|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 24, 2011 10:22:54 GMT -5
But many scientist are atheists and agnostics, and the majesty of the heavens does nothing to persuade them otherwise. Paul, Many scientists are atheists and agnostics because they lost their faith when they found that the interpretation of Genesis 1 they were raised with contradicts simple facts. Holding your view of Genesis 1 did the damage and caused unbelief. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 24, 2011 11:31:48 GMT -5
" Has God indeed said...?" I'm still researching covenant creationism to better understand it but I'm not finding it very persuasive at the moment. There are elements that appear to align with other specific passages but the broad sweeping concept fails, IMHO, in many other instances. I idea that a physical creation demands dispensationalism is another concept I'm failing to see. In my mind it is akin to saying that which Nicodemus asked, " How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?". The new is not the same as the old, neither does it undo what was done previously. Oh, and saying that "Holding your view of Genesis 1 did the damage and caused unbelief" (Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=any&action=post&thread=768&page=2#ixzz1ByEz77sj), is the epitome of arrogance in my opinion. As I study CC I am seeing more and more a similar pattern to that which futurism used to develop their systems of belief. And that is quite different to how I saw Jesus' return in judgment in 70 AD when I first began to study that (which I was opposed to at first, by the way). But these are just my personal observations. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 24, 2011 12:28:30 GMT -5
Morris, Epitome of arrogance? I was responding to Paul's accusation. You have no comment on that? Paul dismisses science and scientists because some are atheists and agnostics. I am a professional scientist. I know my journey. I know what the people I work with believe, what they once believed, and the reasons they give for their changes. Paul can't know something unless it comes from Scripture. That is his entire premise in this conversation. Then how does he even know he is conversing with me? Why does he trust his computer, my computer, and everything in between? Why does he place his very life at the mercy of the results of general relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, and modern biology? It appears to me that "the epitome of arrogance" is denouncing others while you willfully place yourself at their mercy. You expect them to serve you while you mock them and call them names. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 24, 2011 12:58:27 GMT -5
I find that verse extremely similar to: Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. (Psalms 102:25 KJV)Here is your verse from the KJV: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (Psalms 19:11 KJV)
Do you think Psalm 19:1 and Psalm 102:25 speak about the same things?Ha! I deliberately avoided making any comment regarding if the verse spoke of physical elements or covenant because I knew full well there would be different opinions in that regard. Bev, I only asked for your opinion. We are both aware of differing opinions. I just wanted to know if your take on Psalm 19:1 was physical material creation and whether or not you believed Psalm 102:25 (because of very similar language) described the same thing. I still ask. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 24, 2011 13:29:43 GMT -5
Ha! I deliberately avoided making any comment regarding if the verse spoke of physical elements or covenant because I knew full well there would be different opinions in that regard. Bev, I only asked for your opinion. We are both aware of differing opinions. I just wanted to know if your take on Psalm 19:1 was physical material creation and whether or not you believed Psalm 102:25 (because of very similar language) described the same thing. I still ask. In 19:1 David says that the firmament shows His handiwork. We can see by reading that God made the firmament and called it the heavens. 102:25 describes the same thing. It important to see that David is praising the creator of all things. A praise God alone is worthy of. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jan 24, 2011 13:35:22 GMT -5
Paul dismisses science and scientists because some are atheists and agnostics. You're simply making stuff up now. I do NOT dismiss science. I was simply responding to what Bev said. She made the comment that "many branches of science, exploring those heavens, eventually leads one to the concept of intelligent design, if not directly to YHWH God". I disagreed with that because many scientists do NOT believe in intelligent design. That's not dismissing them. It's simply stating a fact. Paul can't know something unless it comes from Scripture. That is his entire premise in this conversation. More nonsense. I didn't say this either. My point is, if I want to know about GOD, I look to the bible. That is my text book. Should I consult Buddhist texts instead? Hindu texts? Or maybe make up my own religion based upon what I think? No. The bible is my text book for understanding who God is and what He's done. If the bible doesn't say that God created the physical universe then we have no scriptural grounds for believing that he did. I find it baffling that I'm being mocked (on a Christian forum, no less) for asking for scriptural proof for something so basic. Then how does he even know he is conversing with me? Why does he trust his computer, my computer, and everything in between? Why does he place his very life at the mercy of the results of general relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, and modern biology? More silly taking it to extremes. This doesn't even warrant an answer. Look, Jeffrey. I was quite looking forwards to this debate, but you're putting me off wanting to read it. I was simply hoping you'd have a simple answer to a simple question. I was mistaken. That doesn't mean you're wrong. It just means you have no scriptural backing for this particular point. Paul |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 24, 2011 13:42:01 GMT -5
Hello Mellontes, You admit being a full preterist. I will assume (and I don't like doing that) that you believe the Lord appeared a second time in 70 AD at the destruction of Jerusalem. Problem. There is not a single Scripture that says that He appeared a second time at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD because all Scripture was written prior to that event!Not a problem. We have categorical statements to say that Christ would return within that generation (Matt 24:34). That his return was imminent in the first century (Rev 1:1). That his return would coincide with the destruction of the temple (Matt 24:3). These things are written fact, and have been proven by history (Josephus etc.) Besides, Genesis 1-2 isn’t prophecy. So it’s a whole different ball game. Paul Actually, these are not proofs. They are implications based upon our understanding. Very few deny the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The problem still exists with the original view of the old heaven and earth. It hasn't been destroyed yet so therefore Christ has NOT returned. The resurrection hasn't happened yet therefore Christ has NOT yet returned. You cannot demand that Scripture be explicit in regard to physical creation and not be just as explicit in regard to the parousia. It is obvious that Scripture is not explicit regarding the parousia or everyone would be full preterist. These are interpretation issues. Besides, God explicitly did state that God did create the heaven and earth. It is interpretation of that statement that becomes the issue. I happen to believe that the term "earth," as it is means today, would have ZERO impact and understanding upon a culture at least 6,000 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jan 24, 2011 13:50:29 GMT -5
Jeffrey,
You're trying to turn my point around. My criticism of your list of points was that just because God can control aspects of the physical universe, it doesn't automatically follow that he created it. I can drive a car. I didn't build it. So that alone is not proof.
Again, I fall back to my main objection. If the bible doesn't say that God created the physical universe, then you have no scriptural reason for believing that he did. Will you concede that much at least?
I appreciate the distinction you make between science and scientists, however. Very true.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 24, 2011 13:53:23 GMT -5
In 19:1 David says that the firmament shows His handiwork. We can see by reading that God made the firmament and called it the heavens. 102:25 describes the same thing. It important to see that David is praising the creator of all things. A praise God alone is worthy of. Allyn, Am I to assume that you believe these veses speak of material creation? What you actually said doesn't mention it one way or the other...I also believe that God is creator of all things. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jan 24, 2011 13:55:39 GMT -5
Besides God explicitly did state that God did create the heaven and earth. It is interpretation of that statement that becomes the issue. I happen to believe that the term "earth" as it is means today would have ZERO impact and understanding upon a culture at least 6,000 years ago. You can believe it all you like. Proving it is another matter...lol. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 24, 2011 13:56:00 GMT -5
" Has God indeed said...?" I'm still researching covenant creationism to better understand it but I'm not finding it very persuasive at the moment. There are elements that appear to align with other specific passages but the broad sweeping concept fails, IMHO, in many other instances. I idea that a physical creation demands dispensationalism is another concept I'm failing to see. In my mind it is akin to saying that which Nicodemus asked, " How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?". The new is not the same as the old, neither does it undo what was done previously. Oh, and saying that "Holding your view of Genesis 1 did the damage and caused unbelief" (Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=any&action=post&thread=768&page=2#ixzz1ByEz77sj), is the epitome of arrogance in my opinion. As I study CC I am seeing more and more a similar pattern to that which futurism used to develop their systems of belief. And that is quite different to how I saw Jesus' return in judgment in 70 AD when I first began to study that (which I was opposed to at first, by the way). But these are just my personal observations. Sheldon, does your present theology require a destruction/restoration/refurbishment of physical material creation at the time of the end spoken of in Scripture? You mentioned that Jesus appeared in judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem. Was this the time of the resurrection as well? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 24, 2011 14:07:45 GMT -5
Besides God explicitly did state that God did create the heaven and earth. It is interpretation of that statement that becomes the issue. I happen to believe that the term "earth" as it is means today would have ZERO impact and understanding upon a culture at least 6,000 years ago. You can believe it all you like. Proving it is another matter...lol. Agreed. Proving it is a totally different matter. That's what these discusions help to achieve. But with all due respect, the Bible says nothing of PHYSICAL creation. It only speaks of creation without the adjective "physical." In the same way, the Bible never speaks of PHYSICAL death in regard to sin and redemption, but that is how it is interpreted by the vast majority. The same thing with resurrection. The Bible does not speak of PHYSICAL resurrection in redemptive contexts either, but that is how it is interpreted by the vast majority. And since the Bible is mainly redemptive in nature - the OT being the type and shadow for the Christ in the NT, why are we so intent on making the heaven and earth which God created to be PHYSICAL in nature. The vast majority are still looking for this PHYSICAL heaven and earth to be destroyed by a PHYSICAL return of the Lord Jesus when PHYSICAL bodies will be resurrected and PHYSICAL death will be destroyed forever. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 24, 2011 14:16:17 GMT -5
Sheldon, does your present theology require a destruction/restoration/refurbishment of physical material creation at the time of the end spoken of in Scripture? Unfortunately, I'd need you specify which "time of the end" you are speaking about before I could attempt an answer. Again, you'd have to specify which resurrection you are referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 24, 2011 14:19:19 GMT -5
In 19:1 David says that the firmament shows His handiwork. We can see by reading that God made the firmament and called it the heavens. 102:25 describes the same thing. It important to see that David is praising the creator of all things. A praise God alone is worthy of. Allyn, Am I to assume that you believe these veses speak of material creation? What you actually said doesn't mention it one way or the other...I also believe that God is creator of all things. I think you can assume that, Ted. I took it from the same place David seems to have taken it which includes the portion where we can know for sure that Moses was telling us of the physical creation of heaven and earth. Genesis 1:7-11 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 Then God said, “ Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. I guess what is difficult for me to understand from your covenant view is if all of Genesis chapter one is strictly about the covenant God has made or is there a mixture of bothe covenant and actual physical creation? It also seems that because the law was somehow in effect prior to Adam's sin that this causes you and others to insist that Genesis 1 cannot be about physical creation. JL Vaugn did a short blog over on DID which is being featured right now. It seems that this is part of the reasoning we see. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jan 24, 2011 14:29:22 GMT -5
But with all due respect, the Bible says nothing of PHYSICAL creation. It only speaks of creation without the adjective "physical." Mark 10:6 " But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ " If "male and female" are not referring to physical then I am uncertain that I can differentiate anything the bible speaks about. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 24, 2011 14:41:43 GMT -5
Allyn, Am I to assume that you believe these veses speak of material creation? What you actually said doesn't mention it one way or the other...I also believe that God is creator of all things. I think you can assume that, Ted. I took it from the same place David seems to have taken it which includes the portion where we can know for sure that Moses was telling us of the physical creation of heaven and earth. Genesis 1:7-11 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 Then God said, “ Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. Thank you for your clarification. I was about 85% sure that you meant physical creation, but that usually just gets me into trouble... OKAY. This is the difficulty. You believe that Psalm 19:1 and Psalm 102:25 represent the same thing - physical creation, and that is fine, I have no problem respecting your view. I don't get mad or angry because you don't see things the way I see them. It is just the natural course of being a Christian. However, the Hebrews author quotes Psalm 102:25 in Hebrews 1:10-12 as follows: Hebrews 1:10-12 - And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. As a preterist, I know for a fact that physical, material creation is not the context of this heaven and earth. I understand it in relation to the change of the two covenants. The Hebrews author puts it this way: Hebrews 8:13 - In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. I also find it rather interesting that the context seems to indicate that at this time, the time when heaven and earth will perish, wax old, and be folded up (Hebrews 1:10-12), that the enemies will be made thy footstool, which preterists believe occurred in 70 AD. Hebrews 1:13 - But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Kelly on Jan 24, 2011 14:49:58 GMT -5
You can believe it all you like. Proving it is another matter...lol. Agreed. Proving it is a totally different matter. That's what these discusions help to achieve. But with all due respect, the Bible says nothing of PHYSICAL creation. It only speaks of creation without the adjective "physical." In the same way, the Bible never speaks of PHYSICAL death in regard to sin and redemption, but that is how it is interpreted by the vast majority. The same thing with resurrection. The Bible does not speak of PHYSICAL resurrection in redemptive contexts either, but that is how it is interpreted by the vast majority. And since the Bible is mainly redemptive in nature - the OT being the type and shadow for the Christ in the NT, why are we so intent on making the heaven and earth which God created to be PHYSICAL in nature. The vast majority are still looking for this PHYSICAL heaven and earth to be destroyed by a PHYSICAL return of the Lord Jesus when PHYSICAL bodies will be resurrected and PHYSICAL death will be destroyed forever. Point taken, and duly noted.  |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 24, 2011 14:52:39 GMT -5
I think you can assume that, Ted. I took it from the same place David seems to have taken it which includes the portion where we can know for sure that Moses was telling us of the physical creation of heaven and earth. Genesis 1:7-11 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 Then God said, “ Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. Thank you for your clarification. I was about 85% sure that you meant physical creation, but that usually just gets me into trouble... OKAY. This is the difficulty. You believe that Psalm 19:1 and Psalm 102:25 represent the same thing - physical creation, and that is fine, I have no problem respecting your view. I don't get mad or angry because you don't see things the way I see them. It is just the natural course of being a Christian. However, the Hebrews author quotes Psalm 102:25 in Hebrews 1:10-12 as follows: Hebrews 1:10-12 - And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. As a preterist, I know for a fact that physical, material creation is not the context of this heaven and earth. I understand it in relation to the change of the two covenants. The Hebrews author puts it this way: Hebrews 8:13 - In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. I also find it rather interesting that the context seems to indicate that at this time, the time when heaven and earth will perish, wax old, and be folded up (Hebrews 1:10-12), that the enemies will be made thy footstool, which preterists believe occurred in 70 AD. Hebrews 1:13 - But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? I don't see a problem with a dual understanding here. One can say that yes David is speaking of the creation of physical things and praise God's name for doing it and also see the inspiration in another writer where that writer takes the same passage from an ancient writer (David) and applies it to the contextual teaching in order to magnify the point and truth concerning the whole religious system foreshadowed in the perfect set up God already had in the invisible realm. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 24, 2011 15:29:35 GMT -5
Again, I fall back to my main objection. If the bible doesn't say that God created the physical universe, then you have no scriptural reason for believing that he did. Will you concede that much at least? No. You have not demonstrated that the reason I gave is false. All you have demonstrated is that you don't like my short summary of a 10-page argument that appears in a book I coauthored. But, I'll concede that I don't have a simple argument. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 24, 2011 15:42:53 GMT -5
Besides God explicitly did state that God did create the heaven and earth. It is interpretation of that statement that becomes the issue. I happen to believe that the term "earth" as it is means today would have ZERO impact and understanding upon a culture at least 6,000 years ago. You can believe it all you like. Proving it is another matter...lol. Kepler invented Planet Earth in 1608. No culture, at that time or previous, had any such conception. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 24, 2011 16:06:50 GMT -5
Thank you for your clarification. I was about 85% sure that you meant physical creation, but that usually just gets me into trouble... OKAY. This is the difficulty. You believe that Psalm 19:1 and Psalm 102:25 represent the same thing - physical creation, and that is fine, I have no problem respecting your view. I don't get mad or angry because you don't see things the way I see them. It is just the natural course of being a Christian. However, the Hebrews author quotes Psalm 102:25 in Hebrews 1:10-12 as follows: Hebrews 1:10-12 - And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. As a preterist, I know for a fact that physical, material creation is not the context of this heaven and earth. I understand it in relation to the change of the two covenants. The Hebrews author puts it this way: Hebrews 8:13 - In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. I also find it rather interesting that the context seems to indicate that at this time, the time when heaven and earth will perish, wax old, and be folded up (Hebrews 1:10-12), that the enemies will be made thy footstool, which preterists believe occurred in 70 AD. Hebrews 1:13 - But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? I don't see a problem with a dual understanding here. One can say that yes David is speaking of the creation of physical things and praise God's name for doing it and also see the inspiration in another writer where that writer takes the same passage from an ancient writer (David) and applies it to the contextual teaching in order to magnify the point and truth concerning the whole religious system foreshadowed in the perfect set up God already had in the invisible realm. Allyn, very respectively, you probably won't have a problem with dual fulfillments either. Perhaps not even the near and far fulfillments of the OT... The futurists (nothing personal here) also believe in dual understandings. One such extreme instance is the dispensational believe of the OT prophets prophecies being fulfilled physically and spirtually fulfilled in regard to Israel. NT illumination upon these OT texts totally disproves that idea. So, when NT apostles illuminate a Scripture in one direction, then we should accept their direction. The other half of your dual understanding (used by you and the vast majority) is based upon your interpretation, but can it be backed up by NT revelation? I pointed to a few passages from the NT that explain the OT in accordance with the heaven and earth that did pass away. There are 2 Israels, 2 covenants, 2 bodies, 2 Adams, 2 deaths, and 2 advents, yet I am supposed to believe there are 3 heaven and earths? I used to, but not anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 24, 2011 16:38:46 GMT -5
Allyn, Am I to assume that you believe these veses speak of material creation? What you actually said doesn't mention it one way or the other...I also believe that God is creator of all things. I think you can assume that, Ted. I took it from the same place David seems to have taken it which includes the portion where we can know for sure that Moses was telling us of the physical creation of heaven and earth. Genesis 1:7-11 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 Then God said, “ Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. I guess what is difficult for me to understand from your covenant view is if all of Genesis chapter one is strictly about the covenant God has made or is there a mixture of bothe covenant and actual physical creation? It also seems that because the law was somehow in effect prior to Adam's sin that this causes you and others to insist that Genesis 1 cannot be about physical creation. JL Vaugn did a short blog over on DID which is being featured right now. It seems that this is part of the reasoning we see. Allyn, Why are you suggesting both/and? Do you believe physical creation has failed and that we need to consider something different? Would you please develop this both/and approach that you are considering? Then we can test it and see if it works. Before I first suggested covenant creation, did you ever consider that there might be law and a covenant in Genesis 1? Did you ever stop to consider that Genesis 3 described a covenant judgment or where that covenant came from? If the covenant began at Sinai, then why all the references to Adam in the New Testament. Adam, not Moses, appears in every resurrection passage and every millennium passage. Why? Before I suggested covenant creation, people were discussing physical death vs. "spiritual," meaning any non-physical death. There was no recognition that all of this was occurring within the bounds of a covenant. Is this not a reasonable thing to try? Futurism, i.e., physical universe eschatology, does not work. Partial preterism, i.e., both/and eschatology, does not work. Full preterism, i.e., covenant eschatology works. Why not try the same thing in Genesis? You don't like my model. No worries. I don't like my model either. But it works, and no other model I've seen works. But then, no other preterist has really tried. Some have claimed that full preterism works fine with young-earth dispensationalism. Sorry. Thomas Ice won that point in his last debate with a preterist. You and others suggest both/and. A few of us tried a mess of both/and alternatives. We didn't find one that worked. By all means try. You might succeed where we failed. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 24, 2011 16:54:07 GMT -5
But with all due respect, the Bible says nothing of PHYSICAL creation. It only speaks of creation without the adjective "physical." Mark 10:6 " But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ " If "male and female" are not referring to physical then I am uncertain that I can differentiate anything the bible speaks about. Morris, Walton demonstrated in The Lost World of Genesis One that male and female is functional not physical. In several talks at the 2010 Covenant Creation Conference (listen for free in the archives at Preterist Radio), we made the case that this specific passage is covenantal. Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. In the world at large 3000 years ago, did the Jew-Gentile distinction matter? For example, if a Jew and some other middle-easterner walk into a village in Spain, would the distinction matter? Both men would have been foreigners. Jew & Gentile was a covenantal distinction that only mattered in Israel. That distinction ended in the first century. The distinction of Genesis 1:26-28 ended with it. Gal. 3:28 declared that end. If that distinction was physical, then Gal. 3:28 is false. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 24, 2011 18:14:13 GMT -5
Sheldon, does your present theology require a destruction/restoration/refurbishment of physical material creation at the time of the end spoken of in Scripture? Unfortunately, I'd need you specify which "time of the end" you are speaking about before I could attempt an answer. Again, you'd have to specify which resurrection you are referring to. Time of the end - all the KJV verses using that phrase in the book of Daniel. I think there are 5 of them. Do you believe there is more than one end in the idea of the last days? Is this like a dual fulfillment view? Resurrection - the resurrection of the dead that 1 Cor 15:52 speaks of |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 24, 2011 18:41:20 GMT -5
[Mellontes wrote:
Ted,
What a sheer nonsensical statement! The scripture is indeed explicit on the timing of the parousia. Yet not all are full preterists. Furthermore, your statement defeats CCism. Not everyone is a CCist. Therefore, the scriptures are not explicit about it.
You guys are a real trip! If Jeff thinks like you the debate is going to be a piece of cake and Jeff will be serving it to me.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 24, 2011 19:59:34 GMT -5
Allyn, Why are you suggesting both/and? Do you believe physical creation has failed and that we need to consider something different? Jeff, I'm not suggesting - I'm asking. Does Covenant Creation take Gen. 1 to be about the physical creation and a covenant creation? Would you please develop this both/and approach that you are considering? Then we can test it and see if it works. I would if I believed that is what we are being showed. But since I was asking the question then depending on your answer we should then test it and see.  Before I first suggested covenant creation, did you ever consider that there might be law and a covenant in Genesis 1? Did you ever stop to consider that Genesis 3 described a covenant judgment or where that covenant came from? Not in that precise way. I mean after all we have it written in black and white that Adam was told not to do it - he did it - God punished him. What I have considered, however is the revealing fact that there was a high priest who had no beginning and now end who was present and on the scene even before Abraham's time. From that alone I was able to understand that with a high priest comes also a law. What that law was - we get only slivers of information concerning. For example Able understood the righ offering to God, Sacrifices were understood as somehow required even up to Abraham. These sort of hints reveal to us how it is true that a law existed before the great lawmaker came on the scene. If the covenant began at Sinai, then why all the references to Adam in the New Testament. Adam, not Moses, appears in every resurrection passage and every millennium passage. Why? One man's covenant is another man's law of the ancients. There was a law, obviously, in Adam's day but there was not a promise that sprung forth from faith until Abraham's day. Of course we see the introduction of a person who will put down rebellion but that was the a revelation coming from a disobedient act. It was a revelation condemning both the sin, the sinner and the tempter. Before I suggested covenant creation, people were discussing physical death vs. "spiritual," meaning any non-physical death. There was no recognition that all of this was occurring within the bounds of a covenant. Maybe I should have written my book earlier then. Just kidding. What I mean is I have been in numerous Bible study discussions since the 1980's where this fact was brought up several times over the years. (physical death vs. "spiritual," that is) Is this not a reasonable thing to try? Futurism, i.e., physical universe eschatology, does not work. Partial preterism, i.e., both/and eschatology, does not work. Full preterism, i.e., covenant eschatology works. Why not try the same thing in Genesis? You don't like my model. No worries. I don't like my model either. But it works, and no other model I've seen works. But then, no other preterist has really tried. Some have claimed that full preterism works fine with young-earth dispensationalism. Sorry. Thomas Ice won that point in his last debate with a preterist. You and others suggest both/and. A few of us tried a mess of both/and alternatives. We didn't find one that worked. By all means try. You might succeed where we failed. I have said this before so I'll continue saying it, Jeff, I am right there with you that the Bible introduces a covenant teaching from OT through the NT. Where it starts is where we differ. The covenant from God to man started with the righteous faith of Abraham because the covenant God gave was not because of disobedience but rather obedience counted as worthy of that life giving promise. What we see in Genesis 3:15 is a declaration of war between God and man as perpetrated by the serpent. God was not honoring man for a righteous act but instead was telling of the defeat of sin ultimately accomplished in the Seed. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 24, 2011 20:05:01 GMT -5
I don't see a problem with a dual understanding here. One can say that yes David is speaking of the creation of physical things and praise God's name for doing it and also see the inspiration in another writer where that writer takes the same passage from an ancient writer (David) and applies it to the contextual teaching in order to magnify the point and truth concerning the whole religious system foreshadowed in the perfect set up God already had in the invisible realm. Allyn, very respectively, you probably won't have a problem with dual fulfillments either. Perhaps not even the near and far fulfillments of the OT... The futurists (nothing personal here) also believe in dual understandings. One such extreme instance is the dispensational believe of the OT prophets prophecies being fulfilled physically and spirtually fulfilled in regard to Israel. NT illumination upon these OT texts totally disproves that idea. So, when NT apostles illuminate a Scripture in one direction, then we should accept their direction. The other half of your dual understanding (used by you and the vast majority) is based upon your interpretation, but can it be backed up by NT revelation? I pointed to a few passages from the NT that explain the OT in accordance with the heaven and earth that did pass away. There are 2 Israels, 2 covenants, 2 bodies, 2 Adams, 2 deaths, and 2 advents, yet I am supposed to believe there are 3 heaven and earths? I used to, but not anymore. Ted, I wasn't speaking of dual fulfillments - I said dual understanding. I was speaking that David used the creation account to praise the Creator and the writer of Hebrews used David's use of the creation account to verify the implementation of those terms as used in temple worship. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 24, 2011 20:48:28 GMT -5
[Mellontes wrote: Ted, What a sheer nonsensical statement! The scripture is indeed explicit on the timing of the parousia. Yet not all are full preterists. Furthermore, your statement defeats CCism. Not everyone is a CCist. Therefore, the scriptures are not explicit about it. You guys are a real trip! If Jeff thinks like you the debate is going to be a piece of cake and Jeff will be serving it to me. Roo Thank you for your kind words. I am edified immensely. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 24, 2011 20:59:57 GMT -5
Ted, I wasn't speaking of dual fulfillments - I said dual understanding. I was speaking that David used the creation account to praise the Creator and the writer of Hebrews used David's use of the creation account to verify the implementation of those terms as used in temple worship. So what you are saying is that David used heaven and earth as referring to physical creation and the author of Hebrews used heaven and earth in a covenantal sense. If so, I understand what you are saying, but it sounds so very familiar to dispensational thinking. The dispies say the same things in regard to Israel's land promises. The OT promises are actual real physical land promises to be put into effect sometime in their millennium. But Paul and other NT personnel use these same OT passages as spiritual promises for the church. The dualism is identical. What about tripleism, or quadism, or pentism. This could fit anyone's view... |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 24, 2011 21:12:27 GMT -5
Ted, I wasn't speaking of dual fulfillments - I said dual understanding. I was speaking that David used the creation account to praise the Creator and the writer of Hebrews used David's use of the creation account to verify the implementation of those terms as used in temple worship. So what you are saying is that David used heaven and earth as referring to physical creation and the author of Hebrews used heaven and earth in a covenantal sense. If so, I understand what you are saying, but it sounds so very familiar to dispensational thinking. The dispies say the same things in regard to Israel's land promises. The OT promises are actual real physical land promises to be put into effect sometime in their millennium. But Paul and other NT personnel use these same OT passages as spiritual promises for the church. The dualism is identical. What about tripleism, or quadism, or pentism. This could fit anyone's view... Ted, It could be those things - except that I was pretty specific which then isolated and insulated me from those things. |
|
