U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-14-2010, 08:19 AM
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3,139 posts, read 2,687,703 times
Reputation: 243

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Wow what a rabbit trail... we went from what happens to babies/children who die (they are sinners too) to mortality/immortality to "covenant theology".
More distractions from the hard questions...
legoman, for me one of "the hard questions" is, "Why would anyone even want to consider changing from believing in UR theology to believing in Full Preterists/Covenant Creationism theology?"

I'm glad that sciotamicks is not an ETer.
That certainly is a HUGE point on the plus side for him!

But on one post sciotamicks said that he will never think that UR is true.
He said, "It appears I may have misled you into thinking that I am considering UR, I am not and never will." If I remember correctly I think he was responding to Alabama.

If it is true that he will never consider UR, then that guarantees that on this forum sciotamicks will always be a foil of contrast for URs which I think is a good thing.

So we have sciotamicks's Full Preterists/Covenant Creationism theology which says that people who do not hear about Jesus before they die, and even if they do hear about Him, if they are not “willing” to take one of the four or five statistical "chances" that they just might be given to start trusting Him as their Savior, then they will simply cease to exist when they die.

VERSUS

Universal Transformation theology which says that sooner or later, because of what Christ accomplished by His death and resurrection, through the power in the blood of His cross, God will save everyone from everything from which they need to be saved, including their stubborn will.
THE OUTCOME OF INFINITE GRACE – Dr. Loyal Hurley
The Outcome Of Infinite Grace, by Dr. Loyal F. Hurley (http://www.gtft.org/Library/miscellaneous/TheOutcomeOfInfiniteGrace.htm - broken link)

Not only that, but the UR God will also transform the existence of evil and suffering into something better for everyone that it existed as He fits each individual into His master plan in their own unique way; a way that necessitates their unique temporary involvement in evil and suffering that will enable God to manifest, and glorify, and magnify the many facets of His character in a way that uniquely involves that person, and everyone else involved in that person’s life too.

Then, after God has finished using the existence of evil and suffering to bring blessings to all of His creatures, He will eradicate them both from existence.
THE PURPOSE OF EVIL – A.P. Adams
evil.html

QUESTION:
Why would anyone even want to investigate a theology that that makes our Savior anything less than
CHRIST TRIUMPHANT ??
Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin

So to paraphrase Sciotamicks
It appears that I have not misled you into thinking that I am considering Full Preterists/Covenant Creationism, I am not and never will.

 
Old 12-14-2010, 09:24 AM
 
2,526 posts, read 2,271,916 times
Reputation: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotinAZ View Post
Actually, Adam did covet the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as did Eve.

So saying "thou shall not covet" as being ONLY a 10 commandment law is kinda stretching it.
It is like "thou shall not kill" being the same, yet when Cain killed Abel, he was banished. So this law must have been around as well.
Coveting isn't what "opened" Adam's eyes to see that he was naked. If there was coveting involved, and I don't doubt that there was, it was not a sin against law at that point. Here is what Gen. says:

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

As for Cain killing Abel, Cain perhaps killed Abel due to the consequences of his fallen nature from Adam. Now, that's speculation on my part but there is nothing in scripture that indicates a law was given concerning murder at that time. Secondly, under the mosaic law murder was punishable by death, of which God did not require it of Cain's act. Cain's punishment was reaping the consequences of his actions, "cursed from the earth" and becoming a "fugitive and vagabond", rather than corporal punishment of law.

I think most likely that oral traditions were passed down from Adam until Moses concerning the consequences of ones actions, good and evil and what pleased and displeased God. But their sins (or missing the mark) were not imputed (charged to their account) due to the absence of law, as stated by Paul in Rom. 5:13. Anyway, JMO...
 
Old 12-14-2010, 10:49 AM
 
3,553 posts, read 4,309,404 times
Reputation: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post
Coveting isn't what "opened" Adam's eyes to see that he was naked. If there was coveting involved, and I don't doubt that there was, it was not a sin against law at that point. Here is what Gen. says:

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
But what was it that Eve did? Did she covet?

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Looks to me like coveting was the temptation that caused the sin to be birthed. Good food, a delight to behold, and a desire for wisdom. Coveting at it's finest.



Quote:
As for Cain killing Abel, Cain perhaps killed Abel due to the consequences of his fallen nature from Adam. Now, that's speculation on my part but there is nothing in scripture that indicates a law was given concerning murder at that time.
Nothing in scripture, but was a punishment rendered? I would think so, even though it wasn't corporal it was still a punishment. Few stripes, perhaps?

Quote:
Secondly, under the mosaic law murder was punishable by death, of which God did not require it of Cain's act.
You cannot apply the Mosaic Law concerning murder when the law had yet to be brought forth from God TO Moses.

Quote:
Cain's punishment was reaping the consequences of his actions, "cursed from the earth" and becoming a "fugitive and vagabond", rather than corporal punishment of law.
Was it or not,,,a punishment. If no law was broken, then why the punishment at all?? So therefore, there must have been a law established.

Quote:
I think most likely that oral traditions were passed down from Adam until Moses concerning the consequences of ones actions, good and evil and what pleased and displeased God.
Probably, but still speculation. We don't know.

Quote:
But their sins (or missing the mark) were not imputed (charged to their account) due to the absence of law, as stated by Paul in Rom. 5:13. Anyway, JMO...
No, there sin WAS imputed, because they were all banished from the Garden. To die. No Tree of Life. And no access to it, until Jesus.

And while we are chatting, this just caught my eyes, while reading Romans. What do you make of this verse??

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, MUCH MORE, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

It seems there is more than just being reconciled in this verse. It would seem that "saved by His life" is something altogether different?

Perhaps everyone is reconciled, but not everyone is saved?

I don't know,,,just rambling. Interesting thought-provoking verse though.
 
Old 12-14-2010, 12:05 PM
 
2,526 posts, read 2,271,916 times
Reputation: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by HotinAZ View Post
But what was it that Eve did? Did she covet?

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.

Looks to me like coveting was the temptation that caused the sin to be birthed. Good food, a delight to behold, and a desire for wisdom. Coveting at it's finest.
I agree coveting proceeded the eating of the fruit, and yet their eyes were not opened when they coveted, but rather when they actually ate of the fruit, and transgressed the covenant.

Quote:
Nothing in scripture, but was a punishment rendered? I would think so, even though it wasn't corporal it was still a punishment. Few stripes, perhaps?
I think the punishment here is the consequences of natural law and order. But not a given law, per se, as in the mosaic law. Ie: If you jump from a tall tree, you will hurt your leg, due to the "law" of gravity. And that is the punishment that Cain suffered at the time. He reaped evil for the evil he sowed.

Quote:
You cannot apply the Mosaic Law concerning murder when the law had yet to be brought forth from God TO Moses.
Agreed, but the punishment for evil (not necessarily law) was also clearly known and taught to Noah, and it carried with it corporal consequences, unlike Cain's transgression:

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Quote:
Was it or not,,,a punishment. If no law was broken, then why the punishment at all?? So therefore, there must have been a law established.
It was punishment in the sense of a person reaping what they sow, or reaping evil for displeasing God, similar to what happens when we violate "natural laws" of order. But I don't see it as a punishment due to a civil/criminal law instituted by God, prior to Moses.

Quote:
Probably, but still speculation. We don't know.

No, there sin WAS imputed, because they were all banished from the Garden. To die. No Tree of Life. And no access to it, until Jesus.
Yes, sin was imputed to their account, as well as ours, but not by law, but rather by covenant and the federal headship of Adam who represented us. Although law can, and often is stipulated within a covenant agreement, the two terms (law and covenant) are not exactly the same nor due they accomplish the same goals between two parties.

Quote:
And while we are chatting, this just caught my eyes, while reading Romans. What do you make of this verse??

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, MUCH MORE, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

It seems there is more than just being reconciled in this verse. It would seem that "saved by His life" is something altogether different?

Perhaps everyone is reconciled, but not everyone is saved?

I don't know,,,just rambling. Interesting thought-provoking verse though.
I see exactly what you're saying here too. The way I've always understood it is similar to objective justification leading to our final glorification:

Rom 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Although those events are all described as being past tense (spoken from God's vantage point) we view them as separate events that unfold in time.

And in like manner, we see the reconciliation of all (a past tense event that occurred on the cross) ultimately leading to the salvation of all (future tense).
 
Old 12-14-2010, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Wa
5,295 posts, read 5,198,051 times
Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post
Little wonder that none of the early church fathers ever taught what you have been teaching recently (i.e "covenant theology") ...

Little wonder that there was almost no evidence at all for almost all of what you teach and believe during the first 3 hundred years after the death and resurrection of Christ.
That statement alone shows you know nothing of the early church fathers' work, 1st and 2nd temple Judaism, inter-testament literature, and the message in the scriptures itself! A suggestions for you and others, is to delve into ANE literature.
 
Old 12-14-2010, 12:26 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Wa
5,295 posts, read 5,198,051 times
Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm View Post

To be honest, your doctrines are new to me. This is certainly not coming form the reformed faith, is it? Oh, well...
They aren't new:

Articles (http://www.newcreationministries.tv/articles.htm - broken link)

Come join us for a healthy and uplifting discussion:

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

My name is Ken.
 
Old 12-14-2010, 01:27 PM
 
7,374 posts, read 7,079,006 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
That statement alone shows you know nothing of the early church fathers' work, 1st and 2nd temple Judaism, inter-testament literature, and the message in the scriptures itself! A suggestions for you and others, is to delve into ANE literature.
I know nothing of the early church fathers work? Thats interesting ...

Then please do provide evidence of the teachings of "covenant theology" from the writings of the early church fathers ...


Quote:
"The idea of covenant theology has only in modern times been broadly conceived."

Cornelius Van Til, a covenant theologian.
Quote:
"In the early Church Fathers the covenant idea is not found at all."

Louis Berkhof, covenant theologian.
Quote:
It [covenant theology] was not the expressed doctrine of the early church. It was never taught by church leaders in the Middle Ages. It was not even mentioned by the primary leaders of the Reformation. Indeed, covenant theology as a system is only a little older than dispensationalism. That does not mean it is not biblical, but it does dispel the notion that covenant theology has been throughout all church history the ancient guardian of the truth that is only recently being sniped at by dispensationalism.
Covenant theology does not appear in the writings of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, or Melanchthon… There were no references to covenant theology in any of the great confessions of faith until the Westminster Confession in 1647, and even then covenant theology was not as fully developed as it was later by Reformed theologians. The covenant (or federal) theory arose sporadically and apparently independently late in the sixteenth century.

Dr. Ryrie


Again, please do make reference to the writings of any of the early church fathers which Claim that Adam was not the first man, or that "the world" only means "those that believe" or "those who are part of the covenant" ...

Or any writings of the early church fathers that teach in any detail covenant theology as you have demonstrated it here at C-D ...

Thank you ...
 
Old 12-14-2010, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3,139 posts, read 2,687,703 times
Reputation: 243
Post A healthy uplifting discussion about God's grace

Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
Come join us for a healthy and uplifting discussion:
My name is Ken.
Ken, I can't even imagine "a healthy uplifting discussion" about how all the humans who die without accepting one of the four or five statistical average "chances" to start trusting in Jesus as our Savior get poofed out of existence.

I'd much rather have a healthy uplifting discussion about
THE OUTCOME OF INFINITE GRACE – Dr. Loyal Hurley
The Outcome of Infinite Grace
 
Old 12-14-2010, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Wa
5,295 posts, read 5,198,051 times
Reputation: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post
I know nothing of the early church fathers work? Thats interesting ...

Then please do provide evidence of the teachings of "covenant theology" from the writings of the early church fathers ...
You can find much of it on the sites I supplied, and there is also:

Welcome to Beyond Creation Science

They cite much for your needs.

There is also The BioLogos Forum

You can also see:

Historical Genesis: From Adam To Abraham
 
Old 12-14-2010, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3,139 posts, read 2,687,703 times
Reputation: 243
Thumbs up Here is what i regard as "healthy and uplifting"

Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
Come join us for a healthy and uplifting discussion:
My name is Ken.
I guess different people regard different subjects as
"healthy and uplifting."

Here's the subject that I enjoy the most.

CHRIST TRIUMPHANT - Thomas Allin
Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:27 AM.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top