I don't know if you meant toss the present creation in the trash and new in the sense of starting all over. :)
I argue new is meant, not trashing the present creation, but new in the sense of continuity by transfiguring the present creation. The same world thatβs been groaning under corruption gets freed and restored (Romans 8).
I recommend "The New Creation Model: A Paradigm for Discovering God's Restoration Purposes from Creation to New Creation" by Michael Vlach.
Dan McClellan is a Mormon. Which means heβs working from a different theological system that contradicts core doctrines of historic Christianity.
I watched his video and there are 7 major problems with his view.
Here's 1 out of 6 for starters.
If he canβt even start with the right genres of Revelation, everything else he builds on it collapses before we get to chapter 1 verse 4.
1. He treats Revelation like fan fiction and ignoring that Revelation is not just βapocalyptic literature.β
Itβs a hybrid of 3 genres:
a. Epistle: It wasn't written to imaginary audiences. The 7 churches were in real cities, confirmed by history and archaeology. You can literally walk the ruins of Ephesus, Sardis, Pergamum, Laodicea, etc. today. Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:11; Revelation 2β3
b. Prophecy: Revelation isnβt just apocalyptic. Itβs prophecy, meaning it's both forthtelling (Godβs message) and foretelling (future literal events that will come to pass) in Revelation 1:1; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 22:18β19.
c. Apocalyptic: Reducing Revelation to only βapocalyptic literatureβ is like calling the Gospels βparablesβ (a sub-genre) and ignoring that it's actually ancient biographies with sub-genres.
So apocalyptic writing is a genre (not a meaning), a style of writing that uses symbols and images. But, it doesn't follow that it equal to pure symbolism with no future literal fulfillment because it's also an epistle and prophecy.
Wow, my head is spinning!
Yea it's a lot!
You said: "π΄ πππ€ βπππ£ππ πππ πππ€ πΈπππ‘β ππ πππππ‘ππ πππ πΊππ ππ€ππππ π€ππ‘β π»ππ ππππππ πππππ£ππ."
I don't know if you meant toss the present creation in the trash and new in the sense of starting all over. :)
I argue new is meant, not trashing the present creation, but new in the sense of continuity by transfiguring the present creation. The same world thatβs been groaning under corruption gets freed and restored (Romans 8).
I recommend "The New Creation Model: A Paradigm for Discovering God's Restoration Purposes from Creation to New Creation" by Michael Vlach.
Dr. Alan Kurschner recommended it. :)
Very interesting thoughts Julie - Thank you for sharing them in such detail π
Have you read Max Lucado's new book "What Happens Next"? If not, I think you might really like it. Just FYI π€
Dan McClellan is a biblical scholar and I really appreciate his perspective on this. https://youtu.be/tvgnjq9hhNM?si=f5V_qG0uVCUCa7Z6
As someone who spent 35 years in an end times religion I cannot imagine voluntarily taking up end times thinking nor introducing it to a child.
"If you donβt take a young Earth position"
Are you there yourself?
Hi Katie.
Dan McClellan is a Mormon. Which means heβs working from a different theological system that contradicts core doctrines of historic Christianity.
I watched his video and there are 7 major problems with his view.
Here's 1 out of 6 for starters.
If he canβt even start with the right genres of Revelation, everything else he builds on it collapses before we get to chapter 1 verse 4.
1. He treats Revelation like fan fiction and ignoring that Revelation is not just βapocalyptic literature.β
Itβs a hybrid of 3 genres:
a. Epistle: It wasn't written to imaginary audiences. The 7 churches were in real cities, confirmed by history and archaeology. You can literally walk the ruins of Ephesus, Sardis, Pergamum, Laodicea, etc. today. Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:11; Revelation 2β3
b. Prophecy: Revelation isnβt just apocalyptic. Itβs prophecy, meaning it's both forthtelling (Godβs message) and foretelling (future literal events that will come to pass) in Revelation 1:1; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 22:18β19.
c. Apocalyptic: Reducing Revelation to only βapocalyptic literatureβ is like calling the Gospels βparablesβ (a sub-genre) and ignoring that it's actually ancient biographies with sub-genres.
So apocalyptic writing is a genre (not a meaning), a style of writing that uses symbols and images. But, it doesn't follow that it equal to pure symbolism with no future literal fulfillment because it's also an epistle and prophecy.