>From: "Shuan Rose" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> This exchange concerns a response by one of my YEC friends
>to reading an
>ASA journal article advocating that Christians take a bigger role in caring
>for the environment. His attitude is classic YEC.
His response is also classic dispensationalism: we needn't bother the world
will be destriyed anyway!
> Hi, John.
> What I think the writer did was to take seriously Gen.
>1:26-28 and Gen .
>These verses speak of Man's responsibility for creation .
And presumably women's 8-))!
>creation seems to ` be among the the very first tasks that God gave to Man.
>It behooves us to take it s seriously.It involves far more than polishing
>brass. God loves His creation(Jn 3:16) and has a vision for the entire
>cosmos (Col . 1:15-20).I would say that at least we should m make sure that
>we don't muck up His creation.In short, we have to do it all- both proclaim
>t the gospel AND take care of His Creation. We tend to
>remember the first,
>and foget the second.
> This writer seems to have missed a few pertinent verses, and worse -
>basic reason of why Jesus came.
The Fall fouled the creation (earth &
>universe) up so utterly that God is going to destroy it all, and start
The problem with this view is that it is unscriptural! A closer examination
of the scriptures reveal that Jesus won't return to destro the world but
rather renew or transform it. There will be a _renewed_ heavens and earth;
Jesus talks of the _renewal_ (literally rebirth) of all thingsm; and Paul
writes of the creation being liberated - there seems to be no room for
destruction of the earth here. If it were the meek would be very
disappointed (Mt 5:5)!
Mt 24:35 seems at first to suggest destruction, but the Greek word
translated in the NIV as 'pass away' alos occurs in 2 Cor 5:17, where Paul
describes the person in Christ as a new creation, saying the 'old has gone'
(literally passed away). This implies not total destruction but
Heb 1:12 is another, but as in the Matthew passage the emphasis is on a
contrast, here it is between the creation and the creator. The one thing
the writer seems to want to emp[hasise is the unchangeableness of God
compared with his creation - to use it as a proof text fro a theory of
destruction is inappropriate. The word translated as 'changed'
(allagesontai) is the same word used in 1 Cor 15:51 and 52. here the
context is the resurrection of believers: 'we will al be changed'. Yet
again the meaning can be understood as transformation.
2 Pet 3:10 is an important vesre used to justify destruction. However, the
majority of contemporary commentators (see e.g. Baukham, WBC, 1985)
translate the key part as: 'theerath and all its works will be found. The
sens seems to be that the purging fires will enable the earth and all its
work to be 'found', that is revealed or discovered for wnat they are. (On
this verse and the worldview implications of how we translate it see: Al
Wolters 'Worldview and textual criticism in 2Peter 3:10' WTJ 49 (1987)
The idea that the world will be transformed is also seen in Is 2:4; 11:6,8;
and Is 35:6 and also in Enoch 45:5.
Hence, anytime put into caring and stewarding the creation will not be
wasted. The meek can then indeed inherit and rule upon it (Rev 5:10).
>While there is temporal interest in doing the least damage to the
>bio-sphere, God is more intersted in eternal things - like human souls. On
>sinking ship it is wiser to help passengers into life boats, than to polish
This is typical dualistic thinking: more platonic than biblical.
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 08 2002 - 15:51:05 EDT