O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Jason Bradfield recently wrote:

[After positing that the "covenant creation" view is built upon the foundation of his characterization of a particular epistemology which he equates with empiricism] However, what this does demonstrate is that Covenant Creationism is a house built on sand. It fails at its very foundation.

I will let Tim and Jeff answer for whether or not Jason has rightly defined their foundation. It's certainly not the way I read them, but they are the ones to answer these direct charges against them. And I have another point to make here.

NCMI has contributed to this discussion as well. Ward and I, and two of our partners, Brian and Shannon, have all contributed in various ways to our joint presentation of a covenantal framework for Genesis creation through various articles and podcasts.

And what Jason has named as the "foundation" for "Covenant Creation" is not our foundation at all. Every article we've written dealing either directly or indirectly with Genesis, all three podcasts in our Garden Scene series, as well as the multiple podcasts in our Heavenly Visions of the Prophets series which deal with this subject (since Genesis creation so closely parallels the language of OT prophecy)--all of these present and support our framework for Genesis creation by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Our foundation for "covenant creation" is the analogy of Scripture.

Not once have we argued one way or the other--either for or against--the importance of empirical observation in the context of proving our framework for reading Genesis. Not once have we used "science" to support our exegesis. Those are separate discussions and they are not insignificant. However, the fact that we haven't even gone there in the course of many hours discussing our view of Genesis refutes the notion that either "empiricism" or "science" are foundational to our framework. We have indeed presented our foundation, the rock upon which our house is built, and it is the testimony and witness of Scripture itself.

Views: 167

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I read Ward's article sometime last year and just posted it as i thought it went along well with some of the discussions lately.

It's nice to know Jason keeps tabs on us as i only posted it late last night. But what's dangerous is Jason's taking the one quote of Ward's 15 pages of exegesis in which Ward has done without mentioning or using science for any measure of proving or disproving his point.

Ward's whole point is "That is, we must use the analogy of Scripture as a theological framework for interpreting Genesis. The Westminster Confession of Faith describes this analogy of scripture as follows: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” (WCF I.xi)

Think about it "So, a total of 12 chapters of the Bible are devoted to the creation and destruction of the physical universe and a total of 1177 deal with the history of the Israelites. For some reason, that just doesn’t seem balanced."

Nice straw man Jason...where did you get that from ? Lahaye,Ice or Edwards?

We wanted 18 chapters of Biblical arguments to come first.

I think that is enough of a response to this rambling diatribe. Even if someone were to disagree with chapter 19, the first 18 chapters still sit there... doing their thing...

RCM on the other hand, wants to talk about science and philosophy first. Actually, that's about all these critics want to talk about. You'd think after a couple of years, they would at least show where we went wrong on the flood. Any comment about our covenant view of Babel in context with the flood? I haven't seen a one. Yet, on chapter 19 we have radio shows, discussion forum attacks, and long rambling articles. They certainly love their philosophy!

Where have they discussed the biblical arguments we presented in the book for Covenant Creation? Where have they dealt with the texts (couple of examples Heb. 1:10-11, Romans 8, etc. - multiple witnesses) from which we base the Covenant Creation view? What about the covenant context indicators within Genesis 1 that were pointed out at the Covenant Creation Conference?

Still waiting.

Tim Martin

What you are doing is exposing their smokescreen. And it does need to be exposed to those who seem to hang on their every word and don't investigate things for themselves. So it was worth the effort for you to make this response I think. But yes, I have noticed their obsession with chapter 19 and their avoidance of all the Biblical arguments both in the book, and in the conference messages, and podcasts, etc.

The issues surrounding the Babel text alone completely dismantle their entire systematic it would seem to me. And not a peep. If they had *any* argument on that issue, wouldn't they have taken 10 minutes out of the several hours they spent discussing philosophy and epistemology and "logic" on their podcasts to bring forward an exegetical case from Scripture? It just seems....unbalanced to me.

I agree with you, Tim. Scriptural arguments are primary.
Tim and Tami,

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. These guys are in love with the philosophers and science of the age (YEC age that is) and set scriptural exegesis aside in lieu of just good old fashioned biblical support. Who could give a flip about their ramblings about science and philosophy? The funny part of it is they are farcical in their understandings when it comes to both arenas.

It is a sad commentary also when we have so many that think these guys actually know what they are talking about half the time.


Our critics have said for years, "Science is for making better refrigerators." I'm still waiting for 1) a logical proof of that claim starting from Scripture, and 2) a Clarkian definition of "better" that can be applied to refrigerators. I'm sure it will be soon coming. But which definition of soon? Not preterist.

Their claims of science are merely a distraction from their own bankrupt theology. Is there one old covenant that starts in Genesis 1 (our claim)? Or are there several old covenants scattered throughout Scripture (their claim)?

If Sinai is the start of the old covenant which ended in AD 70, as they claim, then when was the serpent's head crushed? When did Abraham become the father of many nations? They claim those covenants ended. They ended without God fulfilling the promises made under those covenants.

The end of a covenant requires every promise to be fulfilled. If Adam's covenant ended with Noah, then how can we require the resurrection to be fulfilled? We can't. They have gutted preterism.

At every turn, I have one word to describe their view: myopic. They can't see the big picture. As soon as you start backing up and spanning out from what they propose, it is proven to be unworkable. What you mentioned above about the Old Covenant beginning at Sinai is a case in point. I about fell off my chair when I heard Sam say that in the debate with Ward. I thought he must have misspoken....but then he kept repeating it. And then he went on to say that the tree of life was destroyed by the flood. I was speechless.

(btw that "first heavens and earth began at Sinai" business of Sam's has been repeatedly and extensively refuted, and he's never responded to any of our arguments.)

That's Sam's 7-year MO with me. Make a bald-faced claim. Ignore responses. Wait a few months. Repeat.

I am going to continue to hammer the point, the old covenant starts in Genesis 1. Sam's going to hammer philosophy and cries of empiricism. All Sam's followers will continue to say, "Sam you are so smart, I don't understand a thing you said."

Hey guys,
It can't get much stranger...this is the futurist pault who has for months been attacking every thing Sam,Jason or Mike B have said and done.

"Jason Bradfield
in “The Test of Truth”,, has written a brilliant attack against the theistic evolutionists in his camp. He not only points out the fallacious presupposition of the “covenant” creationists, (BCS) whose ultimate purpose is to place science on the pillar against which the claims of Scripture are to be measured he also demonstrates BCS can’t handle the truth."

The futurist paul agrees with the partial preterist Jason and Co. Just earlier the futurist paul was giving kudos to Sam for his fight for the truth.
"Sam, once again, I applaud your efforts in opposing the theistic evolutionists in your camp. The intellectual dishonesty with which they proclaim their humanists agenda is astonishing."

Now note that word "intellectual dishonesty"...yes that's the same one they were using about Sam for years.He has been called a lair on that site more times then he would like to admit.

I guess Sam has earned absolution.

Of course not to be out done with the kissing up Sam says "I am impressed with Paul T.’s recent posts and think he shows the problems of the BCS view."

So it looks like the partial preterist have found a common enemy.Funny how they all use the same distortions and straw man arguments.Guess they have a lot more in common then we knew.

The stuff coming form futurist pault is hilarious.I thought when gatekeeper was elevated to posting status to replace Roderick that things were looking bad for pret blog but i think futurist pault has managed to keep the comic level up all on his own.

All i can say is the fact that futurist pault and Sam and Jason are all on the same page should give cause for concern to "Full Preterist".

We have been pointing out the inconsistency from Sam concerning Isaiah for months and i think maybe pault has more in common with Sam and co then previously thought.

Roderick must eating his heart out seeing pault brag about Jason and Sam...I think Rod knows them a little better then the futurist pault and wouldn't be so quick to give out the kudos...

It will be worth watching to see how long this love affair last.

Any guesses?
Jason is complaining again.

He still makes the false claim that science drives our view. And he says that our responding to those claims of his means we are ignoring his arguments.

I certainly don't know where to begin with that rambling mess. Sam and their anti-preterist chorus are singing his praises. If Jason has the endorsement of Paul T, what does he need my response for?

Personally, I have a hard time of taking Jason seriously. For years, he has made the same false proclamations that science drives my views of Genesis. He has never proven it. Just his claim makes it so. Proof by Clarkian irrationality.

And Jason has ignored the fundamental issue. We say the old covenant began in Genesis 1. Jason's buddies say, the Adamic covenant began in the middle of Genesis 2:4 and ended at the flood, without the promises of that covenant being fulfilled. They start the old covenant at Sinai, in direct contradiction with Gal. 3:17 and all of the verses that take the old covenant back to Adam before his sin. We say one old covenant. They say several, unfulfilled old covenants.

Nope. They will not answer this issue. It is more important to make false, unprovable claims about our motives and to argue philosophy.

I suspect Tim and I will put up a link and a response. But it will take a while. That mess required 21 pages. Tim's still working, trying to finish the season which looks like it will continue into December this year. Last year's response to Sam took a couple weeks after Tim's work season ended. This will take a similar amount of time.
If anyone continues to bellow the thoughts that science drives the Covenant Creation view, they obviously are not reading, contemplating, or digesting the actual views and writings of actual Covenant Creation adherents. It is simply a straw man argument that has been addressed and refuted over and over again. It's becoming tiresome.
Hey I have an idea. Why don't half of us eat veggies while the other half eat meat, and in a few weeks we will see the difference! Or is the putting too much emphasis on "EMPIRICISM and EVIL SCIENCE"?


Olivet Discourse Movie

How the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the first century.
Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21
Riley O'Brien Powell



Delivered from the Law

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll Apr 15. 13 Replies

FEAR obviously struck..

Started by Julia A Waldron in Eschatology. Last reply by John Mar 24. 1 Reply

For the Preterist

Started by Julia A Waldron in Eschatology. Last reply by Julia A Waldron Mar 24. 22 Replies

Isaiah 2:2-4 Used to refute preterism

Started by Steve G. in Eschatology. Last reply by Patricia Watkins Aug 13, 2018. 1 Reply

This Site Active?

Started by Doug in Eschatology. Last reply by Patricia Watkins Jul 29, 2018. 28 Replies

Gen 1 vs Isa 51

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 3, 2018. 4 Replies

The sin of the Gentiles

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Brother Les Jan 18, 2018. 3 Replies

Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Nov 5, 2017. 9 Replies

Though he dies yet shall he live

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll Apr 25, 2017. 8 Replies

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Joseph Rehby Jul 6, 2017. 16 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by Judy Peterson Apr 8, 2018. 21 Replies

The 10 Tribes of Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Judith Ann Maness Aug 4, 2018. 10 Replies

Online Teaching Elders

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Dec 22, 2015. 4 Replies

Who is the abomination of desolation ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Dec 11, 2015. 3 Replies

Divine council

Started by Sharon Q in Eschatology. Last reply by Sharon Q Oct 3, 2015. 5 Replies

© 2019   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service