Yes I do. You say there is a sea on the new earth, no matter that the Scripture says, so that you can make this earth the new earth, and so say there is no thousand year reign of Jesus Christ on this earth, before it becomes the new earth.
Just ease up a moment. I'm positing as an idea, not being dogmatic. And I don't appreciate any person swinging into a debate broadsword first. We're Christians, and as such, we ought to be able to discuss what we see in scripture in order to try and find a greater understanding. I'm not after my own understanding...I'm after truth. Yeah? I don't give a fig for labels and am hardly pinning my hope on them.
I now know all about it from Millennium unbelievers, by what is posted on this site.
Are you honestly suggesting that those who believe Christ is ruling and reigning now are unbelievers?
Hmmm. Quite apart from dismantling the doctrine of salvation by faith...there would appear to be some verses that you must explain away, if this the case, don't you think? Like Eph 1:20-23, 1 Cor 15:27, 1 Pet 3:22, Heb 1:3
When plainly spoken words of Scripture are made only symbols, in order to change the normal meaning of Scripture, then the Bible is made into just another book of fables of men.
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
This would be grievous if true. However, the accusation does not hold water. At all. The bible itself employs imagery. Symbolism. Dare we condemn God himself for this usage? Of course not. What then, is the correct way to understand these images?
Even the Dispensationalists do it. I have heard multiple dispensational teachers make this claim: 'let scripture interpret scripture'. It slightly astounds me that they then turn around and accuse their Amillennial brothers of 'spiritualising' scripture, when they do the very same thing. They look to the OT's use of imagery and symbolism to guide their understanding of NT symbols and imagery.
So...let me ask you this: if Daniel tells us that a beast represents a kindgom, and we therefore read Revelation as referring to certain kindgoms of the world as it speaks of beasts...how then are we spiritualising it? Where is the fable?
There's no harm in trying to spiritualize any Scripture we want, but not at the cost of it's plain natural meaning.
If a child can understand something, such as there will be no sea on the new earth, then so must the adults.
We can perhaps ask why not, but we must not contradict it and say, yes there will be a sea on the new earth, no matter what God says.
Everyone asks questions in regards to 'plain meanings'.
For example: Matt 24:34. "Plain reading" of that text would insist that THAT generation...the one Jesus was speaking to, must witness all he was saying. And yet Dispensationalists have managed to...in what I would say, quite 'un-plain' meaning, jump through exegetical hoops to fit it into their doctrine.
Goose, gander.
In part, I personally believe there will be no sea on the new earth, just so God can say so, and see if unbelievers in His Millennium will go so far as to reject His plainly spoken word, about there being no sea on His new earth.
Or symbolize it away as a fable only.
It may very well be so, and should it be, I will praise him.
But, as I pointed out in my last post....one must wonder why, when Eden was still pristine, before the fall, both sea, and what was created within it, was considered 'good'...but in the new perfection, it must be considered 'not good'. Part of the 'uncreation'.
Above my paygrade, of course, but there is so much beauty and majesty within the seas, so much that reflects the maker of heaven and earth. In its perfected nature, it must be magnificent...
Time will tell, I suppose.
True. Sometimes we don't have to spiritualize nor symbolize Scripture into something else, because normal sense tells us, when words of Scripture are symbols with spiritual teaching.
I'm sorry. Either I'm missing something massive here...or you are.
Granted...I'm sure there are dodgy folks out there who indeed take something in scripture and use it to paint a picture of some random weirdness.
But as far as I'm aware, using symbols from scripture...the
whole and only point is TO point to a real and true spiritual teaching.
Having a symbol or image appear in scripture does not...never has, never will, give us leave to (insert here) what you choose or hope. It will always be intended to point to...be used to illustrate...a truth that is evident. Evident either outright, or by careful consideration of
other biblical text.
But not the case with the Red Sea waves parting, nor there being no sea on the new earth.
If there being no sea on the new earth is only a symbol, then the new earth itself is nothing but a fable as well.
I...simply do not follow your logic here.
If something that was pointing to a spiritual truth did not turn out to be strictly literal, then the other things that were strictly literal cannot be true?
That's a little like insisting that if it isn't true that we 'literally' had a heart of stone within us that was taken out and replaced with a 'literal' heart of flesh, then the new earth cannot be true as well.
Having a spiritual reality described with imagery...(stone heart, replaced with flesh heart)...doesn't mean it happened literally....which would mean physically. And just because it didn't happened literally doesn't mean that the new earth wouldn't happen literally.
One happens spiritually...symbolically (but still very true!)...the other happens 'literally'...or physically.
True. In the Scriptures you quoted.
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.
No, it's not far fetched. Just plainly false.
So...what you're really telling me is that you have a problem with the whole "scripture interpreting scripture" thing.
Holding so tightly to literalism when the bible so clearly uses imagery, as you've admitted, in many places...well...let's just say it feels like the Pharisaical answer to antinomianism. I'd suggest a healthy approach is somewhat in the middle...or to at least be open to consideration of the issue, and what God might be showing his people through both word and image.
The problem is when we adults, get too smart for our own good, just so we can keep hold of our favorite traditions about the things of God.
I would never tell a child reading Revelation 21, that there really is a sea on the new earth, and make a fable out of Scripture, so that little child then begins to wonder what other parts of the Bible are just symbolic fables.
I'm sorry you've made assumptions. I wouldn't tell a child either way. There are a few absolutes we can know about the new heavens and earth; that God and his Christ will be there is one. That no sin, death or suffering will be there is another. Pretty much everything else is speculation of the highest order.
If you want to die on the hill of saying there will be no sea...you go for it. I'll not stop you. The fact that there may, or may not be a sea in the great yonder does not particularly weigh heavily on me...its the company, I suppose you could say, that I look forward to.
True.
The same on this earth in Jesus' millennial reign.
At least not on a national level, though He will withhold rain from any nation, that comes not to keep the feast of tabernacles with Him.
Again, I suppose we shall see.