Ward: “As preachers, we love a crowd. And crowds make us feel good and accepted. And that is the direction many preterists are taking, namely, to bring in a crowd at the expense of truth.”

Hitting and running makes some people feel good and accepted, draws attention and often "crowds." Fulfilling his own statement, perhaps? :)

Ward, really...what was the point in you coming over here? You have not demonstrated anything. All you did was accuse Sam of more stuff. It would be different if you actually would get involved in a conversation, but all you did was a hit and run.

If your intention is not to get involved, then bug off. Who needs it.

You have made some very serious accusations, based on an inaccurate quote of Sam by Tami. Of course, i can't expect you to catch Tami's mistake when you admit to not listening to the show. You and Tami both have been shown your error, in detail. I was expecting an apology. Instead, we get more baloney, while your accusations continue.

Does it make you feel more manly or something?

I found this quote interesting: "But the directions he has taken over the last few years unfortunately reduces the cross to an emblem of mere physical redemption and redemptive possibilities rather than an emblem of efficacy, and intended restoration for the consciences of God's people."

Who here is really the one that has changed in one direction more forcibly in the past few years? Um...that would be you.

I just love how Sam's theology can remain virtually the same as it was 7 years ago when i met him and yet now, all of a sudden, he's a partial preterist whose views diminish the cross.

YOU Ward, are the one who moved away from a "physical creation" view of Genesis. Sam has gone nowhere. Sam's views have remained the same since i have known him.

He has always taught an ongoing application that reveals itself in the world.

But, i guess i shouldn't expect you to understand, considering that you brag on your yahoo list and DID that you don't waste time with people like us.

"This is why I don't discuss truth with Jason and Sam. They are dishonest."

Seriously...either intend on getting involved, so that your words can be held accountable, or bug off.

Hate to come off this strong, but your childish games of 'hit and run' are really getting old.

I don't believe that committing grammatical fallacies (such as "illegitimate identity transers" with the words 'heaven' and 'earth') and committing exegetical fallacies (such as "unwarranted expansion of an expanded semantic field" with the word 'yom') when interpreting the Genesis narrative is what many Christian (or non-christians for that matter) consider "truth and reason." Personally, I think these tpe of errors will not only hurt preterism, but Christianity as well. I hope I'm wrong. :)

Ward,
not trying to actually suck you into a conversation (God forbid that we talk!), and I am not sure where you and I originally got off on the wrong foot. It must have been years ago, I don't know. Still confused on that one.

Anyhoo, throwing in "a little truth and reason" should actually have a "litte reason" (explanation) to it, so that we can idenitify what "truth" and for what "reasons" you are giving to it. That would help.

No intention to get involved. Just throwing in a little truth and reason where I perceive it to be lacking. :)

Ward,

Hi, how are you? Have n't talked much. And, what an opening! I like how you simply INSIST that my view (which you don't understand) on Isaiah 65 is what you say it is without actually showing that that is the case. In other words, prove it. Any view that leaves out the physical aspects of creation is gnostic-leaning. It's like saying to the folks in Haiti: "Good luck, and god bless". Have you so divorced the cross of Christ from its positive effects that it carries with it in culture and life? Now, I won't say you are doing this, because, we have not discussed this together. So, I WON'T jump to conclusions.

As for "grammatico-historical" - sorry, you guys, from what we have thoroughly read, make no sense when it comes to Genesis 1-11. You can blame this on "traditional baggage" and all that all you want. Is reading a 66 book Bible "traditional baggage"? How about bringing Calvin in to it? Traditional? I think Mike B.'s response is fine, and it is my own. I would also love (sincerely) to enter into this conversation. I have not had any luck with others on your side of the fence.....maybe you will bring a different spirit.

Here is how Heavens and earth is used in Genesis. Seems to me that there was already a destruction that happened. (whatever your take is on the language - Rev 21 can't be referring to Gen 1).

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Notice Heavens and earth language below. There is a distinction made between people and earth. So earth can not refer to the people. It also mentions the heavens.

Genesis 6
13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth ... 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

This is confirmed in 2 Peter 3.

2 Peter 3
5But 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.

So that makes it clear that Revelation 21 is not speaking of Genesis 1 but instead is speaking of what we find in Hebrews

A) Notice BOTH have the "first" language
B) Notice both speak of the "Old order / New order".

Revelation 21
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away ... There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

Hebrews 9
8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

I use the language "heaven and earth" as the world at the present time - or governmental system of things. This may include covenants. But I believe that it may be broader than that. I bleive I can quote quite a few reformers who understood the language that way.

Ward wrote:
Actually, above all others, we do use a historical grammatical interpretation.

Ward - some of my thoughts below...

A) Norm even says that he rejects the Historical Grammatical. I understand that you have been out of the loop as far as that goes, but he rejects it (his own words).

B) You do not use the Historical Grammaitical when it comes to the internal critique (within the same book) use of the language (ie Genesis 1-9 how it uses animals - for example)

Proof-text method vs. Historico Grammatical
In the proof-text approach, verses and short sections of text are used to support a particular topic or position. Compared with the historical-grammatical method, interpretations based on the proof-text method are often isolated from the context surrounding the verse. It often neglects the historical setting and type of literary genre. The proof-text approach can be susceptible to heterodox teachings, and applications tend to be allegorical in nature.

C) Ward writes: Simply put: the new heavens and new earth represent the conscience of the church and the law of Christ, under which the church is subject.

Ward are you saying that is how "heavens and earth" is used throughout the ENTIRE bible - since you instist Heaven and earth be used consistently the same way (regardless of context).

D) Tim Martins OWN words admits that Genesis 1 does not have to be interpreted allegorically (for more of the quote see above - small bit below).

"A Local Creation interpretation is possible once we understand the covenant use of "heavens and earth" but it is not textually required in Genesis 1 by the covenantal reading of "heavens and earth" language elsewhere in Scripture"

E) Ward, since you insist that you use the Historical Grammatical is what you use and one of the rules you say is..."how it is used in the context itself" - can you agree that it is silly to make the animals = people in Genesis 1-9 since Noah sacrifices and eats animals Gen 6-9 that uses the EXACT same language regarding animals in Gen 1-3.

Actually, above all others, we do use a historical grammatical interpretation. I hope you realize that historical grammatical refers to at least three things: How the phrase or word is used in historical biblical literature, how it is used in the historical cultural context, and how it is used in the context itself. The problem with the NC view is that they are still stuck in the literal mud of futurist hermeneutics. Sam's interpretation of Is 65 is careless and astonishingly inconsistent. He ignores glaringly obvious prophetic relationships with Is 65 in Jeremiah and elsewhere in Isaiah. He doesn't just ignore them. He destroys the big picture of OC/NC themes and their finding fulfillment in Christ. Sam recklessly extricates Is 65 from its covenantal context and relationship to the cross of Christ, thus, unwittingly diminishing the work of the cross. He doesn't do it on purpose, obviously, though his tendencies toward G.O. are disturbing. I believe that Sam (even though we haven't talked much over the last two years) still believes in an efficacious Cross. But the directions he has taken over the last few years unfortunately reduces the cross to an emblem of mere physical redemption and redemptive possibilities rather than an emblem of efficacy, and intended restoration for the consciences of God's people.

Simply put: the new heavens and new earth represent the conscience of the church and the law of Christ, under which the church is subject.

Phil,
you know what? because I like you and i think you are the genuine article, I'll give you that. Nuff said

Hi Sam,

I thought your bit at the end was hilarious, but listening to your comments after I suspect you didn't understand the point of the comment.....let me help ya here.

If you've noticed I've been pointing on a certain someones hypocrisy and the comment from Kelby (the request to contact him privately) was just another example in what seems to be a lifestyle choice for this certain someone.

Hope that helps......

Phil

You guys are right on...

A) They violate the sound rules of Hermeneutics

Proof-text method vs. Historico Grammatical
In the proof-text approach, verses and short sections of text are used to support a particular topic or position. Compared with the historical-grammatical method, interpretations based on the proof-text method are often isolated from the context surrounding the verse. It often neglects the historical setting and type of literary genre. The proof-text approach can be susceptible to heterodox teachings, and applications tend to be allegorical in nature.

B) They use a "word search hermeneutic" rather than remembering what they have said in the past - "not textually required"

Tim Martin
While the theory does have a logical consistency to it there are some real textual challenges with rendering the creation account as the creation of Israel. First of all, even preterists recognize that not every use of the phrase "heavens and earth" in Scripture must be covenantally based. A good example where a covenantal reading would be exceedingly difficult to maintain is Paul’s gospel presentation to the Gentiles at Lystra: Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. Acts 14:15. It seems clear in that passage that Paul is referencing God’s physical creation of the "heavens and earth and sea and everything in them" as an apologetic for the truth of the gospel. The Gentiles, who were strangers to the covenant, could never have heard Paul in a Hebraic covenant context. The subject at least includes the cosmological creation. Another example of a clear creational use of the "heavens and earth" language is in the Law. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. Exodus 20:4. Clearly, a physical, creational reading is the right one. These examples of a creational, cosmological reading of "heavens and earth" could be multiplied in the Psalms and prophets and wisdom literature of Scripture. This demonstrates that, while the language of "heavens and earth’ often can and should be read in reference to covenant, there are many examples of "heavens and earth" which are primarily creational based in the physical "heavens and earth." A Local Creation interpretation is possible once we understand the covenant use of "heavens and earth" but it is not textually required in Genesis 1 by the covenantal reading of "heavens and earth" language elsewhere in Scripture.

C) We have shown many times that it is ACTUALLY textually required (when examined internally) to take Genesis for what it says rather than symbolic (see animals below for example)

Animals in Genesis 1-9. They can’t be symbolic when examining the text INTERNALLY (i.e. per Hermeneutics 101 rules). BOTH men and animals are destroyed in Genesis.

Genesis 7
21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

Noah sacrifices animals (real animals) which is totally consistent with Genesis 4 (Abel) and the rest of the OT When examining Genesis 1-9 especially and elsewhere in Genesis. Makes it VERY difficult if not impossible to make the animals = humans (a standard CC belief which correlates to their new hermeneutic),

Genesis 8
20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it.

Are green plants symbolic for people, below? It says that just as He (God) gave the plants for food. If the plants are not symbolic plants, then they are not symbolic animals in Genesis.

Genesis 1
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

Genesis 9
2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Again - no one denies that in prophesy animals can be used to represent humans. But the scriptures MUST first be examined in the CONTEXT of their surrounding verses, before it is legit to do that. That is hermeneutics 101 (Historico Grammatical Hermeneutics).

The entrenchment is more serious, then, than I thought. Rather than inclusive, it is specifically "exclusive" and now shows signs of an "us versus them" mentality. Allow me to illustrate. With some in the BCS audience on SGP, it is "us YE folks, and us BCS folks" - but it is still "us". Here, with DID it us more "us BCS folks and them SGP folks" - a divide has occurred.

I would like to know why Jeff and I had a few cordial phone conversations not just two months ago? He even called me a few times. And I called him. No name calling. He has an entirely false caricaturization of me and our motives, Jason.

See, folks, it's not "BCS" - let me make this LOUD AND CLEAR: It's not BCS in and of itself. I have gone on record with what I showed last night, even after CERTAIN PERSONS attacks who are BCS advocates. What I have separated is the BCS VIEW from the CERTAIN PERSONS who hold to this view with rigid dogmatism and an almost fanatical allegience (I won't say "cult" - even though Norm has called us "cultic" when it comes to our philosophy - which can be found in Evangelicalism). See, some folks I know are heading towards, or leaning towards, or like to some extent the BCS approach, for whatever it is worth. And with this, WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS AND NEVER HAVE. It's CERTAIN PERSONS who are BCS we have a problem with. Let me name them: Tami J., Norm V., Jeff V., - I don't even have much an issue with Ward F. because we have not interacted that much. As far as his view on "deparavity" (even the plowing of the wicked is evil) I totally agree (that was one of Gordon Clark's favorite lines, by the way- "even the plowing of the wicked is evil"). Tim Martin has not interacted that much as of late, either. I still don't have much of an issue with him. It's these few: Tami, Jeff and Norm, mainly. There are a few others, sure.

I firmly believe and have demonstrated that we can "get along" - SGP has proven that. Mickey, Mike, Jim K. - just to name a few - Joseph Vincent is old earth - and he's a great person I have recently met. Alan Bondar - old earther....I stayed at his house the other night. He has opened it up for me as I do business there in that area. See how this works, folks? ATTITUDE MANNERS RESPECT and then DIALOGUE COMMUNICATION and MUTUAL AGREEMENT and DISAGREEMENT while still maintaining a vital, united front on the THINGS THAT MATTER right now, namely, the overall FRAMEWORK of biblical preterism (which I more or less see as in our millennial view - putting the millennium BEFORE A.D. 70 - that, as William Bell has demonstrated amply, is, perhaps, the main unique feature of full preterism)

I am appealing to all involved, but more to those who are the disinterested. Don't let this discourage you. We have seen it before. When something is wound this tight, and held on to this hard, it usually dies. I have said this in the past and will say it again; what BCS offers has potential in many areas - but it is not the end all be all keystone that solves all the problems. It is merely one "tool" out there. There are other "tools" as well. We should be working together (and will be - more on that later) at this point. I believe that this is the sane, logical and rational and biblical manner in which to proceed.

Still no answer from JL about his claim of adverbs in 2 Peter 3. Instead,

"Larry,

I haven't noticed you posting something like this on any site Sam or Jason frequents. Why pick on us instead of talking straight to those you call your friends?

I've been dealing with Sam for almost 8 years now. The first name calling was done by him. He has shown no respect to anyone on our side ever. I lost all respect for Sam long ago.

I am sick of Sam and Jason's lies, ad hominems, insults, and mocking. You claim to be Sam's friend. Go tell him to cease and desist. I will have nothing more to do with Sam except for the debate you promised to set up.

Sam drew the line almost 8 years ago. It wasn't us. I'm done with the entire SGP crowd."

See there...."the entire SGP crowd". Really? Including Jim? Including Mickey? Including Mellontes? Including Davo?

And notice, JL doesn't give specifics. JL just makes these huge broad sweeping statements about us lying about everything. Not so with me. I point them out. I give quotes.

Like this stuff here: http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemi...

This is where JL incorrectly claims that i posted my original "Genesis or Exodus" piece on a "closed site"....nope. It wasn't closed. We didn't temporarily close it until the end of April. That post was made in January.

Yet, JL, in June at DID, claimed: "I have read everything they Sam, Roderick, Mike B., and Jason have made publicly available. I have answered them and they repeat the charges, ignoring my corrections and comments."

Hmmmm....now that's interesting. I caught a contradiction and posted about it in Jan on a public site. JL claims i blocked him from seeing (lie), and thus could not respond until i brought the issue up again a year later. All the while telling everyone that he had read "everything" that i have posted.

Who's making up stuff now? Who's running from correction? Who STILL won't answer the adverb claim that Sam corrected him on?

And i thought that Tami might offer an apology after being shown last night that she completely distorted Sam's comments about Ge 6 and that he was in fact right in line with Calvinist teaching. Instead, what do we get from her:

"JL, your comments above, along with the brilliant advice from the psalmist you posted earlier, will conclude this thread.

Thanks, Tami"

And there you have it folks. According to Tami, JL offered brilliant advice in warning people about hanging out with us "sinners" and "mockers".

Same pattern over and over from the BCS gang. They made ridiculous claims, we respond, and their counter-response is to name call, attack our character, lie about posts and admin moves, and then tell everyone what a waste of time we are.

This is why the whole "can't we get along" bit has no weight with me anymore. They are haters, plain and simple. If Roderick was doing this, we would all see it. But for some reason, preterists get a pass.

Jason,

I have got to do something with my constant sniffing, sniffling, sighing, breathing, moving around noises! Goodness! Sounds like I am doing coke! ROFL

Enjoyed the podcast. These strange quotes brought up some questions, however:

Norm: “I also understand Sam’s desire to want to render the message physically because it is the same thing that all religious leaders gravitate to because it makes developing a following much easier. People are drawn to the simplistic and what’s physically in it for me as a tried and true church builder.”

1)So Sam, have you interpreted the Genesis creation story as a physical, cosmological, historical account because you are a religious leader who wants to develop a following? Have you interpreted it the way you do because you are drawn to the simplistic and what's physically in it for you as a tried and true church builder?

2) How's that working out for you? :)

3) I don't think these personal attacks and disparaging remarks will ever stop. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is "cut down". Amazing. They do it over and over and over, but I don't think they realize it any more, it's become so habitual.

4) I wonder why millions of Christians and Jews who were not church leaders and who did not have followings, interpreted the Genesis creation account as a physical, cosmological, historical account.? A new ad hom will have to be invented for them (and me).

Ward: “As preachers, we love a crowd. And crowds make us feel good and accepted. And that is the direction many preterists are taking, namely, to bring in a crowd at the expense of truth.”

5) Anyone seen a big preterist crowd lately? I hear there is a new 15,000 member preterist church right down the block from Charles Stanley's place. LOL!

I think the thing on Phil Naessen's commit near the end was funny.....