Now, King may have changed his views on such passages, but the point to notice is that his view of covenant eschatology and corporate identity between Adam and Christ is not affected in the least. It is not the point of contention that Simmons is making it out to be. In other words, Beck, King and Tim King may in fact be Universalists, but they did not get there because of the corporate view. They allegedly got there through another route, most notably upon a reflection of the grace of God, who God casts out and who he keeps in, and upon what basis does he do so. This hardly has anything to do with the corporate view and it is Simmons' full responsibility to show that the corporate view necessarily leads to Universalism. If he merely argues that some who have come to accept the universalist concept also accept the corporate view, then he has merely argued ad hominem. Or, more logically, propter hoc. That is "after this, therefore because of this", which every logician will tell you is a fallacy. No, what Simmons must prove is that it is no mere coincidence that some who hold to the corporate view have also come to accept the universalistic view because it is the necessary, logical step. That it is, in fact, the corporate view itself that leads to universalism. Finally, he must also show not from his own exegesis, but from the exegesis of King and myself (who he has consistently lumped together) that we lead to Universalism.

Now, with the above being said, this first part will deal with the framework of Full Preterism. My second part will then deal with the corporate view which I fit into this framework. It is the framework, however, that dictates to me that the swallowing up of "the Death" for "all peoples" does not, and cannot, lead to Universalism.