Norm Voss Whips Jason Bradfield

Consistent Hyper-Preterist Norman Voss writes:

 

“You are still throwing the whole science boogey man out there even when I have demonstrated biblical arguments alongside ancient literature to backup a historical Hebrew approach that demonstrates the symbolical understanding of Day not meaning literally 24hrs. This is exactly what we do in Covenant eschatology to demonstrate that the Parousia has already happened. We use scripture and we use other literature such as Josephus to help confirm our position.“

Jason Bradfield responds:

“When i use Clark, i use Clark to support the same exact beliefs and arguments that i believe. Clark’s views, at these specific points, are preserved as he intended them.

“You, however, are using quotes from Augustine to argue something Augustine wasn’t arguing.”

Norm Voss:

No Jason you are not serious because you are a professional straw-man builder. 😉

That is youre forte and you will milk that dry cow all day long.

In Texas we call your approach as “all Hat and no cows”.

So Jason youre saying Augustine wasn’t arguing for a metaporical application of Genesis 1 in the quote I presented. You need to go back and read it again Jason as you are simply misrepresenting what I presented.

You see if you really don’t pay attention Jason you end up making errant statements like you just did concerning my usage of Augustine.

Jason Bradfield:

Norm, in TN we call your approach, “all chips from covenantal cows.”

Problem is, i have read Augustine.

Where did Augustine say that old covenant started in Genesis 1?

Norman Voss:

Jason I’ll let the readers decide for themselves whether Augustine is presenting a form of Covenant continuity from Gen 1.1 until Christ in the following statement of his. Since you obviously can’t discern that Augustine is presenting a covenant connection from the clear implications of his six ages of Genesis 1then we will bypass your lack of examination.Matthew 1:17 the sixth, from John the Baptist to the end of the world. Moreover, God made man after His own image on the sixth day, because in this sixth age is manifested the renewing of our mind through the gospel, after the image of Him who created us; Colossians 3:10 and the water is turned into wine, that we may taste of Christ, now manifested in the law and the prophets.

Readers notice that Augustine place the begining of the Law from Gen 1 starting with Adam. It’s a similar recognition that Paul presents about the reign of the covenant from Adam to Christ.

6. But observe what Himself says, The things which were written in the law, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me.

AND WE KNOW THAT THE LAW EXTENDS FROM THE TIME OF WHICH WE HAVE RECORD, THAT IS, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD: IN THE BEGINNING GOD MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH. GENESIS 1:1 THENCE DOWN TO THE TIME IN WHICH WE ARE NOW LIVING ARE SIX AGES,

this being the sixth, as you have often heard and know. The first age is reckoned from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; and, as Matthew the evangelist duly follows and distinguishes, the third, from Abraham to David; the fourth, from David to the carrying away into Babylon; the fifth, from the carrying away into Babylon to John the Baptist;

Here is the link to the Augustine quote. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701009.htm

Jason Bradfield:

The word “law” is not the same thing as the words “old covenant”.

I’m looking right at the quote and it does NOT say that the “old covenant extends from the time of which we have record, that is, from the beginning of the world…”

but, if you say so Norm…

Norman Voss:

Yes Jason I realize we have to spell it out for you. As I said this was for the benifit of those who you might have been confused with you gamemanship.
Hos 6:7 But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant:
Isa 43:27 Thy first father sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me.

I don’t know what covenant you want to apply to the Law that Augusitine was presenting but maybe these verses will help you.

I believe Paul makes it pretty clear that the Law, Death and Sin is tied to Adam from the beginning. Trying to disconnect the two is playing havoc with Paul’s understanding of the two Adam concept and would disrupt the idea of any continuity of the corporate Covenant body of Death.

Rom 5:12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;1Co 15:22 for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive,

1Co 15:56 and the sting of the death is the sin, and the power of the sin the law;

Let’s be clear here though that there were different covenants under Adam’s covenant of sin and death as the Law was added to Adam’s transgression to increase the trespass of the covenant people. We need to keep in focus that Eve was the mother of the Living (Israel) which is the lineage of the covenant people. There were two Heavnes and Earths, the first beginning with Adam and the second through the Parousia of Christ. Two overriding main covenants of Adamic death and Christ Grace, it’s really pretty simple.

http://preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/right-yom-jason?id=4171784%3ABlogPost%3A5781&page=-1#comments

Jason Bradfield Defends… Er, Orthodoxy!

The following is a laughable attempt by Hyper-Preterist Jason Bradfield to bat down a possible ‘covenantal’ reading of the Genetic creation account. While all Hyper-Preterists believe that the “heavens and earth” of 2 Peter 3 are mere ‘metaphors’ for the Mosaic economy, some staunchly oppose a metaphorical reading of Genesis 1.  Folks, who is being more consistent in this dialogue?  Joe Vincent or Jay Bradfield?? 

 Joseph Vincent writes:

 

“I’m still not sure where I stand on this, but I’m not so sure that it’s very important to fully know. The fact is, God created it all, and here we are. That is the theological point being made in the Genesis account. 2,000 years of history pass by in the course of just a few chapters in the book of Genesis…it’s hardly an attempt to give a scientific explanation of creation and beginning of the world.””I was a literal 24 hr. guy for many years, and was a huge fan of “Answers in Genesis” with Ken Ham. I still like that ministry, and I have no axe to grind with that view, but are we supposed to believe that the “days” in Genesis were literal 24 hr. days, even before the sun and moon were in the sky? 24 hr. days are based on the earth’s rotation in relationship to the sun’s light. How could the “days” be referring to 24 hour days when the time in which the creation event took place didn’t include these celestial bodies? I am more in favor of the construction view, which believes in a literal creation by God, but does not believe that the “days” are a reference to literal time, but events in order. The same type of creation accounts are given in pseudo religions with same construction (7 days or steps of creation) and this was a known construction of the time the account would have been written. Furthermore, even if it is a literal reference to time, the “day” prior to the creation of the sun and moon could have been millions of years long since the physical reference to “days” would not have been in relation to those physical bodies.

Jason Bradfield Responds:

“Joe, you say you don’t have an axe to grind and that you’re not sure…then you say that Genesis 1 is “hardly an attempt to give a scientific explanation of creation and beginning of the world.”

Which is it? Looks like you have your mind made up. ( :

Also, i would never say that is not “very important to know.” It’s there for a reason. And i think God intends for us to get more than just “God created it all”.

Where does Ge 1 say that that the day is based on the earth’s rotation in relation to the sun?”

Joe Vincent responds:

“Jason,

What I’m saying is that I think either explanation is feasible, but I lean towards the “construction” side of the fence. You said: “Where does Ge 1 say that that the day is based on the earth’s rotation in relation to the sun?” My Response: Exactly! Where does it say that? That’s my whole point. It if doesn’t say that the “day” is based on the relationship to the earth and the sun, then why are so many Christians hell bent on proving that “day” is a 24 hr. period? How was a “day” a 24 hour period when the sun and moon weren’t even created yet? The sun and moon didn’t even begin to give their light until a few days into the process…so what was a “day” prior to a modern “day” in cosmological terms? All I’m saying is that the Hebrew construction of the creation account isn’t a scientific account (although it may be scientific in some ways), and it also wasn’t intended to give “all the answers” on the how or when or exact details of creation. If God wanted us to know the details, we would have been given them.”

Jason Bradfield replies:

“Joe, can you provide one reference where any of us said that Genesis 1 is written to explain “all the answers”? I never said that.

I could turn the question around: why are you guys so hell bent on insisting that we are attempting to provide “all the answers” from Genesis 1? Ward, Tim and Jeff, Norm….they have all accused us of the same thing, yet I don’t know of a single preterist, who affirms 24hr days, that has said that. Sam, in his Ge commentary at RCM, has said the exact opposite. We understand that Ge 1 was not meant to give us all the details. However, that doesn’t force me to then treat “evening and morning, first day” as some sort of vague, indefinite time period.

Also, if Moses did speak of “evening and morning, first day” apart from modern cosmological terms, then wouldn’t that imply that you need to rethink your modern cosmological terms? Did Moses not ever think of “day” in terms of an approx. 24 hour period? Sure he did. So why in the world would i think differently in Ge 1? What reasons do i have? The only one you have provided so far is that such an interpretation would not fit modern cosmological terms….but who said it had too? Thus, my question to you.”

El Bandido saith:

Did not the prophets ever speak in cosmological terms when Isaiah wrote:

“Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon  the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner” (Isaiah 51: 6).

Heheheheh…. 

 

Roderick Edwards: Tell It How It Is!

  Roderick Edwards recently made a great point when he suggested that the views of “Covenant Creationism” form the most consistent expression of the Hyper-Preterist faith.  Edwards writes:

“Hello Jeff, how are you doing? I’m glad you brought this up. One thing I’ve tried to do over the years, even while I was caught within the cult of hyperpreterism, was to be honest with others and with myself. It is true that under the hyperpret paradigm I taught that the so-called “five-fold” offices found in Eph 4:11-15 were no longer in operation — I mean even you and most Christians believe at least 2 of the offices have ceased; being apostles and prophets. I was simply being “consistent” and calling for the cessation of ALL the offices. I was being a good hyperpreterist.

Further, I would point to verses like 1 Pet 5:1-4 wherein we see Peter talking about the “chief shepherd”, Christ and that when He comes, He will give the undershepherds their crowns. If Jesus has already come, then who would still be an “undershepherd”/elder/pastor? This was my “consistent” logic while I was a hyperpreterist.

What is interesting, is at the time Sam Frost resisted this view. Though later he privately adopted it, and even told me so on the phone. As matter of fact, Sam even wrote in an article he called “Observations”

“Even the Elders in that time [pre-AD70] had authority to ‘teach the oracles of God.’ But, I do not believe, because I am a [hyper] preterist, that such ‘inspired’ authority exists today. I do not believe that God has set up yet another ‘nation’ in the new covenant that commands uniformity and punishment if uniformity is not met.” — Sam Frost from an article called “Observations” speaking of the role of pre & post AD70 Christian “elders/pastors”
If you recall, that was my EXACT reasoning, later adopted by Sam. But what I’d like you to notice today Jeff is this current comment by Sam:

Quote:

“In Preterist theology, we have to argue for the case of establishment in Ecclesiology. Some of you may remember years ago my scrapes with Roderick Edwards, who, then as a Preterist, was arguing AGAINST elders, rulers, leaders, etc. within any established “church” meeting. Some of this falls into the work of Frank Viola (Pagan Christianity), Towards A House Church and Ekklesia: The Roots of Biblical Church Life (both by Steve Atkerson). Peter Leithart’s Against Christianity is also good. It may be along these lines that Preterist Ecclesiology can work out its systematic arguments on this matter.” — Sam Frost (source)

You see Jeff, for all of Sam&Co’s disdain of me over the years, now that I have left the hyperpret movement, they feel ok to adopt those very views. But let me say something more to you Jeff. Although I think ALL hyperpreterism is a heresy, I can at least respect that the BCS group is CONSISTENTLY applying the paradigm to everything. Sam&Co are like nibbling fish who only take little bites and as we see from Frost above, he opposed something until he could make it his own. He will continue to oppose BCS until he can figure out someway to make it his own — since the “presumed scholar” certainly cannot accept views from a mere window-washer like Tim Martin.”

Larry Siegle Announces Upcoming Debate!

  In a recent post entitled “Debate Notes,” Hyper-Preterist Larry Siegle announced that a written debate will be staged with Jeff Vaughn.  Vaughn is proponent of the consistent Hyper-Preterist view known as “Covenantal Creationism,” which understands the Genesis 1 account as being allegorical in nature.  This aligns with Hyper-Preterist views of 2 Peter 3 and other passages.  Siegle still holds the old-fashioned view that Genesis 1 is talking about a literal cosmological creation.  Sam Frost, a man many believe to be the token ‘scholar’ of the Hyper-Preterist movement, will be challenging Vaughn on this issue.

  Siegle writes:

“Coming soon to Preterism Debate will be a formal written discussion between Sam Frost of Reign Of Christ, and Jeff Vaughn of Beyond Creation Science.  This will be a unique opportunity for everyone to explore the significant differences that exist between the two sides.

The goal of the debate is to discover the truth as to what the Bible teaches about the Old and New Covenants and what this means in connection with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the restoration of people back into the Presence of God.

More information will be forthcoming about the propositions, the rules both sides agree to and the length of the discussion.  Although active participation from other members of Preterism Debate will not be allowed during the actual debate, it should provide information that will be discussed for weeks and months to come.”

  This latest controversy is now causing a division to appear between the opponents of Hyper-Preterism.  Adherents of the compromising faction (CF’s) are patting ‘conservatives’ like Frost on the back in an attmpt to win them over to their side.  Whereas those who stand strong on the issues, recognize Covenant Creationism as the only consistent form of Hyper-Preterism there is.