Deathisdefeated

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

Three Kansas City Full Preterists discuss the BCS view on Facebook

Click the link below to see our discussion and to give your own feedback:

 

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=2121456...

Views: 136

Comment by JL Vaughn on June 10, 2011 at 3:16pm

Joseph,

 

I'm sorry I responded.  Those clowns are claiming they don't need to read a book because they know it to be false and ridiculous?   Why?  They can spout a whole list of things they know to be in BCS, but aren't.  Delilah had an apt description for herself and these friends of yours.

Comment by Doug Wilkinson on June 10, 2011 at 6:18pm
I don't think you should regret contributing.  One of the hardest things for me to understand (I'm still basically stuck there) is understanding the proposed historical timeline of human history from the point of view of BCS.  Now, I don't think it is/was a waste of time for me even if I never figure that part out.  And, I think it was silly of her to be dismissive.  But, this objection that she raised is probably one of the first things notice in the BCS proposal.  I encourage you to answer her because I guarantee a lot of people have the same question but aren't asking it.
Comment by Doug on June 10, 2011 at 7:15pm

Doug,

So then what IS the question? Why do you have a dilemma between the historical timeline and the BCS theology?

Comment by Doug Wilkinson on June 10, 2011 at 7:30pm

It's not exactly that I have a dilemma, it's that I don't understand it.  I might have missed it, but I don't think I've heard a clear explanation of what the BSC/CC point of view proposes for the timeline of Biblical or human history.  Vaughn did recently bemoan my misunderstanding of the topic as a recapitulation approach, so it's obvious that I have misunderstood someone along the way.  To make it easier, I'll break it down into a couple of direct questions:

 

1.  What is the sequential order of events (approximate, as opposed to specific, dates would be handy) represented in scripture?

 

2.  What is the first event in the literal timeline of history in the Bible (this might be covered by the first question depending on the answer)?

 

3.  Who are Adam's peers (assuming he represents one person)?

 

4.  How do you understand Adam's genealogy (assuming he represents "mankind")?

 

Again, I appreciate the efforts of BCS/CC because I think they have tapped into something that we are missing.  I just don't completely get it, so I can't say that I buy it.  It is most certainly not a "waste of time."

Comment by JL Vaughn on June 10, 2011 at 8:23pm

Doug,

 

Jamie's only question was a non-sequitor.

 

If the first few chapters of Genesis refer to the creation of Israel, why does it follow so nicely into the flood and Babel accounts and then on to Abraham?

 

1. Timeline:  As Tim and I imagined when we wrote BCS and still believe.  Genesis 1 occurred concurrent with or before Genesis 2, which occurred before Genesis 3, which occurred before Genesis 4.  A genealogy starts in Genesis 5 and ends with the last verse of Genesis 9.  The Flood narrative is part of that genealogy.  The entire historical account of Genesis continues nominally in order on through Terah, Abraham, etc., until the book ends with the covenant people living in Egypt.  Some 200 years later, the events of the book of Exodus begin.

 

We thought we made this clear in the book.  Since everyone else uses this same timeline (though few notice that the Flood account is part of the genealogy), we didn't feel the need to spend a lot of time on this issue.

 

Please tell me Doug.  Why would you ever get the idea that we have a significantly different time line?  What have we written that would cause you to come to that conclusion?  We really need to know.  If we actually said something that we didn't mean to say or that is being misunderstood, we need to correct it.

 

2. The creation of the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1.

 

3. Not discussed in BCS because Tim and I had very different opinions at the time.  It is irrelevant to the question of whether Genesis 1 was the creation of the physical heavens and earth or the covenantal heavens and earth.  My opinion now is that the sea was the sea of gentiles from which God chose a faithful remnant.  (There is no more sea, no more gentiles, we are no longer jew nor gentile.)  That corporate body of people with all the covenant trappings is called the heavens and the earth.

 

4. I understand the genealogy as a list of covenant priest-kings.  Father to son.  I expect most to be "by nature" and some to be "by spirit," (adoption).

 

Blessings,

 

Jeff

Comment by Doug on June 10, 2011 at 9:58pm

Doug,

I see things as Jeff does, with the possible exception of the symbology of the waters. As I conceive of things, the events listed in Genesis literally happened. Yet, I see room in scrikpture for a dualistic approach. That is, there was a literal Adam, but contained within the literal Adam are figurative, symbolic, and metaphorical information that informs the spiritual man. The physical man Adam, and his wife Eve, were the forerunners of a race of mankind collectively referred to as "Adam" (them) in which covenantal promises were delivered.

It is my contention that God intended to put heaven on earth, and yet the half of heaven we cannot see is the one we refer to as heaven. I believe Eden was literally and symbolically heaven on earth (paradise) Paradise is that "place" where God and men meet in a secure relationship with each other, as it was originally intended and is even now being formed through Jesus, one person at a time.

So, time does indeed move linearly, from points in the past to points in the future. On that timeline, Jesus came to our side of the corrupted paradise, and re-established the relationship (the covenant) that Adam messed up. But wrapped up in all the "literal" events of time, God built into those events the symbols and metaphors we talk about in CC. That is why "heavens and earth" literally and physically do exist, but they are there only to show use a more profound TRUE heavens and earth that is covenantal in nature. In fact, even, the REAL heavens and earth are those we cannot see. But just because we can't see them doesn't mean they aren't more real than the ones we CAN see. The same goes for other physical things that have a counterpart (a shadow) of real things in the heaven we can't see. Study Hebrews 12:22-24 as well as Hebrews 10:1 and the entire chapter, plus ensuing chapters. Compare with Isaiah 53. These are core scriptures that tie it all together.

 

 

 

 

 

Comment by Doug Wilkinson on June 10, 2011 at 10:25pm
1.  In a comment a short time ago you mentioned that both Sam and I had apparently misunderstood your position in the same way so that we accused you of a recapitulationist approach (I didn't know that Sam came to this conclusion because I missed his comments on the topic).  I think this is based on your position that Adam is in some way associated with Israel.  Israel was created either by faith from Abraham, genetically from Jacob, or from the Exodus and Mt. Sinai.  The contrast between the physical Israel and the spiritual one is between the physical descendant of Abraham and the spiritual ones (Galatians).  There is no reference as far as I can remember right now between the physical and spiritual descendants of Noah, etc. 

Walton seems to me to be making a somewhat recapitulationist argument.  If the Genesis creation is the establishment of the temple, and there was no temple (or tabernacle) before Moses, then since Moses wrote Genesis (or at least compiled it) the story might be seen as Moses' attempt to write a symbolic story of the beginning of Israel in the Exodus.  If this is true then the timeline from Adam to Abraham is confusing.

In Walton's view this timeline is confusing.  But, his apparent argument is coherent otherwise.  In the BCS/CC view the timeline is confusing, but the definition of Israel is very confusing.  I don't know anyone else who has defined it in the way that you do.

I suppose one way of seeing this would be the Galatians "Israel of God" approach.  The idea here would be that whoever has faith in God joins this group through time no matter which dispensation(gasp) of history they lived in.  This might be valid.  But, why isn't it called the "Adam of God", or the "Noah" of God" (both of these guys were on God's side after the fall, presumably).  Surely these people were valid historical characters who showed faith before Abraham, through whom the world would be blessed, etc.  Why is it Father Abraham?  Why don't they refer to Father Jacob?  It was Jacob's undiluted bloodline (as opposed to Abraham with Ishmael, etc.) through which Israel would be formed.  Or, Father Abel (he's the first one on the list in Hebrews to show faith)? 

I think the recapitulation approach makes some sense because it literally starts with Abraham historically (though it throws out the historicity of Adam through Noah and is eventually troubling).  Going with Adam as the first covenant man makes some sense, but nowhere in scripture does God refer to Adam as the first man of faith.  That belongs to Abraham.

2.  My problem with your answer is that in most places in scripture you define "Heaven and Earth" differently than the YEC crowd.  It would be worth it to be more precise, i.e. "the creation of the physical universe was happened at Gen. 1:1", or "the creation of the first people with faith in God . . ."

3.  If the scripture (written by Hebrews and so from their point of view) views non-Hebrews as animals, and one of the major functions of redemption is to remove this distinction, I think it would be worth it to emphasize this point in your next edition of the book or a follow on work.  The question should also include what happens to the humans who existed before Adam, but who were never offered the option of having a relationship with God (this position assumes that non-God related people existed in time before Adam, then parallel to the Adam and his descendants who had the option of knowing God, though the reprobate descendants of Adam would be indistinguishable from these people which I don't see well delineated in scripture; or, are the reprobate descendants of Adam the only people to whom salvation is available?).  The question remains, whether people genetically peers to Adam, but not his descendants, have the option of salvation.  To put it another way, A., There was a group of people before Adam came about.  Then, Adam came about.  That makes two groups of people.  Then, Adam sinned.  Then you had Adam and Cain.  Now you have three groups of people:  The Pre-Adam, Adam (Faithful), From Adam (Unfaithful).  Or, ???  I think the anthropology of this could be much more clearly described by BCS/CC.

4.  Fair enough.
Comment by Tim Martin on June 10, 2011 at 10:30pm

Doug Wilkinson,

 

I understand your difficulty with the Covenant Creation view and human history. You made this comment above:

 

"One of the hardest things for me to understand (I'm still basically stuck there) is understanding the proposed historical timeline of human history from the point of view of BCS."

 

Then you made this related comment immediately after:

 

"I might have missed it, but I don't think I've heard a clear explanation of what the BSC/CC point of view proposes for the timeline of Biblical or human history."

 

The first thing I would say is that what is causing the problem is that you are approaching the issue of Genesis in terms of "human" history.

 

In your second comment you seem to realize that human history and biblical history are distinct by saying "Biblical or human history."

 

We actually go one step further.

 

The BCS/covenant creation view actually says that biblical history and human history are not only distinct, but two different things entirely. If you ask about generic human history from Genesis, then you are approaching Genesis in a way that it was never intended from it's own context; at least that is our position.

 

We would apply the same thing to eschatology or the "end." Futurism automatically assumes that this context is generic human history. Therefore, eschatology is all about the end of the world, the end of human history on planet Earth (the majority view). Full-preterism says that these two issues, human history and biblical history, are not only distinct, but separate issues entirely (regardless of what preterists believe about the future of the physical universe).

 

Do you see how the issue relates between Genesis and Revelation?

 

A lot of us maintain that the futurist gets his concept and context of human history, ultimately, from his understanding of Genesis. That is, he knows that Rev. 21:1, Heb. 1:10-11, et. al. reference Genesis 1. This is the problem that a few former full-preterists finally acknowledged. Rather than leaving their old view of Genesis, they left preterism entirely. Notice that they could not reconcile a physical creation view of Genesis with a covenant eschatology. I maintain that it cannot be done, exegetically.

 

So, to help you out a little bit. From our perspective, there is no biblical view of "human history" generically, just as eschatology has nothing to do with "human history" generically. We approach it consistently from Genesis to Revelation.

 

Our conclusion is that if you want answers to human history generically, then you'll have to head somewhere else beside biblical history to find the answers you seek.  Going to the Bible is the wrong place, given the purpose, focus, and goal of Scripture in covenant context.

 

Perhaps this helps?

 

Blessings,


Tim Martin

 

Comment by jjkratt on June 10, 2011 at 11:23pm

Tim,

 

That was a well written response and very helpful I think. Thanks.

 

Doug W,

 

Just one quick passing comment. Abraham wasn't "the first man of faith" (the last paragraph of your #1, above). Abel was actually the first man of faith in the great faith listing hall of fame. The Jews considered Abraham their "father" as seen in the gospels, and Paul uses Abraham (and David) in his great treatise of faith to the Romans, but it's not technically correct to use Abraham as THE covenant head of the Jews. While many Pharisees etc may have considered him as such, biblically I think the Prophets and Jesus and the Apostles ultimately consider Adam to be their true federal head. That's my opinion.  :)

 

Jerel

Comment by JL Vaughn on June 10, 2011 at 11:45pm

Doug W.,

 

Biologically, I see a pre-Adamite every time I look in the mirror.  Look in the mirror and you will also see a pre-Adamite.  Jesus was the last Adam, there are no more Adamites.

 

Don Preston likes to say that a covenant can not end until all the promises of that covenant are fulfilled.  Make sense?

 

Okay then.  When was Satan crushed?

 

The promises of Adam's covenant were not fulfilled until the same day that the promises to Abraham were fulfilled and the promises to Israel.  Got that?  Adam's covenant, Abraham's covenant, and Israel's covenant all ended on the same day.

 

So, were the Jews of Jesus' day under one covenant or three?  Were all three covenants the same one covenant?  Or were they three separate covenants?

 

Blessings,

 

Jeff

Comment

You need to be a member of Deathisdefeated to add comments!

Join Deathisdefeated

Events

Forum

Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 26. 6 Replies

The parousia and judgment of nations

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

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by John Aug 8, 2016. 17 Replies

The 10 Tribes of Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 22, 2016. 9 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

Marriage and Divorce Motif Between God and Israel

Started by Andrew Reish in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Jul 5, 2015. 5 Replies

Millennium

Started by Mark Baker in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 4, 2015. 48 Replies

Fulfilled prophecies of Jesus

Started by joy sung in Eschatology Mar 22, 2015. 0 Replies

The End of the Old Covenat

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Jan 21, 2015. 60 Replies

© 2017   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service