Preston- V -Simmons
When Was Sin Defeated? AD 70 or the Cross?
Simmons' Third Negative
Simmons' Third Negative
“Be not carried about with diverse
and strange doctrines.”
Heb. 13:9
Truth of Preterism, Falsity of
Covenant Eschatology
In opening my third negative, let me state that, despite my disagreement with Don about “Covenant Eschatology,” I remain fully convinced of the truth of Preterism. Preterism can be demonstrated by an abundance of proofs from both the scriptures and early church fathers. Origen (AD 185–254), the most learned and illustrious of the early fathers said:
We do not deny,
then, that the purificatory fire and the destruction of the world
took place in order that evil might be swept away, and all things be
renewed; for we assert that we have learned these things from the
sacred books of the prophets…And anyone who likes may convict this
statement of falsehood, if it be not the case that the whole Jewish
nation was overthrown within one single generation after Jesus had
undergone these sufferings at their hands. For forty and two
years, I think after the date of the crucifixion of Jesus, did the
destruction of
Origen was
almost certainly a Preterist; he could not make this statement
otherwise. Another early
Christian writer who was a Preterist is Eusebius of Caesarea (AD
263–339), whose works are widely known and cited both in and out of
Preterist circles. The
Preterism of these and other early Christian writers establish
Preterism as an interpretative method entitled to its place among
respected scholarship. However, Covenant Eschatology is another
thing entirely.
Preterism traces its roots to the earliest history of the church and
has been present in every age since, but Covenant Eschatology is
new, whipped up by the imagination of Max King less than 40 years
ago. The Mormons started
in the 1830’s. The
Seventh Day Adventists date from about 1840’s.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses date from about 1887-1912.
Covenant Eschatology dates from the 1970’s.
The very newness of the doctrine is its own repudiation.
Can Covenant Eschatology truly claim a rightful place in the
“faith once delivered to the saints” when it is so totally new and
unprecedented in its basic doctrines?
Where was it ever heard in all of Christendom and its 2,000
years that the saints were under the law until AD 70? Where was it
ever heard or taught that justification from sin was postponed until
the asserted removal of the law AD 70? We find Preterism present
from the very start, but Covenant Eschatology? Never! This should
raise for us a warning flag, for what is new in things Christian
is invariably false.
It is a
general rule that the one thing that makes any particular sect
unique in Christendom is often the one thing that is wrong.
Seventh Day Adventists claim E.G. White was a latter day
prophet and that Sabbath and dietary restrictions of the law are
still binding. These are what make Adventists unique within
Christendom, and it is these very things that are patently false.
Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the divinity of Christ, claim it is
unlawful to receive blood transfusions, to celebrate birthdays or to
vote. These things make them unique, and each of these is manifestly
false. Covenant Eschatology claims the law was still valid after the
cross, that the saints continued under bondage to sin, and were not
justified until the law was allegedly removed until AD 70. These are
the things that make Covenant Eschatology unique and these are the
very things that make it false.
As proof of
the very real danger the error of Covenant Eschatology presents, we
need only look to its author, Max King.
It is no secret or coincidence that King is now the teacher
of a false gospel; King’s “Presence Ministries” preaches
Universalism by which all men are allegedly saved without faith,
without repentance, without confession, without
baptism, and without the cross.
The seeds of King’s error appeared early on.
Jim McGuiggan commented upon King’s tendency to Universalism
in their debate in the early 1970’s (p. 111). Consider this comment
from King’s debate with McGuiggan (emphasis in original):
“The sting of
death was SIN.
But WHAT was the STRENGTH of sin? Paul said “the
Law.” The victory is obtained through God’s making…a new
creation… where sin has strength no longer. Hence, the sting of
death is removed forever.”
McGuiggan/King Debate, p. 98.
Notice, that at the very point
where King should have said, the victory was obtained through the
cross; instead the victory is attributed to removal of the law!
The cross is displaced by AD 70!
As King said in his later work, ““The defeat of sin is
tied to the annulment of the old aeon of law...death is abolished
when the state of sin and the law are abolished.”
(Max R. King, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ, p.
644, emphasis added). Sin is defeated by removal of the law?
What?!!! What happened to the cross?!!!
Notice also the latent seeds of Universalism inherent in this
thought, where the asserted removal of the law disarmed the power of
sin and death. If the law condemned all men, and if the law was
removed for all men, then all men are freed from condemnation of sin
by the law. Voila!
Universalism!
Compare King’s statement with the words of Tim King, Max’s son, 30
years later:
“Simply stated,
man is changed because his world changed. Man is reconciled to God
because he no longer lives under the rule of sin and death as
determined by the Mosaic world. Through the gift of Christ he dwells
in a world of righteousness and life. The issue is cosmic and
corporate, not individual and limited” (Tim King, Comprehensive
Grace, 2005).
Notice that
King says reconciliation is not individual, but cosmic and
corporate, viz., universal.
All men are under grace and “dwell in a world of
righteousness and life.”
Notice also that the cross is totally away from King’s
“Comprehensive Grace” (as he calls it).
Man is not saved because the cross of Christ brought grace.
He does not say, “Man is reconciled because of the death, burial,
and resurrection of Christ.” No! Man is saved because the Mosaic law
was taken away!
Reconciliation did not happen at
Yet,
notwithstanding the obvious danger “Covenant Eschatology” presents
and its established record of leading men into serious error
and eternal peril, Don has clung tenaciously to it.
Don once wrote, “You cannot teach a doctrine without
implications. And if the
implications are dangerous, then the doctrine is dangerous.”
(Elements, p. 244).
Somewhat ironically, when he said this Don was writing
against Universalism among Preterists!
Covenant Eschatology is the very fount and source of
Universalism among Preterists!
How can Don possibly defend it?
Don, the Cross, and
Torah’s Mysterious “Negative Power”
We have
repeatedly charged that Covenant Eschatology overthrows the cross of
Christ. We have repeatedly stated that the cross has dropped out of
Don’s system of soteriology. We stated
“If the
cross did not triumph over the law at Calvary, if man had to
wait until the law was removed to be justified from sin, then
nothing happened at the cross.
This is the long and short of Don’s teaching: nothing
happened at the cross.”
There could
be no more serious charge leveled at the gospel preacher than to
accuse him of overthrowing the cross.
If there was any topic in this debate Don should have been
zealous to vindicate and explain it is the accusation that Covenant
Eschatology overthrows the Savior’s cross.
Let the reader take note that despite repeated invitations,
Don has absolutely refused to give us an explanation of what
happened at the cross. Why?
How difficult could it be?
I could do it; the reader could do it; any Christian could do
it. Why won’t Don?
Clearly, it is because the cross and Covenant Eschatology are
mutually exclusive systems, and to affirm the one is to deny the
other. I know Don loves and honors the cross in his heart. But when
the two systems are laid side by side, they cannot be reconciled.
All that Christianity and the scripture normally associate
with the cross, Covenant Eschatology attributes to AD 70.
Covenant Eschatology spiritualizes the resurrection and makes it equal with justification. Therefore, it cannot acknowledge that the debt of sin was extinguished (“blotted out” – Col. 2:14) at the cross, for that would not allow for a spiritualized resurrection in AD 70. Preterism simply states that the souls in Hades were received into heaven in AD 70, and therefore offers no violence to the cross. But the spiritualized resurrection of Max King and Don, which keeps man under the debt of sin until AD 70, must relocate justification and atonement, and to do so they must take from the cross. This is why Don has studiously sought to avoid discussion of the cross in this debate; he cannot credit anything to the cross without first taking something away from Covenant Eschatology. Consider the chart below: all that appears in the column under Covenant Eschatology, Christianity and scripture historically ascribe to the cross. Covenant Eschatology leaves the column below the cross completely empty. If this charge is false, then let Don place beneath the cross any item on the list. I think we will find that that there is nothing on the list Don is willing to say arrived or happened at the cross.
|
Don answered our question
scripturally in his second affirmative, saying the cross triumphed
over the law. But he
takes it back in his third affirmative when he argues that the law
was valid and imposed until AD 70 and had to be independently
removed before grace could enter!
(Don never did explain to us how the cross could triumph
over the law, and not triumph over it at the same time. If the law
still held man under the debt of sin after the cross, there
obviously was no triumph!)
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.
Once Jesus was come, there was no further utility in the
Mosaic system; it had served its provisional need and purpose and so
was annulled.
Nothing more or less.
That the law had to be removed
for grace to enter is very serious error. Don states
“Torah…prevented man from entering the MHP due to its inability to
forgive.” According to Don, “the negative power of Torah was such
(in its failure to provide forgiveness) that as long as it stood, no
one could enter the MHP!”
Read that again. Why does Don insist that Torah had to be
removed before grace could enter?
BECAUSE TORAH COULD NOT FORGIVE!
According to Don, it possessed some mysterious “negative
power” that forestalled grace and the cross of Christ!
Don, how does the inability of Torah to forgive prevent
the addition of grace?
Explain that for us, please!
What is the mysterious “negative power” you mention?
We deserve your explanation on this.
I will gladly ignore that you have produced even a single
verse showing the Old Testament was valid after the cross, and give
you a fourth affirmative to explain for us what this
mysterious “negative power” is. So, by all means, please provide us
with this information.
Moreover, please explain how the animal sacrifices, dietary
restrictions, and other items of the law could forestall the atoning
power of Christ’s blood?
What is there in the continuing temple ritual that allegedly
over-powered Jesus’ sacrifice and prevented it from providing
forgiveness of sins until it was taken away?
Dear reader, this is the whole
debate right here. If
Don cannot provide some lucid, rational explanation from scripture
about this mysterious “negative power” in Torah that prevented the
power of Christ’s cross from bringing grace until Torah was
allegedly removed in AD 70, then you must know his proposition is
lost. Don MUST explain
this. He said it; so he obviously has something in mind, and we are
giving him a whole fourth affirmative for our edification and
instruction. Preterism
must settle this issue of Max Kingism once and for all so it free
itself of these errors and move on.
Will Don accept?
Dare he refuse?
Dear reader, obviously, 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! The
whole concept is just one more bare assertion by Don without one
“book, chapter, and verse” to back it up.
To the contrary, grace triumphed over law.
It is the addition of grace that saves us, not removal of the law.
Proof of this is seen in the moral law and the law of sin and
death (“the wages of sin is death” Rom. 6:23).
The moral law and law of sin and death have
never been removed. Sin is
as much condemned by God’s moral law today as it ever was!
Fornication, adultery, theft, and murder are as unlawful,
sinful, and condemned by God today as under the law of Moses.
This has never changed and never will!
Don, is it unlawful and sinful today to murder, rape or
commit incest? Of course
it is! Were these laws
codified and part of the law of Moses? Yes, of course they were.
Did these laws exist before Moses. Yes. Do they exist now;
did removal of the law of Moses remove these laws? No, of course
not. Does God’s law
condemning immorality and sin prevent men from finding grace in
Christ today? God forbid, may it never be!
The very fact that the moral law (much of which was codified
by Moses) continues to condemn today, but men can find forgiveness
proves – irrefutably –
that removal of law is in no way necessary for God’s addition of
grace!
Don’s argument that the law had
to be removed before grace could enter or obtain is serious,
serious error; it overthrows the power and efficacy of Christ’s
cross. It changes the
very mechanism of salvation from the triumph of grace over law, to
grace accomplished removal of law, fundamentally changing and
perverting the gospel of Christ.
Don’s Proposition and Burden of
Proof
Don is in the
affirmative and has the burden of proof. To carry his case he must
prove each and every element of his affirmative. At a minimum, Don
must prove
1)
The coming referred to in Rom.
11:25-27 is the second, not first, advent of Christ.
2)
The judgment and sentence
associated with sin hung over the saints until AD 70; viz.,
the cross did not cancel sin’s debt.
3)
AD 70 represented the legal
climax and termination of the Mosaic Covenant age; viz., the
law, including circumcision, animal sacrifices, the priesthood,
dietary restrictions, etc, was valid and binding until AD 70.
4)
The judgment and sentence
associated with sin were set aside in AD 70 by annulment of the law.
We are in the
negative and need only negate ONE of the essential elements of Don’s
proposition to prevail.
In order to carry his case and establish his affirmative, we
challenged Don if he could produce even ONE VERSE showing the saints
continued under the debt of sin from and after the cross (#2 above).
We put a box on the page and predicted that at the end of the debate
it would still be empty.
Don has now concluded his affirmative. He has written almost 50
pages of argument, but has failed to produce even ONE VERSE that
expressly states or teaches that the saints continued under the debt
of sin after the cross. I believe it is axiomatic that if Don cannot
produce a verse to substantiate an essential tenant of his doctrine,
that he has not and cannot carry his case.
His failure on this one point has therefore negated his
proposition.
In our second
negative, we added a box for Don and challenged him to produce even
ONE VERSE that stated or taught the saints required to observe the
law, and that it was valid and binding (imposed) and until AD 70 (#
3 above). Here again Don failed.
He could not produce even ONE VERSE, not one. We also asked
Don if he could produce even ONE COMMENTATOR who agreed with his
interpretation of Isa. 27:7-11 (#1 above). Again he failed.
He could not cite one commentator who applied Isa. 27:7-11 to
the fall of Jerusalem. His whole case turns upon his ability to
prove Isa. 27:7-11 refers to the AD 70 coming of Christ, but not one
commentator agrees with him.
Don says all commentators agree that Paul quotes Isa. 27:7-11
in Rom. 11:25-27, but that is not mean they apply it to AD 70.
If Don cannot provide some commentator that agrees it applies
to AD 70, then we maintain he cannot prove his case.
Finally, we concluded our second negative saying Don could
not produce a verse that taught justification occurred in AD 70 (#4
above). Again, Don could not produce even ONE VERSE.
Thus, for each of the four essential elements of Don’s
proposition he cannot produce even one verse or commentator who
agrees with him. Remarkable
is it not? A doctrine that has deceived so many for the better part
of 30 years, and when put to the test not even ONE VERSE can be
produced to sustain its most basic suppositions!
So much for
what Don could not produce or prove, what about the verses we
brought forward to negative Don’s case?
Don has consistently ignored all verses that show the law was
fulfilled and taken away, and that justification was full and free
from and after the cross.
He grandstands a lot about my exercising my right to pass
over his arguments without comment, but he has ignored every verse
we produce that shows grace was full and free from and after the
cross. Here are some
of the verses we have marshaled:
We noted that
the gospels and Acts state twenty-nine times that
Jesus fulfilled the law, providing these verses:
Matt. 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17;
12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 26:54, 56; 27:9, 35; Mk. 14:49; 15:28; Lk. 4:21;
24:44; Jn. 12:38; 13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36, 37; Acts 1:16;
3:18; 13:27, 29. Don ignored them.
We noted that
the law of blood sacrifice foreshadowed the work of Christ upon the
cross and was fulfilled in Jesus’ substitutionary death and atoning
sacrifice. We brought forward verses which state
“by one offering Christ hath perfected
forever them that are sanctified” (Heb. 10:4).
HATH PERFECTED FOREVER.
This is perfect tense, showing completed action in the past.
Don made no attempt to controvert this, he just ignored it.
We brought forward Rom. 7:1-4, which states “YE ARE BECOME ARE DEAD
TO THE LAW BY THE BODY OF CHRIST” Don says the law was still valid,
binding and obligatory until AD 70. Paul says, it was dead.
Who will you believe?
Don ignored the verse.
We brought forward Rom. 8:2, which states
“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made
me free from the law of sin and death.”
HATH MADE ME FREE FROM THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH.
What part of “hath made free” would Don deny?
We’ll never know because he just ignores these verses and
refuses to interact with them. Another verse we brought forward is
Rom. 6:14: “For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not
under the law, but under grace.”
NOT UNDER THE LAW, BUT UNDER GRACE.
This verse seems important to the subject, but did Don not
address it? Of course
not, how could he?
We cited Col. 2:14, which says Jesus nailed the debt of sin to his
cross and took out of the way the handwriting of ordinances that was
against us. Don denies
this, too, totally ignoring this verse. He would not so much as
interact with it. In
Ephesians, Paul says Jesus had “abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances” (Eph. 2:14,
15). HATH ABOLISHED IN
HIS FLESH…THE LAW OF COMMANDMENTS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCES.
Don says the law was still valid and binding; all was valid
until none was valid, right Don?
Paul says it was abolished in Jesus’ flesh. Don ignores all
this and pushes blindly ahead.
The writer of Hebrews states
that Christians had come to “God the Judge of all and the spirits of
just men made perfect” (Heb. 12:23). THE SPIRITS OF JUST MEN MADE
PERFECT! Made perfect
how? By the blood of Christ. Don denies this and says the saints
continued under bondage to sin until AD 70, otherwise they would
have been resurrected at the cross!
In this case he did at least acknowledge the verse, claiming
it was merely “proleptic” and looked forward to the perfection that
would only really come at AD 70.
His authority? Bare assertion, nothing more. He has to
“re-write” the passage to fit his doctrine and upon his own
authority does so. The
Hebrew writer also says believers had come to the “church of the
firstborn” and to “Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to
the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of
Abel” (Heb. 12:23,24).
Don, are these proleptic?
Will you now tell us that the church was not established
until AD 70, that the New Testament, ratified by Jesus’ blood, did
not come until AD 70? If
one part is “proleptic” why are not they all?
I think the reader can see that Don’s creative re-writing of
the text to fit his doctrine is without merit and that the blood of
Christ had made the spirits in Hades perfect just as it had
“perfected forever” (Heb. 10:14) the saints on this side of
eternity.
Continuing on, touching this
last point, we cited Col. 2:10 “and ye are complete in him.”
“Complete” here has the meaning of being soteriologically
perfected, lacking nothing necessary to our salvation.
Did Don interact with this verse to show us why this was not
true, why it would only become true in AD 70?
No, he just ignored it.
We showed that Paul said, “For if when we were enemies, we
were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more,
being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only
so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we
have now received the atonement” (Rom. 5:10, 11).
WERE RECONCILED. HAVE NOW RECEIVED
THE ATONMENT. Notice the verb tense. Perfect tense, showing
completed action in the past.
Don denies the atonement was received or even complete until
AD 70. Needless to say,
he simply ignores these verses and will not even so much as
acknowledge they exist.
Perhaps he felt that since he cannot even produce one verse
in his own support, he needed to ignore our verses to help “even
things up.” But
ignoring these verses doesn’t make them go away; it only
demonstrates the weakness of his case.
If we produced only ONE VERSE, (and
those above are but a sample of the many we cited), we would have
produced 100% more verses than Don!
If we cited ten verses, it would be 1,000% more than Don.
But we produced dozens and dozens of verses, all which Don
just ignores. Don has NO
VERSES, we have MANY VERSES.
If we had only ONE VERSE it would be sufficient to negate
Don’s proposition, because he has NONE. Clearly, Don’s case is lost
and it is a perfect absurdity for him to pretend otherwise.
Max King’s
Contradictions
Since the topic of the continuing validity of the law has come up,
it is worth our while to point out that Max King contradicts himself
on this very topic.
McGuiggan caught him in this during their debate.
It is essential to King’s position that Christians continued
under bondage of sin by the law until AD.
This is Don’s position in this debate.
Obviously, this is a very tenuous position to take; Don
cannot produce a single verse to support it.
Is it any wonder then that King was forced to contradict
himself on this critical issue?
First, let us notice King’s position that places Christians
under the law:
“The natural body that was sown (verse 44) answers to the fleshly or
carnal system of Judaism…Though the saints were in the kingdom that
was conceived on Pentecost, they were not yet delivered from the
world or natural body (Judaism) wherein this conception took place.”
(Spirit of Prophecy, p. 200, 201)
So the “natural body” equals Judaism, and the saints were part of
the natural body (Judaism), and NOT YET DELIVERED, right?
Now, let us ask, Where did death reign?
King’s answer:
“But how was death swallowed up in victory?
The answer is quite obvious, Where was death resident? Did it
not reign in the mortal or natural body of Judaism?...But when that
died, and from it arose a spiritual body clothed with incorruption
and immortality, death was defeated. It lost its hold over the
subjects of the natural body because they were raised through Christ
into the spiritual body of life and immortality.
Death was in the ‘natural body’ because of sin, and sin
received its strength from the law.”
(Ibid, p. 202).
“Death” for King is not physical death, but spiritual death or
“sin-death” as his also calls it.
Thus, spiritual death and sin reigned in the mortal body of
Judaism by the law, of which Christians were part, but were
delivered only when Judaism died in AD 70.
Death lost its hold when the natural body died and a
spiritual body allegedly arose in AD 70, right?
(Dear reader, have you ever read any passages anywhere at any
time about the resurrection of “Judaism” into a new body in AD 70?
I haven’t, but this is what Don asks us to believe.
Note, also that according to King and Don, Gentiles were
under Judaism waiting “resurrection” too!)
Now, hear King contradict himself and say the church was NOT
under the law:
“No one contends that Gal. 1:4 speaks of their deliverance from the
Law (Jewish system) but rather from the Jewish age, the vicious
persecution and distresses heaped upon the saints.”
(McGuiggan/King debate, p. 93).
Deliverance from the mere persecutions of the Jewish age? Not under
the Law? Hear him again:
“And to speak of the ‘shackles of Judaism’ is not to say that those
saints were under the Law.”
Here King attempts to deny his teaching that the saints were under
the law! But McGuiggan would have none of it and caught him cold in
his contradictions! (pp.
107, 108) But King’s
contradictions are not confined to his debate. His book “Spirit of
Prophecy” also expressly denies the saints were under the law!
“Second, the law did not end at the cross, nor was it completely
fulfilled then as seen in Matt. 5:17, 18. It was, however, taken out
of the way for those who accepted Christ. Through Christ they
died to the law and received deliverance from it. All of the New
Testament scriptures that speak of the law’s being ‘nailed to the
cross,’ or ‘taken out of the way’ are in reference to the saints
that came by way of the cross.
‘In Christ’ was the state wherein the law was abolished or
done away, but aside from Christ not one jot or title passed from
the law till all was fulfilled. The law did not end in death or
destruction but in fulfillment!”
This is clearly contradictory of everything King (and Don) teaches elsewhere about the saints being in the natural body of Judaism under bondage of “sin-death” and looking for deliverance at the second coming. He now says in this passage that “the law was abolished or done away” for Christians! But if the law is done away for Christians, then they clearly are not in the “natural body” of Judaism looking for deliverance (justification) in AD 70! Hopeless contradiction! And why is King forced into this position? Because it is impossible to make all the verses Don has ignored in this debate go away, so King tries to reconcile them, still clinging to his abstract notions about a spiritualized resurrection. But all he ends up doing is contradicting himself. The lesson for us is that Covenant Eschatology is a sojourn in “cloud land,” an imaginary world of double-speak and self-contradiction invented by Max King that has no existence in the real world or scriptures.
Two Concurrent, Conflicting Covenants?
One of the
more obvious problems of Covenant Eschatology is its insistence that
the ceremonial and other ordinances of the Old Testament were valid
and imposed until AD 70 even though the New Testament was in place.
King and Don must postpone justification and grace until AD
70 in order for their idea of a spiritualized resurrection to occur
at that time, and therefore must keep the dead ordinances of the law
alive, even though the gospel of Jesus Christ was already in force
and effect. Thus, if we
are to believe them, there were two, conflicting, mutually exclusive
covenants in force at the same time! If there was ever a system of
belief rife with self- contradiction, this would have to be it!
On the one hand we have the shadow system of ceremonial law
that can never forgive sins and therefore styled by a “ministration
of death”, and on the other hand we have the gospel of life and
grace ordained to replace the Old system, both theoretically valid
and binding at the same time! Imagine, if you will, a State
legislature amending its penal code, replacing the corpus of
criminal statutes with new, conflicting ones, then having both valid
at the same time! Which
laws are men charged to obey?
They cannot obey both, for one contradicts the duties and
obligations of the other. Both cannot be valid for one set of
statutes makes illegal what the other expressly commands!
The very notion of two covenants in force at one time is so
totally at odds with scripture and all human experience that it is
hardly necessary to refute it.
Let us look at few scriptures that show the Old Testament was
annulled at the cross. We looked at some of these before, but Don
ignored them.
Heb. 9:17
states “a testament is of force after men are dead.”
Thus, the New Testament and gospel of Jesus Christ came into
force and effect AT HIS DEATH UPON THE CROSS.
No one can have two valid wills; one must always amend or
replace the other! Ask any
lawyer, or anyone who has ever made a will.
When a man changes his will, he always recites that the
amended will revokes all previous wills.
The only exception would be a codicil, in which case one
merely amends his existing will, rather than replacing it. It is
abundantly clear that the New Testament did not merely amend the
Old; it is not a codicil of the Old Testament, it altogether
replaces it. “When he
said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for
sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are
offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.
He taketh away the first that he may establish the second” (Heb.
10:8, 9). TAKETH AWAY
THE FIRST THAT HE MAY ESTABLISH THE SECOND. When was the second, the
New Testament established?
At Jesus’ death!
A testament is of force after men are dead!
Don must deny the
legal efficacy of the New Testament in order to keep the dead
ordinances of the Old Testament alive, or admit that the latter gave
way to the former at the cross.
Rom. 7:1-4
teaches us that the law of the first husband (Old Testament) was
nullified by the death of Christ, so that we could enter a new
marital covenant with a new husband (the risen Savior) under a new
law (the gospel). These four verses show not only that the saints
were “dead to the law” by the body of Christ and therefore
loosed from the debt of sin, but also that the old law was nullified
in toto. The law of
marriage terminates upon the death of the husband. “The woman which
hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he
liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of
her husband” (Rom. 7:2).
The law of the first husband was the Old Testament.
“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law
by the body of Christ” (v. 4).
DEAD TO THE LAW BY THE BODY OF CHRIST.
This is Christianity 101, folks! To buy into Covenant
Eschatology you have to forget the ABC’s of salvation.
The Old law died with the body of Christ at the cross.
Don, what part of “dead to the law” would you deny?
Gal. 5:1 –
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us
free, and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage.” This
verse, indeed, the whole book of Galatians, stands for the
proposition that the saints were not under the law but under
liberty and grace, and were
not to submit to Judaizing teachers who insisted the law was
“valid, binding, and obligatory” (like Don). The ceremonies of the
law could not bring remission of sins.
To obtain salvation, one had to stand fast in Christ.
To revert to the system of law was to deny Christ and to fall
from grace (v. 2, 4).
“For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto
God” (Gal. 2:19).
“Through the law” (through Christ’s fulfillment of the law by his
substitutionary death and atoning sacrifice) “I am dead to the law”
(I am loosed from the sentence of sin and death by the sacrifice of
Christ) “that I might live unto God” (turn from sin and reliance
upon my own merits, trusting instead upon the merits of Christ’s
blood). Given that this
whole book is devoted to the topic of showing that Christians were
not under the law, and, indeed, specifically charged not to submit
to it, how can Don honestly ask us to believe that both systems were
equally valid, or that there was any validity in the continuing
ritual of the law?
The Time of Reformation
For Don, the
time of reformation equals the Christian era and gospel system,
which he says arrived in AD 70. “The time of reformation did not
arrive until the second coming AD 70,” Don says.
Since two Testaments cannot be in force simultaneously,
apparently Don wants us to believe that the gospel did not attain
legal efficacy until AD 70.
This would be the logical implication of his view that the
cross did not triumph over the law, but that it had to be separately
removed by the destruction of Jerusalem.
Thus, the Romans took away what Jesus’ cross could not!
Good grief! We
believe, however, the better view is that the time of reformation
answers to the time of transition during which the ordinances
of the law were annulled and those of the gospel laid down.
The time of reformation was marked by the gifts of the Holy
Ghost, which served to guide the apostles into all truth. It began
at the cross and ended when “that which is perfect is come” (I Cor.
13:), or no later than AD 70 when the charismata ceased.
In our view, “that which is perfect” answers to the
“restitution of all things” (Acts. 3:21).
Peter said that heaven would receive Jesus until the
restitution/restoration of all things (that is, when all things were
put aright), then the Lord would return.
This of course is what we see in Heb. 9, where the time of
reformation precedes (not
follows) the return of the Lord (v. 28). Thus, reformation
brought us to the point where all things were “put aright,” then
Christ returned, all by AD 70. However, where Don wants the time of
reformation to
arrive in AD 70,
instead we find that is when it ended!
Dear reader,
had the reformation arrived when Martin Luther began his work of
reform or not? Of course it had.
What kind of nonsense would it be to talk about the
Reformation arriving at the
end of Luther and the reformers’ work?!
“The Reformation arrived when Luther was done.”
No, the Reformation describes the period when the work
began until it was complete, then it passed away and the
restored church assumed
its place. This is why we always speak of the Protestant Reformation
in the past tense. The church is now “reformed” and hopefully
“restored” to its apostolic purity (more or less!).
Catholic “Canon Law” was imposed UNTIL the Reformation began.
It was not valid during the Reformation, not at least to the
Reformers. In the same
way, the law of Moses was imposed UNTIL the time of reformation was
initiated at the cross, but was not valid during the reformation.
Jesus said “the law and the prophets were UNTIL John: since
that time the kingdom of God is preached” (Lk. 16:16).
That is, the message of Moses and the prophets was exhausted
and had run its course; beginning with John a new message was
preached. The time of
reformation served as a transitional phase during which the outmoded
and obsolete rituals of the law were taken out of the way and
replaced by the ordinances of the gospel.
As we have seen over and over
again, the Jews’ continued adherence to the law marked them as
enemies of Christ. Like
Don, they claimed the law was still valid and binding and sought to
impose it upon the church in Palestine, Asia and the world.
For this, Paul said they were preaching “another Jesus” and
“another gospel” and pronounced a curse upon them. Covenant
Eschatology is identical to 1st century Judaism in
claiming the law was obligatory and binding after the cross.
Can’t you hear the Judaizers?
“The law is binding and valid notwithstanding the cross.”
And what does Don say? “The law was binding and valid
notwithstanding the cross.” Unless the Judaizers were right and Paul
wrong, I would suggest the law was annulled at the cross.
Isaiah said that the rituals of the law before the
destruction of Jerusalem were abominated by God (Isa. 66:3).
Don agrees and says that it was the Jews’ keeping the law
that marked them as objects of divine wrath.
“The old city had not
only served its purpose, it had also become the enemy of God, by
holding onto the Old Covenant” (Ibid, p. 193).
So, Don tells us on one hand the law is binding and divinely
imposed, but that it made those who obeyed into enemies of God!
Don, how can what God abominated and marked the Jews for
wrath have been valid, binding and obligatory?
Tell us please.
Atonement Ritual and Resurrection
of Christ
Max King
invented the notion that atonement for sins was delayed until AD 70
to accommodate his view of a collective, spiritualized resurrection
in AD 70. This is
not the figurative
resurrection of believers as they
one-by-one obey the gospel
and are baptized (Rom. 6:3-6; Eph. 2:1, 6). Rather, King’s view is
that the whole (collective) body of believers was somehow
mysteriously raised up out of the purported grave of Judaism in AD
70 into a new resurrection body in Christ.
Of course, Paul speaks of the body of Christ (the church)
already existing long before AD 70, so where this resurrection body
purportedly came from, how it died merely because Jerusalem was
destroyed, and was then raised again in yet another body is a total
mystery upon which the scriptures are absolutely silent.
Max King is a great fiction writer and supplies the details
in his books, and anyone who is interested in the genre of fantasy
may pursue the topic at their own leisure and peril.
In order to
postpone justification until AD 70, King came up with the idea that
the atonement ritual began at Christ’s ascension and was not
complete until he came a second time. Support for this notion was
found in Heb. 9, particularly verse 28 where Christ appears a
“second time without sin unto salvation.”
This “salvation” is assumed to be salvation from sin, but we
believe the better view is that the salvation in mind is the putting
all enemies beneath Christ’s feet (Heb. 2:8; 10:13) and the
deliverance of the church from her persecutors by the outpouring of
wrath upon the Jews and Romans.
If there was anything to the idea that the saints continued
under the debt of sin from and after the cross, or that they were
only justified in AD 70 by removal of the law, Don should have been
able to put one or two verses in the boxes we gave him.
But since after 50 pages of argument Don could not find a
single verse to put in any of the boxes (he could not even suggest a
verse for us to argue over, he left the boxes completely empty), we
can safely dismiss King’s notion for the frivolous and unscriptural
piece of fiction it is.
When then was
the blood accepted by God within the veil and the atonement deemed
legally complete? We
believe this occurred at the cross, at the time of our Savior’s
death. Evidence for this
fact is seen in the veil being “rent in twain” when Jesus died,
showing the debt of sin was paid and the way into the presence of
God within the Holy of Holies was now open. Don denies this, but
when we asked him to explain the theological significance of the
veil being rent in two, he fell suddenly silent and declined
comment. His silence must
therefore be taken as an admission that he has no alternative
explanation to offer.
Other evidence corroborating our view is the writer of Hebrews, who
urged Jewish Christians not to shrink back under the Old Testament
ritual typified by the first sanctuary, but to draw nigh unto God,
and “boldly enter” his presence within veil (the Holy of Holies) by
virtue of Jesus’ sacrifice.
Obviously,
this does not contemplate actual and spatial entrance into God’s
presence, for that cannot occur until man puts off the body in
death. Therefore, the
entrance contemplated by the writer was legal and covenantal. Just
as they “had come” unto the “heavenly Jerusalem, to God the judge of
all, to the innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly
and church of the firstborn, to the spirits of just men made
perfect, to Jesus the mediator of the New Testament, and to the
blood of sprinkling” (Heb. 12:22-24), just as they had done all
these legally and covenantally, they could and should enter boldly
within the veil, legally and covenantally, where they could find
grace and help in time of need (Heb. 4:16).
The Holy of Holies was a figure for the New Testament
(Heb.9:9), and if the New Testament was valid, then the way into the
Holy of Holies ipso facto
was open and valid. But
as entrance into God’s presence was closed until the atonement was
complete, it is axiomatic that ratification of the New Testament,
atonement, and entrance within the veil were concurrent events, and
that all happened at the “death of the testator” (Heb. 9:17). And we
have Paul’s word for it, saying, “we have now received the
atonement” (Rom. ).
Reduced to a syllogism, it might look like this:
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.
We hasten to
add that Jesus’ resurrection was God’s objective proof that the
atonement was complete. Having died a sinner’s death under
imputation of sin, Jesus could not rise from the dead and enter
heaven unless and until that imputation was removed.
Therefore, Paul says, “he was delivered for our offenses, and
was raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25).
It is the fact that Jesus was raised justified that also
justifies us. This is
why Peter says we are born again by the resurrection of Jesus Christ
from the dead (I Pet. 1:3; cf.
3:21). The acquittal of
Jesus from the imputation of sin at his resurrection is the basis
for our acquittal from sin.
And this is reflected in Christian baptism.
Baptism is a symbolic and sacramental participation in the
death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord.
Each time someone is
baptized, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is
re-enacted, and Christ’s justification by receipt of his blood
within the veil at his death
is shown anew. In baptism, the subject is “buried with Christ by
baptism into death,” and “raised in newness of life” (Rom. 6:3-6).
If we are raised from baptism justified from sin, then Christ
was necessarily raised from the dead justified from sin, for it is
his death, burial, and resurrection we are united with in baptism.
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. Hence, the
notion that mankind had to wait for the second coming for the
atonement to be complete and grace to enter is totally at odds with
the most elementary instruction of the church and scripture as
embodied in the ordinance of baptism and the resurrection of our
Lord. Covenant
Eschatology yet again is
show to be a dangerous doctrine contradicting the most basic
teachings of the Christian faith.
Miscellaneous
Arguments of Don
Argument from the
Transfiguration
- Don argues that the Transfiguration of Christ is a before-the-fact
vision of his second coming.
Naturally, there is nothing in the Transfiguration taken
alone that would suggest this.
However, because Peter used the word "parousia," saying they
had not believed cleverly devised fables when they made known the
"power and coming" of the Lord, but were eye witnesses of his
majesty on the Mount of Transfiguration, men have supposed that the
second coming is referred to. Personally, I have never been
persuaded of that fact. I have always taken II Pet. 1:16 in
reference to the first advent of our Lord.
I have always felt that it was the miracles and works of
wonders that he is assuring the reader are not mere fables, and that
Peter evokes the events he witnessed during the Transfiguration as
proof of the verity of what had been reported.
Dear reader, do you see anything in the
transfiguration normally associated with the second coming?
I don't. I don't see any of the imagery that occurs in
Revelation or Matthew 24.
I don't see visions of Hades delivering up its dead.
I see nothing that would suggest the second coming is in
view. The only way you
can get the second coming out of the Transfiguration is to go to II
Peter, and then only by his use of the word "parousia" which word is
used of Titus, Timothy, and others and has no inherent reference to
the second advent of the Lord.
To my mind, if the transfiguration is a vision of anything,
it is a revelation of Jesus' divinity and Sonship, nothing less or
more.
But whether the transfiguration is a vision of the second coming or
not is really moot. We can grant Don his "major premise" and it will
not help him, for his "minor premise" is totally suppositional and
without support. Don's
syllogism reads like this:
The Transfiguration
was a vision of the Second Coming of Christ (2 Peter 1:16f).
But, the
Transfiguration was a vision of the end of the Mosaic Covenant and
the establishment of the New Covenant of Christ.
Therefore, the end of
the Mosaic Covenant was at the Second Coming of Christ.
Can you spot the error in Don's minor premise?
That's right, he assumes the point to be proved!
He asserts without proof that the transfiguration was a
vision of the end of the Old Testament and the establishment of the
New Covenant (he avoids use of the word "Testament" because this
ties the event to Jesus' death and, naturally, he can have none of
that!). What proof does Don have that the transfiguration is a
vision of the end of the Mosaic Covenant? Moses and Elijah appeared
on the mount speaking with the Lord about his coming death upon a
cross in Jerusalem! (Lk.
9:31). Call me crazy,
but if the transfiguration is about the end of the Old Testament as
Don asserts, and if Moses and Elijah are speaking with the Lord
about his coming death upon a Roman cross, I would tie the end of
the Old Testament to the cross, not second coming!
Let us be candid. The appearance of Moses and Elijah upon the
mount of transfiguration is ambiguous taken alone.
The only information we can draw from the event is from what
they discussed, and this was not AD 70, but Calvary.
Don's attempt to get to AD 70 through II Pet. 1:16 is tenuous
at best. Argument is no
substitute for verses. If Don could put some verses in the boxes we
provided him, he would not have to rely upon "ify" argumentation to
fill in the blanks.
Argument from Isa. 27
- Let's revisit Don's argument from Isa. 27:7-11 a bit.
In his second affirmative, Don made the following argument:
“The coming of the Lord to take away Israel’s sin in Romans 11:26f
is the coming of the Lord at his coming in judgment of Israel
foretold by Isaiah 26-27, when He would call the dead–those
scattered to the four winds-- to Him (i.e. the resurrection)
by the sounding of the Great Trumpet (Isaiah 27:13).”
I
pointed out that Don has assumed the very fact to be proved; that he
had NOT established the connection between Isa. 27:7-11 and Rom.
11:25-27. Don retorts in
his third affirmative that I admit the connection between Isa. 27
and Rom. 11 when I made the following statement.
"In Romans 11:26, 27, Paul blends two passages from Isaiah
together into one. He quotes Isa. 59: 20, 21, then follows up with
Isa. 27:9." That is what most, but not all commentators say, and in
making that statement I reported the majority opinion.
But Don misses the point.
Don equates the coming in Rom. 11 with the coming in Isa. 27,
right? But 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. Or
should I say, "if" at all, for it is more probable that Paul
actually quotes Jer. 31:31-34 and not Isa. 27, for the forgiveness
of sin connected with the “covenant” (Isa. 59:21) attaches to the
New Testament, not the Assyrian invasion (or fall of Jerusalem),
right? And this is the position of
James, Brown and Faucett's
Commentary:
“This is
my covenant with them literally, "this is the covenant from me
unto them." when I
shall take away their sins This, we believe, is rather a brief
summary of Jer. 31:31-34.”
When we first began our discussion with Don about Rom. 11:25-27 last
August or so, we repeated what most commentators say, that Paul
quotes Isa. 27:9 in this place, but further study has led us to
conclude this is unlikely and that that better view is that Jer.
31:31-34 is in view, as the commentator above states.
For what does the forgiveness of sins have to do with the
Assyrian invasion? But
to return, Don wants to borrow the coming in Rom. 11 quoted from
Isa. 59 and apply it to Isa. 27. Good grief!
Talk about exegetical summersaults!
Dear reader, Isa. 27:7-11 is about the Assyrio-Babylonian
invasions and virtually all commentators agree upon this fact.
Don could not produce a single commentator who applies it to
AD 70 like he does. Clearly, the connection is NOT made and Don's
attempt to "borrow" the coming from Isa. 59 quoted in Rom. 11, apply
it to Isa. 27, then claim that
"the coming of the Lord to take away Israel’s sin in Romans
11:26f is the coming
foretold by Isaiah 27," is simply untenable.
And while we are on this passage, let me point out that Don
totally manufactures a quote I never made.
Don states:
And now, Kurt desperately claims that I have not: "established ANY
CONNECTION between Rom. 11:25-27 and Isa. 26. NONE! The same is true
of Isaiah 59."
I
hate to be a stickler, but the last seven words of the quote Don
attributes to me I never said. Don has somehow made them up! The
reader should copy and paste those seven words into his computer's
search function and search my second negative to see if I ever made
that statement. It gives
me no pleasure to point this out, but Don has done this sort of
thing so many times in this debate that I feel compelled to speak
out. If he is continuously willing to misrepresent me and attribute
statements to me that I have not made (four times in his second
affirmative alone[1]), how can we have any confidence
in his handling of the word of God?
If he handles God’s word with the same cavalier manner in
which he deals with my words, is it any wonder he asserts so much,
yet can prove so little, and has no verses to sustain his case?
Unsound Methodology
- A point came up in Don's first affirmative that I never bothered
responding to, but since he has brought it up again, and because it
sheds light on a problem with his overall methodology which may be
helpful to both him and the community in general, we’ll take it up
now. Here is a quote
from Don:
“Of course, just last year, in his Sword and Plow,
when objecting to my position on Romans 11 / Isaiah 27, Kurt said:
‘We do not disallow the possibility that there is a plenior
sensus (fuller meaning, DKP), to Isaiah 26:21 that may look
beyond its historical setting to Christ’s second coming.’ Realizing
the fatal nature of this admission, Kurt has now
completely reversed himself.
So, just last year Kurt said that Isaiah 27 could
apply to both the Cross and AD 70. But now, he denies that it speaks
of either one! It is exclusively the Assyrian invasion!”
Did you notice what Don did?
I said it is possible Isa. 26:21 may have a plenior sensus
that looks beyond its historical setting to the second coming, and
Don ran with that and applied it to Isa. 27, saying I made an
admission about that text!
This sort of broad-brush approach is all through Don's
material and betrays a fundamental error in his methodology in
dealing with scripture, particularly Isaiah (to say nothing about
misrepresenting me).
More than any other prophet, Isaiah changes topics 3-4-5 times in a
single chapter, now speaking of Israel's sin, now of the coming
captivity, now about the sins of the nations around Israel, now
about the return of the captivity, now about the Messiah, all within
the span of often less than 30 verses!
In chapter 27 (which is only 13 verses long), Isaiah changes
topics three different times.
He begins by talking about the defeat of Leviathan (world,
heathen civil power), changes to wrath upon the Jews by the Assyrian
invasion, and ends talking about the re-gathering of Israel from the
Assyrian captivity.
Thus, defeat of the world civil power (Assyria/Leviathan) precedes
the invasion of Israel, where we would expect instead it to precede
the re-turn of the captivity!
This rapid change of subject matter and the random chronological
order of events portrayed is what makes Isaiah so difficult to
interpret, and anyone who has read the book is aware of this fact.
Overlooking this, Don sees something that may apply to the
second advent, and automatically assumes that neighboring verses
must apply to that event also, when in fact nothing could be further
from the truth. He does
this in the case at hand.
Isa. 26:21 may have a plenior sensus that looks to the
second coming. But does that mean Isa. 27:7-11 also applies to the
second coming? In this
case, Don could not find one commentator who agreed with him, so I
feel it is safe to say, No, it does not. Don made the same mistake
with the "trumpet" of verse 13, where, merely because it was similar
sounding to Matt. 24:31, he assumed both referred to the identical
event. Yet, Isa. 27:13 is clearly about the return of the captivity
from Assyria and Egypt, not the general resurrection as supposed by
Don. Yes, they are
similar in sound and borrow from a common source and theme (the
Jubilee), but that hardly means the same events are in view.
This sort of sloppy argumentation from scripture is all
through Don's syllogisms and is why syllogisms are so dangerous
to build doctrine upon, particularly where you have no express
statements in scripture to back your conclusions up (like Don's
empty boxes)! Syllogisms should be built upon plain statement of
scripture, not deductions.
Don builds his arguments upon deductions rather than
scripture and that is why he errs so great and so often.
Entering the
Most Holy
Much of this debate and most of
Don’s last affirmative turned upon the argument that if the saints
were soteriologically complete at the cross, they should then and
there have entered the Holy of Holies (heaven).
Apparently this is Don’s best argument since he makes it so
many times (a dozen times it seemed in the last affirmative alone!).
Yet, does Don cite any verses? Does he have a verse that says
“the dead would enter heaven the
moment they were cleansed
from sin”? No! Don has no verses, but argues totally from
deductions! Don, God
doesn’t have to do things the way you suppose he ought or should;
God does things when and as it pleases him.
Hebrews describes the righteous dead in Hades, saying they
were the “spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb. 12:23).
If Don is unwilling to accept this simple statement of
scripture, there is nothing I or anyone else can do.
That they were still in Hades, though perfected by Christ’s
blood, is Don’s problem, not God’s.
God said that death would be the
last enemy put beneath
Jesus’ feet (I Cor. 15:26). It is the last enemy, because it was the
ultimate enemy, and it pleased God that the resurrection follow
defeat of the Romans and Jews who were opposing the gospel and
persecuting the church. There is nothing to Don’s argument that they
had to enter heaven as soon as they were justified, and it is
certainly a poor argument to prove the law was valid until AD 70,
for until Don’s proves the existence of his mysterious “negative
power” in the law, its continuing validity cannot prevent the
entrance of grace in any event.
Power of the
Holy People
Again, Don argues from
deduction without verses. He asserts that the “power of the holy
people” was the Old Testament.
Really? What was
the “power” of the Roman people? What was the “power” of the
Assyrian Empire? God said he would “overthrow the throne of kingdoms
and destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen” at
Christ’s coming to shake the heavens and earth (Haggai 2:22). This
occurred at the same time the power of the holy people was
destroyed (Dan. 12:7; cf. Heb. 12:26, 27). Why should the
strength of the kingdoms differ from the power of the
Jews? Clearly, they do
not, and Don errs again.
Conclusion
I began to notice the contradictions I had picked up from King about three years ago, and it has taken until only recently for the scales to fall completely from my eyes. This debate has helped a lot, and for that I am indebted to Don. It took me several years to “unlearn” my mistakes, so I do not expect Don to change overnight. Even so, and however much I want to be charitable toward my brother, his persistence in insisting that the law was valid despite so great a cloud of evidence to the contrary worries and disturbs me. It is my belief, indeed, my hope and prayer that after this public debate, privately, Don will quietly distance himself from Covenant Eschatology and that a few years from now we will find that he is no longer advocating this dangerous doctrine. And let me add that most reading this debate would agree that Max King and the people at “Presence Ministries” are at risk of eternal peril for their corruption of the gospel and teaching Universalism. However, that story need not end in tragedy. We encourage Max to renounce Covenant Eschatology and to return to the fold and gospel of Christ while life and hope remain, before it is too late.
__________________
[1]
However innocent his mistake, the
fact remains I never "claimed Rom.11:26f predicts
the salvation of individual Jews throughout the entirety of
the endless Christian age." The text predicts nothing about
ethnic Jews after AD 70, and I certainly never suggested it
did. Given the nation was destroyed in AD 70 and God now
sees all men alike without regard to ethnicity, it is not
the sort of thing I would be apt to say.
To receive Kurt Simmons’ e-mail newsletter, The Sword & The Plow, click the Subscribe link:
All rights reserved.