New Heavens And A New Earth

Status
Not open for further replies.
I feel that there will be a new earth after Satan is let loose after The Milinuium and his army is Crushed the second Resurection happans the evil are cast in to hell along with death and al the rest of God's enimes. Then God creates a new earth after the old one is destroyed by fire this could be very well the old earth's core implodeing but who knows. Then a new earth pure and new free of sin will be created with the New Jeruslum (yes I believe a giant cubical New Jersulam will be on the earth.) On the earth where the redeemed will worship God for all eternity in new hevanlly bodies. Where we will see God face to face and there will trully be nither jew nor gentile male nor female only one kind of people the rdeamed.:2cents:

I think you have been reading too much of J N Darby ;)


I agree. God has been creating a new heaven and earth. The last chapter of Isaiah describes that God is creating a new heaven and earth. It is the theme of Holy Scripture.
 
I feel that there will be a new earth after Satan is let loose after The Milinuium and his army is Crushed the second Resurection happans the evil are cast in to hell along with death and al the rest of God's enimes. Then God creates a new earth after the old one is destroyed by fire this could be very well the old earth's core implodeing but who knows. Then a new earth pure and new free of sin will be created with the New Jeruslum (yes I believe a giant cubical New Jersulam will be on the earth.) On the earth where the redeemed will worship God for all eternity in new hevanlly bodies. Where we will see God face to face and there will trully be nither jew nor gentile male nor female only one kind of people the rdeamed.:2cents:

I think you have been reading too much of J N Darby ;)

If I where a Darbyite I would have argued for a duel covenant belief. In wich the jews remain on earth for eternity. While the christians remain in Heaven never the twain shall meet. With that being said I still feel Darby had some very good writeings.:offtopic:
 
If I where a Darbyite I would have argued for a duel covenant belief. In wich the jews remain on earth for eternity. While the christians remain in Heaven never the twain shall meet.

Having been in the Plymouth Brethren the teaching of Darby et al is rather familiar to me. Needless to say I disagree with dispensationalism in all of its forms, classic, revised and progressive. :)

May I suggest a read of The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God by G.K. Beale
 
Hi:

R. Harris:

I think the phrase "heaven and earth" is used differently throughout Scripture. It can, as you noted, be as the Preterests say as referring to the Temple of Solomon and the Second Temple. However, it seems clear that Paul in Hebrews is referring to the physical "heavens and earth" that God created "in the beginning." I think the context in Peter as well as Revelation 21ff also requires one to understand "heaven and earth" to mean the physical and literal as well.

-CH

I still wish that the meaning of the Greek word for "elements" in II Peter 3:10 and II Peter 3:12 (translated as 'heavenly bodies' in the ESV, though all other major translations favor 'elements' there) would be cleared up.

If it indeed ONLY refers to the Temple elements, as Bacon and DeMar state, then the preterist interpretation would appear to win the day. Again, I am not saying that is the case, I am simply seeking clarification.
 
If I where a Darbyite I would have argued for a duel covenant belief. In wich the jews remain on earth for eternity. While the christians remain in Heaven never the twain shall meet.

Having been in the Plymouth Brethren the teaching of Darby et al is rather familiar to me. Needless to say I disagree with dispensationalism in all of its forms, classic, revised and progressive. :)

May I suggest a read of The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God by G.K. Beale

I amquite familar with Beale's arguments but when it comesto DispensationalimsI have a real live and let live attitude after all Eschatolgy is not a test of Orthodxy. I could say Amils dney Rvelation 20 and 21 and use silly putty isogesis but that's pointless and at the end of the day what matter most is our daily Christian walk not wither there will be a literal or figurtive temple or a literal or figurtive milinum. I hold to my beliefs you have yours I just happen to feel through my study of Scripture that dispensatonal Pre Millinalism is the most corect I am not tied down to this interpretaion it is just one I favor.:2cents:
 
I amquite familar with Beale's arguments but when it comesto DispensationalimsI have a real live and let live attitude after all Eschatolgy is not a test of Orthodxy. I could say Amils dney Rvelation 20 and 21 and use silly putty isogesis but that's pointless and at the end of the day what matter most is our daily Christian walk not wither there will be a literal or figurtive temple or a literal or figurtive milinum. I hold to my beliefs you have yours I just happen to feel through my study of Scripture that dispensatonal Pre Millinalism is the most corect I am not tied down to this interpretaion it is just one I favor.:2cents:

Why would God through the process of revealing all of this for a "live and let live attitude"? Especially if you have really read Beale and are quite familiar with his arguments, then you would see how this all effects our daily Christian walk. A good Reformed motto is the imperative flows from the indicative. Or, a another way, eschatology matters - 'shining brass on the titanic' or 'we are going to take this place over is all too practical for our daily lives. Yet, you know what really matters. :2cents:

All the same, it is good to see a steady dose of relativism reach the Puritan Board.
 
I hold to my beliefs you have yours I just happen to feel through my study of Scripture that dispensatonal Pre Millinalism is the most corect I am not tied down to this interpretaion it is just one I favor.:2cents:

Let's be clear, dispensationalism is more than just premillennialism. Dispensationalism is a novelty that divides the Scripture artificially, divides the people of God artificially, and rests upon a very bad hermeneutic and shoddy exegesis. :2cents:
 
I hold to my beliefs you have yours I just happen to feel through my study of Scripture that dispensatonal Pre Millinalism is the most corect I am not tied down to this interpretaion it is just one I favor.:2cents:

Let's be clear, dispensationalism is more than just premillennialism. Dispensationalism is a novelty that divides the Scripture artificially, divides the people of God artificially, and rests upon a very bad hermeneutic and shoddy exegesis. :2cents:

I understand Dispensationalism is more then Peemillinalism but ultmatelly it isnt heretical. Untill you go to the extremes of people like John Hagge or Jack VanImpe. To call it a novelty is to me seems insulting because many good men who are bright and god exegetes of The Word have held to this "Novilty" men such as David L. Turner and James Oliver Buswell. The Bible Presbyterian Church was even created out of there suppourt of Dispensationalism and The Scofield Refrence Bible. So while some people's exegesis may be bad i.e Lindsy Lahey and even Ice there where many good scholars and faithfull Christians who held this view but that's my view
 
I amquite familar with Beale's arguments but when it comesto DispensationalimsI have a real live and let live attitude after all Eschatolgy is not a test of Orthodxy. I could say Amils dney Rvelation 20 and 21 and use silly putty isogesis but that's pointless and at the end of the day what matter most is our daily Christian walk not wither there will be a literal or figurtive temple or a literal or figurtive milinum. I hold to my beliefs you have yours I just happen to feel through my study of Scripture that dispensatonal Pre Millinalism is the most corect I am not tied down to this interpretaion it is just one I favor.:2cents:

Why would God through the process of revealing all of this for a "live and let live attitude"? Especially if you have really read Beale and are quite familiar with his arguments, then you would see how this all effects our daily Christian walk. A good Reformed motto is the imperative flows from the indicative. Or, a another way, eschatology matters - 'shining brass on the titanic' or 'we are going to take this place over is all too practical for our daily lives. Yet, you know what really matters. :2cents:

All the same, it is good to see a steady dose of relativism reach the Puritan Board.

The reason I have the as you say "live and live attitude" is because so many make Eschatolgy a test of Orthodoxy it is not. This is especlly true of many Dispensationalists and some Amillinilists where you are looked upon as less reformed or Calvinistc if you are a Dispensationalist. That's why I take this view because the brethran should not be devided over third tere issues. There is an attack on The Penal Substition of Christ going on Homosexuality is being enshrined in various "denominations" beleivers are being persicuted heavelly in forign countries why argue over such a spirtual mote? But if my Dispensationalist view is attacked or declared some sort of Error or Heresy I will defend it because I feel it is right and correct I just keep it close to my heart because there are more importnet things to argue over then the time of Christ's comeing or a divison of the people of God for a short period who will then be joind togther as one people under mantel of the redeemed the argument that Dispensationalism devides the people of God is dated with that being said I have said all I have to say on this subject and I am done to qoute Martin Luther here I stand I can do no other.

God Bless in peace and truth
Aaron
 
To call it a novelty is to me seems insulting because many good men who are bright and god exegetes of The Word have held to this "Novilty"...

Stand back and look at the whole of Church History. Now name me one person before 1800 who taught dispensationalism. :think:
 
Dr. John Owen On
The "New Heavens and Earth"
(2 Peter 3:13)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The apostle makes a distribution of the world into heaven and earth, and saith they were destroyed with water, and perished. We know that neither the fabric nor substance of the one or other was destroyed, but only men that liveth on the earth; and the apostle tells us (ver. 7) of the heaven and earth that were then, and were destroyed by water, distinct from the heavens and the earth that were now, and were to be consumed by fire; and yet as to the visible fabric of heaven and earth they were the same both before the flood and in the apostle's time, and continue so to this day; when yet it is certain that the heavens and earth, whereof he spake, were to be destroyed and consumed by fire in that generation. We must, then, for the clearing of our foundation a little, consider what the apostle intends by the heavens and the earth in these two places.
' 1. It is certain that what the apostle intends by the world, with its heaven, and earth (vers. 5, 6), which was destroyed ; the same, or some-what of that kind, he intends by the heavens and the earth that were to be consumed and destroyed by fire (ver. 7) ; otherwise there would be no coherence in the apostle's discourse, nor any kind of argument, but a mere fallacy of words.
' 2. It is certain that by the flood, the world, or the fabric of heaven and earth, was not destroyed, but only the inhabitants of the world; and therefore the destruction intimated to succeed by fire is not of the substance of the heavens and the earth, which shall not be consumed until the last day, but of person or men living in the world.
'3. Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the world, and the heavens and earth of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose among many that may be produced: Isa. li. 15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God was when He divided the sea (ver. 15) and gave the law (ver. 16), and said to Zion, Thou art my people; that is, when He took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state; then He planted the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth: that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth in the world. And since it is that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that languaue which seems to set forth the end of the world. So Isa. xxxiv. 4, which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. The like also is affirmed of the Roman Empire (Rev. vi. 14), which the Jews constantly affirm to be intended by Edom in the prophets. And in our Saviour Christ's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv.) He sets it out by expressions of the same importance. It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.
' 4. On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; for which I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text:-
'(1.) Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews, some of them believing, others opposing, the faith. Now there was no particular concernment of that generation, nor in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judment in general ; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread for the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation ; and, besides, an ample testimony both to the one and the other of the power and dominion of tile Lord Jesus Christ, which was the thing in question between them.
'(2.) Peter tells them, that after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of (vers. 7-13), " We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,' etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. lxv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God shall create these new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Saith Peter, " It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell." But now it is evident from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi. 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of Gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of Gospel ordinances to endure for ever. The same thing is so expressed Heb. xii. 26-28.
' This being the design of the place, I shall not insist longer on the context, but briefly open the words proposed, and fix upon the truth continued in them.
'First, There is the foundation of the apostle's inference and exhortation, seeing that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, in a day of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; let others mock at the threats of Christ's coming: He will come- He will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God Himself planted, -the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, -the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinancy against the Lord Christ, shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed: this we know shall be the end of these things, and that shortly.
'There is no outward constitution nor frame of things in government or nations, but it is subject to a dissolution, and may receive it, and that in a way of judgment. If any might plead exemption, that, on many accounts, of which the apostle was discoursing in prophetical terms (for it was not yet time to speak it openly to all) might interpose for its share.'*





* Dr. Owen's Sermon on 2 Peter iii. 11. Works, folio, 1721.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ESCHATOLOGY.COM / KOSG Home

His appeal to Isa 51:16-17: is strengthened by the fact that Isa51:6 is quoted in Hebrews 1;11 :gpl:
 
I think that Jacob (Ivanhoe) holds to the reforming view. I am sympathetic to that view as well.

Close. I hold that the Temple was the cosmos in microcosm (and I can quote amillennialist--I will score so many points for this--GK Beale to the effect). So the destruction of the Temple was a symbolic destruction of the universe and a remaking of the universe under Christ. And I hold to a future bodily coming so don't call me a heretic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top