The Soteriological Status of the Nephilim?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow. This reminds me of the old Sean Gerety days on PB. As to needing humility, I actually agreed with Dr Duguid, so I am not sure what you are getting at. My arrogance might be my refusal to submit to Gill's interpretation unless I run Gill by my session, which I have no intention of doing.
Which part of his statement did you agree with?
 
Which part of his statement did you agree with?

I agreed with him that the passages in Genesis seem to preclude outside survivors. My question was simply, "How do we integrate other passages which imply the continued existence of the Nephilim?" And Dr Duguid actually pointed towards possible answers, which was the very point of my question.
 
I actually introduced my pastor to Michael Heiser and he had no problem with it. Very open, actually
By the teaching office of the church I don’t of course mean session by session, but the historical positions of, again, those called men who are Reformed and confessional, and whose teaching has been approved by the Reformed and confessional visible church.
 
I don't need to be his pastor in order to show him his error. Where in the bible is that? I don't need to speak with anybody. There's a moderator and member of the staff on this thread that thinks he's wrong too. What's so bad about me telling him he needs to learn humility? Not that hard to see.

For the record I wasn't offended. While your statement was presumptuous, I actually thought it was funny. I chuckled. In all seriousness, I can be wrong and not "need a lesson in humility," since you haven't shown where I was high-handed or arrogant. I refuse to filter my thinking through John Gill's approval, but that hardly counts as arrogance. I agreed with Dr Dugid, so that hardly counts as arrogance. I just quoted bible verses.
 
I agreed with him that the passages in Genesis seem to preclude outside survivors. My question was simply, "How do we integrate other passages which imply the continued existence of the Nephilim?" And Dr Duguid actually pointed towards possible answers, which was the very point of my question.
But what was his final answer? Are you rencanting your statement that not all the died in the flood?
 
By the teaching office of the church I don’t of course mean session by session, but the historical positions of, again, those called men who are Reformed and confessional, and whose ministry is accepted by the Reformed and confessional visible church.

That only works on the most general level. Confessions, creeds, that sort of thing. I reject the idea that there is this pure deposit of verse-by-verse Reformed teaching. That's especially true when David Dickson preached on the Pactum Salutis, even though it wasn't codified in the WCF. That's especially true when we compare the different commentaries on eschatology and the like (I'm amil, so I am safe).
 
For the record I wasn't offended. While your statement was presumptuous, I actually thought it was funny. I chuckled. In all seriousness, I can be wrong and not "need a lesson in humility," since you haven't shown where I was high-handed or arrogant. I refuse to filter my thinking through John Gill's approval, but that hardly counts as arrogance. I agreed with Dr Dugid, so that hardly counts as arrogance. I just quoted bible verses.

I'm undecided. I don't find either position fully satisfactory. If that's considered "arrogance," I give up.
Good.
 
For the record I wasn't offended. While your statement was presumptuous, I actually thought it was funny. I chuckled. In all seriousness, I can be wrong and not "need a lesson in humility," since you haven't shown where I was high-handed or arrogant. I refuse to filter my thinking through John Gill's approval, but that hardly counts as arrogance. I agreed with Dr Dugid, so that hardly counts as arrogance. I just quoted bible verses.
I'm glad you think it's funny to be unteachable.
 
That only works on the most general level. Confessions, creeds, that sort of thing.
I disagree. I think it holds true on all doctrinal matters. Again, we’re all free to disagree with Reformed and confessional commentaries and views, but we don’t need to be espousing views that are contrary to them. I guess the question on this thread is whether you have been espousing or not. :)
 
I disagree. I think it holds true on all doctrinal matters. Again, we’re all free to disagree with Reformed and confessional commentaries and views, but we don’t need to be espousing views that are contrary to them. I guess the question on this thread is whether you are espousing or not. :)

Francis Turretin rejected the revered teacher Goodwin on the order of the divine decrees. That's dealing with the issue of predestination. That's huge.

WGT Shedd systematically dismantled Turretin and Hodge on the transmission of Adam's sin. That affects doctrines like imputation, covenant of works, nature of the soul, etc. That's huge.

Almost ALL Reformed teachers reject the Reformers on historicism (and rightfully so).

William Ames' reoriented Reformed epistemology away from the intellect and towards the divine will. That sounds dangerously close to Scotism.
 
I'm glad you think it's funny to be unteachable.

Glad I could help. I am very teachable. But I have to be shown logic and exegesis, and only Duguid has done that. I have since rejected theonomy, embraced amillennialism, and the like. I used to be hostile to guys like DG Hart and Scott Clark. Now I count Clark a dear friend and Hart's blog is one of the best.
 
Glad I could help. I am very teachable. But I have to be shown logic and exegesis, and only Duguid has done that. I have since rejected theonomy, embraced amillennialism, and the like. I used to be hostile to guys like DG Hart and Scott Clark. Now I count Clark a dear friend and Hart's blog is one of the best.
There you go. So maybe Peter is using the number 8 symbolically...ha

I'm done and out. this place is not for me.
 
I disagree. I think it holds true on all doctrinal matters. Again, we’re all free to disagree with Reformed and confessional commentaries and views, but we don’t need to be espousing views that are contrary to them. I guess the question on this thread is whether you have been espousing or not. :)
Jeri, please delete or close my account. thanks.
 
WGT Shedd systematically dismantled Turretin and Hodge on the transmission of Adam's sin. That affects doctrines like imputation, covenant of works, nature of the soul, etc. That's huge.
Is that in his Dogmatic Theology or another writing? I’d be interested in that.
 
The more I reflect on Gill, the more appreciative I am of him. He is a great Trinitarian theologian. And even in this passage, he is far more attuned to the issue than most. Moreover, he doesn't say the weaker assertions that "angels can't do that!" He never goes to that level. I disagree with his conclusion, but I think he would admit that he isn't fully developing the idea, either.
 
Perkins says the "sons of God" in Job 38:7 are "angels." (V:59). I find that very interesting. He doesn't deal with Gen. 6:4 in my volume, but it would be interesting if he would apply the same lexical argument.
 
My view was the view taught in the church until Simplicius, Victorinus, and Augustine. Just read Irenaeus and Justin Martyr and Tertullian (though I really dislike Tertullian). Origen also agrees with me, though I hesitate to use him for obvious reasons.
Jacob, maybe for completeness, it is worth clarifying this claim. By "My view" do you mean the interpretation of Gen 6 that sees the marriage between the sons of God and the daughters of men as involving angelic-human unions or the whole complex superstructure built on that which identifies the Nephilim in Numbers as the same as those in Genesis 6 (and suggests that it is therefore probable or necessary that some of the Nephilim survived the flood)?

If the former is all you are saying, it is certainly true that many in the early church held such views (and others have agreed with them since); I can't imagine anyone getting in trouble in an ordination exam for a conservative Presbyterian denomination for arguing that position. But that idea isn't really what caused people to push back against you here. It is the latter idea - especially the possibility that the Nephilim somehow survived the flood - that would seem problematic since it seems to be contradicting a plain statement of Scripture in support of a particular interpretation of some extremely difficult passages. Is that specific view taught anywhere in the early Fathers? I'm not familiar with anywhere that fits that description, but you are more widely read in that area than me. I'd be glad if you can point me to anything in that direction.
 
Jacob, maybe for completeness, it is worth clarifying this claim. By "My view" do you mean the interpretation of Gen 6 that sees the marriage between the sons of God and the daughters of men as involving angelic-human unions or the whole complex superstructure built on that which identifies the Nephilim in Numbers as the same as those in Genesis 6 (and suggests that it is therefore probable or necessary that some of the Nephilim survived the flood)?

If the former is all you are saying, it is certainly true that many in the early church held such views (and others have agreed with them since); I can't imagine anyone getting in trouble in an ordination exam for a conservative Presbyterian denomination for arguing that position. But that idea isn't really what caused people to push back against you here. It is the latter idea - especially the possibility that the Nephilim somehow survived the flood - that would seem problematic since it seems to be contradicting a plain statement of Scripture in support of a particular interpretation of some extremely difficult passages. Is that specific view taught anywhere in the early Fathers? I'm not familiar with anywhere that fits that description, but you are more widely read in that area than me. I'd be glad if you can point me to anything in that direction.

I had in mind the former view. I understand the problem behind saying the Nephilim survived. I do understand what you mentioned concerning the words/syntax, etc. That could work. I'll have to work through it. I didn't really see anyone else interacting with the passages I listed. That's why I kept pushing back against the push back.
 
Perhaps, but these guys are working with the languages, the texts, thought-patterns of the ancient world. Scripture didn't descend from heaven in a Platonic vacuum. Background studies are very important. Academic works are needed. There is a reason why G. K. Beale's commentary on Revelation is superior to mere "sermonic/application" commentaries on Revelation.

At the risk of starting a riot, the above is one reason why I do not dismiss out of hand Klinean arguments about ANE treatises. While I agree that theology is a more "democratic" subject than other academic disciplines, it is still the queen of sciences. Academic rigour is not essential to a saving knowledge of scripture, but the notion that background studies are not needed for a more precise understanding of the text is rather short-sighted. For example, the city of Rome is mentioned in the Bible. But how do we know where Rome is? We are going to have to look at a map to discover the answer to that question.
 
At the risk of starting a riot, the above is one reason why I do not dismiss out of hand Klinean arguments about ANE treatises. While I agree that theology is a more "democratic" subject than other academic disciplines, it is still the queen of sciences. Academic rigour is not essential to a saving knowledge of scripture, but the notion that background studies are not needed for a more precise understanding of the text is rather short-sighted. For example, the city of Rome is mentioned in the Bible. But how do we know where Rome is? We are going to have to look at a map to discover the answer to that question.

That's all I am saying. True, an English language bible will lead you to salvation. Does it then follow that we shouldn't learn Greek?
 
Apparently you also have a problem reading things correctly. You're wrong. Just admit it already and move on.

"I haven't reached this point yet in my commentary on Genesis, so am not ready to proffer an opinion on this speculative topic, but I'm pretty sure it won't involve anyone outside the ark surviving the flood. That point seems to me much more clearly established in Scripture." DR. D
Brother, I have been silently observing that you tend to hop in on dialogues that don't involve you, and you seem to talk past people. If you are going to involve yourself in these debates, you should give people something to interact with instead of drive-by matter-of-fact statements and take your tone down a notch.
 
Brother, I have been silently observing that you tend to hop in on dialogues that don't involve you, and you seem to talk past people. If you are going to involve yourself in these debates, you should give people something to interact with instead of drive-by matter-of-fact statements and take your tone down a notch.

He seems to have proverbially flown the proverbial coop. I think he was a bad actor, to be honest. I hope he gets himself together.
 
As I have said before, establishing a PB Fight Club aka Reformed Trial by Combat would reduce these sorts of arguments. I'll film and charge a fee and the proceeds will help fund jungle kids.
 
He seems to have proverbially flown the proverbial coop. I think he was a bad actor, to be honest. I hope he gets himself together.
To paraphrase Shakespeare in Macbeth act 1 scene 4, 'Nothing in his participation in this forum became him like the leaving of it.'
 
Please do not leave the board; I have enjoyed your J. C. Ryle quotes. Just try to learn not to take disagreements so personally.
He did choose to leave, and I appreciate this post of yours to him. I think some may be used to participating in forums where a certain level of sarcasm and such are the norm, and maybe aren’t used to the kind of real-time and serious moderation practiced on the PB. He did make some good contributions. We should wish our brother well, as he left peaceably and voluntarily and I hope will think well of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top