House Speaker Invokes God and Bible in Earth Day Declaration

[Revmitchell]

I think that the Scriptures are against you on this. What do you think that Isaiah is writing about when he penned these words, if not a redeemed creation that extends beyond men:

the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.
13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree,
and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.
This will be for the LORD's renown,
for an everlasting sign,
which will not be destroyed."



And I do not think that your argument that redemption is not a process can survive the stories given in Scripture.

1. Romans 8 likens the state of creation "groaning" as if in childbirth. And childbirth is not a discrete event. There is a climactic event, to be sure, but there are 9 months of "process" before.

2. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says these words "Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain." The context is Paul's sweeping and glorious vision of the world to come. Why would Paul conclude with the above statement if he did not believe that some of the things the saints do in the present will survive the coming transformation and actually be present in the world to come? If Paul believed that what we do today would not influence the world to come, he would not have written this. He clearly believes that we are presently participating, in a small way perhaps, in shaping the redeemed world of the future. So the redemption that Paul is talking about has a process dimension to it.

3. In 1 Cor 15, Paul uses the metaphor of the planted seed. Well, the flower that results, while different from the seed, bears something of the imprint of the seed. Paul is describing a situation where the world to come is indeed, to some degree anyway, connected to the present world.

There are many more points that could be made here. Not least among these is the point that Jesus is put to death on the sixth day, "rests" on the tomb on the seventh day (Sabbath) and on the first day of the new week rises again. Not to mention that he is mistaken for the gardener.

I suggest this is not co-incidence and we are meant to understand that God is beginning a new creative work on this first day of the new week, just like He did on the first day in the Genesis account. And as we know, God spent the first 5 days working on the creation (to the exclusion of man).

I expect that his new work in Christ will not ignore the cosmos He so lovingly created and declared to be "very good".

Romans 8:22 as you ignored my repsonse to this originally. "Creation" is not the cosmos, the plants, or animals. It is gentiles.

As far as 1 Cor 15 just what things do you think Paul is indicating will survive. The context has nothign to do with saving creation. There is no point in scripture where man is comanded to save creation nor take part in such an act in any way. In fact it is never a context in all of scripture.

 

[Andre]

Romans 8:22 as you ignored my repsonse to this originally. "Creation" is not the cosmos, the plants, or animals. It is gentiles.

I guess the question is "can the stuff in Romans 8 - verse 22 and neighbouring texts - work with the interpretation that "creation = gentiles'. I think the objective reader will find it odd that Paul would use the word "creation" to refer to a sub-set of humanity and not to "the created world". It seems like an awful stretch. This is like using the term "world" and intending your reader to understand that I mean "all male human beings". Now, to be fair, if you can make a contextual case that would justify seeing creation as a specific part of humanity, then please do so. I say more about this at the end.

So let's see how this works. If your reading is correct then we have:

For we know that the gentiles groan and suffer the pains of childbirth together until now. 23(AT)And not only this, but also we ourselves, having (AU)the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves (AV)groan within ourselves, (AW)waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, (AX)the redemption of our body.

And, unless Paul is whacked in the head, he must also have "creation = gentiles" in the stuff a few breaths back in verse 19. So, again, we would have:

19For the (AL)anxious longing of the gentile waits eagerly for (AM)the revealing of the (AN)sons of God. 20For the gentiles (AO)were subjected to (AP)futility, not willingly, but (AQ)because of Him who subjected it, [b]in hope


Right off the bat, I cannot see how your view works in the context of verse 22 since we know (don't we?) that there are gentiles among those who are the first fruits of the Spirit. So to make your view work, Paul needs to saying this:


For we know that the unredeemed gentiles groan and suffer the pains of childbirth together until now. 23(AT)And not only this, but also we ourselves (including some redeemed Gentiles), having (AU)the first fruits of the Spirit,

Before I go further, do you really mean that "creation = gentiles" or do you mean that "creation = unredeemed gentiles"?

Besides, while I am a big believer that Romans in general has a lot more to do with the "Jew-Gentile" question than many think, I do not see how the context of chapter 8 justifies your view that Paul has a Jew-Gentile distinction in mind when he writes verse 22. After all, Romans 8 begins with a characterization that must include both Jews and Gentile:

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus

What is the basis for your conclusion that Paul has a Jew-Gentile distinction in mind by the time he gets to verse 22. He has started the chapter with no such distinction in mind.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yes, God is in charge. Yes, I think most people had good intentions in promoting ethanol and got caught by unintended consequences. I do not know if God frustrated the ethanol effort. No, I do not think that God is pleased when people suffer from riots and pollution.

Ken, I did not think before I posted that. You don't have a habit of running from my questions, and my statement makes it appear you do. I am sorry I worded it like that, and beg your forgiveness for it.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Please give any specific texts you can think of that support your contention that God will destroy His creation. We can treat them one by one.

Um, Ok. The flood ?

I believe that I never said any such thing. I am saying that God will not destroy his creation and, by implication, replace it with something else.

I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[Andre]

There is no point in scripture where man is comanded to save creation nor take part in such an act in any way.

What about this:

And He said to them, " Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation

To anticipate a counterargument. I would rather take Paul at his word and figure out how we can preach the gospel to the created order (i.e. the birds and the rock and the trees, along with people) than to say "well Paul really doesn't mean creation here, he means all humanity and has been a little off in his choice of words". I agree that context makes it plausible that he is talking about only "people". But I also think it plausible that He really means "creation" in the more global sense.

And my view is made even more plausible once one corrects what I think is a major error in western Christianity - the belief that the word "gospel" refers simply to the news that "if you believe in Jesus, you will go to heaven when you die". The word gospel certainly did not mean that for Paul. For Paul, the word "gospel" meant the news that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead, is the Davidic Messiah and lord of this present world. Refer to Romans 1:3-4

Now to be clear, the bit about "getting saved" is part of that broader gospel vision. But if we use the word "gospel" as Paul used it (and how it was used in those times - to announce the ascendency of a new emperor), it becomes entirely plausible that there is indeed a way we can "preach the gospel to the birds, the rocks, and the trees".

And I suspect that you all know what I will say - by doing our part to participate in God's project of redeeming his precious and beloved physical world. That, I suggest, is part of what it means to the enact the gospel lordship of Jesus over this present world.

 

[Andre]

Um, Ok. The flood ?

My question was a little imprecise. I meant to ask you to present texts that talk about a future destruction of the earth. That is the issue that we have been pursuing. Besides, the flood did not destroy the earth.

Please answer my very specific question about Romans 2:

What did Paul have in his mind when he wrote these words - especially the stuff in bold.

the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God

Paul must have meant something when he wrote these words. What do you think he meant - about these words in particular.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yeah, you were a little vague.

Not going to address the Romans thing, again. I say Jesus did not come to save anything but man. I've read yer scriptures, I don't buy it, and I'm simply not going to discuss it.

As far as your contention that the flood didn't destroy the world, well, what does God consider his greatest work, man, or the earth ?

Are you telling me God has reverence for the earth, but not plants & animals who inhabit it ?

 

[Revmitchell]

What about this:

And He said to them, " Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation

To anticipate a counterargument. I would rather take Paul at his word and figure out how we can preach the gospel to the created order (i.e. the birds and the rock and the trees, along with people) than to say "well Paul really doesn't mean creation here, he means all humanity and has been a little off in his choice of words". I agree that context makes it plausible that he is talking about only "people". But I also think it plausible that He really means "creation" in the more global sense.

And my view is made even more plausible once one corrects what I think is a major error in western Christianity - the belief that the word "gospel" refers simply to the news that "if you believe in Jesus, you will go to heaven when you die". The word gospel certainly did not mean that for Paul. For Paul, the word "gospel" meant the news that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead, is the Davidic Messiah and lord of this present world. Refer to Romans 1:3-4

Now to be clear, the bit about "getting saved" is part of that broader gospel vision. But if we use the word "gospel" as Paul used it (and how it was used in those times - to announce the ascendency of a new emperor), it becomes entirely plausible that there is indeed a way we can "preach the gospel to the birds, the rocks, and the trees".

And I suspect that you all know what I will say - by doing our part to participate in God's project of redeeming his precious and beloved physical world. That, I suggest, is part of what it means to the enact the gospel lordship of Jesus over this present world.

What is your base theology? It seems your church has some kind of Methodist background is this correct?

 

[Dragoon68]

Because God has nothing to do with the modern enviromental movement, no matter the tap-dance you can do thru scripture. Jesus came to save man, and he made the salvation plan simple.

And don't you think he could renew the earth without a global pollution tax, that will only go to corrupt U.N. officials ? And do you really think God wants us working with atheists, at all ? Seems like that is more at odd with plain scripture.

You've got it Bro. Curtis!

 

[Dragoon68]

... What do you think that Isaiah is writing about when he penned these words, if not a redeemed creation that extends beyond men:

the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.
13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree,
and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.
This will be for the LORD's renown,
for an everlasting sign,
which will not be destroyed. ...

The Bible proclaims God's perfect creation, man's fallen and lost state, man's hopeless inability to follow God's law and earn his salvation, God's deserving condemnation of man, God's perfect answer to man's predicament through salvation by His sacrifice on the cross and victory over death to those who will accept it, God's promise of our restoration to an eternity of fellowship with Him, and the peace of mind and heart that all will be well through Him.

Isaiah 55 fits right in with the overall theme. It tells of God's grace through His offer of pardon, peace, and happiness. It warns us that there is a time limit on this offer that expires upon our death. It instructs us to repent and end our rebellion against our Creator. It makes clear that God's forgiveness is a pardon just as if we never had sinned and been separated from Him. It proclaims that this grace, even though not seen, is as certain as nature around us which can be seen. It tells man that God's truth will cause a spiritual change in men that can not come about by the powers of nature and it will have a lasting effect. It proclaims that the glory of this belongs to the Lord.

Isaiah 55 is not about God's relationship to the earth and what He has in store for it but, rather, to man that He made in His own image and to which He has extended completely undeserved grace.

 

[KenH]

I am sorry I worded it like that, and beg your forgiveness for it.

No problemo.

 

[Gwen]

What is your base theology? It seems your church has some kind of Methodist background is this correct?

My son has some of Rob Bell's books, and he promotes this doctrine. I don't buy it.

 

[Revmitchell]

My son has some of Rob Bell's books, and he promotes this doctrine. I don't buy it.

Ahhh! The emergent heresy. I see.

 

[Gwen]

What about this:

And He said to them, " Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation

To anticipate a counterargument. I would rather take Paul at his word and figure out how we can preach the gospel to the created order (i.e. the birds and the rock and the trees, along with people) than to say "well Paul really doesn't mean creation here, he means all humanity and has been a little off in his choice of words". I agree that context makes it plausible that he is talking about only "people". But I also think it plausible that He really means "creation" in the more global sense.

And my view is made even more plausible once one corrects what I think is a major error in western Christianity - the belief that the word "gospel" refers simply to the news that "if you believe in Jesus, you will go to heaven when you die". The word gospel certainly did not mean that for Paul. For Paul, the word "gospel" meant the news that Jesus Christ has risen from the dead, is the Davidic Messiah and lord of this present world. Refer to Romans 1:3-4

Now to be clear, the bit about "getting saved" is part of that broader gospel vision. But if we use the word "gospel" as Paul used it (and how it was used in those times - to announce the ascendency of a new emperor), it becomes entirely plausible that there is indeed a way we can "preach the gospel to the birds, the rocks, and the trees".

And I suspect that you all know what I will say - by doing our part to participate in God's project of redeeming his precious and beloved physical world. That, I suggest, is part of what it means to the enact the gospel lordship of Jesus over this present world.

Are you saying that we can actually reverse the effects of the curse?

 

[Revmitchell]

Biblical Scholars Challenge Pelosi's 'Scripture' Quote

.......People try to use the Bible to give authority to what they are trying to say," he said. "(This) is one of those texts that you fabricate in order to support what you want to say."

Story Here

 

[Andre]

Not going to address the Romans thing,...

Your refusal to answer a clear and direct question strongly suggests that you cannot make that text work with your position. If you could, you would answer the question.

It is, of course, your right to not answer a question. But taking that position does great damage to the position you are supporting.

 

[Andre]

What is your base theology? It seems your church has some kind of Methodist background is this correct?

I do not see the relevance of this question. Can we please consider the scriptures as our source and see what they say, not what our respective religious traditions say.

 

[Andre]

You've got it Bro. Curtis!

Hello Dragoon:

Since you agree with Bro Curtis that I am tap dancing, perhaps you will be willing to address the Scripture and answer the following question that Bro Curtis has refused to answer:

Paul wrote what he wrote - the world will be restored and transformed. If what I am doing is a "tap dance", then please tell us precisely what you think was in Paul's mind when he wrote these very words:

the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God

 

[Andre]

Are you saying that we can actually reverse the effects of the curse?

Good question. I am not sure what role we play, if any. But I am pretty sure that the Scriptures teach that God has begun to reverse the curse and, more specifically to the issue of this thread, is actively at work to redeem all of the created order, not just mankind.

Let me ask you a question if I may. What do you think of the following:

1. There is an interesting parallel in timing between the Genesis creation account and the Easter week account. On the 6th day in Genesis, God creates man. On the 6th day (Good Friday), Pilate presents the beaten Jesus to the crowd and proclaims "Behold the man!". On the 7th day in Genesis, God rests from His creative labours. On the 7th day (the day after Good Friday), Jesus arguably "rests" in the grave. On the 1st day of a new week, Jesus rises. What happens on the 1st day of the Genesis account? God creates the cosmos. Believing that God weaves patterns into the Scriptures, and taking other scriptures into account, I draw this conclusion: The resurrection of Jesus from the dead on the 1st day tells us that God has begun a new round of creative work in respect to His cosmos - its not "all about us and getting to go to Heaven when you die".

2. Jesus is mistaken for the gardener. What does God create for Adam and Eve? A garden. Jesus is the new gardener, initiating a project of reclamation for the Garden of Eden. God, through Christ, is beginning a new creative work - rescuing all of creation from decay.

 

[Andre]

Hello Revmitchell:

Can you please answer the following question about your view that "the creation" means "the gentiles" in Romans 8.

On what basis do you conclude that Paul has a Jew-Gentile distinction in view here, given the chapter is introduced with a reference to a category of persons - those in Christ Jesus - that contains both Jews and Gentiles? Can you point to the verse where such a distinction is actually initiated, remembering that no competent writer would intend us to understand that "creation = something other than the normal sense of the created material world" without setting the stage for such a jump.

There is indeed Biblical precedent for such metaphorical usage. But the context has to justify it. So where does the context legitimate this rather unusual take on what the word "creation" means?

I trust you realize that if you showed Romans 8 to someone from Mars (who at least knew the English), they would naturally assume that creation = what it normally means in english "religious" usage - the birds, plants, and rivers, etc. So to make your case stick, I do think you need to justify your rather unusual take on what "creation" means here.

And, to be fair, I am perfectly open to you appealing to broader scriptural themes to make a case that, within that larger story, it makes sense to see "creation" as referring to the Gentiles.

I do not see the connection yet.