[Jesus, or anyone,]

Original question from Christopher:

Where in the Bible did Jesus, or anyone, say to write down His teachings?

Nickilai, I get the impression you're just trying to pick a fight over "traditions" versus "sola scriptura". If you would please note the original question again, especially the bold part, you'll notice that the scriptures posted made specific reference to the fact that on many occasions God said specifically..."write it down".

Why would I try to eliminate the Gospels when the Orthodox Church created them?  and peiced together the Bible.

There certainly could be much contention as to the Orthodox Church "creating" the Gospels. Of course, I'm sure that you maintain that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all Orthodox, and like the RCC, claim that your "true" church extends back to the very first believer. OK...whatever.  Pieced together the Bible? Hmmmm. Let's see...the entirety of the OT was canon some 200 years before Orthodoxy even came into existence, and the first general collection of  NT scriptures was not until about 250-275, even though all of the "letters" were being read by the churches prior to then.

Do you think your interpretation of scripture is better than the Church who created it?  You are a fallible human the Church is the Body of Christ.  Don't dare put yourself on the same level of understanding as Christ.

Ahhh, could you point out to me where I stated that? Have I declared myself infallible? Or claimed the same level of understanding as Jesus?

2Pe 1:21   For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. (and it was recorded....).

And have you read your post?  Half of the verses talk about word.  Since when has word meant Written.  When I speak am I not speaking words?

Yes...I read it. Did you?

And those letters were to help a Church in a specific area (Who already had understandings of the Gospels that we have today without having to read them *Hint Hint*).

 
*Hint Hint* Yes, and the specific helps were recorded in writing, sent to them, and then read. They were also preserved so that we, many years later, could read them and have a glimmering of understanding about what was going on then, and continues to this day.

Look at the letters was one ever written just because or did they have a purpose.  John's 3 for example.  They end with John telling the reader that he will come and teach them in person.  He would rather not do it in letter. 

Of course letters are written for a purpose...at least the ones collected as canon. So what? Does that mean that what he will say in person is substantially different from what he has said in writing? Do you think John the Elder would be so unstable (doubleminded) as to tell them something that was not in agreement with what was recorded? I think not.

Again....a straightforward question was asked, and a reply was given using only scripture

, as was specified. What is the problem with that?

I feel like I need to share this...I have done it before with others, but this particular thread is appropriate.

Years ago, while doing a crusade, a woman brought her son to it. Actually, it was the other way around...he talked her into bringing him. She was not a churchgoer, and unsaved, but out of love for her boy, she agreed.

Bobby was 12 years old.

At the end of the service, he drug mom down to the front, and loudly announced that "I want to meet Jesus".

We talked a bit, and Bobby's response was simply "I heard what you said about sin, and I do things wrong, so I'm a sinner, and I don't want to be, and I want to meet Jesus, 'cause he can take my sin away and save me."

I asked him if he believed that Jesus was alive because God had raised him from the dead, and he said "yessir, I know he is, 'cause I can see him right now behind you, and he's smiling real big."

Bobby, although 12, had the IQ of one about 6 or 7.....he had Down's Syndrome.....but he understood.

A year later, back in the area, again came mom and Bobby...but this time Bobby was in a wheelchair. Before the service even began, mom came up front and said "I want what my son received a year ago".

Bobby had been hit by a car just 2 weeks after he was saved, and suffered massive injuries, and had been going downhill every day since. But for that entire year, when he could talk, he would ask his mother if she didn't want to meet Jesus the way he had. He would tell her about Jesus sitting with him and holding his hand while he hurt, and the hurt would go away, and if she would just meet with him too, she could quit crying.

Bobby never recovered, and died before he was 14. But he understood.

One day I'll meet up with him again.

PS: Bobby (and millions of others just like him, even if they don't have Down's, are the REASON for the simplicity of the Gospel. "...unless ye come as little children..."

[persons]

Hi Reba:

I am a bit confussed by your post...
Jakes is not AofG.
AofG holds to trinity teaching.
Do you agree with the  2 statments above?
With no eye contact or body language to read i loose the meanings often, Thanks

Happens sometimes, esp. when addressing two diff. questions in the same reply.

Jakes is NOT AoG....He is a variation of the Oneness Pentecostal. His particular church, and movement, is called The Potters House, and has been allied with the Vineyard movement at one time. All of these are variants of the generic pentecostal realm, which covers a wide range of territory.

The AoG does hold to the Trinity as expressed in orthodox Christianity....one God, three persons, co-eternal, co-equal, co-existent.

[Manifestations]

Tibby said:

I always thought AOG was a type of Pentecostal
Wait a second, T.D. Jakes doesn't believe in the Trinity?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! YOU'RE KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!

You could say (although they would disagree) that AoG is kind of a "baptistic" pentecostalism, or "liberated" baptists.

'Fraid not.

From Jakes website, this is a variation on the "Oneness Pentecostal" doctrine. Please note the bolded parts.

God--There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ--Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having been conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He died on the cross, the complete and final sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. Further, He arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He is now our High Priest and Advocate.

The Holy Spirit--The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ and during this age, to convict men of sin, regenerate the believing sinner, indwell, guide, instruct, and empower the believer for godly living and service.
Ministry Beliefs (Last checked Dec. 14, 1999


The belief that God exists in three "manifestations" is called Sabellianism or modalism:

Sabellianism or Modalism. Sabellius (A.D. 200), the originator of this viewpoint, spoke of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but he understood all three as no more than three manifestations of one God. This teaching came to be known as modalism because it views one God who variously manifests Himself in three modes of existence: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In modalist theology, while Jesus (as God) was on the earth, there was no God in heaven. Conversely, there is now no God or Jesus in Heaven, since they (He) is currently employing the "mode" of Holy Spirit.

Joyce Meyers follows the same reasoning, as does Tom Tenney, and quite a few others.

John 17 tends to destroy this type of thinking.

[thy word is truth.]

Nickolai said:

But his point is still relevant.  Christ never said to write his TEACHINGS down.

Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Jhn 1:1   In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jhn 1:14   And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Quibble all you want, but wherever in history God spoke to man, it was Jesus speaking also...the Word.

Whenever God said "write it down", then He was giving instruction to record what He said

To maintain that the "point is still relevant....Christ never said..." is ridiculous in the extreme. Just like maintaining that there is no trinity since the specific word is not recorded in the Scripture.

I suppose that you will maintain that the letters to the 7 churches were not "teachings", but only letters, maybe instructions.....and of course, by your last post, certainly not "all" of His teachings.

What are you trying to do? Eliminate the gospels? Declare that they have no value? Or just eliminate the parts that might be in conflict with Orthodox "tradition"?

Get real.

Well....I'm sure this will torque a lot of jaws.

What is missing in most debates is the same thing that is missing here...sticking to the subject, and using logic and sound argumentation.

Most debates are not so much a matter of getting the "other guy" to change their mind, but in convincing those who "listen" by the weight of argument.

In Christian argument (predominantly evangelical) form, reliance upon and presentation of an abundance of applicable scripture in well-formed arguments is what is missing.

Granted that most of the "debates" are a combination of ad hominems, appeals to authority, guilt by association and so on ad nauseum, but that is a function of the individuals inability to properly construct their argument to begin with.

And there will always be those who refuse to reason, relying instead upon what they have learned, been taught, or heard from someone else.

"my people perish for a lack of knowledge".

[Where in the Bible did Jesus, or anyone, say to write down His teachings?]

If the written word is more important than the Church, then why did Christ establish a Church to "go and teach all nations?"  Where in the Bible did Jesus, or anyone, say to write down His teachings?

Exd 17:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this [for] a memorial in a book, and rehearse [it] in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

Deu 17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites:

Isa 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:

Jer 36:28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

Eze 37:16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and [for] all the house of Israel his companions:

Eze 43:11 And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write [it] in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.

Hab 2:2 And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make [it] plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it

Phl 3:1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed [is] not grievous, but for you [it is] safe.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints

Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send [it] unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

[C – Conduit]

FWIW:

A friend and brother, Joe Myzia, sometimes teaches and often preaches. He is fond of using acronyms to explains something, and came up with this one on C.U.L.T.

It goes a long way (imo) to explaining how cults not only deviate, but how we can recognize one.

C – Conduit. Cults usually contain a charismatic communicator who claims to be the conduit between creator and creation. For example, Jones, Koresh, Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell. The difference between them and a church is that a church may have a high leader, but that leader never raises himself above the Bible. Examples of that would be Charles Stanley, Billy Graham or Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel. These men are highly looked up to. But they willingly acknowledge that they are subject to the Bible. Judge their teaching by the Bible (be a Berean). The cult leader (conduit) says judge the Bible by what he says.

U – Unique. Flip side of the same coin. Conduit says, “we have the message.” Here the cults say “no one else has it.” Again, Mormonism is the only true way of salvation as far as they are concerned. Again, Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Calvary Chapels, etc., don’t claim this. They realize there are other denominations through which the Lord is working. Uniqueness simply means that "truth" exists only within their own church or denom.

L – Literature. Cults have extra literature that is on the level of or even above the Bible. Jehovah’s Witness literature claims you can study their materials for two years w/o the Bible and be in the light, but if you use the Bible w/o their literature you’ll be in the dark. Churches again, have commentaries and books, but those books are always recognized as opinion. Granted we may have a high opinion of them, but we judge them by the Bible, not vice versa (just like the conduit) If the books or writings in any way supercede the authority of Scripture (even if claiming to be based on Scripture), then it is "cultish" .

T – Theology.

Essential (orthodox) Christianity includes these 7 points:

1. Jesus was bodily resurrected.
2. Atonement is by placing faith in Jesus’ substitutionary death on the cross.
3. The Bible is the inspired Word of God.
4. Jesus is virgin born (fully human)
5. Jesus is fully God
6. Trinity –
   A) one god.
   B) three persons called God: Father, Son & H.S.
   C) 3 persons are co-equal & co-eternal.
7. Jesus is coming again to establish his kingdom.

Cults always deviate from at least one point, but usually multiple, from that list.

Warrior:

You really should include #1....for without Christ baptizing you with the Spirit, the Spirit will NOT baptize you into the Body.... 1 Cor 12 makes that pretty clear.

Other than that....AMEN!

Like Bob Tilton? "Toyota corolla and thus saith God, you need to send ME a $1,000 seed."
aw

Bob? Bob T.??  Brother Bob??? He wouldn't say anything like that.....would he?

[NO ONE]

We'll keep this short and sweet, Michael, since I find no real value in our interchange.

You say:

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
So now with this new research in front of you - which way do you, in your great wisdom, decide the Catholic Church (which you see as inconsistent) falls?  No salvation outside the Catholic Church or does the Catholic Church teach that just about anyone can be saved?

On the presumption that this statement, as a dictum from the pontiff and the RCC, is one in which you agree (otherwise I don't believe you would have posted it), I find that you (and the RCC) have, in one fell swoop, declared that Jesus is a liar (NO ONE cometh to the Father but BY ME), have declared His shed blood to be inefficacious (without the shedding of blood there is NO REMISSION OF SIN), and placed yourself (via the RCC) squarely outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy.

Keep your sophmoric websites I have a vast background at the graduate level in logic, both predicate and mathematical, such that I do not have to rely on one law over and over again applying it improperly at that as you do.

 

Glad you recognized the level of the website...it was chosen to fit your level. And IF you had a "vast background at the graduate level" in logic, you would have been able to prove the BOOLEAN syllogisms as invalid...but you cannot, since they are valid as formed.  Additionally, the premises can be proven (by your previous statements) to be adequately rendered in syllogistic form, thus they are true.

Finally, since your primary argumentation is based upon something that falls into the category of non-contradiction, it is so named....repeatedly. Care for more variety? How about :
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (your appeals to the catechism)
Argumentum ad Hominem (via your barely concealed snidisms)

and several others.

Anathema Maranatha.

Here in this one statement lies the error of your interpretation.  Note that it says in outside the Church, not outside the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church is the physically identifiable entity of the Church on earth, but as the quote from the Catechism shows the Church extends outside that physical entity, as there are members of it within other denominations.  When you grasp this subtle difference and then look carefully at the quotes oyu provide you will see that the Catholic Church does not claim what you say it does.

Let's try a little logic.

In a previous post, you said:

But guess what I did not declare the Church I attend to be the "oone true Church" - Jesus did in the very first verse where the word appears.
Mat 16:18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The church Michael Legna attends is a Roman Catholic Church.
Michael Legna says that Jesus has declared that church to be the "one true Church".
Therefore, Michael Legna's church (the Roman Catholic Church) is the one true church.

Either the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church or it isn't (law of non-contradiction).
Either Michael Legna accepts what Jesus says as true, or what the Catholic Church catechism says is true.
By the law of non-contradiction, you cannot accept both.

Which is it?

Again all true and never the mention of the Catholic Church representing the entirety of that one Chruch so it leaves room for salvation outside of the Catholic Church.

see above.

I will have to look this one up as his Papal bull is not considered an excathedra statement so I suspect you have the quote wrong.  Could you please provide the page or section or paragraph number within the bull where you got this quote.

According to Fr. Matthew O'Herlihy (DDiv, PhD.,) who taught my Comparative Theology courses in the late 50's, Papal Bulls ARE ex-cathedra statements, and binding upon the entirety of the RCC.  I believe you are perfectly capable of finding the bull yourself....aren't you?

Again we see the subtle nuance of the wording being careeful not to say outside the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church of course teaches that there is not salvation outside the Church of Christ, it just does not teach (as you claim it does and the Catechism claims it doesn't) that the Church does not extend beyond the physical entity of the Catholic Church.

see above.

Here we see you being careful not to quote the entirety of the message asking us to accept that it refers to the Catholic Church when that is clearly not part of the quote.

No quote provided.

No quote provided

No quote provided
 
No quote provided
Were these just filler to make the post look more impressive?

Your tackiness is unbecoming. Does it make you feel better?
 

Again this does not say that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church it says that if one continues to hold the Protestant position that the Catholic Church is not the ture Church on earth that one is not saved.  There is whole range of degrees on this position one can take and not be a Protestant, just as the Orthodox.

The ugly spectre of logic:
The protestant position is that the RCC is not the true church.
The RCC position is that it is the one true church (according to Jesus).
Therefore, all protestants are not saved.

The RCC position is that it is the one true church (according to Jesus).
Anyone not a part of the RCC is not part of the one true church.
Therefore all who are not a part of the RCC are not saved. (even if they are Orthodox).

The law of non-contradiction again rules.

Again read the statement - it never says that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church only that there is no salvation outside the Church.

see above

I am sure of my representation of the Catholic Church as I was able to support it with a quote from the official teachings of the Catholic Church as contained in the Catechism.  A quote you simply ignored while I have explained everyone of yours which you misinterpreted (except admittedly the one from a papal bull which I will have to research if it truly exists).

Ignored? Not quite...just put it in comparison to over 1000 years of RCC position, and found it inconsistent. Now, in your last sentence are you "subtly and with infinite nuance"  suggesting that I made up the existence of such a bull?

I look forward to learning that about you, but tell me when you ran across the paragraph from the Catechism I quoted in your research how did you understand it and why did it not give you pause to reinterpret the other quotes you thought you understood?

As the RCC likes to suppose, tradition trumps. Since the tradition of the RCC is as presented over a period of roughly 700 years, the latest catechism is merely a bump in the usually rocky road of RCC dogma...and inconsistent, as previously explained.

Remember even the best intended research sometimes goes astray as we have seen in this case for you.

Rather than respond to another tacky piece of innuendo, I would prefer to direct you to the following site
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
which will give you a basic introduction to the fallacies of argumentation. Take a few months to digest it, then come back.....we just might make a serious (and capable) apologist of you yet.  

[infallible proposition]

Michael:
Thanks for the replies. Since they are rather long, and to keep the thread from being too unwieldy, I'll respond one item at a time as I have the opportunity to read.

The very first item quickly caught my eye, so here we go:

Quote:
Considering that a recent encyclical reiterated the RCC position that salvation cannot be found outside of the RCC, I doubt you would accord me the same honor, and therein lies the crux of disagreement.
I would like to see a quote from this encyclical you claim says something that can be interpreted as a reiteration that salvation cannot be found outside of the RCC.  I ask this because I know that the Catholic Church does not teach this.  As evidence I offer the following quote from the Official Catechism of the Catholic Church which proves that the Church teaches that others, besides those in the Catholic Church, can be saved.
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."
I suspect you are completely misinterpreting the statement in the encyclical.  I would like to encourage you that if you want to convince people that you are not interested in bashing them you should be sure you are not misrepresenting their position before you attack it.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (there is no salvation outside the Church)

"Urged on by our faith, we are obliged to believe and hold that there is one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. And we firmly believe and profess that outside of her there is no salvation nor remission of sins"
Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam in 1302

Pope Eugene IV, Papal Bull Cantate Domino proclaimed the "infallible dogma of no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church"

3866.......Among those things which the Church has always proclaimed and never leaves off proclaiming is contained the infallible proposition by which we are taught that "outside the Church there is no salvation."
excerpt of letter from Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, 1948

Vatican II appeared to redefine the millennium long edicts of the RCC to include "some" outside of the RCC, but:

In the fall of 2000 Rome issued the Dominus Jesus edict: On September 5th 2000, the Roman Catholic document "DOMINUS IESUS" was issued by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Carrying the full authority of an official Vatican decree, it declares the Roman Catholic Church to be the only "instrument for the salvation of all humanity. "DI has been "ratified and confirmed" by "The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II."

1215, Fourth Lateran Council, exclusive salvation defined by Pope Innocent III
1302, Unam Sanctum, Pope boniface VII
1441, Cantate Domino, Pope Eugene IV
Pius IX and St. Pius X confirmed, plus:


"...but this we do dare say, that, if one dies a Protestant, and the presemption, if he remains an adhering Protestant up to the last moment, is that he does so die, he is most assuredly damned, that is, forever deprived of heaven and will never see God as He is."
Orestes A Brownson, 1803-1876
In Hoc Signo Vinces (IHSV.com), the official Catholic website, ©2000.

From the "controversies" section, IHSV.com

Are Only Catholics Saved?
For many people, this is an extremely difficult issue. This section of our site is dedicated to defending and spreading this Divinely revealed dogma.
The doctrine of exclusive salvation is THE key doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Church's sole purpose on earth is the salvation of souls; once this role is stripped away she becomes utterly useless. This is what has happened in our day. According to the liberals and Modernists, the Church is no longer the sole means of salvation; now, people can be saved without being members of the Church, so long as they are nice people. This is utter heresy, and it is this heresy that is the root cause of all the problems we see in the Church today. It is our privilege to stand by the Church's teaching on this subject, and defend it with every weapon available.

I would humbly suggest to you, Michael, that before making any more statements such as your last two lines in the above quote, that you might insure that you yourself are not misrepresenting either a position, or another person. As you will eventually learn, I am neither in the habit or attitude of just throwing something out without believing that I have (a) understood it, and (b) researching it. Misrepresentation and twisting of anothers position is not only morally untenable, but makes for easily refuted argumentation.

Ahhhh, where to start....where to finish?

Jonah
It reminds me constantly that no matter how petulant I am, no matter how self-righteous I may be, no matter how much I concentrate on what I want, that God is faithful and just, and produces miracles of salvation in spite of me, (the sailors on the ship, the great city of Nineveh), and teaches me lessons about myself in the process (the vine and the worm).

Job
"I shall rain on the just and the unjust".
"Now I have seen thee with mine eyes....and I abhor myself......"
"I know that in the last day, I SHALL SEE my Savior stand upon the earth".  
What else can I say?

[first heaven and the first earth were passed away]

But doesn’t Rev. 21:1 predict "a new heaven and a new
earth"? Yes, but the context clearly indicates that this re-
fers to the future renewing of the present heaven and earth,
not the creating of different ones. Verse 5 says: "He that
sat upon the throne: said, Behold I make all things new."
Note: He didn’t say "I make all new things," but "I make all
things new." There is a difference

Rev 21:1   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.

Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

Not to be too picky, because Bro. Stam does have some wonderful points and insights, but:
Context definitely says a "new heaven and a new earth", which is in stark juxtaposition to a "renewed heaven, and a renewed earth". Additionally, it says clearly that the first (original) heaven and earth were passed away.

Specifically, the word "new", kainos, means:
1) new
     a) as respects form
1) recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
     b) as respects substance
1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of

and "passed away", parerchomai, is
c) metaph.
     1) to pass away, perish


It appears, by context, word usage, and consideration of other scriptures, that the clear indication is that the heavens and the earth are going to be destroyed, and brand new ones will be re-created.....in other words, all NEW things, instead of all things renewed (or refreshed).

No recycling here.