Read this stunning piece by Pete Enns, late of Westminster Theological Seminary. Below is a significant part of his remarks, but do read the whole essay.
I am impressed that the Covenant Creation model seems to anticipate much of this.
I think it would be helpful to have Tim and/or Jeff clarify specifically how their view differs from (not just expounds upon) the view below.
Please see The BioLogos Foundation's site, where the following video and discussion is found. How does this understanding comport with the Covenant Creation model? ~ Ransom
Wright begins by noting that while there are divergent views on the date of authorship of Genesis—with some scholars attributing its authorship to Moses, thus dating it c. 1500 B.C., and others dating it around the third century B.C.. Regardless of its actual date of composition, however, Wright is most interested in the way in which Jesus’ antecedents would have read the text in the period right before the New Testament.
He asserts that any Jew from the period of the Babylonian exile to the life of Jesus reading the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden—and their ultimate expulsion after violating the terms of their covenant with God—would have identified with the story on a deep level. These readers would have thought “this is our story” because Israel had repeated this experience.
In this second installment, Brian McLaren covers the issue of Biblical Authority and whether or not the Bible should be read as a "Constitution" or as a "Library." Which one leaves space for conversation, exploration and questions, and what are the downsides of either method? Any idea where this leaves prophecy, anyone?
Folks it has been our yearly tradition for 8 years now to host the TruthVoice conference here in the Dayton area, which has proven to be a blessing and comfort to many people attending year after year. Unfortunately, it looks like 2010 will be a year to skip doing a conference for several reasons, some which are personal in nature, others financial...
by Doug Chaplin
Occasionally one will come across an otherwise well-thought out post which insists that “the Bible alone” is, or should be, the basis for – well, pretty much everything genuinely Christian, but especially doctrine and ethics. It has a reasonable pedigree in the Reformation. But does it make sense?
Remember the big conservative conference Fox News has been hyping over the past 10 days? The Conservative Political Action Conference's presidential straw poll, a key marker of the mood among conservative voters, apparently didn't mean anything to the network. And if it did mean something, the only real result is bragging rights for the individual candidates who were so well exposed. And hey, even Dick Cheney showed up.
by Ira at Irritable Reaching
I'm not sure what it is we're not doing any more that's been supplanted by eschatology. Some ancient cultures believed that the world would never end, and this seems as well to have been part of early Hebrew thinking. This changed with the experience of exile, as they cried out that something had to give and implored their God to intervene. They seem to have found some of the mythology of their Persian oppressors useful and appropriated apocalyptic rhetoric to make sense of their own situation. Later, the expressions used by a particular apocalyptic sect (that of one Jesus of Nazareth) would be picked up by the wider culture and combined with Greek teleology, becoming more and more what we would recognize today as eschatology.
In my column I put up on Zechariah 14 there were some comments made that there never was an individual Antichrist. Below is my response; it was too long to just put in as a comment. My basic thesis is that the Antichrist was ultimately a demonic king (notice he comes out of the abyss, Rev. 11:7; 17:8 cf.Dan. 10:13 )that worked through Titus in his three and a half year destruction of Israel.
In A New Kind of Christianity McLaren quickly introduces two very important ideas: the six-line narrative and reading the Bible frontward instead of backward. This seems to be in line somewhat with the Preterist approach to the Biblical narrative; any thoughts on this from anyone? Is mainstream Christianity even aware of these possibilities?
Here is an excerpt from my book, The Antichrist and the Second Coming: A Preterist Examination. If interested, you can read the first chapter here: http://sites.google.com/site/antichristandthesecondcoming/
by Virgil Vaduva
There is a perception I have that smoking cigars and discussing theology is a mix that God is somehow present in; the smoke of premium, hand-rolled cigars rolling up to the heavens must be reminding God of the good aroma of temple sacrifices, prompting him to descend and participate in the conversation. There is a verse somewhere supporting that, isn’t it?
by Kenton Sparks
First, regarding the scientific evidence, both Augustine and Calvin regarded the cosmos as an important source of revelation from God. Following Psalm 19, they understood that the “heavens declare the glory of God. Day by day they pour forth speech. There is no language in which their word is not heard.” When the cosmos is understood in this way—as divine speech to humanity—then it is no longer possible to characterize Christian debates about science as a conflict that pits “God’s inerrant word in Scripture” against “errant human science.” Rather, any conflict between Scripture and science should be understood as a conflict between “human interpretations of God’s word in Scripture” and “human interpretations of God’s word in nature.”
Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace, according to researchers from Italy. Their study provides the strongest evidence to date that spiritual thinking arises in, or is limited by, specific brain areas.
"The Big Red Tractor" is a children's story that Francis Chan wrote to illustrate the current condition of the Church. Jacob Lewis collaborated with Matt Daniels to animate this children's story as a part of Chapter 7 in this study guide.
by Paul Seely.
Data from various scientific disciplines provides a clear indication that Noah’s Flood did not cover the globe of the earth. Before considering that data, however, we must first determine a rough earliest probable date for the Flood. If the Flood is an actual historical event, it must touch down in the empirical data of history somewhere. We can make a rough approximation of its date from the two genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11. At one end is Adam, whose culture is Neolithic and therefore can be dated no earlier than around 9,000 or 10,000 B.C. At the other end is Abraham who can be dated to approximately 2000 B.C. In both genealogies the Flood occurs in the middle of these two ends, and therefore roughly at 5500 or 6000 B.C. An even clearer indication of the Flood’s date is implied by the statement that shortly after the Flood, Noah planted a vineyard. This implies the growing of domesticated grapes, which do not show up in the archaeological record until c. 4000 B.C. The biblical Flood is therefore probably not earlier than 4000 or maybe 5000 B.C.
by Jerel Kratt
This paper is a response to Sam Frost’s Review (hereafter, “Frost”) of my initial paper which critiqued his view of “world” and “heavens and earth” in 2 Peter 3. I appreciate Frost’s willingness to dialogue with me and his extension of philadelphia to me. As his brother in Christ by faith, I would expect no less of him regardless of whether we agreed or disagreed on this matter. Still, it sets an audience at ease when two men can discuss disagreements without slander, sarcasm, or misrepresentation. For the most part, this was achieved in Frost’s response to me.
By William H. Bell, Jr.
To some, several passages have been more difficult to interpret within the A.D. 70
framework of time than others. One such passage is Acts 1:9-11. “Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, he was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into Heaven.” Briefly, we want to study three major points in this passage. (1) the cloud coming, (2) the same Jesus, and (3) in like manner. Our purpose is to honor the very words of Christ while also showing the inconsistency and contradictions in the literalistic, futuristic/ammillennial view of this text. Acts 1:9-11 fits perfectly within the A.D. 70 framework for Christ’s return. First, the Old Covenant usage of the cloud coming of God symbolized divine presence in judgment. “The burden against Egypt. Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud, and will come into Egypt; the idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, and the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst. (Isaiah 19:1).
[Cynics and Christians] divide and upset the household, and bring into collision those inside with each other, and tell them the worst ways to manage their household. They never say, find, or do anything socially productive.
Drew Tatusko writes, "If we hold to original sin and total depravity as non-negotiable absolutes, it's more reasonable, at least based on any passage of scripture the anti-abortion movement might quote, to suggest that humanity is sinful because God made humanity sinful. Of course, that does not harmoize all of those pronouncements in Genesis about how 'good' everything is, especially human beings to whom God bestows the privilege of co-creators of creation. How is it that God made us all sinful if God also made us good? Unless of course God decided to make us all sinful after Adam and Eve's little faux pas with that tasty, delicious red apple. So why would God, by some supernatural act, cause humanity to be knit together and wonderfully formed, but as a sinful creature because Adam, whose sperm transmits the bad gene of sin, got a little hungry when his hot wife offered him an apple? Here's where the language of mystery arbitrarily enters into the fray. Blah.
The recent migration to a new website has really taken up a lot of my time, so I need to appeal to the kindness of those of you interested to help me out with the development of a taxonomy tree for the new Planet Preterist website. This is a task that will take time but it will be of great benefit in the future. While the old website had a lot of content on it, it also lacked a logical and taxonomical layout of the data. Fortunately the new site has a strong support for categorization and tagging of content, and that's where you come in.