House Speaker Invokes God and Bible in Earth Day Declaration

As to whether the Romans 8 text reads "creature" or "creation", the NET Bible gives 11 translations and 9 of them translate as "creation", the other 2 as "creature".

Despite the lopsidedness of this, it has to be acknowedged that there is some doubt as whether the right term is "creation" or "creature". And this is, of course, extremely important to this issue.

 

Consider this text from Colossians 1:

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and 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

I do not see how this text can be read as not asserting the following:

1. Through Jesus, all things - including, of course, the material world - were created.

2. As a result of Jesus being raised from the dead, all things - including, of course, the material world - are to be reconciled to God.

This is yet another text that shows that God, in Christ, is involved in reclamation of all things - not just people.

 

In the account of Matthew 12, Jesus abolishes the Sabbath (I suspect some will disagree and we can talk about that). What is the significance of this? Well, there are, I believe, a number of things Jesus is telling us through this.

One of these is that God's "Sabbath rest" is over, and in manner entirely consonant with Jesus being seen as the gardener on Easter morning, God, through Jesus, is rolling up His sleeves and initiating new creation in respect to everything in His universe.

It's not all about us - giving us a way to go to heaven when we die - the project of redemption is more global and includes all of creation.

 

If God is going to destroy the world then He will, in the process, destroy all animals and non-human life on the earth. Anyone care to dispute that?

From Genesis 8

"Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though [a] every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

For you who believe the world will be destroyed, how do you make sense of this statement? How will God destroy the earth without destroying all living creatures?

I suspect some will argue that God can be true to His "rainbow" promise if He snatches His people away from the Earth and then blasts the poor animals and the unredeemed as the Earth is destroyed. He has, thus, not destroyed all living creatures. That would seem awfully forced to me.

That would be equivalent to saying this: "And never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done, I will just destroy 99.99 % of them".

Let the reader decide how credible such view is.

Besides, just a few breaths back, we have this:

Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number upon it."

Does it make sense to make this statement above - promoting the re-introduction of animals to the world with intent for them to multiply and be fruitful - and then follow that up with a statement about never destroying all living creatures, while intending us to understand that He (God) will, after all, destroy all the animals.

Even if there were no other texts in my argument, this one alone seems to rule out the possibility that the world will ever be destroyed.

Unless you are going to take what I see a silly position - that God will rescue the animals from the earth, store them in some giant cosmic ark, blast the earth, and then re-insert them onto this "replacement" earth. That way, He could destroy the earth and be true to His promise to not "destroy all living creatures". Any takers for that position?

 

There are too many translations these days and several of them have been rewritten to fit what man wants the Bible to say.

Regardless, if you take "creation" and insert it into the whole context of Romans 8 it doesn't fit but if you take "creature" meaning man it does.

Again it is man that rebelled against God the Father and it is with Him that we are reconciled through God the Son. The heavens and earth and all that is in them were certainly created by God but only man was created in His image. The message of the Bible is for man - not the rocks, trees, rivers, baboons, or anything else but man.

 

What exactly are you saying here? This kind of statement could be applied from "my" side of the argument as easily as from yours". And 9 out of 11 have read the word as "creation", not "creature".

I do not see how anything you have prevented thus far substantiates this claim of yours. What you posted before is this:

This is a circular argument in that it assumes your premise that the word is to be rendered creature. Obviously, if there were true, your point would follow. But if verse 21 is taken as

"that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God

then obviously the promise is not just about God's children (as you assert) but is rather about the whole of creation.

Please provide an argument as to why we must see the verse 21 as being about the "creature" and not the "creation", obviously without simply assuming the very thing you are trying to establish. There may well be such an argument, but please provide it.

Again you ignore, (or to be more fair to you), you overlook a question of mine that I have already posed to you that I do not think you can integrate into your position. It is about this clear statement from Genesis 3:

"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,


This text shows that nature along with man is fallen / cursed. You seem be arguing that only man fell and so nature does not need to be redeemed. But the Genesis text here shows that nature has indeed been cursed and is therefore as much a potential candidate for redemption as is man.

 

Nope! Man is the creature that was separated from God. The curse was put upon man and it resulted in changes to God's creation - nature - that would make life difficult for man and limit man's life on this earth. It has nothing to do with a curse upon the rocks, trees, rivers, baboons, etc. They don't have any more difficult time than they ever did. They aren't doomed to hell because of sin. They aren't in need of salvation.

 

Romans 8:21 [SIZE=+1]"Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God."

It is obvious that believers (men) shall be delivered (saved by grace) from the bondage of corruption (raised from death) into the glorious liberty (reunited fellowship with God) of the children of God. (saints)

The Lord did not die on the cross to save rocks, trees, rivers, baboons, etc. and they have no capacity to understand such matters regardless how majestic or interesting they may be as part of His creation.
[/SIZE]

 

Notwithstanding other takes on Isaiah 55, I have more to say. Here is part of Isaiah 55:

so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

12 You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
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."

I think we all agree that this is about God's redemptive work in the world. Most (all?) of you think that redeeming nature, and more specifically not the one we have right now, is not part of God's plan - its "all about us". And it is clear from this passage that there is a degree of metaphor here (even I, who I think you have to admit, am taking all these various texts more "literally" than the rest of you, do not believe that hills will burst into song).

But, I do suggest it is a very odd poetic style indeed to write such material about what you guys think is a redemption from which nature is excluded, and yet set redeemed mankind in a context that overflows with references to nature.

It simply does not make sense to have the redeemed man "go out in joy" into a "natural world" that is described as if it is celebrating as well, even though, on your view, it will be toasted.

Not to mention this oddity: The writer claims that God's word will achieve its redemptive purpose and not return empty. Yet, if you guys are right, it is only the man who frolics in the nature that is redeemed. So I will assert that you have Isaiah basically saying this:

"Even though my first statement in this text sets the reader up to expect a following explanation of what it means for God's redemptive word to not return empty, I really do not intend you to believe all this stuff about nature seeming to share in this redemption. It is only the man that is redeemed.

So, even though I set this text up with a theme of redemption, and even though a myrtle replacing a brier is a strong image of redemption that harkens clearly back to Genesis 3 and the curse pronounced on nature - with specific allusions to weeds, I do not intend the reader to see things this way at all. It is only the man who is redeemed."

I find that a very curious way to see this text. I think it is far far more reasonable, if you approach this text with an open mind to both positions, to see it as including nature within the scope of redemptive activity.

 

I am not sure why you do not see this argument as circular - it clearly is. You assume that the "creature" rendering is correct as opposed to the "creation" rendering.

I agree entirely that "It is obvious that believers (men) shall be delivered (saved by grace) from the bondage of corruption (raised from death) into the glorious liberty (reunited fellowship with God) of the children of God. (saints)". But it does not logically follow that nature is also being redeemed as well -the two are not mutually exclusive - unless of course, you commit the blatant error of assuming your take on the "creature vs creation" issue).

Perhaps you will claim that you argument does not require the "creature" reading as opposed to the "creation" reading.

Well, then, this still has you merely asserting your position and not supporting it.

Without the "creature" reading, on what basis do you justify your belief that Jesus did not die to save all of the creation? You cannot, legitimately anyway, simply assume this, anymore than I can assume that Jesus died for all creation.

But I have not merely asserted my point. I have defended my point many ways - Isaiah 55, Romans 8 (although this is possibly debatable since if the "2 out of 11" are right, my Romans 8 argument goes out the window) Genesis 3, Colossians 1, Genesis 8, John 20.......

Please, tell us precisely on what basis you believe that Jesus did not die to redeem all of creation? And I know you will be wise enough not to argue that the word is "creature" and not creation. That would seem to be an uphill battle since most translations are against you on this point.

 

I think "creature" is the better choice but, for a moment, assuming that "creation" is the better choice then it also should be defined as "man" because:

The angels are a creation, the heavens are a creation, the earth is a creation, the plants and animals are creations, and man is the fnial creation. All of these were created by God. Only angels and man have rebelled against God. There is no salvation for angels. There is no sin of the heavens, the earth, or the plants and animals. They only follow the laws of nature and have no free will. They have nothing of which to repent.

Paul preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to men so that they might know the truth. He did not preach to the angels, the heavens, the earth, nor to the plants and animals.

Either "creature" or "creation" refers only to man in the context of Romans 8.

 

The text says the ground was cursed. You seem to be directly contradicting the Genesis text when you say "it has nothing to do with a curse on the rocks, trees, rivers, baboons, etc." It is simply incorrect, and obviously so, to deny that a curse was placed on at least the "ground" - perhaps you can argue that only the top six inches of soil is cursed, or something like that.

It is, of course true that the curse on the ground / earth makes life difficult for man. But the ground is still cursed and, as such, is in a position where it could be redeemed.

There is no doubt - the ground was cursed (unless the author of Genesis was mistaken). This does not prove that God will redeem the earth from this curse. But it most certainly shows that the earth is a candidate for redemption.

And I suggest that Isaiah 55 shows that God's redemption will include all of creation. Not to mention Colossians 1, and not to mention that I do not see how to make the "rainbow" promise of Genesis work with the position that the world will be destroyed. And not to mention that the majority of translations have Romans 8 making clear statements that "creation will be liberated from decay"

 

This really does not work. Suppose someone wrote: "The fruit on the table will be redeemed". You are arguing something like this: "Because the mango is the last fruit to be put on the table, or because it is the "best fruit" or because it has this attribute that the other fruits do not have - this means that when the person wrote "fruit", they intended us to read this is as "only the mango"

To be blunt, I think that if creation is really the correct word here, Romans 8 seals the deal in favour of the redemption of creation - if the word really is "creation", then we have as clear and as unequivocal a statement as you could expect - the cosmos will be liberated from its bondage to decay.

This is all true, but not relevant. Genesis 3 tells us clearly that the ground was cursed as a result of what man did. So the ground was put in a situation where it could be redeemed as no consequence of the ground sinning. If you think that an entity can only be placed in a state of "fallen-ness" (and therefore be a candidate for redemption) through its "own" sin, you disagree with the author of Genesis.

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

I suspect you will say that he means "just people". Why? Why does Jesus not mean all of creation, as He says?

 

Do you find certain plants more receptive to the gospel than others ?

 

I take God's word very seriously, and when Jesus says to preach to "all creation", I do not dismiss the possibility that he means there is a way for us to "preach the gospel" to all creation.

Especially since the gospel is not the message that "have faith in Jesus and you will go to heaven when you die". It is something that includes this, but is much bigger. If you have the shrunken and demonstrably unscriptural view that the gospel is simply "about us in respect to what happens when we die", then, of course it makes no sense to preach such a message to "plants". But, the true meaning of the gospel is not this at all. When the word "gospel" is properly understood, there is indeed a way in which it can be preached to "all creation".

So, I can take Jesus at his word here - always the better option.

And I have argued that Isaiah 55, Colossiana 1, Genesis 8, Genesis 3, John 20 and on and on support the notion that the creation will indeed be redeemed.

Care to take me on in respect to these texts and / or provide some to support your position that the earth will not be redeemed and be destroyed instead?

 

No. I want to know the fruits of your labor. I want to know the jewels you will have in your crown for preaching salvation to moss & lichens. I'm serious. Do you find it easier to preach to plants the love & sacrifice angle, or do you scare them into salvation with fire & brimstone preaching? And once you have led a plant to Christ, what materials do you give them to help them in their daily growth in the Holy Spirit ? I mean, they can't read, so you can't go with Chick tracts. I imagine it's about impossible to disciple a tree. They're pretty dumb. You could say they're just about vegetables.

 

How can you say you take Jesus at his word when you deny the earth will be destroyed by fire? It plainly says so in 2Pe 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare."

 

I think it's time to shake the dust off and move on!

 

You misunderstand the very nature of the gospel if you think that "preaching the gospel" only means to "tell people how they can go to heaven when they die".

Do you want to debate my take on what the gospel means? You poke fun because you are mistaken about the breadth and scope of the gospel. You, like the others, fail to grasp that to preach gospel means more than telling people about life after death. It is the announcement that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah, has risen from the dead and been constituted by God as the Lord of this present material reality - and life after death for human beings is part of the working out of all that. And like the faithful gardener that He is, Jesus is, among other things, working in the very fabric of material reality to restore and redeem it.

You seem to think God will redeem part of his creation - believing human beings and throw the rest of it away.

Isaiah declares that the earth is full of the glory of God. I guess on your view, He is going to burn up a material world that, even now, throbs with the presence of God. That is not what the Scriptures teach, although you are free to believe it.

Anyway, I should think that you would want to answer my specific and clear question about Romans 8 that I have asked repeatedly.

Your failure to answer, while still participating in this thread, can only mean one thing - you do not have a credible account of what Paul meant when he wrote the "creation will be liberated from its bondage to decay"?