1. Kaci Hill says:

    As I can’t get embedding code to work….

    “You can’t get to Heaven on roller skates”
    http://youtu.be/H29PZxdXFKo

  2. Kessie says:

    I don’t see why it’s so important to cling to this earth, theologically.
     
    Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
     
    Right there, it says a new heaven and a new earth and there’s no longer any sea, implying a radical terrain change. Are you saying that God is so small that he has to recycle our old, tired Earth that groans in pain from the curse? God can’t just make a new one?
     
    I also don’t think it’s worth fighting over, as you seem prepared to do. We don’t understand prophecy about the last days anyway, and getting dogmatic about it is only divisive.

    • Good morning, Kessie! I hope you’ll hang with me through the series, which should start with proof about why this matters, and why it’s not needlessly divisive.

      Author Randy Alcorn (whose work we’ve been blessed to feature on Spec-Faith, especially here), has a great summary article of why the New Earth matters, or more basically, why the doctrine of resurrection matters. Yet it’s in his book Heaven — which is really about the New Earth that comes after the afterlife — that could really help put things together more than a more-specifically-focused web series can.

      About the “divisive” possibilities: Recently I heard Alcorn speak again about this topic, and he noted in passing that in the years following Heaven‘s release, he was surprised by how un-controversial it was. Once folks see the truths of physical resurrection for Christ and apply them consistently to His people’s resurrection, and the world’s resurrection, things just make sense!

      From me, though, I can e-cycle some of what I wrote elsewhere, just this morning. First comes 2 Peter 3, followed by an excerpt of the ESV Study Bible commentary.

      But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

      2 Peter 3: 8-10

      2 Pet. 3:10 the day of the Lord. God’s judgment will not be delayed forever (see note on vv. 8–9). When Christ returns it will be sudden, without warning, like the strike of a thief. The heavens (the sky) will pass away (cf. Ps. 102:25–26; Heb. 1:10–12; Rev. 6:14) and the heavenly bodies (stars, etc.) will be burned up and dissolved. There will be no place to hide (cf. Rev. 6:15–16), for the earth and every person’s works on the earth will be exposed (Gk. heurethēsetai, lit., “will be found,” a divine passive meaning “found by God”) to God’s judgment. Some translations read “will be burned up” (Gk. katakaēsetai) because some Greek manuscripts have this wording (instead of Gk. heurethēsetai). But the earliest and most reliable manuscripts have “will be found” (Gk. heurethēsetai), indicating with this reading that the annihilation of the earth is not taught in this passage. Scholars have debated whether the NT speaks of an annihilation of the present cosmos and the creation of a new universe, or whether it indicates the transformation of the present cosmos, including the earth. The latter seems more likely in light of: (1) the preferred reading of this passage (see above); (2) Rom. 8:18–25; (3) many OT prophecies about the renewal of the earth; (4) Christ’s resurrection body being in continuity with his earthly body; and (5) the fact that Christ’s resurrection body is a pattern for the resurrection bodies of Christians (1 Cor. 15:12–58). God seems always to renew, not destroy and recreate, parts of his creation that are marred by sin. See note on Rev. 21:1–8.

      (If you like, I can copy that note on Rev. 21 also.)

      It seems that to insist upon a brand-new creation, with absolutely no carryover of physical objects (which are not evil), atoms, nature, animals, representations of culture, is an artificial constraint. Unless I see this proved positively from Scripture, I’m not sure why we need to accept it as axiomatic. As for the definition of “new,” again we find a correlation between us as “new” people — we still have much of our same personalities, appearance, and talents from after we were saved as before, and will carry the same with us into New Earth — and the New Heavens and New Earth. “Made new” is a good qualifier. As for more, of course I recommend Heaven and Alcorn’s explorations of what “new” in this context best means.

      As for “the sea was no more,” one doesn’t have to buy the Heaven book to look into that. Alcorn’s article addresses that, based not on speculation but exegesis of the term “sea,” paired with other clear Biblical references to bodies of water on the New Earth (such as in Ezekiel). I particularly loved his quote from Charles Spurgeon about the spiritual dimension of the “no longer any sea” comment.

      Finally, the Bible tells us more about the New Earth not only implicitly through its constant emphasis on redemption (as opposed to annihilation and ex nihilo recreation), and explicitly in its descriptions of the New Earth — not only in Rev. 21, but sprinkled throughout the OT. We are free to speculate, but we’re limited where the Bible limits us — and not where it doesn’t (such as the implication that we must necessarily assume this world’s material must be destroyed).

      [Back to all-custom material.]

      Are you saying that God is so small that he has to recycle our old, tired Earth that groans in pain from the curse? God can’t just make a new one?

      He could. That was never in doubt. But will He?

      Perhaps a better question would be: why would He need to?

      God’s apparent “size,” whether large or small, should be defined by His Word. The same is true for what He plans to do. Don’t put God in a box, goes the saying, but He Himself has given definite, “limiting” details of what He’s like and what He’s up to.

      Your perception seems to be that God resurrecting His prized created world from the ravages of sin makes Him “small.” But left to my own devices, it seems to me that to assume He simply must destroy the creation — giving up on His original creation as too far gone to redeem — is what makes Him seem even “smaller.” Rather than trying to figure out His “size” on our own, I ask, does Scripture require us to assume such a lack of continuity between this world and the next? If not, why assume that? It seems an artificial constraint, not just on our “freedom” to imagine and dream about what He has in store, but on the Bible’s implicit and explicit presentations of the After-world.

      • Kessie says:

        Isaiah 65:17: For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
         
        Isaiah 66:22: For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
         
        2 Peter 3:13: Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
         
        Rev 21:1: And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
         
        I can’t argue semantics with you. I’m just going to argue scripture with scripture, and this is what it says. 
         
        Isaiah 65:17: For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
         
        So apparently there’s two Earths being spoken of here. The first one won’t be remembered when the new one is here.
         
        And whether that’s a new planet or this one recycled, I think that means there won’t be any cell towers or iphones. :-p

      • Bob says:

        Intrigued by the topic.
        I’ve shied from reading much about Heaven, reveling in the though that ‘eye has not seen, nor ear heard the things that God has prepared.” My best imagination conjures up a place of endless exploration of God’s handiwork, and praising Him for all His wonders.
        Having lived in this world however, I can’t get beyond a place without sin. Will there be no commandments to break, or no free will to break them? What about competition, or improving ones self (implying imperfections, like bad grammar), without being compulsive or obsessive. What about people? They’re the biggest source of grief, and heaven will be full of them.
        I’ll be anxious to see how you tackle this subject.

        • Thanks, Bob. Here are a few thoughts for a branch-out discussion:

          I’ve shied from reading much about Heaven, reveling in the though that ‘eye has not seen, nor ear heard the things that God has prepared.” My best imagination conjures up a place of endless exploration of God’s handiwork, and praising Him for all His wonders.

          Yet here is what stunned me, whenever I heard that verse quoted — in full. Mind you, this isn’t to suggest an opposite error, that we have the exact schematics of the After-world and/or the New Heavens and New Earth. It’s just to show that this passage is actually talking about something else — God’s secret wisdom about the Gospel, revealed:

          Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

          But, as it is written,
              “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
                  nor the heart of man imagined,
              what God has prepared for those who love him”—

          these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.

          1 Corinthians 2: 6-10

          Kind of changes the usual application of that verse! This was such that I was shocked when I heard the whole section read and presented in context.

          Again, this isn’t saying “oh, actually God has told us all about Heaven.” It’s instead saying that a) this text isn’t about the afterlife, whether in a spiritual world or on the New Earth to come, b) what had been concealed and known only to God, that is, the spiritual wisdom about the Gospel, He has now given. These are the same spiritual things that the natural man can’t understand, but which God’s people can because the Spirit illuminates those truths (2:11-14).

          Having lived in this world however, I can’t get beyond a place without sin. Will there be no commandments to break, or no free will to break them?

          My guess, based on Scripturally based supposition (and borrowed from theologians who’ve combed through all this first): yes, we’ll be free, but we won’t want to. We’ll remember — in a way of recalling details, not in returning to the same way of life — what sin was like. Been there. Done that. Jesus saved me. How could I go back?

          What about competition, or improving ones self (implying imperfections, like bad grammar), without being compulsive or obsessive.

          Glorified people will still be limited. We’ll have eternity to improve and seek challenges and learn and glorify God by our worship in new and exciting ways. That, after all, is what would have happened had Adam and Even not sinned.

          I note, by the way, that their emphasis on material things and a perfect paradise was not somehow automatically “worldly” or distracting from God’s presence. Sin began, though, when they decided this challenge and the roles of being king and queen under the King wasn’t enough for them. They wanted God’s own role and knowledge.

          What about people? They’re the biggest source of grief, and heaven will be full of them.

          Ah, but redeemed saints — different in personalities and races, cultures, genders, but all united in loving allegiance to the Lamb who was slain for their sins from before the world’s foundation.

          This series, though, will mostly explore the fiction question. I do highly recommend books like Alcorn’s Heaven, or Paul Marshall’s Heaven is not My Home (yes, it is an intentionally provocative title, but he’s a teddy bear!), or Mike Wittmer’s Heaven is a Place on Earth. Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology — or the condensed version, Bible Doctrine — also give a fantastic summary about the physical, resurrected New Earth, and what characteristics we can know from Scripture that it will include. And a new book by theologian Gregg Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, should shed more light on how the Church bought into some Greek ideas and moved away (thanks to Philo and Origen) from believing Christ would transform, not abolish, the physical creation. (I’m in line to borrow it from a friend.)

      • Perhaps a better question would be: why would He need to?

        I meant to address that question over at my site but it got away from me. Stephen, God doesn’t “need” to do anything. I think it’s a dangerous move to take a position based on what we’ve determined God would or wouldn’t do simply because we think so. Since you admit God could do what many of us understand Scripture to say He will do, then why not leave it at that — God could do what you think or what we think and we really don’t know how He’ll work it all out.

        This is a big issue when it becomes the centerpiece of theology rather than Christ and Him crucified.

         

        Becky

      • Re. the 2 Peter passage, here’s my response “elsewhere,” Stephen. 😉

        As to 2 Peter 3:10 – “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.” Translating “burned up” as “exposed” based on 2 earlier manuscripts doesn’t change what the rest of the verse says. While the process of causing the heavens to pass away and the elements to be destroyed with intense heat can certainly expose the works (when a bridge collapses, for example, people can see that the structure wasn’t strong enough), but I don’t see that word contradicting or undoing the idea of destruction.

         

        Becky

      • Part of this extends to Becky‘s response at her own site (which I’d encourage all to read), yet I do wonder: am I right in presuming that some suspicion here is automatically that my goal is to defend Worldly Things and un-Godly hedonism?

        Or even that this is automatically a sign that one has forsaken the Gospel in favor of only discussing its implications and results? (That’s a very serious charge.)

        If so, I’m not sure how to correct for that or communicate it better. At this point, I’m willing to take the risk, seeing as how I’m not able to write a multipart series (tying into the fiction issue, anyway) about the evils of the “prosperity gospel” or materialism gone amok. However, I do recognize that while exploring issues of resurrection and continuity, objections could …

        appear to take the spiritual high ground, attempts to refute this false philosophy often appear to be materialistic, hedonistic, or worldly.

        Heaven (p. 459)

        Alcorn, I suppose, has the advantage in that he’s already written clearly about storing up treasures in Heaven, giving ’til it hurts, and giving over and over the “tithe” concept based on a materialism-rejecting eternal perspective. 😀

        So far, though, I have been seeing this assumption, that the very material of this world must be destroyed — that sin and the Devil win over God’s original creation — is being presented is axiomatic. I hope to challenge that, with grace, and knowing that this is a secondary issue (but a vital one), in the weeks ahead.

        Perhaps, if God blesses this effort, I can trust that folks will — while challenging the basis and citations of this series — try not to assume I’m trying to justify greed and materialism. Yes, those are terrible sins. But they’re not the only ones.

        I can’t argue semantics with you

        Kessie, I just hope you’ll consider the discussions of the passages I’ve already raised above. For example, I’ve already addressed the “there was no more sea” part, and remarked upon and encouraged further research about the adjective “new.” What did you think? I hope it was helpful.

        Moreover, this isn’t just my personal little hobby-horse issue. It’s something that many wiser Christians are raising, and addressing with Biblical fidelity and grace (Alcorn among them). When we “argue Scripture with Scripture,” it’s essential to keep the whole Story of the Bible in mind, along with the context of each passage — a point I’m sure you’d agree about!

        The first [Earth] won’t be remembered when the new one is here.

        It sounds like you’re saying that even our memories and imaginations, our personalities, won’t carry over into the resurrected world (whether that means it is re-created entirely or remodeled). Or maybe I missed something?

        Thought: we need to find a way to reconcile Isaiah 65:17 with Revelation 5, in which saints in the present-day intermediate Heaven recall being murdered (!), and the concept that we will certainly remember how Christ redeemed us. Consider: how could we remember those, without also recalling the old Earth?

        Or, as fantasy writer George MacDonald put it, in response to being asked “Shall we know one another in heaven?”

        “Shall we be greater fools in Paradise than we are here?”

        • Kessie says:

          I just hope you’ll consider the discussions of the passages I’ve already raised above. For example, I’ve already addressed the “there was no more sea” part, and remarked upon and encouraged further research about the adjective “new.” What did you think? I hope it was helpful.

          Well, that gets out into the personal conjecture land, and we can argue that until we turn blue and we’ll never convince each other.
           

          It sounds like you’re saying that even our memories and imaginations, our personalities, won’t carry over into the resurrected world (whether that means it is re-created entirely or remodeled). Or maybe I missed something?
          Thought: we need to find a way to reconcile Isaiah 65:17 with Revelation 5, in which saints in the present-day intermediate Heaven recall being murdered (!), and the concept that we will certainly remember how Christ redeemed us. Consider: how could we remember those, without also recalling the old Earth?

          I’m not saying it. God said it.
           
          Although taking that verse at face value, it’ll be more like trading an old junk car for a brand new spiffy model. You’ll be enjoying the new one so much, you won’t even think about the other one.
           
          Of course we’ll still remember ourselves and everything, because the sum of who we are is our memories. But I think we’ll be so busy living in the next world that we won’t give much thought to our old lives.
           

          So far, though, I have been seeing this assumption, that the very material of this world must be destroyed — that sin and the Devil win over God’s original creation — is being presented is axiomatic.

          I think that’s exactly it–wiping the slate clean of the infection of sin and starting over. But again, that’s opinion.
           
          You’re quoting the opinion of people like Randy Alcorn, and even their re-interpretation of scripture, as being equal with God’s word. You need to be careful there and take God’s word as the first authority. When Man starts rearranging God’s word to make more sense to Man, we’re on shaky ground. God’s word doesn’t make sense to us at all. And it should stay that way, because that’s how we know it didn’t originate with Man.

        • Well, that gets out into the personal conjecture land, and we can argue that until we turn blue and we’ll never convince each other.

          It’s not simply conjecture — it’s exegesis/hermeneutics. Reading the text to determine what it meant to its original hearers; then “translating” that to our place in God’s plan, and our culture; and forming our application. Just in case this comes up: that’s not “dry” or “dead” theology, either, but life-giving, essential “blood” that we need to go on living (but a blood used for operating the body, not just carried around!).

          “It’s a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition!”

          So I would ask, before trying to choose what I think the sea reference must mean in my culture, what would the apostle John have been thinking of when he said there was no sea? That comes before figuring out how we read it.

          Also, “turn blue.” I get it. 😀 Ocean? … Blue? Maybe? No?

          “… Babbitty Rabbitty? No?”

          Ezekiel 47 and Rev. 22 both mention a river flowing in the New Earth, giving life to trees planted alongside. We find there much clearer evidence for some kind of body of water in the After-world. Is that a contradiction? Definitely not. I simply suggest that we’ve misunderstood the “sea” in Rev. 21 — the sea of disaster, of sin’s consequences, of separation and doom — and assumed that means any kind of bodies of water will have no place on the New Earth.

          The parts about memories are conjecture one way or the other; I’m content to leave ’em at that, if you are.

          However, this could get into a topic relating to Gospel fruit. I don’t want to forget my life on the old Earth, because God was just as active and sovereign then, in bringing me to salvation and progressive holiness, as He would be in the New Earth. I doubt very highly that we’ll forget the Gospel’s effects on us, even in the times when we were suffering and struggling. That Story will be constantly in view as we glorify God throughout paradise.

          But I’m glad we got the remembering thing (mostly) cleared up. It seems you mainly think there won’t be any point in remembering. I disagree, and I hope I’ve made more clear how come, but it’s not huge, right?

          You’re quoting the opinion of people like Randy Alcorn, and even their re-interpretation of scripture, as being equal with God’s word.

          Can you show me where? So far I’ve only referred to Alcorn as a source, a author/preacher who’s demonstrated many neglected truths about Heaven from Scripture. I don’t think that here I’ve even hinted at suggesting that his opinions are equivalent to God’s Word. Like all of us, Alcorn is fallible, yet God does give His church wise leaders to help us cut through wrong ideas about the Bible. (Alcorn did, after all, wrongly attribute in Heaven the plot of a Star Trek: Voyager episode instead to Star Trek: The Next Generation. 🙂 )

          You need to be careful there and take God’s word as the first authority. When Man starts rearranging God’s word to make more sense to Man, we’re on shaky ground. God’s word doesn’t make sense to us at all. And it should stay that way, because that’s how we know it didn’t originate with Man.

          I’m not sure what to make of that. God is a self-revealing God and He wants Himself and His redemptive Story of the Gospel to be understood and loved by His people. He wants us to ponder and challenge and grow according to His Word. Some parts will be more difficult to understand, but even above, you seemed to say that some parts have an obvious “face value.” I heartily agree (even if I challenge the exact “face value” you believe something says).

          I hope that is helpful to you. And I look forward to continuing exchange about such issues, both in the comments of this column and next week!

    • Kessie, I could have saved myself a LOT of time if I’d only come over and read your post earlier. As it happens, Stephen and I have been exchanging comments on this subject on my site, and I left a LONG one that concludes with exactly what you say here.

      Thanks for your clear, succinct, Biblical  response.

       

      Becky

  3. Galadriel says:

    Well, I suppose this is what comes of encouraging vibrant discussion on a post.  I’ve thought about this a little bit before. One of the quotes that catches my attention is from The Silmarillion, where it is claimed that in the days after the end , the music of men shall be played rightly and take being in the moment of its utterance(paraphrased.) It made me think of subcreation in our world and what effect it will have in heaven.

  4. A trinity of supplemental points:

    1. These are issues on which sincere Christians can disagree.

      My hope is to present Scripture, especially starting next week, challenge some popular misconceptions of how the Bible handles Things.

      Then I hope to apply this more broadly to the specific question of whether our hobbies/jobs, especially love of God-honoring stories, may just come with us into the After-world, for God’s glory.

    2. I’m not addressing the opposite, and equal, risk of valuing Things too highly, or abusing hobbies, jobs or stories for the glory of self and not God. That’s another column series, and I can’t do ’em all at once!

      However, ignoring the Bible’s cautions against materialism would be equally risky as bypassing what it says about how He is redeeming His world.

      Some folks struggle with one extreme. Some folks with the other extreme.

      So if you’ve mainly struggled with materialism and keeping Things in perspective, maybe this isn’t your series, and I don’t mean to minimize your struggles. I also struggle with materialism, yet at present I seem to be at a life station where — yes, this is typical for writers! — it’s not as much a struggle, partly because I literally have no means now for having much Stuff! Other issues thus leap out to me as more pressing for the Church, especially if we push too far against the “prosperity” “gospel” cretins, and real materialism. Yet I have to keep recalling that the Things aren’t the main problem. Our hearts are (Mark 7).

      So if you happen to be at a similar place — agreeing with materialism’s ills yet wondering about the present and future of Things we do sincerely use to glorify God, including story — I’m writing for you especially, but I hope also for others.

      Please, though, trust that others have grown up hearing either opposite notions (heaven will be spiritual and otherworldly, but we’ll like it anyway; in heaven we won’t remember loved ones; in heaven we’ll not have fun, because we’re there to worship). And others grew up with a complete dearth of teaching on the topic.

    3. Here’s hoping I didn’t connote that if you don’t believe exactly this way about the New Heavens and New Earth, then you are doomed to have a weak view of work, vocation, or even storytelling.

      Rather, it seems plenty of folks have awesome like-mindedness about enjoying story in the here and now; and you have strengthened my enjoyment and discernment of the same!

      Still I wonder: is this in spite of vaguer, Scripture-skipping (by accident or default!) views of the New Earth? And if so, how much more encouraged could fans of Biblical spec-stories be, if we pondered more directly the World that our stories anticipate, and in which our stories — the ones we read, or the ones we write — could go on to honor the ultimate Storyteller of the Story that saved us?

  5. I have long wished there would be more fiction dealing with the Afterworld. Sure, there is some, but most of it is sappy and contrived, in my opinion. But the question that irks me most is this: how can there be a good story without conflict? Without sin, as it were? The answer according to principles of good writing is that there can’t be. And yet, there must be a way. Perhaps this is one of the mysteries waiting for us on the other side.

    Of course it’s not just about fiction. The other related question is this: how can life be interesting at all if there is no conflict? Eternal life, no less? But I do know down to my boots that God sure wouldn’t give us a forever that’s boring – so there must be a solution. Maybe the answer lies somewhere in a definition of challenge without a hint of evil, of discovery without danger? 

    I admit I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that possibility, but it’s all I’ve got for now…

  6. Some other possible research about the assumptions one could bring to the Bible about the nature of the everlasting life … at OnePlace.com, for download, from Jan. 16, 2006.

    This is Way of the Master Radio (now known as Wretched Radio), and the host is Todd Friel. (Same guy as I’ve disagreed with about Harry Potter.) He broaches the topic of “Christoplatonism” and how it’s affected Christians’ beliefs, and defines the fancy word with radio-style fun ‘n substance, and then plays quotes from R.C. Sproul on the topic.

    The whole thing gets started at exactly 41:00 in the MP3 (all you need to give is an email address to download it, if you’re not a OnePlace.com member). But of course, don’t skip the witnessing parts. Friel, Ray Comfort, and a certain “Growing Pain” are very gifted at it!

  7. Paul Lee says:

    I love my fantasy so much that I hope I will never again read any in Eternity.
    Stories are not frivolous to me.  I do have fun reading novels or watching movies, but especially when I’m consuming my favorite speculative genres, I use the stories as a means to cope with my life.  I read fantasy because I want to believe in the meaningfulness and wonder that I don’t see in life — meaningfulness and wonder that should certainly exist if the Bible is at all true.
    Right now, I’m content to read fantasy to help me envision truth that must be more real than the reality that I see and to help ward off despair.  But reading and imagining aren’t good enough.  If I believed that there was no deeper reality behind the sense that I get from fantasy, or if I believed that it were utterly impossible for me to ever encounter that profound purpose, I would want to kill myself.  I want my dreams to come true.  I want to live the epic.  If I were to go to Heaven and still have to longingly imagine the fantastic, I would not believe that it was really Heaven.
    If heaven is really ultimate, there would be nothing beyond it to be imagined, I think.

  8. Fred Warren says:

    I’m hopeful that some of my stories will not accompany me to the New Earth. 🙂

  9. Bethany J. says:

    I’m sorry, I’m coming to this discussion a bit late!  I meant to comment when the post went up, but had something else to do at the time, and then forgot.

    Pardon my somewhat disjointed thoughts here… 🙂

    On the controversy of “new earth vs. old earth revised” – personally, I don’t see why this is an issue as far as the main question (“will fiction last forever”?).  Supposing we still remember and love the fiction we read in the old earth, that is something that would continue on in our memories and affections, regardless of whether we live in a new “house” or a remodel!  God isn’t going to wipe our memories!

    BUT…  The first thing that came to mind as I reflected on the post was a quote I saw in someone’s Facebook post recently (sorry, not sure where it’s from – maybe someone here knows?).  I think it went, “Only one life, ’twill soon be past.  Only what’s done for Christ will last.”  I’m not sure I entirely agree with the quote as a whole, but it brings to mind a good question.  Obviously, if fiction does go with us to the New Earth, not all of it will.  I can think of a billion books and even whole genres that would have NO place in a perfect New Earth!  But what then determines whether a book “makes the cut”?  Things suddenly get very tricky and muddy.

    Tangent – I love the parable of the talents.  I yearn to hear my King say to me, “Well done, good and faithful servant!”  And I certainly hope that in those words He includes my use of the talents He has given me – and the books I write with them!  In that sense, I believe that what’s done for Christ, including fiction, WILL last.

    But will people continue reading and enjoying my books in the New Heavens and New Earth?  Meh.  If they are read, enjoyed, and draw people closer to God in this world, I care little whether they’ll be enjoyed in eternity.  More paramount to me, personally, is the question, “Will we WRITE fiction forever?”  🙂  Our past works may or may not follow us into eternity, but I think we will continue to create works of art, probably including stories.  We are made in the Creator’s image – we are created to create!  In fact, in our perfected and sinless state how much more amazing will creativity be?!   Writing is such an integral part of who I am; I can’t imagine NOT writing anymore.  🙂  I expect the kind of things I write might change a little, or even a lot, but I firmly believe that it is a talent God has given me, and I’d be able to create things that are better, deeper, and much more glorifying to Him when I am a sinless saint in the New Earth!  🙂

    Sorry for the ramble…I have a TON of thoughts on this topic.  I should just write my own blog post!  Which is what I plan to do, because I’m going to start a blog soon (yay!).  🙂

    • Thanks for your thoughts, Bethany, whether “late” or not! (Hey, we’re still getting comments on last week’s alien-life discussion, a day before this piece.)

      Some of this next may overlap with tomorrow’s part 2 …

      On the controversy of “new earth vs. old earth revised” – personally, I don’t see why this is an issue as far as the main question (“will fiction last forever”?).

      I’d agree. A lot of the discussion, though, delved into the thicker foundations behind the narrow structure of the will-stories-last-forever question. Sincere Christians can disagree about the particulars, but it can only glorify God if we seek the truth together and try to find what Scripture does promise us, and not claim with certainty — as Becky mentioned above — what it doesn’t promise us.

      I guess a related question, though, is whether we can “speculate” about New-Earth details on which the Bible is silent. The only parameters there, I think, include first, making sure we’re not certain about our speculations, and “speculating” contrary to where the Bible is certain, and second, not replacing Biblical truth’s import in our beliefs and actions with extra-Biblical speculations.

      Supposing we still remember and love the fiction we read in the old earth, that is something that would continue on in our memories and affections, regardless of whether we live in a new “house” or a remodel!  God isn’t going to wipe our memories!

      I have a relative who was, at least at one point, convinced otherwise — that we will cease to be ourselves in Heaven, that we won’t recognize each other. That’s one of the more-fringe notions about Heaven/New Earth that get out, yet it doesn’t surprise me, compared with some of the ideas I used to fill the needless vacuum!

      That’s why I like the George MacDonald quote above, and why how we read verses like “the former things were not remembered” (Isaiah 65:17) should harmonize with the context of Biblical truth. We’ll have God’s Word, after all, which gives a complete history of the old world, sin and suffering and all. And we’ll have Christ’s scars from His death. But these won’t be troubling to us; we’ll see them in context!

      BUT…  The first thing that came to mind as I reflected on the post was a quote I saw in someone’s Facebook post recently (sorry, not sure where it’s from – maybe someone here knows?).  I think it went, “Only one life, ’twill soon be past.  Only what’s done for Christ will last.”  I’m not sure I entirely agree with the quote as a whole, but it brings to mind a good question.

      I’m trying to remember the context and source of the quote, but I think I agree. But it bears some qualification: for example, could a skillfully done work of music or a manmade lake, put together by pagans, “carry over”? Not based on the makers’ motivations, no; “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:29). Yet even when man is doing things out of sin, God can mean them for good (Gen. 50:20).

      Obviously, if fiction does go with us to the New Earth, not all of it will.  I can think of a billion books and even whole genres that would have NO place in a perfect New Earth! But what then determines whether a book “makes the cut”?  Things suddenly get very tricky and muddy.

      Blimey, I can think of many I’d like to cut … but what stories would “make it” and why would be out of our hands, and in the hands of the ultimate Author!

      For sure, we can say that His Story will make the cut. As it is. With no edits.

      The grass withers, the flower fades,
      but the word of our God will stand forever.

      Isaiah 40:8 (also cited in 1 Peter 24-25)

      Tangent – I love the parable of the talents.  I yearn to hear my King say to me, “Well done, good and faithful servant!”  And I certainly hope that in those words He includes my use of the talents He has given me – and the books I write with them!  In that sense, I believe that what’s done for Christ, including fiction, WILL last.

      Amen, sister.

      I think that unlike other talents or memories — as discussed above — stories present a special case study. Why would we want to dwell on stories set in the old world in which conflict and sin were still real? Would such concepts (needed for any good story) drag down everlasting life? And why would we spend time telling fantastic tales when we’re living in a fantastic world? (Stop spending time with your head in the clouds and get out there and get your whole GLORIFIED BODY in the clouds!)

      Our past works may or may not follow us into eternity, but I think we will continue to create works of art, probably including stories.

      I’d miss books like Lord of the Rings, though. A lot.

      I think this is a similar question to the perennial favorite about whether our pets could be resurrected. Sure, if I only want to get to the New Earth to see Dusty again (my family’s old golden retriever, 1982 – 1996) and sort of skip over the beholding-the-Face-of-God-at-last part, my priorities are skewed. Yet if it would glorify God more to bring Dusty back — along with, say, Lord of the Rings — He would do it. That’s a field for speculation, on which the Bible is silent. But we do know animals will be on the New Earth (Isaiah 60); God preserved His animals before (Gen. 6-9).

      We are made in the Creator’s image – we are created to create!  In fact, in our perfected and sinless state how much more amazing will creativity be?!

      In a work-in-progress, I pictured Matthew Henry’s Bible commentary resurrected in the New Earth. There, it’s multiple volumes in size, definitely with revisions! — as I’m sure any book would be, should God choose to bring it back for His glory.

      Sorry for the ramble…I have a TON of thoughts on this topic.  I should just write my own blog post!  Which is what I plan to do, because I’m going to start a blog soon (yay!).  🙂

      Way to go. Be sure to find a subtle way to refer to it, in any comments here! Yep, I’m serious, and when it’s on topic, it’s not at all spam, right?

      By the way, this is only speculation, but if some form of the internet continues in the New Earth, I think it’ll be spam-free. Too “bad.” I’ll “miss” automated “replies” like this one, which even now is second-to-last in our software’s spam filter:

      You should participate in a contest for the most effective blogs on the web. I will advocate this web site!Best regards from Czech Republik.

  10. Bethany J. says:

    “I guess a related question, though, is whether we can “speculate” about New-Earth details on which the Bible is silent. The only parameters there, I think, include first, making sure we’re not certain about our speculations, and “speculating” contrary to where the Bible is certain, and second, not replacing Biblical truth’s import in our beliefs and actions with extra-Biblical speculations.”

    I absolutely agree!  I enjoy speculating about Heaven and the New Earth, but I know it will probably be entirely different from my imaginings – and that’s perfectly okay with me, because I know whatever God has planned is infinitely more glorious and wonderful than even the best human speculations.  🙂
    I guess I should have said, “I’m *planning* to start a blog soon, Lord willing,” because I’m still not even sure whether I’d be able to keep up with one along with everything else on my plate.  But I am certainly hoping to, and if I do, I will definitely mention it in a comment.  I’d love to be “visited” by some of the SpecFaith writers and readers.  🙂

  11. […] the Bible and biblical reasoning do support the concept of stories and other human culture elements …. This is because God will renew planet Earth, which will last forever as the home of resurrected […]

  12. […] the Bible and biblical reasoning do support the concept of stories and other human culture elements …. This is because God will renew planet Earth, which will last forever as the home of resurrected […]

What do you think?