Thane Hutcherson Ury's Page

Hi Dr. Ury,

A way too late "thank you" for your response. A data base of Wesleyan young earthers would be great. Perhaps professors, pastors, admin, etc. 

The "tree of life" is interesting to me (sparked by what Richard Taylor said in his book, The Integrity of God and the Cross, p. 51-53, then his inconsistent embracement of natural evil in What Every Christian Ought to Know, p. 64).

The depravation from deprivation motif is a healthy approach to sin, and biblically fits with the Genesis account. Before the Fall Adam enjoyed both spiritual and physical wholeness and these were never meant to be separated. After the Fall God first restores the inner man, then gives the full renewal of a resurrected body. 

The tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are in clear contrast. Both were real trees, one the place of special fellowship with God and the other the place of departure. At the tree of life their whole being was blessed by God, eating its fruit a part of their communion and a sign of their total dependance on the Creator.

The fruit in itself did not provide physical immortality. But I was disappointed that Stambaugh did not deal with 3:22 in Coming to Grips. Perhaps God's comment in 3:22 was simply meant to communicate the fact that Adam was physically blessed by God through the fruit, nothing more. Obviously God was able to keep him from eating the fruit, and it's also obvious that eating the fruit was conditioned on seeking God at the tree. Fruit from the tree of knowledge was not poison fruit, but an empty replacement for the fruit of the tree of life. With the renewed emphasis on the eschatological physicality of the new heavens and the new earth, it makes sense that the tree of life reappears at the end of Revelation for those who "have the right to the tree of life" (22:14).

Comments?

Under mercy

Mark

Hello Dr. Ury. My name is Jerry Furnish. I used to go to Northside Missionary Church and I met you several times through Missionary Church events (Zackar, Men's Retreat, etc.). I enjoyed my discussions with you about apologetics, biblical pricinples, etc. and I just wanted to say "hi" and ask how your life is going. The last time we spoke you were getting ready to move to China. I'd like to know about your experience there. I also heard you had a new book collaboration. I haven't read it yet, but plan to at some point. Anyways, "God Bless" and have a great day.

Hi Dr. Ury,

A way too late "thank you" for your response. A data base of Wesleyan young earthers would be great. Perhaps professors, pastors, admin, etc. 

The "tree of life" is interesting to me (sparked by what Richard Taylor said in his book, The Integrity of God and the Cross, p. 51-53, then his inconsistent embracement of natural evil in What Every Christian Ought to Know, p. 64).

The depravation from deprivation motif is a healthy approach to sin, and biblically fits with the Genesis account. Before the Fall Adam enjoyed both spiritual and physical wholeness and these were never meant to be separated. After the Fall God first restores the inner man, then gives the full renewal of a resurrected body. 

The tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are in clear contrast. Both were real trees, one the place of special fellowship with God and the other the place of departure. At the tree of life their whole being was blessed by God, eating its fruit a part of their communion and a sign of their total dependance on the Creator.

The fruit in itself did not provide physical immortality. But I was disappointed that Stambaugh did not deal with 3:22 in Coming to Grips. Perhaps God's comment in 3:22 was simply meant to communicate the fact that Adam was physically blessed by God through the fruit, nothing more. Obviously God was able to keep him from eating the fruit, and it's also obvious that eating the fruit was conditioned on seeking God at the tree. Fruit from the tree of knowledge was not poison fruit, but an empty replacement for the fruit of the tree of life. With the renewed emphasis on the eschatological physicality of the new heavens and the new earth, it makes sense that the tree of life reappears at the end of Revelation for those who "have the right to the tree of life" (22:14).

Comments?

Under mercy

Mark

 

Dr. Ury,

I noticed your name on the book Coming to Grips with Genesis for two reasons: 
first, I believe I took some classes from your brother (?) at Wesley Biblical 
Seminary, and second, I noticed that you also are affiliated with Wesleyan 
institutions. 

I have come to believe that the earth must be about 6  thousand years old and it 
has been a great spiritual blessing to me. The book mentioned above is filled 
with good biblical interpretation that must be reckoned with. That both 
spiritual and physical death are the result of the Fall with consequent "natural 
evil" seems to be absolutely necessary to a correct understanding of the 
biblical account of God's salvation.

I just wanted to thank you because I share your Wesleyan perspective and was 
very happy to see your contribution to this book. This young earth issue is very 
important. I don't remember hearing it discussed at Wesley Biblical, but I 
didn't really think it was very important at that time of my life either. I was hugely 
wrong. I think this issue will have to finally be resolved among Bible believers.

Are there many other Wesleyan scholars who are young earth? What about the 
Kinlaw group up at Asbury? Coppedge? Oswalt? Or perhaps some scholars in the 
Wesleyan Church? CMA?  

Again, thank you for your work and witness!