Most of the recent Reformed literature on the beatific vision argues that there is a distinctively Reformed approach to that doctrine which privileges Christology in a unique way (e.g., Horton (2007), McDonald (2012), Allen (2015, 2018), Boersma (2018), Sutanto (2024)). Contained within that argument is an implicit, and sometimes explicit, premise that the traditional Western articulation of the beatific vision as a visio Dei per essentiam somehow betrays basic principles and instincts of the Reformed theological tradition. As a result, the visio Dei per essentiam view is portrayed as an undesirable, perhaps also untenable, perspective for contemporary Reformed theology. This presentation contributes to the very small body of literature (see Gavin Ortlund (2022), Seals (2023)) that demurs from what has become the dominant position within contemporary Reformed theology. I argue that the visio Dei per essentiam perspective deserves renewed consideration within Reformed theology. To make my case, I offer three sub-arguments: (1) that there is strong historical precedent for affirming the visio Dei per essentiam within the Reformed tradition (e.g., Synopsis of Purer Theology, Isaac Ambrose, John Rowe, William Strong, George Swinnock, Joseph Cooper, John Norton, etc.), (2) that there are good exegetical and theological reasons for affirming the visio Dei per essentiam, (3) and that there are Reformed articulations of the visio Dei per essentiam which do not suffer from any supposed “Christological deficit.” Beyond the systematic contribution that is apparent in the primary argument itself, this paper also makes an historical theological contribution to the field by engaging authors whose writings and arguments have not yet received any scholarly attention in the current debate (John Norton and William Strong in particular).