes without saying, it is important for us to know that believers will never one day come to a stop sign that says, “End of the road,” “Game over” or “Thanks for playing.” There will not be a going out of existence party for anyone. As mentally bizarre as it is to think about, the Bible makes it clear that we will shine for all eternity (Dan. 12:2; Luke 16:9; Rom. 6:22).

We will be flying around doing whatever we can dream

There is a very common misconception about heaven that I find even among the most faithful and theologically astute of all Christians. It is this idea that we will be able to do anything we want on the new earth. While I cannot be definite about the physics of creation or the physiology of the human body, I am pretty sure that things will remain very much the same as they are now. We will need to breath oxygen, we will need vitamins, we will eat, and gravity will hold us down to the earth. I cannot turn to a particular biblical passage which speaks directly to this issue, but I can assume some things from a proper biblical theology of creation and redemption.

When God created everything, he proclaimed that it was “very good” (Gen. 1:31). Quickly after this, the fall occurred. God had a plan, which we will call “Plan A.” Plan A got sidetracked before it even had time to get moving. Included in Plan A was a certain physiology of humanity and physics of the universe. It was all very good. When man rebelled, God did not say to the other members of the Trinity, “Well, it was a good idea, but now that is out the window. Let’s go to Plan B.” There is no Plan B. God, after the fall, immediately began to restore and redeem Plan A. That is why we call it “redemption”. That is why Peter said that Christ must be in heaven until the “restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21). Redeeming Plan A is the reason why all of creation groans and longs for Christ to come (Rom. 8:22). Plan A included “rules” of life including eating, drinking, walking from place to place (not instantaneous travel like on Star Trek or walking through walls!), breathing, technological advancement, and gravity (not flying). There is no reason to think that redeemed Plan A will be modified that much. I do believe there will be some differences, but not as many as we often suppose.

We will live in a relational state of esoteric equilibrium where all relationships are the same

I have to admit . . . this scared me when I was a kid. One of my teachers at the Christian school I went to fed me some information that made me no longer interested in “attending heaven.” I asked her if my mother was still going to be my mother in heaven (a reasonable and important question for any ten-year-old boy who loves his mom). She said, “No. It is going to be so great that you will love everyone the same. You will not love or care about one person more than another.” But I did not want to love everyone the same! That is not great. I love relationships. I love special relationships. The greatest thing about the relationship with my mother was that it was not the same.

Since this time I have come to realize that this ideal of equilibrium, where people lose all distinction, personality, and particulars that make this life great (like love for a mom) is not only unbiblical, but fits more in with a pantheistic worldview where all is god and upon death we are diluted into this Great Energy.

In truth, the greatest things about earth as it is now will only be transfered, purified, and intensified on the new earth. We will still have and develop special relationships. Our children will still be our children in some very real way. Our mom’s will still be our moms. While I don’t think we are going to be married in the sense that we are now (Matt. 22:30), we will not lose the dynamics and special relationship that we share right now with our spouse. While sex may not be present, I believe there will be a form of sexual relationship that is parallel to that which we experience now. Restored Plan A will be more familiar than you realize.

We will be bowing down before the throne of God for all eternity and we will enjoy it

When I was a kid and asked what we were going to be doing in heaven for all eternity, I was told that we were going to be bowing down before the throne of God forever and ever, nonstop. Talk about a downer. What gives? From one person I was told that I would be able to fly like a superhero and the next tells me that I won’t have time because I will be eating heavenly dust 24/7. Between you and I, I have to tell you something: there is nothing in this world that I have ever heard that made me consider the possibility of life in hell as better than heaven than the idea that we will be forever on our knees bowing before God’s throne. I know, I know . . . Anathema! Perish the thought! But if you were honest with yourself, you would say the same thing.

In truth, there are two reasons why this makes the list of wrong ideas about heaven and neither of them are “Because I don’t want to.” First, this very idea comes from a gnostic worldview that somehow the only way to worship and please God is through physically evident acts of worship. In reality, while I am sure that we will all fall on our face before the Lord many, many times, worship comes through every area of our life. Worship comes through the enjoyment and obedience to God’s gift of stewardship of our bodies, other people, the earth, and our labor. Yes, I do believe that we will be worshiping God in everything we do on the new earth, but that does not translate to being on our knees 24/7. Second, there is nowhere in the Bible that says we will literally be on our knees 24/7. There are some angels described in Revelation 4:8 whose job description fits such, but not ours.

Right Answer

When we talk about “heaven” we are really talking about “the new earth.” I think it is important for us to use such terminology to avoid the many misconceptions there are out there about heaven. “Heaven,” strictly speaking, is the place that God resides. When God creates the new earth, heaven will literally be on earth as God makes his habitation there (Rev. 21:3).

On the new earth, we will be, in a very real sense, picking up where we left off in Eden. Sin will be no more and God’s original intent will be realized. The good intentions and plan of the creation will find their glory and perfection there. We will have jobs and responsibilities (Luke 19:11-27). We will have bodies much like we have now, just without sickness, death, and sin (1 Cor 15). We will be eating and drinking (Matt. 8:11-12; Matt. 26:29; Rev. 22:2). I imagine that we may even sit at coffee shops (Credo Houses!?) and hang out with friends. There will be challenges and times of growth. I believe that there will be technology and advancements in technology (after all, is technology a result of sin? Don’t answer that!). We will learn, know, and be known. And we will have and develop relationships, some more special than others. In short, while I cannot tell you what we will be doing as definitely as I would like, I can tell you that we will be serving an infinite God who has infinite creativity and power. We will never get bored. In fact, I think we will one day talk about our fears of boredom and laugh out loud (through a text message it will be “lol”).

Rev. 21:1-4
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”Similar Posts:

• "In Heaven, We Will Be Bowing Down Before the Throne of God 24/7" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• A Near Death Experience? A Theological Evaluation of Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven”
• Book Review: Heaven is for Real
• Questions I Hope No One Will Ask: Why Did God Put Satan in Eden?
• Why is Hell Eternal?

Having said this, his recent blog post about Protestant Purgatory makes me wonder what is going on.

Don’t take the title of this post seriously. It comes from Roger himself when he says, “Once again, as I write, I am aware that some critics out there may rip what I say out of context (because they have in the past) and publicly accuse me of adopting a Roman Catholic doctrine.  I can see the (admittedly small) headline in some state Baptist newspaper now: “Baptist seminary professor Roger Olson headed toward Rome!” Well, this is not a Baptist newspaper, but it’ll do.

While I am a fan of Roger Olson, I am a contemplative critic of his thesis here. I don’t really know where it has come from. The very idea of Purgatory goes against everything that the Reformation was about. Let me back up. In essence, this is what I am hearing Olson say: “There are some Christians who have done some really, really bad things and had some really, really bad attitudes. Therefore, I am considering that these Christians have to enter into an educational corrective half-way house before entering Heaven. Let’s call this a ‘Protestant Purgatory’.”

For those of you not familiar with Purgatory, this is a doctrine held by Roman Catholics but rejected by Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. It is taken from the Lat. “purgare” meaning to purify. Officially and without internal debate, it can be said that Purgatory is a place that those who die in the grace of God (i.e. in a justified state) go to in order to be purified from the venial sins. “Venial” sins, as opposed to “mortal” sins, are sins that do not remove the justifying grace of God. They are the “small” sins, the white lies, calling in sicks when we were not sick, the candy thefts, and the “holy *%$# Batman’s” of our life. They are all those things that we forgot to do penance for (or simply did not have time!).

There is internal debate among Catholics concerning the nature and duration of Purgatory. Traditionally, it was a place of fire that could last millions of years. However, contemporary Catholicism has lightened the load quite a bit. Some current (and more palatable) descriptions I have heard include “a washing up before dinner” and ”a timeless, instantaneous, and virtually painless purging of our wicked nature.” Either way, the idea is that there will be a time of suffering that all non-sainthooded Christians go through before entering Paradise. Very few escape its purging. But take heart, if you make it there, you are guaranteed to make it to Heaven eventually!

Biblically, Purgatory is very difficult to defend without reading the Tradition of the Roman Catholic church into certain passages. Theologically, the idea is that we must be completely clean before we get into God’s presence. No dirt under the fingernails. If we die and are “covered” legally by the blood of Christ, we need to have our fallen nature purged actually.

Protestants, including myself, believe that this amounts to a price-cut on the power and efficiency of the Cross. It is sort of a crucifix deflation. We believe that Christ paid for all sins and that there is simply no condemnation for those who have placed their faith in him (Rom. 8:1). Believers have been justified through the alien righteousness of Christ which was “imputed” or credited to our account. There is simply no way for us to atone for our own sin, not matter how big or small. Therefore, when God sees us, he sees Christ. Its that simple. No further cleansing needed.

Olson most certainly believes in the imputation of Christ righteousness and justification by faith. However, he seems to have fallen into this category that we all often trip into. Its a category that makes us pick up a bit of the load. Its a category that wants others to carry some of the load. Its a category that says “Grace is too radical.” Its the “other brother” in all of us that says “Father, this is not fair. He has just done too much wrong not to get punished at tincy bit.”

Using Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Augustine as examples, Olson puts on display their dark side. No, not their dark side before accepting Christ, but their dark side post-Christian. In essence, this is what it comes down to:

Luther: Advocated the total annihilation of the Jews.

Augustine: Advocated the total annihilation of heretics.

Zwingli: Arrested and tortured Hubmaier until he recanted of his heresy.

Calvin: (you knew it was coming) Advocated the burning of the anti-Trinitarian Servetus.

Olson does not like these historic Christian titans acting in such a way. Without getting into the details involved here or the cultural toleration and advocacy of such, let’s just say that none of us do. Its Olson’s “solution” that that makes me scratch my head. While not assigning them to the fires of Purgatory, he does not want them to get a “free” pass. He thinks that some intellectual atonement needs to be made before they are granted access to paradise. In his words:

“[W]ith regard to Augustine, Luther, Zwingli and Calvin (among others) I’m faced with a dilemma.  Are they in paradise now?  Are they enjoying the bliss of being in the presence of Jesus?  I am not their judge, but I would like to think so.  But that presses me back to considering some concept like purgatory.  Lull’s little dialogue book gave me the possible answer.  (Remember–I’m talking about a hypothesis and not a new doctrine.) 

What’s wrong with a Protestant believing that upon entering paradise a hate-filled Christian leader of the past who condoned torture and even murder (I don’t know what else to call the burning of Servetus even though it was technically legal–we still call “legal” stonings of women in certain countries “murder”) has to take a spiritually therapeutic “class” of correction?

I can imagine (only imagine, you realize!) Zwingli entering the pearly gates (imagery–because there’s no reason to believe paradise has gates!) and being greeted by Hubmaier who says ‘Ulrich, it’s nice to see you here.  I’ve completely forgiven you.  But Christ has assigned me as your tutor and guide during your orientation to paradise.  Here, sit down, let me offer you some correction about treatment of people with whom you disagree.’”

What is wrong with hate-filled Christians going through corrective therapy as a consequence for their sinful thinking? Really? Are we being serious here? If Olson had simply said that we will all be learning in heaven, if Olson had said that all our thinking be instantaneously sanctified upon entering Paradise, maybe if this was not in the context of Purgatory, I might have been able to follow him a bit more. But to suggest that certain people are just too bad to get a true free pass evidences how difficult it is, even for someone as astute as Olson, to comprehend how radical God’s grace is and how sinful we all are. To single out these fellas is problematic as it seems, like the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, to place a breaking point on the grace of God. 

I can’t help but think of the brother of the prodigal son who simply could not accept the free acceptance of his brother. I am sure the brother would not have complained had his father made the rebellious son go through some corrective training on family etiquette and loyalty. But the Father did not. There was no punitive correction of any kind. Grace is that crazy.

Are they in Paradise now? Are the enjoying the bliss of Jesus? I am not sure if Olson is truly teetering here between “maybe” and “maybe not”, but, by the grace of God, Christ purchased them and covered all their pride, murders, and ill-will toward others with his blood. A corrective course for those few who were really bad Christians is not the icing on the cake to the cross, even if they were taught by Jesus. There is simply no condemnation for those who are in Christ.Similar Posts:

• Grace and Humility Together: An Illustration
• For those of you interested in the issues of Calvinism and Arminianism
• Paul and Justification by Faith
• Lordship Salvation, Free Grace, and Easy-Believism
• Do People Who Commit Suicide Go to Hell?

If you are not familiar with this issue, let me attempt to help. There are two theological camps out there called “dispenationalists” and “covanentalists.” While there are many prophetic implications (how you view the end times, millennium, rapture, anti-Christ, etc), the primary issue has to do with how you see the nation of Israel in relation to the church. Are they distinct or one? Is their a future for the nation of Israel? Is there a distinct future for the nation of Israel? Has the Abrahamic covenant been fulfilled, forfeited, or transferred? If fulfilled, is the fulfillment literal or spiritual?

There. Clear as mud?

Let me try again.

Dispensationalist believe that there is still a future for the nation of Israel (the literal descendants of Abraham) due to their understanding that the Abrahamic covenant has yet to be completely fulfilled.

Covanentalists believe that the church has assumed the Abrahamic covenant and is the “spiritual” Israel. In Christ, there is no distinction between true (faithful) Israel and the church.

Though I graduated from the Mecca of Dispenationalism, I am honest enough to admit that both sides have good arguments and good people representing these arguments. Everyone should be able to have a great deal of understanding and empathy as to why each side believes the way they do. If they don’t, then I suspect they have not really studied the issue. 

Confusing this even more is all the variations that construct an ever growing spectrum of belief between the two. Dispensationalists come in many varieties (with “Progressive Dispensationalism” holding the scholarly consensus among Dispensationalists these days). So does Covanentalism. As well, there is more to each than a simple side by side comparison. Sometimes they are not alternative parallel rival views about a particular issue, but would be better understood as comparing apples and oranges.

Theologically speaking, it is important for us to understand that this issue should be seen as a secondary issue. In other words, this should certainly not cause anyone to break fellowship. It is a non-cardinal issue that does not have any bearing whatsoever on one’s orthodoxy (much less one’s salvation).

However, being non-essential does not mean that it is non-important. I think it is important for us to wrestle with these things and take them seriously, even if we are unwilling to elevate them in an imbalanced manner.

My purpose with here is to briefly present my position which could be thought of as a mediating position between two extremes. I introduced this in 2002 during the filming of The Theology Program. It is called “Progressive Covanentalism” and represents my tentative flag in the ground concerning the Israel-Church-future thing.

Progressive Covenantalism: God made one covenant of redemption to man that has been progressively fulfilled and understood throughout the ages by way of “installments.” The first “installment” was made to Adam and Even in Eden when God vaguely promised to fix what they broke (protoevangelion; Gen. 3:15). This was a covenant of redemption made by God to man. It was the first promise concerning redemption. All successive covenants are further installments to this covenant, representing extensions of the first, making it progressively more clear how this was going to play out.

Sense this does take from the best of dispensationalism, it is only fitting that I have a chart:

Each covenant extends God’s purpose and blessing from the beginning. While there are “dispensations” (ways of relating to God) that form the historical backdrop to this progress, the one covenant of redemption is the central focus, not the dispensations.

The Edenic Covenant of redemption was extended first in the Abrahamic Covenant in that God’s promises to Abraham provided an avenue through which the covenant of redemption would be accomplished. God promised that Abraham (and by extension his physical descendants) would be a blessing to the nations (Gen. 12:1-3).

The Mosaic Covenant was an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant. The nation of Israel (Abraham’s decedents) were to be a “kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:6), representing God to the nations. While this Covenant could only be fulfilled in Christ it served multiple purposes in the broader scheme and served as a tutor for God’s people (Gal. 3:24). Christ became the ultimate priest to the nations (Heb. 6:20).

The Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:8-16) progressed even further giving details about the royal line of redemption and restoration. The eternal peace that is promised is a redemption from the toil of the curse (2 Sam. 7:11).

The New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) represents an internalization of the previous for a “matured” or “tutored” people. In the Church, the New Covenant begins to find its fulfillment through the new creation in Christ. This “new creation” is a correction of the fall and therefore a final stage in the fulfillment of the first covenant.

 The New Covenant was not simply for Israel, but for Israel as it extended its purpose of representing the people of God into the nations. The church itself is a progressive extension of the covenant made to Israel. Therefore, as far as the covenant goes, the Church is the umbrella of God’s protection and restoration that he used Israel to create. Redemned Israel rests under it along with all the nations of the earth.

The Kingdom Age (or millennium) is a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. But, remember, the Abrahamic Covenant is an extension of the Edenic Covenant. Therefore, the millennium is not simply for the nation of Israel, but for all those who are under the umbrella. The Church has assumed the promises of Abraham (Gal. 3:29), but this does not mean that the physical descendants of Abraham are not assumed into the church and destined to become partakers of this kingdom in and with the church. Therefore, there is not a distinct future for the physical descendants of Abraham, but there are promises yet to be fulfilled that require the physical blood of Abraham (the natural branches) to be assumed back into the tree or (as I have put it) the umbrella  (Rom. 11:17-26).

In the end, there is only one people of God, one New Covenant, and one heaven. The millennial fulfillment is not simply for Israel, but to all people whom have taken part in the extension of God’s covenant of redemption. There is no eternal distinction between the church and Israel. However, the natural branches must to be grafted back into the olive tree. If this is the case, they are distinct only to the degree that they have yet to be assumed into the church. There is a definite future for the nation of Israel. God will bring Israel into the church which they birthed. The church has not replaced Israel as a nation. They remain united and distinct.

I remain a dispensationalist simply because I continue to see that God is not done with the nation of Israel. However, the dispensations themselves are very secondary. All traditions, technically speaking, believe in dispensations. This is not the issue. Therefore, I drop the term. The covenant of redemption is the issue. It has been progressively revealed throughout Scripture starting in Eden. Therefore, I am a “Progressive Covanentalist.”Similar Posts:

• My View of Dispensationalism: Progressive Covenantalism
• What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Word “Dispensationalism”? (Part 2)
• What Comes to Mind When You Hear the Word “Dispensationalism”? (Part 1)
• Would Christ have died had he not been killed? (2)
• The Forgotten Gospel of the End Times

Premise: We often make heaven such an esoteric place that no one really wants to go there.

Since I was young, I was excited about getting to heaven. We all were. I remember when my mother told my older sister, Kristie (yes, my wife’s name is also Kristie), about heaven. She told her that Christ was going to come someday to take us there. Upon hearing this, Kristie quickly ran out of the room. When my mother called to her and asked her way she was leaving so abruptly, she said, “I am going to get my shoes so I can be ready to go.”

But I also remember having my hopes dashed by something that produced a great amount of guilt. During a Sunday School session, while we were discussing heaven, the question on the table was if heaven was forever, what were we going to be doing all that time. Wouldn’t we be bored? The teacher responded in a way that is representative of many people’s understanding of heaven: “When we get to heaven, we will be bowing down before the thrown of God twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.”

Talk about taking the wind out of the Superman sails of a little boy such as myself! I had big plans for heaven (which included flying 3-5 hours a day). It was hard enough for me to bow down before the throne of God for five minutes a day, much less for all eternity 24/7. Simply and unspiritually put, that does not sound like too much fun. The answer was always the same when I would timidly admit my fear of ultimate and eternal boredom: “When you are in heaven, sinless and in perfect submission to God’s will, you will be perfectly and joyfully content bowing before the throne of God all day, everyday.”

I would think to myself (although I would never admit it), I am not sure that I want to go there. I mean, I love God and certainly don’t mind bowing before him, but 24/7? If this is something that I will enjoy, it probably is not really me in the resurrection. For years I lived with the unspoken shame that I did not really want to go to heaven.

It was not until many years later that this burden of guilt and fear was taken off my shoulders. It was not until then that I found out that “When we get to heaven, we will be bowing down before the throne of God 24/7″ was a stupid statement.

Where it comes from:

As best I can tell and remember, the primary reason why many people believe this is from the book of Revelation:

“And the four living creatures, each one of them having six wings, are full of eyes around and within; and day and night they do not cease to say, “HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is THE LORD GOD, THE ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS AND WHO IS AND WHO IS TO COME.” And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever, the twenty-four elders will fall down before Him who sits on the throne, and will worship Him who lives forever and ever, and will cast their crowns before the throne, saying, “Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.” (Rev 4:8-11)

The idea is that, just as the four living creatures worship God in this way day and night without ceasing, so will the twenty-four elders. These twenty-four elders are representatives of Israel and the church, and, thus, all the inhabitants of heaven, including us, will be bowing down before the throne of God 24/7.

But I don’t believe the Bible presents such a view of heaven. In fact, I think Evangelical “heavenology” is in as much a need of a major overhaul as just about any other doctrine. In fact, even my previous hopes about heaven don’t pass biblical muster. I believe with a more systematic and biblical view of heaven things change quite a bit.

Other misunderstandings I have since come to realize were wrong about heaven:

• The eternal heaven is separate from the Earth
• In heaven we will be able to fly (or do anything we want)
• In heaven we will know everything
• In heaven, you will not love anyone more than another
• In heaven there will be no challenges, advancements, or failure

Where it goes away:

I often tell people today that one of the biggest surprises that Evangelicals will have when they get to heaven is not how different it is, but how similar it is.

A few points:

Not “Plan B.” This is the most important thing for us to realize. Our love affair with Gnosticism (i.e. spirit=good, material=bad), finds its way into our view of the afterlife. Unless we greatly qualify what we mean, I think that it is more proper for Christians to speak of the “New Earth”—a physical earth—rather than heaven. God is not on “plan B.” In other words, God did not create all that there is, have a plan, implement it, only to say “Shucks, that did not work. On to ‘plan B’” when Adam sinned. God’s activity through Christ is about redemption, not calling a Code Red. God is restoring all things, not re-imagining all things. Revelation 21-22 speaks about our final abode as a recreated earth. This recreated earth is the restored earth. Restored to what? The way things were supposed to be. We find quite a bit of imagery, from the rivers to the restored tree of life, that mirrors the Garden of Eden.

“Can’t do anything we want? Like fly?”

Why would we think we could? Because it is heaven? And God’s ultimate will for us is to be able to do anything and everything? Although I cannot be sure, I have no reason to believe that I will be able to defy gravity on the new Earth. Gravity is good and necessary now, and will be then. It is not the result of sin that gravity came into being. Why would God move to a “plan B” that does not have gravity?

“But won’t our bodies be ‘spiritual bodies’ with ‘power’?”

“So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (1Co 15:42-44)

Yes, but the idea here does not refer to the ontological quality of our bodies (i.e. what we will be able to do), but the spiritual state of the physical body without sin. It is “spiritual” not in the sense that it will be ghost-like and it is “powerful” not in the sense that it will be able to defy the natural laws that God originally intended, but it is spiritual and powerful in that it will not be controlled by the flesh any longer. The sin principle will have been extinguished. This will be the greatest change we will notice.

What will be the same? We will be eating and drinking. We will not communicate through ESP, but with lips, tongue and breath, following the laws of physics. We will have five fingers on each hand, five toes on each foot, two eyes, two ears, hair, finger prints, tear ducts and so on. All of which will perform the function which they were originally intended. Why? Because we have to have them to function! Again, “Plan A” restored, not “plan B.”

Relationships will take effort. Food will be digested from the stomach, to the small intestine, to the large intestine. If you close your eyes while walking, you will trip and fall. We will need to eat to sustain our bodies (Rev. 22:2). Physical pain will serve as a warning if you touch something hot. We will need to learn before we can accomplish. And so on. There is no reason to think that any of this will change since none of it came into being as a result of sin.

Our relationships will take effort. Our mannerisms will give us away. You will have times when you want to be alone. We will have distinct personality characteristics. Some will be more shy than others. We will not all look, act, and be the same. Some will have greater talent in one area than another. I probably will not (immediately) be able to slam a basketball. Heck, Kristie was not too far off when she went to get her shoes upon hearing about heaven’s reality. I have no reason to believe that shoes are a result of the fall!

In sum, we have every reason to believe that whatever was not brought into being through sin will stay the same.

Restored stewardship. Now we get to the “What will we be doing?” part. Of course we will be worshiping God in sinless fellowship, but this worship will come by fulfilling the original intent. There will be no need to “fill the earth” though procreation (Gen. 1:28), but there will be the mandate to subdue it as stewards of God’s creation.

Christ gives us a glimpse into our stewardship when he tells of the Parable of the Pounds (Matt. 25:13-31). Read it. In it Christ teaches that what you do here matters for eternity. How you invest your life in this age, determines your responsibilities in the next. While salvation comes to all by grace alone through faith alone, this does not mean that there will not be rewards in heaven. Some people will be in charge of many things and some will be in charge of fewer: “His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’” (Mat 25:23). In Luke 19:11-27, it is described as stewardship over “cities.” I don’t think we should be too literal with this, but the fact is that we will have great responsibility. We will have jobs. We have every reason to believe that we will have to be on time to work, have certain job requirements, have a certain skill set, deal with others who are “under” us, and have successes (and, possibly, sinless failures). The labor that we do will not be from the sweat of our brow any longer (Gen. 3:19). In other words, we will find joy and contentment in what we are doing. We will all love our jobs!

In these things, we will worship and fellowship with God. Far from spending all of our time bowing down day and night before the throne of God, heaven will be full of varied activities, responsibilities, pleasures, and accomplishments. God will bring heaven down to the new Earth and for all eternity we will fellowship with God the way he originally intended, being his vice-regents on the new earth.

“And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” (Rev 21:3-4)

Far from being a place of endless boredom and monotonous activity, heaven (i.e., the new Earth) will be a place where we realize together with God the glory of his original intent.

To me, that sounds much better than anyone can hope. And I did not even have to make it up!Similar Posts:

• Questions I Hope No One Will Ask: What Will We Be Doing in Heaven?
• "When We Get to Heaven, We Will Be Timeless" . . . And Other Stupid Statements
• A Near Death Experience? A Theological Evaluation of Don Piper’s “90 Minutes in Heaven”
• Book Review: Heaven is for Real
• The Forgotten Gospel of the End Times