You are hereThe Heart of The Matter: Defining The Death

The Heart of The Matter: Defining The Death

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Sam - Posted on 18 July 2007

by Samuel Frost
This is not an official Response to the supposed "debate" between Simmons and me. I stopped that. But, I will not stop writing about what has come about recently. I want to make some points that should clarify the issues involved even further. 1. Simmons first claimed that it was the corporate body view that "necessarily leads" to Universalism. He wrote, "This debate is to decide whether Max King's "covenant eschatology," including his "corporate body view" of the resurrection, necessarily lead to Universalism. By "necessary" we mean only that Universalism is a logical consequence of King's views." Now, he wrote to Larry Siegle, "The corporate aspect of King's system is not the central issue. It is his spiritualization of the resurrection and his premise that the law had to be removed for man to be redeemed that is the source of so much error." This was written after the first statement was.This is not an official Response to the supposed "debate" between Simmons and me. I stopped that. But, I will not stop writing about what has come about recently. I want to make some points that should clarify the issues involved even further. 1. Simmons first claimed that it was the corporate body view that "necessarily leads" to Universalism. He wrote, "This debate is to decide whether Max King's "covenant eschatology," including his "corporate body view" of the resurrection, necessarily lead to Universalism. By "necessary" we mean only that Universalism is a logical consequence of King's views." Now, he wrote to Larry Siegle, "The corporate aspect of King's system is not the central issue. It is his spiritualization of the resurrection and his premise that the law had to be removed for man to be redeemed that is the source of so much error." This was written after the first statement was.I originally set out to show that the corporate view, in and of itself, does not lead to Universalism. Simmons has now offended all Reformed Preterists in that he denies that Adam ever was a Federal Head of the human race, and that there was no corporate dimension in Paul's argument in Romans 5. He has brought into the picture the "age of accountability", "freewill" and other aspects that would be entirely at odds with Reformed theology. In Simmons' view, Jesus didn't die for anyone. He merely makes it possible for anyone to be saved if and only if they exercise their "freewill." Clearly, this issue is not about Max King and Kurt Simmons. The reason why so many Reformed Preterists have borrowed from King is that a "corporate" theology was already at work within Reformed theology.

Click here to read the entire column

Sam's picture

I love it when Rush Limbaugh says, "folks, I am not making this stuff up! I just read it as it is written." Roderick Edwards, on his website (he got it from Kurt), is calling this "The Great Debate." Of course, when Roderick was trying to get me to "not eat" with Virgil, he was non-critical of my explicit Kingian theology. Now that he has someone like, Roderick "the Fly" Edwards shows up looking for a turd to land on. Well, here's his poem...folks, I ain't making this up:

The Great Debate of 2007

On that fateful day they met toe-to-toe, line-to-line

Simmons & Frost, champions both in their minds

On one side sat, men of the Bible & reason

On one side sat, men of the rival & treason

The Great Debate of 2007

To say who would go to hell & who would go to heaven

Some say some & some say all

Depending on the sin the death, and the law

Does it commute or impute Adam’s Fall?

The Great Debate of 2007

To say who would go to hell & who would go to heaven

Some say some & some say all

Frost fired the first shot, sure & hot

Simmons slung his searing sting

Would-be universalists shout & sing

Their apologist in Sammy they have got

The Great Debate of 2007

To say who would go to hell & who would go to heaven

Some say some & some say all

Depending on the sin the death, and the law

Does it commute or impute Adam’s Fall?

The Great Debate of 2007

To say who would go to hell & who would go to heaven

Some say some & some say all

But the day was not done for none had won

On & on syllogisms put forth

Losing ground the debate did morph

Into a theological hit & run

Fear & folly Frost did retreat

But came again at the sign of defeat

His friends gather & lather on him kind words

So he saves face to add last words

The Great Debate of 2007

To say who would go to hell & who would go to heaven

Some say some & some say all

Depending on the sin the death, and the law

Does it commute or impute Adam’s Fall?

The Great Debate of 2007

To say who would go to hell & who would go to heaven

Some say some & some say all

Frost having failed, one last thing

He ranted & raved to say instead

Simmons you fool, you bonehead!!!

Yet Simmons still stands, waiting for those debating to bring

adidabadadiabdi that's all folks!

Sam

davo's picture

Well good for a laugh if anything –– Rod has rhyme but not much reason ;)

davo

flannery0's picture

Sam,

I am *still* laughing!

Tami

;)

Virgil's picture

Why aren't you ignoring the flies?

Jhedges's picture

Thou shalt not eat of the cheeseburger.

I wonder what would happen if Roderick put all the energy he uses to slander others into something profitable ,ie talking about how being a Christian is great ,Gods love etc.

To be fair to him though,maybe he just forgot what this is all about.

Sam's picture

John,

I am still trying to get over how I am an "apologist" for Universalists....hahaha

Sam

Malachi's picture

I thought the poem was cute; I wouldn't take it too seriously. And, Yes, I too hope we will go on to be friends and enjoy each other's company without fear of rancor at conferences and the like. We disagree, and emotions run high, but I do hope we can keep all malice from our hearts. :)

P.S. Virgil should be posting my response soon; I sent it to him Thursday evening.

Blessings,

Life14all's picture

Kurt,

You thought that poem was "cute" and not to be taken seriously yet you took major offence to the cartoon I posted on my blog.

I'm glad you feel that way about creativity because in the future I guess I can expect you to invite me to your conference next year where I can draw everyone's caricature all in the name good humor and fellowship.

If not, than your words about going "on being friends and enjoy each others company" are empty my friend. If your words do hold meaning I have to ask you, Why haven't you extended the same forgiveness and olive leaf to me? HUMMMMMMMMM...I wonder.

Jim K.

PreteristArtist

Sam's picture

Kurt,

I never thought anything less. Heck, I got a few good belly laughs in today.

Blessings to you, too.

MichaelB's picture

I am still wondering how Simmons "won the debate" He takes a univeral atonement (ie not Corp Body). Unbelief is a sin. Did jJesus pay for all sins or not?

So why is he (Simmons) not charged with a view that "leads to universalism"?

Sam - your logic and hermeneutic prevailed.

Funny how Roderick would side with a Pelagian in this. Also, interesting that Roderick does not chastise Kurt for being on Planet P. Rememeber - it was supposed to be wrong to be here right? Oh well.

You can lead a horse to water Sam...

Ed's picture

MIKE!,
We finally agree on something!!!!! Will wonders never cease?

have a good day,

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Life14all's picture

Sam,

I want to publicly apologize to you if there was any perceived disrespect on your part concerning my cartoon about Mr. Simmon's return to Planet Preterist. It seems that men like Mr. Melanson were also deceived by Simmon's because when he published my blog at PP in his newsletter he intentional left out the most important reason I drew that cartoon.

To your credit you saw that it wasn’t my intent to show that Simmon's was gonna rip your head or anyone else's off in the debate but the intent of that blog was to show that I felt he was returning to the very same place to which he had earlier written off in spite of himself. The blog was my way of expressing that for some of us, faith in Christ is all that matters.

Here’s what Kurt intentionally left out of his newsletter concerning my blog.

"And Finally;

Christ's life, His death and His resurrection joined with our faith
has already decided these thing's so "live long and prosper", Spock AD 1967"

There’s the deception on Simmon's part, people. This should alarm some of you out there. I e-mailed Kurt privately on several occasions to remove it from his newsletter if he wasn’t going to use the whole blog entry. Each time he refused and thus his deception continued. It seems that common courtesy and Biblical grace has also ended after AD70 in some COC circles.

This is alarming to say the least. Doesn’t this make anyone here at PP wonder how much other stuff Simmon's conveniently leaves out of the Scripture text when it doesn’t line up with his interpretation of things? And I am saying this as a man who has much respect for Mr. Simmons no matter what his lawyer instincts may tell him about me.

Virgil can also testify there were some things I didn’t post because I didn’t want my brothers here to be offended because of a silly thought or drawing. I have even made light of myself in my blogs. So when Mr. Melanson writes, “ you may well be the sharpest, clearest voice publishing today”, I believe he has also been deceived. Mr Melanson can go here to see my whole blog and then decide how "clear" that voice truly is.

http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=1292)

So before any more of you left brain, logical, rational, analytical types judge my right brain thinking, maybe you should use both sides of the brain God has blessed you with and smile at yourselves once in a while:-) I do and at least I can say that if anyone here is using their whole brain, I would have to say it is my brothers from Reign of Christ ministries who at least have a sense of humor and understand that grace isn't just a dinnertime ritual but a concept that the whole brain can take comfort in.

James Robert Kessler
www.InChristVictorious.com

PreteristArtist

Sam's picture

Jim,

No need to apologize to me. I "got it." As far as Simmons leaving stuff out, he certainly does. What if I went around quoting Paul saying, "Paul said that Jesus is the saviour of the world"? Would that not be universalism? Oh, but Paul wrote other words, too. Simmons just likes his arsenal of one liners, ones that make it appear to endorse something that the person never endorsed. Is grace lacking? Sorely.

Sam

Believability's picture

One correction I would like to make has to do with the designation of the CBV as "King's" view. I realize that is there is the tendency to associate a particular viewpoint with a particular person (e.g. Calvisism).

Is there any question in the minds of anyone that the Bible, from a certain standpoint, presents a "collective" or "corporate" concept? (The valley of dry bones etc, "all Israel" etc)

Perhaps our need is for finding the proper balance of how the "collective" view is applied. Do any of us believe that "the resurrection" was anything less than a mass releasing of billions from Hades for the purpose of judgment and rewards?

A whole is equal to the sum of its parts is certainly logical. An apple pie, when sliced into six parts remains constituent elements of the "one pie" when all is said and done.

"the sin" as expressed by John the Baptizer (John 1:29) is the collective body of sin and does not refer to any individual sin. Jesus did not come to take away "the SINS" but rather "the SIN" of the world. Human nature places greater value (for lack of a better term) on one sin over another sin. Lying is BAD, murder is WORSE (we say). In the sight of a Holy God it all falls into the category of that which separates one from His presence. We think, how bad could eating a piece of fruit actually be? How bad could picking up sticks on the Sabbath day actually be? How bad could lying about how much money a piece of property was sold for actually be?

Sin any "size" and in any "measure" brought with it the one, single penalty: death. You lie, you die. You murder someone, you die. You name the name of the Lord in vain, you die. Do we see the point?

TODAY God's people would do far better if the heart of our focus was not on being "sin-conscious" all the time. The more one places his focus on something, the worse it becomes. When we turn our hearts toward our loving relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and transform our thinking into "righteous-consciousness" we will have taken the first step in breaking away from "sin and death" from which we WERE delivered.

In the mind and heart of God the sin question was long ago resolved. The problem is not with God, but with us. We cannot let the "sin question" go. Rather than leaving justice up to God, we want our pound of legalistic flesh. I trust my Father to be fair with every person--before and without my trying to help Him do a better job at being God.

Larry Siegle
Walnut Creek, CA

OSTRALOA's picture

Hello All,

I will put my maybe worthless two cents in again from down here in Brazil.

Yes, there have been harsh words here as Tami said many unwarrented for each other and self examination doesn't hurt as she suggested especially when you see an airline crash first hand as I did the last few days with my own eyes and nose with the horrible smell from the crash scene and somber pilots and stewardesses as you walk up the ramp the day after for flights out of the same airport.

Back at the the subject at hand, we are all under the Lord's mercy daily. Perhaps Ed or Jeremy should just get this over with and finally challenge to debate either Sam or Kurt. Ed, Jeremy where's your own challenge to these two biblical preterists? That's what's it's coming down to after all. Does the murderer or worse now go to heaven or get annilhilated at "physical death" just because it's post A.D. 70? Is that God's mercy? No, this whole thing is about right and wrong, scriptural truth vs. nonscriptural errors and opinions.

My end point from down here. Be merciful as God is. Yet our God is a God of Mercy and wrath don't forget and that's scriptural! In the meanwhile, what I saw this week leads one towards introspection of what a great God we have and that our Lord Jesus can save to the utmost. Blessings.

For Christ & Kingdom,

Paul Anderson
Planalmira, Brazil

Sam's picture

Kurt, the Nice Guy, posts this on his site when you read our debate:

Congratulations, Kurt:

You ripped the head off the Sammy doll and handed it to him. He knew it, too. I enjoyed his childish scream of anguish.

Sam never did debate. He couldn't, as he didn't have a leg to stand on as you so effectively pointed out. He ranted; he raved; he threatened, but he never debated. He tried to razzle and dazzle (we've all seen that before) and fill the air with dust, but you calmly nailed him to the wall.

The hangers on at P.P. never knew the difference between a sound Biblical presentation and a "defense" based entirely on the traditions of men. The P.P. gang doesn't realize how completely Sam was beaten. But, and this is the important thing, Sam knows it! We know it! And, of course, you know it.

Thank you for dragging that flawed eschatology out into the light.

One wonders how the majority of P.P. commentators can continue to pretend to be Christian and believe the things they believe.

Thanks again, Kurt. As I have mentioned to others, you may well be the sharpest, clearest voice publishing today. God speed!

In Christ,
Arthur Melanson

And here Kurt is wanting to be the Nice Guy.....B.S.

Sam

mazuur's picture

I like the ending "In Christ".

-Rich

-Rich

Jer's picture

I'm puzzled as to why Mr. Simmons would want to post such a letter. It reflects poorly both on him and the author. It's one thing to point out the weaknesses in someone's case, or to engage in some good-natured ribbing, but Mr. Melanson goes too far. For example, he writes:

Thank you for dragging that flawed eschatology out into the light.

One wonders how the majority of P.P. commentators can continue to pretend to be Christian and believe the things they believe.

Apparently, acceptance of the literal 1st century rapture view determines whether or not one is a Christian. If not, perhaps Mr. Melanson would clarify his statement.

Mr. Melanson: How is it that the majority of commentators here are pretending to be Christians? What are your criterion? A shortlist of the faithful minority would also be helpful. Thanks.

Jeremy

Sam's picture

Jeremy,

Arthur is one of those old dudes to stuck in his ways. Simmons has got Roderick Edwards (reformed, supposedly) and now Arthur (rapture in A.D. 70) on his side. Wow. Notice, too, the serious implication: P.P people "pretend" to be christian. I guess Simmons needs to explain, then, why he would want to still be my friend? Is Simmons truly wanting to make this an issue of salvation? Dave Green, Reformed, also holds to a corporate view....Curiously, he has been silent.

Sam

Ed's picture

As we've both said in the past, disagreements aside, we all consider one another family, brothers and sisters in Christ. The kind of self-righteousness being exhibited by Arthur, Rod, and Kurt states that only those who agree with them are Christians. They not only imply it, but state it explicitly in various posts throughout the various internet sites.

The hope in all this is that, someday folks that now listen to their filth will meet us, and find (as ProphetWhiteBoy found out) that we are not evil, but love Christ and all He accomplished for us. PWB is now my dear friend, because he found that the spirit of Christ dwells in all of us "pretend Christians." Unfortunately, the image of God that Kurt et al. manifest is distorted - one of a malevolent, angry God who demands infinite knowledge of all that He is, rather than simple faith in the Lord Jesus.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

flannery0's picture

Wow. Ed, testimonies like this are just more confirmation that we did a good and right thing in Auburn Hills....not that *we* did anything, it was God who worked in that gathering and drew us into communion with each other in His presence (yes, we were already there, but *experiencing* it tangibly is another matter!)...but that it is good and right to gather together in that way. Because there really is not a substitute for the face to face with one another. I am becoming more and more convinced it is *the* way He has given us to see *His* face.

Sincerely,
Tami

flannery0's picture

That is disgusting.

Sam, I have disagreements with both of you guys (although I have much more in common with your views than Kurt's) but regardless of disagreements, that comment, and comments like it which are all too common on these forums, is shameful. (And my theology tells me Christians are never to feel shame, so you can imagine the predicament I am in!)

Last week here in my neck of the woods we experienced some very sweet, warm, refreshing preterist fellowship. I was going to say "in spite of" our disagreements. But you know what? I don't think it was in spite of. I'd like to suggest that it may have even been partly BECAUSE of! Wild, huh? But I listened, really listened to certain people more because I knew going in they were coming from a different perspective. Sometimes I think when you're already in agreement with someone you might not listen as intently. The more I listened, the more I learned, and the more I saw Christ in them, and in our interaction with one another.

Ed Burley (he was one of those I *really* listened to) wrote after our conference that we were Christ to each other, and that it was truly heaven. I couldn't agree more, and the irony is that doctrinal agreement was not required for this *full* experience of heavenly communion. Nor should it be. So I really should stop seeing it as ironic.

Another profound (to me) statement at the conference came from Tim King, who pointed out that our view of others in Christ should be the same as HIS view of them! Imagine that! We should *treat* each other as *Christ views* us! Sounds kind of basic, but how many of us regularly check ourselves against that before we hit "send"?

in Christ,
Tami

tom-g's picture

Dear Sam,

I agree with you that Kurt's syllogism was not valid, however I would very much like to see how King's theology of his CBV leading to universalism is refuted. Therefore I would like to propose the following syllogism that I perceive Kurt's argument to be.

In its perfect first form of
MP
SM
SP
MAJOR PREMISE:
(M)The time when the loosing of all men from the power of the reign of "The Sin" and "The Death" under the Mosaic Law occurred was (P)at the time that the Eschaton occurred.
Minor Premise:
(S)The time when the universal reconciliation of all men to God occurred was (M)at the time when the loosing of all men from the power of the reign of "The Sin" and "The Death" under the Mosaic Law occurred.
CONCLUSION:
Therefore (S)The time when the universal reconciliation of all men to God occurred was (P)at the time that the Eschaton occurred.

I realize that you do not entirely endorse King's theology but, I would hope you would address and refute this reasoning from the publicly published theology of King.

Thank you,
Tom

Sam's picture

Tom,

The logic is better in form. However, the next question would be, are the premises factually true? The MP is not factually true unless you define "all men" in terms of "all manner of men" as a Calvinist would. In that case, the syllogism is good. The "gathering together" of all things into One occurred at the Parousia. But, as the Prophets make explicit, not every single individual is saved. As I pointed out, in Isaiah 25.10 Moab, which is a metonymy for rebellious nations (see any commentary), is "destroyed" at the arrival of the "Great Feast
and "gathering together" ("the reconciliation" - romans 5.11). Universalism is unbiblical.

Sam

tom-g's picture

Thank you Sam,

As a knowledgeable man who is intimately acquainted with King's theology, my question is whether the major premise accurately reflects King's theology?

If King is a Calvinist then the syllogism is correct? But if in King's theology "all men" is the logical "all" encompassing all who may be defined as man, would it still be correctly reasoned from King's theology, although not from Calvinism?

And if it does accurately reflect King's theology, doesn't that affirm Kurt's charge against King?

Thanks,
Tom

Sam's picture

Tom,

King consistently defined "all men" in Cross/Parousia in the Calvinist sense of "all manner of men" not "each man individually." What Simmons fails to understand is that the word "all" is the key to Universalism, not the corporate body view, or the removal of "the death" view. I addressed this in my articles.

Sam

tom-g's picture

Thanks Sam,

I have never studied Calvinism or King's view, that is why it is so gratifying to be able to discuss this with someone so knowledgeable.

I do not understand the distinction of "all manner of men". When speaking of all men in this context is this the designation of a genus with "all manners" of men as a species and each individual man in each "manner of men" as a differentia in each species?

What could be said to not be true of each individual man in every "manner" that has already been said to be true of the whole manner of which they are a part?

Would not "all men" and "all manner of men" be synonymous, having the same logical designation?

If "all men" is the whole and "all manner of men" comprises all of the parts of the whole, where is the logical difference? Or if "all manner of men" is the whole, then each individual man encompasses all of the parts of each "manner of men".

Reasoning from the whole to its parts is logically valid, it is reasoning from the parts to the whole that is invalid.

As I said I have not studied King's theology, but logically isn't Kurt's premise affirmed?

Thanks,
Tom

tom-g's picture

Sam,

Possibly I could use an example to better explain.

If I went to a hardware store to buy a chain that would hold 200 lbs. of weight, the clerk might say to me that he had all manner of 200 lb. chains. Some were long, some short, some with large links, some with small links, some made of plastic, some of aluminum and some of steel, but all would hold 200 lbs. of weight. That would also mean that each and every link of every manner of chain would hold 200 lbs. of weight.

Such would also be true of each and every individual man of each and every manner of men in the context of "all manner of men"

Respectfully,
Tom

Sam's picture

Tom,

Every theology acknowledges the two uses of "all" or "Every" in literature. The first is called the Logical "all". That is, every individual within the class. The second is the Rhetorical "all." Like, "All Judea went out to hear John the baptizer." Are we to mean, "every single individual within the province of Judea, including babies, children, all the Romans, etc went out to hear John"? Kurt's point is not valid.

Sam

tom-g's picture

Hi Sam,

I would think everyone would recognize the use of the rhetorical use of hyperbole could be appropriate at times.

However, I do not understand your position of that rhetorical use to apply in this instance.

As I understand, you do not deny the logical use of the term "all", you just understand its logical use to pertain to "all manner of men", rather than the scriptural "all men". And then you put forth your claim as logical that all men individually as logical particulars are not individually included within the class of manner of men of which they form a logical particular.

My observation would be that this contradicts the law of deductive reasoning that states: "That which is said to be true of a whole is said to be true of all of its parts." (Dictum De Omni)

Regards,
Tom

davo's picture

It should be quite apparent now that Simmons' alternative leads to Universalism if in fact "the death" is defined as merely "hades."Ah Sam, now you're messin' with my universalist brother's logic – especially when I read this: Then the Death AND the Hades were cast into the lake of fire… – Do you suppose the apostle John had a stuttering problem or purhaps was actually having a double vision? Like here we have "the death" which Kurt says is really "Hades", along with Hades itself – but really being "the death" both together, yet also separate, though all together distinct, being thrown into the lake of fire.

I think being thrown into confusion might be a better translation on Kurt's score???

davo

tom-g's picture

To all,

A little Christian compassion toward Kurt would be welcome here. all of you understand what Kurt is attempting to say, so help him as you would any person who, for whatever personal inability, has a legitimate question or concern. I would like to have a dime for every time I pointed out the scripture that a person wanted to quote and could not accurately or could not remember where it was located.

I have tried to put in perfect first form a syllogism that would reflect Kurt's perception of King's theology on this subject. So that the discussion could reflect his concern and not fault his logic. We must always remember that perception is more real than reality. It is his perception that must be argued to, not Sam's or anyone else.

Kurt perceives that King's Mosaic Law CBV leads to Universalism, for those who hold to King's theology without personal revisions. We all know that altering King's theology with personal changes would not be arguing to the same thing at the same time in the same way and is as logically false as his syllogism is poorly conceived.

Kurt has presented as proof of his claim the reality that King's officially authorized representatives and spokesmen are now advocating Universalism in articles. It has not been demonstrated that these persons are distorting or altering King's theology in their articles. The obvious person to do so would be King himself, and no one has shown that King has repudiated these persons or their articles. for a normal person this would very strongly be perceived that the proof is in the pudding.

It is very possible that the unintended consequences of Kurt's claim unfortunately produces problems with other theological doctrines, those are issues that should be addressed at a future time.

In the meantime, create a correct syllogism for Kurt that honestly and accurately reflects Kurt's perception so his concerns may be addressed. Or consider his concerns from a strictly propositional perspective without being combined into a syllogism. At this time it is the matter of the ideas expressed in his propositions that needs to be refuted. And that matter has to do strictly with the theology of King.

As a matter of support for Kurt is evidenced by the degree and depth of departure from King by those responding. If the logic of those who deviate from King is valid then it is King's system that is not valid and Kurt is justified in his claim. It has been well said by someone that if a false premise is permitted then anything is possible including the moon being made of green cheese.

Please demonstrate Christian charity and disciplinary responsibility of the more knowledgeably advanced and assist Kurt the learner to correct his false perceptions, if they are, of King's theology. Not Sam's or Davo's or Virgil' or Tom's, but King's, then you could address your other concerns.

Thank you,
Tom

Ed's picture

Strangely enough Tom, I agree with you.

On the other hand, I would point out that rarely in these discussions has Kurt ever showed anything but malice and ridicule. However, as we oftentimes forget, we are to extend charity even when it is not given; as Christ has done for us.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Malachi's picture

This accustion of "malice and ridicule" is absurd; they must spawn from prejudice on your part. You have been among the most caustic comment-posters out there, and Sam has called me "bone-headed", "incompetent", and promised to show everybody "what you are." I have not made these sorts of remarks or showed the least malice jor disrespect, but even told Sam I hoped we could go on and be friends in a separate post. I think, Ed, you need to clean your glasses.

Ed's picture

Kurt,
I need only refer to your article concerning your ridiculing of those of us who are old earth creationists. You, first of all, mocked us by pretending to believe in an old earth. You commented in that article how you embraced an old earth by denying scripture. It was an article of total ridicule, with little or no scholarship whatsoever.

As far as malice goes: let's try your little fit that you throw here at PP. After disassociating yourself from this website, you then demand that Virgil not allow universalists to post here. And since you are claiming that all who adhere to a covenantal/corporate body view are of necessity universalists, that must mean that you want me, davo, Barry, Paige, Tim Martin, JL, Sam Frost, et al. banned. This is maliciousness on your part.

Kurt, you lost my respect after the Old Earth article. That was when I began to make "caustic" comments to you. You followed it up with your disassociation, followed by numerous articles and comments. In my opinion, your scholarship is an embarrassment, your attitude deplorable, your misrepresentations abominable, and in general, you are malicious and condescending.

With all that said, you remain a Christian, and therefore worthy of forgiveness. It would be appropriate for you to ask for it by admitting your sin. I still consider you a brother, which is more than you can say about me.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Malachi's picture

Well, Ed, there is no malice in attempting to protect the gospel from the error of Universalism, and I most certainly never suggested that all people holding to Covenant Eschatology and the Corporate Body view be banned, as you charge. As far as the Old Earth Creationism article, I offer no apologies. There is no scriptural warrant for OEC; not one word. Those holding to that view are prompted solely from the errors and claims of modern, atheistic theoretical science. They then go about to rewrite scripture to accommodate their views. There was a time when evolution (which OEC is a branch) was deemed heretical. It impugns the historicity of the Bible in favor of atheistic theories of so-called science. It has no place being taught in the Christan church. Although I hold that OEC is very dangerous error that, given time, can only lead men to skepticism and rejection of the Word of God, I do not have malice toward those holding this view. Your charges of malice are personal opinions you have no business posting in public places and would be well advised to keep to yourself.

mazuur's picture

Kurt,

"There is no scriptural warrant for OEC; not one word"

Yeah, the futurist says the same thing concerning Preterism. That can't see it because they will not allow themselves to. You are not different. Someday your eyes will finally be able to see it just as your eyes can now see preterism. How a Preterist can't understand how he may merely being doing the same thing he did while a futurist is beyond me.

"Those holding to that view are prompted solely from the errors and claims of modern, atheistic theoretical science."

Bull crap!! I reject atheistic theoretical science as much as the next guy, yet I am a OEC. hmmmmm. But, then again, I am an Engineer and can see through all (most) the half-truths YEC throw up into peoples (your) faces.

"They then go about to rewrite scripture to accommodate their views."

Gee, that sounds just like our futurist friends again. Could it be you have the same problem they have, and what you used to have before becoming a futurist? I wonder, before you were a preterist, did you condemn preterist? I bet you did. I bet you had all this same rhetoric about how they are outside of Christ because they deny XXXXXX (take your pick from the futurist list of items). It seems to me you didn't learn a thing from coming out of futurism. You still have your biased opinions that you've been brainwashed into believing (YEC) and can't see beyond. Instead you, just like you did against preterist, shout from the rooftops how us OEC are heretical. You've merely switched you focus to another subject. Funny thing is in 15 years you'll probably finally open your eyes to YEC, and then you'll be off condemning the next "heresy", which will be probably be yet another "tradition" you can't see beyond.

-Rich

-Rich

Malachi's picture

Well, Rich, Nobody ever became an Old Earth Creationist from reading Genesis 1 & 2.

"In six days the Lord God made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that in them is." Ex. 20:11.

What part of the heavens did God not make in six days? The earth is in the heavens, being one of the planets hung in space, it too therefore was made within the six days. What part of "all that in them is" should I remove from my Bible? Please tell me. While you are at it, why don't you tell us what passage in the Bible first planted in your mind the idea the earth was millions/billions of years old? Or did that idea originate from without the Bible? Yes, from without the Bible, indeed!

In the Christian church we teach the Bible. Please do not import foreign notions from science about origins into the divine text. That is all we kindly ask, that you leave non-biblical notions out of Biblical exposition. If you want to expound upon so-called scientific notions about origins, do so; but don't pretend they have a source in the Bible.

Blessings,

Ed's picture

What part of the heavens did God not make in six days? The earth is in the heavens, being one of the planets hung in space, it too therefore was made within the six days.

Here is where you show the world your ignorance. Here is where you prove that you don't bother reading anything that has been said here. This is the spot where all can see how asinine your arguments are. You are beyond belief. You claim to refute what you are not even honest enough to learn about.

Tim, JL, myself, and all other OECs I know of teach that "the heavens and the earth" in Genesis 1&2 is the same one that Christ destroyed in order to replace it with "the new heavens and the new earth." It's called THE COVENANT. You would know that if you bothered to read what Tim and JL have written.

I see though that reading someone else's material is too much for you. Your lack of integrity prohibits you from actually dealing with the arguments put forth by Tim and JL (and numerous Church Fathers). You resort to misrepresentations and lies.

Next time Kurt, try to be honest...oops, you can't do that, or you might have to admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

mazuur's picture

Nobody ever became a Preterist by reading the Bible alone either, did they? No, they factored in other information such as Josephus. Somebody you quoted quite a bit in your commentary on Revelation to prove and support your case.

You have taken that external (non-Biblical) information and used it to correct your interpretation of the Bible.

"Please do not import foreign notions from science about origins into the divine text."

Please don't import foreign notions from a non-believing Jew about eschatology into the divine text either.

-Rich

-Rich

Sam's picture

Kurt,

I have always maintained and have stated that one reads WAY TOO MUCH into a supposed emotionalism. We must use words of criticism, and Kurt, you know that I could go through your essays on this matter and find strong words of criticism against me. I did not say, if you read correctly, that "Kurt is a bonehead." I said, "how bone headed must a person be..." That's not name calling. As far as incompetent, on this matter (and this matter alone), you have demonstrated to me incompetence to thoroughly analyse King's theology. I don't see much name calling there as more than I do disagreement. You have stated this much about me. You continue to insist that I am a Four pointer when, in fact, I KNOW that I am not (who is a better judge about what I believe? You or me?). Honestly, what I meant about showing people what you are, is what has been written elsewhere in terms of the presuppositions you come from. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't mean it in some sinister way of showing everyone that you are "evil" or whatever. People read too much into this kind of stuff.

I have always stated that my writing is very tongue and cheek and sarcastically humorous. It's like Gary North or Rush Limbaugh. I wrote that I do not dislike you, that you are a brother and a friend. I would hope to be able to speak together again at a conference or whatever. I am sure you and I have much to agree upon. But, let's not make this into an emotional thing (Ed, Tom). It's not. As one who has spent a great deal of his life in seminary circles, I take theology very, very serious (obviously), and my convictions get mixed with my confidence and this get judged as arrogance. Oh well. I suppose God is still working on me in that regard. But, that's honestly all that it is.

Sam

Believability's picture

The essence of "Covenant Eschatology" is the removal of the effects of sin and death through the applied meaning of Christ's death carried through the Parousia in A.D. 70. The "collective" or "corporate" view is the only logical approach that takes up the theme of redemptive history and carries it to its victorious conclusion in Christ Jesus.

Although I may not be of the "reformed" faith (perhaps there remains a "wee bit" of having once been a Baptist), even I understand the concept of the Federal headship of "Adam" in contradistinction to that of "Christ." The analogy of the apostle Paul in that regard shows conclusively that what Adam forfeited in the garden through the entrance of sin into the world is restored in Christ who overcomes "the sin" and "the death." Did not John the Baptizer say that Jesus came as the "Lamb of God who takes away THE SIN of the world"?

It was the enslavement of all of humanity, bound up in the Adamic "body of death" that cried out for deliverance that could only come through the Cross and the Parousia of Christ. The entrance of the Mosaic Law was the chosen vessel through which humanity "in Adam" was carried to the foot of the Cross where the benefits of the shed blood of our Savior were applied. When the gates of Hades were broken down and the day of Judgment arrived the dead ones were released and judged according to their deeds.

There is such harmony is the expression of God's redemptive plan and the carrying out of His eternal purpose. I am certain that you have a different view related to 'election' than do I, however, the reality of what God accomplished is the same. Some received eternal life and others did not. The classic illustration of D.L. Moody is that the door of salvation said on the outside "whosoever will" while on the inside, "chosen from the foundation of the world."

There is much about the eternal wisdom of God that we as humans do not comprehend and yet both of us appreciate the loving response of our Father to needs of fallen humanity.

Simmons simply misses the point because he has become obsessed with the notion that Max King and his theology has become the "mark of the beast" and is leading people off into universalism--a proposition that WAS never, and WILL never be proved as the logical source from which Preterist Universalism arises.

I respect those with whom I strongly disagree with regard to their universalist stance. However, I also strongly disagree with the conclusions Kurt reaches regarding the nature of "the Law" by seeking to dichotomize it into two constituent elements when the Scriptures make no such distinction. Anyone who seeks to "keep the commandments" as a means through which to attain salvation (moral, ceremonial or otherwise) are missing the true meaning of grace which comes as a gift from God through the acceptance of it by faith.

Obedience to God arises OUT of faith and not OUT OF WORKS (ex argon) as the demonstration of that faith. Works of law (in any form) do not bring about justification. Children obey their parent not from a dread of punishment or fear of rejection, but out of hearts that understand the depth and meaning of love and relationship.

Covenant Eschatology is about RELATIONSHIP established through the administration of Covenant on the behalf of those who are IN the covenant.

Larry Siegle
Walnut Creek, CA

Sam's picture

Larry,

It is a strength of unity between Reformed and those like yourself that see these points. Rather than divide, we can see that there is unity in what Paul was teaching. Issues like "freewill" are divorced from this discussion, but it on the level of corporate identity that both Reformed and non-Reformed can come together. Simmons is making this an issue of NO Reformed. That is, it is REFORMED preterism that borrows from King that is the culprit. Our view does not seek to make that division. Rather, like my dear friend Don Preston, our shared view, IN SPITE OF our differences on "freewill" and the like, unite us together. Preston and I AGREE on this, even though he and I would disagree on "freewill." It is this further dimension of agreement that can allow a great relationship between Reformed and non-Reformed Preterists to work together. Simmons' view seeks to undermine this.

Sam

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43