Dr. Mike Wittmer has an important post on the continuity between this earth and the New Earth where Christians spend eternity. In this post he interacts with a recent book, but even if you haven’t read the book, you will benefit from the post.

I haven’t yet dug into What is the Mission of the Church?, the new book by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert. It looks promising, and I plan to read it carefully soon. I did read their section on the continuity and discontinuity of the new earth (p. 213-19), and thought I could make a few contributions to their discussion.

1. They rightly note that Scripture teaches both discontinuity (Matt. 24:35–“heaven and earth will pass away”) and continuity (Rom. 8:18-25–“creation itself will be liberated”) between this world and the next. Indeed, both elements are included in the phrase, “new earth.” The term “new” implies that something is different while the term “earth” means that much remains the same. Kevin and Greg make an admirable and helpful attempt to explain both groups of passages.

2. They suggest that one way to understand the biblical teaching of discontinuity and continuity is that perhaps this earth will experience a death and resurrection (p. 216). If this earth is burned up and dies, then there is discontinuity between this world and the next. And if this earth is raised again, like a phoenix from the ashes, then there will also be continuity (p. 217). I think this is a helpful way to think about how the end might go, though I also think that their suggestion implies more continuity than they realize. Let me explain.

3.  There must be much continuity between the resurrected earth and the present earth, because if the new earth is too different from the present earth, then it hasn’t been resurrected but replaced. The same is true of you. If the “resurrection you” is too different from the “present you,” then you will not have been redeemed but replaced (note the future pluperfect tense, a difficult tense to pull off. This is one of those times I wish I had a blog editor). So their hypothesis of cosmic death and resurrection does not leave the continuity/continuity question as unresolved as they think (p. 219). It actually is a strong argument for continuity. The resurrected you and the resurrected earth must be really you and the earth, or there is no resurrection.

Read the rest here.

HT: Denny Burk

We’re continuing our new feature, “You Asked,” where readers send us theological, biblical, and practical ministry questions that we pass along to The Gospel Coalition’s Council members and other friends for an answer we can share in this space. If you’d like to ask a question, send it to ask@thegospelcoalition.org along with your full name, city, and state.

We posed today’s question to Justin Taylor, vice president of editorial at Crossway Books and blogger at Between Two Worlds. He’s contributed to and edited several books, such as The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World and The Power of Words and the Wonder of God. He was also the managing editor for the ESV Study Bible.

Andrew G., from Suffolk, UK, writes:

What are these rewards in heaven which Jesus talks about? Should thought of receiving them motivate us?

Taylor answers:

In its most general sense, “reward” (Greek, misthos) is the appropriate consequence or consummation of a course of action. . .

Read the rest here.

]]> http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2011/07/20/will-there-be-different-degrees-of-rewards-in-heaven/feed/ 1 http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2011/06/01/does-it-dishonor-god-to-long-for-a-reunion-with-loved-ones/ http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2011/06/01/does-it-dishonor-god-to-long-for-a-reunion-with-loved-ones/#comments Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:38:21 +0000 Chris http://www.chrisbrauns.com/?p=4192 Randy Alcorn:

Believers periodically tell me versions of the following: “We shouldn’t be thinking about reunion with loved ones, or the joys of Heaven. We should only be thinking about being united with Christ, who is our only treasure.” This sounds spiritual, but is it?

Paul says to his friends in Thessalonica, “We loved you so much” and “You had become so dear to us,” then speaks of his “intense longing” to be with them (1 Thessalonians 2:8, 17). In fact, Paul anticipates his ongoing relationship with the Thessalonians as part of his heavenly reward: “What is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you? Indeed, you are our glory and joy” (1 Thessalonians 2:19-20).

Isn’t this emphatic proof that it’s appropriate for us to deeply love people and look forward to being with them in Heaven?

Read the rest here.

HT: Randy Alcorn

In any case, if you’re old enough to remember the book, 88 Reasons the Rapture Will Happen in 1988, then you may not need to click through to Randy Alcorn’s blog.

For the record, I looked and  88 Reasons is no longer in print.

HT: Z

Time Magazine is featuring a cover story about Rob Bell's new book Love Wins.  Dr. Mohler has responded with a blog post:

The edition of TIME magazine timed for Easter Week features a cover story on the controversy over Rob Bell and his new book, Love Wins. Interestingly, the essay is written by none other than Jon Meacham, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and former editor of Newsweek –TIME’s historic competitor. Meacham, who studied theology as an undergraduate at the University of the South, helpfully places Rob Bell in the larger context of modern theology, even as he offers a basically sympathetic analysis.

Meacham explains:

The standard Christian view of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is summed up in the Gospel of John, which promises “eternal life” to “whosoever believeth in Him.” Traditionally, the key is the acknowledgment that Jesus is the Son of God, who, in the words of the ancient creed, “for us and for our salvation came down from heaven … and was made man.” In the Evangelical ethos, one either accepts this and goes to heaven or refuses and goes to hell.

Read the rest here.

Yesterday, I posted about Rob Bell’s theologically liberal views on the doctrine of eternal punishment (hell).

One of the reasons that Bell’s teaching is so attractive is that we have been relatively protected from violent crime.  Consequently, we don’t feel a great need for justice.  If the worst thing anyone has done to you personally was to accidentally get Roundup on your grass, then you may not feel a great need for justice to be done, even if you are intellectually aware of the Holocaust.

Scripture, on the other hand, interacts with many situations where people have been gravely injured.  As I pointed out in my book Unpacking Forgiveness one of the central ways that Scripture teaches us to avoid bitterness is to rest in the truth that God will see that justice is done.  Hence, Romans 12:17-21 says that we ought not to repay evil for evil, but rather we can rest in the truth that vengeance belongs to God and that he will repay.

Similarly, in Psalm 73, the Psalmist is struggling because many seem to get away with gross sin.  The turning point for the Psalmist takes place when he considers the final destiny of the wicked (Psalm 73:17).

Over and over again in Scripture we see this teaching.  A central strategy for avoiding bitterness is to rest in the truth that God will see that justice is done. In 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 Paul soberly encourages the recipients that God will make sure that justice is repaid to those who persecute them.  Or, in 2 Timothy 4:14 Paul processes an injury done to him by Alexander the coppersmith by trusting that God will pay him pack.  In Revelation 6:10 the martyred cry out asking God how long until he avenges their blood.

When Bonhoeffer was imprisoned by the Nazis, and shortly before he was hung, someone asked him how it was possible to feel love for such evil people.  Bonhoeffer replied,

. . . it is only when God’s wrath and vengeance are hanging as grim realities over the heads of one’s enemies that something of what it means to love and forgive them can touch our hearts.

See also:

An article about the murder of Kelsey Grammer’s sister.

What I would say to the parents of a child murdered at Virginia Tech.

Exercises to stop thinking about how you have been wounded.

My approach to deciding what to post about on my blog is simple. I ask myself if it will be helpful to the people in our flock. If the answer is “yes,” and I have the time, then I post about it.

Focusing on our church family means that I rarely post on theological controversies that are of interest to me, but not of any immediate pertinence to our congregation.

Which is to say that during the initial rounds of a recent controversy surrounding Rob Bell and his new book, Love Wins, I did not post about the controversy.  However, now that Bell is being interviewed on major news networks, and his book is selling like wildfire, it is likely that his position will be considered by a number in our congregation and it deserves some attention here.

Briefly, the controversy is that Bell (see a promo video here) is espousing some sort of a universalist position (Bell rejects the label) in which he insinuates that most if not all are eventually redeemed regardless of whether or not they have professed faith in Christ.

Bell is extremely creative and talented as a communicator and he has a large following.  His favorite method of teaching is to ask provocative questions without providing answers.  As many have pointed out, Bell’s questions make a statement.

My encouragement to our church family is to not be deceived by Bell’s approach.  Rather, if you find yourself wondering about the areas where he is persuading so many, then take the time to read reviews such as the ones listed below.

Al Mohler – Rob Bell and the Re-Emergence of Liberal Theology

Kevin DeYoung – God is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School is Still True: A Review of Love Wins by Rob Bell

Russell Moore – The Blood Drained Gospel of Rob Bell

Jeremy Grinnell on Mike Wittmer’s blog – Justice Wins

Tony Reinke’s Readers Digest version of the debate

Tim Challies’ Review