O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Brian Maxwell and I interviewed Tim Martin about the "covenant creation" view and some of the material presented at his and Jeff Vaughn's Spring 2009 conference.
You may listen to this podcast HERE.
Or, on this streaming player below:
This hour is packed full of relevant information that will be of interest to anyone following the current discussions around the nature of Genesis creation. But I wanted to specifically point out something for the readers here at deathisdefeated, many of whom are waiting for a debate between Jeff Vaughn and an outspoken critic of covenant creation. Apparently Jeff's opponent is going to attempt to prove that "the first heavens and earth" to which Revelation 21 refers (and to which Isaiah 65 refers as "the former" which shall not come to mind in the New Heavens and New Earth) actually began NOT at Genesis 1:1 but rather at Sinai. Now, it goes without saying that we have already soundly refuted the "Sinai position." Again and again we've refuted it from multiple angles.
But--and not to steal Jeff's thunder as he is more than capable of refuting the Sinai position AGAIN in a written debate--if anyone still has doubts and is actually entertaining the "first heavens and earth began at Sinai" view, this podcast shows once again that that position cannot withstand Biblical scrutiny. Which is probably why throughout all of church history we see NO ONE suggesting such a thing. Throughout history, theologians have consistently affirmed that the beginning (Genesis 1:1) correpsonds directly to the end (Revelation 21 and 22). And vice versa.
Another highlight of this discussion (very much related to the point above) which may be of interest to some of you: We demonstrated that the covenant creation framework is the only preterist position which maintains the same consistency that Christian theology (whether it be futurist or partial preterist) has affirmed throughout history, between the nature of the beginning and the nature of the end. A little ironic when you consider this in light of some of the charges our critics from a particular faction of preterism have hurled in our direction. The burden is clearly on this faction to demonstrate Biblical support for their inconsistent application of identical language throughout the Bible.
And finally, toward my personal passion: We discussed the consequences of a physical view of Genesis creation and the curse upon that creation on our view of the cross, and the nature of our redemption in Christ. A related article on this subject, which seeks to answer the question, "why does this matter so much?" is The Language of Creation from Genesis to Revelation.
I hope many of you will be inspired by our discussion, and feel free to add your comments.