Patching the Israel-flaw in Covenant Theology

[Al Touthentop]

This is an inappropriate response. Men said the same to Martin Luther and John Calvin. There is nothing wrong with pioneering a point of view.

Everything is wrong with a pioneering view and the Bible teaches that it's wrong.

"And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

 

[Al Touthentop]

You've conveniently limited the 'consequences' of Adam's sin to hell, as to dismiss the other consequences - such as death.

No, I explicitly said that Adam and Eve died in that moment just as God said he would. Your problem is in accepting the words. Obviously he could have been talking about physical death since he said "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

There is no longer any Tree of Life for us to live forever.

Sure there is. The tree of life is Jesus Christ.

"And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. 4 They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads. 5 There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever."

Originally, Adam and Eve experienced the glory of God as a covering obviating the need for clothing, and literally walked with Him in the garden. Look at Gen 3:16-19. It seems pretty clear that a curse befell mankind on account of the Fall. Paul even said:

"By the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man...One trespass resulted in condemnation for all people...Through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners" (Rom 5).

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned"

It wasn't Adam who spread death, it was the men who came afterwards and sinned. It entered the world because of Adam, but it was the sin of those who followed, their disobedience which spread it.

And yet you claim there were no consequences for us? Population studies suggest 100 billion people have lived and died to date. A God who visits the sins of one man upon 100 billion innocent people is a monster.

True. Since he didn't do that, and he says explicitly that he doesn't do that, why are you arguing that he has?

Are you aware of Charles Hodges' so-called "defense" of this travesty? He admitted that we'd normally classify such a ruler as an evil tyrant, but since it was God, He gets a free pass! And it contradicts Ezekiel 18 !!!!

Nope. I wasn't aware of that. But he's bought into the original sin doctrine and it isn't a doctrine that is supported by scripture. Instead of repudiating the doctrine, he wants to just tell us that God has his reasons for being a tryant and we're just supposed to accept them.

And if you deny that we have a sinful nature from Adam, you are left with another problem. Why not salvation by works? If we are born innocent:
(1) There is no need for the cross
(2) Paul was wrong when he said that all had sinned
(3) In fact there were infants in his day that definitely had NOT sinned.

I don't deny that we have a "sin nature," God and the authors of the Bible do. I just believe them. Paul makes it plain that without the law "sin is dead." He was talking about the innocence of those who are incapable of knowing the law. Otherwise, how could he have said that there was a time he was apart from the law, given he was born to Jewish parents who then taught him the law?

I asked you two questions earlier. You did not respond.
(1) Do we have a sinful nature from Adam?

Absolutely not. Jesus called Abel 'righteous.' If Abel was righteous, how then is that possible since he was the next after Adam?

(2) Was he our representative?

In what way? He was the first man. As the first man, we inherit our form and function from him. We also are like him in that our wills often rebel against God's will. But he didn't inject us with anything that prevents us from obeying God's will.

 

[Al Touthentop]

In response to:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Mat 24:34)

You wrote:



He wasn't talking about his Second Coming? The disciples asked Him:

“Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (24:3).

"End of the age" doesn't mean end of the world.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Only if he was talking about his second coming. He wasn't. He was prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem. That's a time passage. God's time passages must be respected. The near demonstrative pronoun there is specific (αὕτη). Had he wanted to indicate a time long in the future he wouldn't have said it that way.

Bible study requires us to submit to the word. He says "until ALL these things have happened." Because some of those things seem to have a meaning we're certain of (Christ's second comng!) and we can't reconcile this because, "I'm certain that hasn't happened yet," then some other possibility has to be available to us which reconciles with God's infallible word.

The most logical one, one that doesn't make Christ a liar, is that all those things took place and he wasn't talking about his second coming. Even though the language he used seems to be talking about the Judgement Day, it must not be. One plausible explanation is that he is talking about his coming or his spiritual presence in judgement of Jerusalem, not of the whole world. They were to recognize that the destruction of Israel was by his hand. His wrath would be poured out on those who after 40 years still refused to submit to God.

In order for the old Covenant to be wiped out completely, the temple had to be destroyed and the sacrifices had to be stopped. Jesus had already caused them to "cease" in the middle of the 70th week through his sacrifice becoming the new spiritual temple rebuilt when he was resurrected (See John 2:18-23). The temple sacrifices no longer provided atonement the day Jesus declared "it is finished." He had already given them plenty of time to be baptized before that point and would even continue giving them that opportunity for another 37 years or so.

Time was up for the Old Covenant.

Did the covenant stop when the 1st temple was destroyed? Was that the end of keeping Torah?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Did the covenant stop when the 1st temple was destroyed? Was that the end of keeping Torah?

I think the covenant stopped when Jesus was crucified and said "it is finished."

Paul says that the old law was "nailed to the Cross."

The temple was destroyed because it was no longer necessary in my reading. The new temple had been rebuilt with Christ's resurrection and then God made it impossible to obey the old law through the destruction of the earthly temple. This also included the destruction of all of the books of genealogy which told who was a Levite and thus who could administer the sacrifices.

 

[JAL]

Your position is still not making any sense. You are denying any consequences of Adam's sin. In other words, in your view Gen 3:16-19 does NOT proclaim a judgment on mankind? Apparently not because you claim that we still have access to the Tree of Life:

The tree of life is Jesus Christ.

So countless innocent fetuses are stuck in a womb, and ensuing childhood, filled with starvation, disease, abuse, rape, natural disasters, etc - but all this is good and well because they are somehow supposed to know how to reach out and embrace Jesus Christ? (Which of course they do not, especially at that early age).

Look, regardless of Christ's work on the cross, theodicy should be able to show that ALL of God's actions are beyond reproach, show that He truly has maximized His potential kindness, mercy, and love. But you and I, if given the option, would have been much more kind. I certainly wouldn't sentence 100 billion innocents to this kind of world. Now, if each of those 100 billion people had sinned - as my view of Adam says they did - that's a different story.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I think the covenant stopped when Jesus was crucified and said "it is finished."

Paul says that the old law was "nailed to the Cross."

The temple was destroyed because it was no longer necessary in my reading. The new temple had been rebuilt with Christ's resurrection and then God made it impossible to obey the old law through the destruction of the earthly temple. This also included the destruction of all of the books of genealogy which told who was a Levite and thus who could administer the sacrifices.

The Torah was still kept without the 1st Temple and while in Babylon.

 

[JAL]

I don't deny that we have a "sin nature," God and the authors of the Bible do. I just believe them. Paul makes it plain that without the law "sin is dead." He was talking about the innocence of those who are incapable of knowing the law. Otherwise, how could he have said that there was a time he was apart from the law, given he was born to Jewish parents who then taught him the law?

So in your view, we are born without a sinful nature. Then salvation by good works should be quite possible, right? Not every one necessarily needs the cross, right? I'm trying to understand your position.

For example, let's assume that the age of accountability is five years old (I have no idea). If a boy dies before then,he's in good shape in your view, right? No need for the cross in your view, right? Or if he makes it to five years old, and then lasts 60 seconds before death-by-car-accident, then he made it to heaven by good works, right? (Assuming he didn't sin during those 60 seconds).

Is this your view?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Your position is still not making any sense. You are denying any consequences of Adam's sin.

Death and a fallen world are the consequences...

 

[JAL]

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned"

It wasn't Adam who spread death, it was the men who came afterwards and sinned. It entered the world because of Adam, but it was the sin of those who followed, their disobedience which spread it.

But when did "all sin"? There were plenty of fetuses and infants in Paul's day, when he wrote those words. When did they sin? My solution is pretty much the same as that of Millard J. Erickson, as he said:

"We were all physically present in Adam, so that we all sinned in his act".

J.I. Packer stated of Erickson's systematic theology:

"Millard Erickson's Christian Theology has established itself as the most widely used and most generally useful of modern Protestant surveys of Christian truth."

Secondly, you dismissed me out of hand when I objected that, according to Paul, sin entered the world through Adam, even though Eve sinned first. My view of Adam solves that problem. What's your solution - other than dismissing the issue out of hand?

 

[JAL]

Al Touthentop,

Frankly I'm a loss here to understand your reading of Gen 3:16-19. I don't see how anyone can cogently argue that it does not proclaim a judgment on mankind. What am I missing here?

 

[ralliann]

Your position is still not making any sense. You are denying any consequences of Adam's sin. In other words, in your view Gen 3:16-19 does NOT proclaim a judgment on mankind? Apparently not because you claim that we still have access to the Tree of Life:
So countless innocent fetuses are stuck in a womb, and ensuing childhood, filled with starvation, disease, abuse, rape, natural disasters, etc - but all this is good and well because they are somehow supposed to know how to reach out and embrace Jesus Christ? (Which of course they do not, especially at that early age).

Look, regardless of Christ's work on the cross, theodicy should be able to show that ALL of God's actions are beyond reproach, show that He truly has maximized His potential kindness, mercy, and love. But you and I, if given the option, would have been much more kind. I certainly wouldn't sentence 100 billion innocents to this kind of world. Now, if each of those 100 billion people had sinned - as my view of Adam says they did - that's a different story.

What about this concept of generation
Hebrew
perverse and crooked vipers are generations as well as their disciples

De 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation <01755>.

01755 דור dowr dore or (shortened) דר dor dore
from 01752; n m; [BDB-189b] {See TWOT on 418 @@ "418b"}
AV-generation 133, all 18, many 6, misc 10; 167
1) period, generation, habitation, dwelling
1a) period, age, generation (period of time)
1b) generation (those living during a period)
1c) generation (characterised by quality, condition, class of men)
1d) dwelling-place, habitation

1c could fit well
This use of would apply to other uses in the list simultaneously

Greek
Mt 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation <1074>, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.

Lu 9:41 And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither.

This generation continues into the ranks of the Church

Ac 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.


1074 γενεά genea ghen-eh-ah’
from (a presumed derivative of) 1085; n f; TDNT-1:662,114; { See TDNT 152}
AV-generation 37, time 2, age 2, nation 1; 42
1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), a space of 30-33 years

2b could fit well too.

Mt 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Mt 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Lu 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Is this generation still among us? You betcha.

 

[JAL]

What about this concept of generation
Hebrew
perverse and crooked vipers are generations as well as their disciples

De 32:5 They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked generation <01755>.

01755 דור dowr dore or (shortened) דר dor dore
from 01752; n m; [BDB-189b] {See TWOT on 418 @@ "418b"}
AV-generation 133, all 18, many 6, misc 10; 167
1) period, generation, habitation, dwelling
1a) period, age, generation (period of time)
1b) generation (those living during a period)
1c) generation (characterised by quality, condition, class of men)
1d) dwelling-place, habitation

1c could fit well
This use of would apply to other uses in the list simultaneously

Greek
Mt 17:17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation <1074>, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.

Lu 9:41 And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither.

This generation continues into the ranks of the Church

Ac 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.


1074 γενεά genea ghen-eh-ah’
from (a presumed derivative of) 1085; n f; TDNT-1:662,114; { See TDNT 152}
AV-generation 37, time 2, age 2, nation 1; 42
1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
2b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied by each successive generation), a space of 30-33 years

2b could fit well too.

Mt 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Mt 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Lu 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Is this generation still among us? You betcha.

Jesus said:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Mat 24:34).

Now, you seem to be saying that "this generation" actually means all generations and thus refers to all mankind (maybe I'm misunderstanding you). But that would reduce Christ's words to a stupid remark of the sort:

"Truly I tell you, mankind will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened to mankind" (Mat 24:34).

That would be a stupid remark because the passage is listing events to befall mankind. Obviously mankind would have to still be alive for these events to happen to them. Moreover, note that "Truly" usually signifies a profound or astonishing remark, not usually some obvious, self-explanatory tautology.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The Torah was still kept without the 1st Temple and while in Babylon.

But they knew who were the Levites and the sacrifices were still offered while they were in Babylon.

 

[JAL]

Death and a fallen world are the consequences...

Agreed, although I can't make sense of why a perfectly kind, fair, loving, and merciful God would allow the consequences of one man's sin to befall 100 billion innocent fetuses and infants. My view of Adam solves that problem.

 

[JAL]

"End of the age" doesn't mean end of the world.

I'm not understanding. I certainly don't want to address preterism on this thread. Are you a preterist? If so, that would probably negate most of the passages that I've adduced (those particular objections wouldn't likely be very effective against your position).

On the other hand, Romans 11:26 is still a problem even for preterists, I would imagine. Again, you can fudge that verse by regarding the Israel of Romans 11 as the church, but it's a very strained exegesis.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I'm not understanding.

The terms "end of the age" and "last days" were used by Old Testament prophets to speak of the end of the Old Covenant.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter proclaimed that Joel's prophecy of what would happen in the "last days" was being fulfilled in that very hour.

Hebrews 1:1-2
"God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds"

Now obviously there was more than one "last days," since Paul there is making the current 'last days' distinct from other 'last days' by using the near demonstrative plural pronoun.

John says that in the current time he was writing, it was the 'last hour' as evidenced by the arrival of the spirit of the Antichrist. That obviously could not have meant that the end of the world was near.

John 2:18-22
"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us."

 

[Al Touthentop]

So countless innocent fetuses are stuck in a womb, and ensuing childhood, filled with starvation, disease, abuse, rape, natural disasters, etc - but all this is good and well

You don't have a very high opinion of God apparently. God always allowed those things to happen. But it isn't the only thing he allows. There are blessings as well. Why do you not notice those things?

 

[JAL]

You don't have a very high opinion of God apparently. God always allowed those things to happen.

Blatant misrepresentation. It is precisely because I HAVE a high opinion of God that I'm sure He wouldn't treat the innocent that way.

But it isn't the only thing he allows. There are blessings as well. Why do you not notice those things?

Again, divine holiness means that ALL God's actions must be beyond reproach. Subjecting millions or billions of innocents to starvation, disease, death, rape, etc. in their fetal, infantile, or childhood stages is hardly beyond reproach. That is the work of a monster.

My view of Adam affords a solution - the only solution provided in the last 2,000 years, as far as I can see.

My suspicion was correct. You don't have a solution. You prefer to persist in a world view that contradicts the absolute holiness of God. I don't.

 

[ralliann]

Jesus said:

"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Mat 24:34).

No not at all. Not all generations are perverse and crooked? Also not all generations are judged by the law. I am thinking the gospel to the Jews was distinct in that feature. They were going to incur the judgement of the law. John came preaching an escape from the curse and wrath of God upon them.