Fulfilled Theology - Preterist

Discussion All Areas Of Systematic Theology

Questions from Taffy on "The Divine & Human Nature"



Taffy gave me a list of questions and some of them I am not sure how to answer. He said go ahead and post here. I thought you might be willing to answer or something to discuss.


1. Do you believe human "nature" was different before Adam's time (4,000BC)? If yes, in what way?


2. Do you believe human "nature" was different after the parousia? e.g. in the children of the "church" or those referred to in Ac 17:26-28 who lived past the judgements? If yes, in what way?


3. Do you believe God's "nature" was different before 4,000BC? If yes, in what way?


4. Do you believe God's "nature" is different after 70AD? If yes, in what way?


5. Scripture says the "Law is spiritual" (Rom 7:14). When did humans first become "spiritual" and accountable for their actions? At Sinai, Ur, the Flood, the Garden, Gobekli Tepe, Africa, etc, etc?


6. Are humans still "spiritual"?


7. Do you believe men "sinned" before 4,000BC? If yes, against what "Law"? and what were their "wages"?


8. Do you believe men "sin" today? If yes, against what "Law"? and what are their "wages"?


9. Did the "righteous requirements" (Rom 2:26) of God's "spiritual" Law cease in 70AD? If yes, please point me to the scriptures. If no, what does that mean?


10. Scripturally there is a "profound silence" about ancient events; ice-ages, dinosaurs, continental shift, etc (just as there's a "profound silence" about post-parousia events). Does that mean there was no "ongoing reality" prior to 4,000BC?


11. I believe God's the "author" of human life as He is is of everything else (Ac 17:25) and He DOESN'T "change". He's the same NOW as He's ever been (Mal 3:6, James 1:17). If He DOESN'T "change" and scripture says He's "righteous" (Ex 9:27) and His "Law" is "spiritual" (Rom 7:14), what do you think that meant for pre-adamic "peoples" and also for post-parousia "peoples"?

His blog is in http://preterism-preterist-taffy.blogspot.co.uk/p/death.html

Views: 615

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Ok Don.  The Bible didn't mention them so can't have existed, right?


Poor old worshippers at Gobekli Tepe...lol.


Cheers for your 'thoughtful' reply.


Take care, Taffy.

Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Hi Donald,


I would also agree that "the Bible doesn't mention pre-Adamic peoples."


However, the same scientific principles and methods that we use to validate, translate, and interpret the historical accounts of scripture also suggest that there is extra-biblical human history that precedes the records of "Adam's generations."   Thus, to be consistent, I think we need to assume that there were human beings that existed before the creation of Adam.


The biblical writers seem to be referring to such people in certain texts (e.g. Genesis 4:16).  Also, perhaps there would be no need to distinguish "the book of the generations of Adam" (Genesis 5:1) unless there were other historical or genealogical records that preceeded and/or coincided with biblical accounts.


Rivers :)


Taffy and Rivers,


I am not saying that these peoples doesn't exist in the Bible. They were/are outside of the scope when the Bible was written. We don't have enough information about those people in the Bible but we can use other sources (archaeologists, scientists, historians, etc.) that can be helpful.

Hi Donald,


We're touching on an important issue here because we depend upon "archeologists, scientists, historians, etc." in order to demonstrate the validity of the historical records in scripture to begin with.


Although we can give preference to the "inspired" quality of biblical revelation, and recognize that it may be limited in purpose (Genesis 5:1) and geographic scope (Genesis 1:1 Genesis 15:18), we can't simply ignore other information that might be relevant to "history" that occurred beyond what is revealed in the Bible.


Afterall, it's rather obvious that there has been 2,000+ years of human history that has extended beyond the apostolic era (where the historical record of scripture ends).


Rivers :)




Yes I agree.

Rivers, you agree that God's "nature"/character hasn't "changed" and that people "sinned" before Adam. Good.  This is obvious.


1. i/ Against what "Law" did they "sin" (Rom 4:15, 1 Jn 3:4)?  ii/ What do you believe the "penalty" was for their "sin" (Rom 6:23)?


iii/ Did the God who "changes not" (Mal 3:6, James 1:17) in fact "change" His "righteous requirements" (Rom 2:26) for pre-adamic peoples (Ps 11:7)? and also for pre-Sinai peoples?
2. Abraham was to, "..command his children AND his household after him (as well as circumcise them; Gen 17:12), that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice.." (Gen 18:19).  What was the "way of the LORD"? and what "righteousness and justice" is being referred to?


3. Paul told his brethren, "if there had been a Law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the Law" (Gal 3:21).  In what way do yo believe Abel, Noah, Melchizedek, and Abraham were called "righteous" even though they weren't Israelites and had no "written code" (Gen 7:1, 15:6, Matt 23:35, Heb 7:2)?

4. Paul told the Galatians that the "Law of Moses"/"ministry of death" (2 Cor 3:7) was only "added" to the Israelites because of "transgressions"/"sin" (Gal 3:19).  Against what did they "transgress"/"sin" before it was "added"?  
5. i/ Were the "transgressions"/"sins" committed by Israel against God before the "Law" was "added" to them different in charcter to the "transgressions"/"sins" they committed against Him after it was "added"?  ii/ Or was it "added" as to "children" needing a "schoolmaster" so they could see what it really was to "sin" against God, "exceedingly sinful" (Rom 7:13)?
6. Were their "sins" different in character to those of others?  Pharaoh (Ex 9:27, 34)? or those in Nod? or Cain for example (Gen 4:7)?
7. In what way did Pharaoh call the LORD "righteous" (Ex 9:27)?
8. i/ What do you believe it was to "do well" and therefore "be accepted" (Gen 4:7)?  ii/ Could that be achieved by others?
9. Jesus said that the heart of God's "requirements" was "love" (Mk 12:30-31), because "God is love" (1 Jn 4:16).  Paul also said "love" "fulfilled" God's "Law" (Rom 13:10, Gal 5:22-23).
i/ Was "love" in the world before Adam?  ii/  Did that mean God's "Law" was?  iii/  Was their ancient "love" the same as that used by God as the standard when He externalised/codified its "requirements" on "tablets of stone" for rebellious Israel (Rom 2:26, 2 Cor 3:3)?  Or did they have some different kind of "love"?
Cheers, Taffy.

Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Don, we don't need everything spelt out for us in scripture as children.  


The Bible says the "LORD is righteous" (Ps 11:7).  As He doesn't "change" (Mal 3:6, James 1:17) we can sensibly conclude that He was "righteous" BEFORE 4,000BC and also is AFTER 70AD and that He still "hates iniquity".

We can also sensibly conclude that the seat of men's morality, intelligence, etc, is STILL his "spirit"/"heart".


What we need to ask ourselves is what do these things mean?  Not just deny/scoff at everything that doesn't have the word "Israel" in it.


Take care, Taffy.

Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Hi Taffy,

The problem with your reasoning is that it doesn't logically follow that because "God doesn't change" that He deals the same way with all people.   Paul plainly stated that "to the Isarelites according to the flesh belong the covenants, the promises, the adoption of sons, and the glory" (Romans 9:3-5).

God also told the "sons of Israel" that He was holding them accountable the Law because they were "chosen above all the other people on the earth" (Amos 3:1-2).   The same "God who doesn't change" also chose not to "impute sin when there (was) no Law" (Romans 5:12-14).   The evidence suggests that God held the Israelites to a different (higher) standard than all the other people.

Rivers :)



 Is it a sin to race mix?  Was the law given to Non-Jews? Was the great white throne Judgement for Non-Hebrews,Israelites,Jews? I have to agree with the Lads on this site!!! Where does the bibles say that Pagans must obey the law given to Moses? Is it a sin to kill in war when your government tells you to kill in a unjust war? If yes(why) In Lex Rex Christians are told to disobey government when the king is above his own laws...What do you do if the King is not a Christian and is killing your people? How do you define sin  with a non- covenant people? There alot of questions i asked you but i have my reason....I want to see your Ethics and your Moral system based on Gods law,sin, to pagans and Christians.

Hi Rivers, you said, "The problem with your reasoning is that it doesn't logically follow that because 'God doesn't change' that He deals the same way with all people."
But Rivers, the problem with your reasoning is this:


If God is God and man is man and sin is sin, if the "Judge of all the earth is to do right" (Gen 18:25) how can He punish "sin" differently from one man to the next and still be "just"?  "Does God subvert judgement?  Or does the Almighty pervert justice?" (Job 8:3)  This is what you accuse Him of.

As to your 'Israel Only' paradigm I'm afraid it's as erroneous as your lack of understanding of God's "Law", which thing is "spiritual" (Rom 7:14), even though you only grasp its "letter".  Israel was indeed "chosen" above all others (Amos 3:1-2) to be God's "servant" (Ex 19:6, Lev 25:42, 2 Cor 5:18, etc), so what?  But I'll deal with your errors about Israel once again when I get a chance.
Yes, the "ministry of Death" was carved onto "tablets of stone" and ONLY "added" to Israel.  That wasn't their "glory", but their "shame".  Their fathers had no need of such a "schoolmaster" (Gal 3:24) yet they were called "righteousness", even by the "righteousness of faith" (Phil 3:9, Gal 5:5, Heb 11:7, etc).
As to Rom 5:12-14, once again, you take this 'out of context' in order to support your errors.  Paul's whole point in Romans was to contrast the "written code" (which ONLY applied to Israel) with God's "righteousness requirements" (which DIDN'T only apply to them) and the "gospel" that came by that "righteousness" (Rom 1:17, 3:22, 25-26, 4:5, etc).
In Rom 5:13 he said, "for until the Law (i.e. the "Law of Moses") sin WAS IN THE WORLD."  His point was to teach his brethren that even though God doesn't "impute sin" for "transgression" against a "written code" people don't have (Rom 5:13, 4:15), a person doesn't need His "righteous requirements" spelt out to them as to "children" because they were already aware of them (Rom 2:14-15).  That was why Abel, et al, could be called "righteous" and why "death reigned from Adam to Moses" (Rom 5:14).  Moses wasn't needed either for "righteousness", sin" or to experience what its "wages" were.
I would hold out hope that one day you may finally start to grasp God's "Law", but as its "truth" will argue against your 'Israel Only' error, I don't think I am able to.
Remember, although not set out for them in a "Book of commandments", other "nations" (Egypt, Assyria, etc) ALSO experienced God's "wrath"; sickness, famines, wars and such (1 Cor 5:13).  But "is God unjust who inflicts wrath.." (Rom 3:5)?  But if not "unjust", in what way do others deserve His "condemnation"?  What "Law"/standard do they breach?  Is it a different "code" to the one Abraham walked by (Gen 18:19)?
BTW, there is no such thing as a "higher standard".  "Love" is "love" is "love" and "sin" is "sin" is "sin" and "God" is "God" is "God".  But for Israel there was "no excuse" and "no escape" (Rom 2:12, 3:19).
Anyway, I'll stop there because I think its falling on deaf ears.  (Although the scales may start to fall from the eyes of others.  Don?)
Rivers, rather than reply with 'out of context' quotations and evasion, how about answering the questions in my last message to you as asked?  If you'd like me to repeat them for you please say.
Cheers, Taffy.

Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Hi Timothy, please review my previous posts because I think you've missed my point.  I have no-where said anyone but Israel was "accountable" to the "written code".


Cheers, Taffy.

Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Hi guys, I've given more of my views about God 's "Law" and the nature of man's "soul" in one of my 'blogs' (see, "Soul").


I've posted it here as a new discussion and its awaiting Don's approval.  But if anyone has any views on it in the meantime I'd much like to hear them.


Take care, Taffy.

Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Reply to Discussion


This is an open forum to discuss all areas of Systematic Theology which it does not agree with the Church Traditions.

© 2020   Created by Donald.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service