|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 22, 2011 11:15:05 GMT -5
When you are tinkering with the meaning of Genesis 1.1ff, are you not tinker with the nature of the Creator? There those who believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. I am one of them. When one says it took 6 thousand years, are you not saying it's impossible for God to create the physical universe in 6 literal days? Does that not limit the sovereignty of God? Covenant Creation puts God, the Creator, in a man-made box I am not comfortable with. To suggest that creation is only of a covenant, and not the physical universe places a limitation on the nature of the Creator. The only limitations there should be placed on God are those He placed on Himself.  |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 22, 2011 14:51:58 GMT -5
Covenant Creation puts God, the Creator, in a man-made box I am not comfortable with. To suggest that creation is only of a covenant, and not the physical universe places a limitation on the nature of the Creator. The only limitations there should be placed on God are those He placed on Himself. No Tom, Your view of creation puts God in a man-made box. Your view requires God to answer the questions you want answered, instead of letting God answer the questions he wants to answer. You're not comfortable with God unless you remake him in your image. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 22, 2011 15:13:32 GMT -5
Covenant Creation puts God, the Creator, in a man-made box I am not comfortable with. To suggest that creation is only of a covenant, and not the physical universe places a limitation on the nature of the Creator. The only limitations there should be placed on God are those He placed on Himself. No Tom, Your view of creation puts God in a man-made box. Your view requires God to answer the questions you want answered, instead of letting God answer the questions he wants to answer. You're not comfortable with God unless you remake him in your image. No sir! I am not the one who is trying to redefine the creation account as it is written. You are! I have not required God to answer for anything. My view simply accepts by faith what is written. It is you who is creating God in your image. If you can't accept by faith what God revealed in the creation account in Genesis 1, that is not my problem. My father had a saying about people like you. You are educated beyond your intellect. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 22, 2011 15:26:53 GMT -5
Covenant Creation puts God, the Creator, in a man-made box I am not comfortable with. To suggest that creation is only of a covenant, and not the physical universe places a limitation on the nature of the Creator. The only limitations there should be placed on God are those He placed on Himself. No Tom, Your view of creation puts God in a man-made box. Your view requires God to answer the questions you want answered, instead of letting God answer the questions he wants to answer. You're not comfortable with God unless you remake him in your image. In your opinion - Right, JL?  To All, Words mean something and can stab or soothe or respectfully inquire |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 22, 2011 15:28:00 GMT -5
When you are tinkering with the meaning of Genesis 1.1ff, are you not tinker with the nature of the Creator? There those who believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. I am one of them. When one says it took 6 thousand years, are you not saying it's impossible for God to create the physical universe in 6 literal days? Does that not limit the sovereignty of God? Covenant Creation puts God, the Creator, in a man-made box I am not comfortable with. To suggest that creation is only of a covenant, and not the physical universe places a limitation on the nature of the Creator. The only limitations there should be placed on God are those He placed on Himself. In your opinion - right, Didymus? |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 22, 2011 16:17:01 GMT -5
When you are tinkering with the meaning of Genesis 1.1ff, are you not tinker with the nature of the Creator? There those who believe that God created the heavens and the earth in 6 days. I am one of them. When one says it took 6 thousand years, are you not saying it's impossible for God to create the physical universe in 6 literal days? Does that not limit the sovereignty of God? Covenant Creation puts God, the Creator, in a man-made box I am not comfortable with. To suggest that creation is only of a covenant, and not the physical universe places a limitation on the nature of the Creator. The only limitations there should be placed on God are those He placed on Himself. In your opinion - right, Didymus? No sir, it is not my opinion, it is Biblical fact. The Bible must mean what it says, or it can't be trusted. It is written that God magnified His Word above all His name. It is written several times that we are not to add to or take away from His Word. Then there are the instructions Paul gave Timothy in II Timothy 4.1-4. "I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." - NKJV As Covenant Creation can only been proven by manipulating Scripture, it can only be a fable. People turned away from truth and turned aside to fables then, and people are doing the same today. Then there is what Paul wrote to Titus. Portions of that letter was dedicated to telling Titus how to handle those who turn away from the truth. They are to be sharply rebuked and told to shut-up. - Titus 1.11, 13. So, don't be surprised if I follow Paul's instructions. Those who promote this Covenant Creation fable need to be rebuked and told to shut-up, not coddled as if there is something to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 22, 2011 16:52:31 GMT -5
In your opinion - right, Didymus? No sir, it is not my opinion, it is Biblical fact. The Bible must mean what it says, or it can't be trusted. It is written that God magnified His Word above all His name. It is written several times that we are not to add to or take away from His Word. Then there are the instructions Paul gave Timothy in II Timothy 4.1-4. "I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." - NKJV As Covenant Creation can only been proven by manipulating Scripture, it can only be a fable. People turned away from truth and turned aside to fables then, and people are doing the same today. Then there is what Paul wrote to Titus. Portions of that letter was dedicated to telling Titus how to handle those who turn away from the truth. They are to be sharply rebuked and told to shut-up. - Titus 1.11, 13. So, don't be surprised if I follow Paul's instructions. Those who promote this Covenant Creation fable need to be rebuked and told to shut-up, not coddled as if there is something to it. But in fact we all state our opinion here when it comes to what we believe the Bible is saying on differing points. Therefore I placed the "in your opinion" in the reply in order to remind you and JL and all that until we get to heaven or have a personal revelation from God, what we say we each believe is our opinion based on the best understanding we presently have. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 22, 2011 17:31:23 GMT -5
No Tom, Your view of creation puts God in a man-made box. Your view requires God to answer the questions you want answered, instead of letting God answer the questions he wants to answer. You're not comfortable with God unless you remake him in your image. In your opinion - Right, JL? To All, Words mean something and can stab or soothe or respectfully inquire Allyn, Tom's purpose is certainly not to respectfully inquire. He has stated time and again that he doesn't know what he is opposing and has no interest in learning. 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.
Read more: livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=cc&action=display&thread=718#ixzz1BnuSSjGp Tom does not know what I believe, yet has pronounced it false doctrine. That's not my opinion. That is Tom's own claim. Tom is purposefully ignorant of the issues surrounding Genesis creation. He will not tell us what he believes. He says I should be rebuked for holding a doctrine contrary to his. Tom has absolutely no respect for others. It's doubtful that he even knows what he believes on the subject. Yes, that's opinion, I've asked, but he won't say with any level of detail. Tom feels the need to judge me. I'm not impressed. He spreads Seventh Day Adventist doctrine and doesn't even know the source. He's not willing to investigate it. Delilah was closer to the truth than Tom will ever be. She knew what she was. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 22, 2011 22:33:57 GMT -5
Allyn, Your own mission statement says, "Pursuing the fundamentals of Scripture, not redefining them." It's true, I don't much about Covenant Creation. I do know they redefine Genesis 1 in order to come to whatever conclusion they think they have made. If you redefine the nature of creation, do you not also redefine the nature of the Creator? God said, "Let there be light." Do you suppose He just turned on a flashlight? So then it should read, "And the Lord God said, 'Let there be light,' and he turned on the falsh light and it was so." When you redefine Scripture, you can make them say anything. If Genesis 1 is about the creation of a covenant, why is it not written that way? Or, doesn't matter what is written? If you can redefine Genesis 1, then what about Matthew 24? Matthew 24.16 states, "and let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." What is meant by that? I personally belive it means exactly what it says. But if Judea can be redefined to be the United States of America, then fulfillment has to be when the United States of America exists. So that fulfillment could be anywhere from 1776, or 1789, till now and beyond. So should we soon be getting ready to flee to the mountains? This is the kind of thing you get into when you start redefining Scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 22, 2011 22:53:10 GMT -5
Tom, I think you are missing the reasons for my intervening. It is not because I disagree with you on Genesis 1 ( I don't). It is because the approach I see to your objection has become a personal issue between you and another member(s) here because you disagree so strongly. You have made it an issue about the person rather than the subject. This is not how I want our board to go. There are already plenty of forums where this goes on and Truth Upon Truth is not going to numbered among them. Therefore I must insist that we all treat others with respect no matter how much we hate the subject matter. At this point I have decided to allow certain topics to be fair topics for dicussion. When anything on my invisible list changes from allowable to disallowable then you all will see an announcement stating such. So here is the rule for all to follow taken from one of the Apostle Paul's epistles: As far as it depends upon you - be at peace with one another. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 22, 2011 23:09:16 GMT -5
Tom, I think you are missing the reasons for my intervening. It is not because I disagree with you on Genesis 1 ( I don't). It is because the approach I see to your objection has become a personal issue between you and another member(s) here because you disagree so strongly. You have made it an issue about the person rather than the subject. This is not how I want our board to go. There are already plenty of forums where this goes on and Truth Upon Truth is not going to numbered among them. Therefore I must insist that we all treat others with respect no matter how much we hate the subject matter. At this point I have decided to allow certain topics to be fair topics for dicussion. When anything on my invisible list changes from allowable to disallowable then you all will see an announcement stating such. So here is the rule for all to follow taken from one of the Apostle Paul's epistles: As far as it depends upon you - be at peace with one another. They have made disparaging remarks about me as well. Jeff said above, "Delilah was closer to the truth than Tom will ever be." If I am going to be warned, why isn't he?  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 22, 2011 23:26:22 GMT -5
Hey brother Tom, I think it's okay to explore the different beliefs that are out there. People who believe them, believe them for a reason. Whether that reason (or reason ing) is right or wrong is what discussion can bring out. Sometimes it might change some minds; oftentimes it doesn't. But we all learn something by the exchange. And speaking of the "nature of the Creator," let's not lose sight that those of us who have posted in this very thread have decidedly different views of God: trinitarian, unitarian, arian, modalist. If we can accept those differences about one another in an attitude of brotherly love, what makes a discussion of covenant creation so much harder?  |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 23, 2011 10:43:14 GMT -5
Tom, I think you are missing the reasons for my intervening. It is not because I disagree with you on Genesis 1 ( I don't). It is because the approach I see to your objection has become a personal issue between you and another member(s) here because you disagree so strongly. You have made it an issue about the person rather than the subject. This is not how I want our board to go. There are already plenty of forums where this goes on and Truth Upon Truth is not going to numbered among them. Therefore I must insist that we all treat others with respect no matter how much we hate the subject matter. At this point I have decided to allow certain topics to be fair topics for dicussion. When anything on my invisible list changes from allowable to disallowable then you all will see an announcement stating such. So here is the rule for all to follow taken from one of the Apostle Paul's epistles: As far as it depends upon you - be at peace with one another. They have made disparaging remarks about me as well. Jeff said above, "Delilah was closer to the truth than Tom will ever be." If I am going to be warned, why isn't he? Tom, I see you have deleted your account with us. I'm sorry that you felt that was the way to handle it but I send you all the best in your adventure in faith. God bless you brother. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 23, 2011 10:59:19 GMT -5
I don't get it. I do not understand that when one is so opposed to a certain theology (covenant creation), ignores or treats poorly those who hold to it, admits not knowing much about it, and has made it plain that no inquiry will be made into it, then why would one post in the section designed especially for it, if not to deliberately cause tension?
And when the opportunity arises to understand an alternate view of Genesis 1 (the upcoming debate), he leaves. Closed minds do not increase in knowledge.
Isn't this like the third time he has left when things didn't go his way?
|
|
