Covenant Creationism - What is it?

[MoGrace2U]

I was over at DeathIsDefeated today and noticed a picture they have up of the ark and some men who had climbed up on rocks. Now where do they get that picture from since scripture is not the source? From their own imaginations!

Run with it is not said of fables...

[didymus]

Robin.

I just visited "Death is defeated." I don't think those guys were "climbing the rocks." I think they were trying to hitch a ride on the ark. I have seen pictures like this before. It's an evengelical tool, to scare people to come to Christ. Just as those guys died in their sins because they were too late to get on the ark, if you die without Christ, it will be eternally too late, just as it was too late fro those that didn't get on the ark.

Get the picture?

- how about some coffee

[kangaroojack]

Apr 2, 2009 10:27:33 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Hi Ted,

The preterist view, on the other hand, believes in a physical creation but the (new) heavens and earth are spiritual and covenantal in nature. To me, that view is inconsistent.

If we consider typology, why would such a view be inconsistent? Why cannot Genesis be literal and therefore provide the basis for symbolic use elsewhere? Jeremiah 4 seems to do just that as it likens the destruction of the land with the Lord beginning over again.

It would seem to me to be the only way not to do damage to the original text. If we spiritualize Genesis, then where are the actual types to be found which provide the symbology for the antitype?

Mo grace,

Exactly! The literal heavens and the earth were TYPOLOGICAL of the covenantal heavens and the earth. Example, when God created the sun and the moon He said that they shall be for SIGNS and for SEASONS.

If the CCers would be consistent as they claim, then they must deny a literal Israel as well. Or they can accept that literal Israel was a TYPE of the true Israel which is Christ.

ALL things physical were typological.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Mellontes said;

In the Genesis beginning, there was a sea. In the Revelation ending, there is no sea because Jew and Gentile are one body in Christ. Where is the sea in the new heaven and earth from the Sinai point of view? (This question has never been answered by the critics - anyone here care to try?)

Hi Mell,

Ah but there is a sea in the new earth. According to Isaiah's account of the new earth people will come to the coastlands from afar off to hear about the Lord (66:19). What surrounds coastlands? A sea of course!

The expression "there will be no more sea" in the Revelation means that there will be no more ABYSS for the "sea" in the Revelation was apocalyptic for the abyss. The abyss was the waiting place for the dead until the resurrection. It was also the place where the devil had been cast. Therefore, death and the devil have been destroyed.

So the expression "no more sea" has nothing to do with the Jew and the Gentile becoming one in Christ. It has to do with the abolition of death and the devil. If it had to do with the Jew and the Gentile being made one in Christ, then Isaiah's account of the new earth leaves Jew and Gentile still separated for that account clearly infers that there is a sea.

Thus the CC paradigm fails.

Roo

[MoGrace2U]

Knee jerk reaction? C'mon Ted you can do better than that!

[Once4all]

I read something recently (on a website somewhere) that the "sea" refers to the unbelieving nations. I couldn't find that page, but here is another that has some examples from scripture. Find the paragraph that begins, "As far as Revelation 21 is concerned," and read from there, if interested.

www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/0000_fenley_heaven-sea.html

[kangaroojack]

Aug 28, 2010 23:46:22 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I read something recently (on a website somewhere) that the "sea" refers to the unbelieving nations. I couldn't find that page, but here is another that has some examples from scripture. Find the paragraph that begins, "As far as Revelation 21 is concerned," and read from there, if interested.

www.preteristarchive.com/Hyper/0000_fenley_heaven-sea.html

Thanks Bev. I will look into it. The "sea" can also be a reference to the abyss. Paul cited Deuteronomy 32:12-14 which literally says, "Who shall cross over the sea." Paul's version goes, "Who shall descend into the abyss, that is, to bring Christ up from the dead."

So the ''sea" in Deuteronomy 32:12-14 is the abyss from which Christ was raised up.

At any rate, the abolition of the "sea" in the Revelation cannot refer to the Jew and the Gentile becoming one because there is still a sea according to Isaiah's account of the new earth (Isaiah 66:19). So the CCers do not prove their case.

Roo

[MoGrace2U]

Aug 29, 2010 6:26:37 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Aug 28, 2010 21:32:44 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

Knee jerk reaction? C'mon Ted you can do better than that!

I didn't mean knee-jerk in a derogatory form. But I do mean that it is often a quick reaction...

Few people ever really study the position fully from the CC point of view; often it is from the opposing side. We have seen this so many times from futurists who attack full-preterism. They pull snippets from what we say regarding preterism and then they add their own twist to it according to their own hermeneutic.

First assumption here is that no one else could have possibly drawn the right conclusions from scripture without using this point of view CC has developed. Is preterism guilty of that too? I don't see that preterism has to rewrite anything.

What I see going on with CC is that once they have a little light they use it everywhere - which is a common accusation made of the preterist pov also. But light is given to help us rightly divide the scripture, not go back and rewrite the text. And if the preterist or the CC is guilty of doing this, then both ought to be rebuked.

And Roo is right about the sea in Rev, because the context of the symbolism used there warrants that interpretation. There is nothing in the context at that point that suggests anything about Gentiles, so CC has failed to rightly divide the text there with their new light and ought to take it elsewhere! Or keep searching...for the right answer.

Luke 11:35 - Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness.

[kangaroojack]

Aug 29, 2010 6:40:30 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Aug 29, 2010 3:49:44 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Thanks Bev. I will look into it. The "sea" can also be a reference to the abyss. Paul cited Deuteronomy 32:12-14 which literally says, "Who shall cross over the sea." Paul's version goes, "Who shall descend into the abyss, that is, to bring Christ up from the dead."

So the ''sea" in Deuteronomy 32:12-14 is the abyss from which Christ was raised up.

At any rate, the abolition of the "sea" in the Revelation cannot refer to the Jew and the Gentile becoming one because there is still a sea according to Isaiah's account of the new earth (Isaiah 66:19). So the CCers do not prove their case.

Roo

Roo,

Are you sure you meant Deuteronomy 32:12-14? Since you quoted from the ESV (I think) regarding your "coastlands," I quote Deuteronomy 32:12-14 from the same version...

Deu 32:12 the LORD alone guided him, no foreign god was with him.
Deu 32:13 He made him ride on the high places of the land, and he ate the produce of the field, and he suckled him with honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock.
Deu 32:14 Curds from the herd, and milk from the flock, with fat of lambs, rams of Bashan and goats, with the very finest of the wheat-- and you drank foaming wine made from the blood of the grape.

Hi Ted,

I made a mistake. The correct passage is Deuteronomy 30:12-14.

Deuteronomy 30:12-14 NKJV:

12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

Paul's interpretation in Romans 10:7 NKJV:

7 ...or, “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’”(that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

The "sea" in Deuteronomy 30 is the abyss from which Christ was raised up. I believe the expression "no more sea" in the Revelation means "no more abyss" (the holding place of the dead until the resurrection).

Please answer my point from Isaiah's account of the new earth having "coastlands." Some translations read "islands" (Is. 66:19). Either way Isaiah's account of the new earth implies that there is still a sea. Therefore, the expression "no more sea" has nothing to do with the Jews and the Gentiles being made one.


Roo

[kangaroojack]

Mellontes said:

But Roo, I did answer. I am waiting for your answer to Isaiah 60:5...

Ted,

I did not see that first post. The word "coastlands" or "islands" in some translations of 66:19 infers that there is still a sea in the new earth. The presence of coastlands or islands implies the presence of a sea.

How does Isaiah 60:5 help your case? It was fulfilled in Darius' generous subsidy to restore worship in the temple.

Ezra 6:8-9:

8 Moreover I issue a decree as to what you shall do for the elders of these Jews, for the building of this house of God: Let the cost be paid at the king’s expense from taxes on the region beyond the River; this is to be given immediately to these men, so that they are not hindered. 9 And whatever they need—young bulls, rams, and lambs for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the request of the priests who are in Jerusalem—let it be given them day by day without fail,

Consider also Revelation 20 which says, "And the sea gave up the dead that were in it." Let's read this through the CC presupposition, "And the Gentiles gave up the dead that were in it." So we are to believe that the "sea" in chapter 20 are the Gentiles which gave up the dead? I think not.

The "sea" was the abyss where the dead awaited the resurrection. It is no more!


Roo

[kangaroojack]

Aug 29, 2010 20:09:51 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Aug 29, 2010 15:58:16 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Ted,

I did not see that first post. The word "coastlands" or "islands" in some translations of 66:19 infers that there is still a sea in the new earth. The presence of coastlands or islands implies the presence of a sea.

How does Isaiah 60:5 help your case? It was fulfilled in Darius' generous subsidy to restore worship in the temple.

Ezra 6:8-9:


Consider also Revelation 20 which says, "And the sea gave up the dead that were in it." Let's read this through the CC presupposition, "And the Gentiles gave up the dead that were in it." So we are to believe that the "sea" in chapter 20 are the Gentiles which gave up the dead? I think not.

The "sea" was the abyss where the dead awaited the resurrection. It is no more!

Roo

I'm not following your usage of Ezra 6:8-9 in relation to Isaiah 60:5 at all...the sea is expressed as Gentiles.

Have you listened to that 8-part lecture, read the book or been to that NCMI site to understand the position?

May I invite you to DeathIsDefeated (deathisdefeated.ning.com) to discuss these matters further. You get to deal with the cream of the crop instead of the tattered leaf.

What did you think of the article that Bev directed you to?

Ted,

I request that you deal with the word "sea" in its IMMEDIATE context in the Revelation. Chapter 20 says that the "sea" gave up the dead which were in it. Then in chapter 21 it says that there will be "no more sea."

The word "sea" must mean the same thing both times it is used in the context.

About Isaiah 60:5. Young's Literal Translation does not read "Gentiles" but "nations."

5Then thou seest, and hast become bright, And thine heart hath been afraid and enlarged, For turn unto thee doth the multitude of the sea, The forces of nations do come to thee.

The prophecy is talking about King Darius subsidizing the building of the temple through the taxation of the wealth of the nations (Ezra 6:8-9).

The salvation of the nations was NEVER prophesied in the old testament:

1For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you the nations,
2if, indeed, ye did hear of the dispensation of the grace of God that was given to me in regard to you,
3that by revelation He made known to me the secret, according as I wrote before in few [words] --
4in regard to which ye are able, reading [it], to understand my knowledge in the secret of the Christ,
5which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it was now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit --
6that the nations be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in the Christ, through the good news, Ephesians 3:1-6 YLT

Please note that Paul said that in other generations it was not made known to the sons of men that the nations would be fellow heirs. He said that it is "NOW made known to the holy apostles and prophets."

Therefore, Isaiah 60:5 cannot be a prophecy about the salvation of the nations because it was not made known to anyone before the holy apostles and prophets.

Again, please deal with the word "sea" in its context in the Revelation. Chapter 20 says that the "sea" gave up the dead which were in it. Chapter 21 says that there shall be "no more sea." So it is much more likely that the word "sea" is apocalyptic for the abyss which was the holding place for the dead until the resurrection. Deuteronomy 30:12-14 says that no one could cross over the "sea." Paul interpreted this statement to mean that no one can descend into the abyss to bring Christ up from the dead. So the "sea" often referred to the abyss.

The CC interpretation is unconvincing to say the least.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Ted,

Thank you for giving me the links to online lectures on this subject. But please note that I do not listen to lectures online primarily because I stick with the scriptures. Even if I would I do not have the time or patience for it. So you would have to engage me on your own.

If you want to copy and paste excerpts from anything written I will consider them and reply to them.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Aug 30, 2010 9:35:56 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Aug 29, 2010 21:13:49 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Ted,

Thank you for giving me the links to online lectures on this subject. But please note that I do not listen to lectures online primarily because I stick with the scriptures. Even if I would I do not have the time or patience for it. So you would have to engage me on your own.

If you want to copy and paste excerpts from anything written I will consider them and reply to them.

Roo

While I agree that listening to audio and responding formally is more difficult than responding to a written article, copying and pasting excerpts just doesn't do justice when the whole context of the article must be considered.

Sometimes posting an entire article in thses groups is not possible. And even if posted, it would look very similar to the online representation to which the link points to - like the one Bev asked you to check out. BYW, what were your thoughts on that article. I think I asked once before, but not sure of anything these days with my memory...

You might want to check out this link to this article: www.newcreationministries.tv/Articles/languageofcreation.htm. It would not be appropriate to put here, size-wise, I think.

Ted,

Certainly you can copy and paste a section from an article and do it justice. I am not interested in reading full articles online and debating them.

The end of Revelation 20 says that the "sea" gave up its dead. Then chapter 21 begins by saying that there shall be "no more sea." You say that the "sea" in chapter 21 refers to the Gentiles. This would mean that the "sea" is the Gentiles in ch 20 also. So is Revelation 20 saying that the Gentiles gave up its dead? And is chapter 21 saying that there shall be "no more Gentiles?"

I do not think it is unreasonable on my part to request straightforward answers from you without your referring me to articles online.

Roo

[MoGrace2U]

Ok Ted, I'll play. Here is Tami's opening paragraph:

There is much disagreement within fulfilled eschatology regarding the Genesis creation story. What is it about? Those who are futurist in their eschatology, and take a literal, cosmological view of “the end,” understandably view Genesis as the beginning of the same. In other words, if Revelation and other “last days” prophecies describe the end of the physical universe, then Genesis describes the beginning of that same universe. This is logical, and a consistent approach to the Bible as a whole. But what about preterists, who hold to a fulfilled view of eschatology? We see Revelation and other “last days” prophecies as pointing to the end of the Old Covenant age, and not the end of the physical universe. We recognize the language of the prophets, appreciate its metaphorical and symbolic elements and understand the covenant context of this language as it is employed consistently throughout the Bible. Furthermore, we submit our interpretation of this language to Jesus and the apostles, who quote extensively from those prophetic contexts. And if we are to be consistent, as consistent as those who are futurist in their eschatology and view the beginning and the end as the beginning and the end of the same universe; then we will likewise view the beginning and the end as the beginning and the end of the same covenant world. Or, we might say that they are covenantal counterparts. In other words, we will understand that Genesis’ creation is the same in nature as Revelation’s new creation. We will naturally conclude that it is a covenantal, rather than a cosmological creation.

I already disagree with this premise I bolded.

[Morris]

Aug 31, 2010 9:22:06 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

What I have always encountered is similar to my encounters with dispensationalists, and that is that they debate from within their own hermeneutic.

Although I love you as a brother, I think this is exactly what Covenant Creationism does.

MoGrace2U already quoted this as being the case;

And if we are to be consistent, as consistent as those who are futurist in their eschatology and view the beginning and the end as the beginning and the end of the same universe; then we will likewise view the beginning and the end as the beginning and the end of the same covenant world. Or, we might say that they are covenantal counterparts. In other words, we will understand that Genesis’ creation is the same in nature as Revelation’s new creation. We will naturally conclude that it is a covenantal, rather than a cosmological creation.

Covenant Creationism came about from interpreting Genesis 1 based on a covenantial theology in Revelation.

[MoGrace2U]

Exactly Morris,

If we must make a presupposition, why not try to first derive it from the text? Certainly God knows the end from the beginning, and because He lays that out so that we might come to an understanding of that end - doesn't mean we must then go back and change the beginning!

I think the way God tells the story brings us perfectly into that understanding we must now see by faith. And while I don't have a problem per se with seeing the covenantal groundwork He laid for us in the creation story, He didn't begin with an allegory. And that is where the Idealist errs as well as the Dispensationalist, when they try to make what was not revealed yet, fit in where it didn't yet belong.

Adam was not under the covenantal requirements God gave to Israel, and to think he was, means we must 'jump the gun'. And if we do that we are liable to miss what God developed in the story for our understanding of the covenant we now have. And since neither Adam nor we have the Mosaic covenant, then neither can we give them the new covenant before it arrived!

[kangaroojack]

Aug 31, 2010 9:22:06 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Roo,

As I mentioned before, I am not here to DEBATE covenant creation.

What I have always encountered is similar to my encounters with dispensationalists, and that is that they debate from within their own hermeneutic. They can't help but do that. It is all they know. I don't fault them for trying to discern from their own foundations.

My intention in bringing that ONE article to your attention (and I have mentioned several other sources) was not for you to DEBATE any of its premises, but for you to inform yourself on what hermeneutical basis we proceed from. That article is very, very introductory...

Until one is cognizant of what covenant creation actually represents and how we go about representing it, one cannot effectively argue. We have been misrepresented at almost every turn and these misrepresentations have somehow become "our view." It is easy to argue against those falsehoods. I believe the term is "straw man."

So, the problem is summed up in the fact that very few people read or listen to learn the position but only read to refute the position from their own hermeneutic foundation. And of course, just like the differences of hermeneutic in dispensationalism versus preterism, our view seems off the wall.

Few will take the time because is DOES take time, and effort.

Ted,

Again, the "sea" at the end of Revelation 20 is said to "give up the dead that is in it." Then the beginning of chapter 21 says that there shall be "no more sea." How on earth can the "sea" be the Gentiles? Why won't you answer? Instead you liken my point to an "encounter with the Dispensationalists."

The "sea" is obviously the abyss where the dead awaited the resurrection.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Mograce said:

And since neither Adam nor we have the Mosaic covenant, then neither can we give them the new covenant before it arrived!

Mograce,

Brilliant Sis! Paul said that "sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses."

The implication is that Adam was under a different law than the Israelites.

Roo

[kangaroojack]

Aug 31, 2010 12:16:49 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Aug 31, 2010 11:56:07 GMT -5 @kangaroojack said:

Ted,

Again, the "sea" at the end of Revelation 20 is said to "give up the dead that is in it." Then the beginning of chapter 21 says that there shall be "no more sea." How on earth can the "sea" be the Gentiles? Why won't you answer? Instead you liken my point to an "encounter with the Dispensationalists."

The "sea" is obviously the abyss where the dead awaited the resurrection.

Roo

Roo,

This will constitute my last post to you and anyone else who insists upon not learning the perspective from the source.

#1 - I DID NOT liken your specific point to dispensationalsim. I stressed the similarity of trying to argue when two totally differnet hermeneutics are involved IN GENERAL. I can not help how you took what I said...

#2 - Is the "land" the Jews? No. Is it represented as the place of the Jews? Yes. You can figure the rest out for yourself...

You have been given opportunity after opportunity to inform yourself of what we believe. You choose not to. Or perhaps you have been ordained by God not to. Either way, it is fine with me.

Ted,

This is about my epistemology and nothing else. The Bible is my only source of truth. I want to believe that you are not being evasive regarding my reasonable question about the "sea" in Revelation 20-21.

Roo