Comments on a post by The Native Tourist
Holding to the typological nature of old covenant is part of the problem?
I'm not sure I understand what you are faulting Horton for, or at least not sure how he is advocating what you object to.
Greg,
See Dave's earlier post here. Scroll down to Two Kingdom Critique I
Mr. Baus - There is a "typological" meaning of the land in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, but the land stands for NOT the "heavenly earth" but the present earth in its totality(which is one with the New earth; see Eph. 6:3). When Horton speaks of a "heavenly" earth, he is spiritualizing Rev. 21-22 which is typical of "Spiritual" amillenialists. "Earthy" amillenialists embrace and relish the idea of a real continuity of dirt, culture, flesh, architecture, trees, animal life, art, etc.
I followed the link Jeff provided and followed the trail to find the answer on Sept. 4, 2002. Now I'll prove my ignorance: I've never heard of an "earthy amill" but it is intriguing. Dave, are there internet articles you can recommend?
Barb,
">Here
is a related article by Anthony Hoekema that I believe Dave has quoted in the past.
Thanks Jeff...I'll bookmark it and read it this evening.
Thanks, Jeff. I forgot about that article. Of course he gives a longer treatment in his book The Bible and Future. See also Mouw's When the Kings Come Marching In which relates Isaiah 60 to Rev 21-22.
Hey Dave,
I've never heard the term "radical continuity" regarding the covenants before.(I think I've understood Prof Murray and others who see God's gracious hand in all covenants- including the covenant of Works,but are you coining the term by adding "radical" to the concept or otherwise could you explain what is understood by this by those in the know?
"Radical continuity" is the position put forth by O. Palmer Robinson in Christ of the Covenants. There is a core Covenant of Grace with different "externals" in each of the particular covenants (i.e. Abrahamic, Mosaic, etc.). See WCF 7.5.
Commenting by HaloScan
