Where I stand on all things 3

# on 17 Oct 2008
Uncategorized

Comments (0)

Related Posts

• Where I stand on all things 2
• Is the Hyper-Preterist Gospel a Different Gospel? Part 2: My View
• Where I stand on all things part 1
• Is the Hyper-Preterist Gospel a Different Gospel?
• Why I Don't Teach Preterism

No Responses to “Where I stand on all things 3”

1. Mike on 17 Oct 2008 at 12:56 pm #

   I don’t if you can truly put “Belief in the penal substitutionary view of the atonement.” Because historically (and presently) the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects this view. You just kicked them out of orthodoxy…

2. Wm Tanksley on 17 Oct 2008 at 1:12 pm #

   22. Belief in monotheism (i.e. there is only one God) – 2

   Wait a sec… There’s a distinction between monotheism as in “only one higher power” and monotheism as in “there is one being Who is the ground of all existence.”

   One can hold that other higher powers exist, and refuse to bow to them, without compromising that only God is the ground of being. The Hebrews may have struggled with/believed in henotheism, but their doctrines seem to have been solidly monotheist in the second sense — the other gods they served were created beings, and the prophets argued against them as such (which implies that the people serving them believed that too).

   So I guess there’s two distinct issues here. I’d say that monotheism is a “1″, while non-henotheism is at best a “2″, probably slipping even further. After all, we’re commanded not to make idols and worship them; but we’re also commanded not to have any God before God — this implies that there are beings who could serve as gods, in addition to idols that were addressed separately.

3. alaskazimm on 17 Oct 2008 at 3:26 pm #

   17. Belief that Jesus will come again – 2

   The Orthodox Preterists do indeed look for the return of Christ in the future. It is the heretical “full” Preterists who deny the future return of Christ and relegate that to a spiritual return in the 1st century CE.

4. Charles on 17 Oct 2008 at 3:54 pm #

   22. Belief in monotheism (i.e. there is only one God) – 2

   You knew this would draw oposition I’m sure…so here is my far less than brilliant argument.

   I do not see a basis for this at all in 1 Cor 8:7 as you suggest. MAYBE v.5 but even then it is their mis-understanding that is being addressed – not the FACT that there are other gods. v.4 ‘there is no God but one.’

   I do not see a basis for this at all in the OT either. Henotheism is not polytheism.

   What do we as humans worship as god? Not that it IS god, but we give things power over us that we should not.

   There is one true God and I believe that to be essential to the understanding of sin, atonement.

   1 Cor 8:5,6 (NLT)
   5According to some people, there are many so-called gods and many lords, both in heaven and on earth. 6But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we exist for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.

   22. Belief in monotheism (i.e. there is only one God) – a solid 1 in my book…

5. historic salve on 17 Oct 2008 at 6:26 pm #

   A comment on point 17: not all preterists believe Jesus has already come. There are partial preterists, who remain within orthodoxy and await the resurrection and second coming, and there are full preterists, who are heretics and believe every single prophecy has already been fulfilled.

6. Peter Eddy on 17 Oct 2008 at 7:07 pm #

   I’m surprised that you think that the office of prophet is still open. I’m even more surprised this hasn’t been questioned yet.

   In Mark 12:1-12, the Lord tells the Parable of the Tenants. In it, the master (God) plants a vineyard, leased it to tenants (the Jews) and went away. He sent servants (prophets) to collect the fruit, but they beaten or killed. “He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son’” (v. 6) Sure sounds to me like there’re no more prophets coming.

   Or, what about Hebrews 1? “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son” (vv. 1, 2). God used to send prophets. He doesn’t anymore; now He’s sent His Son.

   I think that this is important to address, because it shoots the cults down, because no prophet/prophetess (e.g., Seventh Day Adventists), no cult!

7. Charles on 17 Oct 2008 at 7:29 pm #

   Peter – While it is not probable, it is possible. No cult, or 7th day, I just don’t see an absolute end to God communicating to us through other people – however you label them.

8. Jayman on 17 Oct 2008 at 8:15 pm #

   Peter Eddy, I think you’re reading too much into those passages. Parables are rarely pure allegories which means you cannot assume a one-to-one relationship between the story and the reality it reflects. Hebrews 1:1-2 in no way rules out future prophets.

   Moreover, other parts of the NT seem to require the belief that prophets were/are a possibility/reality after Christ’s ascension:

   1) In Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus says false prophets will be known by their fruit. If Jesus did not believe any prophets would succeed him why didn’t he just say that any future prophet is a false prophet?

   2) In Matthew 23:34 Jesus says he will send more prophets who will be persecuted.

   3) Acts 11:27-30 notes some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch and notes the prophecy of one Agabus. Presumably this same Agabus is mentioned in Acts 21:10.

   4) Acts 13:1 states that there were prophets in Antioch.

   5) Acts 15:32 states that Judas and Silas were prophets.

   6) Acts 21:9 states that Philip had four daughters who prophesied.

   7) Paul speaks regularly about prophets/prophecy.
   1 John 4 speaks of testing the spirits which inspire prophets.

   9) Revelation is one long apocalyptic prophecy.

9. Ranger on 17 Oct 2008 at 8:23 pm #

   I think there is a small minority who hold that Jesus spiritually rose from the grave and appeared to the disciples with some sort of spiritual body, while his physical body laid in the grave. That’s definitely unorthodox, but does the view make it impossible for them to be saved? I’m not so sure, because they do clearly belive that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. Therefore, I’d put “bodily” resurrection of Christ in the second category as the orthodox teaching of the church.

10. Nick Norelli on 18 Oct 2008 at 1:15 am #

    Jesus’ Return – 1
    Jesus’ Resurrection – 1
    Imputed Sin – 4
    Personal Sin – 2
    Penal Substitution – 6
    Monotheism – 1 (with regard to worship); 2 (with regard to belief)
    Sola Scriptura – 4
    Homosexuality as Sin – 2
    Abortion as Sin – 2

11. Nick Norelli on 18 Oct 2008 at 1:25 am #

    Charles: The point of 1Corinthians 8:7 is that certain believers actually believed that idols were real gods and their consciences were violated by eating meat sacrificed to these idols. Paul is arguing that those who know better shouldn’t provoke those who don’t to violate their consciences even though idols are nothing and there is no God but one.

    Also, henotheism is simply the belief in many gods but the worship of one as supreme. The ancient Israelites were henotheists. Polytheism is the belief in many gods but the worship of more than one. The only difference is with regard to how many of the gods are worshipped, which is why on my list monotheistic worship is classified as a #1 priority essential for salvation.

12. ScottL on 18 Oct 2008 at 3:38 am #

    Yeah, I don’t think the recognizing the present day function of the prophet/prophecy would necessarily negate sola Scriptura. Most who believe that such a gift still exists also believe that the Scripture should still remain as our measuring stick/canon.

13. JoanieD on 18 Oct 2008 at 6:41 am #

    Hi Michael. I see that I agree with a LOT of your positions. One that I disagree with, though, is the Adam and Eve one. I don’t know that the first humans who ever lived were named Adam and Eve and that they did just as the story is told. I am thinking they may be “allegorical,” but the story still points to the fact that we were made to have communion with God and we chose to disobey God, thinking we knew better, breaking off that special communion. Only Jesus could bring us back into that child/parent relationship again.

    Perhaps you are correct, though, that this belief puts me outside of Orthodoxy (though I will be there with a lot of other people too.) Happily, though, you didn’t make it a #1, so I can still be saved!

    Joanie D.

14. Vladimir on 18 Oct 2008 at 12:33 pm #

    Joanie D.

    Please consider St Luke 3:38.

    Vladimir

15. C Michael Patton on 18 Oct 2008 at 12:59 pm #

    Yes, my issue with not believing in Adam is really a theological issue dealing both with the reality of sin in relation to the representation of Christ. If Adam was not real how can their be a real second Adam who recapitulates the failure of the first. If the first is metaphorical, what does that say about the second?

16. Nick Norelli on 18 Oct 2008 at 1:46 pm #

    Michael: I think that if one denies that Adam in the Genesis narrative was a historical person that they can still affirm that Adam was real. If Adam simply means man (or mankind) it doesn’t change the point of the narrative or the reality of sin entering into the world through man. Jesus’ role as the second Adam is maintained in such a reading of the text.

17. Greg on 18 Oct 2008 at 4:16 pm #

    CMP,

    I’m reading up on this idea of henotheism and its pretty interesting. It seems to explain several nagging questions I’ve had about the Bible, such as the “Us” statements in the creation account, who the Sons of God were, and why, after seeing Yahweh’s power other nations, and even the Israelites, continued worshipping their respective deities. And wow, read Psalm 82 (ESV) from this perspective!

    I love finding out new information and perspectives that help to explain scripture better, so thanks! How has this idea affected your view of the Bible?

18. JoanieD on 18 Oct 2008 at 4:56 pm #

    Michael and Vladimir, I agree with what Nick says in #16. Adam and Eve could be the representatives of humankind.

    And Vladimir, if the geneology is “correct” than that would have human beings on the earth a lot less time than discovered old bones of human beings would indicate.

    By the way…who did Adam and Eve’s children “marry?” I guess it would have to be their own other children, right? Or, do we think that after Adam and Eve were created, lots of other groups of people came to be created too?

    Greg, now you have me interested in learning more about henotheism. I will check that out a bit later.

    Joanie D.

19. Vladimir on 19 Oct 2008 at 1:16 pm #

    JoanieD wrote:

    “And Vladimir, if the geneology is “correct” than that would have human beings on the earth a lot less time than discovered old bones of human beings would indicate.

    By the way…who did Adam and Eve’s children “marry?” I guess it would have to be their own other children, right? Or, do we think that after Adam and Eve were created, lots of other groups of people came to be created too?”

    When I come to a biblical text, yes, of course, I have preconcieved notions, but I do not let these interfer with what the author is saying. I listen, I learn.

    It is more probable that the daughter’s of Adam and Eve were the mother’s of the sons born to them. That is incest! This sounds hideous at first, but not when one considers that it is God who determines morality – what is right and what is wrong.

    During the patriarchal period/epoch the “lawfulness” for a man to have multiple wives was acceptible. Today it is not, at least since the time of Moses.

    The age of the earth issue is complicated and involved, so I won’t enter into further discussion here except to say that the Hebrew word for day ‘yom’ does not in context necessarily have to be defined and limited to a 24 hour period.

    Do you see what I’m saying?

    Vladimir

20. Charles on 20 Oct 2008 at 8:46 am #

    Nick
    Henotheists may worship any single god in the pantheon of gods at any time. Were the Isrealites henotheists or monolatrists?

    I agree with you on 1 Cor and as I read the passage again, I see that the new believers regarded the idols as real, making them perhaps monolatrists. 1) they ARE believers and 2) they believe that other gods are still real. And so, I am conceeding to Michael that monotheism is a 2.

    In my mind, I don’t see how one can have a right understanding of salvation without a right understanding of God, but my understanding is and will continue to be imperfect.

21. Vladimir on 20 Oct 2008 at 9:25 am #

    Michael,

    Re:

    “19. Belief in imputed sin (i.e. that we are held guilty by God for the sin of Adam) – 3

    I really want this to be a 2, but I will have to go with 3 (considering the Orthodox denial of this).”

    In offering this comment, I don’t want to be understood as defending or advocating the Eastern Orthodox view. I simply wish to bring understanding here.

    Actually, as recently as Alexander (Mileant) (1938-2005) writing in his essay entitled Царствие Божие :Где искать его?, acknowledges and likens the fall of Adam within the context of discussing free will and its ill effects upon mankind.

    The problem with understanding Eastern Orthodoxy is the casual addressing and oft time necessitated (historical Sitz im Leben) writings. Such, for example, Irenaeus – as well as others.

    Doubtless, the interrelatedness of various doctrines is assumed in Eastern Orthodoxy and not given the demarcations that later Western writers were wont to give.

    With the OCA (Orthodox Church of America) and its influx of former protetstants, this demarcation is finding its way into Eastern Orthodox thinking and expression (for good or bad).

    Doubtless, there are other issues that Eastern Orthodoxy may have, but these should in all fairness be addressed from the inside looking out – in the light of God’s own written revelation.

    Vladimir

22. Peter on 20 Oct 2008 at 8:23 pm #

    “Belief in sola Scriptura – 2″
    “Belief in the penal substitutionary view of the atonement – 2″

    So the Orthodox, as well as most if not all the Church fathers are not orthodox.

    But you want to claim succession with the historic church and no cut off dates.

    Confusion reigns.

23. C Michael Patton on 20 Oct 2008 at 8:46 pm #

    I am not so sure about that. I don’t know if you have seen any recent dialogue on these issues, but it would seem that a basic confession of both that is not qualified by bents toward abuses, are part of the Orthodox tradition as well. You will have to read my series on sola Scriptura to understand what I mean there. I also recommend some of Bradley Nassif recent works on the relationship between Orthotdoxy and Evangelicalism. There is a lot more continuity than most think.

24. Nick Norelli on 20 Oct 2008 at 10:21 pm #

    Charles: Henotheism doesn’t require a pantheon of gods. Nelson’s Dictionary of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2005) defines the term saying:

    “Form of faith midway between polytheism and monotheism. It recognizes the existence of many gods but regards only one god as the deity of the family or tribe. According to Max Muller and others, the Jewish worship of Yahweh fell into this category.” (p. 327)

    Monolatry is defined as:

    “Worship of one god without excluding the possibility of other gods. Distinguished from monotheism.” (p. 469)

    They’re functionally equivalent, but even if we split hairs and press the difference in the definitions between “recognizing” and “not excluding” then we can still say that ancient Israel was henotheistic. Phrases in the Hebrew Bible such as “God of gods” (e.g., Deut. 10:17) attests to as much. It isn’t until Isaiah that we really begin to see monotheism as we recognize it today.

    And as to your last comment, I’m in agreement. I think that our understanding of God is inseparable from our salvation.

25. C Michael Patton on 20 Oct 2008 at 11:37 pm #

    There is also going to be the difference between philosophical monotheism (what we westerners usually think of) and doxalogical monotheism (what characterized many of those in biblical times.

26. Jeff on 21 Oct 2008 at 10:03 am #

    Vladamir, you say:

    “The age of the earth issue is complicated and involved, so I won’t enter into further discussion here except to say that the Hebrew word for day ‘yom’ does not in context necessarily have to be defined and limited to a 24 hour period.”

    True, “yom” in and of itself does not necessarily mean a 24 hour period, but when you add to it the specific and clear qualifier “the morning and the evening” then you have directly identified what type of day is being spoken of.

27. Jeff on 21 Oct 2008 at 10:40 am #

    With the coming again aspect, Preterism does believe in the second coming. It is simply a matter of timing, not happening. A couple things to consider, from a preterist position:

    If he has not already fulfilled the “coming again” idea, then:

    1. Salvation is incomplete (Heb 9:28), he has not appeared a second time to complete the salvation process. In the temple system, the priest went into the holy of holies to offer the sacrifice, but the sacrifice was not finished until it was deemed accepted, as evidenced by the priest appearing the second time to the people.

    2. No one has yet to enter into heaven, first because of point one, second, Christ said he was going to prepare a place and would return to take us to where he was. If he hasn’t returned, then he hasn’t finished preparing, and hasn’t taken anyone to be with him.

    3. If he has not come, then death has not been conquered, and therefore everyone still to this day has to suffer the pains of separation from God in the Hadean realm. Of course, this is consistent with the early church fathers, as they too believed that man was to stay in the hadean realm till a still future second coming, for instance Tertullian stated plainly “How indeed, will the soul mount up to heaven, where Christ is already sitting at the Father’s right hand? For the archangel’s trumpet has not yet been heard by the command of God…To no one is heaven opened…When the world indeed, will pass away, then the kingdom of heaven will be opened.”

    Justin Martyr said those who believe men go to heaven upon death, fall in with Gnostics and are not to be considered Christian: “You may have fallen in with some [Gnostics] who are called Christians. However, they do not admit this [intermediate state], and they venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham…They say there is no resurrection of the dead. Rather, they say that when they die, their souls are taken to heaven. Do not imagine they are Christians.”

    So, either men continue to go to the Hadean realm today to await the resurrection, or it is true that Christ has conquered the place of the dead, and that men have been raised, and we no longer experience death (the place/state of death) but go immediately to be with the father. No one can enter heaven until after the resurrection, so again, if it hasn’t happened, then why are we preaching heaven today?

    Paul promised his hearers in 1 Cor 15:51 and following, that not all of them would sleep (experience this hadean “death”), but they would be changed at the trump, which he expected to be in the lifetime of his hearers. At that trump, those souls already in the place of death would be raised, and those living would be changed, putting on incorruption and immortality, so as never to experience the death.

    4. And if the coming hasn’t happened, then Jesus, Peter, Paul and most of the other NT writers are liars in their promise that they were living in the last days, the very last hour, and the end was at the door, and these things were to happen soon, and within their generation.

28. Jeff on 21 Oct 2008 at 10:52 am #

    I am not sure how you all could argue that their could be a prophet come now. Daniel is clear that the sealing up of prophecy would happen by the end of the 70th week (Daniel 9:24).

    “Seventy weeks are determined for thy people, and for thy holy city, to shut up the transgression, and to seal up sins, and to cover iniquity, and to bring in righteousness age-during, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies.”

    So, within the 70 weeks, we are to see an end to transgression and sin (which would be accomplished at the Parousia), and end to prophecy and vision, bringing in of righteousness, the anointing of Messiah, and the end of the holy city. All of these events (including resurrection – Daniel 12:2), would be finished when the holy people were scattered (destruction of Jerusalem – 70 AD – per Daniel 12:7 and on).

    So the fact that the 70th week is past, is evidence that vision and prophecy have been sealed, ceased, and the gifts of the spirit, which were a sign of judgment to the unfaithful (Joel 2) have ceased at the time of the scattering of the holy people.

29. Peter Eddy on 21 Oct 2008 at 12:26 pm #

    Hi Jeff

    You said that salvation can’t be complete unless Jesus has returned. I don’t have a problem with that, when you consider what salvation means in the New Testament. I found R.C. Sproul’s explanation very helpful. He says that the word “saved” (Greek: sozo) is used in every tense in the Greek language in the New Testament, whereas justification is the instantaneous action upon a person. So salvation will be completed at Christ’s second coming.

30. Vladimir on 21 Oct 2008 at 1:00 pm #

    Jeff,

    Believe me it is involved. Consider Genesis 1:3.

    Vladimir

31. Greg on 22 Oct 2008 at 2:04 am #

    Vladimer, I agree.

    It’s not as easy as “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” as some would like it to be.

32. britphil on 22 Oct 2008 at 5:27 am #

    Greg

    It’s not as easy as “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” as some would like it to be.

    Please, proclaim it aloud from the rooftops my friend!

    I was about to weep into my cornflakes when I read Jeff’s comments, but thankfully your brief and concise reply saved me the bother of posting too hasty a reply.

    I also find myself being on the same side of the argument as Vladimir, which must be a first!

33. Greg on 22 Oct 2008 at 1:36 pm #

    Britphil,

    Thank you. I have to say, really studying the creation account has been one of the most rewarding experiences I can recall in recent times. Knowing how the universe looked to an ancient Israelite goes a long way in properly understanding Genesis, and I’ve found that any interpretation that does not consider this has already failed. Unfortunately, it seems that most popular views fall into that category.

    I’m pleased to see progress being made within the evangelical world though, even if it is slow, in moving away from six-day literal creationism to a more realistic and accurate understanding of the creation account and what it means for us today.

    I think given enough time, six-day creationism, along with any other view of creation that forces God’s word to fit our modern expectations, will soon go the way of the flat earth and geocentric universe. The sooner, the better. Its never a good thing for the church to be needlessly foolish.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

3000 characters or less or your post will disappear!

Also, be sure to read the blog rules.