E. Stephen Burnett says:

Let’s really hope I can keep this brief (as we wrap up?):

(Narrator: He did not keep it brief.)

you are definitely assertive about things that are not actually proven or one hundred percent clear.

But I’ve shared several sources that point to this fact that restoration, resurrection, and renewal (not “reboot, obliterate, start over from scratch”) are intrinsic biblical concepts. These aren’t notions snatched from outside the Bible and then read back into the Bible. In fact, the “reboot, obliterate, start over from scratch” concept is the alien one.

As if your position is FOR SURE, definitely right, and anybody objecting is definitely wrong.

Alas, this I cannot help. Yes, I’m pretty sure I’m right on this one. Still, defining-resurrection is a second-tier doctrine, similar to the need for Christians must define the Trinity. Accepting the Triune God and the Resurrection, however, qualify as first-tier doctrines (though we may be confused on particulars or even accidentally deny biblical definitions of these). So if you detect any “I would break fellowship over this one, so-called ‘brother'” nonsense in my tone, I assure you it’s not at all intended.

For example, you say, “Scripture never once presumes or theologically argues the overall destruction/replacement of the material world”…and that’s a statement in dispute here.

I’m speaking of Scripture’s overwhelming support for redemption/renewal/restoration (over and against “burn it all down and start over”)—across all of Scripture. Again, I’m presuming here that Scripture-interprets-Scripture. One may choose to get stuck in a particular view of 2 Peter 3:10–12, but it would absolutely need to align with the rest of the Bible. Otherwise you’d have yourself a Blatant Contradiction.

If II Peter 3:10 and 12 refer to the destruction of the elements and that means everything will be destroyed (which is what it seems to plainly say if you read pretty much any translation other than the ESV–or the original Greek for that matter), then the Scripture actually says everything will be destroyed.

I have no issue with “destroyed.” It’s clear that this physical universe must, in some sense, die. I’m saying: It’s coming back, the selfsame universe, with material and metaphysical continuity with the old universe. Frankly, if you’d continue objecting to that, then when I say, “Christians are going to be resurrected in their materially same bodies,” you might as well insist, “But we have to die first!” Yes, of course we have to die first. I do not deny death, for Christian persons or the kind of “death” prophesied for the physical universe. But God is outside time. If you insist on “dissolving” as a complete obliteration (effect) by the fire (the cause), then he is fully able to rewind the process and bring it back. Pretty clever solution, this. Similarly, Jesus promised physical resurrection for all who believe in Him, regardless of whether their bodies had been reduced to ash. God will still bring them back, and their very eyes, like those of the Old Testament saint Job, will see him.

That’s a statement to build a theology out of, rather than taking what you think Paul meant in Romans 8 and saying Peter could not have meant what he actually said.

In fact, it’s more questionable to fix on a particular view and interpretation of a single verse or isolated segment of Scripture, either with the Greek or without it, and without an eye toward all the Bible: i.e. what I’ve called the constant emphasis on renewal, resurrection, and restoration, explicit in those texts and elsewhere.

Again: Scripture must interpret Scripture. It also helps to have aid from faithful teachers who have not only studied particular texts with an eye to the Greek, but have studied Greek language and culture and historical context and genre and beyond, over decades, and share their wisdom with members who are in local churches and local teaching.

Doctrine should be built inductively off of what Scripture says, rather than deductively, as in “I’ve got a concept and I’m going to shoehorn everything I read into this concept.”

Amen. But I think you’re the one with the “nuke it from orbit and start over, without material or other kinds of continuity” shoehorned-in notion. One must be aware: this is a very, very powerful set of ideas that have derived from plainly pagan conceptions of the universe. (I’m not saying you’re a pagan! Just that these are ultimately pagan ideas.)

Note that Revelation 21:1 says the Old Earth will pass away, without saying how, but doesn’t say the New Earth is exactly the same.

Of course it’s not “exactly the same.” Now you’re just misreading me.

New Earth will be this Earth, made new. That means it will be the same, but incredibly upgraded. Expanding on Alcorn’s favored car metaphor: a hyper-skilled mechanic might rebuild your Camry into a Hummer, but it would be absurd to insist the Hummer isn’t a four-wheeled vehicle like the Camry was.

I can link to other articles about “there was no longer any sea,” because this does require special explanation.

This, by the way, is why I will constantly assume that (1) if it’s not sinful, (2) if it’s something God made and called good, (3) if it’s not specifically mentioned in the Bible as something that does not directly continue in New Earth (i.e. marriage), then it’s presumed in New Earth—as opposed to assuming it’s not there because “we all know” the place will be entirely different, alien/inhuman/surpassing any human conception, et cetera.

It’s the sun comment, however, that’s especially interesting. Check the verse again: John the revelator doesn’t actually say the sun ceases to exist. (Around what else would New Earth orbit?) It only says the city (which is apparently some kind of fixed geographic environment within this larger world?) has no need for a sun or moon (Rev. 21:23).

However, in a way we’re having a Ship of Theseus argument here, though I don’t know if you perceive it. I’m saying that a second creation of the same or similar design IS the same creation for all practical purposes, even if Theseus’s ship has all its planks replaced. The form, the concept of the ship (i.e. the creation), its existence as an idea, especially when we are talking about the mind of God preserving continuity, doesn’t require the same literal matter to reassemble for Creation to be redeemed. Creation can be redeemed even if it is destroyed.

You continually presume, however, that Scripture assumes creation will be destroyed—when the Bible is constantly, in words and in images, using images of continuity, renewal, restoration, and so on. 🙂 One verse, with what you’ve conceded has more than one interpretation, does not overthrow all of these more specific/clear verses about creation’s fate.

Anyway, we both get our way if we consider this simple fact: that God is infinitely outside what we call the fourth dimension and can literally rewind time itself to reverse the effects of decomposition and destruction (of the human body) or the effects of the fiery dissolution of elements (of the universe). If we can make up superheroes who do this with timeships (such as Doctor Who) or magical amulets (such as superhero wizard Doctor Strange), then it isn’t hard to imagine that God himself will do this.

We likewise can be resurrected even if the exact matter that made us is never put back together again–even if we only have the pattern of who we are, the idea–

Again, I’m with you so far …

even if the final form of that idea is substantially different from what we would imagine it to be.

Made new? Yes. No more sickness, scars, missing limbs, or weakness.

But “substantially different”? No. This is not a biblical concept. God made the human body good, and there is no biblical cause (only some very spiritual-sounding assumptions) to presume that our final form will be “substantially different.” (Examples: it’s fun to imagine flying, phasing through walls, and such, but I’d view these as miraculous exceptions to the norm. Human bodies will have all the parts we can expect now, and won’t have wings, extra eyes, etc.) You seem to be lapsing into the fallacy of the excluded middle, e.g. since the “final form” cannot be “exactly the same” as now, then it must be “substantially different”—without room for the biblical category of “the same, but made new,” a mixture of same but different. But even this argument presumes we are trying to get to the end with logic. I am trying to draw from all the Bible’s emphases (following after several other godly folks who’ve already done this and to whom I’m indebted), and in so doing, reach their destination. (Though I often say more than they about the possibilities of popular culture in the New Heavens and New Earth—see tomorrow’s podcast.)

As for imagining what heaven will be like, I wouldn’t say we can’t do that. But we stumble into error if we assert things as absolutely certain about what we imagine that in fact are not so absolute and are not so sure.

I agree. That’s why our vision of the New Earth must start more specifically with biblical promises, i.e. the “normal” stuff like farming, traveling, ships of Tarshish, some kind of cultural continuance (like kings bringing into the city “the glory and honor of the nations”). This is safer territory, and only from there should we launch outward (with qualifiers) and wonder if God will create new creatures and let us colonize planets.

Such as, “Scripture never once presumes or theologically argues the overall destruction/replacement of the material world.”That’s an interpretation, not a fact.

Rather: fact, I say, fact, and so far unchallenged here. 🙂

I’m saying this for clarity’s sake, not because I think for certain you are wrong–but rather that your certainty is off-base.

You seem rather certain yourself. Unstoppable force, et cetera?

I’m focused on drawing my doctrine from Scripture rather than worrying about implications and then reading back into texts.

Here you do seem to severely misunderstand my purpose. What I’m doing is not “worrying about implications.” Rather, I’m saying, “Hey, this interpretation of an (at best) uncertain text does not align with what Scripture says over here.” The effort is about harmonizing Scripture, not bothering about “implications.” Really, I think you need to read my work again. Or don’t read it. Rather, check into the lengthier sources to which I’ve repeatedly pointed, such as Piper, Alcorn, and several others. We really ought to be doing that, rather than trying to hash this out using blunt-instrument comments—as if the body of Christ was made to debate this stuff solely on the internet—as if we’re doomed to reinvent the wheel as isolated individuals, ignoring the good work of faithful saints who are blessed to study these wondrous truths centuries ahead of us.