The well documented “divide”, in the hypreterist community, (Sam, Dave perhaps you used the title too early) is over the issues of the standard of truth. Clearly there is a faction within the hyperpreterist community which recognizes God’s special revelation is the standard by which all claims of truth are to be measured. However, there appears to be a large faction within that community, indeed anecdotal information would suggest it is the majority of at least the vocal advocates of hyperpreterism who deny God’s Word is the lone standard by which all truth is to be measured.
The reformed evangelical Christian perspective has based its claims of truth on the Bible as the lone standard by which all other “truths” are measured. Reformed evangelical Christians take very seriously the Apostle Paul’s claim in the second chapter of Colossians,
…Christ, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 2 Colossians 2:8,9, ESV
Indeed, when members of the hyperpreterist community draw the line in the sand that truth is to be measured only against what is stated in God’s special revelation, reformed evangelical Christians acknowledge these statements with a hearty “amen”. There is nothing more fundamental to the Christian position than its source for truth. However, it seems to me, the element within the hyperpreterist community that upholds the standard of truth is also attempting to confuse the clear “divide” established within their camp with that of an ethical issue of a single individual.
Sam Frost writes,
So, how should we treat this “split”? How do the Pret Blah writers treat our arguments with one another (like, BCS and us “Clarkians”?). Should we do the same thing? Should we “take advantage” of this situation with the now ousted Roderick? What? Is it unraveling for them? There is a God in heaven…..
You see, there is a new enemy in town for Roderick. It’s not us. We are wolves. Heretics. We are satan’s minions, and that’s obviously true since we hate church history and creeds. No, see the REAL problem is the compromisers….Paul T., Dr. T., Phil, Dee Dee, Sharon…..see, that’s the problem now…..those are the new enemies….and, heck, lawsuits have even been entertained…..
It will be interesting to see how this faction works itself out in the name of “all things orthodox.” Oh, and while I am at it…..Can Glen tell me the “orthodox” position on the Lord’s Table?
Where is the “logic” in comparing the fundamental disagreement in what is and isn’t “truth” with holding a colleague or associate accountable for an ethical issue? Indeed in the continued “divide” in the hyperpreterist community over what is the standard of truth a rather naïve hypepreterist, one of the few who seemingly recognize God’s word is the standard writes,
Comment by greglee20 9 hours ago
“Folks there are reasons that Clarkian philosophy is looked upon as an aberration in the world”
This is a great comment (not). Could not the same be said of full preterism? Or even BCS?
http://preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/clarkism-and-its-theological
Apparently the hyperpreterist doesn’t understand the underlying principle of “BCS” is theistic evolution which is nothing more than a rationalization of God’s word with a system designed to deny God’s existence. Indeed Dr. John Walton affirms the underlying premise of his book,
…the view presented in this book, neither camp (Neo-Darwinism and Christianity) must give ground…(The Lost World of Genesis One, John H. Walton, IVP, pg. 167)
For those following the discussions within the hyperpreterist camp Dr. Walton’s book is all the rage for those holding to “BCS”. His reinterpretation of the Biblical narrative is seemingly an effort to reconcile what he terms as the “reigning paradigm” (Neo-Darwinism) in the world of science for the explanation of man’s origin with Christianity.
Pointed out in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd edition,
Significance of Creation. Since God as Creator is the explanation for the existence of the world and for human existence, it is the activity of creation that establishes our deepest and most essential relation to God: as Creator and thus Lord. (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd edition, Walter A. Elwell, Baker, pg 304)
Neo-Darwinism is “a theory of evolution that is a synthesis of Darwin’s theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics” (Webster’s Dictionary)
Darwin’s theory for the origin of humanity is a frontal assault on the Christian concept of the divine origins of mankind. It isn’t just a coincidence the “theistic” evolutionists are attracted to “BCS”. The fact of the matter, “BCS” is an effort to marginalize the very core of God’s special revelation making the Bible subservient to fallen man’s evaluation of natural evidence. This is exactly what the “world” desires. Rather than being held accountable to the Creator God, remove God from the process altogether by dumbing down the meaning of His special revelation to mankind. The Apostle Paul wrote,
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, Romans 1:18-22 ESV
This is exactly what those of the “BCS” are doing, “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” Roman 1:25 ESV. In this case the “creature” is modern science’s “reigning paradigm”.
Yet Sam Frost would seek to place this fundamental “divide” on the same level as holding an associate accountable for his ill advised actions. Sam, your issue with Norm, JL Vaughn, John “Death” Scargy, Tim Martin, Tami Jelinek, etc, etc, isn’t just because they claimed,
Frost, ever the master of the unprovoked and completely misrepresentational cheap shot,
http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/comments-on-sam-frosts-gordon?xg_source=activity
Your issue is not that those of the “BCS” are making ill advised comments and unwarranted charges that need to be repented of as in the case of Roderick. Your issue isn’t simply a disagreement over whether one dunks or sprinkles. No Sam, your issue is that a clear majority of your group is reading the Bible in such a way as to redefine the creation account so that it is no longer an explanation about humanities existence. The apparent majority faction within your community has usurped the authority of God for their own based on their rationalized standard for determining truth. I understand that you agree with my assessment that the “BCS” faction represents theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is nothing but Darwinism repackaged in Christian terminology. Sam, don’t marginalize the width of the “divide” in your camp by comparing an apple with an orange.
Good article. Small correction: I believe you meant “lone” (only) and “loan” (to lend).
The core issue is the authority of the word of God and whether or not it is the inspired word of God and the sole standard in matters of faith and practice. There is a stark difference between what one learns via “natural” revelation (nature etc), and that which is revealed in the “special” revelation (the Bible) only. Truth relative to any issue is determined by the word of God and not by evidence obtained by any form of observation.
Larry,
Thanks for catching the typo. I trust Sam will get back on the issue at hand. In Sam’s work, “A Brief Critical Analysis of Beyond Creation Science: Some Preliminary Concerns” he writes, “In Presuppostionalism, there is no clash between “science and religion” precisely because science is limited in what it can discover.” I look forward to Sam making the case with the “BCS” group why this is a fact. I trust he isn’t backing off.
Are you aware that a great many Reformed futurists also hold to theistic evolution? Does this represent a divide that disproves futurism? Even Calvin believed we learned through natural and special revelation…did he create the divide? There are many more futurists that believe in theistic evolution by percentage than preterists. In fact theistic evolution orginated in the Reformed futurist camp…read Howard Van Til sometime! (no relation to Cornelius). Even Augustine did not belive in a literal 6v day creation.
Yoo hoo Samuel, Paul has taken some of my work of my “take down” of your article. You completely equivocating on the type of “divide” that exists. Dividing with someone over tactics is NOT the same as the fragmented splinters of hyperpreterism and the downright vicious infighting.
Bryan can now stop being worried that a statement that I would defeat your article meant I was going to come and pull your hair or something.
Larry,
Thank you,
I appreciate you pointing out merely making an accusation without backing it up is meaningless. The theistic evolutionists of the “BCS” are particularly sensitive to me pointing out the underlying core principles of their view. We’ve documented the intellectual dishonesty of particular members of that group, guy’s like JL Vaughn and John “Death” Scargy who seemingly can’t make an argument without employing a logical fallacy. Vaughn is on record claiming Adam had a mommy and a daddy yet claims he doesn’t hold to theistic evolution. However, Vaughn refuses to inform the reading public, where according to him Adam’s humanoid parents came from. John “Death” Scargy claims he isn’t a theistic evolutionists yet won’t publicly affirm or deny if he understands the Biblical record as proclaiming Adam as the progenitor of humanity. Norm, apparently the only honest one over there at least admits he holds that man descended from some sub-human creature. These guys make all sorts of unfounded accusations but in the end only hide behind their ineffective rhetoric. The fair minded reading public can sort through the wheat and the chaff of their hyperbole.
Hey Norm,
I’m sure Larry appreciates your leniency. On top of your liberal views of Scripture I’ll bet your politics lean liberal. After all, it is the liberals who want to restrict freedom of the speech. It is good to see you cutting Larry a break.
However, if you are going to claim my positions are based on “poor” logic, then you ought to make your case. After all I’m not the guy who claimed God really didn’t mean what he said, when he said, ““Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” which God ensured was understood to mean, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him” I think it was you who claimed Adam wasn’t made in God’s image, that is if I remember correctly. ROFL,
Not that Larry needs an apologist, but this Norm guy is ridiculous.
Hey, Norm, what do you think this means,
“he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth” Acts 17:26
“3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” Hebrews 11:3
“6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host. 7 He gathers the waters of the sea as a heap; he puts the deeps in storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
9 For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.” Ps 33:6-9
“25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” Ps 102:25
“12 It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom,
and by his understanding stretched out the heavens.” Jer 10:12
Oh, Norm, before you go into the fact you think I don’t understand the way the Hebrews thought why don’t you tell all the world why the recognized authority on Jewish culture including their thinking supports my position. The Jewish Encyclopedia states,
Norm, explain to us all the logic that states the Jews who were the keepers of the OT didn’t understand what the prophet meant. Normally I don’t talk this way, but frankly Norm, you are more full of crap than the Christmas goose.
JL Vaughn writes,
OK, so my claim that Vaughn denies the authority of Scripture is a lie. Webster defines a lie as, “to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive”
Yet on November 17th of this year JL Vaughn wrote,
I will leave to the reading public to determine who is lying about whose position.
Mr. Hassertt,
Would you provide me the name of the Reformer and the supporting documentation that supports the concept Adam evolved from a subhuman creature. I would be very interested in your support for you claim. Here is Calvin’s commentary on Gen 2:7,
Does that sound like a theistic evolutionist view to you?
Paul,
As usual, you do not read what people actually write but instead twist their words to make yourself seem right! i said Reformed theologians (not Reformers!!!) BB Warfield for example believed in an Old Earth, Augustine believed in mediate creation, not creation over 6 days, Christian Reformed Scientists are the one who originally formulated the modern theistic evolution stance. Very few Christians in history have held to a 6000 year old, 6 -lieteral day created earth.
notice I never claimed that a Reformed believed in human evolution from subhuman creatures. That is your missttatement of what I said. Nice try at a trap! you seem to do that often and read what you want to read instead fo what is actually written!
Mr. Hassertt,
Sorry, that was an oversight on my part. Thank you for pointing out my error. However, allow me to suggest next time you just spell out the theologian you have in mind. Yes, I’m aware of Dr. Warfield’s concession to the prevailing views of his time. However, Warfield didn’t get his concession of the creation of Adam from Augustine who certainly held Adam as the progenitor of humanity. I think you are confusing the debate of old earth with that of theistic evolution. You may want to pick up a copy of Dr. Bavinck’s vol 2, “God and Creation”, you may be surprised to find out the divine origins of man as Adam being the progenitor of humanity has been a consistent Christian point of view for 2000 years. Again, thanks for pointing out my oversight.
BTW, if you do invest in Dr. Bavinck’s work you will find out your line of argument about the historical views of 6 day creation held within Christianity are not exactly accurate.