|
|
Post by bryan729 on Dec 14, 2009 19:30:07 GMT -5
I read a good portion of the article, and to be honest I found it to be interesting. More and more preterists are starting to lean toward Covenant Creation. With that being said, it seems to be holding some merit and credibility. I'm still in the learning phase. I'm reading a book on the Feasts, and they're fulfillment in the NT by Pastor Frank Febus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 14, 2009 19:34:41 GMT -5
Covenant creation is not the problem as far as I see it. What is the problem is carrying it too far back un-necessarily and out of context. Covenant creation does not belong at the creation of the universe but at the creation of the people it was promised to and that did not have its declaration until Abraham. Notice I said declaration. God was developing the times and seasons for the Genesis 12 promise but the promise was not made until Abraham came to God in faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Dec 15, 2009 13:02:36 GMT -5
Covenant creation is not the problem as far as I see it. What is the problem is carrying it too far back un-necessarily and out of context. Covenant creation does not belong at the creation of the universe but at the creation of the people it was promised to and that did not have its declaration until Abraham. Notice I said declaration. God was developing the times and seasons for the Genesis 12 promise but the promise was not made until Abraham came to God in faith. I guess the real problem is where the (old) heaven and earth were originally created. What Tami said when saying (and I paraphrase) that all eschatologies expressing the relationship from (old) heaven and earth to the new heaven and earth used Genesis 1 as the beginning. For some reason that "beginning" has been discarded. To me, that is VERY interesting although it proves nothing in and of itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 15, 2009 15:07:24 GMT -5
Covenant creation is not the problem as far as I see it. What is the problem is carrying it too far back un-necessarily and out of context. Covenant creation does not belong at the creation of the universe but at the creation of the people it was promised to and that did not have its declaration until Abraham. Notice I said declaration. God was developing the times and seasons for the Genesis 12 promise but the promise was not made until Abraham came to God in faith. I guess the real problem is where the (old) heaven and earth were originally created. What Tami said when saying (and I paraphrase) that all eschatologies expressing the relationship from (old) heaven and earth to the new heaven and earth used Genesis 1 as the beginning. For some reason that "beginning" has been discarded. To me, that is VERY interesting although it proves nothing in and of itself. That's right of itself nothing is proved. I just am not able to make the Genesis 1 creation account represent anything other than the physical creation. I can, however, make covenant understanding reflect back metaphorically to the creation account as Jeremiah did. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 15, 2009 16:09:45 GMT -5
That's right of itself nothing is proved. I just am not able to make the Genesis 1 creation account represent anything other than the physical creation. I can, however, make covenant understanding reflect back metaphorically to the creation account as Jeremiah did. Hi Allyn, I guess you are referring to the following: Jeremiah 4:23-27 - I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.Why do you say that Jeremiah's reflection back to the creation account was metaphorical? Why can it not be a duplication of the state of Israel at that time? If covenant creation is true would it be a metaphor then? And that is the problem, if one has already determined that Genesis 1 is about physical creation of planets and stuff, then any such use of the language used will be deemed metaphorical. But if the creation account is not about physical planets and stuff then any such use of the language will not be deemed metaphorical. The dispensationalists have no problem in in reflecting back from the new heaven and earth to Genesis one either, but are they right? The one verse that really sticks out for me is the one where it says we are a "new creation" (Ktisis) in Christ. I can't see it referring back to Genesis one unless the (old) creation is covenant as well. I see no point in having a "new creation" in Christ pointing back to inanimate objects like planets, etc. especially when the new covenant in Christ is constantly contrasted with the people of the old covenant. People in both instances. To me, the metaphor exists with the condition and actions of the heaven, the earth, the mountains, and the hills being seen as the coming desolation of the land. The metaphor continues: Jeremiah 4:28-29 - For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it. 29 The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.It kind of reminds me of Matthew 24:29 to a large degree. Of course, I have assumed that you meant Jeremiah 4 in the first place... Hi Ted, You may or may not have been following my comments on this subject at Preterist Debate and unfortunately my comments on Jer. 4 were lost or deleted with the blog but here is what I have said as of late: preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=4171784%3ABlogPost%3A6285&commentId=4171784%3AComment%3A6296&xg_source=activityNow in consideration of the Jeremiah 4 account of the heavens and earth it is obvious to me that God is lamenting over the condition that Israel has placed herself in because of disobedience to God. God, through Jeremiah, is conveying the likeness of her condition with the first appearance of the creation account, specifically the state in which the earth was found as having no form and was void. In the context of Jeremiah this was exactly what Jeremiah saw in these people as well. It therefore is not a depiction of the covenant relationship God had in the people but rather the severity of their present state they were found in due to their disobedience to God. |
|
|
|
Post by bryan729 on Dec 15, 2009 16:34:14 GMT -5
My own opinion, with Covenant Creation, it agrees with physical science. I'm still in the learning phase like I stated before but I do believe the CC's make some valid points, especially on the Old Heaven and Earth in comparison with the New Heaven and Earth, being metaphoric. The more I read about it, the more interesting it becomes. It also seems to make the CC's and modern science compatible. Folks will have a difficult time convincing most scientists that the planet earth and the solar system is only a little more than 6000 years old.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 15, 2009 17:11:20 GMT -5
I'm still a young earth creationist and I believe that the Genesis 1 creation was of the physical universe. However, in Genesis 1 and 2, God made covenant with Adam. God provided the earth and everything in it, and gave Adam dominion over it. He gave a command and the consequences for breaking it. Wasn't this a covenant with the first Adam? Now Christ is the last Adam through whom we have a new covenant. A spiritual one rather than a physical one.
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 15, 2009 17:28:50 GMT -5
Yes, Bev, that too was a promise from God to mankind on the whole. All men and women who ever were to live would be included in the promise that one day the person of Christ would defeat the enemy of God and bring restoration of life to all those who because of the original sin were made to be at odds with the holiness of God.
|
|
|
|
Post by bryan729 on Dec 15, 2009 21:53:47 GMT -5
mellontes, did you get my PM? I was interested in that David Curtis material. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 15, 2009 21:53:51 GMT -5
This is a response to no one in particular... What I can't understand is why we have to have verses X and Y to state that God made the physical universe. Without those verses would we think any differently? Not likely - it would still have to be accepted by faith. Why can't the covenantal first heavens and earth be patterned after that which OBVIOUSLY existed - in other words, the metaphor upon the existing physical. There is no mention of other galaxies or planets, or meteorites or comets or solar flares - nothing. Just stars. The lesser lights we assume must mean sun and moon because we can see that they already exist... To this day I always have wondered how Jacob understood Joseph's dream, especially if he, too, related the sun, moon, and stars to physical creation - ESPECIALLY SINCE THE SUN AND THE MOON ARE NOT EVEN MENTIONED BY NAME IN GENESIS ONE. The first mention of sun does not show up until Genesis 15. The first mention of moon does not show up until Joesph's dream!! I do believe one is the pattern of the physical. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 15, 2009 23:36:56 GMT -5
... Why can't the covenantal first heavens and earth be patterned after that which OBVIOUSLY existed - in other words, the metaphor upon the existing physical. There is no mention of other galaxies or planets, or meteorites or comets or solar flares - nothing. Just stars. The lesser lights we assume must mean sun and moon because we can see that they already exist... ... THE SUN AND THE MOON ARE NOT EVEN MENTIONED BY NAME IN GENESIS ONE. The first mention of sun does not show up until Genesis 15. The first mention of moon does not show up until Joesph's dream!! Ted, those are excellent points! But the late mention of the sun and moon doesn't mean that those were not the literal subjects in Genesis 1. The psalmist in Psalm 136 identifies the sun and moon in the context of Genesis 1: "The sun to rule by day ... The moon and stars to rule by night" (Psalm 136:8-9). The things not mentioned (other galaxies, comets, etc.) may have been omitted simply because they are things not easily seen with the naked eye and thus serve no apparent function to mankind. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 16, 2009 10:49:29 GMT -5
I still would like someone to explain to me how Jacob knew what Joseph was talking about...anybody? Maybe Jacob got out his old testament and looked up Genesis 37:7,8 and 9  |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Dec 16, 2009 10:56:01 GMT -5
It goes back to the promise given to Abraham which covenant had been confirmed to Isaac and Jacob. Jacob saw Joseph as a type for this son to come into the earth thru his dream. Which revelation came to him because he believed God. And this is the first mention of that symbolism for the hope of Israel. God gave the dream to Joseph and interpretation to Jacob who knew the promise. So now it is in the record so we can know it too, when we see it used by the prophets.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Dec 16, 2009 11:03:09 GMT -5
On a lesser note, I find this sort of 'revelation' still occurs today. Just this morning I woke up with John 5:39 in mind - which has been a fruitful study for me today and which I believe God was directing me to. Which I shared a bit here with Elfie forums.carm.org/v/showpost.php?p=5707446&postcount=20 |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 16, 2009 11:35:26 GMT -5
On a lesser note, I find this sort of 'revelation' still occurs today. Just this morning I woke up with John 5:39 in mind - which has been a fruitful study for me today and which I believe God was directing me to. Which I shared a bit here with Elfie forums.carm.org/v/showpost.php?p=5707446&postcount=20Good post, Robin. I think I will study this as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 16, 2009 13:17:05 GMT -5
Maybe Jacob got out his old testament and looked up Genesis 37:7,8 and 9 Why not? Most futurists believe that the new Christians for several years after Christ ascended got out their new testaments...   |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Dec 16, 2009 13:55:42 GMT -5
Maybe Jacob got out his old testament and looked up Genesis 37:7,8 and 9 Why not? Most futurists believe that the new Christians for several years after Christ ascended got out their new testaments... What a minute now . . . You mean to tell me the apostle John's full name wasn't Johannes Gutenberg? I swear I saw it somewhere in here |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 16, 2009 14:27:09 GMT -5
... But as usual, I have one of those "however" moments... John 5:39 - Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. In John 5:39, Jesus is speaking to the unbelieving Jews. The Jews were very rigid about keeping the law. These Jews believed their righteousness came as a result of keeping the law (Matthew 5:20, Titus 3:5). Jesus told them that they "thought" eternal life was in the Scriptures. He told them point blank that those same Scriptures testified of HIM! And then Jesus closes with this clincher..." And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." They didn't believe He was God, so how could they? Jesus was not agreeing with them about where Eternal Life was to be found (Scriptures); He was rebuking them for trusting IN the Scriptures. It has nothing to do with whether they believed he was God (because he wasn't), but believing that he was their Messiah. Jesus said the scriptures testify about him, the coming Messiah and the hope for Israel that he would bring. But they did not realize that those scriptures which they searched and trusted in had been and was being fulfilled before their very eyes. The Word became flesh, their Messiah had arrived. "But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish-- the very works that I do--testify about Me (see Matthew 11:3-6), that the Father has sent Me. And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. (John 5:36-40 NASB) The Word became flesh and dwelt among us ... John testified about him... (John 1:14-15) Bev |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Dec 16, 2009 15:51:22 GMT -5
On a lesser note, I find this sort of 'revelation' still occurs today. Just this morning I woke up with John 5:39 in mind - which has been a fruitful study for me today and which I believe God was directing me to. Which I shared a bit here with Elfie forums.carm.org/v/showpost.php?p=5707446&postcount=20Robin. I commend you for your patience and goodwill when answering Elfie's questions and/or comments. Solid. Very solid and powerful answers. Steve |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 16, 2009 16:13:13 GMT -5
On a lesser note, I find this sort of 'revelation' still occurs today. Just this morning I woke up with John 5:39 in mind - which has been a fruitful study for me today and which I believe God was directing me to. Which I shared a bit here with Elfie forums.carm.org/v/showpost.php?p=5707446&postcount=20Robin. I commend you for your patience and goodwill when answering Elfie's questions and/or comments. Solid. Very solid and powerful answers. Steve I absolutely agree with you Steve. The person Robin was posting to is not a student of the Bible at all but rather parrots what she has learned from others who also do not know the Bible. So Robin is actually speaking to a broader readership and in that she is serving a very good purpose. Elffinagain never acknowledges the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Michael J Loomis on Dec 16, 2009 17:01:24 GMT -5
Nor does elf address Galatians 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 17, 2009 10:07:53 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with whether they believed he was God (because he wasn't), but believing that he was their Messiah. because he wasn't??? Yeah, Ted. Where've you been? I'm non-trinitarian and have certainly not hidden that fact from my posts. Hope we're still friends. Bev |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Dec 17, 2009 11:43:15 GMT -5
Mellontes wrote:
But as usual, I have one of those "however" moments...
John 5:39 - Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
In John 5:39, Jesus is speaking to the unbelieving Jews. The Jews were very rigid about keeping the law. These Jews believed their righteousness came as a result of keeping the law (Matthew 5:20, Titus 3:5).
Jesus told them that they "thought" eternal life was in the Scriptures. He told them point blank that those same Scriptures testified of HIM! And then Jesus closes with this clincher..."And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
They didn't believe He was God, so how could they? Jesus was not agreeing with them about where Eternal Life was to be found (Scriptures); He was rebuking them for trusting IN the Scriptures.
I too think that is the point. The Jews were only looking into the scriptures with a legalistic mindset as to how they might earn eternal life. And likewise today you find some who only are interested in supporting some theological argument for a preconceived idea they hold.
But the fullness of the life we have in Christ is found in growing in our knowledge of Him and partaking of His glory. This does not seem to be a major concern for very many whose faith is weak at best when it comes to trusting in God according to His word.
Elfie is just one example of this phenomenon, while PT is another - who defends her right to err! It is not about the discovery of truth for what scripture has to say for them, rather it is whether or not they can make them say what they say.
It is much harder to make an apologetic to these professed Christians, than it is to someone who knows nothing about what scripture says. And the hardness of their heart is testifying that they do not have ears that hear. And the result that I am finding is they even must oppose us when we speak only of the gospel.
Which is a good reason to always keep our focus on the gospel and not just on a defense of Preterism. Which is why I wrote that post the way I did - they do not realize that in their 'cognitive dissonance' over eschatology that it is leading them to deny the very gospel they claim to hold.
I have tried to get Elfie to express her faith in Christ many times -according to the scriptures - and she just won't do it...
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Dec 19, 2009 8:44:35 GMT -5
It is much harder to make an apologetic to these professed Christians, than it is to someone who knows nothing about what scripture says. And the hardness of their heart is testifying that they do not have ears that hear. And the result that I am finding is they even must oppose us when we speak only of the gospel. Last Sunday while going to church with my wife, we heard a preacher on the radio say something about preterism. The preacher's voice was familiar to us, and I think it was a well known dispensationalist by the name of Les Felthingy. He recalled getting a prochecy book from someone who visited his church and was asked to read it and let him know what he thought about it. Well, he said that when he gets a book that he suspects to not be in line with his theological understanding of the Bible, he goes to the last page of the book to read the last paragraph. That gives him a clue as to whether or not he should read the book. The last paragraph said something to the effect that all prophecy has been fulfilled and Israel (the Jews of today) has no place in God's plan's anymore. Mr. Felthingy said he then placed the book into his "round file", meaning the waste basket, and those in attendance chuckled. He then proceeded to launch into the usual Israel is back in the land against all odds preaching we are all familiar with. That is the battle those who believe in fulfilled eschatology are up against. Israel (according to them) is back in the land and the preterist is somehow blind to that fufilled prophecy concerning the fig tree in Matthew 24:32. They really believe that this group of people which either follows Talmudism or Kabbalistic teaching, or they're just plain atheists, actually are "God's chosen ones." And the only thing they are missing is the Jesus part. As Robin then said, the "cognitive dissonance" of the dispy keeps them from even acknowledging gospel truths when talking to one who believes in "prophecy" different from them. Cognitive dissonance is the unpleasant state of mental conflict that we experience when two contradictory beliefs cannot be reconciled. If we are faced with information that conflicts with what we have already been "coerced to believe," the easiest way to deal with the uncomfortable conflict is to shut the truth out. "No, this can't be happening!" So the response is predictable, deny the truth when confronted with it, and shoot down the truth-tellers to protect the comfortable delusion. [edit] By the way, I'm not saying that cognitive dissonance is not a factor in many things that I believe in today either. Whether they are theological, political, historical, etc., CD probably does in fact play a part in those things that I may hold dear. I admit that the trinity debates, or the Jesus isn't God debate could very well be a CD experience that I am clinging to. Just a thought . . . Steve |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Dec 19, 2009 13:50:22 GMT -5
Stephen,
I think the CD phenomenon can be expected to be encountered whenever we come upon men adding their understanding to scripture. Hence the Trinity debate.
Why we feel the need to explain when scripture has not made something clear, seems fraught with problems. UNTIL we see how the apostles were able to draw upon the law and prophets in their understanding. I am still learning how to do this but it has been a fruitful endeavor for my own understanding.
Most of the people we run into however are still caught up in proof-texting and seem unable to bring the context under the whole counsel of scripture. If they don't understand what Israel's hope in Messiah coming into this world even was - how are they going to understand what He did that fulfilled that promise? This is where CD comes into play with the Dispy paradigm, because they must deny Christ His glory to hold it. And nobody wants to admit to that!
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 19, 2009 19:53:11 GMT -5
TED - That link you posted is a great resource!
STEVE - The story of the preacher throwing a book in the trash without reading it, based on his disagreement with the last paragraph, is a good way for ourselves to tell if we have the same problem. If we refuse to read about or study something just because it is in opposition to our currently held belief, then I think that's a warning sign that we've stopped growing in the Word of God. To read it and still disagree with it is one thing, but to dismiss it out of hand without even considering it is a closed and stagnate mind.
I was that way about Creation. It was creation of the literal heavens and earth in six days and anything that suggested otherwise was not worth my time. But somewhere, somehow, I realized that I had constructed a wall there all on my own and it was to my own disadvantage to not look beyond it. When I allowed myself to read some different views, I discovered some insightful gems, even if I didn't agree completely with all of it.
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Dec 20, 2009 8:22:29 GMT -5
STEVE - The story of the preacher throwing a book in the trash without reading it, based on his disagreement with the last paragraph, is a good way for ourselves to tell if we have the same problem. If we refuse to read about or study something just because it is in opposition to our currently held belief, then I think that's a warning sign that we've stopped growing in the Word of God. To read it and still disagree with it is one thing, but to dismiss it out of hand without even considering it is a closed and stagnate mind. Bev Absolutely Bev. I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jul 14, 2010 2:23:33 GMT -5
Another fascinating thread I found before I was here. Allyn, I agree with everything you said. Great thread. Didy  |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jul 14, 2010 12:31:25 GMT -5
Same here, Didy. I didn't see this one yet either, and really enjoyed reading Allyn's comments.
|
|
