Preston- V -Simmons
When Was Sin Defeated? AD 70 or the Cross?
Preston's First Negative
Kurt’s first affirmative reminds me of a
dispensational debate I witnessed. The Zionist read passage
after passage that foretold the kingdom, the wolf laying down
with the lamb, turning swords into plowshares, etc.. No
exegesis. As he sat down he said, “That is my position!” So it
is with Kurt. He lists some 88 verses that speak of
justification, grace, salvation, etc, and says “This proves my
position!” No exegesis, no exposition, and of course, no proof
for his proposition!
KURT AND THE COMMENTATORS
Kurt has made a great deal of his false
claim that no commentator has ever applied Isaiah 27 to AD 70. I
have not addressed this because
I am concerned with scripture, not
commentators. But, do any commentators apply Isaiah 27 to AD 70?
Matthew Henry says Jesus referred to it when speaking
of the unfruitful vine being burned up, and it was fulfilled,
“in a particular manner in the unbelieving Jews.” John Gill
and Albert Barnes applied Isaiah 27 to the second coming.
Adam Clarke says that Matthew 24:31 anticipated the
fulfilment of Isaiah 27:13. So, commentators do apply Isaiah
27 to AD 70 and the second coming! So much for Kurt’s appeal
to the commentators!
ISAIAH 27
It just keeps getting more confusing as we
read my friend’s attempt to explain why Paul cited Isaiah 27. He
now claims that when he said that Paul cited Isaiah 27 along
with Isaiah 59 that he was relating what most commentators say (Sword
and Plow, Sept, 2009). This is not true!
He said not one word to indicate that he was
relating what the commentators- as opposed to Kurt-- say about
Romans 11 and Isaiah 27. He was patently admitting that
Paul cited Isaiah 27. But now, when that admission backfires on
him, he claims that Paul was not referring to Isaiah 27! (But
remember, virtually all commentators disagree with him,
and he even admits it)!
And now, my friend tries a totally new
approach– his fourth position on Isaiah 26-27! He
says Isaiah 27:10f is not related to the coming of the Lord of
26:20f, which he now, belatedly, admits again
applies to AD 70. And this after saying that Isaiah 26 has
“nothing” to do with AD 70! So, he said that Isaiah 26:20f
could apply to AD 70. Then he denied it. Now, he
admits it!
He says Isaiah 27:9f has nothing to do with
26:10f because Isaiah supposedly changes his subject, over, and
over, and over again, all within a few verses. Not so!
Notice that the destruction of Leviathan (27:1) would be “in
that day” the Day of the Lord when the Lord would avenge the
blood of the martyrs (26:20-21). Kurt says 26:20f can be AD
70, but that 27:1 must be the destruction of Assyria. No,
27:1 is the Day of 26:20f that he admits is AD 70! But
notice, that “in that day” is likewise the time of Israel’s
salvation at her judgment and the sounding of the Great Trumpet
(27:10-13). The references to “in that day” falsify Kurt’s
desperate claim that Isaiah constantly changes the subject.
Thankfully, Isaiah was not as disorganized as Kurt suggests.
Finally– Isaiah 59!
Do you see what my friend has done? I tried
for three presentations to get Kurt to address Isaiah 59.
He said my only “relevant” argument was on Isaiah 27 (which he
now denies has any relevance)! Now
he says that Isaiah 59 is the only relevant text. Yet he ignored
Isaiah 59 until his last negative, and makes some new
arguments.
KS– “The coming in Rom. 11 is taken, not
from Isa. 27, but Isa. 59!
That's right!
"The Redeemer shall come to Zion" is from Isa. 59:20, 21.
Isa. 27 is not quoted in Rom. 11 in connection with a "coming"
at all.” Kurt cites Jamieson, Fausett and Brown (JFB) for
support, (Note: JFB do not deny a connection with Isaiah
27. They simply do not mention it). But notice the
following about JFB: 1.) They apply Isaiah 27 (JFB, p.
541) and Romans 11:26 to the second coming– contra Kurt.
2.) They say Isaiah 27 / Romans 11 speaks of a yet future
conversion of ethnic Israel, and they say that those
(like Kurt) who reject this view
do “great violence” to the text! 3.) They apply
Isaiah 59 and Jeremiah 31 to the second coming– contra Kurt.
So, Kurt selectively argues from what they do not say,
and rejects what they do say, yet claims they agree with him!
But, let’s look closer at Kurt’s admission that Paul quotes
Isaiah 59. He was silent about the arguments I have made, so,
let me refresh the reader’s memory.
In Isaiah 59 YHVH accused Israel of
shedding innocent blood and violence (v. 1-8). The Lord saw
Israel in her sinful condition and, “His own arm brought
salvation for Him; and His own righteousness, it sustained Him
for He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of
salvation on His head; He put on the garments of vengeance for
His clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak. According to
their deeds, accordingly He will repay, Fury to His adversaries,
Recompense to His enemies.” Isaiah 59 predicted the salvation
of Israel at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for
her guilt in shedding innocent blood.
Please catch the power of Kurt’s admission
that Paul is citing Isaiah 59. Kurt says of Romans 11: a.)
The coming of the Lord is referent to the cross, not AD 70.
b.) Israel is not OC
Israel, but the church. c.) The salvation is referent to
the conversion of Jews and Gentiles throughout the Christian
age. However...
The coming of the Lord
for salvation, in Romans 11:26-27, is the coming of the Lord
predicted in Isaiah 59– Kurt Simmons now agreeing!
But, the coming of the
Lord of Isaiah 59 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of
Israel for shedding innocent blood. (It is not a
prediction of the cross, or the salvation of the church
throughout time).
Therefore, the coming of the Lord for salvation in Romans
11:26-27, is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for
shedding innocent blood. (Which
was in AD 70-Matthew 23).
[This was the ONLY coming for vengeance???? What about the
coming in the Assyrians, Babylonians, etc]
Nothing
in Isaiah 59 even
remotely resembles Kurt’s view of Romans 11!
Nothing! Yet,
Isaiah is, Kurt now agreeing,
the source of Paul’s prediction in Romans 11:26. Kurt must
explain
why Paul cited a prophecy that had
nothing whatsoever to do with the subject he was discussing, in
order to validate what he was discussing.
Kurt has refused to answer this
because he cannot answer this.
Yet, his admission that the coming of Romans 11 is the coming of
Isaiah 59 is 100% fatal
to his new theology. His admission
proves that all of the verses in Kurt’s first affirmative must
speak of a process begun,
but a process to be perfected
at the Second Coming.
My affirmative proposition is established by Kurt’s fatal
admission.
ENTRANCE INTO THE MHP
I asked: What is the one thing that
prevented man from entering the MHP– He refused to answer.
I asked: If the destruction of Jerusalem
was irrelevant to man’s spiritual justification, and the saints
were perfected prior to that event,
why did the saints have to wait until AD 70 to enter the MHP?
He refused to answer
because he has no answer.
Kurt threw up a cloud
of dust about the time of reformation.
His admission that the time of reformation was not completed
until AD 70, when the saints could
enter the MHP is fatal
to his rejection of Covenant Eschatology.
Note Kurt’s ever
shifting position on the time of reformation: He said it began
at the cross, (but man could not objectively enter the MHP). He
then said that the time of reformation was
completed in AD
70 with the completion of the Spirit’s work. But
now, he
says the time of reformation
ended (it was not perfected) in
AD 70!
Hebrews 9:6-10– If the
time of reformation fully arrived at the cross as Kurt
originally contended, man should have begun to
actually
enter the MHP, from that point. But, no, Kurt tells us
man could not truly enter the MHP until AD
70! Kurt admitted, and I agree,
“When the gifts of the Spirit ceased,
the time of reformation was complete and
not before.” (My emp., DKP). But,
realizing the fatal nature of this admission, Kurt now says:
“The time of reformation
ended
in AD 70.” (My emp., DKP) Do you see the problem? On the one
hand he correctly says the time of reformation was completed in
AD 70. But that is self-destructive, so he now says the time of
reformation
terminated
in AD 70. This is a blatantly self contradictory.
Hebrews 9 says there could be no
entrance into the MHP until the
arrival–not
termination-
of the time of reformation. The
time of reformation began at the Cross– and was guaranteed by
the Spirit-- but was not perfected until AD 70. And,
there was no true entrance into the MHP
until AD 70 (KS). If the time of
reformation ended
in AD 70, Kurt,
then man could
never enter
the MHP, and
the time for man to enter the MHP ended
without so much as one person ever entering the MHP!
Man could not, per Kurt, enter before AD 70. But, per his
newest
position, the time of reformation (when man could
supposedly
enter) terminated,
in AD 70! Kurt has hopelessly entangled himself.
I have focused on the
time of reformation because it is in some respects, what this
debate is about. So, let me reiterate my argument, which Kurt
has totally ignored, and which he must ignore:
Kurt admits that there
was no entrance
into the MHP at the
initiation of the reformation,
i.e. at the cross.
Entrance came only when the time of
reformation– the work of grace– was completed, at the parousia.
Now watch as we apply this to the
atonement:
Kurt offered another
syllogism. Unfortunately for him, his efforts fail. Here is his
self-contradictory argument:
No man
could enter the Holy of Holies until the atonement was complete.
But the
Holy of Holies was a figure for the New Testament and gospel.
The
New Testament was of force from and after the cross.
Therefore,
The
atonement was complete and man could enter (legally and
covenantally) the Holy of Holies from and after the cross.
Those who have been
paying attention to this debate will see instantly that Kurt
has, once again, changed his
position and destroyed his own
argument.
Kurt–
“No man could enter the Holy of Holies
until the atonement was complete.”
(Amen, brother! This is a fatal
admission).
Kurt–
“I never said the saints entered heaven (The MHP, Revelation
15:8, DKP) before AD 70!”
Therefore, the
atonement was not completed until AD 70!
ATTENTION! Did you notice Kurt’s shift from the MHP being
heaven
to being
the New Covenant?
He
has changed theological positions
again!
Watch this.
No man
could enter the MHP while Torah remained binding (Hebrews 9:9f)
The MHP
represented the New Covenant (Kurt’s New Position).
But, no
man could enter the MHP until AD 70 (Revelation 15:8-KS
supposedly agrees).
Therefore, Torah remained binding and no man could enter the New
Covenant until AD 70.
Kurt has re-embraced
Covenant Eschatology!
Kurt’s desperate attempt to radically redefine the MHP from his
earlier position backfires on him.
Kurt says: “The
atonement was complete and man could enter (legally and
covenantally) the Holy of Holies from and after the cross.
This is sophistry.
If man was “covenantally” able to enter the MHP (But, what
proof did Kurt offer?) then man should have been able to
objectively
enter the MHP! It was
covenant that prevented objective
entrance (Hebrews 9:6f).
Therefore, if the New Covenant was completed prior to AD 70,
then man should have been able–
objectively– to enter the MHP! This
is irrefutable.
Yet, Kurt admits: “I never said the saints entered heaven before
AD 70!” Furthermore, Kurt (ostensibly) understands that the New
Covenant, while established by
Jesus’ death (Galatians 3:15) was
not fully revealed and confirmed through the Spirit’s ministry
until AD 70! This is called
covenantal transition.
So, Kurt adamantly
tells us that he has “never” said that man could enter the MHP
before AD 70. Now of course, he has
changed horses again, saying that
the MHP was the New Covenant and that man was fully in the New
Covenant before AD 70! Yet, he still (?) says man could not
objectively
enter the MHP until AD 70! Confused? You
should be.
The truth is that man
could not enter the MHP while Torah
remained valid.
Torah would remain valid until man
could
enter the MHP at the time of reformation.
Thus, Torah ended when the time of reformation was completed,
and man could enter the MHP, in AD 70. Kurt has surrendered his
objection to the initiation
of grace, salvation and covenant
transition.
He has unwittingly affirmed Covenant
Eschatology. So, once again:
There
could be no access to the MHP as long as Torah remained binding
(Hebrews 9).
But,
man could not enter the MHP until AD 70 (Kurt Simmons).
Therefore, Torah remained binding until AD 70.
This is the
correct use of
logic and the argument is indisputable.
The Triumph of Grace
Over Law,
and the so-called “Mysterious” Negative
Power of Torah
My friend expends a
great deal of steam on grace triumphing over law. He simply
reiterates his claims, with no exegesis, and then, amazingly,
makes the following statements: “Don states ‘removal
of Torah was essential for man’s justification after all!’”
(emphasis in original). Don states, “Torah had to end in order
for forgiveness, entrance into the MHP and life to become
realities!” Dear reader, we deny this totally and
emphatically. The law was taken away, not so grace could
enter in, but because it was a mere schoolmaster to
bring us to Christ; it was a system of types and shadows
pointing to Jesus.” Then, in some of his more amazing
comments, my friend adds this: “There is
nothing in the
temple ritual or anywhere
in the law that can forestall God’s grace in Jesus Christ.
NOTHING.
Law doesn’t prevent grace, it
invites it!
The inability of Torah to forgive in
no way implies it also possessed a negative power to prevent or
forestall forgiveness of sin!
What is Don’s proof of this
“mysterious “negative power”?
He has none!”
Readers, here is the
crux of the matter, and the problem with Kurt’s new theology. It
is in flagrant denial of the Biblical text and manifest
demonstration of my friend’s abuse of logic. Follow...
A.)
Kurt sets up a false dichotomy. He says that Torah had no
negative power, for it was “a mere schoolmaster.” So, per Kurt,
Torah could not exercise negative power by being the
schoolmaster; it was either
a schoolmaster or a negative power. It
could not be both! This is an abuse of logic.
B.)
Kurt says removal of Torah was not necessary for grace to enter.
But wait, Torah was to bring man to “the faith” and Christ, and
would endure until then. So, Torah
was a schoolmaster until the arrival of grace!
Yet, Kurt says no,
it was just a schoolmaster
and not a negative power, although
according to Paul, as a schoolmaster,
it was given to make sin abound, it brought death, it could not
deliver from death, and could not provide forgiveness and grace.
C.)
Kurt emphatically denies that Torah had negative power.
Hebrews says as long as Torah remained, there was no
forgiveness. Kurt says this is not a
negative power, “forestalling forgiveness and grace.” I will
stand with scripture on this.
D.)
Kurt says Torah had no power to prevent entrance into the MHP.
Hebrews 9 says as long as Torah stood, there could be no
entrance into the MHP. I will stand
with scripture on this.
Has my friend
forgotten what Hebrews 9:6-10 says, or is he simply willing to
deny what it says?
Why could man not
enter the MHP? What does the inspired text
say, Kurt?
As long as Torah stood binding, there was no entrance into the
MHP!
Torah had the negative power to prevent
entrance to the presence of God!
Torah had no power to forgive,
thus, no power to bring man into the presence of God.
That sure sounds like a negative power to
me! What is so “mysterious” about
that? It is what the text says. So...
As long
as Torah remained binding, there was no forgiveness of sin, no
entrance into the MHP (Hebrews 9:6-10).
No
entrance into the MHP until AD 70– KS (ostensibly) teaches this
truth.
Therefore, Torah remained binding and there was no objective
forgiveness until AD 70!
Kurt’s new theology
however, denies this and sees no relationship between Torah,
lack of forgiveness and entrance into the MHP. He claims now
that removal of Torah was not even necessary for grace to
triumph over law! Did you catch
that? If removal of Torah was not
necessary for grace to triumph over law,
then removal of Torah was not necessary to
bring forgiveness, and entrance into the MHP, Kurt!
Let me remind you again of Kurt’s
total silence in the face of
these questions.
Kurt claimed that
removal of Torah had nothing
to do with Paul’s soteriology, and
now claims it
had no negative power “to prevent or forestall forgiveness.”
(Kurt, where are your commentators in support of this new
theology?) I offered the following
and urged the readers to watch for Kurt’s answer.
We are all still waiting for his response.
Torah was the
ministration of death (2 Corinthians
3:6f). Kurt, did the deliverance from the ministration of death,
to the ministration of life have
nothing to do with soteriology? If
Torah was a ministration of death, was death, empowered by
Torah, not a negative power?
Paul said Torah could
not deliver from the law of sin and death
(Romans 8:1-3). He said Christ does deliver
from that law! Did the deliverance
from the law of sin and death have nothing to do with
forgiveness? Was being under the
power of the law of sin and death not a negative power, Kurt?
Come now, my friend, please
answer the question.
Paul said Torah
killed, “The commandment came, sin revived, I died” “sin,
working death in me by that which is good...became exceedingly
sinful” (Romans 7:13). Kurt, are
these positive, or negative aspects of Torah?
Torah could not give
life or righteousness (Galatians
3:20-21). Did deliverance from that law, to the covenant that
gives life and righteousness have
nothing to
do with salvation?
Paul said those under
Torah were under “the curse”
(Galatians 2-3). Did deliverance from that curse had nothing to
do with redemption? Was the curse of
Torah a negative power, Kurt?
There was no
forgiveness under Torah. There would
be forgiveness when Torah ended at
the time of reformation. Is
forgiveness related to soteriology?
Is unforgiven sin positive or negative, Kurt?
There was no entrance
into the MHP under Torah; there
would be entrance into the MHP at the end of Torah, the time of
reformation. Is entrance into the
MHP related to salvation, Kurt?
Hebrews 9 is Covenant
Eschatology, anyway you want to look at it.
Torah had to end in order for forgiveness,
entrance into the MHP and life to become realities! End of Torah
= Covenant Eschatology; End of Torah = Salvation! Kurt can
ridicule this, but it will not change the indisputable facts as
specifically stated by inspiration. Hebrews 9:6f stands as an
insurmountable bulwark against
Kurt’s insistence that Torah was removed at the Cross.
Furthermore, his admission that man could not, after all, enter
the MHP until AD 70 is an open admission of my position.
DANIEL 12– THE POWER OF
THE HOLY PEOPLE
My friend’s
desperation manifested itself for all to see in his “response”
to my question. He says
that
Israel’s “power” (Daniel 12:7) was the identical power as the
pagan nations. This is astounding!
YHVH always said that His special covenant relationship with
Israel was totally distinctive. When
He gave them Torah He said, “If you
will indeed keep my covenant then you will be a special treasure
to me above all the people; for all the earth is mine, and you
shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus
19:5-6). In Deuteronomy 26:18-19, at the second giving of the
Law, God said, “Today the Lord has proclaimed you to be His
special people, just as He promised you, so that you should keep
His commands. In
Psalms 147:19-20 God said, “He gave
His statutes to Jacob. He has not done so with any nation”! In
spite of all of this– and much more could be added– Kurt tells
us that Israel’s power was not her covenant with YHVH. In fact,
Israel was just like the pagans in regard to her power.
This argument is manifest demonstration of the desperation and
falsity of Kurt’s position.
To deny that Israel’s power,
her only power,
was her covenant with God is patently false.
And since
Daniel posits the destruction of the power of Israel at AD 70,
this is irrefutable proof that Torah remained valid until AD 70.
This is Covenant Eschatology.
TRANSFIGURATION
Kurt claims that the
Transfiguration was a vision of
Jesus’ first appearing, not the
second coming. He says the Transfiguration was not about
covenant contrast and transition.
Response:
First,
Kurt’s argument is virtually unprecedented in the entire history
of Christian commentary which agrees that the Transfiguration
was a vision of Christ’s second coming.
2.) Peter was
not writing against those who denied Jesus’ incarnation, but his
second coming (2 Peter 3:3). 3.)
Peter wanted to establish three equal tabernacles. God would not
allow it. This is a covenant
contrast.
4.) The Voice
said of Jesus “This is my beloved Son, hear him.” In the Greek,
the “hear him” is literally “Him,
hear!”, and is in the emphatic, meaning that
in contrast to Moses and Elijah,
Jesus is to be heard. 5.)
Moses and Elijah vanish away, at the voice
that says of Jesus “Him hear!”Yet, Kurt eschews the text,
rejects the virtually unanimous testimony of the commentaries,
and says he “feels” that it is not
about covenant contrast, or Jesus’ second coming. No, the
Transfiguration is about the
covenantal transition from Moses to Christ,
and it was a vision of the second coming.
The Transfiguration is therefore,
all about Covenant Eschatology.
Passing of Torah–
Subjective and Objective
Kurt makes one of the
most illogical “arguments” a person will ever read. He claims
that when Paul said, “you have become dead to the Law through
the body of Christ” that this actually means that
the Law itself had died! This is
like saying that when a person gets a divorce that the entire
institution of marriage is destroyed! Watch the following
illustration.
For decades the Berlin
Wall stood as a barrier to freedom. East Berliners longed to
escape the oppressive communist law. Now, Kurt, when someone
managed to escape from East Berlin into the West (prior to the
fall of the “Wall”) did that mean
that East Berlin communism was dead?
Patently not. The
individual who
escaped had died to communism!
Just like Paul said those coming into Christ through baptism had
died to the Law through the body
of Christ! (Incidentally, Kurt
claims I ignored Romans 7:4.
Not true. I
appealed
to Romans 7!) Paul did not say Torah
had died. Just so, in 2 Corinthians 3:10f, Paul said that
when a person turned to Christ,
the veil of Torah was removed for them.
He did not say Torah had passed. Huge difference! This is what
Paul affirms in Ephesians 2, Colossians 2, etc...
When a person, through faith, entered into the power of the
cross,
they died to the Law!
Kurt admits this in his first affirmative! But when a person
died to the Law, the Law did not die. The NT speaks of the
objective passing of the Law itself, however.
ATTENTION!!
Kurt admits that Colossians 2:14f
does not say that Torah was
nailed to the Cross: “What was
nailed to the cross? Not the Mosiac (sic) law, but the sentence
of the law (the law of sin and death) condemning the
transgression of men” (Sept. 09, S-P- And first affirmative).
Folks, this is fatal!
If Colossians 2 does not (and it
doesn’t) say
that Torah was nailed to the Cross, then no passage does, and
Kurt has admitted that it doesn’t!
Note his contradiction:
Torah was
not
nailed to the cross.
His proposition:
Torah ended at the cross! There is no way to reconcile Kurt’s
self-contradiction. He has
totally surrendered his proposition. Do not fail to catch this!
In Hebrews 8:13, Paul
says that the Covenant
–not some already dead outward form of the
Law– was “nigh unto passing.” In chapter 12:25f– the heaven and
earth of the Old Covenant had not yet passed, but was
about to be removed.
Furthermore, Jesus did say that not one jot or one tittle of the
law could pass until it was all fulfilled, and
even the ceremonial aspects of Torah had
not yet been fulfilled,
since Paul said those ceremonial sacrifices remained, when he
wrote Colossians and Hebrews, “shadows of good things about to
come” (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 10:1-4).
Torah, objectively speaking,
had not been done away. This is why
there was still no access to the MHP until AD 70.
As long as Torah remained valid,
there was no access to the MHP,
and Kurt admits
there was no entrance into the MHP
until AD 70. This is Covenant
Eschatology validated and proven.
In Kurt’s first
affirmative he desperately argues, falsely, that God could not
have two systems in force at the same time.
Kurt, did God have two systems in place when He gave Torah to
Israel, but not to the pagans?
Were there two “systems” in
place when John preached the baptism of repentance and faith in
the coming of Messiah, while the Temple cultus was still in
effect? John’s baptism was not Torah “baptism!” And consider
Galatians 4.22f. Paul, anticipated the yet future casting out of
the bondwoman– which he says was the
Old Covenant and her seed–
for persecuting the Christians.
The allegory has the two sons
dwelling in the same house, but
Ishmael was cast out for persecuting Isaac. And Paul said “as it
was then, even so it is now.” Paul said the Old Covenant and
seed would be cast out for
persecuting Christians. But,
there were no Christians before the
Cross! It is therefore
irrefutably true that the two
sons dwelt together while the seed of the flesh persecuted the
Seed of promise and was then
cast out.
Torah and Israel were not cast out at the cross. This is
Covenant Eschatology.
Kurt’s essential argument that two systems could not temporarily
co-exist is false.
Was Jesus’
Resurrection the Proof of the Completion of the Atonement?
Kurt says: “Will Don
deny Jesus died under imputation of sin?
Will he deny he was raised
justified, free from imputation of sin (Rom. 6:7, 10)?
But if Christ was justified from the
imputation of sin at his resurrection, it is clear that his
blood was received by God within the veil
before his
ascension, and that can only mean it was received by God
at his death.”
Response:
Kurt is so desperate to prove his position that he continues to
invent
historically unprecedented arguments.
Kurt, give us some commentary support for your idea that Jesus
had to be justified from the sin of others!
1.)
Kurt argues as he does because of his
historically unprecedented argument
that Jesus had to enter the MHP twice (He
said Christ “legally” pierced the veil, (that is
once), and
then entered the MHP at his ascension. That is
twice). In
this view,
Christ’s ascension and entrance into the MHP was
legally unnecessary,
since the work of atonement was finished when he “legally
pierced the veil”
while hanging on the cross!
Kurt, where are the commentators who
agree your unprecedented argument?
2.)
Kurt has consistently ignored Hebrews 9:12– Christ entered the MHP
ONCE!
Not twice.
Not once legally
(whatever that means), and then once
actually.
ONCE!
Kurt says twice, Paul says ONCE!
Kurt is wrong.
3.)
Kurt said it was appropriate for him to draw the analogy with Jesus
and the OT priest who had to enter the MHP twice. But:
A.) The OT
high priest had to enter twice
because the
first time (the cross per Kurt’s
analogy) the priest had to offer sacrifice
for his own sins–
not for the sins of the people!
Kurt argues that Jesus died the
sinner’s death and legally, but not
actually, pierced the veil, when he
bore the sins of the people! But in
scripture, the priest bore the sins of
the people at the second entrance
into the MHP The
second time, Kurt,
not the first!
You have no analogy.
B.) The OT
priest had to actually
enter twice. He did not enter in some vague,
“legal” sense, and then actually,
as in Kurt’s new paradigm.
C.) Jesus’
sinlessness voided any need for him to enter the MHP twice. He
entered ONCE,
and that for the sins of the people (Hebrews 9:12).
Do not lose sight of this verse amid Kurt’s smoke screens!
D.) Jesus
had to appear the second time “for
(This is the reason why Jesus had to
come again!) the law,
having (present
tense, Kurt) a shadow of good things
about to come”
(Hebrews 10:1f). Kurt has repeatedly
ignored this argument, even though he admits to the Greek present
and future tenses in his book. So, Jesus
had
to come again,
to fulfill the typological (ceremonial) aspects of atonement /
Torah, which were, when Paul wrote,
still valid and binding shadows. Kurt
himself has said that there could be no entrance into the MHP until
the atonement was perfected, and there could be no entrance into the
MHP until AD 70! Do not fail to catch this amidst all of Kurt’s
smoke. It is fatal to every single one of his claims.
Kurt’s List and His Unequal
Emphasis on the Greek Tenses
We do not have space to
examine every one of the verses listed by Kurt, nor need we to. His
argument can be summed up under certain headings of: forgiveness,
redemption, salvation, atonement, New Covenant, etc.. If it can be
demonstrated that these soteriological elements were not completed
at the Cross, but was awaiting perfection in AD 70, then my friend’s
entire affirmative is negated.
In spite of the use of the
past tense in the verses cited by Kurt,
each of these elements is also couched in future tense verbs.
Redemption:
Already –> “In whom we have redemption”
(Ephesians 1:7).
Future:
“You were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise
until the day of redemption”
(Ephesians 1:12-13; 4:30)–> If
redemption was already perfected, why did they need the charismata
to guarantee its completion?
Why did Paul look forward to the day of redemption? Kurt, why do you
ignore these future tenses and the work of the Spirit?
Notice: Paul equates
redemption with forgiveness: “in whom we have redemption,
even the
forgiveness of our sin.” Yet, again,
the Holy Spirit was the guarantee of the
future day of redemption! So,
redemption = forgiveness, and redemption would not fully arrive
until Christ’s second coming in AD 70.
It follows inexorably that forgiveness would objectively arrive in
AD 70– precisely as Romans 11:26f says! Kurt, why do you ignore the
future tense of the Day of Redemption?
Adoption / Sonship:
Already–>
“We have received the spirit of adoption” (Romans 8:14).
Future–>
“longing for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body”
(Romans 8:23). Kurt, why do you ignore the future tense?
Atonement:
Already–>
“We have received the atonement” (reconciliation, DKP, Romans 5:10)–
Future–
“We shall be saved by his life” (Romans 5:10).
Also, KS– “The soul could not enter the presence of God in heaven
without the atoning sacrifice of Christ, so the dead were
sequestered in Hades until the general resurrection.” So,
even according to Kurt,
the atonement was not completed until AD 70!
Inheritance:
Already–>
Ephesians 1:11: “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance.”
Future–>
Ephesians 1:14: “who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the
redemption of the purchased possession.”
Now watch: Kurt appeals to Hebrews 9:15 to prove that the New
Covenant was already fully in place and that those from the first
covenant now had redemption. If that is true, Kurt,
why could those in the Hadean realm not enter the MHP until AD 70
(Revelation 15:8)? Oh, wait, you have (inadvertently)
answered this: “The soul could not enter the presence of God in
heaven without the atoning sacrifice of Christ, so the dead were
sequestered in Hades until the general resurrection” (S-P, Sept.
09). So, Kurt himself informs us that the inheritance and
forgiveness through completed atonement did not arrive until AD 70!
If the atonement and
forgiveness of sin–
sin being the only thing to keep man from the
MHP– was fully realized at the
cross, then those under the first covenant (i.e. in Hades) had
already received “the better resurrection,” and the eternal
inheritance! Kurt has distorted Hebrews 9:15, and contradicted his
own writings, again.
New Covenant:
Already–>
I have repeatedly noted the
present tense verbs
that speak of the then passing of Torah (2 Corinthians 3:6f; Hebrews
8:13, etc.), and the future
passing of the Law (Hebrews 12:25f). I have noted the Greek present
tenses that prove that Torah, including the sacrificial system, was
still, when Paul wrote, typological of good things
about to come
(future tense). In his book, Kurt
acknowledges these present tenses, but now he denies them!
Furthermore:
The Holy Spirit was the guarantee of the New
Covenant, and that through the distinctive personal ministry of
Paul.
Kurt affirms that covenant transition was over and done at the
cross. Paul disagreed, and said that the
transition from the Old Covenant to the New was ongoing when he
wrote 2 Corinthians 3-4: “we are being transformed from Glory to
Glory, by the Spirit. wherefore, having this ministry...” Paul uses
the present tenses
several times to speak of the present and
impending passing of Torah.
Kurt, why do you reject the present and future tenses?
Furthermore, if the New Covenant was perfected,
why was the ministry of the Spirit necessary, Kurt? Paul said it was
the ministry of the Spirit to reveal the New Covenant and to bring
about the transition from the Old to the New (2 Corinthians 3). But
that work of the Spirit was unnecessary in Kurt’s paradigm.
Kurt falsely claims that
in Hebrews 7:12f Paul affirmed the past tense of the passing of the
Law.
False.
Paul uses the present tense!
[being dead, being divorced]
Kurt says Christ could not serve in a priestly
capacity unless Torah had been removed. Again, false.
Jesus was serving as high priest in the true heavenly tabernacle
(Hebrews 8:1f), where he
could serve because
he was no longer subject to the law. Yet, Paul is emphatic, “if he
were on earth, he could not serve as priest, seeing there are
(present tense) priests who serve (present tense)
according to the Law”
(Hebrews 8:5). Kurt even claims on Hebrews 10:9
that Torah “was taken away.” This is
inexcusable. Paul uses the
present tense:
“He is
taking away
the first that he might establish the second.”
We have already noted the present tenses in Hebrews 9:6-10:1f
which Kurt acknowledges in his book,
but now wants to deny. Kurt, why do you
ignore these Greek tenses?
Clearly,
there were two systems in effect at the same
time! Christ was serving as priest
in the heavenly tabernacle. The Aaronic priests were serving under
Torah. The earthly system was “nigh unto passing” while the heavenly
city and tabernacle were “about to come” (Hebrews 13:14).
So, what we have are
proleptic (a form of past tense) statements, present tense
statements, and future tense references. No proper exegesis of all
of this evidence can ignore two out of
three uses of the Greek tenses and claim
to be the whole picture, yet this is
precisely what Kurt has done.
Kurt, what is your linguistic or grammatical authority for rejecting
the present and future tenses?
You have
no authority for this
other than your newly invented theology.
Grace:
Already–>
“By grace are you saved through grace” (Ephesians2:8-9).
Future: “hope to
the end for the grace that shall be brought to you at the coming of
the Lord” (1 Peter 1:7-8).
Perfect in him:
Already–> “And you
are perfect in him” (Colossians 2:10).
Future–>
“That we might present every man perfect in Christ” (Colossians
1:27). Notice that the early church had
the charismata to “equip the church for the work of the ministry...until
we all come to the perfect man”
(Ephesians 4:13-16).
Kurt, if they were already perfected,
why did they need the gifts to bring them to the perfect man?
Salvation:
Already–>
“By grace are you saved through grace” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Future:
“to those who eagerly look for him, he will appear the second time,
apart from sin, for salvation,
for,
the law having a shadow of good things about to come” (Hebrews
9:28-10:1); the salvation “ready to be revealed in the last times”
at the parousia (1 Peter 1:5-12).
In each verse cited by
Kurt, he ignores the transitional period. He sees covenant
transition completed at the cross. This is false. He likewise
ignores the work of the Spirit as the
guarantee of the completion of what began at the cross.
Furthermore, from Pentecost onward, the church was betrothed –not
married-- to Christ. Kurt admits this.
This is a process begun,
awaiting consummation! Likewise, the foundation for the New Covenant
Temple was laid, but, “construction” was on-going from Pentecost
onward. The Temple was not complete at the Cross (Ephesians 2:19f; 1
Peter 2:4f). Note the present tenses.
Kurt, do you deny these present tenses?
Let me reiterate: Paul
uses past, present and future tenses to speak of each of the
elements Kurt emphasizes. Proper
hermeneutic cannot emphasize one of the
tenses to the exclusion of the others. This is to practice
presuppositional theology. This is precisely what Kurt has done. Let
me now introduce some critical factors.
DO NOT MISS THIS!!
Kurt ignores the indisputable fact
that each element he lists had to do
with the fulfillment of God’s promises
to OC Israel. If salvation was completed
at the cross, then Israel’s salvation
(resurrection! Isaiah 25:8-9; Romans 9:28) was completed at the
cross: “Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), i.e. from the Jews
first, then to the nations! Yet,
Kurt admitted (2nd Neg) that Romans 9:28 referred to the
salvation of “national Israel” in AD 70! How could Israel have been
cut off at the cross, if Israel was not saved until AD 70? How could
salvation be completed at the cross if Israel’s salvation was in AD
70? This is a fatal contradiction! Let me build on that concept.
The resurrection of 1
Corinthians 15 is the resurrection predicted in Isaiah 25:8.
The resurrection of Isaiah
25:8 would be the time of the salvation
of Israel.
Therefore, the
resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be the time of the salvation
of Israel.
Kurt says
1 Corinthians 15 is about the death of
individuals
throughout the Christian age. Paul said
the resurrection he anticipated was the
salvation of Israel! Whom shall we
believe?
Furthermore...
The resurrection of 1
Corinthians 15 is the resurrection predicted in Hosea 13:14.
The resurrection of Hosea
13:14 would be the resurrection, of
Israel, from alienation from God
through sin (Hosea 13:1-2: “When Israel sinned, he died”).– I.e. it
would be resurrection through forgiveness and reconciliation.
Therefore, the
resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be the resurrection,
of Israel, from
alienation from God through sin (Hosea 13:1-2).– I.e. it would be
resurrection through forgiveness and reconciliation.
The resurrection of 1
Corinthians 15 would be the resurrection,
of Israel, from
alienation from God through sin (Hosea 13:1-2).– I.e. it would be
resurrection through forgiveness and reconciliation.
But, the resurrection of 1
Corinthians 15 was still future when Paul wrote.
Therefore, the
resurrection, of Israel,
from alienation from God through sin (Hosea 13:1-2).– I.e.
resurrection through forgiveness and reconciliation was still future
when Paul wrote.
Of course this means that
Israel was not cut off at the cross. God’s promises to her were
“irrevocable” (Romans 11:28), and until
His covenant promises to her were fulfilled she would not enter her
salvation (Romans 11:26f) at the resurrection.
The last enemy to be
destroyed was death (Kurt agrees).
But, sin produced death
(Romans 6:23; “the law of sin and death”).
The last enemy would be
destroyed at the resurrection in AD 70 (Kurt agrees
theoretically, but
not truly. See below).
Thus, sin, which produced
death, would be destroyed (for those “in Christ,” and the power of
his resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:22) at the resurrection in AD 70.
The resurrection is when sin, the sting of death was to be overcome,
(1 Corinthians 15:54-56).
The miraculous gifts of
the Spirit were the guarantee of that resurrection (2 Corinthians
5:5; Ephesians 1:13).
Therefore, the
miraculous gifts of the Spirit were the
guarantee of the final victory over sin!
So, again, since the
charismata were the guarantee of the resurrection, and since the
resurrection is when sin, the sting of death would be overcome,
it therefore follows that the charismata were the guarantee of the
final victory over sin. Kurt says the charismata endured until AD
70. Thus, the final victory of sin was in AD 70.
Kurt has ignored these arguments.
Kurt’s False View of Sin,
Death and Resurrection
Let me introduce the
problem of Kurt’s false view of sin-death-forgiveness.
Kurt says physical death was the “immediate” result of Adam’s sin–
thus, physical death is the result of sin today,
and,
“it is from physical death that the promise of resurrection was
given” (KS, Oct. 2009, S/P).
Kurt correctly believes in
the substitutionary death of Jesus.
Substitutionary means “in the place of.” Consider what this means.
Jesus died a substitutionary death for man.
Jesus’ physical death was the substitutionary death that he died.
Substitutionary means “in the place of.”
Therefore, Jesus died physically so that man would not have to die
physically.
Please pay particular
attention to this. You cannot argue, as Kurt does, that Jesus’
physical death
was his substitutionary death, and then say
that even those in Christ and ostensibly in the power of his death
still have to die physically! What does
substitutionary
mean, after all? If Jesus died so that those in
him do not have to die,
then why do those in him have to die physically? Did Jesus’
substitutionary physical death do no good? Or, has no believer has
ever entered fully into the benefit of his substitutionary death?
It will do no good to say
that resurrection delivers man out of
death, after
man dies! Death is the penalty of sin:
“The wages of sin is death.” Thus, the physical death of even the
most faithful Christian is proof positive that the Christian was
still under “the strength of sin,” and has not experienced
deliverance from sin, if
physical death is “the immediate result of sin”!
The bottom line is that
if Jesus’ physical death was
substitutionary,
as Kurt says,
then people of faith should never
die physically.
This is logically inescapable, and reveals just
part of the problem with Kurt’s theology.
Kurt claims that
“sin was defeated in Christ’s cross.” It was actually “the law of
sin and death” (not
Torah itself!)
that was nailed to the cross. He says forgiveness of sin was
objectively applied from then. Well, if sin brings physical death,
then if sin was defeated and those of faith were (or are)
objectively forgiven of sin,
then why does man have to die physically?
Forgiveness is the removal of that which kills,
is it not?
So, if sin brings physical death, but, a person
is completely forgiven, with no sin in
their life, why does that person still
experience physical death, Kurt?
If, as you say, Christ nailed the law of sin and death to the cross,
then why are Christians still subject to the
law of sin and death?
My friend’s view logically
demands that the physical death of even the most faithful Christian
is a powerful testimony to the lack of forgiveness in their life.
Kurt even says that if the Christian sins, “he comes again under the
power of sin and death” (S-P, Sept. 09).
Thus,
physical death is the indisputable proof that
the Christian is under the power of sin!
And, since that physical death is the
final testimony of the power of sin,
this logically demands
that that person is
lost, for the
final act in their life was not
forgiveness, but
the imposition of the law of sin and death:
i.e. you sin, you die! The believer’s
physical death proves,
indisputably, that
they were not objectively forgiven, for they died a sinner’s death!
So, exactly how did Jesus nail the law of sin and death to the
cross, Kurt?
Summary and Conclusion
I have demonstrated
prima facie, that
Kurt has mis-applied the Greek past tenses, by ignoring the
transitional work of the Holy Spirit as
the guarantee of the finished work of salvation,
and by ignoring the present tenses and the future tenses of the work
of salvation.
He is guilty of mis-representing the present and future tenses,
actually claiming that they are past tense applications.
I have shown indisputably
that covenant transition was not complete at the cross. I have even
shown from Kurt’s own hand that Torah
was not nailed to the cross! Do not miss
that!
I have shown that every
tenet listed by Kurt is inextricably bound to the hope of Israel and
the fulfillment of God’s OT promises to her. Those promises were to
arrive at the end of her age in AD 70: “These be the days of
vengeance in which all things that are written must be fulfilled”
(Luke 21:22).
I have demonstrated that
the Cross is to the parousia what the foundation is to the finished
structure of a house (cf. Ephesians 2:19f again).
I have shown from Isaiah 59 that the coming of the Lord of Romans
11:26f cannot be referent to the cross. Kurt has not breathed on
this argument.
I have shown that Kurt’s
position on sin, death and resurrection is false and logically
demands that Christ’s death has accomplished nothing at all,
even for Christians,
since all men, just like Adam, suffer the consequences of the law of
sin and death.
Do not miss what Kurt said
in his last negative: “We must be careful not to let our hermeneutic
drive
our interpretation of scripture.”
But, if there was ever a case of a presuppositional hermeneutic
driving interpretation, it is Kurt. 1.) He denied that we need to be
concerned with the “proper exegesis” of Isaiah 27. 2.) He has
eschewed the use of logic. 3.) He has made
historically unprecedented arguments.
4.) He has repeatedly changed his arguments when caught in
self-contradiction. 5.) He has abused the Greek tenses–
contradicting what he has written in his books. 6.) He has admitted,
fatally, that the Mosaic law was not
nailed to the Cross! 7.) He has ignored
the fundamental connection between the fulfillment of Israel’s
salvation promises- and salvation for Gentiles
flowing from that-- and the parousia.
Kurt says the debate, like
a ball game, should be called. The trouble is, that for a game to be
called a team has to score some points, and Kurt has not even gotten
to first base! He has in fact, struck out.
Preston's First Negative
Kurt’s first affirmative reminds me of a
dispensational debate I witnessed. The Zionist read passage
after passage that foretold the kingdom, the wolf laying down
with the lamb, turning swords into plowshares, etc.. No
exegesis. As he sat down he said, “That is my position!” So it
is with Kurt. He lists some 88 verses that speak of
justification, grace, salvation, etc, and says “This proves my
position!” No exegesis, no exposition, and of course, no proof
for his proposition!
KURT AND THE COMMENTATORS
Kurt has made a great deal of his false
claim that no commentator has ever applied Isaiah 27 to AD 70. I
have not addressed this because
I am concerned with scripture, not
commentators. But, do any commentators apply Isaiah 27 to AD 70?
Matthew Henry says Jesus referred to it when speaking
of the unfruitful vine being burned up, and it was fulfilled,
“in a particular manner in the unbelieving Jews.” John Gill
and Albert Barnes applied Isaiah 27 to the second coming.
Adam Clarke says that Matthew 24:31 anticipated the
fulfilment of Isaiah 27:13. So, commentators do apply Isaiah
27 to AD 70 and the second coming! So much for Kurt’s appeal
to the commentators!
ISAIAH 27
It just keeps getting more confusing as we
read my friend’s attempt to explain why Paul cited Isaiah 27. He
now claims that when he said that Paul cited Isaiah 27 along
with Isaiah 59 that he was relating what most commentators say (Sword
and Plow, Sept, 2009). This is not true!
He said not one word to indicate that he was
relating what the commentators- as opposed to Kurt-- say about
Romans 11 and Isaiah 27. He was patently admitting that
Paul cited Isaiah 27. But now, when that admission backfires on
him, he claims that Paul was not referring to Isaiah 27! (But
remember, virtually all commentators disagree with him,
and he even admits it)!
And now, my friend tries a totally new
approach– his fourth position on Isaiah 26-27! He
says Isaiah 27:10f is not related to the coming of the Lord of
26:20f, which he now, belatedly, admits again
applies to AD 70. And this after saying that Isaiah 26 has
“nothing” to do with AD 70! So, he said that Isaiah 26:20f
could apply to AD 70. Then he denied it. Now, he
admits it!
He says Isaiah 27:9f has nothing to do with
26:10f because Isaiah supposedly changes his subject, over, and
over, and over again, all within a few verses. Not so!
Notice that the destruction of Leviathan (27:1) would be “in
that day” the Day of the Lord when the Lord would avenge the
blood of the martyrs (26:20-21). Kurt says 26:20f can be AD
70, but that 27:1 must be the destruction of Assyria. No,
27:1 is the Day of 26:20f that he admits is AD 70! But
notice, that “in that day” is likewise the time of Israel’s
salvation at her judgment and the sounding of the Great Trumpet
(27:10-13). The references to “in that day” falsify Kurt’s
desperate claim that Isaiah constantly changes the subject.
Thankfully, Isaiah was not as disorganized as Kurt suggests.
Finally– Isaiah 59!
Do you see what my friend has done? I tried
for three presentations to get Kurt to address Isaiah 59.
He said my only “relevant” argument was on Isaiah 27 (which he
now denies has any relevance)! Now
he says that Isaiah 59 is the only relevant text. Yet he ignored
Isaiah 59 until his last negative, and makes some new
arguments.
KS– “The coming in Rom. 11 is taken, not
from Isa. 27, but Isa. 59!
That's right!
"The Redeemer shall come to Zion" is from Isa. 59:20, 21.
Isa. 27 is not quoted in Rom. 11 in connection with a "coming"
at all.” Kurt cites Jamieson, Fausett and Brown (JFB) for
support, (Note: JFB do not deny a connection with Isaiah
27. They simply do not mention it). But notice the
following about JFB: 1.) They apply Isaiah 27 (JFB, p.
541) and Romans 11:26 to the second coming– contra Kurt.
2.) They say Isaiah 27 / Romans 11 speaks of a yet future
conversion of ethnic Israel, and they say that those
(like Kurt) who reject this view
do “great violence” to the text! 3.) They apply
Isaiah 59 and Jeremiah 31 to the second coming– contra Kurt.
So, Kurt selectively argues from what they do not say,
and rejects what they do say, yet claims they agree with him!
But, let’s look closer at Kurt’s admission that Paul quotes
Isaiah 59. He was silent about the arguments I have made, so,
let me refresh the reader’s memory.
In Isaiah 59 YHVH accused Israel of
shedding innocent blood and violence (v. 1-8). The Lord saw
Israel in her sinful condition and, “His own arm brought
salvation for Him; and His own righteousness, it sustained Him
for He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of
salvation on His head; He put on the garments of vengeance for
His clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak. According to
their deeds, accordingly He will repay, Fury to His adversaries,
Recompense to His enemies.” Isaiah 59 predicted the salvation
of Israel at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for
her guilt in shedding innocent blood.
Please catch the power of Kurt’s admission
that Paul is citing Isaiah 59. Kurt says of Romans 11: a.)
The coming of the Lord is referent to the cross, not AD 70.
b.) Israel is not OC
Israel, but the church. c.) The salvation is referent to
the conversion of Jews and Gentiles throughout the Christian
age. However...
The coming of the Lord
for salvation, in Romans 11:26-27, is the coming of the Lord
predicted in Isaiah 59– Kurt Simmons now agreeing!
But, the coming of the
Lord of Isaiah 59 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of
Israel for shedding innocent blood. (It is not a
prediction of the cross, or the salvation of the church
throughout time).
Therefore, the coming of the Lord for salvation in Romans
11:26-27, is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for
shedding innocent blood. (Which
was in AD 70-Matthew 23).
[This was the ONLY coming for vengeance???? What about the
coming in the Assyrians, Babylonians, etc]
Nothing
in Isaiah 59 even
remotely resembles Kurt’s view of Romans 11!
Nothing! Yet,
Isaiah is, Kurt now agreeing,
the source of Paul’s prediction in Romans 11:26. Kurt must
explain
why Paul cited a prophecy that had
nothing whatsoever to do with the subject he was discussing, in
order to validate what he was discussing.
Kurt has refused to answer this
because he cannot answer this.
Yet, his admission that the coming of Romans 11 is the coming of
Isaiah 59 is 100% fatal
to his new theology. His admission
proves that all of the verses in Kurt’s first affirmative must
speak of a process begun,
but a process to be perfected
at the Second Coming.
My affirmative proposition is established by Kurt’s fatal
admission.
ENTRANCE INTO THE MHP
I asked: What is the one thing that
prevented man from entering the MHP– He refused to answer.
I asked: If the destruction of Jerusalem
was irrelevant to man’s spiritual justification, and the saints
were perfected prior to that event,
why did the saints have to wait until AD 70 to enter the MHP?
He refused to answer
because he has no answer.
Kurt threw up a cloud
of dust about the time of reformation.
His admission that the time of reformation was not completed
until AD 70, when the saints could
enter the MHP is fatal
to his rejection of Covenant Eschatology.
Note Kurt’s ever
shifting position on the time of reformation: He said it began
at the cross, (but man could not objectively enter the MHP). He
then said that the time of reformation was
completed in AD
70 with the completion of the Spirit’s work. But
now, he
says the time of reformation
ended (it was not perfected) in
AD 70!
Hebrews 9:6-10– If the
time of reformation fully arrived at the cross as Kurt
originally contended, man should have begun to
actually
enter the MHP, from that point. But, no, Kurt tells us
man could not truly enter the MHP until AD
70! Kurt admitted, and I agree,
“When the gifts of the Spirit ceased,
the time of reformation was complete and
not before.” (My emp., DKP). But,
realizing the fatal nature of this admission, Kurt now says:
“The time of reformation
ended
in AD 70.” (My emp., DKP) Do you see the problem? On the one
hand he correctly says the time of reformation was completed in
AD 70. But that is self-destructive, so he now says the time of
reformation
terminated
in AD 70. This is a blatantly self contradictory.
Hebrews 9 says there could be no
entrance into the MHP until the
arrival–not
termination-
of the time of reformation. The
time of reformation began at the Cross– and was guaranteed by
the Spirit-- but was not perfected until AD 70. And,
there was no true entrance into the MHP
until AD 70 (KS). If the time of
reformation ended
in AD 70, Kurt,
then man could
never enter
the MHP, and
the time for man to enter the MHP ended
without so much as one person ever entering the MHP!
Man could not, per Kurt, enter before AD 70. But, per his
newest
position, the time of reformation (when man could
supposedly
enter) terminated,
in AD 70! Kurt has hopelessly entangled himself.
I have focused on the
time of reformation because it is in some respects, what this
debate is about. So, let me reiterate my argument, which Kurt
has totally ignored, and which he must ignore:
Kurt admits that there
was no entrance
into the MHP at the
initiation of the reformation,
i.e. at the cross.
Entrance came only when the time of
reformation– the work of grace– was completed, at the parousia.
Now watch as we apply this to the
atonement:
Kurt offered another
syllogism. Unfortunately for him, his efforts fail. Here is his
self-contradictory argument:
No man
could enter the Holy of Holies until the atonement was complete.
But the
Holy of Holies was a figure for the New Testament and gospel.
The
New Testament was of force from and after the cross.
Therefore,
The
atonement was complete and man could enter (legally and
covenantally) the Holy of Holies from and after the cross.
Those who have been
paying attention to this debate will see instantly that Kurt
has, once again, changed his
position and destroyed his own
argument.
Kurt–
“No man could enter the Holy of Holies
until the atonement was complete.”
(Amen, brother! This is a fatal
admission).
Kurt–
“I never said the saints entered heaven (The MHP, Revelation
15:8, DKP) before AD 70!”
Therefore, the
atonement was not completed until AD 70!
ATTENTION! Did you notice Kurt’s shift from the MHP being
heaven
to being
the New Covenant?
He
has changed theological positions
again!
Watch this.
No man
could enter the MHP while Torah remained binding (Hebrews 9:9f)
The MHP
represented the New Covenant (Kurt’s New Position).
But, no
man could enter the MHP until AD 70 (Revelation 15:8-KS
supposedly agrees).
Therefore, Torah remained binding and no man could enter the New
Covenant until AD 70.
Kurt has re-embraced
Covenant Eschatology!
Kurt’s desperate attempt to radically redefine the MHP from his
earlier position backfires on him.
Kurt says: “The
atonement was complete and man could enter (legally and
covenantally) the Holy of Holies from and after the cross.
This is sophistry.
If man was “covenantally” able to enter the MHP (But, what
proof did Kurt offer?) then man should have been able to
objectively
enter the MHP! It was
covenant that prevented objective
entrance (Hebrews 9:6f).
Therefore, if the New Covenant was completed prior to AD 70,
then man should have been able–
objectively– to enter the MHP! This
is irrefutable.
Yet, Kurt admits: “I never said the saints entered heaven before
AD 70!” Furthermore, Kurt (ostensibly) understands that the New
Covenant, while established by
Jesus’ death (Galatians 3:15) was
not fully revealed and confirmed through the Spirit’s ministry
until AD 70! This is called
covenantal transition.
So, Kurt adamantly
tells us that he has “never” said that man could enter the MHP
before AD 70. Now of course, he has
changed horses again, saying that
the MHP was the New Covenant and that man was fully in the New
Covenant before AD 70! Yet, he still (?) says man could not
objectively
enter the MHP until AD 70! Confused? You
should be.
The truth is that man
could not enter the MHP while Torah
remained valid.
Torah would remain valid until man
could
enter the MHP at the time of reformation.
Thus, Torah ended when the time of reformation was completed,
and man could enter the MHP, in AD 70. Kurt has surrendered his
objection to the initiation
of grace, salvation and covenant
transition.
He has unwittingly affirmed Covenant
Eschatology. So, once again:
There
could be no access to the MHP as long as Torah remained binding
(Hebrews 9).
But,
man could not enter the MHP until AD 70 (Kurt Simmons).
Therefore, Torah remained binding until AD 70.
This is the
correct use of
logic and the argument is indisputable.
The Triumph of Grace
Over Law,
and the so-called “Mysterious” Negative
Power of Torah
My friend expends a
great deal of steam on grace triumphing over law. He simply
reiterates his claims, with no exegesis, and then, amazingly,
makes the following statements: “Don states ‘removal
of Torah was essential for man’s justification after all!’”
(emphasis in original). Don states, “Torah had to end in order
for forgiveness, entrance into the MHP and life to become
realities!” Dear reader, we deny this totally and
emphatically. The law was taken away, not so grace could
enter in, but because it was a mere schoolmaster to
bring us to Christ; it was a system of types and shadows
pointing to Jesus.” Then, in some of his more amazing
comments, my friend adds this: “There is
nothing in the
temple ritual or anywhere
in the law that can forestall God’s grace in Jesus Christ.
NOTHING.
Law doesn’t prevent grace, it
invites it!
The inability of Torah to forgive in
no way implies it also possessed a negative power to prevent or
forestall forgiveness of sin!
What is Don’s proof of this
“mysterious “negative power”?
He has none!”
Readers, here is the
crux of the matter, and the problem with Kurt’s new theology. It
is in flagrant denial of the Biblical text and manifest
demonstration of my friend’s abuse of logic. Follow...
A.)
Kurt sets up a false dichotomy. He says that Torah had no
negative power, for it was “a mere schoolmaster.” So, per Kurt,
Torah could not exercise negative power by being the
schoolmaster; it was either
a schoolmaster or a negative power. It
could not be both! This is an abuse of logic.
B.)
Kurt says removal of Torah was not necessary for grace to enter.
But wait, Torah was to bring man to “the faith” and Christ, and
would endure until then. So, Torah
was a schoolmaster until the arrival of grace!
Yet, Kurt says no,
it was just a schoolmaster
and not a negative power, although
according to Paul, as a schoolmaster,
it was given to make sin abound, it brought death, it could not
deliver from death, and could not provide forgiveness and grace.
C.)
Kurt emphatically denies that Torah had negative power.
Hebrews says as long as Torah remained, there was no
forgiveness. Kurt says this is not a
negative power, “forestalling forgiveness and grace.” I will
stand with scripture on this.
D.)
Kurt says Torah had no power to prevent entrance into the MHP.
Hebrews 9 says as long as Torah stood, there could be no
entrance into the MHP. I will stand
with scripture on this.
Has my friend
forgotten what Hebrews 9:6-10 says, or is he simply willing to
deny what it says?
Why could man not
enter the MHP? What does the inspired text
say, Kurt?
As long as Torah stood binding, there was no entrance into the
MHP!
Torah had the negative power to prevent
entrance to the presence of God!
Torah had no power to forgive,
thus, no power to bring man into the presence of God.
That sure sounds like a negative power to
me! What is so “mysterious” about
that? It is what the text says. So...
As long
as Torah remained binding, there was no forgiveness of sin, no
entrance into the MHP (Hebrews 9:6-10).
No
entrance into the MHP until AD 70– KS (ostensibly) teaches this
truth.
Therefore, Torah remained binding and there was no objective
forgiveness until AD 70!
Kurt’s new theology
however, denies this and sees no relationship between Torah,
lack of forgiveness and entrance into the MHP. He claims now
that removal of Torah was not even necessary for grace to
triumph over law! Did you catch
that? If removal of Torah was not
necessary for grace to triumph over law,
then removal of Torah was not necessary to
bring forgiveness, and entrance into the MHP, Kurt!
Let me remind you again of Kurt’s
total silence in the face of
these questions.
Kurt claimed that
removal of Torah had nothing
to do with Paul’s soteriology, and
now claims it
had no negative power “to prevent or forestall forgiveness.”
(Kurt, where are your commentators in support of this new
theology?) I offered the following
and urged the readers to watch for Kurt’s answer.
We are all still waiting for his response.
Torah was the
ministration of death (2 Corinthians
3:6f). Kurt, did the deliverance from the ministration of death,
to the ministration of life have
nothing to do with soteriology? If
Torah was a ministration of death, was death, empowered by
Torah, not a negative power?
Paul said Torah could
not deliver from the law of sin and death
(Romans 8:1-3). He said Christ does deliver
from that law! Did the deliverance
from the law of sin and death have nothing to do with
forgiveness? Was being under the
power of the law of sin and death not a negative power, Kurt?
Come now, my friend, please
answer the question.
Paul said Torah
killed, “The commandment came, sin revived, I died” “sin,
working death in me by that which is good...became exceedingly
sinful” (Romans 7:13). Kurt, are
these positive, or negative aspects of Torah?
Torah could not give
life or righteousness (Galatians
3:20-21). Did deliverance from that law, to the covenant that
gives life and righteousness have
nothing to
do with salvation?
Paul said those under
Torah were under “the curse”
(Galatians 2-3). Did deliverance from that curse had nothing to
do with redemption? Was the curse of
Torah a negative power, Kurt?
There was no
forgiveness under Torah. There would
be forgiveness when Torah ended at
the time of reformation. Is
forgiveness related to soteriology?
Is unforgiven sin positive or negative, Kurt?
There was no entrance
into the MHP under Torah; there
would be entrance into the MHP at the end of Torah, the time of
reformation. Is entrance into the
MHP related to salvation, Kurt?
Hebrews 9 is Covenant
Eschatology, anyway you want to look at it.
Torah had to end in order for forgiveness,
entrance into the MHP and life to become realities! End of Torah
= Covenant Eschatology; End of Torah = Salvation! Kurt can
ridicule this, but it will not change the indisputable facts as
specifically stated by inspiration. Hebrews 9:6f stands as an
insurmountable bulwark against
Kurt’s insistence that Torah was removed at the Cross.
Furthermore, his admission that man could not, after all, enter
the MHP until AD 70 is an open admission of my position.
DANIEL 12– THE POWER OF
THE HOLY PEOPLE
My friend’s
desperation manifested itself for all to see in his “response”
to my question. He says
that
Israel’s “power” (Daniel 12:7) was the identical power as the
pagan nations. This is astounding!
YHVH always said that His special covenant relationship with
Israel was totally distinctive. When
He gave them Torah He said, “If you
will indeed keep my covenant then you will be a special treasure
to me above all the people; for all the earth is mine, and you
shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus
19:5-6). In Deuteronomy 26:18-19, at the second giving of the
Law, God said, “Today the Lord has proclaimed you to be His
special people, just as He promised you, so that you should keep
His commands. In
Psalms 147:19-20 God said, “He gave
His statutes to Jacob. He has not done so with any nation”! In
spite of all of this– and much more could be added– Kurt tells
us that Israel’s power was not her covenant with YHVH. In fact,
Israel was just like the pagans in regard to her power.
This argument is manifest demonstration of the desperation and
falsity of Kurt’s position.
To deny that Israel’s power,
her only power,
was her covenant with God is patently false.
And since
Daniel posits the destruction of the power of Israel at AD 70,
this is irrefutable proof that Torah remained valid until AD 70.
This is Covenant Eschatology.
TRANSFIGURATION
Kurt claims that the
Transfiguration was a vision of
Jesus’ first appearing, not the
second coming. He says the Transfiguration was not about
covenant contrast and transition.
Response:
First,
Kurt’s argument is virtually unprecedented in the entire history
of Christian commentary which agrees that the Transfiguration
was a vision of Christ’s second coming.
2.) Peter was
not writing against those who denied Jesus’ incarnation, but his
second coming (2 Peter 3:3). 3.)
Peter wanted to establish three equal tabernacles. God would not
allow it. This is a covenant
contrast.
4.) The Voice
said of Jesus “This is my beloved Son, hear him.” In the Greek,
the “hear him” is literally “Him,
hear!”, and is in the emphatic, meaning that
in contrast to Moses and Elijah,
Jesus is to be heard. 5.)
Moses and Elijah vanish away, at the voice
that says of Jesus “Him hear!”Yet, Kurt eschews the text,
rejects the virtually unanimous testimony of the commentaries,
and says he “feels” that it is not
about covenant contrast, or Jesus’ second coming. No, the
Transfiguration is about the
covenantal transition from Moses to Christ,
and it was a vision of the second coming.
The Transfiguration is therefore,
all about Covenant Eschatology.
Passing of Torah–
Subjective and Objective
Kurt makes one of the
most illogical “arguments” a person will ever read. He claims
that when Paul said, “you have become dead to the Law through
the body of Christ” that this actually means that
the Law itself had died! This is
like saying that when a person gets a divorce that the entire
institution of marriage is destroyed! Watch the following
illustration.
For decades the Berlin
Wall stood as a barrier to freedom. East Berliners longed to
escape the oppressive communist law. Now, Kurt, when someone
managed to escape from East Berlin into the West (prior to the
fall of the “Wall”) did that mean
that East Berlin communism was dead?
Patently not. The
individual who
escaped had died to communism!
Just like Paul said those coming into Christ through baptism had
died to the Law through the body
of Christ! (Incidentally, Kurt
claims I ignored Romans 7:4.
Not true. I
appealed
to Romans 7!) Paul did not say Torah
had died. Just so, in 2 Corinthians 3:10f, Paul said that
when a person turned to Christ,
the veil of Torah was removed for them.
He did not say Torah had passed. Huge difference! This is what
Paul affirms in Ephesians 2, Colossians 2, etc...
When a person, through faith, entered into the power of the
cross,
they died to the Law!
Kurt admits this in his first affirmative! But when a person
died to the Law, the Law did not die. The NT speaks of the
objective passing of the Law itself, however.
ATTENTION!!
Kurt admits that Colossians 2:14f
does not say that Torah was
nailed to the Cross: “What was
nailed to the cross? Not the Mosiac (sic) law, but the sentence
of the law (the law of sin and death) condemning the
transgression of men” (Sept. 09, S-P- And first affirmative).
Folks, this is fatal!
If Colossians 2 does not (and it
doesn’t) say
that Torah was nailed to the Cross, then no passage does, and
Kurt has admitted that it doesn’t!
Note his contradiction:
Torah was
not
nailed to the cross.
His proposition:
Torah ended at the cross! There is no way to reconcile Kurt’s
self-contradiction. He has
totally surrendered his proposition. Do not fail to catch this!
In Hebrews 8:13, Paul
says that the Covenant
–not some already dead outward form of the
Law– was “nigh unto passing.” In chapter 12:25f– the heaven and
earth of the Old Covenant had not yet passed, but was
about to be removed.
Furthermore, Jesus did say that not one jot or one tittle of the
law could pass until it was all fulfilled, and
even the ceremonial aspects of Torah had
not yet been fulfilled,
since Paul said those ceremonial sacrifices remained, when he
wrote Colossians and Hebrews, “shadows of good things about to
come” (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 10:1-4).
Torah, objectively speaking,
had not been done away. This is why
there was still no access to the MHP until AD 70.
As long as Torah remained valid,
there was no access to the MHP,
and Kurt admits
there was no entrance into the MHP
until AD 70. This is Covenant
Eschatology validated and proven.
In Kurt’s first
affirmative he desperately argues, falsely, that God could not
have two systems in force at the same time.
Kurt, did God have two systems in place when He gave Torah to
Israel, but not to the pagans?
Were there two “systems” in
place when John preached the baptism of repentance and faith in
the coming of Messiah, while the Temple cultus was still in
effect? John’s baptism was not Torah “baptism!” And consider
Galatians 4.22f. Paul, anticipated the yet future casting out of
the bondwoman– which he says was the
Old Covenant and her seed–
for persecuting the Christians.
The allegory has the two sons
dwelling in the same house, but
Ishmael was cast out for persecuting Isaac. And Paul said “as it
was then, even so it is now.” Paul said the Old Covenant and
seed would be cast out for
persecuting Christians. But,
there were no Christians before the
Cross! It is therefore
irrefutably true that the two
sons dwelt together while the seed of the flesh persecuted the
Seed of promise and was then
cast out.
Torah and Israel were not cast out at the cross. This is
Covenant Eschatology.
Kurt’s essential argument that two systems could not temporarily
co-exist is false.
Was Jesus’
Resurrection the Proof of the Completion of the Atonement?
Kurt says: “Will Don
deny Jesus died under imputation of sin?
Will he deny he was raised
justified, free from imputation of sin (Rom. 6:7, 10)?
But if Christ was justified from the
imputation of sin at his resurrection, it is clear that his
blood was received by God within the veil
before his
ascension, and that can only mean it was received by God
at his death.”
Response:
Kurt is so desperate to prove his position that he continues to
invent
historically unprecedented arguments.
Kurt, give us some commentary support for your idea that Jesus
had to be justified from the sin of others!
1.)
Kurt argues as he does because of his
historically unprecedented argument
that Jesus had to enter the MHP twice (He
said Christ “legally” pierced the veil, (that is
once), and
then entered the MHP at his ascension. That is
twice). In
this view,
Christ’s ascension and entrance into the MHP was
legally unnecessary,
since the work of atonement was finished when he “legally
pierced the veil”
while hanging on the cross!
Kurt, where are the commentators who
agree your unprecedented argument?
2.)
Kurt has consistently ignored Hebrews 9:12– Christ entered the MHP
ONCE!
Not twice.
Not once legally
(whatever that means), and then once
actually.
ONCE!
Kurt says twice, Paul says ONCE!
Kurt is wrong.
3.)
Kurt said it was appropriate for him to draw the analogy with Jesus
and the OT priest who had to enter the MHP twice. But:
A.) The OT
high priest had to enter twice
because the
first time (the cross per Kurt’s
analogy) the priest had to offer sacrifice
for his own sins–
not for the sins of the people!
Kurt argues that Jesus died the
sinner’s death and legally, but not
actually, pierced the veil, when he
bore the sins of the people! But in
scripture, the priest bore the sins of
the people at the second entrance
into the MHP The
second time, Kurt,
not the first!
You have no analogy.
B.) The OT
priest had to actually
enter twice. He did not enter in some vague,
“legal” sense, and then actually,
as in Kurt’s new paradigm.
C.) Jesus’
sinlessness voided any need for him to enter the MHP twice. He
entered ONCE,
and that for the sins of the people (Hebrews 9:12).
Do not lose sight of this verse amid Kurt’s smoke screens!
D.) Jesus
had to appear the second time “for
(This is the reason why Jesus had to
come again!) the law,
having (present
tense, Kurt) a shadow of good things
about to come”
(Hebrews 10:1f). Kurt has repeatedly
ignored this argument, even though he admits to the Greek present
and future tenses in his book. So, Jesus
had
to come again,
to fulfill the typological (ceremonial) aspects of atonement /
Torah, which were, when Paul wrote,
still valid and binding shadows. Kurt
himself has said that there could be no entrance into the MHP until
the atonement was perfected, and there could be no entrance into the
MHP until AD 70! Do not fail to catch this amidst all of Kurt’s
smoke. It is fatal to every single one of his claims.
Kurt’s List and His Unequal
Emphasis on the Greek Tenses
We do not have space to
examine every one of the verses listed by Kurt, nor need we to. His
argument can be summed up under certain headings of: forgiveness,
redemption, salvation, atonement, New Covenant, etc.. If it can be
demonstrated that these soteriological elements were not completed
at the Cross, but was awaiting perfection in AD 70, then my friend’s
entire affirmative is negated.
In spite of the use of the
past tense in the verses cited by Kurt,
each of these elements is also couched in future tense verbs.
Redemption:
Already –> “In whom we have redemption”
(Ephesians 1:7).
Future:
“You were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise
until the day of redemption”
(Ephesians 1:12-13; 4:30)–> If
redemption was already perfected, why did they need the charismata
to guarantee its completion?
Why did Paul look forward to the day of redemption? Kurt, why do you
ignore these future tenses and the work of the Spirit?
Notice: Paul equates
redemption with forgiveness: “in whom we have redemption,
even the
forgiveness of our sin.” Yet, again,
the Holy Spirit was the guarantee of the
future day of redemption! So,
redemption = forgiveness, and redemption would not fully arrive
until Christ’s second coming in AD 70.
It follows inexorably that forgiveness would objectively arrive in
AD 70– precisely as Romans 11:26f says! Kurt, why do you ignore the
future tense of the Day of Redemption?
Adoption / Sonship:
Already–>
“We have received the spirit of adoption” (Romans 8:14).
Future–>
“longing for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body”
(Romans 8:23). Kurt, why do you ignore the future tense?
Atonement:
Already–>
“We have received the atonement” (reconciliation, DKP, Romans 5:10)–
Future–
“We shall be saved by his life” (Romans 5:10).
Also, KS– “The soul could not enter the presence of God in heaven
without the atoning sacrifice of Christ, so the dead were
sequestered in Hades until the general resurrection.” So,
even according to Kurt,
the atonement was not completed until AD 70!
Inheritance:
Already–>
Ephesians 1:11: “In Him also we have obtained an inheritance.”
Future–>
Ephesians 1:14: “who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the
redemption of the purchased possession.”
Now watch: Kurt appeals to Hebrews 9:15 to prove that the New
Covenant was already fully in place and that those from the first
covenant now had redemption. If that is true, Kurt,
why could those in the Hadean realm not enter the MHP until AD 70
(Revelation 15:8)? Oh, wait, you have (inadvertently)
answered this: “The soul could not enter the presence of God in
heaven without the atoning sacrifice of Christ, so the dead were
sequestered in Hades until the general resurrection” (S-P, Sept.
09). So, Kurt himself informs us that the inheritance and
forgiveness through completed atonement did not arrive until AD 70!
If the atonement and
forgiveness of sin–
sin being the only thing to keep man from the
MHP– was fully realized at the
cross, then those under the first covenant (i.e. in Hades) had
already received “the better resurrection,” and the eternal
inheritance! Kurt has distorted Hebrews 9:15, and contradicted his
own writings, again.
New Covenant:
Already–>
I have repeatedly noted the
present tense verbs
that speak of the then passing of Torah (2 Corinthians 3:6f; Hebrews
8:13, etc.), and the future
passing of the Law (Hebrews 12:25f). I have noted the Greek present
tenses that prove that Torah, including the sacrificial system, was
still, when Paul wrote, typological of good things
about to come
(future tense). In his book, Kurt
acknowledges these present tenses, but now he denies them!
Furthermore:
The Holy Spirit was the guarantee of the New
Covenant, and that through the distinctive personal ministry of
Paul.
Kurt affirms that covenant transition was over and done at the
cross. Paul disagreed, and said that the
transition from the Old Covenant to the New was ongoing when he
wrote 2 Corinthians 3-4: “we are being transformed from Glory to
Glory, by the Spirit. wherefore, having this ministry...” Paul uses
the present tenses
several times to speak of the present and
impending passing of Torah.
Kurt, why do you reject the present and future tenses?
Furthermore, if the New Covenant was perfected,
why was the ministry of the Spirit necessary, Kurt? Paul said it was
the ministry of the Spirit to reveal the New Covenant and to bring
about the transition from the Old to the New (2 Corinthians 3). But
that work of the Spirit was unnecessary in Kurt’s paradigm.
Kurt falsely claims that
in Hebrews 7:12f Paul affirmed the past tense of the passing of the
Law.
False.
Paul uses the present tense!
[being dead, being divorced]
Kurt says Christ could not serve in a priestly
capacity unless Torah had been removed. Again, false.
Jesus was serving as high priest in the true heavenly tabernacle
(Hebrews 8:1f), where he
could serve because
he was no longer subject to the law. Yet, Paul is emphatic, “if he
were on earth, he could not serve as priest, seeing there are
(present tense) priests who serve (present tense)
according to the Law”
(Hebrews 8:5). Kurt even claims on Hebrews 10:9
that Torah “was taken away.” This is
inexcusable. Paul uses the
present tense:
“He is
taking away
the first that he might establish the second.”
We have already noted the present tenses in Hebrews 9:6-10:1f
which Kurt acknowledges in his book,
but now wants to deny. Kurt, why do you
ignore these Greek tenses?
Clearly,
there were two systems in effect at the same
time! Christ was serving as priest
in the heavenly tabernacle. The Aaronic priests were serving under
Torah. The earthly system was “nigh unto passing” while the heavenly
city and tabernacle were “about to come” (Hebrews 13:14).
So, what we have are
proleptic (a form of past tense) statements, present tense
statements, and future tense references. No proper exegesis of all
of this evidence can ignore two out of
three uses of the Greek tenses and claim
to be the whole picture, yet this is
precisely what Kurt has done.
Kurt, what is your linguistic or grammatical authority for rejecting
the present and future tenses?
You have
no authority for this
other than your newly invented theology.
Grace:
Already–>
“By grace are you saved through grace” (Ephesians2:8-9).
Future: “hope to
the end for the grace that shall be brought to you at the coming of
the Lord” (1 Peter 1:7-8).
Perfect in him:
Already–> “And you
are perfect in him” (Colossians 2:10).
Future–>
“That we might present every man perfect in Christ” (Colossians
1:27). Notice that the early church had
the charismata to “equip the church for the work of the ministry...until
we all come to the perfect man”
(Ephesians 4:13-16).
Kurt, if they were already perfected,
why did they need the gifts to bring them to the perfect man?
Salvation:
Already–>
“By grace are you saved through grace” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Future:
“to those who eagerly look for him, he will appear the second time,
apart from sin, for salvation,
for,
the law having a shadow of good things about to come” (Hebrews
9:28-10:1); the salvation “ready to be revealed in the last times”
at the parousia (1 Peter 1:5-12).
In each verse cited by
Kurt, he ignores the transitional period. He sees covenant
transition completed at the cross. This is false. He likewise
ignores the work of the Spirit as the
guarantee of the completion of what began at the cross.
Furthermore, from Pentecost onward, the church was betrothed –not
married-- to Christ. Kurt admits this.
This is a process begun,
awaiting consummation! Likewise, the foundation for the New Covenant
Temple was laid, but, “construction” was on-going from Pentecost
onward. The Temple was not complete at the Cross (Ephesians 2:19f; 1
Peter 2:4f). Note the present tenses.
Kurt, do you deny these present tenses?
Let me reiterate: Paul
uses past, present and future tenses to speak of each of the
elements Kurt emphasizes. Proper
hermeneutic cannot emphasize one of the
tenses to the exclusion of the others. This is to practice
presuppositional theology. This is precisely what Kurt has done. Let
me now introduce some critical factors.
DO NOT MISS THIS!!
Kurt ignores the indisputable fact
that each element he lists had to do
with the fulfillment of God’s promises
to OC Israel. If salvation was completed
at the cross, then Israel’s salvation
(resurrection! Isaiah 25:8-9; Romans 9:28) was completed at the
cross: “Salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), i.e. from the Jews
first, then to the nations! Yet,
Kurt admitted (2nd Neg) that Romans 9:28 referred to the
salvation of “national Israel” in AD 70! How could Israel have been
cut off at the cross, if Israel was not saved until AD 70? How could
salvation be completed at the cross if Israel’s salvation was in AD
70? This is a fatal contradiction! Let me build on that concept.
The resurrection of 1
Corinthians 15 is the resurrection predicted in Isaiah 25:8.
The resurrection of Isaiah
25:8 would be the time of the salvation
of Israel.
Therefore, the
resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be the time of the salvation
of Israel.
Kurt says
1 Corinthians 15 is about the death of
individuals
throughout the Christian age. Paul said
the resurrection he anticipated was the
salvation of Israel! Whom shall we
believe?
Furthermore...
The resurrection of 1
Corinthians 15 is the resurrection predicted in Hosea 13:14.
The resurrection of Hosea
13:14 would be the resurrection, of
Israel, from alienation from God
through sin (Hosea 13:1-2: “When Israel sinned, he died”).– I.e. it
would be resurrection through forgiveness and reconciliation.
Therefore, the
resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be the resurrection,
of Israel, from
alienation from God through sin (Hosea 13:1-2).– I.e. it would be
resurrection through forgiveness and reconciliation.
The resurrection of 1
Corinthians 15 would be the resurrection,
of Israel, from
alienation from God through sin (Hosea 13:1-2).– I.e. it would be
resurrection through forgiveness and reconciliation.
But, the resurrection of 1
Corinthians 15 was still future when Paul wrote.
Therefore, the
resurrection, of Israel,
from alienation from God through sin (Hosea 13:1-2).– I.e.
resurrection through forgiveness and reconciliation was still future
when Paul wrote.
Of course this means that
Israel was not cut off at the cross. God’s promises to her were
“irrevocable” (Romans 11:28), and until
His covenant promises to her were fulfilled she would not enter her
salvation (Romans 11:26f) at the resurrection.
The last enemy to be
destroyed was death (Kurt agrees).
But, sin produced death
(Romans 6:23; “the law of sin and death”).
The last enemy would be
destroyed at the resurrection in AD 70 (Kurt agrees
theoretically, but
not truly. See below).
Thus, sin, which produced
death, would be destroyed (for those “in Christ,” and the power of
his resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:22) at the resurrection in AD 70.
The resurrection is when sin, the sting of death was to be overcome,
(1 Corinthians 15:54-56).
The miraculous gifts of
the Spirit were the guarantee of that resurrection (2 Corinthians
5:5; Ephesians 1:13).
Therefore, the
miraculous gifts of the Spirit were the
guarantee of the final victory over sin!
So, again, since the
charismata were the guarantee of the resurrection, and since the
resurrection is when sin, the sting of death would be overcome,
it therefore follows that the charismata were the guarantee of the
final victory over sin. Kurt says the charismata endured until AD
70. Thus, the final victory of sin was in AD 70.
Kurt has ignored these arguments.
Kurt’s False View of Sin,
Death and Resurrection
Let me introduce the
problem of Kurt’s false view of sin-death-forgiveness.
Kurt says physical death was the “immediate” result of Adam’s sin–
thus, physical death is the result of sin today,
and,
“it is from physical death that the promise of resurrection was
given” (KS, Oct. 2009, S/P).
Kurt correctly believes in
the substitutionary death of Jesus.
Substitutionary means “in the place of.” Consider what this means.
Jesus died a substitutionary death for man.
Jesus’ physical death was the substitutionary death that he died.
Substitutionary means “in the place of.”
Therefore, Jesus died physically so that man would not have to die
physically.
Please pay particular
attention to this. You cannot argue, as Kurt does, that Jesus’
physical death
was his substitutionary death, and then say
that even those in Christ and ostensibly in the power of his death
still have to die physically! What does
substitutionary
mean, after all? If Jesus died so that those in
him do not have to die,
then why do those in him have to die physically? Did Jesus’
substitutionary physical death do no good? Or, has no believer has
ever entered fully into the benefit of his substitutionary death?
It will do no good to say
that resurrection delivers man out of
death, after
man dies! Death is the penalty of sin:
“The wages of sin is death.” Thus, the physical death of even the
most faithful Christian is proof positive that the Christian was
still under “the strength of sin,” and has not experienced
deliverance from sin, if
physical death is “the immediate result of sin”!
The bottom line is that
if Jesus’ physical death was
substitutionary,
as Kurt says,
then people of faith should never
die physically.
This is logically inescapable, and reveals just
part of the problem with Kurt’s theology.
Kurt claims that
“sin was defeated in Christ’s cross.” It was actually “the law of
sin and death” (not
Torah itself!)
that was nailed to the cross. He says forgiveness of sin was
objectively applied from then. Well, if sin brings physical death,
then if sin was defeated and those of faith were (or are)
objectively forgiven of sin,
then why does man have to die physically?
Forgiveness is the removal of that which kills,
is it not?
So, if sin brings physical death, but, a person
is completely forgiven, with no sin in
their life, why does that person still
experience physical death, Kurt?
If, as you say, Christ nailed the law of sin and death to the cross,
then why are Christians still subject to the
law of sin and death?
My friend’s view logically
demands that the physical death of even the most faithful Christian
is a powerful testimony to the lack of forgiveness in their life.
Kurt even says that if the Christian sins, “he comes again under the
power of sin and death” (S-P, Sept. 09).
Thus,
physical death is the indisputable proof that
the Christian is under the power of sin!
And, since that physical death is the
final testimony of the power of sin,
this logically demands
that that person is
lost, for the
final act in their life was not
forgiveness, but
the imposition of the law of sin and death:
i.e. you sin, you die! The believer’s
physical death proves,
indisputably, that
they were not objectively forgiven, for they died a sinner’s death!
So, exactly how did Jesus nail the law of sin and death to the
cross, Kurt?
Summary and Conclusion
I have demonstrated
prima facie, that
Kurt has mis-applied the Greek past tenses, by ignoring the
transitional work of the Holy Spirit as
the guarantee of the finished work of salvation,
and by ignoring the present tenses and the future tenses of the work
of salvation.
He is guilty of mis-representing the present and future tenses,
actually claiming that they are past tense applications.
I have shown indisputably
that covenant transition was not complete at the cross. I have even
shown from Kurt’s own hand that Torah
was not nailed to the cross! Do not miss
that!
I have shown that every
tenet listed by Kurt is inextricably bound to the hope of Israel and
the fulfillment of God’s OT promises to her. Those promises were to
arrive at the end of her age in AD 70: “These be the days of
vengeance in which all things that are written must be fulfilled”
(Luke 21:22).
I have demonstrated that
the Cross is to the parousia what the foundation is to the finished
structure of a house (cf. Ephesians 2:19f again).
I have shown from Isaiah 59 that the coming of the Lord of Romans
11:26f cannot be referent to the cross. Kurt has not breathed on
this argument.
I have shown that Kurt’s
position on sin, death and resurrection is false and logically
demands that Christ’s death has accomplished nothing at all,
even for Christians,
since all men, just like Adam, suffer the consequences of the law of
sin and death.
Do not miss what Kurt said
in his last negative: “We must be careful not to let our hermeneutic
drive
our interpretation of scripture.”
But, if there was ever a case of a presuppositional hermeneutic
driving interpretation, it is Kurt. 1.) He denied that we need to be
concerned with the “proper exegesis” of Isaiah 27. 2.) He has
eschewed the use of logic. 3.) He has made
historically unprecedented arguments.
4.) He has repeatedly changed his arguments when caught in
self-contradiction. 5.) He has abused the Greek tenses–
contradicting what he has written in his books. 6.) He has admitted,
fatally, that the Mosaic law was not
nailed to the Cross! 7.) He has ignored
the fundamental connection between the fulfillment of Israel’s
salvation promises- and salvation for Gentiles
flowing from that-- and the parousia.
Kurt says the debate, like
a ball game, should be called. The trouble is, that for a game to be
called a team has to score some points, and Kurt has not even gotten
to first base! He has in fact, struck out.
Kurt’s first affirmative reminds me of a
dispensational debate I witnessed. The Zionist read passage
after passage that foretold the kingdom, the wolf laying down
with the lamb, turning swords into plowshares, etc.. No
exegesis. As he sat down he said, “That is my position!” So it
is with Kurt. He lists some 88 verses that speak of
justification, grace, salvation, etc, and says “This proves my
position!” No exegesis, no exposition, and of course, no proof
for his proposition!
KURT AND THE COMMENTATORS
Kurt has made a great deal of his false
claim that no commentator has ever applied Isaiah 27 to AD 70. I
have not addressed this because
I am concerned with scripture, not
commentators. But, do any commentators apply Isaiah 27 to AD 70?
Matthew Henry says Jesus referred to it when speaking
of the unfruitful vine being burned up, and it was fulfilled,
“in a particular manner in the unbelieving Jews.” John Gill
and Albert Barnes applied Isaiah 27 to the second coming.
Adam Clarke says that Matthew 24:31 anticipated the
fulfilment of Isaiah 27:13. So, commentators do apply Isaiah
27 to AD 70 and the second coming! So much for Kurt’s appeal
to the commentators!
ISAIAH 27
It just keeps getting more confusing as we
read my friend’s attempt to explain why Paul cited Isaiah 27. He
now claims that when he said that Paul cited Isaiah 27 along
with Isaiah 59 that he was relating what most commentators say (Sword
and Plow, Sept, 2009). This is not true!
He said not one word to indicate that he was
relating what the commentators- as opposed to Kurt-- say about
Romans 11 and Isaiah 27. He was patently admitting that
Paul cited Isaiah 27. But now, when that admission backfires on
him, he claims that Paul was not referring to Isaiah 27! (But
remember, virtually all commentators disagree with him,
and he even admits it)!
And now, my friend tries a totally new
approach– his fourth position on Isaiah 26-27! He
says Isaiah 27:10f is not related to the coming of the Lord of
26:20f, which he now, belatedly, admits again
applies to AD 70. And this after saying that Isaiah 26 has
“nothing” to do with AD 70! So, he said that Isaiah 26:20f
could apply to AD 70. Then he denied it. Now, he
admits it!
He says Isaiah 27:9f has nothing to do with
26:10f because Isaiah supposedly changes his subject, over, and
over, and over again, all within a few verses. Not so!
Notice that the destruction of Leviathan (27:1) would be “in
that day” the Day of the Lord when the Lord would avenge the
blood of the martyrs (26:20-21). Kurt says 26:20f can be AD
70, but that 27:1 must be the destruction of Assyria. No,
27:1 is the Day of 26:20f that he admits is AD 70! But
notice, that “in that day” is likewise the time of Israel’s
salvation at her judgment and the sounding of the Great Trumpet
(27:10-13). The references to “in that day” falsify Kurt’s
desperate claim that Isaiah constantly changes the subject.
Thankfully, Isaiah was not as disorganized as Kurt suggests.
Finally– Isaiah 59!
Do you see what my friend has done? I tried
for three presentations to get Kurt to address Isaiah 59.
He said my only “relevant” argument was on Isaiah 27 (which he
now denies has any relevance)! Now
he says that Isaiah 59 is the only relevant text. Yet he ignored
Isaiah 59 until his last negative, and makes some new
arguments.
KS– “The coming in Rom. 11 is taken, not
from Isa. 27, but Isa. 59!
That's right!
"The Redeemer shall come to Zion" is from Isa. 59:20, 21.
Isa. 27 is not quoted in Rom. 11 in connection with a "coming"
at all.” Kurt cites Jamieson, Fausett and Brown (JFB) for
support, (Note: JFB do not deny a connection with Isaiah
27. They simply do not mention it). But notice the
following about JFB: 1.) They apply Isaiah 27 (JFB, p.
541) and Romans 11:26 to the second coming– contra Kurt.
2.) They say Isaiah 27 / Romans 11 speaks of a yet future
conversion of ethnic Israel, and they say that those
(like Kurt) who reject this view
do “great violence” to the text! 3.) They apply
Isaiah 59 and Jeremiah 31 to the second coming– contra Kurt.
So, Kurt selectively argues from what they do not say,
and rejects what they do say, yet claims they agree with him!
But, let’s look closer at Kurt’s admission that Paul quotes
Isaiah 59. He was silent about the arguments I have made, so,
let me refresh the reader’s memory.
In Isaiah 59 YHVH accused Israel of
shedding innocent blood and violence (v. 1-8). The Lord saw
Israel in her sinful condition and, “His own arm brought
salvation for Him; and His own righteousness, it sustained Him
for He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of
salvation on His head; He put on the garments of vengeance for
His clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak. According to
their deeds, accordingly He will repay, Fury to His adversaries,
Recompense to His enemies.” Isaiah 59 predicted the salvation
of Israel at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for
her guilt in shedding innocent blood.
Please catch the power of Kurt’s admission
that Paul is citing Isaiah 59. Kurt says of Romans 11: a.)
The coming of the Lord is referent to the cross, not AD 70.
b.) Israel is not OC
Israel, but the church. c.) The salvation is referent to
the conversion of Jews and Gentiles throughout the Christian
age. However...
The coming of the Lord
for salvation, in Romans 11:26-27, is the coming of the Lord
predicted in Isaiah 59– Kurt Simmons now agreeing!
But, the coming of the
Lord of Isaiah 59 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of
Israel for shedding innocent blood. (It is not a
prediction of the cross, or the salvation of the church
throughout time).
Therefore, the coming of the Lord for salvation in Romans
11:26-27, is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for
shedding innocent blood. (Which
was in AD 70-Matthew 23).
[This was the ONLY coming for vengeance???? What about the
coming in the Assyrians, Babylonians, etc]
Nothing
in Isaiah 59 even
remotely resembles Kurt’s view of Romans 11!
Nothing! Yet,
Isaiah is, Kurt now agreeing,
the source of Paul’s prediction in Romans 11:26. Kurt must
explain
why Paul cited a prophecy that had
nothing whatsoever to do with the subject he was discussing, in
order to validate what he was discussing.
Kurt has refused to answer this
because he cannot answer this.
Yet, his admission that the coming of Romans 11 is the coming of
Isaiah 59 is 100% fatal
to his new theology. His admission
proves that all of the verses in Kurt’s first affirmative must
speak of a process begun,
but a process to be perfected
at the Second Coming.
My affirmative proposition is established by Kurt’s fatal
admission.
ENTRANCE INTO THE MHP
I asked: What is the one thing that
prevented man from entering the MHP– He refused to answer.
I asked: If the destruction of Jerusalem
was irrelevant to man’s spiritual justification, and the saints
were perfected prior to that event,
why did the saints have to wait until AD 70 to enter the MHP?
He refused to answer
because he has no answer.
Kurt threw up a cloud
of dust about the time of reformation.
His admission that the time of reformation was not completed
until AD 70, when the saints could
enter the MHP is fatal
to his rejection of Covenant Eschatology.
Note Kurt’s ever
shifting position on the time of reformation: He said it began
at the cross, (but man could not objectively enter the MHP). He
then said that the time of reformation was
completed in AD
70 with the completion of the Spirit’s work. But
now, he
says the time of reformation
ended (it was not perfected) in
AD 70!
Hebrews 9:6-10– If the time of reformation fully arrived at the cross as Kurt originally contended, man should have begun to actually enter the MHP, from that point. But, no, Kurt tells us man could not truly enter the MHP until AD 70! Kurt admitted, and I agree, “When the gifts of the Spirit ceased, the time of reformation was complete and not before.” (My emp., DKP). But, realizing the fatal nature of this admission, Kurt now says: “The time of reformation ended in AD 70.” (My emp., DKP) Do you see the problem? On the one hand he correctly says the time of reformation was completed in AD 70. But that is self-destructive, so he now says the time of reformation terminated in AD 70. This is a blatantly self contradictory.
Hebrews 9 says there could be no
entrance into the MHP until the
arrival–not
termination-
of the time of reformation. The
time of reformation began at the Cross– and was guaranteed by
the Spirit-- but was not perfected until AD 70. And,
there was no true entrance into the MHP
until AD 70 (KS). If the time of
reformation ended
in AD 70, Kurt,
then man could
never enter
the MHP, and
the time for man to enter the MHP ended
without so much as one person ever entering the MHP!
Man could not, per Kurt, enter before AD 70. But, per his
newest
position, the time of reformation (when man could
supposedly
enter) terminated,
in AD 70! Kurt has hopelessly entangled himself.
I have focused on the
time of reformation because it is in some respects, what this
debate is about. So, let me reiterate my argument, which Kurt
has totally ignored, and which he must ignore:
Kurt admits that there
was no entrance
into the MHP at the
initiation of the reformation,
i.e. at the cross.
Entrance came only when the time of
reformation– the work of grace– was completed, at the parousia.
Now watch as we apply this to the
atonement:
Kurt offered another
syllogism. Unfortunately for him, his efforts fail. Here is his
self-contradictory argument:
No man
could enter the Holy of Holies until the atonement was complete.
But the
Holy of Holies was a figure for the New Testament and gospel.
The
New Testament was of force from and after the cross.
Therefore,
The
atonement was complete and man could enter (legally and
covenantally) the Holy of Holies from and after the cross.
Those who have been
paying attention to this debate will see instantly that Kurt
has, once again, changed his
position and destroyed his own
argument.
Kurt–
“No man could enter the Holy of Holies
until the atonement was complete.”
(Amen, brother! This is a fatal
admission).
Kurt–
“I never said the saints entered heaven (The MHP, Revelation
15:8, DKP) before AD 70!”
Therefore, the
atonement was not completed until AD 70!
ATTENTION! Did you notice Kurt’s shift from the MHP being
heaven
to being
the New Covenant?
He
has changed theological positions
again!
Watch this.
No man
could enter the MHP while Torah remained binding (Hebrews 9:9f)
The MHP
represented the New Covenant (Kurt’s New Position).
But, no
man could enter the MHP until AD 70 (Revelation 15:8-KS
supposedly agrees).
Therefore, Torah remained binding and no man could enter the New
Covenant until AD 70.
Kurt has re-embraced
Covenant Eschatology!
Kurt’s desperate attempt to radically redefine the MHP from his
earlier position backfires on him.
Kurt says: “The
atonement was complete and man could enter (legally and
covenantally) the Holy of Holies from and after the cross.
This is sophistry.
If man was “covenantally” able to enter the MHP (But, what
proof did Kurt offer?) then man should have been able to
objectively
enter the MHP! It was
covenant that prevented objective
entrance (Hebrews 9:6f).
Therefore, if the New Covenant was completed prior to AD 70,
then man should have been able–
objectively– to enter the MHP! This
is irrefutable.
Yet, Kurt admits: “I never said the saints entered heaven before
AD 70!” Furthermore, Kurt (ostensibly) understands that the New
Covenant, while established by
Jesus’ death (Galatians 3:15) was
not fully revealed and confirmed through the Spirit’s ministry
until AD 70! This is called
covenantal transition.
So, Kurt adamantly
tells us that he has “never” said that man could enter the MHP
before AD 70. Now of course, he has
changed horses again, saying that
the MHP was the New Covenant and that man was fully in the New
Covenant before AD 70! Yet, he still (?) says man could not
objectively
enter the MHP until AD 70! Confused? You
should be.
The truth is that man
could not enter the MHP while Torah
remained valid.
Torah would remain valid until man
could
enter the MHP at the time of reformation.
Thus, Torah ended when the time of reformation was completed,
and man could enter the MHP, in AD 70. Kurt has surrendered his
objection to the initiation
of grace, salvation and covenant
transition.
He has unwittingly affirmed Covenant
Eschatology. So, once again:
There
could be no access to the MHP as long as Torah remained binding
(Hebrews 9).
But,
man could not enter the MHP until AD 70 (Kurt Simmons).
Therefore, Torah remained binding until AD 70.
This is the
correct use of
logic and the argument is indisputable.
The Triumph of Grace
Over Law,
and the so-called “Mysterious” Negative
Power of Torah
My friend expends a
great deal of steam on grace triumphing over law. He simply
reiterates his claims, with no exegesis, and then, amazingly,
makes the following statements: “Don states ‘removal
of Torah was essential for man’s justification after all!’”
(emphasis in original). Don states, “Torah had to end in order
for forgiveness, entrance into the MHP and life to become
realities!” Dear reader, we deny this totally and
emphatically. The law was taken away, not so grace could
enter in, but because it was a mere schoolmaster to
bring us to Christ; it was a system of types and shadows
pointing to Jesus.” Then, in some of his more amazing
comments, my friend adds this: “There is
nothing in the
temple ritual or anywhere
in the law that can forestall God’s grace in Jesus Christ.
NOTHING.
Law doesn’t prevent grace, it
invites it!
The inability of Torah to forgive in
no way implies it also possessed a negative power to prevent or
forestall forgiveness of sin!
What is Don’s proof of this
“mysterious “negative power”?
He has none!”
Readers, here is the
crux of the matter, and the problem with Kurt’s new theology. It
is in flagrant denial of the Biblical text and manifest
demonstration of my friend’s abuse of logic. Follow...
A.)
Kurt sets up a false dichotomy. He says that Torah had no
negative power, for it was “a mere schoolmaster.” So, per Kurt,
Torah could not exercise negative power by being the
schoolmaster; it was either
a schoolmaster or a negative power. It
could not be both! This is an abuse of logic.
B.)
Kurt says removal of Torah was not necessary for grace to enter.
But wait, Torah was to bring man to “the faith” and Christ, and
would endure until then. So, Torah
was a schoolmaster until the arrival of grace!
Yet, Kurt says no,
it was just a schoolmaster
and not a negative power, although
according to Paul, as a schoolmaster,
it was given to make sin abound, it brought death, it could not
deliver from death, and could not provide forgiveness and grace.
C.)
Kurt emphatically denies that Torah had negative power.
Hebrews says as long as Torah remained, there was no
forgiveness. Kurt says this is not a
negative power, “forestalling forgiveness and grace.” I will
stand with scripture on this.
D.)
Kurt says Torah had no power to prevent entrance into the MHP.
Hebrews 9 says as long as Torah stood, there could be no
entrance into the MHP. I will stand
with scripture on this.
Has my friend
forgotten what Hebrews 9:6-10 says, or is he simply willing to
deny what it says?
Why could man not
enter the MHP? What does the inspired text
say, Kurt?
As long as Torah stood binding, there was no entrance into the
MHP!
Torah had the negative power to prevent
entrance to the presence of God!
Torah had no power to forgive,
thus, no power to bring man into the presence of God.
That sure sounds like a negative power to
me! What is so “mysterious” about
that? It is what the text says. So...
As long
as Torah remained binding, there was no forgiveness of sin, no
entrance into the MHP (Hebrews 9:6-10).
No
entrance into the MHP until AD 70– KS (ostensibly) teaches this
truth.
Therefore, Torah remained binding and there was no objective
forgiveness until AD 70!
Kurt’s new theology
however, denies this and sees no relationship between Torah,
lack of forgiveness and entrance into the MHP. He claims now
that removal of Torah was not even necessary for grace to
triumph over law! Did you catch
that? If removal of Torah was not
necessary for grace to triumph over law,
then removal of Torah was not necessary to
bring forgiveness, and entrance into the MHP, Kurt!
Let me remind you again of Kurt’s
total silence in the face of
these questions.
Kurt claimed that
removal of Torah had nothing
to do with Paul’s soteriology, and
now claims it
had no negative power “to prevent or forestall forgiveness.”
(Kurt, where are your commentators in support of this new
theology?) I offered the following
and urged the readers to watch for Kurt’s answer.
We are all still waiting for his response.
Torah was the
ministration of death (2 Corinthians
3:6f). Kurt, did the deliverance from the ministration of death,
to the ministration of life have
nothing to do with soteriology? If
Torah was a ministration of death, was death, empowered by
Torah, not a negative power?
Paul said Torah could
not deliver from the law of sin and death
(Romans 8:1-3). He said Christ does deliver
from that law! Did the deliverance
from the law of sin and death have nothing to do with
forgiveness? Was being under the
power of the law of sin and death not a negative power, Kurt?
Come now, my friend, please
answer the question.
Paul said Torah
killed, “The commandment came, sin revived, I died” “sin,
working death in me by that which is good...became exceedingly
sinful” (Romans 7:13). Kurt, are
these positive, or negative aspects of Torah?
Torah could not give
life or righteousness (Galatians
3:20-21). Did deliverance from that law, to the covenant that
gives life and righteousness have
nothing to
do with salvation?
Paul said those under
Torah were under “the curse”
(Galatians 2-3). Did deliverance from that curse had nothing to
do with redemption? Was the curse of
Torah a negative power, Kurt?
There was no
forgiveness under Torah. There would
be forgiveness when Torah ended at
the time of reformation. Is
forgiveness related to soteriology?
Is unforgiven sin positive or negative, Kurt?
There was no entrance
into the MHP under Torah; there
would be entrance into the MHP at the end of Torah, the time of
reformation. Is entrance into the
MHP related to salvation, Kurt?
Hebrews 9 is Covenant
Eschatology, anyway you want to look at it.
Torah had to end in order for forgiveness,
entrance into the MHP and life to become realities! End of Torah
= Covenant Eschatology; End of Torah = Salvation! Kurt can
ridicule this, but it will not change the indisputable facts as
specifically stated by inspiration. Hebrews 9:6f stands as an
insurmountable bulwark against
Kurt’s insistence that Torah was removed at the Cross.
Furthermore, his admission that man could not, after all, enter
the MHP until AD 70 is an open admission of my position.
DANIEL 12– THE POWER OF
THE HOLY PEOPLE
My friend’s
desperation manifested itself for all to see in his “response”
to my question. He says
that
Israel’s “power” (Daniel 12:7) was the identical power as the
pagan nations. This is astounding!
YHVH always said that His special covenant relationship with
Israel was totally distinctive. When
He gave them Torah He said, “If you
will indeed keep my covenant then you will be a special treasure
to me above all the people; for all the earth is mine, and you
shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus
19:5-6). In Deuteronomy 26:18-19, at the second giving of the
Law, God said, “Today the Lord has proclaimed you to be His
special people, just as He promised you, so that you should keep
His commands. In
Psalms 147:19-20 God said, “He gave
His statutes to Jacob. He has not done so with any nation”! In
spite of all of this– and much more could be added– Kurt tells
us that Israel’s power was not her covenant with YHVH. In fact,
Israel was just like the pagans in regard to her power.
This argument is manifest demonstration of the desperation and
falsity of Kurt’s position.
To deny that Israel’s power,
her only power,
was her covenant with God is patently false.
And since
Daniel posits the destruction of the power of Israel at AD 70,
this is irrefutable proof that Torah remained valid until AD 70.
This is Covenant Eschatology.
TRANSFIGURATION
Kurt claims that the
Transfiguration was a vision of
Jesus’ first appearing, not the
second coming. He says the Transfiguration was not about
covenant contrast and transition.
Response:
First,
Kurt’s argument is virtually unprecedented in the entire history
of Christian commentary which agrees that the Transfiguration
was a vision of Christ’s second coming.
2.) Peter was
not writing against those who denied Jesus’ incarnation, but his
second coming (2 Peter 3:3). 3.)
Peter wanted to establish three equal tabernacles. God would not
allow it. This is a covenant
contrast.
4.) The Voice
said of Jesus “This is my beloved Son, hear him.” In the Greek,
the “hear him” is literally “Him,
hear!”, and is in the emphatic, meaning that
in contrast to Moses and Elijah,
Jesus is to be heard. 5.)
Moses and Elijah vanish away, at the voice
that says of Jesus “Him hear!”Yet, Kurt eschews the text,
rejects the virtually unanimous testimony of the commentaries,
and says he “feels” that it is not
about covenant contrast, or Jesus’ second coming. No, the
Transfiguration is about the
covenantal transition from Moses to Christ,
and it was a vision of the second coming.
The Transfiguration is therefore,
all about Covenant Eschatology.
Passing of Torah–
Subjective and Objective
Kurt makes one of the
most illogical “arguments” a person will ever read. He claims
that when Paul said, “you have become dead to the Law through
the body of Christ” that this actually means that
the Law itself had died! This is
like saying that when a person gets a divorce that the entire
institution of marriage is destroyed! Watch the following
illustration.
For decades the Berlin
Wall stood as a barrier to freedom. East Berliners longed to
escape the oppressive communist law. Now, Kurt, when someone
managed to escape from East Berlin into the West (prior to the
fall of the “Wall”) did that mean
that East Berlin communism was dead?
Patently not. The
individual who
escaped had died to communism!
Just like Paul said those coming into Christ through baptism had
died to the Law through the body
of Christ! (Incidentally, Kurt
claims I ignored Romans 7:4.
Not true. I
appealed
to Romans 7!) Paul did not say Torah
had died. Just so, in 2 Corinthians 3:10f, Paul said that
when a person turned to Christ,
the veil of Torah was removed for them.
He did not say Torah had passed. Huge difference! This is what
Paul affirms in Ephesians 2, Colossians 2, etc...
When a person, through faith, entered into the power of the
cross,
they died to the Law!
Kurt admits this in his first affirmative! But when a person
died to the Law, the Law did not die. The NT speaks of the
objective passing of the Law itself, however.
ATTENTION!!
Kurt admits that Colossians 2:14f
does not say that Torah was
nailed to the Cross: “What was
nailed to the cross? Not the Mosiac (sic) law, but the sentence
of the law (the law of sin and death) condemning the
transgression of men” (Sept. 09, S-P- And first affirmative).
Folks, this is fatal!
If Colossians 2 does not (and it
doesn’t) say
that Torah was nailed to the Cross, then no passage does, and
Kurt has admitted that it doesn’t!
Note his contradiction:
Torah was
not
nailed to the cross.
His proposition:
Torah ended at the cross! There is no way to reconcile Kurt’s
self-contradiction. He has
totally surrendered his proposition. Do not fail to catch this!
In Hebrews 8:13, Paul
says that the Covenant
–not some already dead outward form of the
Law– was “nigh unto passing.” In chapter 12:25f– the heaven and
earth of the Old Covenant had not yet passed, but was
about to be removed.
Furthermore, Jesus did say that not one jot or one tittle of the
law could pass until it was all fulfilled, and
even the ceremonial aspects of Torah had
not yet been fulfilled,
since Paul said those ceremonial sacrifices remained, when he
wrote Colossians and Hebrews, “shadows of good things about to
come” (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 10:1-4).
Torah, objectively speaking,
had not been done away. This is why
there was still no access to the MHP until AD 70.
As long as Torah remained valid,
there was no access to the MHP,
and Kurt admits
there was no entrance into the MHP
until AD 70. This is Covenant
Eschatology validated and proven.
In Kurt’s first
affirmative he desperately argues, falsely, that God could not
have two systems in force at the same time.
Kurt, did God have two systems in place when He gave Torah to
Israel, but not to the pagans?
Were there two “systems” in
place when John preached the baptism of repentance and faith in
the coming of Messiah, while the Temple cultus was still in
effect? John’s baptism was not Torah “baptism!” And consider
Galatians 4.22f. Paul, anticipated the yet future casting out of
the bondwoman– which he says was the
Old Covenant and her seed–
for persecuting the Christians.
The allegory has the two sons
dwelling in the same house, but
Ishmael was cast out for persecuting Isaac. And Paul said “as it
was then, even so it is now.” Paul said the Old Covenant and
seed would be cast out for
persecuting Christians. But,
there were no Christians before the
Cross! It is therefore
irrefutably true that the two
sons dwelt together while the seed of the flesh persecuted the
Seed of promise and was then
cast out.
Torah and Israel were not cast out at the cross. This is
Covenant Eschatology.
Kurt’s essential argument that two systems could not temporarily
co-exist is false.
Was Jesus’
Resurrection the Proof of the Completion of the Atonement?
Kurt says: “Will Don
deny Jesus died under imputation of sin?
Will he deny he was raised
justified, free from imputation of sin (Rom. 6:7, 10)?
But if Christ was justified from the
imputation of sin at his resurrection, it is clear that his
blood was received by God within the veil
before his
ascension, and that can only mean it was received by God
at his death.”
Response:
Kurt is so desperate to prove his position that he continues to
invent
historically unprecedented arguments.
Kurt, give us some commentary support for your idea that Jesus
had to be justified from the sin of others!
1.) Kurt argues as he does because of his historically unprecedented argument that Jesus had to enter the MHP twice (He said Christ “legally” pierced the veil, (that is once), and then entered the MHP at his ascension. That is twice). In this view, Christ’s ascension and entrance into the MHP was legally unnecessary, since the work of atonement was finished when he “legally pierced the veil” while hanging on the cross! Kurt, where are the commentators who agree your unprecedented argument?
To receive Kurt Simmons’ e-mail newsletter, The Sword & The Plow, click the Subscribe link:
All rights reserved.