|
|
Post by didymus on Dec 30, 2010 18:40:25 GMT -5
I really don't know much about about this doctrine. I do know enough that leads me to believe that it is false doctrine, and is tearing the preterist movement apart. Genesis 1 is not about the creation of any covenant that I am aware of. What Genesis 1 is about is the creation of the physical universe which we all live in. So, lets look at Genesis 1. - www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201.1-31&version=ESVI do not see a thing in this chapter that says anything about a covenant of any kind. For those of you who do, here is your chance to explain it, and defend it. Convince me if you can.  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Dec 30, 2010 22:25:43 GMT -5
I really don't know much about about this doctrine. I do know enough that leads me to believe that it is false doctrine, and is tearing the preterist movement apart. I hope you realize the similarity to futurism in those words. We, as preterists, are often told the same thing about preterism. And by preterism, I strictly use that term to signify a past parousia in 70 AD. These uneducated futurists have a similar mindset to what you have just demonstrated, Didy. They say things like, " I know preterism is heresy because it goes against all orthodoxy." I am sure you are aware of the routine. PaulT and Roderick Edwards are famous for this kind of stuff. I have met a few myself up here in Canada. These people can not study preterism with an open heart because they ALREADY KNOW it is a false doctrine. Lip service is the best you can get from these types of individuals. I am hoping you will not be like them and have an open and objective heart to these issues. It wasn't too long ago that I stood right where you are standing regarding CC. It also wasn't too long ago that I KNEW FOR SURE preterism was false. I fought it as hard as I could, but thankfully I lost that fight. I didn't even put up a fight to CC. It just made so much sense once I started inquiring...I am sure there will be many more fights. So, you can definitely count on me NOT to educate you or anyone else on this forum regarding covenant creationism. There are plenty of materials available and these have been made known. Maybe you could start with attempting to answer those questions I asked of you in the other thread. We all have to start somewhere, that is, of course, IF one is willing to understand a position before being critical of it. As for tearing preterism apart, I can't imagine where you got that fact from. But I can tell you a fact that is harming preterism. It is Sam Frost's recent foray into futurism...he has decided to believe that there will be (future) more fulfillment of Isaiah 65, and in some physical sense. And why does he do this? There are two main reasons: 1. He is a die-hard young earth creationist 2. He is opposed to covenant creation The main-liners of the CC view (I am but a peon) have stated for a few years now that the present understanding of preterism will either lead to futurism or to covenant creation. Romans 8 (IMO) is one of the biggest reason why. IMO, what starts with the tree of life (Garden) ends with the tree of life (Revelation 22). IMO, what starts with Adam (first Adam) ends with Christ (last Adam) - 1 Cor 15:45. 1 Corinthians 15:45 - And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. We absolutely, positively know that the last Adam, in regard to the quickening spirit, is covenantal (new covenant in Christ). But the first Adam is just physical??? Unfortunately, what many do not realize is that BOTH covenants (sorry, but I must say both) apply to physical beings. I am a physical being, yet I am of the new covenant in Christ. Adam was also a physical being. The natural body versus the spiritual body. The mortal body versus the immortal body, etc. If Adam (first Adam) represents the first human, then by necessity, the last Adam (Christ) must represent the last human, since they are used within the same context. But we know that Christ was not the last human...therefore... But I am not here to convince anyone of anything. I have seen the attitude stream from people who are not the least bit interested and are adamantly opposed. With these kinds of people, all I can do is quote the proverb: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I am available by PM if anyone wishes to remain anonymous yet still wishes to ask a specific question. Hopefully, I will be able to direct the individual to a source that may help. But honestly, if one has not even done basic research... 1. Reading Beyond Creation Science by Jeff Vaughn & Tim Martin 2. Viewing a few articles, blogs, videos, and mp3s from the CC archive at deathisdefeated.ning.com3. Listening to the 2009 and 2010 Covenant Creation Conference audios available at thepodcast.org/category/c-c-c...then it will be rather fruitless to start with questions. It would be like trying to answer a dispensationalist who despises the figurative and metaphorical style of Hebrew language in a question of theirs regarding Matthew 24:29. (some personal experience on this one) Those who even have an inkling of desire should start here: www.newcreationministries.tv/Articles/languageofcreation.htmI will not be speaking in this regard anymore UNLESS ASKED to respond to a specific point. Blessings to all, and thanks, Allyn, for making this a separate section. I would imagine it is NOT going to take up a lot of space with numerous posts... P.S. - If I were to run for president (and I can't for the same reasons it didn't stop Obama), then I suppose, if caught in a spy scandal, a favorite quote of mine would be, "I am not a heretic." |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 31, 2010 0:00:32 GMT -5
First I became intrigued by the strength of Didy's negative reaction to CC in the other thread. Then I listened to Mike Loomis talk with Tim Martin on The Journey at Preterist Radio. Tim said some interesting things, which made me decide to order Beyond Creation Science, which I just did a few minutes ago.
We'll see how it goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Dec 31, 2010 14:18:08 GMT -5
Mel,
That figures. You try to hijack someone elses thread to start on that doctrine. Now that you have a special place to do that, you turn coward.
What I have posed in the OP is that Genesis 1 has nothing at all to do with any covenant, and says nothing about any covenant. You can't prove otherwise, so you won't even try. You invite people to PM you, but refuse, now that you have been exposed, to publicly make your point. What a cowardly approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 31, 2010 15:33:51 GMT -5
Didy, he posted a long reply and said he'd answer questions. How is that cowardly?
(I do wish we could be more uplifting toward one another, instead of tearing down by accusing our brethren of things like turning coward or being unteachable or promoting heresies.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 31, 2010 16:58:25 GMT -5
One is not obligated to convince another of anything. Besides, it is the Holy Spirit Who does the convincing. Therefore I must ask that when any of us respond to another in a provocative manner then in order to maintain this discussion board as an enjoyable place for all the administrators will take appropriate action to calm the situation.
If one person rubs another the wrong way whether either party intentionally did so it would be best to ignore the remark, not be hasty in pushing the "Post Reply" button, try and resolve the issue in a friendly way and as a last resort use the report to mod function.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Dec 31, 2010 18:21:36 GMT -5
Didy, he posted a long reply and said he'd answer questions. How is that cowardly? (I do wish we could be more uplifting toward one another, instead of tearing down by accusing our brethren of things like turning coward or being unteachable or promoting heresies.) Here's a portion of what he said, in case you missed it. This is what I mean by cowardly. He comes in a thread I started, and starts down the Genesis 1 road, totally off the topic. Now that I challenge him to convince me, he backs off, and says he not here to educate me or anyone else. But that he is available by PM so he can, in my opinion, brainwash them secretly. And, to add to that, he says, he will not be speaking in the this regard anymore. He starts this in other threads, and now he has special place to make his case, he won't do it. If you read the OP, I ask you, did he answer the question in the OP? If he did, where? You may wonder why I am so bothered by this. This doctrine calls into question the meaning of Genesis chapter 1. Does Genesis 1 mean what it says? If not, then how can we be sure of any Scripture meaning what it says? How can we trust God at His word if we can't trust what His word says? For centuries in church history the meaning of Genesis 1 has been settled doctrine. For centuries, Christian historians and acheologists have worked hard to prove the Bible tue. This doctrine, and others like it, destroys their work. It's Rook night. I have to go. By the way, I am not too bothered to forget to say: HAPPY NEW YEAR! |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 31, 2010 18:32:50 GMT -5
Happy New Year to you, too, Tom! Have a good night of Rook. : )
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 31, 2010 18:38:32 GMT -5
Didy, he posted a long reply and said he'd answer questions. How is that cowardly? (I do wish we could be more uplifting toward one another, instead of tearing down by accusing our brethren of things like turning coward or being unteachable or promoting heresies.) Here's a portion of what he said, in case you missed it. This is what I mean by cowardly. He comes in a thread I started, and starts down the Genesis 1 road, totally off the topic. Now that I challenge him to convince me, he backs off, and says he not here to educate me or anyone else. But that he is available by PM so he can, in my opinion, brainwash them secretly. And, to add to that, he says, he will not be speaking in the this regard anymore. He starts this in other threads, and now he has special place to make his case, he won't do it. If you read the OP, I ask you, did he answer the question in the OP? If he did, where? ... Actually, yes, he DID answer your question and VERY specifically. Only, instead of reinventing the wheel, he provided a link. This one: www.newcreationministries.tv/Articles/languageofcreation.htmThe article addresses specifically the covenantal aspects of Genesis 1. I just finished reading it and it is actually very interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 31, 2010 18:57:21 GMT -5
Ted, I found the article you provided at the link ( www.newcreationministries.tv/Articles/languageofcreation.htm) to be very interesting. While reading it, I found myself anticipating things and making notes of them before he got to it in the article. I can certainly see the connections being made. What I still don't understand is why, if one believes covenant creation from this perspective, it is necessary to abandon Genesis 1 as also a record of physical creation. I can believe that God would use the pattern of creation as the pattern for covenant. One of the things I've heard (most of us probably have) from evolutionists is that "if God created everything, why are there so many similarities in the different species. This supports evolution, not creation." To which the creationist response is "There are similarities because they were made by the same Creator." Or words to that effect. So, the process of the physical creation shares similarities to God's covenant descriptions because the same Craftsman crafted both. I see it like a signature. One question I do have, though, which is not about the content of the article but rather about the disclaimer at the end of it: *While we appreciate Tim Martin's contribution to our study of Genesis creation, and "covenant creation" throughout all of Scripture; our quotation of him on this topic is not meant to suggest agreement with his soteriological views. Do you know what those soteriological differences are? I'm curious. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 1, 2011 2:41:52 GMT -5
Here's a portion of what he said, in case you missed it. This is what I mean by cowardly. He comes in a thread I started, and starts down the Genesis 1 road, totally off the topic. Now that I challenge him to convince me, he backs off, and says he not here to educate me or anyone else. But that he is available by PM so he can, in my opinion, brainwash them secretly. And, to add to that, he says, he will not be speaking in the this regard anymore. He starts this in other threads, and now he has special place to make his case, he won't do it. If you read the OP, I ask you, did he answer the question in the OP? If he did, where? ... Actually, yes, he DID answer your question and VERY specifically. Only, instead of reinventing the wheel, he provided a link. This one: www.newcreationministries.tv/Articles/languageofcreation.htmThe article addresses specifically the covenantal aspects of Genesis 1. I just finished reading it and it is actually very interesting. You do know of the computer problems I've been having. One of them is links off this site don't work too well. So, I don't even try them any more. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 1, 2011 4:27:16 GMT -5
Okay. I was able to link to this article a part from this site. So, I read a portion of it. And I looked at accompanying charts, and I have the same question. Where in Genesis 1 is there a mention of a covenant? I don't see an answer to that question. If this is the future of preterism, I will have to re-evaluate my belief in preterism, because I do take Genesis 1 literally, and I see no reason not to. Was there a covenant delivered to Adam? If so, where is it recorded? Where is it said that God made a covenant with Adam? The first God made a covenant with mankind, and with the earth, is the Noadic covenant, which he said He would establish in Genesis 6.18. Then the Noadic covenant is explained in Genesis 9. Verse 16 calls it an everlasting covenant. Obviously, even now, this covenant is valid. The sign of the covenant, the rainbow, is still visible when the conditions are right. The next covenant was the Abramic covenant. Genesis. 15.18. Then there was the Abrahamic covenant. Genesis 17. There you have 3 legitimate covenants God made with someone as recorded in the book of Genesis, 4 if you count the one with Issac. So, with these legitimate covenants in Genesis, why try to create one that doesn't exist? The meaning of Genesis 1 is plain. It means exactly what it says. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 1, 2011 13:40:20 GMT -5
A covenant is "an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified." (Dictionary.com) According to the website GotQuestions.org, the covenant in Genesis 1 with Adam was this: The Adamic Covenant can be thought of in two parts: the Edenic Covenant (innocence) and the Adamic Covenant (grace). The Edenic Covenant is found in Genesis 1:26-30; 2:16-17. The details of this covenant include the following:
Mankind (male and female) created in God’s image.
Mankind’s dominion (rule) over the animal kingdom.
Divine directive for mankind to reproduce and inhabit the entire Earth.
Mankind to be vegetarian (eating of meat established in the Noahic covenant: Genesis 9:3).
Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil forbidden (with death as the stated penalty).
The Adamic Covenant is found in Genesis 3:16-19. ... Granted, this is not the "creation covenant" of Covenant Creation, but it is a form of covenant found in Genesis 1. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 1, 2011 19:32:23 GMT -5
One question I do have, though, which is not about the content of the article but rather about the disclaimer at the end of it: *While we appreciate Tim Martin's contribution to our study of Genesis creation, and "covenant creation" throughout all of Scripture; our quotation of him on this topic is not meant to suggest agreement with his soteriological views. Do you know what those soteriological differences are? I'm curious. Bev, it may be because Tim is Reformed (or mostly Reformed, or not at all Reformed anymore). I honestly don't know, and perhaps that disclaimer is a little old. Write Tami (tamijelinek@comcast.net) and I'm sure she will explain much better than I can. What I found most amazing is that the joint effort of authorship was Reformed (Tim Martin) and non-Reformed (Jeff Vaughn). This is the first time I have seen the contrary views work together in an endeavour. That is, of course, not saying that this hasn't happened before... As for Genesis 1 being BOTH physical and covenantal, there are non-preterists who hold to that view. John Walton is one such person. To me, it smacks of dual-fulfillment which I have always had a problem with. If that was God's description of the physical creation of the universe, it sure is lacking, IMO. It has been my experience that walking up to a futurist and blatantly stating that the Lord has already returned/ appeared again the second time, etc. is LESS worse than stating to preterists that Genesis 1 is not dealing with physical creation. As preterists, we should already be familiar with the study technique of understanding the arguments before opposing them. There is just too much "knee-jerkism" these days... And it takes lots of work...probably more work than it takes for a person to desribe the resurrection to a dispensationalist. There are just too many things for a dispensationalist to understand (such as basic Hebrew metaphors) before even attempting to introduce the past resurrection. They are totally stuck on physical fulfillment. We are totally stuck on physical creation. Genesis 1 is not a metaphor. It is real creation. But it is not talking about the universe just as it is not talking about the universe in the NT. We have so much more room to advance in our understanding. I just hope I live long enough to see basic preterism gain a solid foot hold in evangelical Christianity. It is always best to read the entire article because some understanding will be lost when, and if, there is a desire to proceed further. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 1, 2011 20:10:48 GMT -5
One question I do have, though, which is not about the content of the article but rather about the disclaimer at the end of it: *While we appreciate Tim Martin's contribution to our study of Genesis creation, and "covenant creation" throughout all of Scripture; our quotation of him on this topic is not meant to suggest agreement with his soteriological views. Do you know what those soteriological differences are? I'm curious. Bev, it may be because Tim is Reformed (or mostly Reformed, or not at all Reformed anymore). I honestly don't know, and perhaps that disclaimer is a little old. Write Tami (tamijelinek@comcast.net) and I'm sure she will explain much better than I can. What I found most amazing is that the joint effort of authorship was Reformed (Tim Martin) and non-Reformed (Jeff Vaughn). This is the first time I have seen the contrary views work together in an endeavour. That is, of course, not saying that this hasn't happened before... I figured one was probably more Reformed than the other, or one not at all. I just thought maybe you would know which it was. Not a big deal! Since I am not Reformed, my tendency would be to want to read about CC from someone else not Reformed, because Reformed dogma would likely get slipped into the text and I'd rather not have it distract me if it can be avoided. As for Genesis 1 being BOTH physical and covenantal, there are non-preterists who hold to that view. John Walton is one such person. To me, it smacks of dual-fulfillment which I have always had a problem with. If that was God's description of the physical creation of the universe, it sure is lacking, IMO. I don't know how a literal (if simplistic) description of the Creation can be a "fulfillment" of anything (regarding dual-fulfillment). But your last comment there about the description being lacking is noted. My guess at a reason for the simplicity of it is that it was directed to the knowledge level of the people it was delivered to. (Or, to view it as a skeptic would, maybe it was written at the knowledge level of the people it was written by.) It has been my experience that walking up to a futurist and blatantly stating that the Lord has already returned/ appeared again the second time, etc. is LESS worse than stating to preterists that Genesis 1 is not dealing with physical creation. Hey, I completely understand. It's along the same lines as suggesting to a trinitarian that Jesus isn't God in the flesh. These are BIG issues that challenge centuries of tradition. Resistance is natural. The biggest hurdle is to get people curious enough to the possibility that they will choose to study it seriously for themselves. I think that's really the only way a change of understanding and belief can take place in an individual. It is like when I was an atheist. You could preach to me all you want, but I wasn't about to take you seriously. I knew it was fantasy (or "false doctrine" or "heresy"--insert whatever word is appropriate to the topic by the recipient). But somewhere along the line, I developed enough interest and curiosity to really investigate. As preterists, we should already be familiar with the study technique of understanding the arguments before opposing them. There is just too much "knee-jerkism" these days... And it takes lots of work...probably more work than it takes for a person to desribe the resurrection to a dispensationalist. There are just too many things for a dispensationalist to understand (such as basic Hebrew metaphors) before even attempting to introduce the past resurrection. They are totally stuck on physical fulfillment. We are totally stuck on physical creation. Genesis 1 is not a metaphor. It is real creation. But it is not talking about the universe just as it is not talking about the universe in the NT. I don't understand why you say it is not a metaphor. "Heavens and earth" as terms for God's people and covenant (or conscience and covenant) are metaphors. We have so much more room to advance in our understanding. I just hope I live long enough to see basic preterism gain a solid foot hold in evangelical Christianity. It is always best to read the entire article because some understanding will be lost when, and if, there is a desire to proceed further. Just to clarify, at least speaking for myself, I did read the entire article, plus two others that were linked from it! About three-quarters of the way through the third article, I got sidetracked by a scripture quotation that was provided. It sent me off in another direction, from which I ended up posting here (on the Prophecy board) on an entirely different topic ("The Promise"). |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 1, 2011 22:27:39 GMT -5
A covenant is "an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified." (Dictionary.com) According to the website GotQuestions.org, the covenant in Genesis 1 with Adam was this: The Adamic Covenant can be thought of in two parts: the Edenic Covenant (innocence) and the Adamic Covenant (grace). The Edenic Covenant is found in Genesis 1:26-30; 2:16-17. The details of this covenant include the following:
Mankind (male and female) created in God’s image.
Mankind’s dominion (rule) over the animal kingdom.
Divine directive for mankind to reproduce and inhabit the entire Earth.
Mankind to be vegetarian (eating of meat established in the Noahic covenant: Genesis 9:3).
Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil forbidden (with death as the stated penalty).
The Adamic Covenant is found in Genesis 3:16-19. ... Granted, this is not the "creation covenant" of Covenant Creation, but it is a form of covenant found in Genesis 1. Where did God say to Adam, "Today I establish my covenant with you." God created Adam, not that he had a covenant with Adam to do so, He just did it. Then when Adam was created, God made command of Adam. He made no agreement or treaty with Adam. When God made Eve, He made no covenant with either one of them. The original command stood. Adam and Eve violated the commandment of God. No one broke a covenant since there was none. There was only one command, that is not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. The reason that this the only command is because there was a consequence for violation of the command. We do not find that in Genesis 1.26-30, as there were no consequences for violation. It was more like a job description. Regardless, there was no violation of the job description. Adam and Eve were fruitful and multiplied. Our presence proves that. Genesis 3.16-19 also was not a covenant. That was God's judgment for Adam, Eve and the serpent for violating His command. Again, I see no covenant at in Genesis 1. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 1, 2011 22:54:15 GMT -5
A covenant is "an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified." (Dictionary.com) According to the website GotQuestions.org, the covenant in Genesis 1 with Adam was this: The Adamic Covenant can be thought of in two parts: the Edenic Covenant (innocence) and the Adamic Covenant (grace). The Edenic Covenant is found in Genesis 1:26-30; 2:16-17. The details of this covenant include the following:
Mankind (male and female) created in God’s image.
Mankind’s dominion (rule) over the animal kingdom.
Divine directive for mankind to reproduce and inhabit the entire Earth.
Mankind to be vegetarian (eating of meat established in the Noahic covenant: Genesis 9:3).
Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil forbidden (with death as the stated penalty).
The Adamic Covenant is found in Genesis 3:16-19. ... Granted, this is not the "creation covenant" of Covenant Creation, but it is a form of covenant found in Genesis 1. Where did God say to Adam, "Today I establish my covenant with you." God created Adam, not that he had a covenant with Adam to do so, He just did it. Then when Adam was created, God made command of Adam. He made no agreement or treaty with Adam. When God made Eve, He made no covenant with either one of them. The original command stood. Adam and Eve violated the commandment of God. No one broke a covenant since there was none. There was only one command, that is not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. The reason that this the only command is because there was a consequence for violation of the command. We do not find that in Genesis 1.26-30, as there were no consequences for violation. It was more like a job description. Regardless, there was no violation of the job description. Adam and Eve were fruitful and multiplied. Our presence proves that. Genesis 3.16-19 also was not a covenant. That was God's judgment for Adam, Eve and the serpent for violating His command. Again, I see no covenant at in Genesis 1. Well, Didy, it's your opinion vs. the opinion of others. You are demanding that the word "covenant" appear in the text before you will view something as a covenant. That seems a bit stubborn to me, but, hey, I don't have a stake in this debate. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other whether you acknowledge a covenant in Genesis 1 or not! I have nothing to defend here, I'm just participating in this one out of curiosity. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 1, 2011 23:20:40 GMT -5
I think it's plain. When God established a covenant with someone, he said, "I will establish My covenant with...," or words to that effect. No where is that said in Genesis 1. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 2, 2011 0:03:41 GMT -5
I think it's plain. When God established a covenant with someone, he said, "I will establish My covenant with...," or words to that effect. No where is that said in Genesis 1. Now that's a good point! |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 2, 2011 8:49:24 GMT -5
I think it's plain. When God established a covenant with someone, he said, "I will establish My covenant with...," or words to that effect. No where is that said in Genesis 1. Covenants come in many forms but I get your point. I believe God made a form of a covenant with Adam when He told him "on the day you eat thereof you shall surely die". This was a promise and not a threat. God acted upon His promise and Adam died that very day and in the most undesireable way a person could experience, i.e. separation from God. It is my belief that God harkened back to the creation event for illustration purposes. He does this all the time and we are familiar with these examples as used in the NT. But when Moses sat down to write Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus he did so for a people who didn't even know the name of God before Moses and so Moses explained it from the beginning. I think we tend to look a Moses as being more or less like a man used by God, and this is correct, but even more than that Moses saw God and was in the intimate presence of God. Do you think Moses was forty days and nights on the Holy mountain to just recieve the 10 commandments? No, but even more. Moses got to know God and shared it with us through the first 5 books of the Bible. So can we see covenant teaching in Genesis 1? We can only by looking back at it because we see God in Genesis 1. But the covenant was not manifested in Genesis 1 but was much later on and it began with Abraham and was based on the faith of one man and not the disobidience of one man. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 2, 2011 9:59:30 GMT -5
Ted, I found the article you provided at the link ( www.newcreationministries.tv/Articles/languageofcreation.htm) to be very interesting. While reading it, I found myself anticipating things and making notes of them before he got to it in the article. I can certainly see the connections being made. What I still don't understand is why, if one believes covenant creation from this perspective, it is necessary to abandon Genesis 1 as also a record of physical creation. I can believe that God would use the pattern of creation as the pattern for covenant. One of the things I've heard (most of us probably have) from evolutionists is that "if God created everything, why are there so many similarities in the different species. This supports evolution, not creation." To which the creationist response is "There are similarities because they were made by the same Creator." Or words to that effect. So, the process of the physical creation shares similarities to God's covenant descriptions because the same Craftsman crafted both. I see it like a signature. One question I do have, though, which is not about the content of the article but rather about the disclaimer at the end of it: *While we appreciate Tim Martin's contribution to our study of Genesis creation, and "covenant creation" throughout all of Scripture; our quotation of him on this topic is not meant to suggest agreement with his soteriological views. Do you know what those soteriological differences are? I'm curious. In the article Tami insists that preterism is not being consistant if it does not take the creation account as a covenantal account. I find no natural reason to agree with her on this. What is more natural, for me at least, is to follow the flow of the Bible which takes the reader from a carnal relationship with God into a spiritual relationship. This to me is the consistant route to take and actually is more defensible then what CCers seem to be trying to do as they muster recruits for their new found religion. Okay, that was a little harsh but really if you look at the movement it really does have a defined beginning the founders of the movement have admitted are still developing. Covenant Creation is truly an unfounded idea with seemingly no support from Scripture as to what was understood in either Judaism or Christianity teachings. The only way Covenant Creation has a chance is to redefine certain comparrisons of the natural with the spiritual by insisting that the natural (physical creation) was never the intended meassage concerning the creation account. Rather they say that the hidden message (my words) is that inspite of the actual creation of the universe the intended message God had in what Moses wrote was to awaken the people to a promise from the very first verse of Genesis chapter 1. Tami insists that preterists must hold to the view that Genesis and Revelation are "covenantal counterparts", that we should "naturally conclude that it is a covenantal, rather than a cosmological creation." I have no argument with people who see the covenantal aspects of our relationship to God but it must not go beyond the natual flow of teaching which in its perfection comes through the Holy word of God. I think Covenant Creation goes beyond this. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 2, 2011 15:25:59 GMT -5
I have re-read the article and I am convinced more than ever that Covenant Creation is a made up idea, unjustified. The few examples given by Tami show a flare for imagination but are in no way evidence that the creation of the universe depicts a covenant relationship from God to us. This relationship did not have its development until centuries later and certainly not until God picked a man of faith, tested his faith and found him worthy of the promise of the coming Messiah as his descendant.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtymousie on Jan 2, 2011 17:08:44 GMT -5
Stop and think about something for a minute. If we try to dismiss all the physical elements in creation, how easy it becomes to do the same with the rest of scripture. We could say the flood never really happened. A virgin never really had a baby. And a man never really came back from the dead. Creation was physical, folks. Put your name in the place of Job below and think of God talking to you:
"Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken. Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth? Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death? Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all. Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof? Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great? Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war? By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth? Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man; To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth? Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth? Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?
Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are? Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart? Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven, When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together? Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions, When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait? Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat." (Job 38)
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jan 3, 2011 7:28:31 GMT -5
Hey Bev,
I'm still trying to digest this. My initial reaction is that it's a theory which goes against a natural reading of scripture. Genesis 1-2 appears to be an account of physical creation. If it isn't, then I'm not sure how we can say with any degree of certainty that anything means what it says elsewhere in scripture. I get the whole "the world that ended must be the same as the one which began" argument and, I suppose, that's reasonable. But I also believe in a text saying what it says.
Were the Jews wrong for thousands of years to believe that Genesis 1-2 was referring to physical creation? Why would God leave them in such error? But the main question which springs to mind is: who created the physical heavens and the physical earth? If the creation account isn't referring to a physical creation, and all subsequent creation accounts refer back to Genesis, then we can't really prove that God created anything of the physical world.
Just my penny's worth.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 3, 2011 12:56:09 GMT -5
Didy said to Mell: Whoa! Thumbs down  Roo |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 3, 2011 15:15:12 GMT -5
Again, I see no covenant at in Genesis 1. Few people do, Thomas. But as preterists, we should be familiar with taking the whole Bible into consideration, and considering what other Scriptures say about other Scriptures. Take this one reference for example: Hosea 6:7 (YLT) - And they, as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (MKJV) - But, like Adam, they have broken the covenant. They have acted like traitors against Me there. Hosea 6:7 (ASV) - But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (Bishops 1568) - But euen like as Adam did, so haue they broken my couenaunt, and set me at naught. Even John Darby agrees: Hosea 6:7 (DARBY) - But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (ESV) - But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me. And previously in Hosea: Hosea 2:18 (KJV) - And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. This non-preterist site seems to agree also: www.biblelighthouse.com/covenants/01CovenantofWorks.htmBut we fully realize that not all will come to the same understanding... |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 3, 2011 15:38:58 GMT -5
Didy said to Mell: Whoa! Thumbs down Roo Is there a better for what he did? |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 3, 2011 15:42:31 GMT -5
Again, I see no covenant at in Genesis 1. Few people do, Thomas. But as preterists, we should be familiar with taking the whole Bible into consideration, and considering what other Scriptures say about other Scriptures. Take this one reference for example: Hosea 6:7 (YLT) - And they, as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (MKJV) - But, like Adam, they have broken the covenant. They have acted like traitors against Me there. Hosea 6:7 (ASV) - But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (Bishops 1568) - But euen like as Adam did, so haue they broken my couenaunt, and set me at naught. Even John Darby agrees: Hosea 6:7 (DARBY) - But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (ESV) - But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me. And previously in Hosea: Hosea 2:18 (KJV) - And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. This non-preterist site seems to agree also: www.biblelighthouse.com/covenants/01CovenantofWorks.htmBut we fully realize that not all will come to the same understanding... If God made a covenant with Adam, why isn't it written, Theodore? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 3, 2011 15:52:39 GMT -5
Few people do, Thomas. But as preterists, we should be familiar with taking the whole Bible into consideration, and considering what other Scriptures say about other Scriptures. Take this one reference for example: Hosea 6:7 (YLT) - And they, as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (MKJV) - But, like Adam, they have broken the covenant. They have acted like traitors against Me there. Hosea 6:7 (ASV) - But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (Bishops 1568) - But euen like as Adam did, so haue they broken my couenaunt, and set me at naught. Even John Darby agrees: Hosea 6:7 (DARBY) - But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (ESV) - But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me. And previously in Hosea: Hosea 2:18 (KJV) - And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. This non-preterist site seems to agree also: www.biblelighthouse.com/covenants/01CovenantofWorks.htmBut we fully realize that not all will come to the same understanding... If God made a covenant with Adam, why isn't it written, Theodore? First of all, my name is not Theodore. You should always clarify or ask before going ahead on preconceived notions... Now, in answer to your question. Where is it mandated in Scripture that it must be written? Are you disagreeing with the prophet Hosea who says there was a covenant with Adam? Isn't that really the issue? If you won't believe him, there is no way possible that I could say anything to convince you. I have already stated that I will not try to convince you and I am called a coward. Such childishness... There is lots of information available. No one is forcing you, Thomas. You disagree. That is fine. I am not going to separate fellowship over it just as I won't separate fellowship with others who hold to a future parousia. That includes name calling... Blessings. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 3, 2011 16:18:06 GMT -5
Again, I see no covenant at in Genesis 1. Few people do, Thomas. But as preterists, we should be familiar with taking the whole Bible into consideration, and considering what other Scriptures say about other Scriptures. Take this one reference for example: Hosea 6:7 (YLT) - And they, as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (MKJV) - But, like Adam, they have broken the covenant. They have acted like traitors against Me there. Hosea 6:7 (ASV) - But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (Bishops 1568) - But euen like as Adam did, so haue they broken my couenaunt, and set me at naught. Even John Darby agrees: Hosea 6:7 (DARBY) - But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me. Hosea 6:7 (ESV) - But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me. And previously in Hosea: Hosea 2:18 (KJV) - And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. This non-preterist site seems to agree also: www.biblelighthouse.com/covenants/01CovenantofWorks.htmBut we fully realize that not all will come to the same understanding... Ted, The Hebrew word "adam" is the word for human kind and not necessarily Adam personally. It is the same word used of both the man and the woman in Genesis 1:27. In Hosea 6:7 the KJV says "men" and the online Hebrew Interlinear reads "human." KJV: The online Hebrew Interlinear says "human." www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/hos6.pdfNow here is the death blow to your interpretation. The word "adam" may also refer to the place where the people dealt treacherously with God. This is what the context indicates. Note the rendering of the NEB: The context clearly indicates that "adam" was the place where the people dealt treacherously with God. It says, " THERE they dealt treacherously with Me." Well that settles it doesn't it?  Roo |
|
