You are hereCase Has Already Been Tried: No New Facts Put in Evidence. Sam’s Case Dismissed on the Merits
Case Has Already Been Tried: No New Facts Put in Evidence. Sam’s Case Dismissed on the Merits
by Kurt Simmons
In our first debate, Sam failed to demonstrate that King’s Universalism comes from a source other than his Covenant Eschatology. Because he had no case he could lay before the reader, Sam threw a temper tantrum and quit. Sam now wants to rehabilitate himself; not by proofs he has suddenly found and wants to place in evidence, but by throwing more dust in the air to create confusion and divert attention from the question at hand. Ask yourself: have any of Sam’s articles shown that King arrived at Universalism by some route other than Covenant Eschatology? Has Sam made any attempt to refute the evidence we have set before the reader showing the logical implications of Covenant Eschatology’s basic assumptions? No.In our first debate, Sam failed to demonstrate that King’s Universalism comes from a source other than his Covenant Eschatology. Because he had no case he could lay before the reader, Sam threw a temper tantrum and quit. Sam now wants to rehabilitate himself; not by proofs he has suddenly found and wants to place in evidence, but by throwing more dust in the air to create confusion and divert attention from the question at hand. Ask yourself: have any of Sam’s articles shown that King arrived at Universalism by some route other than Covenant Eschatology? Has Sam made any attempt to refute the evidence we have set before the reader showing the logical implications of Covenant Eschatology’s basic assumptions? No.Syllogisms and the Logical Implications of King’s Doctrine
Sam wants to talk about the proper form of a logical syllogism, but will never address the logical implications of King’s eschatology. He wants to talk about the number of translations that support his view of Romans five (all of two), but does not show how if a thousand such translation could be produced this would exculpate Covenant Eschatology from Universalism. Sam wants to talk about all his training in logic and Greek grammar, he drops names of commentators no one knows or cares about (all of which is supposed to impress us), but he never gets around to sustaining the proposition he challenged me to debate! In short, Sam’s whole presentation is consumed in irrelevant material and non-issues. He has failed to carry the debate and now wants to save face.
The logical implications of King’s Covenant Eschatology clearly lead to Universalism and other serious errors. We have demonstrated these by prose (narrative), explaining King’s view, and how it led him and Presence Ministries to Universalism. The basic premise of Covenant Eschatology is that the power of sin and death resided in the law of Moses. Hence, Larry Siegle says “As long as the Law was in force there was no way to be restored to the presence of God.”[1] Max King affirms the same: “The defeat of sin is tied to the annulment of the old aeon of law”[2] This then becomes the basis of Tim King’s Universalism: “Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives under the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world.” In other words, King’s is a system of Universalism via Antinomianism. Take away the source of condemnation and mankind is acquitted and justified before heaven’s throne. Did Sam ever deal with this? Did he ever attempt to demonstrate that this is not King’s view, or that, even if it is, it does not logically lead to Universalism? No. If he could have, he would have. His failure can only be interpreted as defeat; a tacit confession that Covenant Eschatology does lead to Universalism and all the other errors we have assigned.
This same teaching of King also diminishes the cross and bifurcates man’s redemption. It denies that the cross triumphed over the law, affirming instead that the law had to be taken away before man could be saved! Here are the quotes of Siegle and King again. Read them and see that we are right: “As long as the Law was in force there was no way to be restored to the presence of God.”[3] Max King affirms the same: “The defeat of sin is tied to the annulment of the old aeon of law”[4] The law was not taken away so man could be saved from sin; it was because man was saved from sin that the law was taken away. It was schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, nothing more. Once Christ redeemed us from the debt of sin, the purpose of the law was fulfilled. Sam asks: “If the death is defeated at the cross, according to Simmons, then why is Paul still looking forward to its defeat at the parousia of Christ?” The reason death is not defeated until the eschaton is not because the law needed to be removed, but because Christ needed to carry his blood within the Holy of Holies. When that was accomplished, Christ would emerge from the heavenly temple, to avenge his saints and raise the dead. (Heb. 9:24-28) We stated this in our last article. Why didn’t Sam deal with it, since he felt the need to make another response?
We stated in our last article that the passage of the law was soteriologically irrelevant; that it did not change man’s standing before God. We pointed out that the law of Moses was impressed with no power not present in moral law binding upon men today. Could anything strike more at the foundations of Covenant Eschatology than to assert the passage of the Mosaic law was a complete irrelevancy in terms of man’s standing with God? Hardly! King’s whole system is founded upon the assumption that law of Moses was “the state and power of death to be destroyed by the reign of Christ”[5]and that “The defeat of sin is tied to the annulment of the old aeon of law.”[6] We then pointed out that if the moral law is invested with the same power of condemnation that sin under the Mosaic law held, there could be no resurrection as asserted by Covenant Eschatology. Did Sam attempt to refute these arguments, which strike at the very the key-stone in the King arch? No. He never mentioned one word!
We attempted to reduce what we demonstrated by prose (narrative) to the form of logical syllogisms. Our case does not depend upon these syllogisms; they do not express any arguments we did not make by narrative or prose. They are provided merely for the convenience of the reader that he may visualize the arguments “at a glance.” Sam focuses all his energy on the “form” of the syllogism and ignores the implications of King’s doctrine which they attempt to express. Take the syllogisms away; get rid of them entirely! The arguments they embody still remain and Sam must deal with them. But he has not and cannot. Not one word.
Here are the syllogisms again for the convenience of the reader. Any person with average intelligence will recognize immediately that they express the substance of King’s system as we have shown by narrative and argument elsewhere.
Syllogism No. 1
Major Premise: The reign of sin and death over man was determined by the Mosaic law
Minor Premise: The Mosaic law was annulled at the eschaton, losing all men of its power; therefore,
Conclusion: All men are loosed of the power of sin and death (viz., universally reconciled to God).
Syllogism No. 2
Major Premise: The power of sin and death over mankind resided in the Mosaic law.
Minor Premise: The Mosaic law was done away for all men for all time in A.D. 70. Therefore,
Conclusion: All men are freed from the power of sin and death.
Syllogism No. 3
Major Premise: The resurrection consisted in the removal of legal condemnation.
Minor Premise: Legal condemnation exists today despite annulment of the Mosaic law. Therefore,
Conclusion: There was no spiritual resurrection based upon annulment of the Mosaic law.
The first is based upon Tim King’s statement: “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.” (The reader will notice how similar this is to Sam’s statement that sin and death have been banished from the cosmos.) The premises are not ours. They are Tim King’s. We disagree with them, but that is beside the point. These are King’s reasons for urging “comprehensive grace.” They rest 100% upon Covenant Eschatology, just as we have charged. We reworked the conclusion in the first syllogism in our last article to remove the objection that it was in “bad form”; Sam still has not dealt with it, nor has he dealt with the narrative form of argument it represents. When he does, perhaps we will have a debate. Until then, it is all bluff and bluster. (Since Sam cannot, I invite any other proponent of Covenant Eschatology to attempt to extricate the system from Universalism and error. I will meet anyone King or anyone else cares to put forward in debate. Jack Scott previously offered Don Preston’s and William Bell’s and his own help. To these may be added Tim King, Kevin Beck, and Larry Siegle. Brethren, Sam requires your rescue; he calls to you for help. Alone or together, I humbly await your acceptance of this gentle offer. You are seven (eight with Max). I am one. Surely together you should be able to make a defense. If you cannot rescue Covenant Eschatology, who can? We do not urge you from malice, but brotherly affection, knowing we are friends, and are all equally committed to the truth. Rescue Covenant Eschatology from Universalism and the errors we have assigned if you can.)
The second is formulated from King’s teaching in general, particularly the notion that the law was the source of mankind’s condemnation and the power of sin and death. Like the first syllogism, it shows King’s system leads to Universalism.
The third shows that if a source of legal condemnation still exists beyond the Mosaic law (the moral law, for example) convicting all men of sin, then the “resurrection” affirmed by Covenant Eschatology could not have occurred. This has the happy affect of rescuing the system from Universalism, but it overthrows the spiritualized view of the resurrection that makes Covenant Eschatology unique. Thus, no matter which way they turn, proponents of King’s system are stuck – either with Universalism, or abandoning the corporate body view of the resurrection. The choice is theirs. Sam and Larry appear to choose Universalism, for they are unwilling to let go of the corporate body view.[7]
Definition of Death
Sam says that the definition of “the death” is the crux of the issue and decides it all. “It is the conclusion of what is really and always the issue for me: the definition of "the Death… This is the very crux of the issue.” Am I glad that Sam says the definition of death is the crux of the matter before us. His definition (imputed Adamic death) leads to Universalism. It does this because he condemns all men by this law, then casts it out of the cosmos, leaving nothing to condemn them. “The Sin has been removed from the cosmos along with the Death. This is not just true for believers in Christ, but true for all men, everywhere.” Sam says “There is no law taking into account our sins.”[8] Thus, by Sam’s view, all men are acquitted; all are justified. This is precisely the position of Tim King when he says “Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives under the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world.”
Sam admits his system falls into Universalism: “Many would assume that the only result of such a theology is universal salvation for every man. This would be true.” So, Sam devises the “great escape.” Jesus’ death took away the “cause” of sin and death, but left the “effect” in place. All the logic in the world cannot make this system fly, and Sam knows it. He just hopes you will forget what he said! Dear reader, sin is the cause; the effect of sin is death. The cause cannot be “un-done.” Jesus did not un-do Adam’s or any other man’s transgression. Rather, Jesus paid the penalty of death, remitting the punishment (legal effect) of sin for those who accept Jesus’ sacrifice in faith. By his sacrifice, Jesus acquits the believer of juridical death and its sentence of eternal/second death. But, for those that do not believe, the bondage of sin and death remains. Sin and death have not been removed from the cosmos one whit (Hades exists beyond the cosmos.)
Sam’s Last Attempt to Impugn Us
Sam thinks he has found a way to prove us wrong when we say that only Hadean death was destroyed in AD 70. His argument goes like this: Rev. 20:14/21:4 = I Cor. 15:55 = Isa. 25:6-8 = Adamic death (Mosaic law by King’s view). He then says that swallowing up death in victory means “salvation” is come. (“One can see from the context that this swallowing up of "the death" means "His Salvation" has arrived.”) Now, according to Sam, “all peoples” and “all nations” of Isa. 25:7 means all that shall ever be born. Thinking he has turned the tables, Sam then says that since all those born until that time were in Hades, therefore we (Simmons) are affirming universal salvation. (“All peoples are in Hades. Hades is swallowed up for "all peoples" so that "all peoples" are released from Hades. The swallowing up of Hades is the coming of "His Salvation." Conclusion: all peoples are saved.”)
The short answer to Sam’s argument is his definition of “all peoples.” “All peoples” and “all nations” in Isa. 25:7 does not mean every man ever born as Sam asserts. It means that every race and language of people would see and share in the salvation Christ offers to mankind. The prophet says, “all flesh” shall come and worship before him. “All flesh” should see the glory of his salvation. (Isa. 40:5; 66:23) Does the prophet mean every man? Not at all! He means every race and language of men would partake in the salvation of Christ. Isaiah says elsewhere, “All nations” shall flow into the church; “many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord.” (Isa. 2:2, 3) Simple. Since all peoples and all nations does not mean every person, Sam has not turned the tables on us at all, and Sam’s argument comes to naught. Nothing we say can be made to affirm Universalism.
Dear reader, test it for yourself. There are five kinds of death that can be identified in the Bible. 1) Moral/spiritual; 2) legal/juridical; 3) physical; 4) Hadean; 5) eternal/second death. If any of these were destroyed in AD 70 other than Hadean death, Universalism will result. If moral death (original sin/inherent fallenness) is gone, all men are returned to Edenic innocence and justified from sin; we are as Adam before the fall. If legal/juridical death is abolished, then the sentence of death attached to sin is removed and all are acquitted; there is nothing to hold them accountable. If physical death is annulled, all men will live forever on earth. And if eternal/second death is done away, the penalty for sin is removed and all men go free. Simple. These are not difficult concepts. I don’t know why Sam cannot deal with them.
Sam goes into a fit because I affirm that Rev. 21:4 is talking about death resulting from persecution under Nero. Hear him: “Simmons wrote, "When Revelation says there will be no more death, this should not be taken in an absolute sense. This is clear from the fact that it also says there will be no more sorrow, crying, or pain. Since these are still a very real and permanent part of human existence this side of eternity, it seems clear that the statement is intended to be understood in a relative sense." In Simmons' exegesis Revelation 21.4 is not in reference to Isaiah 25.8! Folks, SEE THE CONFUSION HERE! Revelation 21.4 cannot, for Simmons, be Isaiah 25.8, because in the above quote, Simmons quotes I Co 15.54 WHICH QUOTES ISAIAH 25.8!!!!! But, THERE, he says Paul is talking about the removal of HADEAN DEATH. But, in Revelation 21.4 WHICH IS A DIRECT ALLUSION TO ISAIAH 25.8, Simmons FLIP FLOPS AGAIN saying that "the death" that is no more is NOT HADEAN DEATH!!!!! However, as the context shows, "the death" that is thrown into the Lake of Fire is the same "the death" that is no more AS A RESULT OF BEING CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE!!!! How boneheaded does one have to be not to see the OBVIOUS run around we get here when we press the details of Simmons' exegesis!”
According to Sam, then, Rev. 20:14/21:4 = I Cor. 15:55 = Isa. 25:8 = Adamic death (Mosaic law per King). Alright, Sam, have it your way; let these texts all refer to juridical death. The result is Universalism. For if there is “no more” juridical death, all men are justified. Remember, you said it, Sam: “Many would assume that the only result of such a theology is universal salvation for every man. This would be true.” Tim King said it too: “Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives under the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world.” Maybe I should quit at this point; Sam just gave away the debate.
What about Rev. 21:4?
But does our position regarding Rev. 21:4 conflict with Isa. 25:6-8? Not at all. In its historical context, the prophecies of Isaiah speak to the Assyrian and Babylonian armies that wasted the world from Egypt to Elam on the Caspian Sea, bringing fire and sword, famine, pestilence, and death. In its historical context, Assyria and Babylon were the source of gloom and pall of death, “the veil cast over all nations;” in its historical context, Assyria and Babylon represented the overflowing scourge of death that would pass through the land and trod down men. (Isa. 28:18) It was in the destruction of Assyria and Babylon that the Lord would remove the veil of death and destruction from all nations. The whole context of Isa. 25 is involved with the captivity under Assyria and Babylon and the defeat that God would ultimately deliver. The chapter opens, mentioning how the Lord had made cites ruins, and defenced cities an heap (v. 2); it talks about the storm and blast of the nations, and the overthrow of Moab, the enemy of God’s people. (vv. 4, 5, 10) And in the midst of this, he mentions the defeat of death in the mountain of the Lord. How did he do this? When Hezekiah was king, 185,000 Assyrians died before the walls of Jerusalem by a plague from the Lord (Isa. 37:36); the dead bodies of the Assyrian host were cast into Tophet (Gehenna) where they were consumed by fire and maggots (worms). (Isa. 30:31-33) It was also accomplished in the return of the captivity, which is characterized a ransom from death. (Isa. 26:19) Most commentators acknowledge that Hosea has the return of the captivity from Babylon in view when he says “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction.” (See Clarke in loc.) Homer Hailey thus says, “Hosea looks not to Christ’s resurrection or to ours, but to the restoration of the people.”[9] All are agreed, of course, that in their Messianic context, these passages look beyond the captivity to Christ; but the point remains: the death to be defeated spoke initially to the oppression of Assyria and the people’s captivity. If that is true of Hosea and Isaiah, why not John?
Obviously, Paul does not have Assyria in view in I Cor. 15:55. Paul is looking to another plague and scourge of death – Hades. This is why Paul says “Where O Hades is thy victory?” (I Cor. 15:55) Hades was the prison that held man in its clutches. Hades kept man from ascending to be with God in heaven. Sin was defeated in Christ’s cross; but the last enemy (death/Hades) remained to be defeated. This would occur in the resurrection of the last day. John portrays this in Rev. 20:11-15, where Hades is cast into the lake of fire, signifying the defeat of the long enemy of man. But in Rev. 21:4, he seems to have the death, sorrow, and tears of martyrdom and persecution in view – just as Isaiah and Hosea did before him. Evidence of this is seen in the fact that tears, sorrowing, and crying are still present in the world and the church. The prophet is only speaking relatively, not absolutely; he has in view the great tribulation, which was now past. We give again Foy E. Wallace’s comments:
This passage was the fulfillment of the promise in chapter 7:14-17 which was vouchsafed by Christ himself that the faithful through tribulation would become recipients of the blessings signified in the symbolic phrases of these two texts. The same figures of speech are employed by Isaiah in the descriptions of the blessings that should come upon Israel when freed from exile and returned to their land [Isa. 25:8; 35:10]…no more death referred to the martyrdom of the saints as chapter 2:10; neither sorrow nor crying referred to the sorrows of persecution; and neither any more pain was just another phrase for no more tribulation.[10]
But let us assume that Rev. 20:14 and 21:4 have the same death in view as Sam asserts they must. Then, upon the further assumption that Isa. 25:6-8 again has the same death in view, what does Sam prove? Nothing! Sam’s whole argument turns on is faulty interpretation of “all peoples” in Isa. 25:7, mistaking it for every person, instead of what is really means, “every race, language, and nation.” Hence, no matter how you approach it, Sam’s argument comes to nothing. Every race, language and nation would see the salvation of God in Hades’ defeat. Nothing in what we say or what Isaiah says can be turned to make us affirm Universal salvation for all men.
Conclusion
Sam wants to retry the case, but has brought forward no new substantive evidence. His whole motive in this last article was to save face. Nothing he has said exculpates King’s Covenant Eschatology from Universalism. There is only one verdict the evidence will support: Guilty! Covenant Eschatology stands condemned.
[1] According to Siegle, the “body of death” is mankind under the Mosaic law: “This is why Paul cried out for deliverance from the Mosaic "body of death" (Rom. 7:24).” Siegle; from a comment posted on PlanetPreterist.
[2] Max R. King, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ, p. 644.
[3] According to Siegle, the “body of death” is mankind under the Mosaic law: “This is why Paul cried out for deliverance from the Mosaic "body of death" (Rom. 7:24).” Siegle; from a comment posted on PlanetPreterist.
[4] Max R. King, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ, p. 644.
[5] Max R. King, The Spirit of Prophecy (Warren, OH, 1971), pp. 144.
[6] Max R. King, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ, p. 644.
[7] “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.” – From a post by Larry Siegle on PlantetPreterist.com appended to Sam’s last article. Notice how much Larry sounds like King, and how little he sounds like the Bible.
[8] Samuel M. Frost, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead (Truth Voice Pub. 2004), p.157.
[9] Homer Hailey, The Minor Prophets (Hosea) (1193, Religious Supply, Inc.), p. 181.
[10] Foy E. Wallace Jr., The Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, 1966), pp. 429, 430.
You know, as someone who personally rejects universalism (at least at this stage), I am finding this spat really funny.
Kurt, you are making so much fuss over the fact that you see some preterists here holding to beliefs that "lead to" universalism. A foregone conclusion is that if it leads to a certain outcome (predetermined to be untenable), it must be false. That's called the fallacy of an appeal to consequence. In other words,
A = B
B is unfavorable
A must be false.
or in specific terms,
King's theology leads to universalism.
I don't like universalism.
King's theology must be false.
This says nothing of the internal consistency of King's theology (much less its erroneous nature), and begs the question as to the error of universalism.
Good point Ransom. We shouldn't abandon good logic and good hermeneutics because we do not like the consequence of where it "leads" to. That is what the guys who are holding the Pret Idealist view are doing.
Now - Sam has proven already LOGICALLY and HERMENEUTICALLY that it does not NECESSARILY lead to universalism.
That is not a feeling I have. It is logic.
I think I have also demonstrated that Kurt's (and anyone who holds) an Arminian Universal Atonement view would be supporting a view that would "lead" to universalism, if you look at this below...
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, "Because of unbelief."
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"
by John Owen
Hi Mike,
I would be glad to answer in debate any defense you care to attempt to make of Covenant Eschatology vis-a-vis Universalism and the other errors we have assigned. Please try your hand, by all means. The connections of King's Covenant Eschatology are obvious and irrefutable. Sam failed to carry his case; he never showed that King's Universalism comes from any source other than Covenant Eschatology. Why don't you try. Just go out and read all of the stuff on Presence Ministries' web site and then put together an article demonstrating that the Universalism they are preaching comes from Arminianism or whatever other source you feel is justified.
But if you decline the invitation, then I would suggest it is because you know (or will soon find out) that King's system cannot be extricated from Universalism without overthrowing its most basic teachings.
I will be patiently waiting.
Malachi writes:
Sam failed to carry his case; he never showed that King's Universalism comes from any source other than Covenant Eschatology.
He doesn't have to. In LOGIC Sam is not obligated to prove that. Only that it doe not NECESSARILY lead to it. Sam proved that.
Kurt - seriously after your syllogism fiasco. You may want to buy a logic course online or something.
I would also add that whatever Sam was attempting to prove, it had nothing to do with King's Covenant Eschatology. King posits the eschatological "resurrection" based upon annulment of the Mosaic law, Sam was off somewhere talking about imputed Adamic death and never talked about the Mosaic law at all. As I said in the debate, if Sam can formulate a system that does not lead to Universalism, fine. Anybody can do that. The issue was, does KING'S system lead to Universalism - an issue Sam never dealt with. However, I think we showed that Sam's system is equally prone to Universalism, as he himself admits: “Many would assume that the only result of such a theology is universal salvation for every man. This would be true.”
Dear Kurt,
I am perplexed!
In all of your comments you persist in attempting to justify the poorly constructed, invalid syllogism used in your presentation. I thought Sam was very gentle in his critique of that syllogism.
I have reconstructed that syllogism into its perfect first form according to my perception of your premise. Sam has agreed it is formally correct and the universalism of the conclusion is valid. Your premise has been acknowledged as true by Sam in his comments to me.
Here is my problem. Why do you not accept and declare that Sam has acknowledged your premise has been prooven and there is no further opposition to your claim?
Why have you never acknowledged that the syllogism I proposed is valid and altered your presentation to the use of the syllogism in that form? Are you disallowing that syllogism as not fairly representing your view? Why would you disallow a logical presentation that vindicates your claim while continuing to persist in that which justly allows someone to advise you to go out and buy a book on the introduction to logic?
I hope you can see why I am perplexed.
Respectfully,
Tom
Hi Tom,
I do not read all these posts; I don't have time and most contribute little of anything constructive to the discussion. So, I may have missed something.
I am not aware that Sam has agreed that our premise has been proved; in fact, as far as I am aware he continues to deny it. He denies King's Covenant Eschatology leads to Universalism. If he now admits this, it is news to me.
Did you formulate a syllogism? I apologize if I did not see it. But, really, the syllogism is beside the point. Our argument was not based upon syllogisms, but the logical implications of King's doctrine and teaching. Those are the issue, not how to reduce them to a proper syllogistic form. Sam has not addressed or conceded the logical implications of King's system, so far as I am aware. If he has, that would be a step in the right direction. We can't correct a problem until we admit we have one!
Kurt says: "Our argument was not based upon syllogisms, but the logical implications of King's doctrine and teaching."
More distortion of facts, i see. You distorted the facts about the translations. You distorted Sam's post by pulling comments he made on one syllogism and applying them to one he never commented on, and now here you are saying that your argument was not based on syllogisms at all.
Uh, Kurt, your part II of the second reply contained THREE OF THEM. Who in the heck do you think brought them up to start with? YOU!
Face it - your syllogisms stunk, they were not rational, they failed the test of logic, they were, as Tom said, "poorly constructed" and "invalid".
Face it - you lose. End of story.
thereignofchrist.com
This is where a search for truth stops and debate tactics and face-saving enter in, Mike. The debate was expressly for the purpose of attempting to identify if King's Universalism resulted from his Covenant Eschatology. Did King come to Universalism via Covenant Eschatology, or some other route? We charged that King has followed the logical implications of his own teaching to their logical conclusions. Sam denied this, but never proved it. The syllogism were gratuitous and merely attempted to express the logical implications of King's views and reasoning "at-a-glance." Only someone trying to save face and avoid intelligent discussion of the issues would use the asserted imperfection of the syllogisms I put forth as an excuse to avoid all discussion of the logical implications that represented the very heart of the issue before us. Sam chose to dodge the question, and so have you. The fact remains: King arrived at Universalism due to the logical implications of his Covenant Eschatology. Anytime you care to show otherwise, I would be glad to respond.
We charged that King has followed the logical implications of his own teaching to their logical conclusions. Sam denied this, but never proved it.
Sam did prove LOGICALLY that Kings view does not NECESSARILY lead to universalism.
Sorry you don't know the difference between proof and pursuation Kurt. Maybe you should look it up.
Dear Michael B,
I see from your comment that you seem to agree with Kurt's premise about King's theology.
In addressing Kurt's comment about King's universalism you said in effect that Sam only had to prove that King's covenantal CBV theology did not necessarily lead to his conclusion of universalism.
With this comment it seems you agree that King's theology is universalism, and furthermore if his universalism was not arrived at logically as a result of his covenantal CBV then his theology is inconsistent.
Regards,
Tom
Tom - I have never read King. I only know it from what I have heard. Whether King believes in it or not is not the issue. So I assumed that he did ie even if he did his view does not NECESSARILY lead to it.
Non Sequitur:
Something that just does not follow. For example, "Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty!"
Another example: arguing at length that your religion is of great help to many people. Then, concluding that the teachings of your religion are undoubtably true.
Or: "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large."
Kurt,
Don Preston claims to be teaching Covenant Eschatology. Don is even asking for money to help him teach Covenant Eschatology. You are accusing Don Preston of Universalism.
You've been at this charade for a year now. Put up or shut up. Where's your evidence that Preston is a Universalist or is heading that way?
And if he is, why did you have him at your conference?
You are a fraud. You make false distinctions over terminology. You spread lies and falsehoods over what others believe.
Preterism is Covenant Eschatology is Preterism. No amount of foolish nuancing on by you or your favorite fawning psychophant will change that.
Prove that Don Preston's teachings on Covenant Eschatology lead to Universalism or shut up.
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
To all,
Ransom, are you admitting to the truth of Kurt's premise as you seem to be doing? In any case, Kurt's charge had nothing to do with universalism being good or bad, he charged the logical conclusion of King's theology leads to universalism.
MichaelB, repeating an invalid concept which you referenced before by Owens does not make it correct now. Any of the logicians on PP can easily demonstrate that. Including and especially Sam.
JL, back in attack dog mode again it seems. However the first law of deductive reasoning states: "Two things both of which are the same to a third thing are the same to each other". Because of this law we are able to form valid syllogisms.
It's just like you to avoid the issue and introduce something other than that which is being discussed. The issue is King's theology not Preston's. And proof by Kurt that his premise about King is true, if Preston teaches King's theology, then the first law of deductive reasoning may be applied to Preston. It is not necessary for Kurt to address Preston's theology, logic does that for him.
Regards,
Tom
Tom,
It is just like you to avoid the real issue. Kurt thinks he is the definition of Preterism. He has made himself irrelevant and now resorts to constant and falacious attacks.
So by "deductive reasoning" Preston teaches Universalism. "It is not necessary for Kurt to address Preston's theology," but it is necessary for Kurt to address his hypocritical support and promotion of Preston.
Further, if Kurt is not willing to claim that Preston is a Universalist, then Kurt is either a coward or he has been lying all along about CE leading to or being Universalism. Which is it?
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
Thank you Ransom, Davo, JL,
From all of your comments it would have to be perceived, from the complete silence regarding Kurt's premise and proofs he offered, that Kurt did in fact prove his premise and King's theology does lead to universalism.
Any other responses are just begging the question, except for JL who engaged in both begging the question and an ad hominum (as expected).
Kurt's premise was that King's CBV and his Covenental view lead to universalism, period. No other person, preterism, or universalism were included in his premise, only King's personal brand of theology. A major proof he used was that King's organization headed by King's official spokesmen are writing and teaching universalism, including King's son. Commenting on any thing other than Kurt's premise and the facts he provided is irrelevant.
None of this has ever been, or attempted to be, refuted by anyone. It would seem without any serious opposition that Kurt's premise has been affirmed.
Regards,
Tom
Tom,
We have 400 pages that prove preterism, and specifically Kurt's theology taught in his magnum opus "The Consummation of the Ages," leads to a local/regional interpretation of Noah's Flood.
Kurt is the one who challenged us to a debate, on that subject, in the midst of this discussion. Kurt is the one who reneged immediately, when we accepted the debate.
Kurt has demonstrated that he is a hypocrite, a liar, and a coward. That is not an ad hominum.
Your double standard is showing.
Take care.
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
Hi JL,
I most certainly have not reneged on our debate; I have every expectation of debating you and Tim right here on PP where all may have the benefit of reading the exchange without cost or hassle. In fact, you should send me an advance copy so I can get started analyzing it right away.
Well Kurt,
You said
I am interested in the possibility of a live debate, perhaps in Carlsbad next March, in which you defend your allegorical interpretation of Genesis, Old Earth Creationism and a regional flood, and I defend the scriptural account of six days, the literal chronology of the Bible, and the universal flood. Also, your assertion that young earth creationism logically leads to dispensationalism and that Preterists "must" adopt your allegorical treatment of the divine text to be consistent ought to be debated as well.PP is not live, Tim and I do not have an allegorical interpretation, and you do not believe in a universal flood.
You don't need the new book to know that. You need to actually read the stuff we've posted. It also wouldn't hurt for you to read some stuff by Young-Earth Creationists so you can see what folly you are actually pushing and by Old-Earth Creationists so you can understand the other side of some of these issues. But I know that's too much to ask of you.
May I suggest for the first debate topic:
Kurt believes in a universal flood.
I recommend we state it in the negative, so I can affirm and go first. That will save you a lot of work. You can immediately conceed.
The reason you will lose, you don't even know what terms mean. Augustine defined it and every modern old-earth-creationist/futurist holds to that view. Any young-earther who claims he holds an old-earth creationist's view of the flood is either too ignorant or too sloppy to debate.
There is no reason for me to waste my breath with you unless you are paying. You've not bothered to educate yourself on the issues involved. I have no reason to believe you ever will.
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
JL,
By what absurd definition is it possible for anyone to debate a resolve that is based solely upon someones private interpretation? That person's private interpretation is a given and not subject to ratiocination. A person's private interpretation can never be refuted, the only thing that can be utilized in attempting to do that is logic and a private interpretation is not based upon, nor does it have recourse to logic.
The logical position recognizes that words according to the principle of supposition, have an unambiguous meaning. And the propositions, expressing an intellectual idea, formed by those words linked to the requirements of the copula, determine the truth or falsity of that which is being affirmed or denied of the subject in the proposition.
All of this is denied by your and Tim's premise. Therefore how, by any possible definition, could a rational debate take place that you would not continually resort to claiming is lies?
Regards,
Tom
ever slow to agree with JL (lol), It is not just about King. Simmons has consistenly lumped Frost with King. Now, Frost agrees with 99.9 percent with J. Scott and D. Preston on this issue, as hundreds of hours of phone conversations and private ones over the years attests. I asked Simmons how he could have Don speak at his conference and Simmons expressed that he was unaware that Preston held to the CBV. Preston is first rate Covenant Eschatology and CBV. Therefore, according to Logic and Simmons, Preston, Scott, William Bell, Max King, Sam Frost, Larry Siegle, and everyone that holds to CBV actually fosters the growth of Universalism. It is NOT just about King.
Sam
Hi Sam,
People do not always realize the implications of what they teach or affirm. As I said before, if you asked Max or Tim 30 years ago that they would be writing/posting Universalist articles today based upon their Covenant Eschatology they would have denied it - they would not have seen the connection. Today, that connection is clear. I hope all those whom you mention will investigate the connection with more objectivity and love of the truth than some of those posting comments here, whose only objective has been to justify themselves and save face, not get at the truth.
Pax Cristi
ummmm..."saving face" is when you don't admit you were wrong about the translations; when you don't admit your error in taking a comment Sam made about one syllogism and pasting it behind another one as if that was the one he responded to; when you tell us your argument was not based on syllogism though one response had three of them in it; when you claim that you've made a logical analysis but your logic was flawed and instead of admitting your error, you tell us form doesn't matter - substance counts.
It's pretty obvious to me who is "saving face".
thereignofchrist.com
Thanks Sam,
I have continually said I am not familiar with King's theology on this issue. My comments have been based upon the Resolve on which Kurt has taken the position of the affirmative.
Based solely on that and only that resolve, I have made the observation that Kurt has succeeded in establishing his position.
If a different resolve were proposed, in which King's theology was linked in the same way on these two suppositions with all of those you have named, and that it leads to universalism, then that would be a different matter.
Again, as I have stated, I am personally interested in whether Kurt's charge is true, in that it would help me make a determination as to whether I should investigate King or not.
Again, as I stated, Kurt's charge has not been refuted and based on that fact, I do not see any prospect that I and those with whom I personally interact will give it any further consideration.
Avoiding Kurt's charge is unfortunate if in fact King's theology has merit.
Regards,
Tom
"I am personally interested in whether Kurt's charge is true"
Then buy the book and read it!
"Again, as I stated, Kurt's charge has not been refuted and based on that fact"
Hog wash! Sam destroyed it. But since you have never read King, how can you even begin to comment one way or the other?
-Rich
-Rich
Tom,
How do you know the Max King quotes from Kurt are even accurate or not if you haven't read King?
thereignofchrist.com
To be honest, I have no idea. I haven't had the time or inclination to follow all the points on both sides. My critique has more to do with Kurt's reaction to his own conclusion. The charge itself may not have to do with universalism being good or bad, but his reaction, shaking the dust of his sandals as he ceremoniously "left" PP, was blamed almost solely on the fact that universalism is "bad".
Moreover, he seems to expect that his gotcha game of "See, I told you that his theology leads toward universalism!" refutes King's theology, when all it does (if he is right) is makes a connection between the two; his charges have not been properly weighted towards proving that King's theology or universalism is actually erroneous. He seems bent on the "guilt by association" technique, which is highly suspect, especially since evidence has not been entered (and definitely no verdict has been returned) that says that universalism is even "guilty" in the first place.
Of course Kurt's charges against Max King are a total fraud. King's CP has been in print since 1987 -- and what, near two decades later and now all of a sudden from out of the blue here comes riding and tilting Kurt to save the day from Max's uni…what? – I think Kurt might actually just be stuck on a merry-go-round.
davo
davo – pantelism.com
I leave town for three days and "all Kurt breaks loose." I will take the time to give Kurt Simmons a thoughtful response to his comments about my comments about his comments about Sam's comments about his comments (did you follow all of that?).
For the most part, I thought my quotations from Kurt sounded pretty reasonable when taken in context. His footnote amused me somewhat in his observation that I sounded "much like King" (Max) whom I consider to be both a scholar and a gentleman (I could do worse). Has anyone ever been accused of "sounding like Simmons?" Probably not.
In all honesty, I harbor no bad feelings regarding anything Kurt has either said or written. My only objection to the whole mess is that it is a "theological overreaction" to one element of Covenant Eschatology that Kurt sees as leading people in the direction of universalism.
I plan to differ with Kurt regarding his observations about "death" as stated above. It is late, I have to work tomorrow, I will tackle this more when I can devote some careful thought into his statements.
Larry Siegle
Walnut Creek, CA
Larry Siegle
Antioch, CA
Here are some more useful links to Universalistic comments. Notice the corporate body view, the regional flood idea, old earth creationism, Transmillennialism, Adam and Even not literal people, and other speculative notions regularly floating about PP make an appearance. It seems that connections between Universalism and PP grow stronger and stronger.
Maybe we should reaccess what we are teaching???
Naw, denial is so much easier on one's pride.
• PANTELISM -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/202 & 283
• LOCAL/REGIONAL FLOOD -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/218 & 222 & 652
• UNFINISHED JOURNEY CONCEPTS -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/231
• MAX/TIM KING & TRANSMIL/PRESENCE MINISTRIES -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/264
• NON-BIOLOGICAL ADAM & EVE -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/299 & 333
• ADAM ONLY AS FIRST "COVENANTAL MAN" -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/310
• NARRATIVE CONCEPT (Bible is one big parable) -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/333
• OLD EARTH CREATION -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/350 & 652
• CORPORATE BODY VIEW -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/403
• BASELESS SENTIMENTALISM (such as animals having souls) -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/482
• BASELESS OPINIONS OVER SCRIPTURE -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/521
• UNDEFINED "LOVE" OVER KNOWLEDGE -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/528
• PACIFISM -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/564
• SHEER EMOTIONALISM -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/612
• INCONCLUSIVENESS (Double-minded) -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/643
• APPLYING HUMAN FAIRNESS/JUSTICE TO GOD -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/912
• TRUTH FOUND IN OTHER RELIGIONS (2nd comment by Tami) -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/1150
Kurt,
You forgot to add "death equals Hades" view.
Sam
** hey I made it to the top of their list ** lol ;)
davo – pantelism.com
Davo,
Congratulations. I rated #2, #6, and #8. You got quality and I got quantity.
What really impressed me was how Kurt's list includes so many incompatible and contradictory views. PU can't logically lead to all of those. Kurt needs to be more discriminatory about who he steals material from.
What's funnier, I bet Kurt didn't even read those links. One of them supports Kurt's bi-millenialism. The fool just bit his own foot off.
What a joke.
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
"You got quality and I got quantity" -- lol. Well as my good mate Barry Dupont would say "we're all in this together ;) -- so take heart bro :)
davo
davo – pantelism.com
Poor ole' Rod is having kittens again -- he sent me this:In reference to your: http://www.planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=sh...
There is neither positional quality or quantity in how you were represented in the list from the preteristuniversalism site -- it was simple chronological & sequential order.
But if you want to measure something, perhaps you can measure that the more stuff the PUs like of what you're saying the more you are contributing to their delusion -- remember, Barry says, "we're all in this together" which sounds a lot like: “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.” --We're all in this together!
(Gen 11:4) -- You know, that "covenantal" (read: allegorical) book that speaks about that symbolic Creation/Flood & non-biological Adam & Eve?Never mind Rod, you can always try something new -- like getting a life. lol
davo
davo – pantelism.com
Davo,
I thought our little joke was funny. But reading this, I fell out of my chair. Thank-you for posting that. That is hilarious.
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
This by a Preterist-Universalist shows that the King/Frost/Siegle antinomian approach is common among Universalists and does in fact lead to Universalism, precisely as we charged.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/preteristuniversalism/message/18
Hey all, This is going to be fantastic. Growing already. I'm going to turn all my PU friends on and get this "Party Started". Thanks Rhonda.
Bruce
I've been a PU for almost 2 years now. I was turned on to it from some friends in the Bible Belt. I've been a Preterist since the late 70's. We didn't have a name for it back then. The first thing I learn about being a Universalist was, when there is no law, there is no sin, where there is no sin there is no death, (spiritual separation from God). Sounded good, and the more I dug the more things that I thought I knew started to truly reveal them selfs to me in the completeness. I was presented with an article that I'll post. It was taken from a convention. It'll be 16 pages long, so you may want to print it and read it at your own leisure. Enough about me. I want to know about everyone of you.
God's love, Bruce
Larry,
Feel free to discuss Simmons' novel approach for defining "death" as Hades and his rather obvious contradiction in Revelation 21.4. It was proven in Isaiah 25.8 that his view leads to Universalism.
Sam
Hello All,
So again, I will keep hammering on the real end point. Is Universalism and annihilationism it's best buddy true, or is there an elect in heaven and eternal conscious punishment of the reprobate in the lake of fire?
Well, I will side with with the Greek in Scripture as Sam likes too and it's really a no brainer as obviously Scriptures prooves the latter. Can't deal with this reality? Is God just or unjust? We are too quick to mix emotions with truth and the Bible prooves that too. Just look at all the futurism out there still hanging on.
Love and justice are best buddies. Case closed.
For Christ & Kingdom,
Paul Anderson
Planalmira, Brazil
No Paul. Were you to compare scripture to scripture, you would know that fire = judgment is all throughout scripture, and none of it lasts forever - not even that which says it was "everlasting." E.g., Sodom and Gomorrah, whose smoke was to go up forever - seen any smoke lately?
The lake of fire was the destruction of Jerusalem, and dead bodies were thrown into Gehenna, which is an actual literal place just outside Jerusalem. Reading only one side of an argument is not very productive. In fact, it is getting old that guys like you keep PRETENDING that your opponents reach conclusions apart from scripture. It isn't true - and no matter the number of times you say it, it will remain untrue.
I once again refer you to this article:
http://www.gospelthemes.com/hell.htm
You may not agree with it, but it's got more scriptural support than anything you or your ilk can put together. So, if you wish to continue to believe a lie, fine - but stop your own lies about how we come to our conclusions.
ed
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
Ed,
Remember the tone you complimented me on? Does "you and your ilk" qualify for this same tone or "luuuv" you talk about? Does that go for Sam too by the way?
No, you are wrong. You do fall into the Townley error rather than Scripture. It's sad you fall for emotionalism as well rather than Scripture. I hope then you do challenge therefore maybe Sam or Don Preston on this or maybe you will find out eventually by a systematic study of Scriptures in Greek. Blessings.
For Christ & Kingdom,
Paul Anderson
Planalmira, Brazil
Paul,
I'm sorry that you don't have this word in your vocabulary, and that it offended you. Allow me to give you the dictionary definition:
ilk: family, class, or kind
If calling those who agree with you theologically "a part of your family" or "of the same kind" is offensive, I do apologize.
For the record, your theology comes directly from Romish error, perpetrated by Dante. Since you refuse to look at the article I posted, and deal specifically with the scriptures that Mr. Dawson cites, there is nothing more to discuss.
And BTW, the word is LOVE, which the scripture says "God is..." It does seem to be a problem for you, that love stuff, doesn't it, Paul? Try it sometime, since God himself tells us to love our enemies. Yet, you claim that God will show that love by torturing them...hmmmm?
ed
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
Ed,
Point 1 I don't now what state you're from, but where I grew up i.e. Nebraska the Good Life, "your ilk" is a derogatory comment not for "a part of your family" or "of the same kind" and it would be an serious insult. Did you really honest to God mean the dictionary meaning in your comment?
Point 2 No, I didn't get my theology from Romish error or Dante although I've gone to Mass before. Ohh, that makes me a popish Catholic lover right? No, sorry my definitions came straight from the latest Greek text of Maurice Robinson according to the Majority Text not Dante sorry to diasappoint you again Ed.
Point 3 No, love is not a problem for me or my wife or eight year old daughter or my many friends from around the world from India to Argentina and back to America so wrong again. God a torturer hmmmmm? Wrong again, he's LOVE that's why he has them there. Remember, it was their fault not his. Case closed.
For Christ & Kingdom,
Paul Anderson
Planalmira, Brazil
Paul,
Yes...I am a PhD candidate, and when I use the word "ilk" I mean it for what it means. I cannot help that in Nebraska you folks don't use your dictionary.
So, let me get your last comment straight...God tortures people because He is Love? They deserve endless conscious torture because they sinned for 80 years or so and didn't become a Christian? That is deserving of torture? God tortures them because He loves them? Interesting theology Paul.
Now, that the sarcasm to prove a point is over with, let's deal with the Romish error. The Reformers were Catholics before they "reformed" Christianity. Their view of the afterlife came from the Mother Church, who invented it out of whole cloth around the fourth century. Prior to that, the Alexandrian school, the Antiochan school, and several others taught either annihilationism or universalism. Try reading the history of the Church and you'll find this stuff out. Then maybe you'll stop trying to make it look like some of us just made it up. It's been around a lot longer than the idea that God tortures people He loves. Wow! I still can't get over that one. At least when I believed that nonsense, I at least said that God hates sinners. A little more consistent if you ask me. Yours though? Whew...out there...Star Trek stuff...
ed
PS. That last comment was derogatory, just so you don't have to call and ask anyone in Nebraska.
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
Ed,
Thanks for clarifying you were not being sarcastic in your usage of "those of your ilk". Does that hold true about Nebraska, the dictionary usage and the Catholics too?:)
Yes, we had a few dictionaries at UNL and I would say that since I became a PhD canidate myself at Yale it helped out. Well, a few Huskers do get past the corn cob stage you know. Your view of "God the torturer" shows your reversion to emotionalism over Scripture as you failed again answer what Greek text you found the origin of conscious eternal punishment coming from "Dante's inferno". Yeah, you say you are consistent, but I think honestly you are the one that's been on the "Last Voyage" for too long.
Oh well, maybe that was too dergoatory even for me someone who has no luuuuv in my heart. Sorry you feel that way. Maybe you should just get this all over with and just challenge Sam, Kurt or Don to a face to face debate rather than trying to go back and forth with me down here.
I'll bring my Robinson Greek text and you can bring your Arnobius and I promise I won't ask anyone help from Nebraska:)
For Christ & Kingdom,
Paul Anderson
Planalmira, Brazil
Paul,
Surprisingly, a PhD candidate should know what "ilk" means.
Anyway, I'm not quite sure why I would want to debate Sam or Don, since I agree with them for the most part. Kurt on the other hand is not worth debating since his premise is established; he has no interest in seeing what the scriptures teach, only what he can apply to his own preconceived beliefs.
Now, let's deal with this little "God the torturer" thing. You came to this site, declaring that we were all teaching error because we don't believe that God will torture people endlessly because of their 70 or so years of sin upon this earth. In spite of the usage in scripture of the words "destruction" and "perish," you insist that the annihilationist position has no merit. In spite of the fact that "punishment" in scripture means to "prune" or "purify" you still consider God's mercy post-mortem to be error.
Your entire premise of "hell" is based on mythology, as Jeremy has shown. The several instances of "burning" forever in scripture are easily explained, as Sam Dawson has done in the article that I cited and you've failed to read or address. In the Hebrew, olam means "until the fullness" which is the same basic meaning of "ainion" in Greek. IOW, punishment is given until it's fully complete. Now, you may believe that's endless, but I don't. There is enough scriptural evidence, that you have failed to address, to show that God's punishment of the wicked is limited - limited by His own Mercy.
If you want to continue this conversation, please address the points made in the article by Sam Dawson. It can be found on the previous link, but also on this site. Virgil posted it some time ago.
If you just want to go back and forth with me about this word or that word or dictionaries or PhDs, then don't bother. You are starting to sound like Kurt.
ed
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
I don't believe that Kurt ever proved that King was a universalist. Ahhh, but why split hairs. Kurt doesn't have to prove anything...in his mind, if he says, it's so.
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
Ed,
Kurt's view leads to Universalism. He never "proved" anything. You and I disagree on a great deal of things, but at least we agree on what is obvious. The man is reaching for the stars and ending up with sugar dust.
Sam
Well,
My comment is going to point out, and seek to elicit comments, regarding what Kurt says above:
"The reason death is not defeated until the eschaton is not because the law needed to be removed, but because Christ needed to carry his blood within the Holy of Holies."
I trust that most Preterists do not really hold to the idea that Christ hung around somewhere, waiting for almost 40 years after His resurrection, for the Fall of Jerusalem in order to present his literal in the heavenly Holy of Holies.
The biblical record shows, to me, that right after His resurrection, Christ encountered Mary Magdalene, and told her:
"Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." John 20:17
So, Christ didn't want to linger on earth before presenting Himself, the spotless, slain, and resurrected Lamb as he ascended to the Father for the first time since His earthly ministry.
Of course, Christ returned shortly thereafter:
"Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." John 20:19
So, the actually Atonement occurred at the Cross or a few days later, and not at the Eschaton as Kurt suggests.
Ideas like that imply that the New Covenant and Christ's Kingdom didn't begin until 70 AD, which is ridiculous.
Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone