Concerning BCS

Add a Comment

Comment by sam on July 13, 2009 at 9:50pm

All good words, guys (and gal!),

Karen, I wrote in the article posted above "Critique of Beyond Creation Science" in the opening,
"It is not the intention of this article to answer every argument the book proposes. Instead, I want to focus on a few arguments that, if found to be false, seriously damage much of the enterprise of Martin and Vaughn. This is not a happy task since 1), these are brothers in Christ; 2), they are Preterists with which I have much in common; and 3), we would all like to see unity in such matters so that the larger community can continue to grow..... It is my hope that those who endorse Martin and Vaughn will seriously read the following pages with an open and cautious mind. That they will consider the arguments I raise and the sources from which they are noted (Martin and Vaughn even credit me on page 18 for being critical). It is also my hope that I will be as fair in my treatment as possible, steering away from a diatribe. However, I write this with the conviction that much of the methodology found in Beyond Creation Science (BCS) is unbiblical, unsound, and goes against the founded principles of logic and biblical hermeneutics. As such, BCS, while valuable in many regards to the Preterist community as a major stride in purely fulfilled eschatological studies, is not “the future of Preterism.” It is merely one attempt at many, and that is why we should not shut ourselves off to criticism to this view – but rather embrace criticism of this view in the hopes that a synthesis will occur that we can all agree upon, that correction in each other’s approach to Genesis (and issues surrounding the role of science and epistemology) will bring about a greater understanding for all involved."

I believe, from what you have said, that you, more or less, would share the same sentiments. Tim, as far as know him, appears to me to be a family man, a Christian father, and a loving husband. I have nothing personally against my brother. It was unfortunate that I was not able to chat with him at the Planet Preterist conference (instead, I chatted with Don Stoner, then went to bed....I had a three in the morning air flight! - Sorry Jeff and Tim - another day).

Comment by Chuck on July 13, 2009 at 8:59pm

Hey Karen,

You really have a sweet disarming spirit. I really appreciate that.

Karen, when you wrote, "Showing the relationship between Genesis and Revelations was a new idea to me, as well as the Covenantal position.", I agree. This to me is the whole concept of physical/natural types and their commensurate spiritual anti-types. Hagar, Sarah and their offspring, according to the Apostle Paul, were real people though they represented the two covenants. Although Paul allegorizes their physical existence, he never minimizes it because it was germane to the type.

Jim K. whom I respect a great deal wrote in another blog, "So you don't see a connection with the cross especially the spear in Jesus side from which blood and water flowed and the parallel with Eve being taken from Adam's side? I'm sorry but I see the Genesis account of Adam and Eve very prophetic as it directly parallels Christ and His Church."

I continue to see this presented as an either/or condition. Karen, I don't see it that way. Why can't we accept the obvious parallels and symbolism between the beginnings and the endings from Genesis to Revelation without making the assumption that the beginning was metaphorical not physical? The type/anti-type imagery is truly amazing. 3,000 died at the giving of the law and 3,000 came to new life at the new covenant Pentecost. The feasts and their counterpart spiritual fulfillments are simply mind boggling. If the natural comes first and then the spiritual, how can you have the spiritual/metaphorical shadowing another spiritual/metaphorical?

The point (I guess it's already obvious so sorry for the repetition) is that recognizing these awe inspiring relationships between physical and spiritual does not preclude the physical existence of the former.

I agree with Jason in so far as the two camps are diametrically opposed to one another. You simply can't have synergy when the views are polar opposites at least in terms of their starting points. However, that does not preclude working together on other projects and celebrating our many similarities. I still pray for reconciliation in spite of the differences.

Tim and JL are no less willing to bend than Sam & Jason. And it should be that way if beliefs are strong. There's nothing wrong with sticking to principles. Although I favor the literal view of Gen 1, I have friends on both sides of this equation. I respect their commitment to Christ and to the Word. It seems that a rejection of one's closely held views is difficult to deal with and quite a bit has been taken personally.

BTW, I'm really pleased that BCS impacted you so favorably. Disagreeing with some major premises in the book in no way diminishes the hard work that went into its creation.

Comment by Karen White on July 13, 2009 at 7:37pm

I respect what you are saying. (Ha bet you thought I was going to say "but"). I hadn't fully realised they were not listening. Makes a big difference. I had thought you were discussing about other websites not letting you have a say. Mustn't have read properly.

When I said it was the first book I read, I meant in order. I have read other books since then, and I guess when you find something you have a tendency to read and research stuff that backs up what you think, or what you think you think. That is what I am here for, lol.

While I am a new Preterist, eschatology isn't a new topic with me, just the way I have had it previously presented to me. Showing the relationship between Genesis and Revelations was a new idea to me, as well as the Covenantal position. I don't think dispensationalist fully appreciate the Convenant position as it stands now, which is why they believe as they do and as I did.

As I said, there is much wrong with the book, but I feel that it does have its merits. However, it is a human trait to develop some ego over what you have done if by and large it appears successful (right or wrong). Obviously if Tim and Jeff are not prepared to listen to what is being said to help them, then there isn't much to be done.

I am human as well. Tim has been very kind and helpful to me in communications and I find it difficult to see him in this light.

I have to admit as well, that I am a great one for putting my foot in my mouth in debates and hope you will bear with me when I go to extract it.

Comment by Jason Bradfield on July 13, 2009 at 6:52pm

Karen,

I appreciate your comments. However, i would simply disagree with you about working with them to make what they have started better. In my opinion, it is a house built on sand. You don't work on a sand-house to make it better. You tear it down, move down the street to a firm foundation, and start over.

Some of that "sand" is the epistemological position of empiricism, an openness view of the cannon, a denial and ridicule of logic, historical revisionism, and in many places, just a bunch of straw men arguments.

You mentioned, for example: "Putting it all into the context of the Covenants makes so much more sense than leaving it outside of the Covenants."

Statements like those are very similar and typical of Tim and Jeff's writings. And the problem with it is that it merely begs the question of what it means to be "covenantal". In their thinking, if one does not interpret things the way they do, then you can't be "covenantal." Heck, they won't even refer to Sam or i as "Preterists" anymore.

My experience with them time and time again has revealed that they talk a lot about being open-minded and such, but in reality, they are only open-minded as long you accept their premises and seek to work from there.

I'm sorry that it appears to you that we are trying to "tear" them down. I'm not trying to tear anyone down - i just think it is bad theology and am voicing my concerns.

I'm curious - when you read of them criticizing us "Young Earth" guys, do you interpret that as them "tearing" us down? If not, why not? Do you honestly think that they want to work with what we have presented, in order to make our position better? Not at all. How could they...they are on a different track. Our views on Genesis 1 are contradictory, so how could we work together? You should not expect me to "work with them" anymore than you should expect them to work with me. "Working together" would require one of the parties to reject their own view. They're not budging. Neither am i. It is what it is.

I was "saved" in a southern baptist, free-will, rapture-ready church service. Am i thankful for them introducing me to Christ, which led to my salvation? Absolutely! But just because i found some good in that doesn't require that i stick with them no matter what and just work with them to improve their free-will, rapture-ready doctrines.

They don't need to improve those teachings. They need to chunk 'em.

Many of us have had years of Preterism under our belt before reading the book and that might explain why the book did not grow on us as much as it did you. I mean, if i had never heard of preterism and was introduced to it through that book, i could certainly understand the special place it would have. But you can only take that so far, as the example of my salvation experience demonstrates.

I have never heard anyone say that the book was a complete waste. lol. I just think that it creates more problems than it solves, and again, a huge part of the problem is their starting assumptions. Until they deal with those first principles, they are, in my opinion, building on sand.

Thanks,
Jason

Comment by sam on July 13, 2009 at 6:47pm

Karen,

It is not our intention to tear any one person down. We speak at the same conferences and maintain cordiality. The thing is, is the claim that one must be a cove. creat. in order to be a preterist. This is not true. We do not want any divisions over this, but we equallyt want to be clear on the Scriptures. If you would like, it is available here, my 26 page critique. Read it with the same open mind you had when you read their book......that's a great trait to have here.....don't lose it just yet! Blessings!

Comment by Karen White on July 13, 2009 at 5:51pm

Well, BCS was the first preterist book I ever read, and so I am rather partial to it. Coming from a dispy eschatalogical background it was a good eye opener and a good place for me to start. I also like the concept of Intelligent Design, so much of what Tim and Jeff rang a bell with me.

I was well aware of many of the shortcomings of the book: some of their claims were a bit off the wall, and they have been hacked to death here, so I wont go over them myself. I think they could have further developed many of their concepts and made the book about 2,000 pages long. However, as a Primer to Preterism, for me it was a good place to start.

Sure, you can criticize a book, but my view is that: okay, it is out there as a representation of Preterism, let's look at what is good about it, let's look at what could be improved and encourage Tim and Jeff to put out a second, updated edition. Maybe put in more of their reasons why they think the flood was local and not world wide, maybe talk more about Intelligent Design - I am sure they could talk to Bill Dempsky, Denise O'Leary or Michael Behe and any of the others and get some really good information.

Okay, so the OEC vs YEC debate is never ending and based more on emotions than hard boiled facts, but just because someone does not agree with you, does not make them wrong. Just think about it a bit harder. It can be the same with the flood, I have read some secular postulations about it and reference to some of those would have been useful.

What stood out for me, head and shoulders above anything else, was their aim to argue most of their case from within the Bible itself, rather than turn to outside sources in the first instance. This was a new form of study for me and helped put much of the Bible into a new and better perspective to me. It makes so much more sense than taking a verse in the Bible, particularly the Genesis creation story. Putting it all into the context of the Covenants makes so much more sense than leaving it outside of the Covenants.

We need to stick together and tearing down the book and Tim and Jeff serves no purpose. Working with them to improve what they have written would be more of a Christlike approach to it.

I am very grateful to these two men for helping me so early on my new journey and it will take much to dissuade me from it. lol.

Comment by Mickey on January 2, 2009 at 8:29pm

Jason and Sam,
If I might respectfully disagree, OEC is not required for "Covenant Creation (CC)" to work. As I understand it, CC does not take a position on it OEC vs YEC. I believe that both Tim and Jeff hold OEC positions as I do, but it is not required for CC. CC could stands or falls independently from either YEC or OEC.

CC argues that the imagery used by the prophets and John in revelation is the same type of imagery used in Genesis 1 and 2. The bringing of man into the presence of God and the preparation of his inheritance can occur if the earth is 6000 years old or if it is more ancient at my current level of understanding

Jason,
While your quote below is accurate, I am not sure OEC is required. What you cite is Jeff/Tim application as they currently see it (although far be it for me to speak for them, I only speak on my behalf and with my current understanding). If OEC is ever shown to be accurate (which it may never be) then OEC would be a useful tool to move partial preterists(PP) to full preterism(FP). Although I agree the only infallible tool to move some one from PP to FP is the proper understanding of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures in their original context and intent.

Comment by Jason Bradfield on December 3, 2008 at 4:19am

Will, their last footnote in their latest response to Sam directly answers your question: "We expect that the future growth of old earth creationism will play a major role in the demise of partial preterism. The big hang-up for most partial preterists is a biological resurrection which is inescapably tied to a biological view of the fall, a central pillar of modern YEC doctrine. Old earth creationism demonstrates powerfully that the fall had nothing to do with biology, and if the fall is not biological, then neither is the resurrection. Old earth creationism is preterism applied to the curse and preterism is old earth creationism applied to biblical eschatology."

Comment by sam on November 21, 2008 at 3:36pm

William,

For their system to work, yes OEC is necessary.

Comment by Sharon Nichols on October 16, 2008 at 1:02pm

Mike's been a busy little bee!

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last