Thanks so much for bringing this message to us. One of the first things I found that I needed to accomplish when I became a full Preterist was to discern the biblical definitions of the terms such as Heavens and Earth and coming on the clouds and the curse. I also found out that I could not stop exploring but must continue on throughout the scriptures. Those difficult sections that I encountered continued to open up as I moved further and further away from applying a material connotation to them.
We see that in Preterism we have many variations of those who have decided for one reason or another to stop the examination and revert back to their default futurist material method of application. Often times these that stop the investigation are the most rigid and dogmatic toward the other Preterist that are still investigating. We see this especially valid in those who reject the Corporate Body view in that they are some of the most strident ones out there when they aggressively go after those who recognize the language of Paul in Romans 5-8 and 1 Cor 15 as corporate body language rather than individualistic.
What becomes amusing is that they will then join forces with the ones in Genesis that take the material view even though they reject their corporate view approach to scripture in the NT. Many of the most talkative and antagonistic ones out there now are actually those who reject both CC and CBV and are notoriously known for their provocative postings yet the CBV YEC adherents will flock with them even though they are natural hermeneutic adversaries in the NT. There seems to be very little difference now between the Pault’s and Rodericks of Preterism than with some who claim they are full Preterist. It would probably be a more natural alliance that they joined with that militant group where their dispositions suit the provocative fray more naturally.
I don’t have a problem with full Preterist not understanding the full aspects of CC because coming into full Preterism requires a tremendous amount of study. What I do have a problem with is the militant full Preterist who attack the position from various ad hominem approaches without biblical support and against overwhelming refutation. They however love to revert back to the futurist approaches of material language taken completely out of context and then just like the futurist do proclaim victory without ever having produced arguments that even begin to hold up under scrutiny.
Just as we see the militant partial Preterist blogs out there attacking the full Preterist concerning eschatology we see this process also starting to be mimicked by so called full Preterist. They lament and decry these Pault and Roderick types when being attacked by them but somehow it’s ok to turn around and employ the same approach and methods toward the Covenant Creation adherents. The reason I am pointing this out is that there are about a half dozen of these types out there that are making the Preterist forum rounds and they appear to pull their energy from each other as they spew a hatred thus emboldening them emotionally. They stir up the forums and basically ruin the interaction with their nonsense. A prime example can be seen when something is written against the CC view as it attracts these very same ones time after time with nothing new to state. The CBV YEC have allied with these types not paying attention that they will turn on them in due time.
As far as can be determined the Covenant Creation understanding is now fully established replacing the futurist and material creation concept. Those who hold on to various aspects of futurism whether it pertains to eschatology or origins theology are quite simply fighting against the goads scripturally speaking.
"One of the first things I found that I needed to accomplish when I became a full Preterist was to discern the biblical definitions of the terms such as Heavens and Earth and coming on the clouds and the curse. I also found out that I could not stop exploring but must continue on throughout the scriptures. Those difficult sections that I encountered continued to open up as I moved further and further away from applying a material connotation to them."
Is this the same method we see in the Preterist Idealist view?
I'm not sure what the Preterist Idealist view is. Can you explain its characteristics and why it is similar to the CC hermenutic.
Also Robin, we have 7 different messages out there now from our conference. Now is a good time for you to wade into them and demonstrate "from scriptures" and a consistent hermenutic why they would be wrong.
As of yet Sam Frost is about the only one who has attempted to do so and he quit when it was demonstrated how he was not being consitent with Preterist scriptures. I won't really take anyone serious until they have demonstrated a solid attempt at refuting these hour long programs and have met them head on in like manner.
By the way Robin do you agree with Sam Frost concerning the Corporate Body View are do you agree more with JD over on Preterist Debate.
In addition to what Norm has said here (thank you, Norm), I just wanted to emphasize that the argument I presented here (in the lecture linked above) for a "covenant creation" in Genesis--and the case I made that a material view of Genesis creation is wholly imcompatible with a fulfilled view of redemption--is exegetically based. I have argued entirely and exclusively from the text of Scripture.
Just a little about my background: I was firmly in the YEC camp before being convinced of this view. I had never studied OEC, and I am still completely unfamiliar with OEC arguments. I am not a scientist and would never presume to engage in scientific debate. I am not a linguist either, and so other than a basic understanding of differences between literary genres (my degree is in Language Arts Ed) and a "common sense" level of appreciation for the need to take these differences into account, I didn't arrive at my view of Genesis via linguistic arguments either.
I became convinced of the "covenant creation" framework for Genesis creation (and the rest of Scripture) enitirely and exclusively from the text of Scripture.
Whenever I see someone suggesting that the CC view is driven by a "scientific" presupposition, or previously held to "old earth view," or some bent toward an "evolution view," I immediately know one thing for absolutely certain: the person suggesting such a thing has not devoted *any* time or attention to listening to or reading anything I have presented, whether in this conference talk, or in any one of the scores of podcasts I have recorded on the topic, or in any of the several articles I have written.
Again, the case before you is a Scriptural one. So the responses need to be on that level in order for them to be in any way relevant to this discussion.
Concerning YEC, I was amazed by the fact the one of the furthest planets of our solar system - and that means even beyond Pluto - is in an orbit around our sun which takes over 10 thousnad years to complete. therefore by that alone the solar system is older than 10,000 years. I know 10 thousand is not even a drop in the bucket compared to 6 billion but this proves an age older then 6000 years of earth history. I think this is relevant even without Scripture.
Having read your artilce a few times it was easier for me to follow your lecture then some of the others.
But i did listen a few times and i did read and follow along with the article.Your right the visual aid helps see the big picture.This is a major problem with most of the opponents of Covenant Creation.They don't see the big picture nor do they see the ramifications of their errors.
Mike Bennett's physical 24/hr 6 day creation is a perfect example.Michale and others want everything to be literal in Genesis but yet which one of them will claim God has "real lungs" ? That's just the beginning of their problems as your lecture points out.
Most of their question border along as the same ones from futurist who continue to ask "where is our hope" We've all heard that one a few times.
Covenant Creation IS the heart and soul of full preterism and the arguments I'm seeing against it will only aid the futurist in refuting full preterism. Maybe that's why we're seeing so many of them back slide to some new version of "realized preterism"
Ignoring the language of the prophets is the same mistake futurist make in studying the second coming... funny our preterist friends do the same thing on the other end.
Your article quoted Tim Martin from last years conference " If it is a material creation being described in Genesis 1 and 2, then how can we possibly avoid a material view of the curse that falls on the creation in Genesis 3, and a corresponding material view of resurrection?"
Your answer is the same "We cannot"
Thanks for taking the time and putting forth the work and research necessary to put this all together.I know It's helped me immensely and I'm sure others are benefiting from yours and the other speakers hard work.
John, thank you so much for the positive (and substantial!) feedback! It's a real encouragement. I noticed that my talk is the subject of a thread on another forum, technically. But so far none of the detractors there are dealing with the actual content or substance of what I shared.
I was glad to have the opportunity to share that written study in a different format. It can be much easier to highlight certain points, and introduce the case to a broader audience through speaking rather than writing. And I know that it can have an impact on this debate. Why? Because it was through that very study, which resulted in the article, that *I* became convinced of the framework.
And again, there still has not been any substantial, exegetically based refutation or criticism. (Remember, proof-texting does not qualify as a valid refutation.)
Now I see that Sam Frost is coming out even more boldly for a future cosmological regeneration (a material and universal fulfillment of Isaiah's "new heaven and new earth"). His recent statements (as well as statements he made in his book "Exegetical Essays") are direct evidence of what I proposed in "The Language of Creation": "This paradigm is not merely coincidental with their literal view of Genesis creation; it is dictated by it."
I just wanted to encourage you, and say thank you. I just finished listening to your talk and it was exceptional! It continues to amaze me when I look at the lengths people will go to in order to defend a bankrupt system. It continues to boggle my mind how some preterists just can't see this. To defend a physical or cosmological view of Genesis necessitates a physical and future consummation. It denies he finished work of Christ. Blessings to you and your family.