Rebuttal R2. JLVaughn
My opponent did not number or organize his arguments. I will be organizing my response around lines of evidence.
My opponent responded to my rebuttal R1 first.
A. On Jan. 6th, in preparing for the debate, my opponent wrote
It is YOU who equates the First H & E with the old covenant and not me. ... On the CC thread I challenged your view that the H & E of Genesis 1 is the FIRST H & E and not the physical universe. I challenged you to debate me AT THAT POINT AND ON THAT POINT. All other related issues are to be part of the development of our resolves which should occur in the actual debate.
The resolve itself for you is this: The H & E of Genesis 1 is the First H & E and is not the physical universe.
For me it is this: The H & E of Genesis 1 is not the First H & E. It is the physical universe. The First H & E is Israel. Therefore, the H & E of Genesis 1 cannot be the First H & E for it predated Israel which is the First H & E.
www.livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=prearranged&thread=728&page=2#7570
There was quite an involved conversation to this point. Notice that 1) My opponent claimed I equate "the First H & E with the old covenant." This is a correct conclusion on his part from the preceding discussion. "The First H & E" in this context refers to "the first heavens and the first earth" of Revelation 21:1
A1 In his First Negative, my opponent stated
I will be negating the Covenant Creationist premise that heaven and earth is Israel.
livebytr.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=ccdebate&thread=785&page=1#8711
If in fact, the Covenant Creationist premise is "heaven and earth is Israel," then my opponent could have easily negated the premise by showing it contradicts what we agreed to on Jan. 6th. A premise cannot logically lead to a contradiction. This is not my premise. This is not a premise of Covenant Creationism.
I will now ask my opponent my first question:
Q1: How could you possibly think that my position was "heaven and earth is Israel," when you said on Jan. 6th that that was your position and you disagreed with me?A2 I next point out that on Jan. 6th, it was my opponents opinion that "The First H & E is Israel." At the beginning of his First Negative, he stated that this was no longer his belief. It is his privilege to change his mind. However, it is not his privilege to change my mind for me. That is what he has done with his resolve.
A3 My opponent changed his promised resolve. It is not what we agreed to. He did not contact me further and ask that he be allowed to argue a different resolve. His new resolve claims to state my position, yet contradicts what he knew on Jan. 6th to be my position.
Conclusion: My opponent's First Negative is out of order. It is not what he agreed to. He knows that the claim he makes of my position contradicts my position. He clearly stated my position on Jan. 6th and insisted I defend it. That is what I have done with my resolve. His resolve does not defend his position. That he went off somewhere else, read and misunderstood a statement I made in the middle of an article, and decided that would be my position is just too bad. There is really no further point in discussing my opponent's First Negative. If he were interested in the truth, rather than debate points, he would concede it and restrict his arguments to those against my Affirm which accurately represents my views. In the future, my opponent should stick to the resolves he has agreed to and not try to argue negatives of positions he clearly does not understand.
B My opponent cites a reprint of the
Fulfilled Magazine article
Introduction to Covenant CreationWinter 2008 issue, pages 10-15. He cites our conclusion of the meaning of heavens and earth in the passage known as The Song of Moses (Deut. 32). Our comments are in the middle of page 12, nearly halfway into the article. Concerning this passage, we said, "Moses addressed Israel as heavens and earth." My opponent has fixated on this one comment and is using this as evidence that my
premise is "heaven and earth is Israel."
B1 The comment is in the middle of the article (pg 12). This is not a typical place to put a premise.
B2 The comment refers to a specific passage. "Heaven and earth" could have multiple meanings and uses.
B3 As shown above in
A1 my opponent already knew that this was not my general belief.
B4 The opening paragraphs of the article, both the original and the reprint, make clear what our premises are.
What Is Covenant Creation?
Preterists recognize that the “end” spoken of in prophecy is not the end of the physical world. Rather, it is the end of the old covenant, the end of the “old creation,” the passing away of “the first heaven and the first earth” (Rev 21:1). We call this Covenant Eschatology.
Covenant Creation views the original “heavens and earth” which God made “in the beginning” (Gen 1:1) as directly related to God's creation of the “new heaven and new earth” (Rev 21:1).
If the “end” spoken of in prophecy is the end of the old covenant order and has nothing to do with the end of the physical universe, then we think it is time to ask some very important questions:
* Does the biblical “beginning” match the biblical “end”?
* When did God introduce the old covenant order?
* Could the Genesis creation account speak about the beginning of the covenant world of God's relationship to his people rather than the beginning of the physical universe?
Our premises are:
Covenant Eschatology, that "the first heavens and first earth" of Revelation 21:1 is the old covenant.
The biblical "beginning" must match the biblical "end."
B5 Comments between the beginning of the article and the conclusion of the article are to support those premises. Our use of Deut. 32 was not to demonstrate Covenant Eschatology, but to answer, "Could the Genesis creation account speak about the beginning of the covenant world of God's relationship to his people rather than the beginning of the physical universe?"
Conclusion: My opponent's citation says nothing about my premises. It is merely describes my conclusion of the meaning of heavens and earth in one passage. My premises, the premises of Covenant Creation, are consistent with my opponents claim of my beliefs and the resolve he required of me on Jan. 6th.
C My opponent has made several claims about
Deut. 32, a passage known as The Song of Moses. I have already dealt with his claim that the meaning of this passage is my premise. Now I would like to deal with the passage directly.
C1 My opponent as focused on verses 1 and 18.
1 Give ear, O heavens, and I will speak; And hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.
...
18 Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, And have forgotten the God who fathered you.
The song address "O heavens" and "O earth." The song assumes that this heavens and earth can hear. (If this heavens and earth is the physical universe, then this is just for poetic effect. If this heavens and earth is some other entity, then it might well be able to hear.) If you follow the song, this heavens and earth is the only thing addressed.
In verse 18, the pronoun "you" appears. ("You" also appears in several other verses in between.) To who or what does "you" refer to? The heavens and earth of vs. 1. In this passage, in this usage, the heavens and earth of vs. 1 is the "you" of verse 18. This is rather simple exegesis.
C2 My opponent claims that the "you" of vs. 18 is Israel. This makes the heavens and earth of vs. 1 Israel. Yet my opponent claims heaven and earth in vs. 1 is not Israel. He has given no evidence for this from this passage, just the claim.
C3 Every verse from vs. 2 to the end of the song talks of Israel. Israel is never addressed as Israel in the song. As I stated earlier and my opponent has ignored, "The 'O heavens' and 'O earth' had God as a father, human fathers and elders, Adam as a father, and ancestors. This heavens and earth were God's Covenant people." My opponent has ignored all of these references including the reference to Adam. The heavens and earth of Deut. 32:1 has a history back to Adam.
C4 My opponent's only evidence that the heavens and earth of vs. 1 is not Israel, is Deut. 30:19, "This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you." He says that God cannot invoke Israel as a witness against Israel. God clearly invoked Adam and Eve as witnesses against Adam and Eve. Who did God interrogate in the garden? Adam and Eve. Who were called as witnesses? Adam and Eve.
My opponent said, "This is absurd! This is the best he's got?" No it is not. I answered precisely what my opponent had claimed. My opponent is invoking arguments that he has not stated and expects me to read his mind.
C4a Neither previously, nor now has he demonstrated that heavens and earth in this passage, a legal pronouncement, nor in the other passage, the opening lines of a song, must necessarily have precisely the same meaning. We just have his claim that they must.
C4b Neither previously, nor now has he demonstrated any particular definition for heavens and earth either from these passages or elsewhere.
C4c Nor has he demonstrated that Israel cannot be called as a witness against itself. I have clearly demonstrated that he can and does. To this, I add, Joshua 24:22, "So Joshua said to the people, '
You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the LORD for yourselves, to serve Him.' And they said, '
We are witnesses!'" A generation later, the people did precisely what my opponent has called "absurd!"
C4d As my opponent knows (or knew on Jan. 6th), the Covenant Creation view is that the heavens and earth is the entire old covenant order. The things that passed away with the destruction of the temple were all part of heavens and earth.
If heaven and earth is the covenant, then the covenant is being called as a witness. Can a covenant be a witness? Gen. 31:44, "Now therefore, come,
let us make a covenant, you and I, and
let it be a witness between you and me." It certainly can.
The passage immediately before The Song of Moses puts together a set of witnesses, the ark, the tablets of the law, the song itself, the leaders, the officers, the people. Then in Deut. 31:28, "call heaven and earth to witness against them." The entire covenant, all of its elements, were gathered together to be a witness.
The entire covenant was gathered together. Every element of the entire covenant was called to be a witness against the people of the covenant. Every element was gathered to gather to witness, and the total was called "heavens and earth." Every element was called to testify against the primary element, the covenant people.
C5 My opponent claims that God fathered the "you" of vs. 18 at Sinai. Vs. 18 says nothing about when. Vs. 8 says that their history goes back at least to "the sons of Adam."
Conclusion: Heavens and earth in Deut. generally refers to the entirety of the old covenant, the law, the artifacts, and the people. In Deut. 32:1, a song of judgment, it refers to the primary element, the assembled people, who will be judged by that covenant. As the song calls them heavens and earth, and gives them a history back to Adam, God begot them at the time of Adam or earlier. This passage shows that the heavens and earth as a covenantal form goes back to the time of the original creation.
D My opponent appealed to Hebrews 1:10
You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
He claims that the beginning in Hebrews 1:10 does not refer to Genesis 1:1.
D1 My opponent originally made the claim that this was true because the two words for beginning were different. Both "beginnings" are the Greek word "arche." Now he says that being the same word "does not prove their meaning is equal because they are written differently." Genesis 1:1 is "en arche" while Hebrews 1:10 is "kat archas."
Note, my opponent has conceded that his original claim was false. They are both the same word, just different forms of the same word.
Second, my opponent made a new claim. He says my argument against his old false claim doesn't prove his new claim is false. Two problems here. One, does my opponent expect me to read his mind? I answered the argument given. Two, it is not up to me to prove that these two beginnings are the same. My opponent made the claim in his First Negative that my position is not true because they aren't the same. It is his duty to prove it. Different forms of the same word, or even different words does not prove his point.
D2 My opponent wrote, "Verse 2 says that there is more than one age (aion)
which implies that there is more than one 'beginning' (arche). It says, "through whom He also made the ages" (plural). Nineteenth century Preterist J. Stuart Russell notes that at that time the Jews recognized only
two ages. Those ages were the
present age and the age
to come (The Parousia, p. 265)."
It would have been nice for my opponent to tell us what "verse 2" references, instead of making me search for it. I agree that the Jews of that time only recognized two ages. The then present age which passed away and the age to come which is now we are presently in. Obviously, verse 10 refers to the beginning of the then present age that has now passed away. When did that age begin? My opponent asserts without proof that the then present age "was the Mosaic economy." He returns to this theme again.
At this point I would like to ask my opponent my second question:
Q2: You have claimed the Jews recognized only two ages, the first starting the "Mosaic economy." How did the Jews describe this non-existent age before the "Mosaic economy?"D3 My opponent then wrote, "I have already shown in context that the 'beginning' in verse 10 does not require us to go all the way back to Genesis." Again, my opponent is confused. He asserts that because I haven't proven something, it cannot be true. It is his duty to prove his case and his arguments.
The rest of my opponents remarks are based on what I will soon be forced to call a willful misrepresentation of my views.
D4 Next, my rebuttal R1 ventured into Hebrews 2 and my opponent followed. He claims that beginning in vs. 3 (I erroneously labeled as vs. 2 in the note) is also "arche." I'm curious as to why the detail of the precise form and use of arche was previously so important, yet draws no concern here.
My opponent claims this beginning was then future, yet every translation has it past tense. Since this has no bearing on the debate, I will not concern myself further. However, my opponent then asks the question, "
On what CONTEXTUAL basis does Jeff insert Israel into the text? Answer: I don't insert Israel into the text. This has been my complaint all along. My opponent has misrepresented my position from the beginning. He has made a false accusation, then asks me to tell why I did what I didn't do. If I knew for certain that he knew better and was doing this on purpose (as opposed to being a stubbornly ignorant) I would see this question in the same light as asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It is wrong to claim your opponent holds a position that he does not hold and to insist that he answer questions that assume that error.
D5 Hebrews 11:3 reads "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." "Worlds" is the Greek word "aion" (plural) which my opponent has just claimed means "age" or in this case "ages." "We understand that the ages were framed by the word of God." Remember what my opponent argued. There are only two ages.
The very next verse reads, "By faith Abel..." The ages are framed, and the first age includes Abel.
Conclusion: Hebrews 1 & 2 talks of two ages, my opponent and I agree. The transition between the two ages was then future when Hebrews was written. The issue at hand is when did the first age start? Was it at the Genesis 1:1 creation? Or was it at the Exodus, at Sinai, or where/whenever my opponent believes "the Mosaic economy" and the "metonymy is a reference to the angels (heaven) who directed the law at Sinai and the mediator Moses (earth) who received the law" began.
My opponent says it cannot be Genesis 1:1. He has not shown that. What's more, he has all but claimed that there was no age before the first one. What age was Adam in? Abel? Enoch? Noah? Father Abraham? The patriarchs? There were only two ages. They were all part of the then present age.
E My opponent referenced Gal. 3 and made a claim about my view of the "Abrahamic Covenant" and the law. He made reference to my article in a place that didn't even mention Abraham, let alone this separate "Abrahamic Covenant" he has assumed. My opponent quoted phrases from several verses form Gal. 3 including from vs. 17. I showed where Gal. 3 claims there was one covenant and that Abraham and Moses were both in it. I quoted vs. 17, "17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God
in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect."
His response, "Now pay attention to this friends. Paul said that the promise was made TO Christ. He did not say that the promise was made
in Christ."
Conclusion: What are we to make of this? My opponent doesn't know the passages he is quoting.
F In response to my opponent's travesty in Galations, I put forth an argument to demonstrate that law preceded Sinai.
F1 My opponent replied, "Jeff hastily jumps to conclusions. Verse 15 says that the people came to Moses to "inquire of God." If they had the law, then why did they need to come to Moses to inquire of God?"
Is he serious? Moses was the judge.
13 And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening. 14 So when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand before you from morning until evening?”
15 And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God.
My opponent continues, " Before Sinai Moses received the law by the internal promptings of the Spirit and by that he was God's oracle and the people sought him. At Sinai he received the law as the
written code. It was then that the people entered into
legal covenant with God."
Now that was funny. ROTF. On an earlier issue, my opponent wrote, "It was in their exodus from Egypt that God "fathered" them and not before." Now he claims it was 50 days later, at Sinai, that God made his children legal. They were God's illegitimate children.
Back to the point at hand. Gal. 3:17 (again), "17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect." My opponent is claiming that the covenant that was previously confirmed was annulled so that Israel could join a "
legal covenant." Does my opponent really believe that Abraham had been in an
illegal covenant?
F2 Also notice that my opponent had previously claimed there was no law before Sinai, has now conceded that there was law before Sinai. It's just different because the law was previously not written down. That's an irrelevant distinction made by a desperate debater.
F3 My opponent had no further comments about the details of my case showing that Adam had law.
F4 At the end, my opponent feels compel to take another unwarranted and irrelevant shot, "Jeff seems to be implying that if a person had law, then he was automatically under promise." What does that even mean?
I have implied no such thing. My opponent needs to check his own assumptions and apply his own words to Israel from Sinai on.
Conclusion: My opponent has conceded that law goes back to Adam in the garden. His complaints that it was not written and that it seems to imply things not under examination is irrelevant. His claim that law must be written to make it legal, to use my opponent's word, "is absurd!"
G My opponent's claims about "Paul's model" and "Covenant Creationists model" still make no sense. My opponent's fixation on his false premise is likely the issue.
His claims about an "Abrahamic covenant" fall in the same category.
Overall Conclusion: The whole reason for the debate was to determine the nature of the heavens and earth of Genesis 1:1. My opponent has asserted numerous times that the first heavens and first earth of Rev. 21:1, but he has yet to give any evidence beyond his assertions.
Instead, he has given assertions that the first heaven and first earth was born (created?) during the Exodus and was made legal at Sinai.
My opponent insists on claiming my beliefs are something contrary to what I actually believe. It apparently does no good to correct him. My opponent knew what I believed on Jan. 6th. Today he knows "better." If this continues in his next rebuttal, I can only conclude that my opponent's misrepresentations are willful and deliberate.
All of this was to respond to my opponent's defense of his First Negative, a document that is made inherently indefensible by his false resolve.
Now to my opponent's rebuttal of my resolve. I will use the numbers to reference back to the appropriate sections of my First Affirmative.
0 The suggested debate format required an introduction. My opponent suggested this format and claimed to have debated previously using it. I used the required introduction to state why I think this debate is important. My opponent has taken it upon himself to debate my opinion of why the debate is important! Can my opponent's arguments get any more senseless?
My opponent's discussion of Milton Terry was in response to my using this quote.
It is of the first importance to observe that, from a Christian point of view, the Old Testament cannot be fully apprehended without the help of the New.
Conclusion: My opponent is wasting my time.
My first argument:
1. The apostle John tells us that the first heaven and the first earth that he saw pass away is the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1:1.1A Revelation 21:1 says, in part, "for the
first heaven and the
first earth had passed away." Please note the highlighted words. As part of my argument, for why this refers to Genesis 1:1, I wrote, "He [John] said it was "the first." The first heavens and earth mentioned in Scripture is mentioned in Genesis 1:1"
My opponent said, "Where does John say this?"
How many times did John say "first?" What does the word "first" mean? If it doesn't mean "first" then what does it mean? My opponent appears to now be arguing for the sake of arguing.
My opponent continues, "John did not conect[sic] Revelation 21 with Genesis 1 in the way Jeff thinks. Jeff assumes this because John used similar language which is found in both Genesis 1 and Revelation 21.
Futurist Harold Camping does the same thing and comes to different conclusions!"
I don't know how my opponent imagines I am connecting Revelation 21 with Genesis 1. The argument for this point does not compare language. The argument is very simple. John said "first."
Where is the first mention of heavens and earth? In Genesis 1:1. If John did not mean "first," then why did he write "first?"
My opponent demonstrated that he is incapable of processing a simple argument and that his only defense is to resort to what amounts to name-calling.
Conclusion: John said "first." There is only one "first" in Scripture, the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1:1.
1B & 1C I next demonstrated some of the numerous references to early Genesis found in the chapters surrounding Rev. 21:1. My opponent made a lengthy side comment that deserves more attention, then concluded with "Again, Jeff assumes that similar language necessarily means identity." My opponent has conceded that the language used in Rev. 20-22 is similar to the language used in early Genesis. He offers no alternative understanding. He offers no explanation as to why my understanding is wrong except for the side comment I will address shortly.
My opponent's aside, "Jeff's conclusions are beset with many problems with the most obvious being that Peter EXPLICITLY said that the antedeluvian[sic] heavens and earth were destroyed (2 Peter 3). The antedeluvian[sic] world is that of Genesis 1! It was the material order that was flooded with water. Peter said that it was made from water and was destroyed by water. This is the material world of Genesis 1."
Let's look at 2 Peter 3
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Vs. 5 creation of the heavens and earth.
Vs. 6 destruction of the world
Vs. 7 future destruction of the heavens and earth
My opponent has not thought through his objection on several levels.
a. He has assumed that heavens and earth = world
b. Since the physical universe was not destroyed at the flood, my opponent has unwittingly admitted that the heavens and earth of vs. 5 is not the physical universe
c. My opponent believes that the heavens and earth of vs. 7 started at the time of Moses. In his assumed paradigm, there was no heavens and earth from Noah to Moses.
d. My opponent has already demonstrated, and I agree, that there were only two ages. The one that ended when the heavens and earth in vs 7 was destroyed and the one that comes after. Instead of needing one age before his presumed first age, he now needs two.
e. The Greek word
nun which is translated "which are now" is a Greek adverb and would normally be understood to modify "reserved" and not "heavens and earth."
Point
a needs a bit more comment. I believe the other points are self-sufficient.
Greek has 3 words translated earth or world. In this passage, "heavens and earth" uses the Greek word
ge for "earth" and
kosmos for "world." By my opponent's previously stated standard this should be proof enough that the two words are different. If Peter meant the same thing, then why not use the exact same form of the exact same word.
John uses
kosmos numerous times in his gospel. The first time is in a chiasm in John 1:10-11.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
Who did Jesus come to? His own. Who did not receive him? His own. So who was the world that did not know Him? His own.
Before you jump on this too quick, please consider. My ancestors in the British Isles were not His own. They did not have the Scriptures. They did not know Him. They could not be expected to. His own were the first century Jews. That was the
kosmos of that day. Most uses of
kosmos by John can only carry that meaning. No use by John is required to have a different meaning. I agree that you won't like what it does to your favorite verse, but that's what careful study often requires.
In the faith chapter, Hebrews 11, vs. 7 says
7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the kosmos and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
Noah became heir. Everyone else of Noah's generation perished.
The most reasonable assumption is that Peter is using
kosmos in the same way. It was the covenant people of that generation who were destroyed, not the heavens and earth.
An article on this subject is available on our website.Conclusion: John was referring to the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1:1. My opponent's complaint that I assume "similar language necessarily means identity," actually stems from his belief that certain things cannot be the same. He refuses to consider identity even though that is the simplest answer.
2 My second point was that the prophets and the apostles also described the passing away of the heavens and the earth of Genesis 1:1 and the creation of a new heavens and a new earth.
Again, my opponent's considered response was "Isaiah's prophecy is an excellent example that the use of similar language does not necessarily mean identity. Isaiah 65-66 was fulfilled after the exiles returned from the Babylonian Captivity before the temple was rebuilt."
As a reminder, Is. 65:17, "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind" My opponent requires the creation of yet another heavens and earth. Yet in direct contradiction to this verse, my opponent requires the former to still be in force.
My opponent ended with a repeat of his bit on 2 Peter 3 which has already been answered. He leaves us at the time of Peter with two heavens and earths in force. The one he calls the first which was about to pass away and the post-exile heavens and earth which was also in full force, yet was not to be counted.
Conclusion: My opponent multiplies heavens and earths at every turn. Even having the post-exile people subjected to two heavens and earths at the same time. One of these was about to end when 2 Peter was written, the other, unnumbered heavens and earth presumably continues to this day along with the new heavens and new earth. I don't think this will fly with anyone, but there it is. This is what the opponents of Covenant Creation are reduced to.
My opponent did not address my arguments 3 through 8.
Overall Conclusion: My opponent has not done the least bit of damage to my points
1 and
2. He has essentially argued that similar language does not necessarily mean identity. What he has actually demonstrated is that he is not willing to consider identity when similar language is used. This has been the primary problem with my critics. To get around this problem, they not only must ignore the similar language used in Genesis, the prophets, and eschatological passages, but must also add ages, covenants, and heavens and earths to the biblical two.
9 Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Is. 46:9-10
Edited to remove smiley.
