Erm. Well, this is a good topic for discussion and I want to dig into the subject when I have time to think through the original question. I just read through the interview transcript, though, and I have to say that I am not impressed by Doug Pagitt's responses. What he said in this interview was so incoherent and riddled with "uhms" and "uhs" that I couldn't help chuckling at the incoherency of his... uhm... theology(?). I probably won't agree with Todd on every point regarding Heaven, but I have to give him a pass for his apparent inability to answer Pagitt's objections - the poor guy was probably just confused and baffled, and based on the transcript, it appears that Pagitt was the one evading the questions.

*Sigh* And now I know where the emerging motivational posters get their material from....

Michael,

If you listen to the interview, Todd is very snide and condescending.... the whole interview (if you want to call it that as it was not a real interview but an inquisition) began to twist into something bad when Todd started to attack Doug. Doug really only gave half answers at best... yet, the point is that Doug made and Todd missed was that if this "literal" heaven exists in the idea Todd and tradition presents it... then where is it... Todd did not even venture to say that it was invisible as it was spiritual... which would have been a good answer, yet he seemed to flounder in his own beliefs.

I agree Doug could have done much better.... but the problem with Doug is he starts off in his thoughts were most of us stop and often speaks on a level... or three levels at once! So I agree he is hard to follow and as he tries to dummy down for the rest of us sound, "uhm" a bit "uhm" incoherent.

I disagree that Doug was evading the question... rather he was evading the attack by Todd and Todd's attitude.... you m ight note in the transcript Doug sayings something like. "Oh this is going to be one of those...(type of interviews)"

The saddest part that comes out in the interview was that hatred and disrespect that was shown Doug.... instead of Todd trying to understand and then have clarity to make real commentary on... he caused a WWF style argument the lead no where... but it was sure good radio for him... (Means justify the ends I guess)I will admit I had to listen at least 3 times to caught what Doug was saying... and still it was unfinished.... hopefully his book will unpack it a bit more.

Yet the original question... is Heaven a place?

As I told Jessee one time, "It is and it is not."

In fact Heaven is us in Christ and Him in us... and it is eternal yet within our understanding of time... so being a good postmodern I say it is both and all of hte above! LOL!

iggy

Phew. Ok. I'm over the Doug Pagitt interview now.

Thankfully, your post is much more coherent than Pagitt's radio interview, Carlos. You've brought up some very deep topics, and the subject of "heaven" and its nature would potentially be a good subject for Thursday morning's "spicey talk," since there is so much that can be said on this topic.

You've hit on an interesting concept in relation to God and the nature of time. In the liturgical churches, we often hear the phrase: "As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever more." I'd like to see that statement unpacked a bit more, because there is a lot of significance in it. God's reality - "the eternal, "as you call it - seems to exist outside of linear time. In that sense, the starting point and the finishing line might really be said to be the same place.

As you pointed out, we tend to see life in a linear fashion. We begin at birth, proceed through life, and if we've been saved, we cross the finish line and enter heaven. That is, we see heaven as something that lies in our "future." But what if our journey towards heaven were really a journey back to our origins - back towards that which "was in the beginning?" The closing chapters of Revelation, which draw us back to the imagery of Genesis and the Garden of Eden, certainly seem to suggest such a possibility. C.S. Lewis
beautifully illustrates this concept in his book "The Pilgrim's Regress," and if you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it.

Moving on to the nature of "heaven" itself, I think the concept has been largely misunderstood by contemporary Protestantism. Jesus never spoke of the subject of "heaven" in isolation; what he spoke of was the "Kingdom reign of Heaven," or the "Kingdom reign of God." Thus, I prefer not to use the term "heaven" in isolation from its broader kingdom context.

Frankly, there is not a lot of emphasis in the New Testament on "heaven going." The emphasis seems to be on the idea of God's reign in the believer's life in the here and now - a reign which will day extend over all of creation, resulting in the "regeneration of all things."

I believe in the idea of "progressive regeneration." That is, I believe that Scripture teaches that the reign of God over creation was initiated by Christ and is gradually extending throughout creation as the lives of men and women are transformed by the gospel. We are thus said to be "new creations" (2 Cor. 5:17), living under the reign of Christ, rather than the reign of this "present evil age" that you aptly refer to as "the satanic kingdom." Notice that the language of 1 Corthinians 5:17 parallels the language of passages like Rev. 21 and Isaiah 65:17, which speak of the regeneration of creation itself - the "new heavens and new earth."

There are two ways that the "new heavens and the new earth" can be understood, and this might also make for fruitful discussion. First, there is the view that God will literally destroy the physical universe and produce an actual new creation that will be superior in every respect to the present creation, which is marred by sin. The second view, however, is one less often discussed in our evangelical churches. It is the view that the "new creation" refers to the reign of a new paradigm in the lives of men - the reign of God over humanity. There is evidence to suggest that the Greek word "kosmos" (or "world," "universe") can refer not only to the physical aspect of creation, but also to the dominant order, paradigm, or world system. In that sense, the "new heavens and new earth" could be taken to refer to the fall of the paradigm you call the "kingdom of satan," and its replacement by a new paradigm of life - the kingdom reign of God. Revelation 11:15 would be one of the key verses that is used to support this view: "Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever."

Thoughts on this?

Iggy, I will have to listen to the interview. Based on the transcript alone, I actually thought I detected a bit of "attitude" in Doug's answers, as if he were saying "oh, you're just another one of those judgmental fundamentalists; why bother?" I admit that I haven't read any of Pagitt's books, so I really don't know what his views are. However, he had an opportunity to unpack some of his views on this radio program, and he really didn't offer anything that was substantial or that would help the listener understand where he was coming from. "Is heaven a place?" is a good question to ask, but I don't see Pagitt offering a viable alternative to the more literal view of heaven, either.

Anyway, moving on...

"In fact Heaven is us in Christ and Him in us... and it is eternal yet within our understanding of time... so being a good postmodern I say it is both and all of hte above! LOL!"

This is a great point! I think "both/and" is becoming our favorite phrase around here :-)

What are your thoughts on John 17:3?

"Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

It's interesting that Christ says this IS eternal life - knowing God and knowing His Son, Jesus Christ.

Michael,

If i can make it I will be glad to lead on this topic... Hopefully I will be there as it is one of the highlights of my week! = )

iggy

Heheh, you've read my mind. I was thinking that this would make for most excellent spicey talk :-)

I've asked Bruce to lead next week's discussion, but I'd like to have you lead a discussion on the nature of heaven the following week (11/13), if you can. Do you think you can make it?

I think we would all agree that time is a human construct. But is "place" also a human construct (or, an inevitable limitation resulting from human constraints)?

This will be a very interesting discussion. I agree the telephone interview was of little help, but the questions that emerge from the conversation are quite challenging.
Here is my list of questions:
1) Is the Kingdom of God here now in the form of the Church?
2) Has the Kingdom of Satan in this present world now become the Kingdom of God?
3) Is the New Heaven and Earth still to come, or is it here now?
4) Did Christ already come in judgment, or is it future?
5) Is the Book of Revelation already completely fulfilled?
6) When was the Book of Revelation written?
7) When are we a New Creation?
8) Is the Scripture always talking literally?
9) Why does it make any difference if "Heaven and Hell are PLACES?"

My answers without bloviating:
1) Yes, the Kingdom of God is the Church.
2) Yes, Satan is no longer the ruler of this earth - Christ is.
3) The New Heaven and Earth came into existence in 70 a.d. when Heaven and earth were burned up.
4) Christ came in judgment in 70 a.d. and is not coming again in judgment.
5) Yes - all prophecy is fulfilled.
6) Revelation was written during the reign of Nero, NOT Domitian, thus it was written before 70 a.d.
7) When we are baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
8) No - Scripture is not always literal.
9) It doesn't - to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Our Spiritual selves already exist when we are born again - in baptism. When we die our Spiritual Body continues on with Christ in the Spiritual realm.
In Christ,
David

Great questions, David! I don't know if I can answer all of them, but here are some thoughts:

1) Is the Kingdom of God here now in the form of the Church?

I would answer this question with a tentative "yes." We have to be careful how we use the term "church" in this context. I assume that when you speak of "the Church," you mean the spiritual Body of Christ that includes all of God's people, rather than a particular human institution. In that broad sense, I definitely believe that the Kingdom of God is here in and through God's people, who comprise the Body of Christ.

2) Has the Kingdom of Satan in this present world now become the Kingdom of God?

I wouldn't agree that the Kingdom of Satan has presently been overcome by the Kingdom of God. In my opinion, the two "kingdoms" still exist side by side in the world, and there is a tension between them that manifests itself in the ongoing struggles of God's people.

I would apply the parable of the weeds in Matt. 13 to this question, with the weeds representing Satan's kingdom and the wheat representing the kingdom of God. How do you understand this parable?

Matthew 13:24 Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. 27"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' 28" 'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'29" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' "


3) Is the New Heaven and Earth still to come, or is it here now?

We have a favorite answere that we use a lot in our Trailblazer meetings: the ever magical "both/and." :-)

Seriously, though, that is how I would answer this question. As I mentioned above, I believe in the idea of "progressive regeneration." That is, I believe that God's "new creation" is still unfolding in our midst, as lives are touched by the gospel. The "new creation" is like a stone thrown in a lake that sends ripples outward; as the good news of God's Kingdom reaches throughout creation, the world is gradually being transformed through its power.

4) Did Christ already come in judgment, or is it future?

"Judgment" in what sense? The word "judgment" is used in many different contexts in Scripture. My first instict was to answer this question with a firm "no" - the judgment is still to come. But then I thought of John 3:18 - "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." In that sense, it seems that the judgment of God is already set, but still awaits future fulfillment. I would not agree that the judgment of God was fully rendered in 70 A.D., although the destruction of the Temple was certainly A judgment of God that was specifically foretold by Christ.


5) Is the Book of Revelation already completely fulfilled?

I take the position that the Book of Revelation depicts the struggles of God's people throughout all of history, with an eye to the conflicts taking place at the time that John wrote the book, as well as those conflicts that were still to come. In that sense, it depicts the collective experience of God's people down through the ages. I believe that there are parts of Revelation that have not been fulfilled, particularly those that deal with God's reign over all the earth, which, in my view, is still unfolding and has not yet reached its climax.

6) When was the Book of Revelation written?

The standard answer given by evangelical scholars is around 90 A.D., during the reign of Domitian, but it's not an issue that I have researched in great detail. I'd be very interested to hear what evidence you have for suggesting that the book was written prior to 70 A.D.

7) When are we a New Creation?

Immediately upon conversion. 2 Corinthians 5:17 is written in the present tense.

8) Is the Scripture always talking literally?

No. I believe that parts are Scripture are literal, while other parts are symbolic. It's important to understand the type of literature that we are reading in each of the books of the Bible, as some books are written as historical reports, while others, like Revelation, use symbolic language to depict spiritual truths.

9) Why does it make any difference if "Heaven and Hell are PLACES?"

Oh boy, I'm stepping into a potential minefield on this one :)

I think that it does make a difference, because it can effect our attitude towards life. It's not so much a question of whether or not heaven is a place, as it is a question of when God's promises become effective in the life of the believer. Do we have to wait for some future date to experience the fullness of God's promises, or is God at work here and now in our lives? If one holds to the view that the promises of God are exclusively to be had after death, than life becomes virtually meaningless and the world becomes little more than a bus stop where we all wait to be taken up to heaven. This has tremendous practical ramifications. For example, I know of some people who think that the outcome of tomorrow's election is ultimately unimportant, and that issues like global warming, abortion, and the economy can be overlooked because the church will be raptured before things get really bad here on earth. I don't think that's a healthy attitude.

That is not to say, however, that believing that heaven is a place will necessarily lead to apathy. It's more of a question of emphasis. I believe that it is Biblically permissible to believe that Heaven is a place while still maintaining that God's Kingdom is a present reality for believers. There are dangers in inappropriately emphasizing either view, and that's why it's important to have this discussion.

I have a few questions about your answers to the above:

2) Yes, Satan is no longer the ruler of this earth - Christ is.

Just curious - where do you find evidence of this in Scripture? Are you basing your answer on Christ's statement in John that the "ruler of this world has been cast out?" If so, how do you explain the continuing presence of evil in the world and Peter's statement that "Satan prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking who he may devour?"

3) The New Heaven and Earth came into existence in 70 a.d. when Heaven and earth were burned up.

Wait a second, David - when did Jerusalem become "heaven and earth?"

4) Christ came in judgment in 70 a.d. and is not coming again in judgment.

Could you elaborate on this?

6) Revelation was written during the reign of Nero, NOT Domitian, thus it was written before 70 a.d.

This is interesting; could you share some of the evidence for this view?

"I think we would all agree that time is a human construct. But is "place" also a human construct (or, an inevitable limitation resulting from human constraints)?"

Ah! Good question! Could you elaborate more on this topic for us?

My thought is that we are finite beings limited not only time, but also by space. "Places" are functions of our limitation within space. For example, I am presently in Bozeman, and not in Los Angeles. I can't be in two places at once. However, for an infinite, unbounded being, would the concept of "place" still apply?

Philosophy and metaphysics ahoy!
:-)

Yes, "place" does apply to an infinite, unbounded being - God!
Exodus 3:5; John 14:2

Pastor Michael, Thanks for taking time to answer each question and for all the thought you put into it. It is very early in the morning and so I will have to have some coffee to get me going to answer your questions. Short answer - I am coming from a full preterist position.

I love to ask full preterists these questions.

1. Has Jesus already returned?

2. Have all things already been restored?

3. Has the New Jerusalem come down in its fullness?

4. Has Satan been cast into the Lake of Fire and no longer deceives the nations?

Just wondering... I am partial preterist myself, yet I see that there are some things that are yet to be fulfilled as all things have not been fulfilled... I mean, most likely I will still die someday... unless He tarries... ; )

iggy

1. Has Jesus already returned?
Answer: Yes, in 70 a.d. just as he promised He would Return soon.
2. Have all things already been restored?
Answer: Yes.
3. Has the New Jerusalem come down in its fullness?
Answer: Yes
4. Has Satan been cast into the Lake of Fire and no longer deceives the nations?
Answer: Yes

Best answers to these can be found at: www.eschatology.org

I better answer Michael's questions before tomorrow's meeting. It would take so long, so I will actually only deal with one right now. I'll first start in reverse order as I think a pivotal question to be answered if the preterist view is to stand up.
Question: When was Revelation written and what is my proof?
Answer: Before I could become a full preterist I studied this question for about a year. There are two very good books on the subject: Redating the New Testament by John A.T. Robinson and Before Jerusalem Fell Dating the Book of Revelation by Gentry.
Robinson was a liberal theologian, but he came to a pre-70 dating of the entire N.T. when he observed:
"One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple - is never once mentioned as a past fact." (Redating Pg. 13). That observation should make everybody to question the dating of Revelation (or any other N.T. book) after 70 A.D. Also, if the N.T. was written after 70 A.D. why no mention of the deaths of Peter and Paul? Why does the book of Acts just suddenly end? A reflection on these points should make one investigate, if not totally believe, as I do, that the whole N.T. was written prior to 70 A.D.
Since I can't write a whole book in this comment let me give just one example of internal evidence for the dating of Revelation. Revelation 17:9-11 and vs. 10 says "They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, ONE IS, the other has not yet come;. . ." That 6th King was Nero. Nero died in 68 A.D. The book of Revelation was written before Nero's death, thus before 70 A.D. Some will say Julius Ceasar was not a King, and not even an Emperor, however, the Jews considered them Kings. There are 4 ancient writers I have read to come to the conclusion that Nero was the 6th King who is the "one is." Those authors are Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio Cassius and Josephus. Seutonius said that Julius Ceasar claimed the title "Imperator" - which the Jews took to be a King. I must close for now, so this is a short explanation of why I believe Revelation was written in 70 A.D. and why I believe it was truly about " . . .what must soon take place." (Rev. 1:1).

Very interesting, David! Thank you for sharing that information with us. An early dating of Revelation would certainly help to support the Preterist interpretation of this book.

Regarding the original question - "is heaven a place?" - a thought occurred to me that I thought I would share. Is Heaven a place where God is present, or does God's presence make a place into "Heaven?" In other words, isn't God's presence the defining feature of Heaven, rather than the physical or spiritual location of that presence?

I think you are on to something. God was in Paradise with Adam and Eve - His presence made it Paradise? The burning bush was Holy Ground because God was present? God was present in the Holy of Holies - a perfect cube - "representing" heaven? Christ is "in" us - making us "the temple of God"? Christ is in the Church - making it Heaven? Christ is in the bread and wine - making it Holy?
Yes, I think you are right. Good job - good thought. I intend to be there tomorrow since it is daylight so much earlier now.

You guys are awesome, I love standing by and watching some of these conversations unfold. David, I also read Gentry's book and it was one of the many books that I've read that have been important in my personal quest for truth in this matter. The dating of the book of Revelation is pivotal and will dictate your whole doctrinal belief system depending on which side of AD 70 you put it. You can either go along with the popular notion that it was written around AD 90 or do your own objective homework to find the truth. Keep in mind that is in the best interest of the person holding to the doctrine that heaven is a distant place to keep Revelation presently unfulfilled (written after AD 70). Realizing Rev. was written before this date gives credence to the concept that heaven is not a physical place where we go.

d.l.


Thanks for you answers. I truly respect the viewpoint, yet I see just as the "left behind" view slants way over to one side, so also the preterist view may also slant too far over in its own way.

Now, I am a partial preterist as I see much has already taken place... yet, one of the teachings is that we will be both spiritually and physically regenerated. If Satan has already been cast into the Lake of Fire, so also Death and Hades have. Meaning that there is no longer death or the grave. While I agree in some way Jesus returned, I still see people dying and graves. So I see that the fulfillment is not yet come to is fruition.

Also, if you read the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus and Hippolytus both who were direct disciples of John the Apostle, wrote of "the Beast" being a literal person... who was still to come. Both these men wrote well after 70ad. They also refer to the literal and physical return and rule of Jesus.

So we have an issue in that historically the pure preterist need disregard the clear teachings of those who were in the linage of John the Apostle who wrote Revelation.

Again, I have great respect for the preterist view and see that much that is brought up has restored a better and clear picture or our history. I just see that historically in the teachings passed on to us, some things do not pan out.

Blessings,
iggy