The Earth Destroyed by Fire?

Concerning the idea that the earth will be consumed in a great conflagration at the end, Michael Wittmer writes in Heaven is a Place on Earth:

This popular, though misguided notion likely arises from a misunderstanding of 2 Peter 3:10-13:

But 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. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the best available Greek manuscripts of 2 Peter 3:10 read that “the earth and all of its works will be burned up.” This is how every translation of that period, including the King James Version, rendered the verse. It is easy to see how whole generations of Christians learned from their Bibles to expect a future fire that would annihilate the entire world.

However, scholars have since discovered older, more reliable Greek manuscripts, and these texts say that rather than burning up, “the earth and all of its works will be found.” Instead of being destroyed, this term “found” implies that the quality of our works will be “laid bare,” discovered for all to see. Much like gold passing through a smelting furnace, the good that we do will be purified while our less noble efforts will slough off. Read this way, Peter’s vision of a coming conflagration seems to be purging rather than annihilating fire.

Perhaps this is why Peter compares the coming “destruction” by fire with the world’s previous “destruction” by water (2 Peter 3:6-7). Justas the Great Flood did not annihilate the world but primarily cleansed it of its numerous sinners, so the impending fire seems to perform an ethical cleansing rather than an ontological annihilation. In short, if the “destruction” of the flood did not annihilate the world, why should we think that the future “destruction” by fire will do so?

Peter’s point is that since the coming conflagration will purge the earth of its impurities, strive to live such good lives that when you and the works of your hands pass through the refining fire, both you and your cultural contributions will survive. Thus, rather than give cause for despair, Peter’s admonition inspires hope that our highest cultural achievements, such as the Mona Lisa, Westminster Abbey, and Eine Kleine Nachtmusik, will make it through to the new heaven and new earth.

The Great Omission: Discipleship vs. Conversion

There is one book that is shaping me more than any other right now: The Great Omission by Dallas Willard. This is a book that must be read slowly and deeply. It is not a hard read, or rigorous on Biblical exegesis or anything, it is just that every sentence is thought through, and infused with beautiful, life-challenging, Jesus-centered meaning. Ever sentence.

What is it about? It can be summed up in its first sentence:

The word 'disciple' occurs 269 times in the New Testament. 'Christian' is found three times and was first introduced to refer precisely to disciples of Jesus.

The books goes on to challenge us to be people who are apprentices of Jesus, practitioners of his teachings, disciples (lit. Learners) of the Greatest Rabbi who ever lived. The foundation of this book is a challenge to easy-believism and a Christianity that focuses on conversion without focusing on transformation into Christ-likeness. He argues that Biblically there is no such thing. The following are three paragraphs from one chapter. The depth of which has effected my thinking deeply.

There is absolutely nothing in what Jesus himself or his early followers taught that suggests you can decide just to enjoy forgiveness at Jesus' expense and have nothing more to do with him. Some years ago, A.W. Tozer expressed his "feelings that a notable heresy has come into being throughout evangelical Christian circles--the widely accepted concept that we humans can choose to accept Christ only because we need him as Savior and that we have the right to postpone our obedience to him as Lord as long as we want to!

This heresy has created the impression that it is quite reasonable to be a "vampire Christian." One in effect says to Jesus, "I'd like a little of your blood please. But I don't care to be your student or have your character. In fact, won't you just excuse me while I get on with my life, and I'll see you in heaven." But can we really imagine that this is an approach that Jesus finds acceptable?

Only constant students of Jesus will be given adequate power to fulfill their calling to be God’s person for their time and their place in the world. They are the only ones who develop the character, which makes it safe to have such power. But, someone will say, can I not be “saved”—that is, get into heaven when I die—without any of this [discipleship]? Perhaps you can. God’s goodness is so great, I am sure that He will let you in if He can find any basis at all to do so. But you might wish to think about what your life amounts to before you die, about what kind of person you are becoming, and about whether you really would be comfortable for eternity in the presence of One whose company you have not found especially desirable for the few hours and days of your earthly existence.

Iron Man: Best Movie of the Year!

Is it possible to create anything fresh or new in this genre of film (Comic book to Film)? The answer, is an astounding Yes! This is by far the best movie of the year (which is not really saying much at all I guess); but I predict that nothing, except The Dark Knight, will even rival it all summer (including Indiana Jones and Prince Caspian). This is the most fun you will have at the movies this summer for sure, possibly all year.

The story/plot is great (which usually is weak in these movies), the effects are flawless, and the acting (Robert Downey Jr.) is superb (though playing a rich playboy was likely not a stretch at times, but the other aspects of the role demanded some subtle acting that really worked great.

The movie is interesting, fast-paced, and funny. It also does not over-do it; in fact it actually leaves you wanted much more Iron Man action, which will surely come in the sequel which is basically promised by Tony Starks (Iron Man) friend (Terence Howard), when he looks to Iron Man's old suite desiring to fly with him and say "Next time baby." That promise is what the audience looks forward to the entire time.