House Speaker Invokes God and Bible in Earth Day Declaration

I would remind posters that the fall of Adam did not just cause the fall of man - it caused the entirety of creation to "fall":

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.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

And while it is arguably possible to see Isaiah 55 as "just about us", I point out the "weed" connection here. In Isaiah 55 we have "weed-like" plants being replaced by "good" plants. To me this evokes an image of the reversal of the curse that has been placed on the created order (over and above the fall of man himself).

While we are on about Isaiah 55: While Isaiah 55 can be read as a metaphor for God's treatment of humanity, as one poster has argued, the text as it reads is about elements of the created world. On precisely what basis do you not take the text "at its plain reading"?

 

yes. i will be glad to. But it is quite relevent. I want to know the whole of your theology. It will aid me in answering your questions.

 

I agree that all creation fell. I've never heard anyone say otherwise. It's obvious that God not only cursed man, but the earth, the serpent, satan, and woman.

As far as God reversing the curse--I agree that it will be reversed. The Bible is clear that it will be lifted--I just don't believe that we can see any evidence of it being lifted now. Do we have less thorns and thistles than 1000 years ago? Or do women have less pain in bearing children than 1000 years ago? I can't see that it is. It seems to have become worse in some ways instead of better. I see no evidence that it's happening now.

As far as it being more than "just about getting to go to Heaven when you die"--I've never heard any Christian say they believe it's only about getting into heaven!! I've been a Christian since age 7 and in church since I was born. (1957 :laugh: ) The Bible clearly teaches we are to live out our faith, and to be doers of the Word.

 

This is really too time-demanding a request - I would need to write pages and pages. I'll dedicate 10 minutes (see below) to it. However, I am willing to answer specific questions you have in respect to matters of doctrine.

I will say that I am not really coming from any particular doctrinal context - and I have no idea what the difference is between a Methodist and a Lutheran and .....etc.. I became a believer in my 20s (never darkened a church door before that) and will say that I am interested in what the Scriptures teach more than I am looking to be incorporated into a particular denomination.

I will say these things, if they are of any help:

1. I believe the Scriptures to be the word of God;

2. I believe that when Adam fell, mankind and all creation was deeply damaged - so much so that God had to embark on a lengthy plan of redemption;

3. God's redemptive plan is a single plan. I think that the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 15 is the initiation of that single plan whose goal is the redemption of mankind and the entire cosmos. In other words, the story of Israel is not a detached side-show, it is deeply integral to the redemption of mankind.

4. Since Israel is "in Adam" and has proved faithless like the rest of us, she cannot do the job of redeeming mankind. God does not abandon his promise to use Israel though, He insteads finds a faithful Israelite - Jesus.

5. Jesus defeats sin on the cross. This is not just a "judicial substitution" however. Sin, as a real force - a real "thing" if you will and not just a moral category - is defeated. So, in a very real way, the world changed at Calvary;

6. Jesus' resurrection from the dead entails God doing for Jesus what He promised to do for Israel. Justification has turned out to be something other than what the Jews expected - it has turned out to mean resurrection from the dead and new creation for all mankind, as opposed to deliverance for Israel from her pagan rulers.

7. We are now in an age of new creation. Even though the full redemption of both mankind and the cosmos lies in the future, it has started already. The concept of "inaugurated eschatology" is central to what I believe - certain aspects of the promised future world have been brought back into the present. So while it is true that the climax lies in the future, there is redemptive stuff, both in people and in the cosmos, going on right now.

8. Our ultimate home is not a disembodied existence in "Heaven" but rather a distinctly "physical" existence in a remade and re-transformed earth.

These are just some highlights. I hope it helps you see where I am coming from. I look forward to your answer re Romans 8.

 

A number of you appear believe that God is not going to redeem the created order (other than man) - He is not going to "reverse the curse" that the cosmos was subjected to as per Genesis 3.

In order for that view to be credible, you must be able to articulate an answer to the following question:

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.

To be fair, I believe that Revmitchell has answered this question with something like this interpretation:

the gentiles will be liberated from their bondage to sin and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God

I do not think such an interpretation is correct, but at least it is an answer. What do the rest of you think?

Here is my interpretation:

the physical cosmos itself will be liberated from its bondage to the decay (that is the curse of the "ground" as per Genesis 3) and brought into the kind of relationship to redeemed humans that God intended when He placed Adam and Eve in the garden.

 

I agree that it will happen--it's just a matter of when. The curse will be lifted when Christ sets up His earthly Kingdom, known as the Millennium.

 

Thanks for answer. I understand you as saying that this present world will in some sense be "restored" or "redeemed". I presume, therefore, that you do not believe that this present world will ever be destroyed and then replaced with something else.

It would hardly make sense, at least to me, for God to destroy what He has redeemed.

 

Interestingly enough even if Paul had intended what you impose on this passage it still does not support your view of a redemption of the cosmos. First there is no evidence that anything on this earth is getting better. If such a plan was infact initiated after the cross we should be seeing some progress. Truth is just the opposite is happening. The Isaiah passage speaks to a change in the future but makes no suggestion of a process occuring as we speak.

Second there is no evidence and no need to think that their is any corruption outside of the planet earth. Your interpretation falls apart simply based on clear observation of the current world around us.

But I am interested to have you make a case only on a current process of redemption of anything not human. Please make a clear scriptual case that God is redeeming creation (other than man) right now through a process or "project".

 

Actually gwen I think you will find this will happen after the Millenium.

 

What I impose on this passage!? Please be fair, my reading is far more true to the nominal meanings of the words and the concepts involved. I am not the one who thinks "creation" means "gentiles". I think that creation means what it means to most people in a theological context - the created universe. You have yet to answer my question about how you justify such an unusual interpretation. Please address that question.

I disagree with this statement and would suggest that Jesus' entry into the world has indeed had a redemptive effect. People lose sight of this because the connections are so tenuous. I suggest that much medical technology and many of our social and governmental structures, at least in nations rooted in the Christian tradition, are deeply rooted in the redemptive process that Jesus initiated.

Jesus is Lord of this Universe right now. His kingdom is being worked out right now - it is not something only of the future. Now I am not saying that other kingdoms - the kingdoms of materialism, etc - are not winning some battles as well.

I never intended to draw a distinction between this earth and the rest of the universe. When I say cosmos, I refer to it all. The writer of Genesis is very clear - the physical world has been corrupted:

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.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.

While I believe this to be true, I cannot think of any examples off the top of my head. However, I take Paul at his word:

22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time

I know you claim that it is the Gentiles who are groaning. That is, at first glance a pretty unusual reading. Why not tell us how you justify such a "creation = the gentiles" reading? If Paul means the "created world" by creation (clearly this is the most plausibe meaning, at least until other explanations are forthcoming), then he is suggesting that the process is underway, just as pregnancy is a process.

 

I believe it will be destroyed with fire (2 Pet. 2:10). Then a new heavens and a new earth will be created. Why would God not destroy the earth? After all, He destroyed in once by the flood. (2 Pet. 2:5-7). He did not spare His own Son's death (Rom 8:32), so why not destroy something He created?

 

I believe your view is this:

1. God created a perfect world in the beginning;

2. Man sins, and so man and the cosmos "falls" (the earth is cursed as per Genesis 3);

3. God will redeem and restore his creation (you agreed to this in a recent post)

4. God will then destroy what He has redeemed and restored and replace it with something else.

Doesn't that strike you as odd? Why bother to redeem and restore something only to throw it out?

 

I have asked Andre that question several times on this thread, and he has glossed over it, every time. And he will then warn us that failure to answer his questions undermines our credibility.

I would warn Christians against engaging in this. This sounds like heresy, I don't believe the cosmo's redemption is a part of any biblical salvation.

 

It's not the "tap dancing" comment that I agree or disagree with but rather that I agree with the fact that the scriptures do not lend credibility to the "modern environmental movement" and that "Jesus came to save man and he made the salvation plan simple." as Bro Curtis wrote.

[SIZE=+1]To answer your question I quote the entire paragraph of Romans 8:18-25: [/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it."[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=+1]
The scripture reads "creature" - not "creation". Taken either phrase by phrase on in full context of the paragraph it is apparent that "creature" means man - the creature of God the Creator. Verse 21 is about God's promise that His children will be raised up from the dead into a restored eternal fellowship with Him. It has nothing to do with the rest of God's creation whether it be the angels, the heavens, the earth, or the other creatures that dwell in it.
[/SIZE]

 

Man rebelled against God - not against the earth. Man sinned against God - not against the earth. God cursed man - not the earth.

 

You have 3 and 4 mixed up. God will destroy the heavens and the earth, and replace it with a new heavens and a new earth.

 

I assume that the question you refer to is this: Since God destroyed the earth once, why won't He do it again?

God never destroyed the earth. He visited great destruction on it. He never destroyed it, though. So the precedent does not fit here.

God declared his creation to be good. God, as Jesus is resurrected and appears as the gardener on the first day of a new week. And what did God do on the first day in Genesis? He created the cosmos. I do not think this is a co-incidence. We are being told that Eden (creation) is to be reclaimed by the "gardener" - Jesus.

God declared his creation to be "very good". He is not going to "throw it away". Even if the specific Scriptures presented in this thread (Isaiah 55, Romans 8, the John 20 stuff Jesus as gardener) did not support my position on this - and I think they all do - doesn't it seem strange that God would go to great pain to redeem part of his created world - us - and throw the rest away and replace it?

And there is a question of mine that you have not answered:

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.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough how inability to tell us what Paul had in his mind when re wrote these very words is basically proof that your position is unScriptural on the matter of God redeeming his creation. Paul must have meant something when he penned these words. Your failure to answer will be seen, I suggest, as a sign that you can come with no answer that is workable. And if all Scripture is inspired then Paul is saying something true in this snippet from Romans. So what is it?

I trust the readers are aware that claims of "heresy" are often used a "thought-stopper". If my position is heresy, then you should be able to answer the Romans 8 question. I have an answer for it - God will rescue the created world from the decay it fell subject to at the fall (refer Genesis 15).

What is your explanation of this text from Romans?

 

Hello Gwen:

I am a little confused. In your response to my question about Romans 8, you seemed to affirm that God will redeem the creation. You then say it will be destroyed. Can you give us a precise chronology of how you understand this to play out?

Do you, or do you not that the following text from Romans 8 states that God will redeem this present creation?

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

 

I just do not understand how you can read this text and conclude that God did not curse the earth. The text clearly states that He did (making the very reasonable assumption that "ground" is intended to refer to more than just the literal ground):

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;

What do you think the author intended us to understand by the stuff in bold, if not that nature (generalization of "ground") is not cursed by God as a result of the fall?

 

Here is a the 18-22 subset of the material you posted as rendered in the NASB and Young's

NASB:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time (AJ)are not worthy to be compared with the (AK)glory that is to be revealed to us.

19For the (AL)anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for (AM)the revealing of the (AN)sons of God. 20For the creation (AO)was subjected to (AP)futility, not willingly, but (AQ)because of Him who subjected it, [b]in hope 21that (AR)the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22For we know that the whole creation (AS)groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

Young's

For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory about to be revealed in us;
19for the earnest looking out of the creation doth expect the revelation of the sons of God; 20for to vanity was the creation made subject -- not of its will, but because of Him who did subject [it] -- in hope,
21that also the creation itself shall be set free from the servitude of the corruption to the liberty of the glory of the children of God; 22for we have known that all the creation doth groan together, and doth travail in pain together till now.

Neither of these translations have "creature" - they both have creation. Which translation did you use, please.