More Insight From Norm - Predispensational Bible Manipulation Part 2

Filed Under (Paul's posts) by Paul on 06-12-2009

Tagged Under : ,

Hyperpreteirst extraordinaire theologian and exegete, Norm, of both “Death Is Defeated” and “Preteristdebate” fame, strikes again.  Denying the very explicit meaning in this clear text,

 

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. Genesis 1: 26. 27, ESV

 

Norm however, based on his special insight, exegetical acumen and stellar systemized theology claims,

 

Adam was not created in God’s Image at the beginning. Genesis is clear that Adam was only created in the “Likeness” of God.

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

 

Perhaps we can chock this up to hyperpreterist hermeneutic principle #1; the inspired text really doesn’t mean what the text explicitly states.  I guess the explicit statement, “So God created man in his own image” which is reinforced by the phrase, “in the image of God he created him” is less than clear to the hyperpreterist. Hey, now we all know how the “covenant” creationist camp gained a following. 

 

What an embarrassing remark, you can certainly understand why John “Death” Scargy, elected to shut down the thread soon after Norm’s inexplicable claim appeared.  Maybe Norm got lost in the kitchen.

 

Comments:

Total 4 Comments posted More Insight From Norm - Predispensational Bible Manipulation Part 2

Gatekeeper says...

Paul, What John “DID” Scargy did was to change the Title of the article, and the result is a broken link. The correct link is below:

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

He has “Closed for Comments,” the thread, but the quote by Norm is still there at the very last!

With all the creative editing of threads and comments going on, it is difficult to follow some of these discussions! Then when the discussion does not go the way the OP wanted it to go from the beginning, they will just cut each other off! When they banned me from the group, I understood from the standpoint that nothing they said would be left to ride, but now it is like they are banning each other from the discussion! This would be very sad if I was not laughing so hard at their “fool” Preterism, while they seem so wise in their own eyes as they discuss these esoteric subjects! Gk

Posted on 7 Dec 2009 at 2:32 am
Paul says...

I think Norm has just articulated hyperpreterist hermeneutical principle #2.

Yes I have already said now multiple times that I’m not inferring What Augustine may have understood as I’m drawing my own conclusions from his statement of the Law originating from the beginning of Gen 1:1. He said it and I quoted it. I could care less whether you like the idea of me quoting something from someone that may not have understood it exactly the way I do as I quoted it to make my point of his recognition of the beginning of the Law with Gen 1:1 and most importantly how he viewed the six Days of Genesis as Ages from Adam to Christ.http://preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/response-to-yom-jason

IOW, “I will use quotes penned by authors who were conveying different concepts than what I believe the quote to represent, as if the quote supports my point of view”. Norm, I think they call this misrepresentation.

ROFL,

Posted on 7 Dec 2009 at 8:34 am
dee dee says...

I wonder if Norm would mind if we quote him to support something he would oppose. I doubt it.

Posted on 7 Dec 2009 at 10:16 am
Paul says...

Wanna bet the 1st cry of foul would be the claim, “you are twisting my words”?

BTW, I found this rather funny, Bible Touchstone writes,

There is no way GHC “can be utilized to build a [full] preterist systematic theology” from his work The Biblical Doctrine of Man, that is unless you are hungry for “cake”. Clark sees the beginning of sin in the mind as resulting in total depravity because of the integrity of man (p.58, etc.). He says, “Scripture uses the term death both for physical death and for spiritual death. Both together are the penalty for sin”, page 65. Although, he sees our woe as mainly spiritual and death as most often spoken of as spiritual (p. 44, 61, 72), this orthodox view does not deny total depravity as a penalty for sin or the necessity for the penal substitutionary Atonement. He taught the total depravity of body and soul (p. 51, 52), “human nature is depraved in all its parts”, page 77 (also see WCF 6:2).

Sam writes,
“The first proposition we came to see in Clark is that Man is a unity, not a combination. That is, Man is the Soul and the Soul is the Image of God. This soul is not a combination of “body + soul”. Soul is a subtance, it is the Person, the Essence, and the Idenitity of Man qua Man. It is the whole man.”

This is a rash abstraction. Although Clark argues against “trichotomous” views of man, and “dualist” ones, he nonetheless speaks of man having “components” (p. 36, 40, etc.), stating “God constructed man out of two elements” and that “combination was a living soul” (p. 37). Sam says he means man is not a combination, but Clark suggests that this unity is a “combination” (p. 37). Categorically, Sam fumbles at his meaning because Clark meant the living-soul is both “body and spirit”. This is because Sam misappropriates the usage of the terms soul and spirit, even after Clark goes on to explain them as not “fixed technical terms” (see p. 38-42, etc.). Depending on the usage, the entire man can properly be called “soul and body” or “spirit and body” (p.42). Sam’s thesis is wrong. This is how Clark calls human nature as a whole containing “parts” (p. 77). If this were not so, then when we say Jesus died, was buried, and rose again from the dead, we would only be talking of his soul as something other than His soul and body!
http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/gordon-clark-the-definition-of

Rash abstraction, misrepresentation, seems synonymous to me. Maybe folks are starting to catch on realizing they need to check the sources Sam quotes.

Posted on 7 Dec 2009 at 10:56 am

Post a comment