1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

House Speaker Invokes God and Bible in Earth Day Declaration

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Apr 22, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gwen

    Gwen Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    4,107
    Likes Received:
    5
    Creation will be liberated from its bondage to decay--and what?? Brought into glorious freedom of the children of God. This is talking about us anticipating our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. If you read the whole chapter, it's clearly talking about people--not the earth.
     
  2. Andre

    Andre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I agree........oops, perhaps you weren't talking to me :laugh:

    Before you all "shake the dust", perhaps you can shake the dust off the text from Colossians 1 - that interestingly none of you have addressed. Here it is again:

    He 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

    My position takes Paul at his word - when he says all things will be reconciled, he means what he says - all things.

    You guys have Paul saying "well not really all things, just a sub-set of all things - namely human beings. Even though there is tons of stuff in the universe other than people, when I say "all things", I am referring to human beings only, even though the set of all things normally would denote - you guessed it - all things.

    Look at verse 16. By Jesus all things were created. And by Jesus all things will be reconciled as per verse 20

    My view: In both verses, Paul means what he says - all things, the whole shebang

    Your view has to be one of the following:

    1. In verse 16 Paul is indeed saying Jesus was involved in the creation of the entire universe (including people, of course). But in verse 20, he means something entirely different when he uses this exact same phrase "all things" - he means only people.

    2.
    In verse 16 Paul uses the term all things to denote "just people" and the rest of the stuff in the universe was not actually created by Jesus at all. So in verse 20, he is similarly using the phrase "all things" to refer to people alone.

    Please respond to this text - it won't go away.
     
    #102 Andre, Apr 25, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2008
  3. Andre

    Andre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    In the book of Genesis, God sets the world up so that creation would be "ruled' by human beings. Now despite the way this has "ruler-ship" has been abused - treating the earth as if is our playground, God's intention has always been to have man exercizing the kind of kingship over the created order as Jesus exemplified in His life among us - ruling not by lording ourselves over creation but by following this principle:

    When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

    God always intended to have man "rule" over creation in this Christlike way. It is no wonder, then, that when the created order is liberated from its bondage to decay, it will be brought into the glorious freedom of being set in this kind of relationship to its "master" - human beings.
     
  4. Andre

    Andre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The notion that the life to come will be "timeless" - that time will be "destroyed" - is not Scriptural. I do not know if you asserting this, although it sounds like you are. That time will exist in the life to come can be easily discerned from texts like this one:

    Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.

    The "every month" reference is unambiguous and could not be more clear - there will a time aspect in the life to come.

    Clearly healing is a process - it occurs over time. This text shows us that the life to come will indeed be characterized by time.

    Like Colossians 1 teaches, and like Romans 8 teaches, and like Isaiah 55 teaches, God is going to redeem His creation, not throw it away. And since "time" is part of what God created and declared to be "very good", He is not going to do away with it - He is going to "fix" or redeem it.
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    This post borders on heresy. But is full blown lunacy.
     
  6. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I wasn't addressing you directly. But I was addressing the other members who, like me, have been responding to your stated beliefs point by poiint to no avail. It is clear you are firm in what you believe so there's no point in debating it with you any further thinking we will change your view. The only benefit is to counter what you're claiming so that others not so sure on these points will be less inclined to believe what you're claiming.

    You are correct that the text - the Bible - won't go away! It in no way even implies much less claims the idea that creation in the broad sense beyond mankind is the object of the salvation from sin that Jesus Christ has provided His children. The angels, heavens, earth, and all the other things He created are not the audience of His gospel. Man is the problem, God is the answer, and the Bible explains that to us.
     
    #106 Dragoon68, Apr 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2008
  7. Andre

    Andre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Ah, the cry of one whose position cannot withstand actually engaging the scriptures and needs to play the thought-stopping heresy card.....

    For those just joining the fray, this poster claims that "the creation" in Romans 8 means "the gentiles". When pressed for a justification of this rather unusual reading - getting "gentiles" out of "the creation", he gives us no answer.

    Instead we get the "lunacy / heresy" rhetoric

    Now, please tell us how you justify your claim that "the creation" equals the gentiles. And while you're at it, please tell us how you reconcile your position that the present earth will be destroyed (if that is indeed your view) in light of such things as:

    1. Colossian 1 where Pauls tells us "For 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".

    Does he use the term "all things" even though he means "some things"?


    2. How God's promise to never again destroy all living creation: "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"

    How does God destroy the earth without destoying all the animals? Does he rapture them to some cosmic zoo and then put them back down on the "replacement" earth you appear to believe in?

    These questions are open to any and all. Why has no one has addressed these questions yet?
     
  8. Andre

    Andre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    This simply does not pass Scriptural muster. It is clear that man is the source of the problem - man's fall created the problem. But not only did man "fall", creation fell as a result.

    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;


    So even though this does not sit well with your position, creation (as well as man) is in a fallen state and has at least the possibility to be redeemed. Forget Romans 8. Let's assume that "creation = people" there. Still, texts like Colossians 1, Genesis 8 (where God promises to never wipe out life), and Isaiah 55 all show that this present world will not be destroyed. Not to mention that text in Isaiah that declares that the "earth is full of the glory of God" - will God destroy something that is full of His own glory?

    If I am wrong about these texts, how come no one is telling me how I am wrong? It is true that some have responded to my view on Isaiah 55 and I have responded in turn. I am happy to continue discussing all of the texts.

    In the end, people, of course, are not "forced" to engage in a discussion. And there are people on both sides of any issue who approach such discussions without being open to changing their minds. Such people are lost causes. But for those who are willing to examine the texts objectively and discuss them and are aware that they might have inherited an unscriptural view, I think this thread has provided a lot of arguments for such people to consider.

    May they make up their minds on what the Scriptures really teach, and not what their tradition might tell them. I assume we will at least agree on this principle.
     
  9. Andre

    Andre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    From Ephesians 1:

    9And he[d] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

    I take this text as it reads "all things" means "all things", not "all things minus all of physical creation".

    In a number of texts you guys are simply not taking them as they read. You can prove any position when you redefine words with such freedom.

    Examples:

    1. Colossians 1 where Paul writes that all things wil be reclaimed -you have to believe that "all" = "some". I take "all" to equal "all".

    2. Ephesian 1: exact same thing. You have "all" meaning "some".

    3. Romans 8, where, against most translations (although, to be fair, not all), you take "the creation" to mean "the creatures".

    4. Jesus statement "preach the gospel to all creation", where you use an unscriptural understanding of what the gospel is to ridicule (in one case) the idea that we take Jesus at his word. More about this in a later post.

    5. Isaiah 55, where you patently deny what is there in the text - creation is rejoicing alongside redeemed man and where you seem to overlook the rather clear allusion back to Genesis 3. To refresh. Here is the relevant text 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,

    and now Isaiah 55:

    Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree,
    and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.


    Isaiah here is describing the reversal of the Genesis 3 curse.


     
  10. Andre

    Andre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    It is understandable that people hear Jesus say: "Preach the gospel to all creation" and assume that by "creation", He really means only people.

    This is because there is a general misunderstanding of what the "gospel" actually is.

    Let's see how Paul uses the term. From Romans 1:

    Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord

    This is the gospel, not the narrow "us-centred" message "believe in Jesus and you get to go to heaven when you die". That message is true, and is a consequence of the gospel, but it is not "the gospel".

    The term "gospel" was used in Paul's time to announce the ascendance of a new emperor as ruler over the Roman empire. Paul is declaring that Jesus' resurrection from the dead establishes Jesus, and therefore not Cesar, as ruler over this very real and present world. Please recall that Jesus claimed that "all authority in Heaven and on earth" had been given to Him.

    This is a big reason why Paul got into so much trouble - he was claiming that Jesus is the true ruler of the world, and that Cesar was not. If the "gospel" simply was a message of personal salvation, it would not have been all that threatening to the Roman authorities.

    In any event, when the gospel is seen as announcing that God is lord over this present world, it can be seen how we can indeed "preach the gospel" to "all creation" - just as Jesus said.

    Remember this from the garden of Eden account:

    The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it

    Jesus, mistaken to be the gardener on Easter morning on the first day of the week - the day when God created the cosmos - is the true gardener after all. And He will take care of his garden - the created cosmos. And I suggest that to "preach the gospel" to the "material world" is to take care of God's new creation in Christ, just as Adam and Eve were commanded to take care of creation before the fall.
     
  11. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's been done now several times by several people!

    I recommend you take a fresh look at your interpretation of the scriptures. I think you've strayed way off the gospel message.
     
  12. Andre

    Andre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The above was in response to my claim that texts had not been addressed.

    Where? Please identify the specific posts by post number where anyone has responded to my arguments in respect to the Colossian 1 text and the Genesis 8 text.
     
  13. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're engaged in a circular argument - to borrow you're own words - that, as the term implies, always come back to the same point. That theme has already been disproved several times by several persons in this thread. There's no point in taking side trips down more paths based on extracting a word here or there in a vain attempt to force the purpose and meaning of the whole of scripture to be something that it is not.
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Well I will tell you what. You keep going like you are. I encourage you to. That would be best for all. Do not stop. Do not hold back.
     
  15. Andre

    Andre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    My arguments are clearly not circular and the reader who knows what a circular argument will know this.

    People have, in fact, not addressed the specific texts I have referred to - the Colossians 1 text and the Genesis 8 text.

    The reader will draw the obvious conclusion - these texts cannot be integrated into your view. The problem with this, if it is not obvious, is that these texts are scriptural. So they are true. If you cannot give an account of these texts that does not contradict your position, then something that is true contradicts your position.

    In order for your position to be sustained, you must engage these texts. I do not wish to be argumentative, but there is simply no justification for not addressing texts which seem to work against your position.

    These texts, I have argued, rule out the possibility of the earth being destroyed. If you believe in the authority of all scripture, you need to explain how my reasoning about those texts is wrong.

    No one has mounted a response to my take on Colossians1 and Genesis 8.

    Your argument here is of this form:

    1. Scriptures A and B support the position that the world will be destroyed.

    2. Therefore, I do need to address any arguments that scriptures C and D contradict the claim that the earth will be destroyed.

    That is simply not how it works. To be clear: I have (or will) address any and all texts that you guys put forth in respect to supporting your position. You need to do the same.

    I admit that I have not yet addressed the Peter text about the earth melting. I will address that text.
     
  16. Andre

    Andre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Why are you not addressing my questions?

    Do you not think the reader will find that to be suspicious.

    All you need to do to punch a hole in my argument is to explain how Colossians 1 and Genesis 8 are workable within your view.

    Why not do this? Why not show the interested readers where my reasoning is wrong when I argue these texts rule out destruction of the earth?

    But please do not deploy the false reasoning that other texts tell us that the earth will be destroyed. A high school student will understand how that is not an acceptable position.

    And, as I suspect you know, I am more than happy to continue to put forth scriptural arguments for my position.

    No one has responded to Colossians 1.
    No one has responded to Genesis 8.
    No one has responded to Ephesians 1.
    No one has challenged my Romans 1 based assertion of what the gospel is

    This looks mighty suspicious....
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    52,013
    Likes Received:
    3,649
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Good Job:thumbs:
     
  18. Andre

    Andre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Why aren't you answering clear and well-posed questions? What do you think the reader will conclude when you simply refuse to engage texts that, if my arguments are correct, undermine your position?

    Which texts have you provided that I have simply refused to respond to?
     
  19. Andre

    Andre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    26
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Even though all readers will know that several of you continue to evade numerous texts that undermine your position, I shall talk about good old 2 Peter 3:10.

    5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

    8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 10But 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 will now set an example of actually not ignoring texts that challenge my position, but actually mounting a counterargument.

    I will admit that 10b, as a statement unto itself, suggest that the created world will be severely "damaged". It is interesting that the earth is not totally destroyed - the elements are described as being destroyed, but the earth remains. But, this text still seems to speak against redemption of the cosmos.

    But let's see how the author has used the word "destroy" earlier in this text. In verse 6, he uses this very word to describe the Noahic flood. Was the world destroyed in the Noahic flood? No it was not. Lots of things died, but the earth remained.

    And in verse 7, the author establishes a clear link between the "destruction" wrough by the flood and the stuff in verse 10 about the elements being destroyed. Since the Noahic flood did not obliterate the earth, neither will the verse 10 stuff.

    True, both events involve a radical "rooting" out of "bad stuff" from creation, but not destruction.

    And this kind of "rooting out" of evil is entirely consistent with the notion that the cosmos will be re-worked and transformed, not done away with.

    I have now addressed all texts that have been set before me. I will let the reader judge the credibility of how well I work 2 Peter 3:10 into my position. Please give the reader something to chew on from your position re the texts that have been hitherto not addressed:

    No one has responded to Colossians 1.


    No one has responded to Genesis 8.

    No one has responded to Ephesians 1.

    No one has challenged my Romans 1 based assertion of what the gospel is and how this allows us to take seriously the claim that we are to preach the gospel to all creation.

     
    #119 Andre, Apr 26, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2008
  20. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Since this is over the 10-page limit and has veered away from the OP, it is being closed.
    LE
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...