You are hereThe Language of Creation from Genesis to Revelation

The Language of Creation from Genesis to Revelation

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 08 June 2009

by Tami Jelinek

There is much disagreement within fulfilled eschatology regarding the Genesis creation story. What is it about? Those who are futurist in their eschatology, and take a literal, cosmological view of “the end,” understandably view Genesis as the beginning of the same. In other words, if Revelation and other “last days” prophecies describe the end of the physical universe, then Genesis describes the beginning of that same universe. This is logical, and a consistent approach to the Bible as a whole. But what about preterists, who hold to a fulfilled view of eschatology? We see Revelation and other “last days” prophecies as pointing to the end of the Old Covenant age, and not the end of the physical universe. We recognize the language of the prophets, appreciate its metaphorical and symbolic elements and understand the covenant context of this language as it is employed consistently throughout the Bible. Furthermore, we submit our interpretation of this language to Jesus and the apostles, who quote extensively from those prophetic contexts. And if we are to be consistent, as consistent as those who are futurist in their eschatology and view the beginning and the end as the beginning and the end of the same universe; then we will likewise view the beginning and the end as the beginning and the end of the same covenant world. Or, we might say that they are covenantal counterparts. In other words, we will understand that Genesis’ creation is the same in nature as Revelation’s new creation. We will naturally conclude that it is a covenantal, rather than a cosmological creation. Click to read Tami's entire article

Starlight's picture

Michael,

Let’s change the subject from animals now to Tree’s in the Garden. Do you disagree with Ezekiel’s take that Trees in the Garden of Eden represented Nations? Ezekiel is comparing Pharaoh as the leader of Egypt to Assyria as a Tree and then compares them to the Trees of Eden. Would you care to describe how Ezekiel makes such a comparison? Isn’t he over symbolizing the story and application of Trees found in the Garden? What has gotten into Ezekiel? But of course you do consider him as a brother. ;-)

Eze 31:3 Behold, the ASSYRIAN WAS A CEDAR in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a forest-like shade, and of high stature; and its top was among the thick boughs.

Eze 31:9 I made it fair by the multitude of its branches, so that ALL THE TREES OF EDEN, that were in the garden of God, envied it.

Eze 31:16 I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to Sheol with them that descend into the pit; and ALL THE TREES OF EDEN, the choice and best of Lebanon, all that drink water, were comforted in the nether parts of the earth.

Eze 31:18 To whom art thou thus like in glory and in greatness AMONG THE TREES OF EDEN? yet shalt thou be brought down with THE TREES OF EDEN unto the nether parts of the earth: thou shalt lie in the midst of the uncircumcised, with them that are slain by the sword. THIS IS PHARAOH AND ALL HIS MULTITUDE, saith the Lord Jehovah.

Norm
PS. Can’t you wean yourself away from copy and pasting copious amounts of scripture? Make your point and select a few pertinent scriptures and move on guy otherwise you are wasting everyone’s time.

MichaelB's picture

Norm - you told me to believe Enoch, he says it is literal regarding Genesis...

2From there I passed on above the summits of those mountains to some distance eastwards, and went over the Erythraean sea. And when I was advanced far beyond it, I passed along above the angel Zateel, and arrived at the garden of righteousness. In this garden I beheld, among other trees, some which were numerous and large, and which flourished there. It was like a species of the tamarind tree, bearing fruit which resembled grapes extremely fine; and its fragrance extended to a considerable distance. I exclaimed, How beautiful is this tree, and how delightful is its appearance!5Then holy Raphael, an angel who was with me, answered and said, This is the tree of knowledge, of which your ancient father and your aged mother ate, who were before you; and who, obtaining knowledge, their eyes being opened, and knowing themselves to be naked, were expelled from the garden.

Now - you want me to look at a "prophesy" that draws images from Genesis and conclude that because it does that...what? This is a "prophesy" regarding Egypt. Are you saying that Egypt had access or was in the Garden in Genesis?

Norm it is a PROPHESY:
The prophet describes to Pharaoh the fall of the king of Nineveh, (see the books of Nahum, Jonah, and Zephaniah,) under the image of a fair cedar of Lebanon, once exceedingly tall, flourishing, and majestic, but now cut down and withered, with its broken branches strewed around, 1-17. He then concludes with bringing the matter home to the king of Egypt, by telling him that this was a picture of his approaching fate...The beautiful cedar of Lebanon, remarkable for its loftiness, and in the most flourishing condition, but afterwards cut down and deserted, gives a very lately painting of the great glory and dreadful catastrophe of both the Assyrian and Egyptian monarchies.

That would be like me saying that since images are drawn from Exodus in Revelation that the things in Exodus were not actual events.

Exodus 10
12 And the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand over Egypt so that locusts will swarm over the land and devour everything growing in the fields, everything left by the hail."

Revelation 9
3And out of the smoke locusts came down upon the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. 7The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces.

Revelation 16
21From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.

Norm - please - focus on the Genesis flood account. You can not make it be about the animals = people when God says he will destroy BOTH people and animals. Do you understand that yet?

Starlight's picture

Michael,

Tami's article was about the curse which started in the Garden. I think it's ok to reference the origination of her article's background to make points about the flood.

You said. … “Now - you want me to look at a "prophesy" that draws images from Genesis and conclude that because it does that...what? This is a "prophesy" regarding Egypt. Are you saying that Egypt had access or was in the Garden in Genesis?

What I want from you Michael is to acknowledge what Ezekiel is plainly stating in no uncertain terms about the Trees of the Garden. If you don’t like what Ezekiel says take it up with him. But the language is clear and plain that Ezekiel is comparing the trees of the Garden of Eden with Assyria and Egypt as Nation Trees. That distinction is a common one throughout scriptures. You’re trying to weasel out of the symbolism of the Trees that Ezekiel is clearly presenting is nothing short of scriptural violence. Here is another plainly stated comparison of the Tree metaphors comparing the Garden Trees to Assyria.

Eze 31:8 The CEDARS IN THE GARDEN OF GOD could not hide him:(Assyria nv)the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chesnut trees were not like his branches; nor ANY TREE IN THE GARDEN OF GOD was like unto him in his beauty.

However Michael the reason I bring up the Tree symbolism with you is to plainly demonstrate to you that the Prophets were comfortable ascribing peoples and nations to Icons and emblems of the Eden Story from early Genesis. Not only do they ascribe the Trees as Nations but they say that the beast and birds that reside under and in that Tree were the Gentile peoples.

Michael is it at all possible for you to acknowledge that the Bible itself confirms the symbols in early Genesis represent something other than simply plants and animals. The Trees that Ezekiel speaks of have animals living under them who were people for goodness sakes.

Eze 31:6 All the FOWLS OF HEAVEN made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the BEASTS OF THE FIELD bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt ALL GREAT NATIONS. 7 Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.

I’m going to repost part of my response to you which you have not addressed in which I have put forth an interpretation of Gen 7:21 and 23. You have asked me to do so and now that I have I want to see your response.

Here it is again.

The quote that you take from Gen 7:21,23 does not provide a good reading of the Hebrew. Let me explain. Your translation says every living thing while the YLT and most translations speak of “flesh”. Big difference as we know from the NT that being in the flesh has more than one connotation and one of them is the “works of the flesh” which is counter to the Spirit of God.

Gen 7:21-23 and expire doth all flesh that is moving on the earth, among fowl, and among cattle, and among beasts, and among all the teeming things which are teeming on the earth, and all mankind;

Next it says all or every “mankind” which is the word “aw-dawm” which James Jordan has pointed out that it means not mankind at large but more precisely mankind as denoting Israel in a Leviticus article he wrote. What Jordan is implying is that aw-dawm is a covenantal designation for those in Covenant with God which excludes gentile peoples. An examination of OT scripture verifies this application across the board as universally it does not carry a generic mankind meaning behind it. The point being is that as Tim and Jeff have pointed out the flood story is a local event dealing with God’s Covenant people and there is a cleansing of the various “flesh” that have permeated his called people thus polluting their relationship with God. That is the reason for the flood if you recall from Gen 6 where they intermarried and became wicked taking on the attributes of the ungodly “flesh”.

Looking at verse 23 we see again that the connotation is far removed from saying that all people on planet earth is removed. Again the better understanding may be that the SUBSTANCE that was removed from the face of the ground was the contamination of the various “flesh” polluting the Covenant people that brought on Gods determination to cleanse them (this is an ongoing problem for the Covenant people throughout the OT). Again we know from Tim and Jeff ‘s book that being wiped away from the “erets” or land does not mean planet earth in the Hebrew Biblical context. Also again man (aw-dawm) is a key word here as it is specifying God’s covenant people and does not biblically denote mankind at large.

(23) And wiped away is all the substance that is on the face of the ground, from man unto beast, unto creeping thing, and unto fowl of the heavens; yea, they are wiped away from the earth (Land), and only Noah is left, and those who are with him in the ark;

The bottom line is that what you think is a simple literal rendering of these two scriptures in reality is far from what you might suppose. This is the essence of full Preterism which is exploring the context of the language and its biblical implications that we find recurring throughout scripture. I realize that you do not like folks to do word and phrase searches but that is what helps students of the word sort out the simple minded reading from the reality and helps break the bonds of futurism and partial Preterism.

Norm

orton1227's picture

Norm, if I may jump in because I'm curious...do you think Noah sacrificed Gentiles after the waters receded?

Gen 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

By the way, I'm not picking on you. Just trying to understand and weigh the possibilities that you and Tami may be correct.

Starlight's picture

Orton,

Thanks again for the question.

There was no sacrifice of people period.

Let’s consider Gen 9:3 as an example.

Do you think Peter ate Gentiles in Acts 10 when the vision of the animals came down and he was told to kill and eat yet they (the Jews) knew the vision was about acceptance of the Gentiles? You see the story of the flood is bathed in similar prophetic images that to a Hebrew trained in their theology would understand the message. That is why the vision clicked with Peter and the Jews as the killing and eating of the animals goes back to Gen 9 and the flood story. When Noah was told that everything was given to you to eat it was prophetic of when the Gentiles would come in to the Covenant. IT IS TELLING A HIGHER PROPHETIC STORY WITHIN A STORY but my detractors can’t understand this concept and thus try to make it an either or meaning. Here is the verse from Gen that has relevance to Acts 10.

Gen 9:3 ESV Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I GIVE YOU EVERYTHING.

Some scholars have recognized this attribute of the flood account bearing end time prophecy but typically bible students in general don’t really delve into it even though it is the greater message that is being presented. These are some of the mysteries that Paul speaks of in Eph 3:1-6 that are just at that time becoming revealed in their fulfillment concerning the Gentiles.

What Gen 9:3 is saying is that under the old covenant there will be a distinction between Covenant man and those outside of covenant (the Gentiles) but in the New Covenant there will not be a distinction. The flood story was written by either Moses or priest coming later than him and they already knew the ending of the story as it is spelled out in detail in Deu 30:1-6 of the 5 book Torah. Therefore contrary to popular opinion it (the flood account) was not written in a vacuum of ignorance but was written with the knowledge of the Last Days that Moses spells out at the end of Deuteronomy.

Deu 30:1-6 ESV "And when all these things come upon you, THE BLESSING AND THE CURSE, WHICH I HAVE SET BEFORE YOU, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you, (2) and return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, (3) then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, and HE WILL GATHER YOU AGAIN FROM ALL THE PEOPLES WHERE THE LORD YOUR GOD HAS SCATTERED YOU. (4) If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, FROM THERE THE LORD YOUR GOD WILL GATHER YOU, and from there he will take you. (5) And the LORD your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. (6) And the LORD your God WILL CIRCUMCISE YOUR HEART AND THE HEART OF YOUR OFFSPRING, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, THAT YOU MAY LIVE.

This indicates that there was a prophetic consistency that was detailed by the writers of the Torah residing in the story of the flood which spoke to the climatic purpose of the scripture concerning the last days. This is why scholars recognize Noah as a type of Christ to come because the language that is surrounding him is speaking to the greater glorious story of Christ. This is the essence of the dispute taking place here. What I am suggesting is that the flood account bears twin stories within it and uses conventional biblical literature laced with symbolic prophetic messages that are fully recognized throughout scripture which helps tell you their meaning. It was written by Hebrews to be consistent with the big picture theme of scripture, namely the coming of the Messiah.

The usage of the animals throughout the scriptures speaks to this same consistency. Believers are called man (aw-dawm) while gentiles are typically cloaked as symbols of animals. Such as the beast of the field and the birds of the air that dwell under and in the trees of nations and eventually in the Spiritual Kingdom Tree of Christ (Matt 13:32).

Don’t let Michael fool you into buying into his either or take on the purpose of the animals in the biblical story. Do we really think that Christ established his kingdom just so a huge tree could grow and physical birds could roost in it? We know better than to read it that way. What we have to pay attention to is that the scriptures interpret many of these things out for us if we are trained in looking for them. Some are easy and some are more difficult.

Finally this is not about killing gentile people in the flood story; it is about learning to grasp biblical symbolism that reveals its prophetic messages.

Norm

orton1227's picture

Thanks for the reply. So why does he say 'sacrifice'? What was the symbolism of sacrificing the Gentiles/people?

Starlight's picture

Orton,

This gets into the purpose of the Jewish sacrificial system and the typology that sacrifices presented. The sacrifice of the animals that were clean is a typology that presents these animals that represented the Gentiles as being acceptable to God. The Jews understood this meaning of bringing in the Gentiles was illustrated in the manner of a good and pleasing sacrifice. Again the double meaning and purpose of the story of the flood is understood through Hebrew typology. I’m not saying that this stuff is easy Orton as it takes immersing oneself deep into the knowledge of the Hebrew priestly understandings to see these points.

Let me quote one of Tami’s posts concerning this subject.

“Paul didn't seem to have a problem with seeing animal sacrifices as representing Gentiles:

Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that THE OFFERING UP OF THE GENTILES MIGHT BE ACCEPTABLE, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

And where is he getting this?

Isa 66:20 And THEY SHALL BRING ALL YOUR BRETHREN FOR AN OFFERING UNTO THE LORD OUT OF ALL NATIONS upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, AS THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL BRING AN OFFERING IN A CLEAN VESSEL INTO THE HOUSE OF THE LORD.

and get ready for this one:

Isa 60:7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: THEY SHALL COME UP WITH ACCEPTANCE ON MINE ALTAR, and I will glorify the house of my glory.

As James Jordan says in "Through New Eyes":

"The symbolic meanings and associations of earth, sea, rocks, stars, plants, animals, serpents, trees, fruit, and all else are set out in theses chapters. The rest of the Bible simply unpacks their meanings."

End quote. Emphasis mine.

Blessings

Norm

orton1227's picture

Thanks for the good words.

The main problem I'm having is that I'm not seeing other verses in the First Testament with the same language as Gen 8:20...Noah took of every clean animal. The verses you and Tami present as synonymous with Gen 8 & 9, specifically from Hos, have very different sentence structures.

Also, the birds Noah sent from the ark? Are they Gentile messengers in a liferaft?

(Again, not trying to nitpick, but trying to flesh this out for my sake, too. I've been studying this for a week straight now and just trying to examine it as best I can).

flannery0's picture

Orton,

I'd like to tag something on to Norm's post above, by pointing out the relationship between Genesis 9 and Genesis 1. First, I believe this passage is a new covenant prophecy foretelling the dominion of the gospel:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

And after the flood, we see a restatement of that same gospel dominion prophecy (and even someone who would interpret these passages strictly literally, and not as prophetic passages, would probably agree that they are intrinsically connected):

Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Now, this is where it gets really fascinating to me. Notice that God is going to make a covenant with not only Noah and his "seed", but also with every beast of the earth. God is going to make a covenant with the beasts!

Gen 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

Now compare this "covenant with beasts" foretold in Genesis 9, with this:

Hos 2:18 And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely.

Now, stay with this for just one more connection. We are going to see what this covenant with the beasts is all about, when we see *when* it is fulfilled. Look at this gorgeous proclamation of salvation--don't miss the "in that day" at the beginning of verse 18, and keep reading:

Hos 2:19 And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. 20 I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD. 21 And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the LORD, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth; 22 And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. 23 And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.

Isn't that beautiful? Now just a basic question:

Is *this* statement in Genesis 9:10--

"I will establish my covenant with...every beast of the earth..."

synonymous with *this* statement in Hosea 2:18--

"In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field..."

?

Orton, just speaking for NCMI (www.newcreationministries.tv) our conversations about Genesis and so-called "Covenant Creationism" are motivated by our focus on the cross of Christ, and the beauty of his fulfilled kingdom. I am convinced that our experience of Christ is preceded by, and profoundly impacted by, our knowledge of Christ, which is found in the Scriptures. That is why you will see us focusing so much on the Old Testament and prophecies of Christ's presence with His people. If you are interested specifically a more thorough discussion about the relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 9, and how these are both foretelling the dominion of the gospel, you may listen to part 2 of our "Garden Scene" podcast series here:

http://www.newcreationministries.tv/Audio/gardenscene.htm

We welcome interaction.

in Christ,
Tami

Jhedges's picture

Guys n Gals. I was saying that tounge in cheek!

Trying to lighten the mood! I swear!(scouts honor)

MichaelB's picture

CoolJohn H. sorry if I took it wrong. But that is the rhetoric that tends to cause tension. I purposely had been trying to say many times that they are brothers and sisters etc. So when people say stuff like that rather than consider that argument it gets frustrating.

Here - this is for all of us - I am sure Roderick would love to join us in this =)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ

JL's picture

I was surprised at how well attended Covenant Creation Conference was. We'd counted that morning and were quite please with the turn out, but we were just staggered by the numbers as people kept coming in later that day. By the video somebody posted on YouTube, you can see that it obviously eclipsed even TruthVoice the next day, making it by far the best attended preterist conference ever.

Blessings to all who attended and help make this the best conference ever, and sorry to the critic who found the truth so shocking.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

flannery0's picture

Jeffrey, you packed that place! Must be some kind of a record. What is your secret? If we could get that many people, we might do another conference ourselves. ;)

Sorry we missed it.

MichaelB's picture

* (Based on a post / point - made by King Neb)

If: The Gentiles = sea in Revelation.

Per Tami J. (Cov. Creation)
“Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. And there was no more sea.

Notice that John is contrasting the new heaven and new earth with the first heaven and first earth, which has passed away, by stating that there is no longer a sea. This is indeed a point of contrast as the first heaven and the first earth did have a sea”

And: Tami J. attributes this same “covenantal” language to Genesis also.

Per Tami J. (Cov. Creation)
“Genesis 1:9,10 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Throughout the prophets, the distinction between land and sea represents the distinction between Jew and Gentile. In Isaiah’s prophecy to Israel of her coming Messiah and His kingdom, “the sea” refers to the Gentiles believing the gospel:

Isaiah 60:4,5 Lift up your eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to you: your sons shall come from far, and your daughters shall be nursed at your side. Then you will see, and flow together, and your heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto you, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto you.

In the New Testament, the mystery revealed was that the Gentiles, who under the Old Covenant were strangers to the promises and without hope (hence the separation of “land and sea”), would be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of Israel’s promise through the gospel”

And: 2 Peter 3 teaches that by the “SAME” water that heaven and earth was created with, also flooded the the “kosmos” according to 2 Peter 3.

2 Peter 3 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

Genesis 1 6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky" (<= SAME WORD AS HEAVEN, BTW, IN GENESIS 1:1). And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Then: Cov. Creation should conclude (by using their own “consistent" hermeneutic) that Noah and the flood event was actually a destruction by Gentiles, since the sea = Gentiles, and we must be "consistent" according to Cov. Creationists.

Therefore: I imagine the next step for Cov. Creation is removing physical flooding from Genesis 6-9. (<= SARCASM INTENDED HERE).

orton1227's picture

I posted this at SGP too, but I thought the 'other' crowd might have some ideas of this. (Disclaimer: I currently hold no emotional attachment to either view being fought over here, nor have I made up my mind...i'm on no one's side)

Doesn't this also disprove YEC?

Major Premise: 2 Peter 3 says that from water (the same water as the flood) the Earth was formed, including the Grand Canyon.

Minor Premise: A combination of weathering and erosion by water even at an absurd rate of 90,000-120,000 CFS would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years to create the depths of the Grand Canyon.

Conclusion: The Earth, and thus Grand Canyon, must be older than 6,000 years.

You can't say that God created the Earth appearing old, because 2 Peter 3 clearly said it was created from and by the waters. Thus, waters formed the Grand Canyon, which we know the scientific process very well.

Or do you say it was a special kind of water? Spirit-filled water? :>

MichaelB's picture

I answered this already. What else is "absurd' for God? Are you going to say the same thing about every miracle God does? BTW the Spirit was moving in Gen 1.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Also - this still doesn't help the Cov. Creation view. It simply argues for an old earth. Cov. Creation is teaching that it is about a covenant and that view has been soundly defeated by my post (unless of course the flood was a flood of gentiles).

orton1227's picture

My point was not to argue for the Cov Creation view. You can't help seeing everything as sides, can you?

And the Spirit thing was obviously a joke.

Starlight's picture

Michael thanks for posting this.

It’s interesting that Revelation which uses many of the words and Icons of Genesis provides one definition of the meaning of “waters”. Surprisingly to many the term “waters” often refers to Peoples.

Rev 17:15 And the angel said to me, "THE WATERS that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, ARE PEOPLES AND MULTITUDES AND NATIONS and languages.

Now that we have a biblical definition of the term Waters that may have relevance let’s look again at the forming of the seas in Gen 1.

Notice that the Waters (Peoples) are separated into two groups of people if we follow the Biblical definition of Revelation for waters. One that is a people of the Land (Adam/Israel) and those who compose the Seas (Gentiles).

9-10 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. (10) God called the dry land Earth, and THE WATERS THAT WERE GATHERED TOGETHER HE CALLED SEAS. And God saw that it was good.

Refer back to Rev 13 now and notice the use of the Land and Sea designations to refer to two beasts. This coincides perfectly with Gen 1 creation of Land and sea peoples and we know that one beast refers to Rome (Sea/Gentiles) which was prophesied in Dan 7 and the Land beast would correspond to corrupt Judaism which persecuted the saints.

Rev 13:1 And he stood upon the sand of the sea, And I saw a BEAST COMING UP OUT OF THE SEA
Rev 13:11 And I saw another BEAST COMING UP OUT OF THE EARTH; and he had two horns like unto a lamb

Next in Ezekiel we have the waters entering the Sea which I reckon most scholars would recognize here as having a Gentile connotation.

Eze 47:8 And he saith unto me, `THESE WATERS are going forth unto the east circuit, and have gone down unto the desert, and have entered THE SEA; unto THE SEA they are brought forth, and THE WATERS HAVE BEEN HEALED.

The definition of Waters in the Bible is determined by its context as the waters of the flood represent God’s Judgment while the Waters of Ezekiel 47 represent God’s Healing hand for the peoples of the Sea. The definition of waters that we find in Revelation are clearly defined in 17:15 and so we can infer the meaning of its usage in other verses found in Rev and elsewhere in scripture according to the context.

Rev 14:7 saying in a great voice, `Fear ye God, and give to Him glory, because come did the hour of His judgment, and bow ye before Him who did make the heaven, and the land, and sea, and FOUNTAINS OF WATERS.'

The idea that Waters is used as an inflexible metaphor in scripture is simply not verified as a maxim in understanding the Biblical word. This would tend to fall in to a literal and rigid application.

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Norm - if Genesis 1 is the same use of waters (sea) as Isaiah / Ezekiel etc. etc. then you just confirmed to me that you must believe that the flood in Genesis 6-9 is actually referring to Gentiles - GREAT STUFF !!! this is some awesome work you guys are doing. Here I always thought that you at least confirmed a literal local flood. Now I find that it must be Gentiles that deluged and destroyed the kosmos (2 Peter 3) =). Who could have known.

Starlight's picture

Michael,

I think you read my post too quickly :)

Notice I said there were multiple applications of waters and I referenced three differing applications. I also said that it depended upon the context of the story line being presented.

Am I not correct that there are varying definitions and application of waters found throughout the word?

Norm

MichaelB's picture

Yes you are right Norm - my point EXACTLY. In other words Tami was wrong. Sea in Gen 1 can not be speaking of Gentiles just because Isaiah does. 2 Peter 3 says the same water at Creation is the same water that floods. So - the charge of inconsistency now applies to you also. Since you admit that water does not carry over the SAME meaning EVERYWHERE.

Starlight's picture

Michael,

Yes, I agree you could be correct that I could be misapplying WATERS as there are those multiple definitions and applications. This is why it is so important to study the context of the totality of the surrounding scriptures to help frame the meaning.

I ‘m not sure your conclusion is correct though that the water being acted upon or “formed out of” has the same dynamic as the water that “is acting” as the instrument of God such as the flood or the Healing.

My point was that “waters” is a multidimensional force or entity throughout the scripture just as it is found in Revelation and Ezekiel. We find the same varied dimensions within Genesis 1 and the flood account. This means that context is extremely important in setting the meaning and 2 Pet 3 seem to clearly indicate those two different dimensions of the waters are found within its context.

2Pe 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth WAS FORMED OUT OF WATER and through water by the word of God,
2Pe 3:6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was DELUGED WITH WATER and perished.

So far I see no solid or conclusive reasoning to exclude Genesis 1’s waters not referring to Peoples of whom the land was formed out of. Then we have Noah’s world which was acted upon with “God directed” waters.

Notice as a comparison the next verse in Ezk 47 in which there IS ACTING WATER and then there are also the waters that ARE ACTED UPON within the same sentence.

Eze 47:9 And wherever the river goes, every living creature that swarms will live, and there will be very many fish. For THIS WATER goes there, that the WATERS OF THE SEA may become fresh; so everything will live where the river goes.

Did you notice that THIS WATER WAS THE ACTING WATER which represents the healing of Christ/God and it was ACTING UPON THE WATERS which again represents the Gentile peoples?

I hope this clears up more how waters are used contextually in scripture but I agree the study of waters is a tongue twister for us all.

Norm

davo's picture

Hey Michael... is there a reason why you are not answering my post to you??

davo

MichaelB's picture

Davo I have a VERY good reason. I missed it =) Will look for it when I get home and have time. For some reason BTW my Planet P stuff goes to bulk when people reply. Sometimes I forget to look before I clear.

davo's picture

No dramas then mate :)

tom-g's picture

There have been many chapters in the book of the false doctrine of universalism. This presentation by Tami is just the latest and most probably not the last chapter of that book.

Its distinction is that it could be the most convoluted and contradictory of all the known chapters contributing to universalism.

Tom

flannery0's picture

Tom, you are such a sweetheart. Thanks so much for these thoughtful comments.

mazuur's picture

Tom,

I am not seeing how this contributes (and/or fits) to Universalism.

Maybe you could enlighten me how this presents said view.

-Rich

-Rich

Ed's picture

Rich, don't engage. This is the guy who thinks that free markets are socialistic. He told me libertarianism leads to world socialism, and when I asked for a book to prove that, he referred me to a free market book. Yeesh!

Of course he's going to think that people who don't advocate universalism are actually advocating it. What else can anyone expect?

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

mazuur's picture

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have, but I just couldn't understand where in the world he got a connection like that.

-Rich

-Rich

Barry's picture

Exactly it made no sense at all.
Here are some of Tami's statements in the past concerning Universalism:
Tami wrote:
30 Mar 2008 17:10:31
Quote:
"Covenant Creation is not global or universal, and so you can't really (consistently) get to universalist conclusions at the end."

That really is the bottom line. Thanks.

There is however an epidemic inconsistency amongst preterists who globalize the new creation (consistent with their view of the Genesis creation) and yet deny universal salvation.

Tami
End quote.

And: (hope I got this right, Tami will correct me if this is not the same Tami)

Tami Jelinek

Quote:
For example, I sympathize with the "idealist" reaction to the globalization and spacialization of "the new heavens and the new earth" and I affirm that yes, that certainly does inevitably lead to universalism. If that were what preterism is, I couldn't be a preterist either.
End Quote.

If I've made a mistake please forgive me and correct me Tammi or anyone. It really is hard to keep track of everyone especially when you are a attention deficit as myself :)
So then if correct, it is clear that Tammi's point is that her perspective is the contrary to what Tom is asserting.

Blessings Barry

we are all in this together

Barry's picture

Yea, forgive my spelling too!!

we are all in this together

davo's picture

Barry… it has been my experience that most prêterists that bleat "universalism!" do so as their primary means of NOT honestly dealing with the latent inclusive conclusions within prêterism. "Universalism" per se is so roundly feared and held in such toxic despair by the likes of fundamentalists that they run from exploring what we more inclusive folks have to say – and invariably miss the woods for the trees in what we're actually saying. They find security and comfort in bleating the "universalist" charge rather than deal with the possible discomfort of having their cherished cerebral amnesia challenged. And so it is – find any position you can't handle [CC] and couple it to the next biggest boogie-man. It's rather simple and rather lazy.

To me this seems to have always been the problem – prêterists haven't been able to grasp that what we've been advocating is actually beyond both prêterism and universalism to a truly "fulfilled redemption" – as opposed to just paying lip-service to it.

Of course the other option Barry might be that the above mentioned complainant has simply seen elsewhere where I've demonstrated the "inclusive" implications of a more consistent 'covenant creation'.

davo

flannery0's picture

Perfect.

(that is commendable for someone with attention deficit ;))

It is so refreshing to be quoted accurately.

Thanks, Barry.

Barry's picture

Tami, I'm not in the habit of keeping a record of what every one says.
Things that spark my interest like how people react to "Universalism" I find interesting. [Though I'm not a Universalist in that I do not define "salvation" the same way as most Universalists do which changes things a lot.]

It just so happened that Norm, Yourself, and a few others have posted some comments about the subject matter and I wanted to keep track of them.

Now when Tom said what he said well it made no sense to me based on what I thought you had said in the recent past. So just thought I'd bring that up as it seemed relevant. Sorry I misspelled your name on one of the posts. No edit function here :)

At some point in the future I would like to bring up the subject again for the real reason that I kept some of these quotes.

Have a great day Tami.
Barry

we are all in this together

RiversOfEden4's picture

Tom,

I agree with you that the universalistic conclusions of Davo, Tami, and others is erroneous, but you have to give them credit at least for following through with the logical implications of Max King's "Covenant Eschatology" theory.

From my perspective, it is quite obvious that there is no more Kingdom, or any "Heaven Now" simply because God hasn't manifested Himself to anyone since the parousia and everyone is still experiencing the same toil and physical death that was Adam's curse (Genesis 3:19). I haven't seen a single person raised from death either since AD 70, have you?

The only rational way to harmonize a preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy with what we've actually seen after the parousia (i.e. nothing of fulfilled prophecy) is to come to the realization that Bible prophecy was not intended to benefit anyone but God's only chosen people - the ancient Israelites (Romans 9:3-5).

Paul plainly stated in Romans 11:26-27 that "ALL Isreal" and "THE FULL NUMBER of gentiles" were to be saved at the parousia and that God would become "ALL IN ALL" at that point and the Kingdom would be handed back over to God the Father (1 Corinthians 15:23-28). This is the strongest possible way Paul could have stated that there was nothing left for God to add to His Kingdom after AD 70.

tom-g's picture

ROE,

Yes, in the universalism book, Max King's chapter on Covenant eschatology would be a major one.

However, your following comments from your perspective would also not be the consistent conclusion that necessarily follow as logical implications from scripture.

Tom

mazuur's picture

Tom,

Please. You have never read King, and you know you haven't. I have on the other hand. And so have many others, such as Don Preston, Sam Frost, and Jack Scott. And these others continue to this day while teaching at conferences, to proclaim the brilliance of King's work. All of which will testify that King, in no way, teaches Universalism in either of his books. I know as one who has read his books many times over, can tell you neither teaches Universalism. In fact, in his book CP, he specially address Universalism and states how and why what he presents is not universalism.

So, I ask you to present where, in either of King's books (Spirit of Prophecy or Cross and Parousia), he presents Universalism. I will gladly go and read it if you would be so kind to point me to the book and page number.

I'm also still waiting for you to show, from your earlier post (the beginning of this thread), where this article by Tami presents universalism. Just so you won't miss it, you stated the following;

"There have been many chapters in the book of the false doctrine of universalism. This presentation by Tami is just the latest and most probably not the last chapter of that book.

Its distinction is that it could be the most convoluted and contradictory of all the known chapters contributing to universalism.

Tom"

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

Maybe you could explain to us all how King's work logically leads to Universalism.

Thanks,
Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Thanks Rich,

I will start to answer your original question by first reproducing a recent comment I made on another website that concerns Tami's argument.
--------------------------------------
Quote:
"I think Tami's example is the clearest and most complete of the three that you use, that are addressing the same argument Tami identifies her argument as the preterism of fulfilled eschatology. The major premise of her argument is Rev. 21:1.

Her argument is that the nature of the NH&NE in Rev. 21:! is covenantal and not cosmological and since in Rev. 21:1 the NH&NE replaces the OH&OE and sea of Gen. 1-3, it is the same nature of both that John is consistently contrasting in Rev 21:1. Therefore her argument is that the OH&OE and sea in Gen. 1-3 must also logically be covenantal and not cosmological.

If I have accurately summarized the major premise of Tami's argument, and I think I have, Then I would ask if there is any disagreement with that major premise? If her major premise is fallacious then her whole argument is fallacious. However if her major premise is valid and sound then it is just disagreements concerning her minor premises or particulars that must be argued. This would require a completely different set of logical rules to be used.

I would be forced to agree with Tami's argument that if the NH&NE is covenantal in nature, then it is logically inconsistent of John in Rev 21:1 to have a H&E that is covenantal in nature replace a H&E that is cosmological in nature.

Tom"
end quote
----------------------------------

Rich, I leave it to Tami and to you to confirm or deny that I have accurately presented Tami's major premise. And remember it is this argument of Tami that I claim is universalism.

Tom
P.S. I have read Max King's article "And so all Israel shall be saved" and this corporate body interpretation is definitely universalism.

mazuur's picture

Tom,

You say you will start to answer, yet you provided no answer. You merely asked questions.

Again, where in her article does she teach universalism?

I would agree you have stated Tami's major premise as I understand it to be. But, again, how does Tami's argument (as you and I understanding it) present universalism? How is both Genesis and Revelation's NH&NE being covenantal teach universalism?

Also, since you stated, "I would be forced to agree with Tami's argument that if the NH&NE is covenantal in nature, then it is logically inconsistent of John in Rev 21:1 to have a H&E that is covenantal in nature replace a H&E that is cosmological in nature" and since you obviously disagree, do you hold Revelation 21 as not being covenantal?? Are you now insisting that the N&E in Revelation 21 is physical cosmology? I can hardly believe my ears. Are you stating the NH&NE in Revelation is still future?

Concerning King. So you're saying that those who hold to the corporate body (CP) hold to universalism? I am CP, Frost is CP, Scott, Preston (and who knows how many more), yet we all reject universalism. What gives? Maybe, it is you that have completely failed to understand what King has presented?

Since you failed to enlighten me how King's corporate body is "definitely" universalism, I'll ask again. Show me how it is universalism? Merely stating a dogmatic conclusion anybody can do. I have the booklet, so feel free to reference any page.

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

I do not have the booklet you mention. I have the article contained in the "Journal" of "Presence.TV".

King's style is so convoluted it is hard to pin him down to find his answer to his question posed by his title. However it is clear that throughout he identifies All Israel as the fleshly seed of Abraham and the salvation is that which was promised to Israel in the new covenant to be fulfilled at the parousia.

It is also clear that King includes the salvation of the nations of gentiles that will occur at the same time as Israel and will be the same salvation. Quoting a paragraph from that article:
-----------------------------------
"Paul did not change from one salvation in 11:26 (for Israel) to another salvation (in 13:11). The salvation in 11:26 was not in the infinite future while the salvation in 13:11 was "nearer" and "at hand." If he did, for whom is the salvation in 13:11? The Gentiles? Were they to receive a different salvation that Israel was promised? That cannot be because Paul in chapter 11 states that the Gentiles were grafted into Israel’s olive tree to receive what precisely what Israel was to receive; nothing more, nothing less."
----------------------------------------
Thus King is including the gentiles in Israel's promised salvation and were to receive precisely what Israel was receiving; nothing more, nothing less. Therefore according to King if All Israel was to be saved then all gentiles were to be saved in the same way with the same salvation; nothing more, nothing less.

The salvation, at the parousia through the atonement achieved by Christ's sacrifice, of All of the corporate body of Israel which includes the in-grafted corporate body of all gentile nations, is universalism by any persons definition.

If all Israel is all fleshly Israel believers and unbelievers alike, then all gentiles are all fleshly gentiles believers and unbelievers alike. If the Israel that were enemies of the gospel were converted by Christ at his parousia, then the gentiles who were enemies of the gospel were converted by Christ at his parousia. All are equally a part of the same promise, covenant, and corporate body, and all are saved in the same way at the same time, nothing more, nothing less.

Thus, according to King, Paul could write "All Israel (all Jews and all gentiles) will be saved". This is universalism, king's or any other person's, denial to the contrary notwithstanding.

Tom

mazuur's picture

Tom,

"King's style is so convoluted". hmmmm, I don't find it convoluted. Never heard others (such as Frost) find it convoluted either.

"he identifies All Israel as the fleshly seed of Abraham and the salvation is that which was promised to Israel in the new covenant to be fulfilled at the parousia."

Correct, in that "All Israel" is comprised from the fleshly seed of Abraham, but, it does not mean every single person of that seed.

"It is also clear that King includes the salvation of the nations of gentiles that will occur at the same time as Israel and will be the same salvation."

Correct, in that Gentiles from all Nations were to be partakers of the salvation that was to come to Israel. But, that doesn't mean every single Gentile. Notice I could say "salvation that was to come to Israel" without that meaning every single Jew. It is corporate Israel. Corporate doesn't mean every single person.

"Thus King is including the gentiles in Israel's promised salvation and were to receive precisely what Israel was receiving; nothing more, nothing less"

Correct. Do you think you have received a salvation that is different than what believing Israel was to receive?

"Therefore according to King if All Israel was to be saved then all gentiles were to be saved in the same way with the same salvation; nothing more, nothing less."

WRONG. You just defined "All Israel" to mean every single Jew and to follow you apply this to every single (all) Gentile. Notice also your the insertion of "all" before Gentile. Completely your doing, not King's.

"...of All of the corporate body of Israel which includes the in-grafted corporate body of all gentile nations"

There are many things wrong here. Notice you just redefined King's "All Israel", which you previously defined correctly as being from the physical seed of Abraham, to include Gentiles. Gentile's are not from the physical seed of Abraham. "All Israel" doesn't not include Gentles.

"corporate body of all gentile nations"???? Where is the world did you get that from???

"If all Israel is all fleshly Israel believers and unbelievers alike, then all gentiles are all fleshly gentiles believers and unbelievers alike"

Funny, here you're back to defining "all Israel" as being from the physical seed of Abraham.

Also, "all Israel" is not all fleshly Israel! It is all fleshly believing Israel.

"Thus, according to King, Paul could write "All Israel (all Jews and all gentiles) will be saved"

Now you're back to defining "all Israel" to include gentiles again. Make up your mind. :)

Going to have to stop here. I can see it's all one big chain reaction. One error leading to a series of errors piling on top of each other until the conclusion reaches what you want it to be...Universalism. You have completely misunderstood what King has presented. I think the big problem you have is understanding what "corporate body" means. The corporate body of Israel, does not mean every single Jew!

I would highly recommend you get a copy of King's book Cross and Parousia (CP). There you will find a 48 page section dealing with Romans 9-11 (which focuses on the "All Israel"). I think it will get you cleared up, and you'll understand why Frost, Scott, me and others think King has it right on. I am not familiar with the "article" in their Journal you are referring to. King does have a small booklet, entitled "Old Testament Israel and New Testament Salvation". I think Presence Ministries might have tried to reproduce a small section of it as an article in their Journal under the title "And so all Israel shall be saved". Of course this leaves out the majority of the information in the booklet (or the book CP), and is probably causing misunderstandings due to the lack of the complete picture. Might have been a bad move on their part. You might want to purchase the booklet; it's only $6. However, I would recommend you just get the complete work of CP and read the section on Romans 9-11 (or better yet the whole book).

Now, you could just ignore my advice and continue in spreading your misunderstandings of King to the masses. People do love doing that.

Of course, I'm still not seeing what this has to do with Tami's article. How is she presenting Universalism???

-Rich

-Rich

tom-g's picture

Rich,

I have reproduced the title of the article that I referenced. As you can readily see, the article was written by someone claiming to be Max R. King.
-------------------------
And So All Israel Will Be Saved
by Max R. King, July 9, 2005
----------------------------------

I would suggest that you are either not familiar with King's latest views on the subject expressed in this article, or you are illicitly imposing your own views upon King to cause him to say something he does not say.

It would seem that a major source of your misunderstanding is your irrational contradictory explanation of the definition of "corporate body". You agree the corporate body of all Israel is comprised of the fleshly descendants of Abraham, but you deny that every fleshly descendant of Abraham is a member of the "corporate body" of all Israel.

would you also claim that the "corporate body" of Christ is comprised of believers in Christ, but that not all believers in Christ are members of the "corporate body" of Christ?

Would you also claim that the corporate body of gentiles is comprised of gentiles, but not all gentiles are members of the "corporate body" of gentiles?

At the time the letter to the Romans was written, the "corporate body" of all Israel was comprised of the remnant of fleshly descendants of Abraham who had attained to the righteousness of faith and the rest of the fleshly descendants of Abraham who were blinded and were enemies of the gospel. At that same time the "corporate body" of the nations of gentiles was comprised of those gentiles who had attained to the righteousness of faith and the rest of the gentiles who were blinded and were enemies of the gospel.

In your attempt to avoid the label of universalism you try to claim that a proposition and its contradiction are both true.That when the deliverer comes out of Sion:
1) "all Israel will be saved" and its contradiction
2) "some Israel will not be saved"

If the second is true as you claim, then the first which is the contradiction of the second is false, when this in fact is the proposition that the scripture claims is true.

You also attempt the same thing concerning the corporate body of gentiles.

So, I would ask you: "At the time when the deliverer came out of Sion, did the corporate body of "all Israel that was saved" include the Israel that was blinded and was the enemy of the gospel? And was the same true of the nations of gentiles that were blinded and enemies of the gospel?

Tom

amie's picture

Tom,

It is a mistake to think that any part of Israel was not hardened and blinded via the law.

Amie

When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at, change.

[url=www.bugsinheaven.com]www.bugsinheaven.com[/url]

mazuur's picture

Tom,

I also interested in your thoughts on my questions:

"I would agree you have stated Tami's major premise as I understand it to be. But, again, how does Tami's argument (as you and I understanding it) present universalism? How is both Genesis and Revelation's NH&NE being covenantal teach universalism?

Also, since you stated, "I would be forced to agree with Tami's argument that if the NH&NE is covenantal in nature, then it is logically inconsistent of John in Rev 21:1 to have a H&E that is covenantal in nature replace a H&E that is cosmological in nature" and since you obviously disagree, do you hold Revelation 21 as not being covenantal?? Are you now insisting that the N&E in Revelation 21 is physical cosmology? I can hardly believe my ears. Are you stating the NH&NE in Revelation is still future?"

-Rich

-Rich

JL's picture

Yes Rich,

I'd like to see how any sort of covenantalism is necessarily universalism.

The point of covenantalism is to define thing with respect to the covenant. You are in, or you are out.

I can understand universalism inside the covenant, "all in the covenant are 'in.'" This is typically called "perseverance of the saints," the P in Calvinst lingo. But it still abandons those who are born outside the covenant and remain outside.

But true universalism, "all are 'in,' even those not inside the covenant," makes no sense to me. It is antithetical to covenant.

Why I could say all Calvinist's are universalist by the same sort of argument. Irresistible grace. That does it for me. Nobody can resist it. Forget the TUL. No need to discuss it. That would only limit the power of God. IP spells universalism.

Blessings,

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

tom-g's picture

Hey JL,

It is nice to see your contribution to help Rich clarify his thinking about a covenant and a corporate body. Your description is what I have been attempting to explain to Rich.

Rich becomes very confusing when he agrees that the expressions of my understanding of what both King and Tami teach is correct and then says I am not correct when I express the necessary logical implication of their teaching.

Somehow, when King has explained that the salvation that occurs to "All Israel" when the deliverer comes out of Sion is the same salvation that comes to the fullness of the gentiles also, Rich expects me to deny by ignoring what King has already taught about gentiles because a specific statement does not speak about gentiles but only speaks of "all Israel".

Similarly, Tami's major premise that both Rev. 21:1 and Gen. 1-3 are covenantal and not cosmological is her first fallacy. And as I stated: that makes her whole argument invalid and unsound.

Perhaps both Rich and Tami will believe you when you explain to them that the contradiction of her major premise is the proposition: "some of Gen. 1-3 is cosmological and not covenantal." Perhaps you could also explain to them that stating some of Gen. 1-3 is cosmological and not covenantal does not imply that some is not cosmological and is covenantal. It absolutely contradicts the statement: "Gen. 1-3 is covenantal and not cosmological, which is her major premise.

Tom

JL's picture

Tom,

I am currently reading John Walton's, The Lost World of Genesis One. I highly recommend it.

Walton discusses the difference between material ontology and functional ontology. He claims Genesis 1 is functional not material. That is, he denies your assumed physical cosmology and replaces it with a functional cosmology.

I'm sure you understand all this, but it is new to me and I think an example is warranted for those reading whose understanding is as limited as mine was when I spoke on the subject at the Covenant Creation Conference a few weeks ago.

My brother says he does not have a car. I know for a fact that is not true. His car is in the garage, on blocks, with the engine removed. Functionally, he has no car. Materially, he has a car.

If as Walton says, creation is functional, not material, then physical creation, as we imagine it, materially existed before God started assigning function to the elements.

Walton said that his aha moment came when he asked the question, "Why didn't God call the light, light?" God did not assign the name "day" to the light itself, but to the period of light. This functionality or purpose was what was being created.

Walton might agree with you that some of the creation is cosmological, he might even state that it is all cosmological, but he would disagree with your unstated assumption that the creation was material.

Blessings.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Barry's picture

This might actually fit directly or indirectly with my point that it is Universal creation.

And why then Paul can move between the two (universal creation and covenant creation) in Act 17. And why the either or will not always work.

Barry

we are all in this together

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43