http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2009/06/12/the-wolf-and-the-lamb/

We do see a gradual progression from agrarian societies to cities in history, but that is social, not creational. We are still seeing new species appear at surprising rates in smaller animals, but the rates of extinction are increasing. (http://creation.com/speedy-species-surprise). The planet is more and more the domain of man. I don’t think the animals will be tamed in this era.

I don’t believe the created order will be restored progressively but in one go. However, that will be just another new beginning for us, with a gradual progress beyond. I’m sure our God has plenty for us to do in a restored heaven and earth. He is irreversibly dynamic.

Are the lions getting tamer and eventually will they add veggies to their diet?

(This is a serious question.)
I know this is basically what Chilton argued for in Paradise Restored but he eventually moved on.

Did you miss my point about PHYSICAL – SOCIAL – PERSONAL – SOCIAL – PHYSICAL ? If you did, it’s explained more fully in The Covenant Key. It’s a disrobing of the High Priest until all He is left with is burial linen. Christ, at the very centre of history, was personally a New Heaven and New Earth. History since then is the High Priest putting back on His robe of glory after atonement has been made. It it currently social and will again be physical.

And it’s a nice day for an Ellen White wedding – at least when it comes to YEC.

Mike

Your assertion is wrong. If Genesis one is about Covenant then your charge falls apart. We are the consistent ones. It is Leithart, DeMar and others that argue for at least two different interpretations of “heavens and earth” depending on where you are in the Bible. (and who you are arguing against)

It is also you guys that are more gnostic like. The FP see’s no problem with the physical universe because this is exactly the way God made it (biological death included). It is the YEC and Reformed world that believes this physical universe is bad and corrupted by evil and must be escaped or re-made. (Apparently Jesus’ work on the Cross wasn’t strong enough to reverse that part of the curse.)

You refuse to even admit your own pre-suppositions about Genesis. Leithart has 2 Peter 3 fulfilled (covenantal context) yet it is clear to anyone that Peter is using Genesis language (Same with Isaiah 65). Your marriage to Ellen G White and her YEC paradigm is keeping you from being consistent.

Do you believe the physical universe is under the curse of sin and needs to be renovated? Is Romans 8 fulfilled or yet to be fulfilled? How can Peter, Jeremiah, Jesus, Isaiah and almost every other inspired writer take language from Gen. 1 and then re-define it in a totally different way than Gen. 1 uses it? (according to your interpretation)

If you want to play the name calling game at least admit your futurism is solely based on your YEC gnostic-like assumptions.

I really enjoyed this article. I just have one question. How can you see it so clearly and then apply cognitive dissonance and hold to the modern YEC / anti-typological “woodenly, literal” scientific interpretation of Genesis?

Have you even tried jettisoning your YEC view for a Covenantal view (or non-concordance view) of Genesis and then applied that to the rest of the Bible and your hermeneutic to see if it makes more sense?

Blessings,
Micah