You are hereThe New Creation: A Theology of Mercy
The New Creation: A Theology of Mercy
The MP3/Audio presentations from the New Creation Ministries conferece are now available online, together with the Power Point slides and presentations used by the speakers. You can download the presentations by Shannon Shogren, Timothy King, Ward Fenley, John Hedges, Timothy Martin and Tami Jelinek.Click here to view and download the NCMI presentations




Tim's first is a repeat of his first at TV a few months back. His second is new stuff. Tim's Power Point slides with notes (script) are available from j.l.preterist@gmail.com
Enjoy
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
I was there. It was awesome. The fellowship was sweet, which pisses a lot of folks off, I'm sure.
ed
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
HAHA
ROFL!!!!!!!
http://www.newcreationministries.tv
hehe... you guys crack me up :) -- I'll be sure to download these and have a good listen.
davo
davo – pantelism.com
I really wish I could take time off from work to be there but it was not possible...sorry I couldn't make it. Maybe next year guys!
We missed you!
http://www.newcreationministries.tv
Well thanks for inviting me!!! :)
Hey Guys,
First of all, thanks Tami for forgiving Mr. Wagner and Mr. Robbins for crashing your speaker dinner :-) I told them I was invited but they insisted on tagging along :-)
I also just want to say something publicly here about Mr. Burley. Ed you are an incredibly kind human being. I love you brother not because of anything you have ever written here or anywhere else but because I know God has done an incredible work in your life. You are a living testament as a father and a man after God's own heart.
All the speakers were inspiring and very honest and sincere. John and Rene, it was nice getting to meet you and your niece. Ward, Tim King, Sharon, thanks for the inspiration. You never know what crazy ideas you have inspired until you see me draw them:-)
Well I'm starting to hear that music where they want you off the stage so be blessed you guys and I look forward to seeing you all again someday soon.
Come on people!!!! A conference titled "A Theology of Mercy" has to be good.
but, where was the kegs, the gossip, the free love, hippie fellowship............ ;-)
Blessings,
Jim Kessler
btw...I would recommend downloading all the messages especially Tim Martin's presentations because (although you can't see it) he has some great artwork that goes along with them :-)(shameless plug)
PreteristArtist
Hey Jim,
First, I already told Mr. Robbins he now has an open invitation to dinner whenever he is over this way. Mr. Wagner, I am not so sure about. (JK! I love ya, Ron)
It was amazing meeting you all, and Jim, I have to say a huge DITTO to what you said about Ed Burley. Fortunately for us, he is (kinda sorta) nearby and I certainly hope we will be able to spend some more time with him soon. My neighbors (not preterists) who attended Friday night's session spoke very highly of not just what he shared at the roundtable, but the gracious tone with which he shared it. He is truly an example of humility and compassion and was a great encouragement to our gathering.
Jim, you didn't see the keg? ;)
Tami
http://www.newcreationministries.tv
"btw...I would recommend downloading all the messages especially Tim Martin's presentations because (although you can't see it) he has some great artwork that goes along with them :-)(shameless plug)"
Actually, you can see it. There is now a link to a pic of Jim's painting, "Luke 17: The Apocalyptic Vision" right under the link to Tim's power point of his second message, "The Prophetic Creation." Enjoy!
http://www.newcreationministries.tv/Conference/theologyofmercy.htm
http://www.newcreationministries.tv
Hey, it's now my desktop...That's not a copyright violation, is it? Jim, please don't sue me...
:)
ed
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
Ed,
It's not a coyright violation only if you make a donation at my starving artist website:-)
www.InChristVictorious.com
Blessings,
Jim
PreteristArtist
Jim,
Being in the optics business and having sold a bit of my own artwork, I can see you have true vision and tremendous skill.
And for those of you interested in such a thing, Jim is producing the world's first self-consciously preterist art. Jim is the first artist of the new preterist culture.
Jim is our starving artist and needs our support.
Blessings,
JL
PS. Neb is our starving rap musician. I'm not sure I want preterist culture to go there. But some of you do.
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
Jim Jordan once said that rap was the new chanting. So Jason (Neb) is our Cantor (for those of you familiar with Orthodoxy, you'll know what this is).
ed
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
Thanks, Tami, for all the work you've done to make this all available online. The entire conference was a real blessing to Micaiah and me. Now it looks like you will share that blessing with many more.
That is kingdom living.
In Christ,
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org
I was there also and I had a great time. Thanks guys for putting this on in my side of town.
Thanks for the dinner also.
Tony Pomales
Tony Pomales, Lansing, Michigan!
:)
It was great to meet you. Let us know if you are ever over this way again.
Tami
http://www.newcreationministries.tv
Thanks Tami
Tony, I am so glad you came to the conference. It has been years since we last saw each other. It was good to see you again, and to find out the great things God is doing in your life. I hope to make it down your way someday soon, and get together with you and Fred. Preterist Party Time.
I just found out that there is another preterist in the state. He pastors in Tecumseh. Not sure if he's full or partial, but a kid on my caseload was on a home visit, and his dad took him to church. The pastor of the dad's church preached on Preterism, and said that he embraces that view. Cool, eh?
stay in touch,
ed
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
Yes, very cool. To Bad Tecumseh is on the other side of the earth :). We need something out my way. Good seeing you again.
God Bless You Brother,
Tony
Ed,
I have been gone for a week so I am catching up on email and posts. Your idea of a preterist party with you Tony and me sounds like a good idea. I will be rather busy until early September but I hope we can make it happen after that. Good to see you again.
Blessings,
Fred
I thought that some might like to have a shortened taste of Tim’s and JL’s presentation concerning “The Prophetic Creation”
I have copied an excerpt of some of their presentation here to provide a glimpse of how a covenant and preterist understanding portrays the continuity throughout the scriptures. This also begins to illustrate how the Jews would have been viewing Genesis and the entiriety of scripture and not how moderns are inclined to read it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim and JL ... “What I will do with the rest of this session is walk you through key points in the first few chapters of Genesis as a demonstration that creation can be read covenantally, rather than literally and biologically. Again, I do believe there are physical events and people which underlie the creation texts, but if the text is prophetic in nature, then it was never intended to communicate chronological, scientific or biological detail.
The problem of a “literal” or scientific reading of creation is evident when we look at the structure of the creation week in Genesis 1. Notice that there are internal parallels within the creation week. Days 1-3 match Days 4-6. The light and darkness of day one corresponds to the Sun, moon and stars of Day 4. The creation of the sky and waters on Day 2 correspond to the creation of birds and fish of Day 5. The creation of land and vegetation on Day 3 corresponds to the creation of animals and man on Day 6. There is a curious repetition going on here which hints that the author is not presenting a chronological, scientific record of God’s creation of the physical universe. The strangeness of that approach is evident in that we have light created three days before the sun, and plants and vegetation created before there is such a thing as sun, moon or stars. Is that the point the writer of Genesis is getting at?
But what if the creation week is prophetic? In that case it would be using images of the physical world to teach about God’s covenant works.
The contemplative reader would learn important redemptive theme at the beginning of the Bible. The creation week is ordered this way to set the pattern of forming and filling. That which God creates, he recreates. That which God forms, he fills. We might say that the parallel is a symbolic model of covenant history to come: Old Covenant, New Covenant.
There is a sense that all covenant history is prophetically bound up in the creation week. Days 1-3 foreshadow the first creation or Old Covenant which came with glory. Days 4-6 foreshadow the New Creation which comes with surpassing glory. Light created in general on Day 1 becomes light in the full glory of the Sun, Moon and Stars on Day 4. The sky above and waters below created in general on Day 2 become the sky teeming with birds and the waters teeming with fish on Day 5. The land created in general on Day 3 becomes filled with creatures, ultimately man, as the crowning accomplishment of God’s handiwork on Day 6. Creation and recreation. Forming and filling. Old Covenant, new Covenant. Then comes Day 7: rest. And there is something very special about Day 7; it has no mention of an evening or morning, signifying God’s eternal rest which believers enter into through Jesus Christ. The Sabbath is prophetic of salvation. Isn’t that what Hebrews 4 tells us?
Even the order of evening and morning is prophetic in the creation week. Have you ever wondered why night comes first, then day in the creation account. It’s about covenant. First comes night, then comes the day. Sound familiar? David Chilton drew the prophetic parallel, without quite realizing the implications, when he wrote: “Relatively speaking, the whole history of the world from Adam’s Fall to Christ’s Ascension was Night; relatively speaking, the whole future of the world is bright Day. This follows the pattern laid down at the creation, in which the heavens and earth move eschatologically from evening to morning, the lesser light being succeeded by the greater light, going from glory to Glory.” Chilton has the night ending at the ascension which is a mistake.
Paul, writing after the ascension, draws a similar connection to the flow of covenant history with the same allusion to night and day first introduced on Day 1: “And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. (Rom. 13:11-12 NKJV).”
All Covenant history is represented, prophetically, by the order and symbolism of the creation week in Genesis 1.
There is another sense in which the days of Gen. 1 play a significant role in covenant history. John opens his gospel with an echo of Gen. 1, “In the beginning…” He then speaks about the light of the world and the darkness that was in the world. As Tim King has presented before, John goes on to record a creation week of six days in the ministry of Christ, finally arriving at the marriage at Cana on the seventh day. The implications of John’s creation week in the ministry of Christ are huge. It gives a subtle yet powerful demonstration that God himself, who created the heavens and earth in 6 days, had now come in the flesh. Jesus began his creation of the new heavens and new earth from the beginning of his ministry.
This parallel between the creation week of Genesis 1 and the new creation week of John 1 shows that the days are symbolic. John references literal, 24-hour days, but this creation week is symbolic of the entire work of Christ. No one suggests that Jesus’ work (and the New Heaven and Earth) were completed in one literal week of 24 hour days. The New Covenant was not fully manifested until many years later, in A.D. 70. The creation week in the ministry of Christ is symbolic of a much longer period of time, specifically the 40 years between the ministry and coming of Christ.
So we have good reason to understand that the days in Gen. 1, whatever reference they make to physical creation, are symbolic of a longer period of time, just like creation week in the ministry of Jesus is symbolic of his entire work of redemption.
There may be more ways in which the creation week is prophetic. Have you ever wondered why the sun was not made until Day 4? Well what do the prophets use the sun to reference in prophecy? Remember, think “the prophetic creation.”
Consider Malachi’s prophetic use of the sun: “But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall (Mal. 4:2).” The sun is symbolic of the Messiah. That’s why the New Testament opens with an explicit example of the sun as symbolic of the coming of the Messiah, the birth of Jesus Christ: “The rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death.”
Given this association in the prophets we can see, looking backward at creation, why the sun is not created until day 4. The sun is created at the center of the creation week. This is prophetic of the Messiah, who is at the center of all covenant history.
The sun dominates the heavens. When he comes, riding as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, his glory drowns out all the other heavenly bodies. This example shows how the physical world “out there” reflects the covenant world “in here.”
Have you ever gone out on a clear night and looked at the stars above in amazement? Have you ever thought that one night, long ago, God took Abraham out to see those same stars and promised him, “Look up to the heavens and count the stars – if indeed you can count them… So shall your offspring be (Genesis. 15:5). Do you see what Genesis does? It associates the posterity of Abraham with the stars in the heavens. Then we find out that Joseph had a dream where, “the sun and moon and eleven stars” bow down to Joseph. The sun and moon symbolizes his mother and father. The eleven stars refer to the other sons of Israel. Again, the association is the children of Israel, the children of Abraham, to stars. Then we find a promise in Daniel where “those who are wise will shine… like the stars.” This takes use to Paul who says the early Christians, “shine like stars in the universe.” Can you see the Abrahamic Covenant in that? Can you see the prophetic creation?
The sun dominates the heavens with its brightness. The stars, as majestic as they are in the night sky, cannot compete with the glory of the Messiah, ruler of the day, Lord of the Covenant. Yet we are with him in the heavens, reigning and ruling over all God has made. The gospel is reflected in the creation around you every minute of every day of your life. It is God’s prophetic creation.”
---------------------------------------------
After reading and listening to Tim and JL’s lesson it brought to mind the scriptures in Jeremiah 33 concerning the breaking of the covenant of Day and Night.
19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 20 "This is what the LORD says: 'If you can break my COVENANT WITH THE DAY AND MY COVENANT WITH THE NIGHT, SO THAT DAY AND NIGHT NO LONGER COME AT THEIR APPOINTED TIME, 21 then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne.”
It also reinforces the realization that in Revelation we have so many spiritual metaphors taken from Genesis such as the Tree of Life, the Curse, and the replacement of the Heavens and Earth with a new one.
What we may have overlooked in Rev 21 is that not only did the first heavens and earth passed away but also we see that there is no longer any “Sea”. We understand from Rev that John has interpreted the OT scriptures to indicate the “Sea” with a Gentile implication.
“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and THERE WAS NO LONGER ANY SEA.”
We have seen earlier in Rev the contextual understanding by John of Sea in many different scriptures.
7:2 … He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the LAND AND THE SEA:
10: 5 Then the angel I had seen STANDING ON THE SEA AND ON THE LAND raised his right hand to heaven. 6 And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, WHO CREATED THE HEAVENS AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM, THE EARTH AND ALL THAT IS IN IT, AND THE SEA AND ALL THAT IS IN IT,
20: 13 The SEA GAVE UP THE DEAD that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them
Now we know from Rev 21:1 that the Sea was no longer and thus realize that it’s a covenantal and spiritual designation which ended with the Old Heavens and Earth. We also know from scriptures that usually Heavens and Earth are mentioned together to indicate Israel but there are times when the Sea is also added in. We should realize from Paul that the Gentiles were not part of the covenants of the promise until the mystery was revealed Eph 2 & 3 thus becoming one entity and not a separate one. So the end of the “Sea” appears to have a covenantal application as well and when we see it inserted with the Heavens and Earth we need to look for the spiritual/covenantal meaning that may bring.
Exodus 20: … nor the ALIEN WITHIN YOUR GATES. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM,”
This is just a small exercise to illustrate the ramification of Tim and JL’s prophetic application in recognizing the need to understand how the Jews would have read the scriptures from the beginning to the end.
Blessings
Norm
Hey Norm,
And they were so wrong also, they crucified the Lord of glory as an impostor.
Tom
Yes,
The majority of men like to follow the crowd.
(Rom 11:7 NIV) What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."
(Mat 13:10 NIV) The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: "'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'
(John 5:39 NIV) You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Blessings
Norm
This is a great summary of a foundational point:
"But what if the creation week is prophetic? In that case it would be using images of the physical world to teach about God’s covenant works."
Notice this statement does *not* deny that God created the physical universe, or even that Genesis references that fact. I tend to think that fact was assumed by the Jews and was taught to them from their earliest oral and written histories.
I also think the parallel Tim draws between Genesis and Revelation is valid. We all know that Revelation does reference historical events, but none of us would say it gives us a literal, chronological account of those events. We all agree that Revelation is prophetic. As Tim said at the conference, if we want a literal historical account, we should read Josephus. And so...how about if we want literal, physical details about the creation and qualities of the physical universe? Go outside and look at it! uh-oh, did somebody mention science? (yikes!)
Tim said, maybe a bit facetiously, at the beginning of his second message (listen to it, if you haven't already) that it was going to get him into trouble. But then he said to me later that he didn't have much to worry about after all with our particular audience, because we were "ripe for it." We are already there. Not so much because we already have seen all the amazing things Tim is showing us in Genesis, because I learned a ton. But because we are already recognizing the consistency of these *very same* metaphors throughout all of Scripture.
Someone asked at our conference, how do you *prove* Genesis is primarily prophetic and apocalyptic? Read the rest of the Bible! That has settled it for me, because the harmony is way too perfect. To continue to 'physicalize' the creation account in Genesis is to continue to remove it from its context. And yes, to Tim's point, it is what will continue to make preterism INcredible to Christians trapped in that global/physical beginning to global/physical ending paradigm.
One more thing: this is so much more than an academic pursuit or debate. The reason what we are seeing in Genesis is such a perfect fit with NCMI's "theology of mercy" is that both are pursuing the translation of what can be learned from creation (yes, the physical creation!) about kingdom life into kingdom *living*.
in Christ,
Tami
http://www.newcreationministries.tv
Tami,
Tami said … Someone asked at our conference, how do you *prove* Genesis is primarily prophetic and apocalyptic? Read the rest of the Bible! That has settled it for me, because the harmony is way too perfect. To continue to 'physicalize' the creation account in Genesis is to continue to remove it from its context”
I could not agree more, when one comes to understand this principal of scripture through the preterist hermeneutic and realize that Genesis is the prophetic beginning it just frees up so much of scripture, which has been obscure before. It continues to amaze me how much the scriptures are not nearly as physical in nature as they are spiritual. The scriptures are the most profound piece of literature in existence and they bring us back into the world that was to reveal the world that is; spiritually speaking.
Tami, thanks for making the lessons and round table discussions available they have been a real blessing and helped me to in effect participate with the rest of you.
Blessings
Norm
to all,
It is interesting to see the common thread that exists in the fallacy of these comments between the theory of dispensationalist futurism and Tim's hermeneutics.
DF spiritualizes what Tim literalizes and Tim spiritualizes what DF literalizes. All in the name of hermeneutics.
The common fallacious thread of spititualizing the plain words and propositions of the scriptures and finding doctrines the scriptures do not contain is uncannily similar.
Regards,
Tom
Tom that's not really that valid a point as the EXACT same logic can be attributable to preterism in relation to dispensationalism i.e., DF spiritualises what FP literalises and FP spiritualises what DF literalises -- examples: the time statements; the historicity of Mt24 etc etc. IF you're going to throw around these types of "arguments" then you at least need to keep to consistency, JMO.
davo
davo – pantelism.com
Davo,
Exactly, if we were to use that premise then we would have to ignore Johns Revelation and his Gospel in which he spiritualizes constantly from Genesis. In fact I would dare say that John's Revelation is they Key to Preterism which is the recognition within it of spiritual language. How else would we have confirmation concerning the Heavens and Earth not being literal, the Tree of Life, the Curse, The Sea, the Serpent.
While we are at it we could rid ourselves of Isaiah, Daniel and other OT prophets who took off on these spiritualizing journeys.
Norm
Hey Davo,
I am sorry you missed the honor I was bestowing on Tim. I assumed, which we should never do, that my use of Tim as an example was founded upon Tim's position as a spokesman for and an advocate for FP.
My contrast was exactly the contrast that you point out in your comment. My perception is that Tim is as able a spokesman for covenantal Preterism as can be found in the movement.
The examples you cite were exactly the examples that I had in mind when I made the observation. With that explanation, you can see that I was being entirely consistent. I am pleased to see you concur with the point I was making.
Regards,
Tom
hmmm??? maybe cause I'm from downunder it all seems a little upside down at times etc. Not to worry :)
davo
davo – pantelism.com
"Tami, thanks for making the lessons and round table discussions available they have been a real blessing and helped me to in effect participate with the rest of you."
You are very welcome, Norm. Making material like this available *free of charge* is an integral part of our vision for ministry.
Tami
http://www.newcreationministries.tv
Can someone show me a verse, any verse that says Adam was the first 'covenant’ man? The Bible is plain in stating that Adam was the 'first man’ created in the image of God. Why did Adam not have a helpmate if other people existed before him? Genesis 2:20 Eve was not part of the covenant between God and Adam, which Adam broke. Eve was the mother of all living. Genesis 3:20 It does not say Eve was the mother of all under the covenant. I think it is dangerous to assume that the Bible is saying something it does not clearly state. To say there were other people besides Adam and Eve is to assume much.
Genesis 6:5
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
In this verse, it says 'every' intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil. Does that mean just 'some' intention of the thoughts? Is it not plain in stating ‘every intention’? Let us take it for what it says and “every” means, ‘being each individual or part of a group without exception’. Now let’s apply this to another verse dealing with the same issue.
Genesis 7:21-23
21 And all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
Now the argument will go like this. The word for earth does not mean the planet but the local land. But that does not work because had the flood been local some animals and birds could have swam and flew to dry land. The dry land was called ‘earth.’
Genesis 1:10
10 And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
It does not matter that the people did not have the right concept of the shape of the world. It does not depend upon what the people comprehended about our planet, if it was round or flat, because the message points simply to a universal event. The birds, cattle, beasts, swarming things and man that was on the dry land, ‘earth’, perished. So every living thing upon earth perished, not just some of them but ‘every’ living thing. Is it not saying this? In these historical events, there is not one mention or hint of covenant between the time of Adam and Noah. If so, show me the verses. The plain sense of these historical accounts are easy for even a young child to understand yet the covenant maze presented by some is over my head and many others more educated than myself.
Just because others or I may not be able to answer every question presented to us by the OEC does not mean they have proved their point because I could say the same about them. It is not a matter of answering hypothetical questions, which many of them are, but seeing what the Scriptures say. The assumptions and hypothetical questions put forth by the OEC have very little if any Biblical merit in my opinion because all of this can turn into speculation. I hold my opinions because they are stated in the Bible and make much more sense to me than the alternative. The OEC followers deal with what the Bible does not say and enter the world of speculation assuming their logic to be correct and their guesses to be right. Their logic is founded upon made up comments having no support but their own. Anyone can make a statement but that does not mean it is so.
Blessings,
Fred
Fred,
Do you know what Young-Earth Creationism teaches? Please tell us your points of disagreement with them so we can have a place to start.
As long as you take Genesis biologically, you can't see what you are asking. So no, I can't show you a verse that says Adam was the first covenant man. Every verse that says Adam was the first man, I see as covenant but you see as biology. I Cor. 14:45 is a good example. I see every bit of that verse as covenental. You split the verse, half biology, half covenant. There's nothing I can do to stop you.
You make a claim about Eve. The woman was renamed Eve after the Fall. Before the Fall, we see the living. After the Fall, we see the living and the dead. Eve was not the mother of the dead.
Abraham's son, his only son, was taken rto be scarificed. Wait a minute. Abraham had two sons. Biologically, both were alive. Covenantally, one was dead. Does this make sense? Who was the mother of the dead son? Who was the mother of the living son? Sarah was the mother of all living.
You are forcing biology onto Scripture. Scripture defies biology. Covenantally, you are a son of Abraham. Modern Jews are not.
Covenant was all that mattered in 2000 BC when Abraham walked the earth. It is the only thing that has mattered since. Do you understand this? Do we agree on this one point?
If so, then why force concepts that are foreign to Scripture from Genesis 12 on on Genesis 1-11?
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
Jeff,
I am not the one forcing anything upon the Scriptures. I ask some simple questions that I think many would ask also. As for YEC I have never said I fully support that group in fact I only care about what the Bible says. I make no claims of following the YEC. I take Genesis literally as historical accounts. I will stick with literal and figurative because I know what is meant by that. I know what biological is but I think literal addresses the issue better for me.
You claim I see all verses about Adam biologically. I know you talk in scientific lingo but I do not. I see Adam as a real person and the first man God created. Show me otherwise from the Scriptures.
Ok, are you trying to confuse me. :-) I cannot find 1 Corinthians 14:45. If I could, I would comment on it. Eve (living) would be the mother of all living. In the OT both Jews and Gentiles were living, those under the covenant and those foreign to it. All came from Adam through Eve, the Mother of the human race. Are you saying others who lived before Adam were dead? Show me the verse.
Jeff said:
Abraham's son, his only son, was taken rto be scarificed. Wait a minute. Abraham had two sons. Biologically, both were alive. Covenantally, one was dead. Does this make sense? Who was the mother of the dead son? Who was the mother of the living son? Sarah was the mother of all living.
Genesis 17:15-21
15 And God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her." 17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?" 18 And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" 19 God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year."
Isaac was the only son of Abraham through Sarah his wife. We must be realistic to acknowledge that Abraham had another son from another woman. This was a mistake on the part of Abraham and Sarah because that was not God’s purpose for the blessing to come through him. Lets face it they were both alive but God’s promise to Abraham was through his son Isaac through Sarah. God would also bless Ishmael and multiply him greatly. He would be fruitful and be made into a great nation. Is that not what these verses say?
Now Paul in his letter to the Galatians used these two women and their sons as an allegory showing the two covenants. (Gal 4:21-31) This true historical event was used by Paul allegorically to teach about the OC of slavery and the NC of freedom. Dead and living were not brought up in this.
I do not force biology into Scripture. I cannot say covenant was all that mattered on the earth at the time of Abraham. The only purpose of the OC was to be their schoolmaster that might bring them to Christ. Israel or the Jews were not the focus here. Too much emphasis is placed upon Israel because their existence was for a specific purpose at a specific time. Once Christ fulfilled the OT prophecies Israel was no longer needed. Besides, the promise to Abraham was not to his seeds but SEED as one which is Christ.
Galatians 3:15-20
15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. 19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
I read Genesis as an historical account but within the stories, I see the types, symbols, and allegories. I do see the covenants but I keep them in their context and meaning. You have accused me of certain things, which I take no offence at, yet I do not think you are correct. Listen to what I say here and take that for how I am. In Christ, I am the seed of Abraham.
Blessings,
Fred
Sorry Fred,
I Cor 15:45.
What does God's statement in Gen. 22:2 "literally" mean? Abraham had only one son. Is that true? It is certainly not true in the same sense you require of Eve, "mother of all living." Which of those phrases are you taking "literally?" Why aren't you taking the other the same way?
Can't you see, I am taking both phrases the same way.
I read Genesis as an historical account but within the stories, I see the types, symbols, and allegories. I do see the covenants but I keep them in their context and meaning.So do I Fred.
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
Fred,
I think the differences here are based upon a very simple presupposition.
Do you believe that the death that entered the world at Adam's sin is in any way biological or physical death?
Or do you believe that "the death" is defined by spiritual separation from God, ie., covenantal death?
You see, I believe that physical, biological death has always been a part of God's good creation and the curse on Adam had NOTHING to do with biology. I believe that Adam and Eve, biologically, are no different than you and me. That is why we can be fully redeemed right now. Death has been defeated. Biology has nothing to do with that covenantal truth.
If you insert biology on the NT side of things, then the logical implication is that redemption is not complete yet, for God's people still die, biologically speaking. Do you believe that we are awaiting the final defeat of biological death?
Here is a very simple question. Did "the death" that entered as a result of sin have ANYTHING to do with physical, biological death? My answer to that question is no. The literal truth is that the fall was covenantal (spiritual), just as Christ's redemption is covenantal (spiritual).
I suspect this basic issue is the root of our disagreements. Sam recently called it the "heart" of the matter. Indeed, it is.
Blessings,
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org
P.S. Check out Gen. 25:1-4. Notice that Genesis says that all these children were "the descendants of Keturah." Why didn't it say "Abraham" there? Because they were not the descendants of Abraham in a covenant sense. Genesis is prioritized in terms of covenant. This priority begins in Genesis 1:1.
"Do you believe that we are awaiting the final defeat of biological death?"
Hi Tim and all,
The paramount significance of this question should not be glossed over. For if biological death was the nature of the curse pronounced at the fall, then we have not yet been redeemed from that curse. In which case our sins have not yet been forgiven. In which case we are in disagreement with the writer of Hebrews who stated that "by one offering we have been perfected forever." Furthermore, we are in big trouble. What remedy remains if the cross failed?
With all due respect to Fred (whose fellowship I thoroughly enjoy), to say that we have not yet been redeemed from sin's curse is an offense to the cross of Christ. I know that is not anyone's intention, but the implications of our views need to be thoroughly investigated so that the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ is not compromised.
*That* is the heart of the matter.
in Christ,
Tami
http://www.newcreationministries.tv
Jeff, Norm and Tim,
I appreciate your responses but it still does not address what I originally wrote. I wanted to see some Scriptures that clearly stated the ideas you present and I had a few questions that I think others have about the OEC and local flood.
Jeff and I look at the verses that speak about Adam in two different ways so we are unable to come to an agreement as to what the Bible says about Adam. Do we take the Scriptures in the simple form when there is nothing to indicate otherwise? On the other hand, do we manipulate the meaning of verses in a figurative sense when nothing in the context calls for it? This is what each individual who studies a topic must answer. Are the Scriptures to be taken in their simple literal form or does the context demand we interpret the verses in a different way?
Norm has indicated I should have a more open mind and it would not help me to have someone give me the answers. I have been kicked off a couple forums because I have had an open mind and gone where those people did not want to go. If I came in here sincerely asking about preterism there would be countless answers given to me trying to make me see it. Why is this subject any different? Asking questions is the best way one will ever learn. I ask questions because I do not know or I must admit some may be rhetorical. There is nothing wrong with asking questions and receiving an answer because it happens all of the time.
Now Tim’s approach is to come back at me with questions. I wonder why my questions are not first answered then present questions to me. I almost take it as a deflection from answering my questions. Why am I expected to answer questions when mine are not answered? I have no problem answering questions but I find too often I am the only one answering questions. Sometimes I have to answer I do not know and I accept that answer from others also. However, to ignore questions in a discussion or be told to wait for a book is not acceptable to me. If my questions are not or cannot be answered, then what reason do I have to agree with the subject discussed?
You guys should know I am not attacking you personally but I am sincere in my questions. I will not tell you that you are lost because of what you believe because that is not my purpose. I think Tim and I have formed a friendship. If I am wrong please let me know. If you love the lord and believe in the atoning death and resurrection of Christ for our salvation that is great!
Everyone will have different ideas about various doctrines. All I ask is to show me from the Bible why you believe what you do. Certain details that come up I ask specific questions. It is not just about OEC or the local flood; I do this with every subject, topic or doctrine. I try to prove all things to myself but it is through the Holy Word that I look. I respect that in others and I hope people will respect that in me.
I will be glad to answer the questions presented to me because I see some assumptions made about me are wrong. However, will someone please address directly what I presented in my first post?
Blessings,
Fred
Fred,
I have directly addressed your question. What you want, I can't give you.
All I can tell you is, that if you follow your view to its logical end, work out every detail of Scripture, eventually, you will find it unravels. You can't explain all Scripture. Your view will eventually prove inconsistent. It will prove contradictory.
When you get to that point, you have to go back and find what assumptions you made and where things went wrong. That is what Tim and I have done.
My first clue was the length of the days. Hebrews 4:3 says explicitly that the 7th day has not ended. God is still resting.
The covenant man concept is a recent conclusion based on all that went before. You are asking us to develop the whole thing backwards from how we arrived at our conclusions. We can't do that yet. We are working on it. But don't expect us to do it that way in the book either.
Our book starts with preterism. I believe we make the simplest and most compelling case to date for full preterism. Well not quite. We leave some wiggle room for Gary DeMar-type partial preterism. But I can't see how any other view of eschatology can stand. We eventually work out the problems of partial preterism and demonstrate why full preterism is more reasonable, but we never fully settle the problem.
Then we discuss the Flood. I believe the case for a local or regional Flood is solid. We first start with recent history of the parallel rise of dispensationalism and flood-geology. Then we discuss the Scripture in detail. Then we discuss the purpose of the Flood and the explicit comparisons between the Flood, Sodom, and AD 70.
Next is the Tower of Babel incident.
Then the Curse and how it ties into salvation. Here's where the divide will occur between partial preterists and full preterists. You are faced with a decision. Was the death tied to the curse physical death? If you say yes, then you are still waiting for the consummation and the end of the curse, hence partial preterism. If the death was something else, then maybe it ended in AD 70. We've got a decision for you to make here.
Then we get to creation. If you accept full preterism, then the curse was not physical death. It was covenant death. Therefore the creation was covenant creation. (This requires 60+ pages.) If you require the curse to be physical death, then you are never going to get to full preterism (covenant eschatology) nor to covenant creation.
We can't offer you any single verse. We can offer you 400 pages of a reasonably logical process. We can offer you some fairly original insights. We can offer you a totally new way of thinking about creation and eschatology. But we can't offer you what you have specifically asked for.
Blessings,
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
Jeff,
You say, we can't offer you any single verse. We can offer you 400 pages of a reasonably logical process. We can offer you some fairly original insights. We can offer you a totally new way of thinking about creation and eschatology. But we can't offer you what you have specifically asked for.
You know Jeff, I find that a bit disturbing. Do the others that go along with the OEC and local flood feel the same way? Every doctrine I can think of is built upon Scripture verses that are used to try to prove their point. I can ask questions to a preterist, dispensationalist, Calvinist, Universalist, Reformed, Baptist, and on and on. Each would give me their select group of verses along with their explanations to prove their point. I could continue to question them in more detail with the same results. Whether I would agree or not I would be satisfied with their answers explaining their view. I could see how they came to view their doctrine from the Scriptures. If I then wanted to try to refute their doctrine I would go to the verses they present and those I found to try to show the error in their interpretations and explanations, thus we could argue from Scripture.
You say you cannot offer any single verse. Why? I do not want 400 pages of a so-called reasonable logical process or original insights. You have not proved that yet. Then must I take that you build your ideas from a reasonable logical process and original insights and not a gathering of Bible verses? Is this view from your own imagination? If others can give me what I specifically ask for to understand their views why can’t you? I try to ask the type of questions everyone can understand so I do not think they should be that difficult to answer, if you have the answers.
So far, I have had a response from you, Tim, Ed and Norm yet none of you has addressed my original post. You and Norm have come out and said you would not or could not. After all the rhetoric on PP is there no one who will address the questions I put forth to gain an understanding of how you arrive at the local flood and Genesis account?
Blessings,
Fred
Fred,
You asked for a single verse that teaches covenant Adam as opposed to literal first man Adam. That was what I was answering.
Tim has his old book on his website truthinliving.org and a long set of articles on PP detailing the numerous verses that demonstrate a local flood. Please go back and see his arguments there. I see no point in detailing those again everytime someone wants them listed. It is not fair or reasonable for you to insist we supply that all over again. If you have a specific problem that we have not addressed, that's different.
As for OEC, that has a long history in the church. YEC does not. You can find all sorts of Scriptural support for OEC. Please go to reasons.org or any other OEC website for references.
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
Fred,
What you ask for is a proof-texting method. I'm not into that. Neither is Jeff.
How can we answer your questions when your questions are based on your interpretive "grid" when you read Genesis?
What we will offer, in due time, is a complete view of covenant theology, from Genesis to Revelation, where everything is related and constent with the way the Bible uses its own language and teaching.
One thing you will find that we do not believe is your opinion that: "Every person breathing air is alive and to dispute that seems illogical. The definition of death that many hold to be simple separation mutilates the definition in my opinion." You are thinking biologically. Biological death as a result of the curse is your presupposition. Jeff and I reject that. Hence, our difference.
Fred, the Bible doesn't teach like that. Your definition of "living" is everyone breathing. The Bible does not speak like that. For example, Jesus came that they might have life and have it more abundantly. Yet those he came to were breathing already. By your logic above, they didn't need for Jesus to come in order to have life. (Perhaps abundant life, but not life - yet the text says he came that they might have life.)
You have a real problem here. The life Jesus came to bring is not biologically defined. The symmetry of the Bible from beginning to end, therefore, shows that the life in the garden which was lost was not defined biologically, as you insist. Adam died when he ate of the fruit. Do you take this literally?
Thanks for answering my question, albeit indirectly. The truth is that you demand a biological view of the curse. This is your problem with full-preterism. I believe it is rooted in your precommitment to young-earth creationist interpretations in Genesis.
Blessings,
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org
Jeff and Tim,
My point is not to argue but to get some answers. As I said, my questions are what I think many would have about your view. I do want to see from the Scriptures that what you say is true or not.
Acts 17:11
11 These Jews were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica; for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so.
This seems to be a preterist principle that many have encouraged. I want to know what you can offer now. I have studied covenant theology for years and if that is simply what you are promoting then just say so and I then know what you mean.
It is not my goal at this time to debate our ideas but to have a Biblical groundwork laid of what you present to be vindicated by preterism. Now Jeff refers me to the written material and mp3s and that is fine but I have heard several different views about the creation account and the local flood here on PP.
I am not attacking your position but searching a better understanding of where you are coming from. If it is covenant theology fine that is all you had to say. You have stated how you see this and that which gives an idea of where you are coming from but you have not been clear from Scripture ‘why’ you believe such. It is one thing to say what you believe yet it is another to show why. That is what I am interested in. Anyone can believe anything and go about making statements about what they believe but why do they believe that?
As I said, I am not attacking your views saying you are wrong about this or that have I? Therefore, I do not expect that from you. My initial post was meant to be a simple inquiry yet I fail at times to be clear. These posts were not meant to say who was right or wrong. If I ever come to accept your position, it will be because I have seen why the Word means that. If you want to discuss my theology to prove me wrong let us take it to another thread and I am always glad to quote Scripture and say why I believe such and such to support my ideas. This is not the time and place or intention I had.
Is it wrong to ask why one believes as they do? Is it wrong to ask the questions? I am sure both of you have asked many questions in your research for your book. You have publicly presented your views so why not explain why you hold them when asked? It would be different if I stepped up, criticized your view, and attempted to refute it but that is not what I am doing here.
So now, I know where you are coming from which I knew in part before but I still do not know why. If you want to debate my theology and criticize my views then begin a thread that says, “Why does Fred think this way”. Wouldn’t that draw a crowd? :-) Virgil would have his site crashing. :-) Not really. I will leave this as a simple inquiry into the OEC and local flood view if that is ok with you.
Blessings,
Fred
Fred,
Can someone show me a verse, any verse that says Adam was the first 'covenant’ man?By your meaning, no. This is the conclusion after years of work, not a starting point.
The Bible is plain in stating that Adam was the 'first man’ created in the image of God.Is it? Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 could be talking about separate people. If you want literal, Fischer makes a great case for that. Others have made arguments that "Adam was the 'first man’ created in the image of God," and that other men created before him weren't. That satisfies your direct claim here. But I'd instead to prefer to say, by your method of reading Scripture, all men on planet earth were destroy in Sodom and in AD 70. The same language and the same description are used as in those places where you take it as global.
Why did Adam not have a helpmate if other people existed before him? Genesis 2:20Who/what was in the Garden? Every living creature on the planet? That's your assumption, not mine.
Eve was not part of the covenant between God and Adam, which Adam broke.She was added to the covenant.
Eve was the mother of all living. Genesis 3:20 It does not say Eve was the mother of all under the covenant. I think it is dangerous to assume that the Bible is saying something it does not clearly state.Those not in the covenant are dead. Eve is the mother of the living, not the dead. It is dangerous to assume that the Bible, written to a culture you don't understand, is as simplistically clear as you think it is. The question is not, how does it read to you, but how did it read to those it was written to. It is all consistent when read in covenantal terms. It is not when read in biological terms.
To say there were other people besides Adam and Eve is to assume much.Is it? Who was in the land of Nod? Who was Cain afraid of? Where did he get his wife? Who did he rule over? To assume that Cain's brothers (who are literally claim to have been born after this even, had left Eden for Nod and were 1) ready to kill Cain, 2) willing to supply Cain with a wife, 3) ready to let him rule over them, and 4) that there were enough of them to build a city is "to assume much."
Genesis 6:5
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
In this verse, it says 'every' intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil. Does that mean just 'some' intention of the thoughts? Is it not plain in stating ‘every intention’? Let us take it for what it says and “every” means, ‘being each individual or part of a group without exception’Every time you say every, do you mean every? Everybody occasionally uses a bit of hyperbole.
My Strong's says the same Hebrew word is used for "all manner of." This is far from inclusive. Every is the translators bias, not mine.
Now let’s apply this to another verse dealing with the same issue.
Genesis 7:21-23
21 And all flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
Now the argument will go like this. The word for earth does not mean the planet but the local land. But that does not work because had the flood been local some animals and birds could have swam and flew to dry land. The dry land was called ‘earth.’Again, "all manner" is a perfectly valid translation of the Hebrew.
Genesis 1:10
10 And God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
It does not matter that the people did not have the right concept of the shape of the world. It does not depend upon what the people comprehended about our planet, if it was round or flat, because the message points simply to a universal event. The birds, cattle, beasts, swarming things and man that was on the dry land, ‘earth’, perished. So every living thing upon earth perished, not just some of them but ‘every’ living thing. Is it not saying this?Again, you have not looked at what the Hebrew actually says. You are merely repeating the translators' bias.
In these historical events, there is not one mention or hint of covenant between the time of Adam and Noah. If so, show me the verses. The plain sense of these historical accounts are easy for even a young child to understand yet the covenant maze presented by some is over my head and many others more educated than myself.Again, covenant is the conclusion after years of trying to make every verse in the Bible consistent. It is not our starting point. However, if you assume covenant, you can read everything consistently from the start. Why are you assuming that the ancients read everything as modern literal? That is what you are doing.
Just because others or I may not be able to answer every question presented to us by the OEC does not mean they have proved their point because I could say the same about them.Young-earth points are contradictory. I've been at this for 30 years. You want all the answers for something that is less than a year old, yet you haven't bothered to do the same work for what you currently believe.
It is not a matter of answering hypothetical questions, which many of them are, but seeing what the Scriptures say.Agreed. Why have you started with the assumption that I'm doing things differently?
The assumptions and hypothetical questions put forth by the OEC have very little if any Biblical merit in my opinion because all of this can turn into speculation. I hold my opinions because they are stated in the Bible and make much more sense to me than the alternative.In other words, your mind is made up and your opinion is the standard.
The OEC followers deal with what the Bible does not say and enter the world of speculation assuming their logic to be correct and their guesses to be right. Their logic is founded upon made up comments having no support but their own. Anyone can make a statement but that does not mean it is so.Young-earth creationism can't give a coherent account of Genesis 1&2. Taken literally, in detail, the texts are irreconcilable. Young-earth creationism can't even give a coherent description of Cain's history. It is a trivial matter with covenant creation.
I have responded directly to every question and every comment in your first post. It is clear to me that you have not seriously considered the implications of your own beliefs. I have and have found them seriously wanting.
Hebrew is not English. There are fewer words. Every word is potentially a pun. Every word has unwritten vowels. Changing those vowels, might make a new word. The Hebrew Bible is not as simple and clear as you make it out to be.
The people that Genesis was written to were not modern American Christians living in the 20th and 21st centuries. It was written to their concerns and needs, not ours. Until you get into their shoes and understand their concerns, you can not be sure you understand Scripture.
From Genesis 12 on, Scripture is covenantal. Since the rest of Scripture is covenantal, covenant is probably a major concern to the original audience of all of Scripture. Consistency demands we see Genesis 1-11 as covenantal also. Just because we can't see covenant in it does not mean it is not there. Once you start looking for it, it is there and the text changes from contradictory to consistent.
Blessings,
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
JL,
You wrote: "Is it? Who was in the land of Nod? Who was Cain afraid of? Where did he get his wife? Who did he rule over? To assume that Cain's brothers (who are literally claim to have been born after this even, had left Eden for Nod and were 1) ready to kill Cain, 2) willing to supply Cain with a wife, 3) ready to let him rule over them, and 4) that there were enough of them to build a city is 'to assume much.'"
Another thing to consider here (and I apologize Fred for talking "about" you rather than "to" you, but since Jeff made the comment, I am directing this post at him) is that Fred insists on taking Genesis literally, in a biological sense. We must produce verses that "prove" our position. Yet, he cannot produce one verse anywhere in the entirety of scripture that states that Cain's brothers built and populated Nod, or that Cain married his sister, or any other presupposition that he makes in order to make the whole thing fit.
The very thing that Fred requires of us, he cannot do for himself. Our view is dependent on a paradigm in which we read the bible - i.e., covenant. Fred's is dependent on pure speculation and conjecture.
I'm sorry Fred, again, that I am talking about you here, not to you, but as I said, JL made the comment, and I am addressing him in it. As you can see, I am including you in this post, so as to respect you as a brother and a friend. I hope this is sufficient.
ed
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
No problem Ed. :-)
Hey Jeff,
That is what I wanted from the start. I am not coming at you as an enemy or in belligerence with malice. You guys do not have to be so defensive or paranoid. My claws were not out but I do have some concerns. Lighten up and answer questions without attacking everyone and it may go better overall. If you had presented this at the very beginning, it would have saved us several posts.
I had and still have concerns about preterism but it was that way for every eschatology I studied. To think that Christ’s past return presents some serious implications that should not be taken lightly. Maybe some can instantly accept it but I could not so do not expect me to quickly believe what you say. I become more suspicious of a doctrine or people if I think they are holding back and not being open.
I understand the problem so many have in discussing many issues. They come from different viewpoints and talk past each other. That has happened since people stated arguing. Few are willing to stop to listen to the other person and try to understand why they hold a certain view. There are even fewer that can explain why. That does not mean it will result in agreements but it could stop arguments from becoming personal battles. One side will say this is what I believe and why, then the other side will say this is what I believe and why. Yes, I am being simplistic because I know emotions always get in the way along with other factors. If discussions could be handled as a good debate and not a personal argument then others would have good information to think about.
Can I have friends that differ from me in certain areas? I sure hope so. Can I talk to my friends about our differences without breaking our friendship? I sure hope so. I am really trying to learn how to handle people and it is not easy. Everyone is a little different and there are many chances for mistakes. I want to ask people questions but I do not want to be rude, belittling or insulting but why do people think they have to know it all? I know I sound like a broken record but I am speaking to myself just as much as to others. It is hard for me not to strike back when certain things are said. I am not sure these internet forums are good because they seem to bring out the worst in people. Maybe it brings out the truth in people because my experience face to face with some of you is a lot different. When we meet in person is our cordial attitude a sham? I would hate to think so.
I am off subject. We are looking at the issue from two different perspectives, my ideas will not fit in your paradigm, and your ideas will not fit in mine. That is the problem in so many others issues of disagreement. The only way for agreement is to agree with the paradigm. At this point, I cannot so our interpretations will be foreign to each other. If this is preterism then I would have to turn away it. I know though, it is only another fragment of the continuing crumble we are seeing in preterism. I still must ask myself, as I have with other issues, what are the implications to the true understanding of the Bible.
Blessings,
Fred
Yes Fred,
It is a paradigm difference. Tim, Ed, Tami, Norm, and I made the change, from your paradigm to our current one, because our old paradigm did not work at the detail level of Scripture.
I had rejected YEC because of the problems, but OEC by every practitioner out there was based on the same old paradigm and still doesn't work. It's one thing to demonstrate that YEC is wrong. It is another to find a working alternative.
Tim realized it while trying to explain to a fellow elder at his church why he (Tim) refused to support a YEC conference at their church. YEC's always end with a rapture-may-happen-tomorrow altar call. (AP does things a bit different. They are CoC, not evangelical neo-baptist. Those altar calls have got to be uncomfortable to the Reformers out there.)
Ed knew Tim and I both and was getting it from both sides. It took a couple years for him to see the light. I was dragging Ed kicking and screaming by one arm, only to learn sometime later that Tim had Ed's other arm. Fortunately, we were both dragging Ed the same direction.
Several people were having the same struggles and were coming to many of the same conclusions. The issues Tim and I have faced are real issues that others have faced and more will face. You can not see these issues yet, but I pray that you will.
Tami went from more or less your view of creation on January 7th to our view in the time it took her to read the manuscript, plus a few weeks for it to sink in. We think Tami is an excellent example of the potential for our book.
What's required is to understand and apply Milton Terry's hermeneutic on both ends of Scripture. Covenant Eschatology is Terry's hermeneutic of Scripture interprets Scripture applied to Revelation. Covenant Creation is Scripture interprets Scripture applied to Genesis.
Literalism is John Nelson Darby's hermeneutic. Dispensationalism is Darby's hermeneutic applied to Revelation. Young-earth creationism is Darby's hermeneutic applied to Genesis.
This new paradigm is not something we sought, but was forced on us by Scripture. We are still not comfortable with it, but it is yielding good fruit. Please go check Tim's sermons. I feel the explanatory power of a covenant understanding of Scripture is "earth-shattering" (in a covenantal sense).
We are just beginning to work out the implications. I posted an original philosophy of science on a futurist OEC forum that was well received. (There are several professional philosophers on that forum.) If I've solved a thorny problem, I can only credit Milton Terry and the first thorough application of Scripture interprets Scripture to the problem. In the process, we've completely gutted the technical/truth issues of the science vs. Bible controversy. Hugh Ross' two books view is now on firm Biblical earth. (The moral issues will always be with us.)
Tim is in the Grand Tetons for a week. I'll be traveling for work and won't have much access. If you have anything more, please send a private email to j.l.preterist@gmail.com
Blessings,
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science