Theology affects Ecology? Quote to Ponder: John MacArthur (repost, 12/3/08)

Here is a quote I came across while doing research on God’s Mission. It is by: John MacArthur…

The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan… The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet—it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around about six thousand years or so—that’s all—and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it…. I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it. Peter says God is going to literally turn it in an atomic implosion so that the whole universe goes out of existence. (emphasis added)[]

Brief things to think about:

1. Notice how dangerous it can be to misread texts that are written as apocalyptic and not meant to be read in a ‘plain sense.’

2. This opens the door for evangelicals to continue to impose the false polarity of Evolution/Science vs. Christian faith, by claiming a young earth.

3. It can make the Christian faith irrelevant in many ways to a culture of “millenials” that are ready to change the world.

Those are some initial thoughts… incomplete and probably needing some clarification on some points.  Nevertheless, please share some of your own thoughts on this “Quote to Ponder!”

UPDATE (3/16/10) : Something that came up in the comments is that the above quote, within the context of the article, is not anti-environment.  Jmac is not advocating that we can burn down the Amazon for fun, or anything like that; he is just against the environmental movement.  The point of the excerpt above is that the whole paradigm is driven by false theological assumptions (at least from my perspective) 🙂  The points I make above are the issues I have with the quote / article as a whole.  Hyper-literalistic, anti-scientific approaches to faith and life are a hindrance to our witness and a hindrance to faithfully reading the Holy Spirit inspired texts!

Open Source Theology used this post as the basis of a conversation!


"But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels of heaven, ..."

Cosmic Signs Don’t Signal a Rapture ..."
"All I have to say is this: You are absolutely right, & your article makes ..."

Sometimes Reading the Bible Literally is ..."
"Very interesting and makes total sense, thanks for writing it!"

Name Change Myth: Saul Never Became ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Tucker

    Hey Kurt. I agree with your analysis. This quotation does conflate the issues of environmental ethics with the evolution/creation debate. Even if it’s true that the earth is 6,000 years old and that life appeared instantaneously, it remains true that God created the world, called it good, commanded humanity to be stewards of it, and affirms throughout Scripture that the very existence of the earth is a testimony to God’s goodness. When we care responsibly for God’s creation, we more faithfully reflect God’s image.

    Meanwhile, I find it ironic almost to the point of humor that such an ardent literalist claims that Peter refers to an “atomic implosion”. But of course the bigger issue is the cherry-picking of proof texts to shape a particular vision of the apocalypse, one that absolves us of any social ethics in the present. He very conspicuously ignores references to the New Heaven and Earth, or to all creation groaning and waiting for its coming redemption, and so forth.

    Finally, even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that the apocalypse is coming soon and that the earth we inhabit now will be destroyed, I would hope we could all agree that following Christ compels us to care for the poor and marginalized in our world. And meanwhile, a shockingly and disproportionately large percentage of children in smoggy areas like the central valley are afflicted with asthma. Pesticide runoff contaminates groundwater, causing cancer and other disorders in those who drink it. One could go on.

    The point is, even if one doesn’t expect the earth to last indefinitely, there are other good reasons to care for the environment, reasons that are rooted in the ethics of the present.

  • churchedunchurched

    First of all, John has no idea what God’s plan is for his creation if he thinks it is only meant to be destroyed, because he’s neglecting the fact that God commanded Adam to care for the Garden of Eden before the Fall.

    Secondly, John totally misunderstands the biblical call to care for creation by assuming we intend for the Earth to be “preserved forever.” The question is one of responsible, godly stewardship and love of one’s neighbor, not making sure the planet “outlives God.”

    Thirdly, where the heck does he see an “atomic implosion” in any of the original languages? Does this not SCREAM “eisegesis”? This is so sensationalist that I wonder if this is to keep an audience’s attention because it hangs by a thread if he’s not extreme.

    The only case that’s closed for me is that this guy has no idea what he’s talking about. And for someone who portends to hold a legitimate sway on the evangelical community, this position saddens me.

  • naylor121

    A few quick thoughts:
    1. The link doesn’t work anymore so I couldn’t read the rest of the MacArthur article.
    2. This made me cry a little bit.
    3. As much as I disagree with and was disheartened by the quote that you posted, John MacArthur is first and foremost a brother in Christ who has devoted his life (as best as I can tell) to the proclamation of the Gospel. Which makes me all the more grateful for God’s grace over all the errors I’m sure still exist in my theology.
    4. If you want to read some of those potential errors feel free to click through to my blog.
    5. In response to churchedunchurched: I appreciate your passion, but taking offense at the words of a brother in Christ and attacking his character is equally (if not more) detrimental to the witness of Christ than misguided scripture interpretation. I’m grateful for your zeal, I really am (no sarcasm and as much honesty and honor as can be communicated in text form between two people who have never met) but please don’t attack another believer. Christ’s intercession for his bride was that we would be one so that the world might know the Father’s love that sent Jesus to the cross is the same love that is found in the church (John 17:20-23). Bring grace and truth to the table when arguing. An honest, loving, scripture based rebuttal will leave room for the Holy Spirit to breath truth into the lives of those who are seeking truth.

    Brotherly love in Christ Jesus,

    • Kurt Willems

      Matt – I agree that we must not be vindictive to other believers. The theological conversation in US needs to be elevated. The sad reality is that J.Mac doesn’t approach issues with the same grace 🙁

      I also want to say that I am sorry the link didn’t work. And to give JMac some credit, if memory serves me right, he also wasn’t in favor of destroying the planet. unfortunately, his form of stewardship is radically different from those who actually believe that global warming/climate change and the like… are actually christian ethical issues that should be part of the discipleship journey…

    • Kurt Willems

      One more thought… I didn’t feel that churchunchurched was been vindictive, but was merely pointing out theological frustrations. I did not hear any attacks on Jmac’s character, only his lens through which he interprets the bible and imposes that on so many… and at times, for the detriment of the kingdom. Nevertheless, he is a fellow believer…

  • Matt,
    I don’t see how Kurt made an attack on character.

    I think as Christians/theologians we need to come to terms with science. I suspect that ecology, evolution, and other such scientifically informed issues cannot be resolve in the Christian community until we deal with the underlying distrust/angst that religious thinkers have with science. There is an unspoken rule like the separation of church and state that theologians and scientists need to stay in their separate realms.

    There are fundamentals who try and break down the barrier by co-opt science with their theological agenda, but that doesn’t work. There needs to be a dialog. If we really want scientists to have faith, then we need to listen to them about what science really says. If we really believe our faith is the true faith, and that God can defend himself, then we don’t have to spend so much energy defending either. We only need to be prepared to give an answer for our faith -much less work than trying to show someone else is wrong.

    In some respects this comes down to missiology. How do we graciously proclaim the message of grace? How do we defend justice? Is there a culture or ‘law’ by which Christians should live and how is grace expressed by/through/in that culture?

    • naylor121

      Maria, that part of my comment was in response to churchedunchurched, not Kurt.

  • judeoxian

    He’s wrong on so many points that I don’t know where to start. He needs to give up the culture wars and his “us vs. them” mentality. Maybe instead of trying to one up the environmentalists, he should preach a bigger Gospel that might appeal to environmentalists. One that takes seriously the fact that God declared creation to be “good,” not disposable.

    If Peter is all the Bible had to say about the future of the planet, then I could understand how MacArthur could support his view. But the Bible has volumes more of information on the future state of the planet, particularly in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, the Gospels, and Revelation. In all those places, creation is renewed and restored, not obliterated.

    Personally, I’m glad this is God’s way of doing this, renewal rather than destruction. This is how he also deals with humanity. Since we are fallen, he does not immediately destroy us, but renews us in Christ by His Spirit.

  • This is to be expected when the gospel is reduced to nothing more than saving a select group of humans from hell (which is precisely what MacArthur, Piper, DA Carson and other leaders in the Reformed church think). It is as if God is only capable of loving so much and to broaden God’s scope is to diminish God’s power.

    It causes all sorts of practical problems, apathy towards creation being just one of them

  • I actually posted a blog on “Forming a Theology of Ecology” for Blog Action Day back in October. Here’s an excerpt (actually, the bulk of it!):

    A theology of ecology, a theology of creation care, is part of—and is consistent with—a grander biblical theology, woven through with themes that can be found throughout Scripture:

    It’s about stewardship, about being respectful and responsible with the resources and the gifts that God has given us in his creation. It’s about sharing in God’s appreciation for the world which he called “very good” (Genesis 1:31), and recognizing, “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded” (Luke 12:48).

    It’s about the poor, those who have not are often the hardest hit by the excesses of those who have. The writer of Proverbs said, “Those who oppress the poor insult their Maker” (14:31), and even if we’re not directly treating them badly, such an injunction should at least make us think twice about how we live.

    It’s about relationship and community, about a harmonious and healthy interaction not only with the people around us but with the world around us, realizing that what we do with the latter will always impact the former at some level. Jesus said that loving one’s neighbor was akin to loving God (Matthew 22:36-40), so if we love God as we claim to, we will love those with whom we share in the gift of God’s creation.

    It’s about children, those to whom Jesus said the kingdom of God belonged (Mark 10:14). I have two nieces and three nephews, aged between 18 months and 13 years, and the world they will inherit depends on what we do with it. To quote a Native American proverb (yes, I know it’s not in the Bible!), “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.” Put more bluntly, those that follow us have to deal with our mess. Jesus values children; if I love Jesus, I will also value children, and I will care about what I leave to them.

    It’s about justice, about recognizing that when a small proportion of the earth’s population exhaust its resources and the rest have to face the brunt of the consequences, that isn’t right. And when the God you worship, serve and follow, is described as a God of justice,* and when you’re encouraged to “do justice” (Micah 6:8) … well, it should probably make a difference on how we live, shouldn’t it?

    Because, on the most encompassing level of all, it’s about God: the one who made the earth and everything in it (Psalm 24:1). Wendell Berry wrote, “our destruction of nature is not just bad stewardship, or stupid economics, or a betrayal of family responsibility; it is the most horrid blasphemy” (Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community, 98). Whatever we do with what God has made or given—human or otherwise—is a reflection on what we think of God, the Maker and Giver.

    I suppose I subscribe more to N.T. Wright’s eschatology of a new heaven and a new earth (as seen in Surprised by Hope) than John MacArthur’s eschatology of a literalist interpretation of apocalyptic texts, which often leads to a blasé and decidedly unstewardly attitude of “Well, if it’s all gonna be blown up anyway … who cares?”

  • Geoffrey Deacon

    I would like to contribute the following from a respected contemporary Orthodox theologian on the original Christian method of reading scripture. The notion that the earth is only 6,000 years old is a modernistic and pseudo-scientistic notion with no basis in the traditional Christian reading of scripture.

    The Five Keys to the Bible by Fr. John Romanides

    What is missing in the work of such Biblical scholars and especially of those who work within and under the weight of the Franco-Latin Augustinian tradition, are the following five keys:

    1) That the very core of the Biblical tradition is that religion is a specific sickness with a specific cure. This is what the claim “there is no God except Yahweh” means. Not knowing this fundamental first key one cannot know the second key:

    2) That there is a clear distinction between Biblical terms which denote that which is “uncreated” and that which is “created.” Not knowing this context one cannot know the third key to Biblical terms:

    3) That “it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him. ” In other words there is no similarity whatsoever “between the created and the uncreated.” Anyone who thinks that Biblical expressions convey concepts about God is sadly mistaken. When used correctly Biblical words and concepts lead one to purification and illumination of the heart which lead to glorification but are not themselves glorification. An integral and essential part of knowing these foregoing three keys is the fourth key:

    4) That the cure of the sickness of religion involves at all stages “the transformation of selfish happiness seeking love” into “the selfless love of one’s own crucifixion which is glorification.” This glorification, therefore, is not only that of the Lord of Glory Incarnate, “but also that of all prophets and apostles (sent ones) before and after the Incarnation of the Lord of Glory. ” These four keys become the fifth contextual key of cure.

    5) That “the expressions about God in the Bible are not intended to convey concepts about God. They act only as means to guide one to the purification and illumination of the heart and finally to glorification by the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Lord (Yaweh) of Glory which is to see Him by means of His uncreated glory or rule” and “not by means of ephemeral created symbols and concepts about Him” as is the case in the Augustinian tradition.

  • Mike

    For those that did not see the entire article, here it is. I do have to say myself I side with Macarthur and respect his teaching/theology very much. I think that one paragraph taken out of the context of the entire article is not fair in this “environment” conversation. It is clear that Macarthur calls us to take care of this planet while on the earth. I believe what he is getting at is don’t let the “global warming etc” issues cloud our mission of saving people from God’s wrath.

    Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement
    by John MacArthur

    I do think we have a responsibility to care for the environment – we ought to care for every resource God has provided for us.

    That’s illustrated in the Old Testament account where God put Israel in the Promised Land, a fertile land flowing with milk and honey. God provided them that productive land and commanded them to let the soil rest every seventh year.

    You shall sow your land for six years and gather in its yield, but on the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the needy of your people may eat; and whatever they leave the beast of the field may eat. You are to do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove (Exodus 23:10-11; cf. Leviticus 25:1-7).

    God gave that command because He didn’t want them to exploit the land and extract all its life. Allowing the land to rest every seven years ensured that it rejuvenated itself and continued to provide in the future.

    When the Lord gave the Israelites the Mosaic Law, He warned them if they apostatized, He would remove them from the land (Deuteronomy 28). Sadly, the children of Israel did just that and came under judgment – the Northern tribes fell to Assyria in 722 B.C., and Judah to Babylon in 605 B.C. In fact, God designated the Babylonian captivity as a seventy-year captivity to rest the land for all the Sabbath years that Israel violated (cf. Leviticus 26:33-35; 2 Chronicles 36:17-21).

    So I believe we are charged to treat responsibly all the wonderful resources God has given us. But that, in fact, has very little to do with the environmental movement. The environmental movement is consumed with trying to preserve the planet forever. But we know that isn’t in God’s plan.

    The earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet – it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so – that’s all – and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.

    I’ve told environmentalists that if they think humanity is wrecking the planet, wait until they see what Jesus does to it. Peter says God is going to literally turn it in on itself in an atomic implosion so that the whole universe goes out of existence (2 Peter 3:7-13).

    This earth was never ever intended to be a permanent planet – it is not eternal. We do not have to worry about it being around tens of thousands, or millions, of years from now because God is going to create a new heaven and a new earth. Understanding those things is important to holding in balance our freedom to use, and responsibility to maintain, the earth.

    Just a footnote. Though this earth is our temporary home, do take time to enjoy God’s beauty. Take care of your yard. Stop to smell the flowers. Enjoy the forests. God placed those rich resources on this planet for our comfort and His enjoyment. Let us be thankful to Him for that.

    • Kurt Willems

      Mike, your point is well taken about the article as a whole. You will notice in a comment that i made above, I did point this out to Matt. To be fair to Jmac, he does not want to treat the earth like trash. It is something to be enjoyed from his perspective. BUT, that is not the ROOT of this issue as I bring it up. Jmac believes that the world is headed towards destruction and therefore we need not worry about issues like climate change or “evironmentalism.” The problem is that a contextual reading of the Scriptures would say otherwise. Jmac represents a segment of Christian theology (which is becoming the minority) that is anti-intellectual. He doesn’t think that scientist have more knowledge than he does. This is sad. He reads all of the bible the same way… as hyper literal. This type of reading of the bible has only taken place since about the mid-1800’s when fundamentalist readings of Scripture emerged. He is reading the bible through a “modern” lens. He reads from now backwards instead of trying to read from ‘then’ forwards. In other words, if you take the various genres the bible is written in that suppose that they all mean what a “surface reading” of the text would indicate, then you end up with dispensationalism (which Jmac is a poster child for). BUT, what if Genesis one is not to be read as seven literal days and scholars such as: Augustine, Billy Graham, NT Wright, Tim Keller, John Stott, CS Lewis, and countless others; are actually right. That Genesis one is a poetic expression that gives language to the theological truth that God is the creator? Then, the Jmacs of the world who see this a young and disposable planet have a new set of issues to deal with. The reality is, as science tells us, that the world is billions of years old. God chose to create a world that continues to evolve. And as Genesis does make clear, we are to tend it, take care of it, as a reflection of his love for the whole creation project. Humanity is important but we cant remove them from the whole of creation. God saves humanity (I agree), but it is for the sake of the whole. Remember this verse: “For God so loved the WORLD…” God loves all of it, and will redeem all of it. but his task is to fix the problem in creation… humanity. That is what the cross is about! This is a much longer conversation about scripture that we would do better to have over coffee 🙂

      The other side of the issue is how Jmac reads apocalyptic texts about “the end”. But, if he were to remain true to how the OT talked about such imagery as employed by Peter and Jesus (Sun turning dark, earthquakes, etc.) he would realize that this is language about political turmoil and change…. NOT about the eventual destruction of the space/time universe. If we are going to be true to Scripture, we need to read Scripture according to Genre and historical context and not impose our ideas on it. We hear: “sun will be darkened..” etc, and we think ‘O, that means that the world is going to literally end.’ BUT the writers of the bible would beg to differ. For instance, Paul says:

      18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that [j] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
      22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Romans 8.18-24

      Well Mike, I do appreciate you engaging me here and keeping me honest. For sure Jmac would not promote burning down the amazon for fun… but he is also against the “green movement” that is for sure. I want to invite you to read a paper I wrote on apocalyptic language in the bible and issues connected to this conversation found here:

      Finally, Jmac loves Jesus and so do I. Although we have strong disagreements on theology; I love him in the Lord and know that he has had a positive impact in many ways. Sorry if this is a long comment, but wanted to give you the bigger reason why that quote… even out of its whole context, is a matter for concern. Blessings brotha!!!!!

  • “I believe what he is getting at is don’t let the “global warming etc” issues cloud our mission of saving people from God’s wrath.”

    And that is the crux of the issue. It’s a reduction (and even misrepresentation) of the gospel. WE do not save “people from God’s wrath.” Christ has and does.
    (And we need to be careful how we think of “wrath”).

  • Thanks Mike for posting the whole doc. If we are truly concerned about seeing people get saved, then our actions need to speak louder than our words. If we don’t care about global warming, who’s going to take us seriously if we talk about hell?

  • Speaking of the priority of the gospel, I have a blog post about that very thing which cites a recent discussion between Piper, Carson and Keller, all 3 of whom agreed that saving souls from hell is more important than caring for the social ills of the world.

    You can find it here:

  • Michael Todd

    Oh, a wildly stupid John MacArthur quote where he uses young earth belief, hard-line Calvinism, and premillennial eschatology to back up his right-wing American Evangelical viewpoint. Eh, it is typical MacArthur, so what?

    I know a rural pastor who plagiarizes MacArthur’s expository sermons nearly every Sunday. I can’t tell that MacArthur or the one who regularly steals from him are being quantitatively more wasteful or more destructive than most any other American.

    At worst, these statements from the pulpit may affect how parishioners vote or think, but not significantly how they live. Besides, we don’t have the environmental impact that a corporation does.

  • Michael Todd

    Also, may I suggest a better read on Bible-based Christian ecology that is far more substantive than anything MacArthur will ever say: Francis Schaeffer’s “Pollution and the Death of Man”

  • All I can say is, Thank God for people like N.T. Wright, Rob Wegner, Roger Olson and Rob Bell who openly reprove such folk-theology.

  • Michael,
    I would like to push back a bit on your statement “At worst, these statements from the pulpit may affect how parishioners vote or think, but not significantly how they live. Besides, we don’t have the environmental impact that a corporation does”.

    What one person does or says can make a huge difference. Did you ever read the poem “For the Want of a Nail”?

    The environmental impact of a person or a corporation depend largely on what the corporation or individual does. There are some very green corporations and there are some very un-green individuals. It only takes a few voices speaking out to change how things are done. Corporations have individuals in them. If a few people are willing to lead change and are persistent, whole companies can change.

    And just as a few good people can make a difference, one bad apple can spoil the whole bushel. If Christians don’t speak out against such ideology that is spouted off by the likes of JMacArthur then non-Christians tend to get the impression that we are all as ignorant and hypocritical as he is.

  • Glenn

    Regarding the passage in 2 Peter, check out this:

  • Well, regardless of whether some folks think this quote is made more palatable in context, I think I can summarize MacArthur’s sentiment much more concisely: “Why care about the environment, it’s all gonna burn anyway…”

    This is a warped and twisted logic that is only made capable by a theology held captive by modernist rationalism that eschews any notion of stewardship or rightfully exercised dominion. I would suggest MacArthur read some N.T. Wright, but I’m sure he’s already written +Durham off.

    It also shows the unholy alliance between false political conservatives and false theological conservatives who have sold their respective heritage for a load of industrial sludge.

  • good post. Responding to the concept of “disposable” earth, and “it’s not God’s plan to save the earth”, I’d like to add some thoughts, though I like your initial ones a lot!

    First off, pre-fall, God gave the earth to humans to literally “shepherd” it. That means taking care of it, and conserving it. So being an environmentalist is actually in keeping with one of our missions as humankind pre-fall. It then seems it was in God’s original plan to take care of the earth, it just got a lot harder on us after we broke it and ourselves by refusing to trust God.

    Second, this concept of a disposable earth isn’t good theology, it’s what comes about from too much emphasis on heaven instead of the new earth which is actually talked about a whole lot more. Paul in Romans 8 references the whole creation groaning together waiting for the redemption along with us, as just one example of the concept that instead of blowing everything up (yeah, I think that peter quote in MacArther’s snippet is poetic hyperbole), God is going to redeem, reform, and make all things new again.

    If you look at us, God doesn’t blow us up as he works on us, he works with us where we are at, moving toward the ultimate redemption at the end of time when we will be made completely whole. Why would it be different with the planet he made?

  • Kurt Willems

    Anna… I agree with 100%! Thanks!

    Jody+ Great commentary!

    Glenn… thanks for the resource.

    Maria.. good thoughts!

    James-Michael… AMEN!!!!

    Chad… great insight my friend…

    Michael Todd… glad to see your wrestling with stuff here!

    And to my other earlier commenters… Great conversations!!!!!

  • Brad

    Hi Kurt & friends.

    Thank you for the conversation. I have read your posts. Interesting reading.

    I would like to add to the conversation. I am not a believer in the so called environmentalists Man Made Global Warming due to fossil fuel CO2 religion.

    I do believe climate has always changed, is changing and will continue to change. This is natural variability demonstrated by historical records before the industrial period of the last 100 -150 years.

    I agree that God gave man the stewardship of the earth, to look after it and to use it for our enjoyment while living from its benefits. Plants, animals, fish, and fresh water. Minerals, such as coal, copper, gold, silver to make things and earn a living.

    I confess with my mouth to be a believer and accept Jesus is Lord and I believe in my heart that he died for my sins and God the Father raised Jesus to life after his death. Romans 10:9

    This is the point I wish to make. In Australia as in North America and Europe, we have seen a massive shift in the last century where our societies have departed from a Biblical worldview to that of a Humanistic and post modern one. We have collectively become ignorant and neglectful of God’s promised wrath on the children of disobedience. Those who reject Jesus.

    I share JMac’s concerns that the devoted environmentalists who hold to AGW (CO2) caused Climate Change is that they ignore the warnings of Paul to Romans in Romans Ch1v 18-25.

    v25 – “because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”

    That is the real point to this conversation and JMac’s article, don’t you agree?
    Blessings, Brad

    • Brad,

      I find it surprising that you doubt that billions and trillions of gallons of burned oil would not have some effect on the environment. That is a lot of carbon which has not been in the atmosphere for a very, very long time. Even volcanoes which spew out considerable ash and carbon into the atmosphere can have a noticeable affect on the weather. The carbon that we have put in the atmosphere is many, many times that of a volcano.

      When we think of nature as being here for our pleasure rather than for God’s pleasure, then we are worshiping and serving the creature (ourselves) rather than the Creator. The lie is that we have to take care of ourselves first before we care for creation. The truth is that when we start becoming servant leaders (like Jesus was) and caring for creation so that it pleases God first, he supplies everything that we need.

      • Tim


        I would just like to correct you on your misleading statements about oil burning polluting the earth much more than a volcano. First of all sulfure oxides are the prominent polluntants that are produced when oil is burned. Now burning fuels is the principle HUMAN MADE source of sulfur oxides in the air, this includes oil, coal, wood, natural gas, etc. BUT volcanic activity is a major NATURAL source of sulfur dioxide pollution (a type of sulfur oxide). In fact in October of 2004 Mount Saint Helens began erupting. Now this was not an explosive eruption like the one in 1980. But rather a drawn out eruption that emitted steam, ash and eventually lava. For a few months the the volcano emitted 50 to 250 tons of sulfur dioxides EVERYDAY. To put this into perspective, the combined industries of the ENTIRE state of Washington emitted only 120 tons per day. So during the eruption, Mount Saint Helens was the largest polluter in Washington.

        Now one might argue that this was just a one time deal and that man still emits way more pollution than natural sources. Again this is an irrational, naive, and downright false point of view. Why? Because scientific estimates conclude that natural sources emit about 80-290 tons of sulfur oxides each year while the human industry emits about 70-100 millions tons. So in reality natural sources produce the same amount if not more than the human industry.

        Maria I find it suprising that you believe what the liberal media spoonfeeds you and don’t take into account actual facts.


        I find your comment refreshing, way to go brother! Love your comment on climate change, what many people forget, don’t know, or just neglect is that the earth was signficantly warmer between the ninth and fourteenth centuries than it is today. This was concluded by a team from Harvard University who reviewed 240 scientific studies on global temperatures in the past.

        It makes me sad that people are actually buying into this post-modern religious propaganda instead of going to the Bible for real answers. If it weren’t for people like JMac and R.C Sprouls than we would have to go down the misguided path of Rob Bell, Dan Kimball and the likes…..geez that’s a scary thought. But I will leave the judging to God and only pray and show Christ’s love for these misled people.

        P.S. Kurt, I would love to hear your view on global warming 🙂