Preston- V -Simmons

When Was Sin Defeated?  AD 70 or the Cross?

Preston's Second Affirmative

 

My worst fears have been realized. I shared with some close friends that I was concerned that my friend Kurt would not actually engage in a debate, following my affirmatives as a negative is pledged to do, but, would simply use this to promote his personal agenda. Lamentably, this is precisely what has happened. Kurt spent five pages presenting material that is totally irrelevant to responding to my affirmative arguments, in spite of the fact that he signed rules not to introduce material not "directly relevant to proving or disproving the respective positions!" Five pages of irrelevant material!

Take note that each of us signed rules for the debate. One of those rules reads: "Each man agrees to answer the other man's arguments directly, without obfuscation or evasion, to the full extent of their ability and knowledge." What does my friend do? He gave an affirmative presentation, that has the appearance of being pre-prepared. He did not follow my arguments! Then he says: "I am sure Don would like me to take the bait and use up my allotted space following him down all sorts of rabbit trails, answering questions, and interacting with his affirmative. Why should I?"He even asks: "Why should I involve myself in discussion about the proper exegesis of Isaiah 26, 27 and 59 and what light that may or may not throw on Rom. 11:25-27 if Don cannot produce even ONE VERSE to show the debt of sin still hung over the saints from and after the cross?"

 Well, Kurt, here are just a few of the reasons you should follow my affirmative arguments:

1.) You gave your word to do so! Is that not enough?

2.) Because my arguments– in spite of your declarations to the contrary– prove my position!

3.) Because your failure to follow my arguments will demonstrate irrefutably your inability to answer my arguments.

Why should my friend involve himself, "in discussion about the proper exegesis of Isaiah 26, 27 and 59 and what light that may or may not throw on Rom. 11:25-27"? Well, he should do so, because if he does not properly exegete Isaiah 27 / 59, and I do, then I have proven my point in regard to Romans 11, and at the same time falsified my friend’s entire rejection of Covenant Eschatology!

With that in mind let me offer here three more affirmative arguments from the prophetic source of Romans 11. We will see if Kurt will ignore these new arguments.

 #1– ISAIAH 26-27 AND THE SALVATION OF "ISRAEL"

Re: Romans 11:26f– The coming of the Lord to take away Israel’s sin is the coming of the Lord to take away Israel’s sin foretold by Isaiah 26-27 / Isaiah 59. But note this...

Kurt claims that Romans 11:26f predicts the salvation of individual Jews, via obedience to the gospel, throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age.  This demands that Isaiah 26-27 / 59 predicted the salvation of individual Jews, via obedience to the gospel, throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age.

But, Isaiah 26-27 /59 does not predict the salvation of individual Jews, via obedience to the gospel, throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age.

Isaiah 26-27 / 59 predicted the salvation of Israel at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. This is irrefutably true, and Kurt has totally ignored itTherefore, the prediction of the coming of the Lord in Romans 11:26f is not the prediction of the salvation of individual Jews, via obedience to the gospel, throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age.

Kurt simply must deal with this! He pledged himself to follow my arguments. This argument alone proves my affirmative. But there is more.

#2– ROMANS 11:26-27 AND THE SALVATION OF THE REMNANT

When Paul discusses the salvation of "all Israel" he actually has the salvation of the remnant in mind (see Romans 11:1-11). This is affirmed in the prophetic passages he cites (cf. Isaiah 27:12-13; 59:18-20). Now watch this!

Romans 11:26-27 is the salvation of the remnant of Israel (Kurt, is it the salvation of only a remnant of the church?) at the coming of the Lord foretold in Isaiah 26-27 / 59.

In Romans 9:25-28 Paul (citing other OT prophecies of the salvation of the remnant of Israel) says: "Though the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea the remnant will be saved. For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness because the Lord will make a short work on the earth."

Here is the argument:

The salvation of Israel in Romans 11:26f is the salvation of Israel in Romans 9:28.

But, the salvation of Israel in Romans 9:28 would be finished in a short time.

Therefore, the salvation of Israel in Romans 11:26f would be finished in a short time.

But this can’t be, per Kurt, for he demands that Romans 11:26f is the continuing salvation of Jews throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age!

Kurt’s position denies what Paul (and Isaiah) had to say about the salvation of the remnant.

Unless Kurt can prove that the salvation of "all Israel" is to be divorced from Paul’s discussion of the salvation of the remnant of Israel, then my affirmative is established beyond dispute. And of course, Kurt cannot prove this.

#3– ROMANS 11--ISAIAH 27 AND THE SALVATION OF THE REMNANT AT THE SOUNDING OF THE GREAT TRUMPET AT THE RESURRECTION

Please follow this carefully.

The coming of the Lord to take away Israel’s sin in Romans 11:26f is the coming of the Lord at his coming in judgment of Israel foretold by Isaiah 26-27, when He would call the dead–those scattered to the four winds-- to Him (i.e. the resurrection) by the sounding of the Great Trumpet (Isaiah 27:13).

Jesus said that the calling of the remnant, those scattered to the four winds– would be at his coming in judgment of Israel– at the sounding of the Great Trumpet– (Matthew 24:30-31) the time of the resurrection per my friend Kurt Simmons– in AD 70.

Therefore, the coming of the Lord to take away Israel’s sin of Romans 11:26 was to be (it was) at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel– the time of the resurrection at the sounding of the Great Trumpet-- per my friend Kurt Simmons– in AD 70. (The coming of the Lord in Romans 11 is not the individual conversion of Jews throughout the endless Christian age).

I proved that the coming of the Lord in Romans is the coming of the Lord of Isaiah 26-27, which is the coming of the Lord at the resurrection. Kurt says the resurrection was in AD 70. Therefore, the coming of the Lord in Romans 11 was in AD 70. I likewise proved that Isaiah 27 (thus Romans 11) foretold the defeat of Satan at the parousia. Kurt admits the defeat of Satan was in AD 70! Therefore, Romans 11 must be AD 70. Kurt ignored these arguments! My affirmative is established.

I have proven beyond any doubt that Isaiah 26-27 / 59 and thus Romans 11:26-27 fit, very firmly, in Kurt’s box. 

As I pointed out several times in my first affirmative, this debate is about proper hermeneutic. Kurt, proper exegesis of scripture is the only way that you can prove your point, and negate mine! Thus, refusal to even mention my arguments about the prophetic background of Romans 11 is a tacit surrender of your negative. You have virtually admitted that you cannot deal with the exegetical material I presented. You refused to answer my questions based directly on the text (Yet, interestingly, you asked me questions, expecting an answer)! And you question what relationship proper exegesis of those prophetic texts would have on this discussion! 

THE ABIDING (VALIDITY) IMPOSITION OF TORAH UNTIL AD 70

Let me now prove my point about the continuing validity of Torah until AD 70. I will prove this from both scripture and Kurt Simmons’ own statements.

In my first affirmative, I asked Kurt eight questions that he totally ignored. The last question was at the end of my affirmative. I specifically asked my friend to answer the question in his first negative. He refused to do so until I pressed him to do so in private email. Here is that final question: "If a law or covenant has been abrogated, are any of the provisions of that covenant, i.e. its mandates, its promises or penalties (positive or negative) still binding and valid (imposed)? Please answer specifically, clearly, without evasion." 

I can establish the truth of my affirmative on the correct answer of this question. Sadly, Kurt refused to give the correct answer to the question! Here is his answer: "I guess that would depend upon the terms and conditions of the covenant and which party was in violation. The breaching party forfeits the benefit of the bargain. The non-breaching party is still entitled to the benefit of the bargain; the penalty provisions, incidental and consequential damages, etc, are therefore still valid. If a king made a covenant with another nation or kingdom that the latter would pay tribute, and the latter then broke that covenant, the former would be entitled to come and lay siege against the breaching kingdom..."

Somebody call the fire department! I have never seen so much smoke! (That is my attempt at a bit of levity, DKP). My friend’s lawyerese came shining through on this, didn’t it? Now, the observant reader will realize immediately that Kurt did not answer the question directly, without evasion or obfuscation! In fact, he ignored the real question. My friend knows full well that to answer this question directly and correctly establishes that the Torah remained valid until AD 70!  

Kurt says that the "non-breaching party is still entitled to the benefit of the bargain." But that is only true if the bargain (covenant) is still in effect! Likewise, per Kurt, if a nation broke the covenant then the king would come and "lay siege against the breaching kingdom," But again, this would only be true if that covenant was still in effect! The entirety of Kurt’s "answer"assiduously avoids my question! Kurt knows that provisions of a covenant can only be applied if that covenant is still binding. I know it, and every reader of this debate knows it! Let me illustrate. 

The law of East Berlin ended in 1990 when the Wall and government came crashing down. But, suppose someone arrested a former member of East Berlin– although they were now living in West Berlin– and charged them with violation of the former (dead) Communist government law. What would happen? The case would summarily be dismissed, and everyone knows it! Why? Because the law of East Berlin has no continuing validity! This is beyond dispute. But, let’s take a look at Torah shall we? 

Kurt says the Torah legally died at the Cross. But, if Torah died at the Cross, and no longer had legal power, how in the world could the provisions of Torah be imposed and fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, as Kurt Simmons, and most importantly scripture, affirms? 

Kurt tells us he no longer holds to some of the positions in his books. So, I will give the citation from Kurt’s books. If he no longer believes what he wrote, he will have to formally recant that position for us. The trouble is, if he renounces the positions that I will cite, he will be rejecting the truth!  

In his comments on Revelation 15:8, Kurt says: "The angels emerge from the tabernacle of the testimony with the covenantal curses and plagues" (Consummation, 292, my emphasis). As he comments on the judgment of Babylon he says: "The threefold judgments of death (pestilence) mourning, and famine were foretold by Moses: And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy...(Leviticus 26:25, 26, 29-32)." In addition, commenting on Revelation 16:19, and how Babylon was "remembered" before God, Kurt says, "‘Remembrance’ is a uniquely covenantal term" (Consummation, 313, my emphasis, DKP). Well said, my friend! 

So, what do we have? We have Kurt affirming that the Mosaic Covenant provisions of wrath (for violation of Torah), were still alive in AD 70! He has the covenantal provisions of wrath applied 40 years after the violations of that Covenant, and 40 years after that Covenant supposedly died!

Now, Kurt’s statements about Revelation and the covenant provisions of wrath are true beyond dispute, but, nonetheless, we will ask Kurt: Do you still affirm these statements? Yes of No? Let me frame my argument like this:

The provisions of a covenant are only applicable while that covenant remains binding.

But, the provisions of wrath found in the Mosaic Covenant were still applicable in AD 70 (Kurt Simmons, Revelation 15-18). 

Therefore, the Mosaic Covenant remained binding in AD 70.

This argument establishes my affirmative 100%, and it means that the coming of the Lord in Romans 11 was the AD 70 coming of Christ! As we have shown, Romans 11 was the coming of the Lord in AD 70, in application of Covenantal wrath on Jerusalem! It thus goes in Kurt’s box, along with the rest of the passages I have discussed. That box is filling up!

 THE TRANSFIGURATION AND THE END OF MOSAIC COVENANT

Building on the argument above, let me offer another affirmative argument. The Transfiguration of Jesus is one of the most incredible events in the Bible. It unequivocally identifies the time of the passing of the Torah, and it was not the cross! Please pay close attention to this material. 

The Transfiguration was a vision of the second coming of Christ.

This is what Peter affirms in 2 Peter 1:16f: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming (parousia, DKP) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." 

Let me recount that marvelous scene. If I say anything in error, I will expect Kurt to correct it with text and context. Simple denials will not suffice, however.

On the mount, Moses and Elijah appeared with Jesus.

Moses and Elijah represented the Law and the Prophets– i.e. the Mosaic Covenant.

Peter wanted to build three tabernacles, one for each of the three, but, Moses and Elijah disappear, and the Voice of God says of Jesus, "This my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear him!"

The Transfiguration is therefore a vision of the transformation from the Mosaic Covenant glory to the New Covenant glory of Jesus!

(And remember that Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3:16f that the transformation was taking place in his ministry! It had not already happened!). The implications of this are astounding.

If the Mosaic Covenant was abrogated at the cross, as Kurt claims, then the Transfiguration should have been a vision of the cross. But, the Transfiguration was patently not a vision of the cross. And this is what is so critical.

Peter undeniably said that the Transfiguration was a vision of the parousia (2 Peter 1:16f)!

Let me express my argument like this:

The Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming of Christ (2 Peter 1:16f).

But, the Transfiguration was a vision of the end of the Mosaic Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant of Christ.

Therefore, the end of the Mosaic Covenant was at the Second Coming of Christ (which Kurt agrees was in AD 70!

Kurt, my friend, I am going to ask that you address this argument directly, without evasion, without obfuscation. Deal with it contextually, hermeneutically and logically, if you can.

KURT’S ALL OR NOTHING ARGUMENT

Kurt makes some very illogical statements. Here is one of them: "But if the cross did not triumph over the law at Calvary, if man had to wait until the law was removed to be justified from sin, then nothing happened at the cross." I must say, I was shocked at the profound illogic of this claim. Let me illustrate the problem, by simply changing the story a bit.

If Israel did not fully receive her deliverance from Egypt at the very moment of the slaying of the Passover lamb, then nothing happened at the slaying of the Passover lamb!" Or...

If Israel did not fully receive her inheritance at the very moment she left Egypt, then "absolutely nothing happened the night of the crossing of the Red Sea!" Or...

If a temple is not completed, at the very moment the foundation is laid, then absolutely nothing happened when the foundation was laid. (Compare Ephesians 2:19f; 1 Peter 2:4f!). Or...

If the adoption of a child is not completed at the very moment of the declaration of the intent to adopt then absolutely nothing has happened when the declaration to adopt is made. (But, take a look at Romans 8:14-23)! Or...

If the marriage is not completed at the very moment of the betrothal, then absolutely nothing happened at the moment of betrothal!

The logical fallacy of such claims is clear to anyone. And, given that the NT story is based on the Passover / Exodus i.e. Christ was the Passover (1 Corinthians 5:5f, and the Second Moses (Hebrews 3-4), and that the first century saints were still waiting on their "redemption" (Luke 21:28; Ephesians 4:30– a word taken directly from the Exodus / Passover story), perhaps Kurt can tell us why he can justify such an illogical claim. Kurt’s claim is specious at the very least.

KURT’S BOX CHALLENGE– GLADLY ACCEPTED! 

Kurt denies that forgiveness was still a future hope prior to AD 70. No less than six times he says I did not produce "one verse" affirming the futurity of redemption, salvation, atonement, forgiveness.

This is a smoke screen and nothing else. Let me illustrate how proper logic works by means of a hypothetical syllogism:

If it is the case that the coming of Christ to take away sin in Romans 11:26 was the AD 70 coming of Christ, then it must be true that forgiveness was not an objective, fully given reality in Romans 11:26.

It is the case that the coming of Christ to take away sin in Romans 11:26 was the AD 70 coming of Christ (Isaiah 26-27 / 59, Hebrews 9:15-28, and more).

Therefore, it must be true that forgiveness was not an objective, fully given reality in Romans 11:26.

Kurt has totally ignored my affirmative evidence. Having ignored it, and petitio principii, (assuming without proof) that he is correct, he claims that I cannot offer "one single verse" to prove my case! The truth is that every verse I presented proves my case! Kurt’s box is full, and getting fuller!

ON THE MHP...AGAIN AND STILL

You simply must catch what Kurt has done. He has entangled himself even deeper in contradiction.

On the one hand, in both of his books, he affirmed that entrance into the MHP was not until AD 70.

Now, he claims that the saints could enter the MHP prior to AD 70!

It seems my friend has forgotten Revelation 15:8! Or, perhaps he has renounced his position on Revelation 15. If he has, we will insist that he tell us. The trouble is, if he has renounced his statements on Revelation 15:8 he has renounced the Truth!

Remember that Revelation 15:8 affirms unequivocally that entrance into the MHP could not take place until God’s wrath on Babylon (Jerusalem) was fulfilled (in AD 70). And here is what Kurt said about Revelation 15 and Hebrews 9: "The way into heaven was not opened until God’s wrath upon Jerusalem is fulfilled. The way into the holiest was not yet manifested while the first tabernacle was yet standing (Hebrews 9:8)"(Consummation, 2003, p. 292).

Kurt, which part of that quote do you now renounce as false doctrine, and what is your exegetical justification? Could man enter the MHP before God’s wrath was completed? If so, prove it!

Revelation 15 and Hebrews 9:6-10 undeniably speak of the same time, and the same event- entrance into the presence of God. Kurt himself made these events synchronous!

Yet, now, Kurt affirms that the saints did in fact enter into the MHP prior to AD 70! Kurt, how could the saints enter the MHP before the judgment (the time of reward) and completion of wrath on the "ministration of death"? (The reader will note that Kurt totally ignored my material on the indisputable fact that AD 70 was the judgment of the Old Covenant and its failure to justify).

Kurt, tell us plainly, did the saints enter the MHP before God’s wrath was completed in the destruction of Jerusalem? YES or NO? Do not evade or ignore this question!

Furthermore, in our negotiations for this debate, in November, 2009, my friend wanted to affirm the following (remember that this was only a couple of months ago!):

"Resolved: The general, eschatological resurrection consisted exclusively in the release of souls/spirits from Hades to their eternal reward in heaven/Gehenna."

Let the readers take careful note of the following: Just one month before drafting that proposition, my friend wrote (Sword and Plow, Oct. 2009, p. 2)– "The soul could not enter the presence of God in heaven without the atoning sacrifice of Christ, so, the dead were sequestered in Hades until the general resurrection." So, just a few months ago Kurt argued that the saints could not enter the MHP until AD 70 because they did not have the forgiveness of their sins. This absolutely affirms that salvation was not perfected at the cross. Kurt, actually wanted to affirm that as his proposition!

Let me frame my argument based on Kurt’s comments:

The souls in Hades could not enter heaven until they received the benefits of Christ’s atoning blood (Kurt Simmons, October, 2009– Is this true or false, Kurt?)

But, the souls in Hades could not enter heaven until the resurrection in AD 70 (KS, November, 2009– True or False, Kurt?).

Therefore, the souls in Hades did not receive the benefits of Christ’s atoning blood until AD 70. 

AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT ON HADES

Hades was the place of separation from God, even for the righteous, until the time of the resurrection when sin would be overcome through forgiveness and salvation (1 Corinthians 15:54-56; Revelation 20:10ff). The only reason Hades existed was because there was no forgiveness of sin.

Kurt believes that Hades was not destroyed until AD 70, and the souls in Hades did not enter their reward until AD 70.

The existence of Hades until AD 70 as Kurt affirms, is prima facie proof that neither the living or the dead entered the MHP until the resurrection. After all, the living saints could not bypass Hades when they died before the resurrection. So, until the resurrection in AD 70 neither the living or the dead saints could enter the MHP, and Kurt’s assertions to the contrary are falsified.

But since Hades existed until AD 70 then Torah remained binding until AD 70! Remember that Paul said there could be no access to the MHP while Torah remained binding!

The destruction of Hades is when man could enter the MHP. Hades and Torah were coexistent! Remember Luke 16– "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them"! As long as Torah stood valid there was no forgiveness and thus, no entrance into MHP. As long as Hades–which existed because of no forgiveness-- remained there was no entrance into the MHP. Kurt Simmons says that Hades was not destroyed until AD 70. Therefore, Torah remained binding until AD 70. (Because Torah could not provide forgiveness!)

Make no mistake, Kurt affirms repeatedly that the resurrection, when Hades was destroyed, occurred in AD 70. So, here is what we have.

Kurt affirmed, October / November2009, that the saints could not enter the MHP "without the atoning sacrifice of Christ, so, the dead were sequestered in Hades until the general resurrection." (Notice that highly significant "so" in Kurt’s comments). He still affirms– don’t you, Kurt?– that the dead saints could not enter heaven until AD 70 and the "general resurrection"? Don’t fail to answer this, my friend! This is crucial! You owe it to the readers of this debate to address this argument without evasion or obfuscation, as you promised to do when you signed the debate rules.

You have stated that the dead saints could not enter the MHP without the atoning work of Christ, and you unequivocally tied that entrance to AD 70!

There could not be a clearer demonstration of my affirmative, or rejection of Kurt’s new theology. Kurt, do you now renounce as false teaching, what you wrote in October of 2009, and the proposition that just last November you wanted to affirm concerning the resurrection and Hades? We will eagerly await your response. But we are not done. We are going to fill Kurt’s box to overflowing!

HEBREWS 9, TORAH, REMISSION OF SIN, HADES AND THE MOST HOLY PLACE

"And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." (Hebrews 9:15). 

Notice what the text says:

Christ died for the remission (redemption) of sins committed under Torah. I affirm this! The Cross was for redemption! It does not, however, say that redemption occurred at the Cross. Follow closely:

Those under the first covenant were dead Old Covenant saints that Jesus died to give forgiveness. But, remember that Kurt wanted to affirm in this debate that the resurrection was exclusively the entrance of the souls in Hades into the MHP, i.e. the dead Old Covenant saints!  But, if the dead OT saints could not enter the MHP until AD 70, then it is undeniably true that they did not yet have the remission of sins that Jesus died to give them. The one thing– and the only thing –that kept man out of the MHP was sin! 

If, as my friend affirms, remission of sins was objectively applied from Pentecost onward, then those OT saints should have entered the MHP at the moment of the Cross. But no, Kurt wanted to affirm in this debate –that the dead saints could not enter the MHP until AD 70!

Thus, they were still awaiting their forgiveness purchased through Christ’s death. They would not have the benefits of Christ’s atoning blood until the resurrection. Kurt, do you now affirm that the OT saints entered the MHP at the time of the Cross / Pentecost? Yes or No? Do you affirm that those in Hades entered the MHP before Hades was conquered in AD 70? Yes or No?  If you so, you are in denial of Revelation 15:8 and Revelation 20!

Hebrews 11:40 relates to this issue. Paul, speaking of the dead OT saints said, "They without us cannot be made perfect." Kurt claims (by misusing Hebrews 10:19f) that the living saints were able to enter the MHP from Pentecost onward. Yet, he wanted to affirm in this debate that the OT saints could not enter until AD 70! That would mean that the living NT saints could enter the MHP before the OT saints. But there is a problem! Paul said that the New Covenant saints would not precede the OT saints (1 Thessalonians 4:15f)! 

 According to Paul, the OT saints could not enter into the "better resurrection" (Hebrews 11:35f, without the NT saints, and, the NT saints could not enter before the OT saints. In other words, OT and NT saints would enter into the MHP together, at the same time! So, the proposition that Kurt wanted to affirm in this debate, that the dead saints would enter the MHP in AD 70, winds up proving my proposition, and destroying Kurt’s! 

Kurt believes that the resurrection was in AD 70. He believes the resurrection was exclusively the raising of the dead out of Hades into heaven. But this demands that the OT saints remained in Hades, unforgiven, until AD 70! And if those in Hades could not enter the MHP until AD 70, it is irrefutably true that the living could not enter until AD 70! The living, when they died, had to go to Hades, before the time of the resurrection!

If the dead OT saints were objectively forgiven at Pentecost onward there was no reason for them to remain in Hades. This is especially true if, as Kurt claims, AD 70 had no redemptive relevance! If AD 70 had no redemptive significance, and if forgiveness was an objective reality prior to AD 70, then again, there was no reason whatsoever for the dead saints to remain in Hades. 

Kurt’s insistence that the saints entered the MHP before AD 70 demands that Hades was emptied before the resurrection, or that the resurrection occurred at the time of the Cross / Pentecost, since per Kurt, forgiveness and redemption was completed at that point. Remember the living and the dead would receive their reward at the same time (Matthew 16:27-28; 1 Peter 4:5). 

Yet, Revelation 15:8 is unequivocal. There was no entrance into the MHP until the supposedly "irrelevant event" of the judgment of Old Covenant Babylon! This is why Kurt’s statement–whether he now recants it or not-- stands true: "Christ tied the judgment to the end of the Mosaic age and the destruction of Jerusalem" (Consummation, 2003, p. 229). 

Jesus said he was coming in judgment "to reward every man" (Matthew 16:27-28; Revelation 22:12). The reward Jesus was going to give was the incorruptible inheritance and salvation (1 Peter 1:3f; Hebrews 9:28; 10:35f, etc.). But, Kurt is now arguing that the saints received their reward (entrance into the MHP / salvation) before Christ came in judgment to give the reward! This is clearly untenable.

THE HOLY SPIRIT– THE EARNEST OF THE REDEMPTION--AD 70

Let me introduce some more affirmative arguments based on the work of the Spirit. Remember that Kurt admits that the charismata were given as the earnest (guarantee) of the finished work of Christ (i.e. redemption, Ephesians 1:13-14). The truth is that the Spirit was the guarantee of all of the still future promises contained in the NT! (Note how Kurt ignored my referent to Philippians 1:6f).

Paul said that the Spirt– the charismata– was given as an Earnest of the Inheritance / Resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians). This means that the Earnest of the Spirit was given to living people, who, according to Kurt, already had the very thing that the Spirit was given to guarantee– Salvation, redemption, forgiveness! Why did living people need to be given the Earnest (the guarantee) of what they already possessed?

The Spirit was given to guarantee the resurrection. Deliverance from Hades. The resurrection was exclusively for the dead (per KS). Thus, the charismata was given to the living, but had no redemptive significance for them. It did not guarantee them anything. It simply guaranteed the dead something that had no redemptive significance! (As if release from Hades into the presence of God had no redemptive significance!) 

I must be brief, but I want to make an affirmative in regard to the Spirit and resurrection.

The promise of the Spirit was made to Israel to raise her from the dead (Ezekiel 37:10-14).

This "death" from which Israel was to be raised was not physical death, but covenantal death (Isaiah 24:4f; Hosea 5-6; 13:1-2). Living people were called dead, but they continued to"sin more and more" (Hosea 13:1-2). Biologically dead people cannot do this! This is spiritual death- alienation from God– as a result of sin (Isaiah 59:1-2--The sin that needed to be removed at the coming of the Lord, Isaiah 59:20f--Romans 11!). Sin brought death. Thus, forgiveness would bring resurrection (cf. Acts 26:17-18)!

This resurrection, guaranteed by the Spirit, would be Israel’s salvation (Isaiah 25:8-9). This is the resurrection promise of 1 Corinthians 15 when sin, the sting of death, would be overcome (1 Corinthians 15:54-56– Romans 11:26-27). In other words:

1 Corinthians 15 foretold the resurrection (when sin would be put away), predicted by Isaiah 25.

The resurrection of Isaiah 25 is the resurrection of Isaiah 26-27 (and thus, Romans 11:26-27), which would occur at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

But, the coming of the Lord -- at the resurrection to put away sin-- of Isaiah 25-27 / 1 Corinthians 15-- would be the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

Therefore, the coming of the Lord of Romans 11 to take away Israel's sin-- to bring her salvation-- is the coming of the Lord at the time of the resurrection, in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood, i.e. AD 70.

You cannot divorce the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 from that in Isaiah 25-27. But again, the resurrection of Isaiah 25-27 is the coming of the Lord for the salvation of Israel in Romans 11. Therefore, the coming of the Lord for the salvation of Israel in Romans 11 is the time of the coming of the Lord for the resurrection (the salvation of Israel), in 1 Corinthians 15. This is inescapable. 

Let me express this simply:

The resurrection is when sin, the sting of death was to be overcome, (1 Corinthians 15:54-56).

The miraculous gifts of the Spirit were the guarantee of that resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 1:13).

Therefore, the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were the guarantee of the overcoming of sin!

That is exactly opposite of Acts 2:38 where you receive remission of sins FIRST then the gift of the Holy Ghost as eveidence that you had been redeemed!

This proves, prima facie that while the cross was the power for the putting away of sin, that the work of the cross was not completed until the parousia / resurrection in AD 70. It proves that AD 70 was redemptively critical.

Since the Spirit was the guarantee of the resurrection, (in AD 70 per KS!), the time when sin, the sting of death would be overcome, it therefore follows that the coming of the Lord to put away sin in Romans 11:26f was the time of the resurrection in AD 70. Thus, these verses go in Kurt’s box.

THE TIME OF REFORMATION AND KURT’S ATTEMPT AT LOGIC

My friend has a difficult time dealing with logical syllogisms. He refused to comment on even one of my seven syllogisms. (Refutation of a syllogism demands that a person analyze and refute the major premise, or the minor premise, proving with evidence that they affirm something that is untrue. One can also show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Ignoring a syllogism does not refute the arguments, and Kurt did not offer a syllable of analysis! 

I took note, in over six pages of argumentation, with careful attention to the Greek tenses and the actual wording of the text, that the time of reformation would fully come at Christ’s AD 70 parousia. Kurt ignored all of this. Go back and refresh your memory of what all I wrote, and then carefully consider Kurt’s total silence. 

He ignored the present tenses of Hebrews 9:6f (insisting on the other hand that we consider some of the past tenses as the final word, forgetting the proleptic nature of those statements and the work of the Spirit to guarantee the completion). He ignored the grammar of the text that declares Jesus’ coming to be necessary to fulfill the typological nature of the OT which was, when Paul wrote, still a shadow of good things about to come (Hebrews 9:28-10:1). He ignored all of this!

I offered the following:

Kurt admits that entrance into the MHP was at the second coming in AD 70. (Of course, he wants now to deny this, except in regard to the dead saints, but, as proven above, this does not help him).

But the time of reformation is when man could enter the MHP (Hebrews 9:10).

Thus, the time of reformation did not fully arrive until the second coming AD 70.

This means that Torah remained imposed until AD 70, because Torah would stand "until the time of reformation" (Hebrews 9:10).

I noted that in 2 Corinthians 3-6 Paul affirmed that the work of the Spirit, in and through his ministry, was the transformation from the Old Covenant glory to the New (2 Corinthians 3:16f). Thus, the work of the Spirit was the guarantee of Covenant transformation! Kurt insists however, that this transformation, the time of reformation allowing man into the MHP, was at the Cross / Pentecost. Trouble is, Paul said the ministry of Covenantal transformation was his ministry!

In a vain attempt to counter my arguments, Kurt offered a syllogism that is rife with error:

The ceremonial law was imposed until the time of reformation.

The time of reformation was marked by the ministry of the Spirit.

But the ministry of the Spirit began immediately following the cross.

Therefore, the ceremonial law was imposed only until the cross.

Kurt is guilty of the "law of the excluded middle." In other words, he left out a bunch of critical stuff! He is likewise guilty of anachronism. The ministry of the Spirit did not begin for 40 days after the cross. Yet, Kurt says that the law ended before the Spirit even began his work! The reformation did not come at the cross! (Note also that he limits definition of "the law" to the "ceremonial law." This is a false dichotomization of Torah, and we will prove this as we proceed).

Kurt’s syllogism is fundamentally flawed because of the "Law of Excluded Middle." He leaves out several significant facts. He claims that the time of reformation fully arrived at the moment of the initiation of the Spirit’s work of reformation–actually before. See above! This denies Paul’s statement that the Spirit was working through his ministry to bring about Covenant transformation. Thus, Kurt’s "conclusion" fails to honor the on-going work of Covenant transformation– the work that was not finished when the Spirit was given! Kurt even admits this, but then tries to deny it (or wrongly apply it) all at the same time! Read what he said in his first negative: "It is clear that the time of reformation began at the cross. The gifts of the Holy Ghost led the apostles into all truth for the specific purpose of affecting reform (Jn. 16:13). When the gifts ceased, the time of reformation was over, not begun." My friend keeps contradicting himself, and scripture. 

The time of the reformation– at the end of Torah-- is when man could enter the MHP. Kurt says the time of reformation was at the cross / Pentecost, and was "over, not begun" when the gifts ceased (i.e. in AD 70). Well, my friend, if the time of reformation was over (terminated, not perfected), then the time when man could enter the MHP ended in AD 70! Your position demands that the time of reformation– when man could enter the MHP– only lasted forty years and then "was over, not begun!" Where does that leave us today? We all know that you believe the believer enters the MHP today, thus, the forty year transformational work of the Spirit was to bring the time of reformation to perfection! The only solution to your self contradiction is to accept my affirmative and return to the position you have abandoned: the work of the Spirit initiated the time of reformation, the parousia perfected the time of reformation. Your view of Hades, the resurrection and the charismata logically demand this.

So, the time of reformation was not completed when the Spirit was given, as Kurt claims. You cannot have the time of reformation completed before Paul (and the Spirit through Paul) began his work of Covenant transformation. The time of reformation fully arrived when the Spirit finished His work, and that was when man could enter the MHP, which by Kurt’s own admissions was in AD 70! So, just as we have affirmed from the beginning, the work of salvation was a process begun at the Cross, and consummated at the parousia. The next point confirms this even more. [Don misrepresents me here.  I did not say that the reformation was complete when the spirit was given, I said it began.  It is Don who said the time of reformation began when the spirit’s work was done!]

MORE ON THE ATONEMENT AND KURT’S AMAZING ARGUMENT

I offered a number of arguments based on the actual text and the present tenses of the Greek– all ignored by Kurt– on the necessity for Christ to fulfill the typology of the Day of Atonement, when the high priest killed the sacrifice, entered the MHP, and then came out to announce salvation to the worshipers. I must admit that I was staggered by Kurt’s attempt at refutation. I have never read or heard anyone, in any commentary, at any time, make such an argument! Here is what he said:

"Don assumes that Christ’s ascension equals the High Priest entering the Most Holy Place, thus postponing completion of the Atonement ritual until Christ emerged at his second coming. Don forgets that the High Priest entered the Most Holy Place twice (Lev. 16:14, 15). Yes, TWICE! There were two sacrifices in the atonement ritual: a bull and a goat; blood was carried in twice, once for each sacrifice. But Jesus died only once; he made a once-for-all sacrifice when he died on the Calvary. We believe that the typology of sprinkling the blood before the Mercy Seat was fulfilled when Jesus died. The Hebrew writer agrees, saying that Jesus opened the way into the Most Holy Place through his FLESH (Heb. 10:20)." No, Kurt, the Hebrews writer does not agree with you! But, does the reader of this debate catch what Kurt has done? This is simply amazing! 

Notice just some of the problems with Kurt’s proposal.

1.) Kurt argues that since, under Torah, the High Priest had to enter the MHP TWICE, Jesus likewise had to do so. This is unbelievable! Why did the high priest have to enter the MHP TWICE? Why were there two sacrifices, Kurt? Answer: The priest had to enter twice because the first time was when he offered blood for his own sins (Leviticus 16:1-6; Hebrews 5)! Kurt, my friend, your insistence on Christ entering the MHP TWICE, means that Christ offered his own blood to atone for his own sin. That is the only reason why Christ would have to enter the MHP TWICE That is the typology that you are appealing to!

But once again, we have the refutation of Kurt Simmons from Kurt’s own keyboard! In Adumbrations, (2009, p. 168) Kurt wrote: "At his resurrection Jesus made it very plain to Mary that he had ‘not yet ascended’ unto the Father in heaven" (John 20:17). Peter expressly states that Jesus was in Hades prior to his resurrection (Acts 2:22-32)." So, Jesus did not enter the MHP on the Cross, or while in Hades! Kurt’s argument is destroyed.

2.) The sacrifice was always killed outside the MHP and then offered in the MHP (Leviticus 16)! Yet Kurt says Jesus entered the MHP while he was on the cross! The mercy seat was within the veil, not outside. Your argument violates the type / antitype, and your own words.

3.) Of course, Kurt then violates his own argument by admitting (tacitly of course), that Jesus did enter the MHP at his ascension! Okay, so Kurt has Jesus entering the MHP while on the cross. Then, he has Jesus entering the MHP when he ascended! There is no logical harmony here.

4.) Notice Hebrews 9:12– Christ "entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood." Per Kurt, the author should have said Jesus had entered twice!

All of this establishes the point I made earlier. The cross, as stand alone event, did not complete salvation. I argued that Kurt’s own position demanded that Jesus enter the MHP to fulfill the Atonement typology. Now, he has tacitly admitted it, while seeking desperately to deny it! He claims, without a syllable of proof, that Jesus entered the MHP while hanging on the cross, but then, while arguing for Jesus to enter the MHP TWICE, admits that Jesus had to enter the MHP at his ascension! This proves my point that the typological aspects of Torah were not fulfilled at the cross, and nullifies Kurt’s claims, prima facie!

KURT’S QUESTIONS TO ME

Although Kurt refused to answer any of my questions, he posed two questions to me and in private correspondence said that he would only answer my final question if I answered these:

1) Did the cross cancel the debt of sin under the law?

Response: Kurt’s problem is that he reads "at the cross" into the texts that speak of the Cross initiating the redemptive process! But those texts speak of Christ cancelling the debt (not the law itself!) through the cross. Kurt’s questions are based on faulty premises and presuppositions.

2) Does the cross (grace) triumph over law, or did law have to be removed for man to be justified?

Response: The cross did triumph over law. However, Kurt fails, sadly, to differentiate between the process begun– that I have demonstrated definitively in my comments on Hebrews 9:15– and process finished. Likewise, Kurt fails to consider the difference between the objective passing of the Law itself– which did not happen at the Cross (Hebrews 8:13), and what happened when a person died to the law by the body of Christ, receiving the earnest of the Spirit as the guarantee of the transformation from the Old Covenant glory to the New.

This last point is critical. The Law itself was not nullified at the cross. As believers came into Christ, "the veil was taken away" (2 Corinthians 3:10f). Yet the Law itself, not just an outer manifestation of the law, as Kurt falsely claims, was "ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13). Remember, it was the Spirit’s work to bring that covenantal transformation to completion. It was the Spirit’s work to apply the power of the cross and bring that foundational work to completion.

As noted above, Kurt, in violation of the rules he signed, engaged in an affirmative presentation, which I am under no obligation to even mention since I am in the affirmative. He spent a good long time on Matthew 5:17-18 claiming to falsify the preterist paradigm in regard to that text. I am going to ask my friend to please use that argument in his affirmative presentations! I promise to demonstrate, definitively, the fallacy of the argument.

In this second affirmative I have totally rebuffed all of Kurt’s few attempts to negate my arguments. I have buttressed my arguments with solid exegesis, sound hermeneutic and logic. I have added new arguments that prove, prima facie that Torah was not nullified at the cross, and that salvation was perfected at Christ’s parousia in AD 70. My affirmative is established beyond any ability of Kurt to rebut, but, we will see what he has to offer.

 A final question: Kurt, tell us plainly, What was "the power of the holy people" mentioned in Daniel 12:7? Please, do not ignore this. Clearly define Israel’s power.

▲ Top of page

To receive Kurt Simmons’ e-mail newsletter, The Sword & The Plow, click the Subscribe link:

SUBSCRIBE

 

All rights reserved.