It seems to be a new Christian [bad]Research Network tactic to take great quotes from Christian leaders and make frail attempts to discredit them. Sometimes I wonder if these guys are reading the same scriptures that I am reading. The ever so elusive editor at CRN has written this piece against Rob Bell, in which Bell basically says that God still wants to bring salvation to all people and we are one of the instruments for that purpose. Yet, CRN comes back with a rather random scripture cocktail as their rebuttal; I have yet to figure out what they are trying to say with it.
“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind”… “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled… All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him”…
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God… But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness… 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. (Is. 65:17; Matt. 5:17, 11:27; Romans 8:7-8; 2 Peter 3:10-11; Rev. 21:1)
Is it that God isn’t trying to save the world because He is preparing heaven for the saved? Is it that the only person who knows God is Jesus, and he is not choosing to save anyone else? Maybe God doesn’t have a good plan for His people because He is going to throw the whole thing away eventually.
I had a conversation with some friends the other day on this subject. There are two mindsets on eschatology that really drive one’s whole life. The first is that Jesus is coming back soon to take his people and destroy the world, which He hates. Churches and people that view life in this way will spend 80% of their time keeping their church members “saved†and ready for the rapture. Evangelism is an added bonus, if there is time after all the bible studies and small group meetings. If someone is reformed and has this view, they will usually at best become completely apathetic to the outside world, or at their worst will create hate websites towards other Christians.
The other view would say that Jesus could come back at any moment, but we don’t have a clue when that could be (see scripture cocktail above). And, God is still working and moving thru humanity, making his will known. Because of that, we still are on mission with him to do his work here continue bringing light and hope to a dying world. Essentially, God is still fixing brokenness and bringing beauty to the world around us. That radically will change how you live your life.
Anyhow, it seems like CRN is just plain out of material. From recycling solid interviews from McManus to scrapping for heretical quotes from Bell (heck, they did an article on Brad Pitt for goodness sake), these guys are in desperate need of a juicy headline.
43 Comments(+Add)
Nathan,
I was just working on something along these lines in response to that article. It seems to me that CR?N specializes in making secondary things like one’s view of eschatology a primary thing, and saying that if you disgree with them you are a heretic.
What Bell is advocating is pretty much an amillenial view, and I don’t believe it can be called heresy by any means. In fact, in my opinion, it’s probably what most Christians would have believed up until may 150 years ago.
Also, I think that there is definitely a danger in holding a view that God is going to destroy the earth. Essentially if we see the earth as “disposable planet”, it become pretty easy to see it filled with disposable people as well.
They’re saying the Bible disagrees with Rob on “putting the world back together.” That’s not what the Bible says. The world will not be redeemed, only the faithful remnant (which I wonder if Bell really actually is a part of sometimes) and the earth will be destroyed and there will be given a new heaven and a new earth. Not sure how you can’t see this but then I’m not sure how most emergent sympathizers can’t see their hand ‘afore their face.
Phil Miller:
>it become pretty easy to see it filled with disposable people as well.
You mean like sheep and goats? yeah I guess that’s not Biblical is it.
Yeah if you’re not being led by the Holy Spirit and think you can get out of the command to preach the gospel to all (as if any one of them may respond) I guess you would think that.
Paula,
The “world” Bell is refering to is mankind, not the physical earth. The Editor seems to be a little confused on this point. His was not an environmental treatise but and evangelical one.
But in the Calvinist world view God does not love us “where we are” unless we are one of the Elect. In fact, He hates us if we were not chosen by His eternal decree in eternity past. So the editor missed an opportunity there I think.
Paula,
What is it that “separates the sheep from the goats”, according to the parable you’re quoting?
Is this like “missing the forest for the trees” or is it more like “straining gnats”. I really need help on this one. How does one qualify as a “emergent sympathizer”?
I also wonder how Bell got lumped into the emergent crowd? I’ve visited Mars Hill on occasion and from everything I read and hear, they are particular missional but that doesn’t equate with emergent. Just like being a regenerational baptism believer doesn’t make you Catholic.
Paula,
If God is planning on destroying the earth, please explain this passage to me:
Colossians 1:15-20
I’m particularly interested in the phrase, “to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven”.
I don’t see God wiping the earth out. Compare the description of Eden in Genesis to Revelation 21 – it’s the same place. When the Bible talks about a New Heaven and a New Earth, it would probably be more accurate to say “renewed” or they will be made new, i.e., restored to what God originally had planned.
From one who sees and listens for things differently than some of you guys, in that little snippet Bell makes the necessary evangelical references. He says “saved” and “sin” along with his broader verbiage, but this would certainly not be evidence of environmental salvation.
Phil – if I understand you then the metaphorical essence of Scripture has now incorperated the destruction of earth by fire?
Rick,
Well, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by the “metaphorical essence”. I don’t think the fire described in Revelation is metaphorical. I think a very good case can be made that much of what the Revelation is dealing happened in AD70, and many of the descriptions of the fall of Jerusalem describe in pretty horrific terms akin to what is described in Revelation. One thing to remember is that when the Bible talks about the earth, the writers certainly weren’t envisioning a globe. They really didn’t have a “global” perspective that went much further than Asia Minor and Asia. So a regional war would be the whole “world” to them.
A good and detailed book about this is Andrew Perriman’s The Coming of the Son of Man. He is pretty much a full preterist, so I don’t agree with everything he says, but he certainly covers the historical bases.
I guess my point isn’t to get in huge debates, but rather make the point that this issue shouldn’t be a core issue that decides who is and who isn’t a true Christian. It is difficult, because, as Paula has shown, some pre-Millenialists are taking the position that theirs is the “true” Biblical position. I’m certainly not saying all are. I have many friends who are awesome people of God who are pre-mil’s or Dispensationalists. I don’t think they’re heretics or anything. The fact is that none of will know the future until it happens.
Don’t worry, my breed is rapidly dying. I think I will write a post about me being frozen and awaking 100 years from now and going to church. Any suggestions?
Paula,
Are you happier about the gospel, or that lots and lots of people are going to hell? Because I can’t tell.
Paula said,
(emphasis mine)
That’s OK Paula, I often wonder if people like you who seem more excited that there a ton of people going to Hell than about the good news are part of God’s Kingdom too. How’s that for a non-emergent thought?
I am preparing a “remnant” post which I only see in that context in Revelation. On some obvious level, when we refer to the remnant with the assurance that we are ourselves part of it, is…uh…ah….what is the word…oh yea….self righteous.
Every year we have a remnant reunion. Only Revelaion uses the word and in a different era. I cannot find a use of the word “remnant” in the church epistles except when referring to saved Jews. Maybe Chris can substantiate that?
Hello Phil :
A thought:
“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. ”
Firstly i would assume that your idea of reconcilation means to redemn? But in Revelations, it was stated clearly that the new earth had no sea. i.e. no oceans.
Can you imagine our old earth without the seas? Is having a sea by any means sinful? (since the ‘new’ earth is, by your idea, an old earth redemned) Yet, in genesis, it was the Lord who brought the seas up, BEFORE original sin even happened. In fact the Lord said it was good. AND sin had not yet entered the earth. I give you the verses:
[Genesis 1:9-10] 9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
When adam + eve sinned, sin entered the earth as well as the ground became cursed and based on this curse, it still is! We still have to work for our food and dust we came from, dust we return!:
[genesis 3]
17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life . . etc
It is quite clear therefore, that the ‘new’ earth that is stated in revelations 21 has nothing to do with the old one; if not, the Lord would have said that the seas dry up, but he didn’t.
And instead of new earth, why didn’t John used ‘redemned’ or ‘reconciled’ earth? Because the earth and heaven in revelations 21 is totally brand new! as written,
[Revelations 21:5, in context of the whether the earth was redemned or brand new]
5He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
Basically, i see it might be a misunderstanding of the word ‘redemned’. When God redemns you, you do NOT have your old self. You are given a new nature, and are totally brand new! This is consistent throughout Scripture and this i believe you all know. Juz a thought.
Secondly, Tim and Joe,
you can cut the sarcasm.
” I often wonder if people like you who seem more excited that there a ton of people going to Hell than about the good news are part of God’s Kingdom too. How’s that for a non-emergent thought?”
“Paula,
Are you happier about the gospel, or that lots and lots of people are going to hell? Because I can’t tell. ”
Based on your statements, its plain that you think that its a grievious sin for tons of people to go to hell. Well thats YOUR perspective, not God’s. Since God does not sin and God WILL send at least one sinner to hell, it is not a sin. And when God is doing ANYTHING, you had better be excited.
As written clearly in Romans, all men are sinners and we ALL deserve death the moment upon conception due to original sin (at least). If not, well, lets say this sarcasm and a lack of understanding of god is enuf to send you to hell.
So all, inclusive of myself, were previously destined for hell without escape. Christ comes in, chooses the people he likes to save (we dun know why he chooses who) but ultimately, everything is done such that God is glorified.
When sinners are saved, God is gloried in His mercy
When sinner die in hell, God is glorified in His righteous Justice
So whether sinners die or live, wrt to God, the choice to save depends on which option would glorify GOD the most (which is unknown to us). So, mind your manners, God does not consult you all and certainly whatever God chooses to do, we SHOULD be excited, even IF it means the death of sinners in hell. For we are commanded to love God with all our heart, mind, soul strength.
But why preach the gospel then?
1. Its a duty and a command
2. We DON’t know who is saved (and we dun need to know) and who is not, so we can’t make the decision and hence assume a priori that it is best for the person to be saved.
Another thing, the gospel INVOLVES sinners going to hell: there will always be such cases. SO the statement shows that the writer and those who support that statement have absolutely no idea what the gospel is about. Its the truth so it will be hard.
“Paula,
Are you happier about the gospel, or that lots and lots of people are going to hell? Because I can’t tell. ”
If you are happy about the gospel, you have to be happy of the gospel’s content, which is the ENTIRE content. If you only pick and choose ur content, you mock God. Mock God? Yes – you simply mean that his entire biblical version of the gospel is not to be pleased in and is not sufficient ~ you also thus imply that you can write a gospel better than God: thats pride.
Tim and Joe, please think through before you shoot your mouth off. You shame the emergents.
Yeah, I didn’t really get that post. In the end, it’s a eschatology debate. They’re pitting John MacArthur (premillennial dispensationalist) against Charles Hodge (covenant postmillenialist).
Lance,
I’ve only got a couple minutes, so I’ll try to dig through the rest of your comment later today. However, right off the bat, you’ve demonstrated part of what’s wrong with modern exegesis that ignores cultural context:
This is taken from Rev 21:1
When viewed in terms of the cultural context, in first-century Judeo-Christian culture, the sea (actually called ‘the abyss’) is metaphorically used as the ‘underworld’, where all of the evil spirits enter and exit the earth. The language in this passage does not indicate that there are no more ‘waters’, but no more ‘abyss’ – so your extension of this to mean that there will be no more bodies of water in the ‘new’ earth is fallacious…
To take a single passage out of its context and in a literal manner from an entire section of scripture explicitly identified as being a ‘vision’ – symbolic and metaphorical – is just poor exegesis and offers no proof…
Lance,
You’re faux anger aside, I think you miss and dance around the point.
It seems like a pretty good question. Does it make people like Paula happy to think of millions of sinners burning for eternity in unspeakable pain? Jesus wept for Jerusalem. Why can’t we do the same?
Gospel means good news. You seem to imply that if you focus on, well, the good news, you are somehow twisting the gospel. That strikes me as wrong. I believe people are going to hell. Just because that doesn’t send me in joyous raptures of schadenfreude doesn’t mean I’m a terrible Christian.
A few people around here are *really good* at approximating the whole “anger of God” thing. If only those same people could be, say, as holy as Him, or perhaps as loving.
If all you’ve got is boatloads of anger, something is tragically wrong.
Lance,
I got a daddy and when he goes to heaven I won’t be auditioning any new ones so pipe down. I don’t have an emergent card, so I’m not sure how I can shame them.
I won’t even bother showing you your poor exegeses, since Chris already took care of you.
Hey do me a favor next time, think through before you shoot your misspelling (we dun know) mouth off next time. You embarrass your fundy friends and to be honest you annoy me.
Lance might I suggest an excellent book? Desiring God or the Dangerous Duty of Delight. I imagine I’ll have to turn in my emergent card that you so kindly gave me but I love both books. One is a smaller version of the other. (Latter for the former) and both are by **wait for it** Piper.
Tim, start the countdown for some poorly thought out, self righteous retort–I need coffee.
I apologize, I didn’t realize how full of crap your original post was. Here’s a great comment,
No Lance, that’s your perspective of our perspective. We are saddened that people will live in rebellion to God. What kind of person says we should get excited over people going to Hell? You need Therapy.
Lance,
I’m a bit confused about your definition of redeemed. Again, when we enter into a relationship with Christ, we are made new, but it’s not like we have no relation to our former self. Also, when Jesus healed a person, was He not restoring him or her to what God had originally intended? I think looking at redemption as a renewing makes even more sense with the argument you’re making.
Also in Revelation 21:5, Jesus says, “I am making everything new!”. It seems to me that this point to a renewal of God’s creation to what he orginally intended. Now, I’m not saying that earth will be eternal necessarily, as it seems like there are events described in Revelation that happen elsewhere, but I just don’t see the destruction of the earth as part of the eschatology of the second coming.
So you have noticed that comments sometimes get personal? That happens on every blog. The most disturbing thing about your comments is that you subscribe not just to an emotionless, Calvinistic view of people being damned forever, you seem to teach we should rejoice.
Then when Jesus wept over Jerusalem He was just being an Arminian cry baby, right?
Perhaps he was just being a good hyper-C, weeping over how long it was taking for God to purge the unelect…
Hello Rick,
[So you have noticed that comments sometimes get personal? That happens on every blog. The most disturbing thing about your comments is that you subscribe not just to an emotionless, Calvinistic view of people being damned forever, you seem to teach we should rejoice.
Then when Jesus wept over Jerusalem He was just being an Arminian cry baby, right? ]
It strange that you accuse me of being emotionless when i said we should be excited/ happy about what God is going to do. Isn’t [excitement/ ahppiness] an emotion? So your statement obviously wasn’t well thought out wasn’t it?
The Lord was crying, definitely, when he wept for Jerusalem. It would be riddiculous however, to say that the Lord had no joy for what he would eventually do. He DID weep/cry/express sorrow, yet he expressed joy in what he would do, even if it mean the eternal death of many and the eternal life of few.(hebrews12)
i think you meant [Luke 31]
Jesus’ Sorrow for Jerusalem
31At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, “Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you.”
32He replied, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’ 33In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!
34″O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 35Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hebrews 12:2
Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
The appropriate emotion is clear. Yes we should weep, and at the other hand, yes we should rejoice at god’s SOVEREIGNTY in the matter. Its excitement that God will be glorified amongst all everything that sets Christians apart from the rest. I do not by any means mean that you cannot rejoice and weep at the same time.
An example: My _____(wife/daught/husband/son/etc) died, and what i do is weep, naturally. Yet, as a believer in God, i rejoice and kiss the very hand that afflicted me, because i know and i REJOICE in the Lord’s sovereignty in the matter, that God is good and does good all the time. I rejoice in Romans 8:28 that tells me that whatever happens is for the good of those who love him and are called to His purpose. This is the mark of a true Christian: that He knows God’s character (to do the utmost good) and does NOT accredit god with whatever evil that has happened in his/her life.
So does it make me an emotionless person? No, in fact, it is the most appropriate emotion to express: sorrow/mourning yet deep down, a knowing that God doest well and because God is AT THE TOP of our affections, nothing can move away from the (eternal) joy that is in us.
If you disagree, am i to forever cry and be sad and also curse God because God chose to damn e.g. my parents etc to death for their unbelief? In this case, who became more important? God or my parents?
That is why martyrs die happily. Why (true) Christians withstand affliction willingly. For the Lord.
I see the crux of the problem is that while i teach to rejoice in God’s sovereignty, you mistake it for me rejoicing over the death of the sinners irregardless whether God is glorified? If God is not glorified, i will not rejoice. If God is glorified, yes i will rejoice, even if it means killing the reprobate, because they were meant to die anyway.
Hello Phil,
This is where we differ on eschatology. Sad to say that unless the Bible convinces me, i won’t change. I believe you believe in the same thing. Enjoyed the conversation.
Just to give you my thoughts, i think God means to make us totally new, not the garden of eden prototype. For the people made in the garden of eden was eventually not perfect. Rather, the ‘new people’ would model that of the new jeresalem , where there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.
Another thing on the new person is that it historically means that the person’s sin nature is no more. The person has a new spirit n heart as prophesized by ezekiel 36.
[ 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws]
I shall continue to read on this topic and i will check Chris L’s comments on the cultural context wrt the sea. It might be useful in our progress in Christ.
But offhand, i believe that i prefer to read scripture literally. In that verse, it’s quite clear actually that there the old earth had passed away, i.e. disappear, gone? So is still don’t think there will be an old earth.
Hello MG,
I agree. For it is written that our anger does not achieve the righteousness that God desires and we would be sinful to an extent in almost everything we do. Dun worry about me having a bucket of anger – such things are not worth being angry about. Thx for the thought though.
I do not know paula and i can’t speak for her.
[Gospel means good news. You seem to imply that if you focus on, well, the good news, you are somehow twisting the gospel.]
I disagree. If a person believes that God is in charge of our salvation and He is so sovereign and almighty that nothing cannot thwart him, then it gives us great hope and joy when we preach the gospel.
All we have to do is to proclaim it (the gospel), in its fullness (including the death of sinners at the end) and provide the whole counsel of God whenever we are given the opportuity to do so. Of course, in the midst of doing so, we rejoice as we preach, knowing both ends are possible
1. The person listens and is saved
2. The person may not and will perish
Because in both cases, God is preached, God is glorified and also, by us not feeling angry/frustrated towards God for (possibly) eventually destroying the sinner, we demonstrate that it is not the results, nor the human being we are preaching to, nor ourselves, but the Lord who is at the utmost of our affections, for at the heart of the matter is the greatest commandment, that tells us to love the Lord with ALL (i.e. put god at the centre of) your heart mind soul strength and love your neighbours as yourself.
Joe,
[You need Therapy.]
I need not therapy, but God. Its strange that you recommend something other than God. Apparently reading Piper has not got to you.
Honestly, i don’t care if you are annoyed, because its God that matters and if speaking the truth about God annoys you, then so be it. I believe the rest would agree that speaking truth about God is more important than any puny human being’s affections.
If coffee cools you down, do drink it. Don’t let the sun go down before you cool off. The anger of human beings do not achieve the righteousness that God desires.
Lance, are you what would generally be called a “Calvinist”? Just wondering.
WOW. That’s honestly all I can say. I’d thought I had met every type of whack job out there but I was wrong. I know people like this exist. I realize I may have to turn in my contributor card, but WOW. WOW. That’s all I can say. WOW.
The depth of help needed is beyond my ability to put into words.
I need to find a whole new career choice. I’m going to be a licensed Therapist. I wonder if that means I’ll be giving my clients something besides God? Are we sure this isn’t Amy, come with a different name?
Hello Chris L,
Did a bit of research, and here are 2 sources
http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkerev21.htm
http://www.apocalipsis.org/
All of them say that the earth is new and consistent with the literal view that there is really no sea. Can you show me your sources? I can source for more but this is what i have found at the moment.
In addition,
Isaiah 65:17 states:
17 “Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
20 “Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.
This is consistent with revelations 21. Hence the half-verse “The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.” is also indicative that the old earth must disappear and a new one to appear. This means the earth is not renewed, but lost forever and replaced by a totally new one.
Phil,
Maybe this helps?
Hello Rick,
I don’t know. I do not believe in infant baptism, which calvin affirmed. Yet i believe in the 5 points. So what does it make me? Ken and Jim and those in Team Pyro are the true ones and if you are wanting to use me as cannon fodder, you are dead wrong. You have to deal with what they say to get back at them, and not use what i say to make a broad assumption. Btw I am young in faith so i may not know a lot. (this does not mean i am wrong however).
I think you want to whack back at Jim in Old truth.com for his comments. As well as get back at Ken. They are unfortuately in my eyes right most of the time. Not all, but their theology is quite sound mostly. I have no comments about your site as i have not read most of it to be able to make a clear stand. Yet in all men, our hearts are deceitful and so… you may have your points there in your site. Its nice to know 2 views of a coin. Keep the discernment up but sometimes Ken can be right too you know?
One thing i believe which i know will be of conflict to you, is limited atonement, which i believe you affirm to be a great heresy?
For me, limited atonment simply exists because if atonement was universal, the gospel call is unnecessary. And verses talking separating tares from wheat are almost pointless. And Jesus condemning the Phraisees would not make sense too. Then again ‘heretics’ (if i were indeed to be believing in a great heresy) don’t have sense right? No sarcasm intended and i hope you read this in good humor.
Joe,
I am not amy. Who’s amy?
Lance, I wanted it to be known that the Calvinistic words I thought I recognized in your comments were not without evidence. I was ready to admit my mistake, and i am not attcking you personally, but I do thank you, brother, for replying honestly.
I appreciate your tone.
Lance,
Neither of your references support your position of there being “no sea” meaning that the new heavens and new earth are completely remade entities and the previous ones are completely obliterated. in fact, the second source you site doesn’t make the case whether this is literal or figurative, but does note:
For more on the perceptions of the sea as the figurative ‘abyss’, check this site and other references to ‘abyss’ if you do a search of the site.
Throughout Hebrew writing and teaching in the first centuries BC and AD, there is a theme of ‘the old is made anew’, of which one of the primary teachers was Gamaliel (Paul’s teacher) and Gamaliel’s teacher, his grandfather, Hillel. This is not a literal unmaking and remaking, but a fundamental change in Lordship which is so stark that it is a ‘remaking’ – like planting a dead seed from which a live plant grows.
Paul writes, using this same language:
Does this suggest that when we are in Christ, our bodies have magically been obliterated and replaced with something new – or is it speaking to a similar metaphor as John?
Paul also writes:
This theme of “old and new” is throughout scripture, and does not imply annihilation, but fundamental change.
“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.”
For the record I am circumcised and it never has meant anything to me. Just being honest.
Hello Rick,
I am ready to admit that i may have portrayed calvinism, (if i am one) as a lifeless emotionless doctrine. It was never meant to be that way and maybe the words i typed made it look that way. Sry if it hurts u in any way.
Hello Chris,
I agree that the change is fundamental, because the scriptural passages do say that and i affirm that too before your post (ref my take on ezekiel 36 new spirit etc… ).
But even then, most commenters would agree that the old world that we live in will be destroyed and a new one made, consistent with Isaiah 65 and Rev 21.
I tried hard to find a site that talks about abyss. But somehow i just can’t lol. Thanks for the site. (from site)
[Not surprisingly, biblical writers often used the sea to describe terror and danger. And in Jesus? day, Jewish people would have recognized the sea as a symbol of chaos and hell.]
I suppose this is what you mean? Its not convincing to me however. sry abt that. While it might symbolise chaos and hell, it does not mean the sea is hell itself. In addtion in scripture, both the earth and sea vomit out their dead during judgement.
In addition Hades (the abyss) and the sea were addressed different in revelations 20.
13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
Revelations 21, and revelations 20 should follow the same context and they are actually linked? So the sea is fundamentally different from Hades in Rev 21, since the same can be said of revelations 20.
What do you think? Juz a thought and dun take it personnally yeah?
Helo Rick,
You are circumcised? How come? Is it painful to undergo circumcision??
Hey Lance, I will post a picture of my circumcism to prove I honor the law.
Just a joke, if you hang around here Lance and you are welcome here anytime I will joke, you know, a merry herat and all that.
I am happy to see you are not emotionless. We must accept God’s justice upon unbelievers, but just perhaps some of the tears God will wipe away will be for them but in no disrespect to God’s sovereign justice.
He does all things well!
Rick,
Hey man, no one gave me a choice in the matter… they laid it out like this… my dad was, so they wanted me to be like him… and to that I did the same with my son… strange though to think that I am so “Grace oriented” that I still decided to go with the big “c” with my son! LOL!
I think it was more that as we looked into it we saw more dr.’s saying it would be more benifitial in the long run…
Blessings,
iggy
Lance,
Just some notes on the ’sea’:
1) The sea was seen to represent chaos,which is different than hell – a place of judgement. Chaos (tohu a vohu) was seen as the opposite of God, who is the creator. In the Hebrew mind of Jesus day and before, this was seen as first evident in Genesis 1:2 -
Where did the pigs go after Jesus cast legion into them? They returned to the abyss.
When Jesus calmed the storm, his disciples would not have only seen this as control over nature, but as control over the very stronghold of evil spirits.
When Jesus came to the disciples, walking on top of the water, this was again a statement of his mastery over evil.
If someone should make a little one stumble, where is it that Jesus says he should be cast? Into the abyss!
Hades is not the abyss. Hades, called Sheol, translated ‘the grave’, in the Hebrew Scriptures (which we call the Old Testament), is under the earth, whereas the abyss is under the water. So, in this verse, the writer is noting that all of the dead – those in the abyss (the water), those in the earth (Hades) and those who died and whose bodies were in neither place (death) – were brought forth to be judged.
Rev 21 and 22 are indeed linked and, as noted, the sea (the abyss, representative of chaos) and Hades (which is under the earth, where the dead go) are two different concepts. One (the abyss) is inherently evil, as it the opposite of God.
Here is the picture we are given by John:
1. When everything is complete, there will be no chaos [abyss] because all of creation will be complete.
2. When God is fully returned, all will be resurrected, so no death will exist, and there will be no further need for the grave [Hades] to hold the bodies.
3. When God returns and all are judged, there will be no more need for hell, as those who are judged against will be cast into the lake of fire along with hell (”this is the second death”).
The concept of abyss was highly developed in Hebrew thinking and literature in Jesus’ day, and everything he did and said regarding it – including choosing fisherman as his disciples – spoke clearly about his mastery over it. Archaeologists have uncovered a great deal in the Galilee region:
1. Despite being the most lushly fertile places in the land, the northern Galilee was primarily unsettled until the diaspora Jews from Babylon returned after the Hasmonean revolt, 150 years before Jesus’ birth. The diaspora Jews settled there because it was the only land available, and even then build most of their settlements away from the edge of the water.
2. In the northern Galilee, Capernaum and Bethsaida were the two towns built on the edge of the abyss. While Jesus was born in Nazareth (nowhere near the water), where did he choose to live and minister – Capernaum and Bethsaida.
3. The primary industry of Capernaum was stone masonry, and Bethsaida’s industry was agricultural – there are estimates that during Jesus’ day there were – at most – a couple dozen fishermen working in the northern Galilee region, yet Jesus chose 5 of his 12 disciples who were fishermen – including John, the author of Revelation. In doing so, Jesus chose men (actually teenage boys, most likely) who were unafraid of evil spirits enough to actually venture into the edge of the abyss in order to make a livelihood.
[Just to note, I don't normally go into this level of detail, but you happened to hit a hot-button area into which I've done an enormous amount of study - note the title of my personal blog, and the mission statement - http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/?p=17 ]
Blessings,
Chris
Hello chris L,
Yeah. Thx for the info. It was most clear and extensive. I see a difference between hades and the abyss now. You do go into detail alot. Its a good job =)
Totally agree on the part here. It makes so much sense.
[1. When everything is complete, there will be no chaos [abyss] because all of creation will be complete.
2. When God is fully returned, all will be resurrected, so no death will exist, and there will be no further need for the grave [Hades] to hold the bodies.
3. When God returns and all are judged, there will be no more need for hell, as those who are judged against will be cast into the lake of fire along with hell (â€this is the second deathâ€).]
Cause the dead-in-christ people were already destroyed by rev 21 yeah? I get it now.
Nice to be able to converse with you on this deep subject. So will the earth be destroyed and a total new earth come? Or smething else? But my stand is still that the earth will be a totally new one.
Hello Rick,
I don’t think hanging a phallic picture at the house would be useful, esp during guests and dinner time. Lol. I think i’m not emotionless too, i think.
Nice talking to you. Will hang around here from time to time. But not with a rope or a hook. Hanging around using those are painful.
Lance, you are refreshing, even if you are a C…never mind!
I know you will agree that Jesus is the foundation of our faith!
Â
And you and Chris L. can learn much from each other, Chris is too smart for me!
If you follow the same thread from beginning to end, beginning with Genesis, where God creates and declares it “good”, Adam’s introduction of sin through Jesus and his resurrection, the theme of a ‘new’ creation is viewed in terms of ‘resurrection’.
While Jesus was in the tomb, the Jewish Feast of Unleavened Bread (specified in Leviticus) was going on, where during the day the entire nation prays:
It is in the picture of resurrection that I think the concept of ‘old made new’ takes shape. Resurrection is demonstrated in the picture of a seed, which appears dead and lifeless. When placed in the earth and resurrected by God, it comes up as a ‘new’ plant. (I’ve written a bit more about this in conjunction with Holy Week earlier this year.)
This is the picture in Paul’s teaching of the old being made into a new creation. In the same way, this earth and the people in it are dead to sin from the first Adam. In Jesus, God will make this world into something new – like a plant that comes from a seed. The picture from prophecy is a ‘passing through fire’ – where fire is a symbol for God and his purification of what passes through him.
Hello Rick,
You have the unique honor being the first to call me a calvinist. I’m being honest. Thx. So i guess i am? Lol
Hello Chris L,
Yeah. I recognise the same pattern of old made new.
According to this concept i’m thinking…
When the seed forms the new plant, the seed is no more? When the new self is there, the old self is no more? When the earth is a new earth, as Isaiah 65 says, the old earth shall be no more as it is not brought to mind? When we are ressurrected in christ in the 2nd coming, we have new bodies and the old is no more? When we are regenerated in Christ, we have a new heart and the old is no more?
Thanks. I learn new things everyday.