Preston- V -Simmons

When Was Sin Defeated?  AD 70 or the Cross?

Preston's Third Negative

 

A word of clarification for the readers. In Kurt’s second affirmative he said he had granted me 8000 extra words, as if he had magnanimously offered me extra space– with the implication that I needed that extra space to prove my point. Kurt’s “offer” sprang from a misunderstanding on my part in regard to the length of his first three negatives. In private correspondence, I apologized to Kurt for my misunderstanding. Also, when Kurt wrote what he did in his second affirmative, I posted to him privately asking him to correct the impression that his “offer” would make on the readers. Regrettably, my friend did not see fit to correct this misunderstanding. It is important that the readers know that I have not taken, (nor did I need) 8000 extra words for my negative. I clearly do not need that extra space to rebut my friend’s position. The readers need to know that I have scrupulously followed the agreement that Kurt and I signed as to the length of our presentations. All of my negatives have been the agreed to 8000 word count. 

(Don K. Preston) 

 

My friend refuses to confront his self contradictions. He appeals to” 2000 years” of church tradition, as normative when that same tradition condemns his preterism!

1.) 2000 years of church tradition knows absolutely nothing of Kurt’s claim that the salvation of Hebrews 9:28 was deliverance from persecution.

2.) 2000 years of church tradition has taught that salvation– purchased through the cross-- would be perfected at Christ’s parousia (Hebrews 9:28).

3.) 2000 years of church history knows nothing of Kurt’s view of the resurrection. 

Kurt’s selective use of tradition is embarrassing. Creedalists Kenneth Gentry or Keith Mathison will gladly cite Kurt’s appeal to tradition, to validate their claim: “2000 years of church history about a literal return of Christ at the end of human history has stood the test!” And, every scholar Kurt cited would reject his eschatology as heretical! 2000 years of church history contradicts his eschatology! His adamant refusal to acknowledge his self-contradictory, selective appeal to church history betrays his desperation to make some point, any point.

Kurt’s statement that eschatology has nothing to do with soteriology is one of the most Biblically inaccurate statements imaginable! It is just stunning! Nothing is more soteriological than eschatology: “As in Adam all men die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” i.e. via resurrection, i.e. eschatology! Kurt’s denial illustrates that he has failed to grasp the very essence of the Biblical story. Hebrews 9:28 says Christ was coming– eschatology– to bring salvation– soteriology! Kurt is dead wrong.

In light of Kurt’s incredible claim, I contacted two major scholars with whom I correspond occasionally and asked them about Kurt’s position. Both reject Kurt’s position! 

KURT’S ACCUSATIONS THAT I MISREPRESENTED HIM.

The Charge: Re: Romans 9:28– “He says I admit that Rom. 9:28 refers to the salvation of national Israel. I don’t. I believe it refers to their destruction!”

The Truth: Here is my 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.

Kurt responded, (Second negative): “I agree with Don that the “short work” in Rom. 9:27-29 refers to national Israel. God gave the nation a 40 year grace period in which to obey the gospel, and then destroyed the nation.” Kurt now denies admitting that Romans 9 speaks of the salvation of Israel in AD 70. He says it speaks of their destruction.

Kurt is guilty of creating a “false either / or.” This is a debater’s trick. It is not, “If Israel was saved, she was not destroyed,” or vice versa. It is rather, the remnant was saved AND, the majority was destroyed at the same time! Kurt’s admission that Romans 9 was fulfilled in AD 70 is a fatal admission. It means that Israel’s salvation came in AD 70! And if Israel’s salvation came in AD 70, then salvation for the nations came then as well! 

The Charge: “I have never said that physical death was the immediate result of sin.”

The Truth: Kurt – “Since physical death was the immediate doom brought in by sin, and bespoke the greater doom of eternal death that followed, it is from physical death that the promise of resurrection was given.” (Plow and Sword, October 2009. Read it for yourself!). 

The Charge: “Don says I contradict myself by saying that the saints on this side of eternity had received the atonement before AD 70, but the saints in Hades did not receive it until AD 70. I never said any such thing.”

The Truth: Kurt has affirmed repeatedly that the living saints did receive the full benefits of the atonement before AD 70.

Kurt on the living: (Last Affirmative): “When did the saints first stand “soterilogicallly” (sic) complete before the throne of God, cleansed and made pure by the blood of Christ? The Cross or AD 70?  I say the Cross.” 

Kurt offered 88 verses, claiming that the past tense verbs prove the pre-parousia reality of salvation, justification and atonement.  He said the living saints “were already in a present state of grace and justification.”  

Kurt on the dead: “The souls in Hades could not enter heaven until they received the benefits of Christ’s atoning blood” (Kurt, SP, October, 2009). However, in his first affirmative, he claimed: “Thus, God had acquitted them (the souls in Hades, DKP) based upon reception of Christ’s blood.” (My emphasis, DKP).

So, Kurt says the dead saints did not receive the atonement until AD 70. On the other hand, they had already been acquitted before AD 70.  

Kurt said the atonement was completed at the cross, and the saints before AD 70 were “already in a present state of grace and justification.” Yet, he now says he has never said that the saints, “this side of eternity had received the atonement prior to AD 70"! Really? What then has been the purpose of this debate, if Kurt now says the pre-AD 70 saints did not fully possess the atonement? This is a fatal self contradiction!  

Kurt repeatedly said Romans 5:10 proved the saints had received the atonement, and chided me for saying it was proleptic! He said it was finished! Yet, he now denies they had received the atonement! Which Kurt do we believe? Kurt, you can’t say they had received it, and then turn around and claim they hadn’t!  That is a fatal self-contradiction that all can see. 

If those pre-parousia saints had not received the atonement, as Kurt now claims, when would  they receive it? Well, Kurt told us that the dead saints received the benefits of the atonement in AD 70, and he now says he has always said the living and dead would receive salvation at the same time! 

Kurt did, without question, affirm that the living saints possessed the atonement and salvation prior to AD 70. And he did, without question, affirm that the dead did not receive the atonement until AD 70. So, he has the living saints receiving salvation before the dead saints. He has not, as he now claims, always said that the living and dead saints received their salvation at the same time. Every reader of this debate– and Kurt-- knows this is a false claim. His self contradiction is inescapable, undeniable and fatal. 

Kurt has surrendered this debate by admitting that the living did not, in fact, fully receive the atonement prior to AD 70, and by now affirming that salvation was in AD 70 for the living and the dead! This is my position! Kurt has conceded!  

The Charge: “Don claims I said that the “law of sin and death was nailed to the cross,” but I have never said that either.”  

The Truth: Kurt, (Second Affirmative):  “He nailed the debt of sin to his cross, triumphing over the law of sin and death.” Kurt (October, 2009, Sword and Plow): “This promise was made in veiled, poetic terms when God said that the woman’s seed would bruise the head of the serpent, signifying that Jesus would crush the power of sin and death by his cross and resurrection (Gen. 3:15).” (My emphasis). 

The facts are undeniable. My friend’s desperation is such that he falsely accuses me of misrepresenting him. He denies saying what anyone can see that he said! I challenge anyone to read his presentations objectively. I did not, in any way, misrepresent what Kurt said.

Kurt seemingly forgets what he says from presentation to presentation, and from article to article. He changes position from presentation to presentation, when caught in self contradiction.  (Four different positions on Isaiah 27 in this debate! Two different positions on the identity of the MHP!) So, in desperation, he accuses me of misrepresenting him. Very sad.

 

Note the following:

Kurt says that I say the atonement did not occur at the cross. False! I have consistently argued that the atonement process was initiated at the cross. He says my position is historically unknown. Well, in numerous formal debates, I have asked my opponents, “Is there anything Christ must do to complete the atonement?” Almost invariably, they have answered: “Christ must come the second time!” Kurt’s claim that only proponents of Covenant Eschatology say the atonement was not perfected until the parousia is false. Even the enemies of Covenant Eschatology agree that the atonement is perfected at the parousia. This is a historically validated view!

                                                                                                           

Kurt says: “There is NOTHING in terms of man’s salvation that my brother Don is willing to say arrived at the cross. According to Don, nothing happened at the cross.”

This is a gross mis-representation. Read my comments– or my books. You will know how false this is. In logic, what Kurt has done is called poisoning the well. You ascribe some view that is so outrageous, so radical, to your opponent, that people will be afraid to read what they have to say. This is a debater’s trick, but, should not be part of honorable controversy. Kurt is so desperate to make a point, any point at all, that he is willing to make blatantly false accusations. This is shameful.

Kurt queries: WHERE IS THE CROSS, in Don’s theology? My answer has always been, the cross is the very foundation of our faith. Without it, nothing else matters, and nothing else happened! But it was the initiation of the salvation process, with the parousia being the consummation. This is what Hebrews 9:24-28 proves beyond disputation. It is Kurt’s claim in regard to Hebrews 9:28 that is historically unprecedented!

Remember Kurt’s claim: “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 responded with several points; Only one is reiterated here (See my second Affirmative):

If the marriage is not completed at the very moment of the betrothal, then absolutely nothing happened at the moment of betrothal! Kurt totally ignored this. Yet, Kurt admits that AD 70 was the consummation of the betrothal, bringing with it “a greater intimacy!” His “all or nothing” claim is false, by his own admissions!

 

Consider Kurt’s remarks from Consummation of the Ages (231):

“The temple in Jerusalem was merely a figure of the true (Heb. 8:1-2). It was a shadow of the substitutionary death and atoning blood of Christ. In his death, the veil of the temple was ‘rent in twain’, signifying that the way into God’s presence was opened by the death of Christ. The Christian thus had ‘boldness to enter the holiest by the blood of Jesus (Hebrews 10:19f). Nevertheless, true to the already-but-not-yet character of the transition period between the cross and the coming of Christ, “the way into the holiest of all was not yet manifest, while as yet the first tabernacle was yet standing (Hebrews 9:8). The Christians’ access to the presence of God was forestalled pending passage of the Mosaic age. Thus, the Hebrews writer calls Christ a High Priest of ‘good things to come” (Hebrews 9:11; cf. 2:5; 6:5; 10:1). At the time of his writing, they were not yet come, but they were very near.”

Amen and Amen! This is great commentary because he proved it with scripture! It is sad that my friend has abandoned the truth.

 

DANIEL 9 / 12

Kurt selectively appeals to “tradition” to prove that Torah passed at the cross, and later, the sacrifice literally ceased in the Jewish War. But, he offers us no proof, just tradition.

Note again Daniel 9:

1.) Kurt says I make the seventieth week run from 63-70 AD. False! Like him, I posit Jesus’ death  in the first part of the week (Daniel 9:26). Had he read my books accurately he would know this.

Jesus’ Passion - Pentecost fulfilled the first four of Israel’s typological feasts. The second half of the week  –which included Atonement-- fulfilled the last three feasts. Israel’s feast days provide the key for the “gap” between the first part of the seventieth week, and the last.

2.) Torah could not pass until all of it– including the ceremonial feast days, KS– was fulfilled. But, the ceremonial feast days would be fulfilled at the end of the seventieth week, in AD 70, per Kurt. Therefore, none of the Torah passed until AD 70!

3.) Daniel says Messiah would confirm, (gabar--Strong’s #01396) not MAKE (berith) the covenant for one week. This does not speak of making the New Covenant, but of confirming an already existing covenant. Kurt ignored the fact that the NT says Jesus came to confirm the Old Covenant, and to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-18; Romans 15:8).

4.) I offered the following, in light of Kurt’s claim that everything in Daniel 9:24, except the destruction of Jerusalem, was fulfilled at the cross :

Daniel 9:24 foretold the coming of everlasting righteousness– this is soteriology.

Paul and Peter were still anticipating the arrival of the prophesied everlasting righteousness (Galatians 5:5; 2 Peter 3:10-13)- at the Day of the Lord (eschatology).

Therefore, unless Paul and Peter were anticipating a prophesied world of righteousness different from Daniel, then Daniel 9 was not fulfilled– and salvation was not consummated-  at the cross.

Unless Kurt can prove that righteousness is unrelated to salvation, then the fact that Peter and Paul were still waiting the full arrival of everlasting righteousness –at the Day of the Lord–  proves that salvation was not perfected at the cross, but at the parousia.

 

Daniel 9 fully confirms Covenant Eschatology.

                                               

HOSEA 13

Kurt seeks to refute my argument on the resurrection by divorcing Hosea 13 from Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 15! Do not miss this!

1.) Paul said the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be the fulfillment of Hosea 13:14.

2.) Kurt denies this, insisting that Hosea has nothing– NOTHING– to do with what Paul was predicting!

3.) Kurt’s newly invented theology forces him to ignore what Hosea said, and to claim that Paul was wrong when he said the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be the fulfillment of Hosea!

4.) Why would Paul say the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be the fulfillment of Hosea, if, as Kurt claims, Hosea’s prediction contains nothing remotely resembling what Paul was predicting? Kurt’s hermeneutic denies Paul’s repeated statements that his eschatological and soteriological hope was nothing but the hope of Israel!

5.) This distorted hermeneutic forced Kurt to deny that Isaiah 27 and 59 had anything to do with what Paul predicted in Romans 11. Both of those texts– in spite of Kurt’s denials– foretold the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. Paul said the coming of the Lord in Romans 11 would be the fulfillment of those prophecies. But, Kurt says NO, this can’t be, those prophecies had nothing to do with Romans 11! They were about the Assyrian captivity!

6.) I have pressed Kurt repeatedly to give us some exegetical or logical proof to explain why Paul cited those OT prophecies to justify his NT doctrine, when according to Kurt, those OT prophecies had nothing whatsoever to do with what Paul was discussing! This is surely one of the most illogical, false hermeneutics imaginable.

7.) Kurt appeals to Homer Hailey to support his false claim. Yet, Hailey would reject Kurt’s view of the resurrection as heresy!

 

Look again at my argument on 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-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). So:

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.

 

Thus, Israel was not cut off at the cross. God’s promises to her were “irrevocable” (Romans 11:28), and until His covenant promises to her were fulfilled she would not enter her salvation (Romans 11:26f) at the resurrection. Kurt ignored this argument.

 

Please catch this: Kurt says we still have the earnest of the Spirit today. Well, the Earnest was the guarantee of the (future) reception of what the early church did not yet possess! Do you catch that? The very existence of the Spirit as the Earnest was proof positive that what the Spirit was guaranteeing was not yet fully accomplished! The Earnest guaranteed the redemption of the purchased possession (Ephesians 1:12f). The Spirit guaranteed therefore, the completion of the atonement and resurrection (which is salvation)!

 

If we today still have the Earnest of the Spirit, then from the cross to this day, we do not yet possess the atonement and salvation! You cannot argue for the continuing possession of the Earnest of the Spirit, without thereby saying that we do not yet possess son-ship, redemption and salvation! Do you see how self-contradictory Kurt’s position is? On the one hand he argues that the saints before AD 70 had  “received the atonement.” But if this was true, they did not need the Earnest of the Spirit to guarantee their redemption! When confronted with the implications of that false claim, he then denies saying they had the atonement. But then, he says that they (and we!!) had the Earnest of the Spirit. But, the Earnest of the Spirit was the guarantee of the future reception of the atonement, son-ship, and redemption! The presence of the Earnest of the Spirit was indisputable proof that the work of salvation was not perfected! Thus, Kurt’s claim that we still have the Earnest, falsifies his new theology!

 

ZECHARIAH 11

I shook my head in amazement and sorrow as I read my friend’s comments on Zechariah 11. It is sad to me that he is so desperate to support his newly invented theology that he is willing to purposefully manipulate the text. Did you notice his convenient use of the ellipsis: “And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.  And it was broken in that day… And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price...” This is just so sad!

Kurt tries to make it appear that the “in that day” referent is to Judas’ betrayal. Patently false. It is referent back to vss. 8-10; “Let the dying die. Let those who are left eat one another’s flesh. Then I took my staff...revoking the covenant...It was revoked in that day.” The “Then” and the “in that day” are undeniable references to the time when Israel would eat their own flesh in a time of war. As Kurt knows, this was in AD 70. Thus, God revoked His covenant with Israel in AD 70.

 

This raises the issue again: “If a law or covenant has been abrogated, are any of the provisions of that covenant, i.e. promises or penalties (positive or negative) still binding?” Unbelievably, contrary to all logic and law, Kurt tried to tell us that just because a law has been abrogated does not mean that its penalties cannot still be applied! However...

The provisions of a covenant are not applicable if the covenant has been nullified. Kurt, and every logically thinking person, knows this.

But, the provisions of wrath found in the Mosaic Covenant – eating their own flesh in time of war– were fulfilled in AD 70.

Therefore, the Mosaic Covenant remained binding in AD 70.

So, yes, my argument on Zechariah is irrefutable, and all Kurt’s comments have done is to expose his regrettable desperation.

 

NOTHING BUT THE HOPE OF ISRAEL

I have made, and re-made the following argument. It remains a HUGE EMPTY BOX! This one argument is fatal to Kurt’s paradigm:

Fact: “Salvation is of the Jews.” That is, salvation was to flow from Israel to the nations. Paul said his gospel was nothing but the hope of Israel (Acts 26:21f).

Fact: Israel’s salvation would be at the time of the resurrection (Isaiah 25:8-9).

Fact: The resurrection occurred in AD 70. Kurt agrees.

Now, Kurt’s new theology demands, that we delineate between the salvation promises made to and about Israel, and create another salvation distinct from Israel.

Now, watch...

Kurt has said repeatedly that redemption and atonement was completed at the cross.

Kurt ignores the indisputable fact that the atonement and salvation had to do with the fulfillment of God’s promises to OC Israel. And, he ignores the fact that salvation is inextricably linked to the fulfillment of Israel’s feast days!

You cannot affirm the perfection of salvation at the cross without saying the resurrection occurred at the cross. You cannot affirm the consummation of salvation without affirming the complete fulfillment of Israel’s typological feast days– and not even Kurt does that!

 

Do not fail to catch this! Israel was to receive her salvation (soteriology) at the end of her age in AD 70 (eschatology). This is prima facie falsification of Kurt’s ill-informed statement that there is no relationship between eschatology and soteriology. This is bad theology.

If Israel and Torah were cast out at the cross, then Israel was cast out before, and without, her eschatological and soteriological promises being fulfilled. But,  Biblically, until and unless Israel received her salvation, no one else could receive salvation! Yet, Kurt has salvation given to individuals (and Gentiles!) before Israel received her salvation, and without Israel receiving her salvation! Kurt destroys the Biblical pattern of: “To the Jew first, then to the Greek.”

 

Kurt says Israel and Torah was cut off at the cross. But, the resurrection is the time of Israel’s salvation (Isaiah 25:8-9)– the salvation that was to be, “To the Jew first, then to the Greek.” Thus, how could “the saints” have received their salvation– as Kurt claims– before the resurrection when that is the time of Israel’s salvation?

Kurt said not one word about this issue. His proposition falls on this single argument.

 

This is Covenant Eschatology confirmed, and Kurt falsified.  

 

You must ponder why Kurt has totally refused to deal with the issue of eschatology and Israel’s promises. He rips those promises from Israel and divorces them from the end of her age. He makes them apply primarily to individuals at death–not the parousia, where the Bible emphatically posits them. He says those promises have nothing to do with the end of the age! Kurt’s abject refusal to deal with this proves he cannot deal with it.

 

KURT’S FALSE VIEW OF RESURRECTION

Kurt’s view of sin and death is wrong, and leads to wrong conclusions. I have documented beyond doubt that Kurt says physical death was the immediate result of sin.

Kurt says Christ died physically, as a substitution for mankind. This demands that if Jesus’ physical death was the focus of his substitutionary death, that those in Christ should never die physically! Yet, Jesus’ physical death on the cross has not kept one single person in history from dying physically! I asked  Kurt, if Jesus died as our substitute– in our place-- why do those in Christ have to die physically? Kurt response? An empty box! The reason is simple. It falsifies his view of sin-death-resurrection!

I have documented that Kurt did claim that Christ defeated the law of sin and death at the cross. Yet he says that when a Christian sins they are subject to the law of sin and death. His view demands that the physical death of even the most faithful Christian is a demonstration that they are under the power of sin– not the power of faith or of Christ’s atonement!  Folks, this is fatal to Kurt. It is why he did not say one word in response.

 

MATTHEW 5:17-18

Kurt claims I contradict myself on Matthew 5 and the issue of circumcision. He mishandles my argument. I argued that circumcision was being annulled IN CHRIST, and for those IN CHRIST, the land promises were fulfilled! I was not arguing that Torah itself had objectively been annulled. My friend is grasping at straws to find any semblance of an argument.

Paul no where asserts that the unconverted Jews were wrong to continue circumcision. He pointed them to Christ, telling them their promises were being fulfilled in him and that the old system was about to pass, to be sure. However, Kurt cannot find a single text where Paul told unbelieving Jews that Torah had been abrogated! He did, however, warn them that the provisions of Torah would come on them if they did not obey Jesus (Acts 13:34f), which again proves my proposition!

 

My friend’s desperation continues: “It was Jesus’ first coming he declared would fulfill the law.” This is false.

Kurt appeals to Matthew 27:50– “It is finished!” claiming Jesus had finished every thing the Father gave him to do. No, for he had not yet come in judgment, as the Father had given him to do (John 5:19f; 12:48f)! Jesus’ suffering was finished to be sure, but clearly, he had not finished the work the Father had given him!

Kurt appeals to Acts 13:29-33, “When they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him from the tree.” Once again, Kurt is grasping at straws and ignoring the text! The focus of the “all things concerning him,” is undeniably limited to his suffering. It does not even mention his resurrection, yet, Kurt believes that Jesus’ resurrection was an essential element of fulfilling the Law!

Acts 13 is not a comprehensive statement such as “not one jot or one tittle shall pass until all is fulfilled”! Kurt takes a passage that clearly limits the “all” in view, and expands it into a comprehensive “all” without justification. Context determines the extent of the “all things,” and in the texts Kurt cites there are limitations on the “all things.” But, there is no such limitation in Matthew 5! And Hebrews 9 proves that Kurt is wrong to limit the fulfillment of “all things” to Jesus’ incarnation. Watch carefully.

 

Remember, Kurt says that all that had to be fulfilled was the ceremonial law. Of course, now, he even changes that position and says that all that had to be fulfilled was Jesus’ death! Notice Hebrews 9:6f again.

 

Paul says Torah stood in meats, drinks, etc.. This is referent to the feast days of Israel. Those ordinances were still being practiced when he wrote, for, “these are parabolic of the present time” (Hebrews 9:8). Kurt once honored the Greek tenses. He now refuses to honor them. We have challenged him repeatedly to give us some grammatical or lexical justification for denying the present and future tenses. The echo in that EMPTY BOX is resounding!. Furthermore, those ordinances– i.e. The Feast Days– would remain valid until the time of reformation. Let’s rehearse Kurt’s constant vacillation on the time of reformation:

Kurt initially said the time of reformation arrived at the cross. But, this demands that man could enter the MHP from that point, so he retreated from that view.

Then, he said that the time of reformation ended– not arrived–  at the parousia in AD 70. But, this would demand that after AD 70 there would be no access to the MHP. So, being entrapped, he changed his position again, admitting that the time of reformation was completed in AD. This is the view I have argued. Of course, this demands that Torah remained valid until AD 70, so, Kurt abandoned all discussion of the time of reformation. Let’s look again at the argument.

Paul: Israel’s feast days were typological.

Those feast days (Thus, Torah) would remain valid until the time of reformation.

The time of reformation fully arrived in AD 70 (Kurt Simmons).

Therefore, Israel’s feast days (Thus, Torah) remained valid until AD 70.

 

Kurt says that the shadow ends when the body (fulfillment) arrives. Amen! But, the “shadowy” feast days were still valid when Hebrews was written, and typified the time of reformation (i.e. the body), which Kurt finally admitted came in AD 70! Thus, Torah was still valid.

 

I challenged Kurt to deal with my arguments on Israel’s feast days. Those arguments fill up Kurt’s boxes to overflowing! He totally ignored my arguments.

Not one jot or tittle of “The Law” could pass until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18; “including “all typological aspects of the “ceremonial law,” KS).

The ceremonial Feasts of Trumpets and Harvest were not fulfilled until AD 70 at the time of the judgment/resurrection.

Therefore, not one jot or tittle passed from “the ceremonial law” until AD 70.

 

Kurt’s new theology rips the atonement from its direct connection with Trumpets and Harvest– eschatological consummation– and posits it at the beginning of Israel’s festival calendar. There is no justification for this, whatsoever. Seventy weeks were determined to make the atonement. Kurt posits this at the beginning of the final week. Typologically, however, it belongs to the last half, the time of consummation.

 

Do not miss the importance of this argument! It is “un-get-overable” proof that Torah remained valid until AD 70. If Torah was removed at the cross, the ceremonial law was not fulfilled, the time of reformation never arrived! And there is still no access to the MHP!

 

GALATIANS 4– TWO SYSTEMS AT ONE TIME

Kurt finally said something about Galatians 4! But what he said was false.

Ishmael and Isaac dwelt in the same house– together. The women and sons represented the two covenants. Hagar / Ishmael– represented the Old Covenant and the Old Covenant people who persecuted Isaac (the spiritual seed). As a result, Paul said “cast out the bondwoman and her son.”

Kurt says– as if it answers anything I said– that it was Hagar that represented Torah. YES! That is my argument!

Paul said– in spite of Kurt’s dust cloud-- that as a direct consequence of fleshly Israel persecuting the spiritual seed, “cast out the bondwoman (Torah!), and her son (Fleshly Israel).” Once again, that casting out was to be for persecuting Christians! There were no Christians before the cross! Since the casting out was to be for persecuting Christians, and the casting out was still future when Paul wrote Galatians, this proves irrefutably that Torah (Hagar) and Israel, (Ishmael) had not yet been cast out.

                       

This also proves, indubitably, that the two laws existed side by side until the casting out of Israel for persecuting the church! And, I asked Kurt if the pagans did not have Torah, while Israel did have Torah? Do you hear the echo in that empty box?

 

I stand with Paul that the Gentiles did not have Torah, while Israel did have Torah. That means, prima facie, that there were two systems in place at the same time. Kurt is wrong.

 

1 PETER: THE SALVATION READY TO BE REVEALED

Again, Kurt’s desperation manifests itself.

Peter speaks of the eternal inheritance ready to be revealed at the parousia. Kurt ignores this and says that salvation was relief from persecution. In fact, he says, “Can there be any doubt that the salvation that would be revealed was Jesus’ destruction of the church’s enemies?”

1.) I proved that Peter said those saints had to suffer more. Kurt says the promise was no more suffering. Kurt is wrong.

2.) The salvation in view was, “The salvation of your souls” foretold by the OT prophets. I  challenged Kurt to give us the OT verses that support his view. Total silence.

3.) Kurt insists that the salvation promised was the physical destruction of Christ’s enemies. Well, 2000 years of tradition-- that Kurt keeps appealing to-- denies this!

4.) Kurt overlooks the fact that the last enemy to be destroyed was death (1 Corinthians 15:24f). So, if the promise was the physical destruction of Christ’s enemies, then physical death should have been destroyed!

5.) Kurt overlooks the fact that physical events were signs of the greater spiritual realities! Thus, the physical event of the fall of Jerusalem was signatory of the greater spiritual reality of the destruction of Christ’s spiritual enemies. This proves that salvation was not perfected until AD 70.

 

HEAVEN AND EARTH AND 2 PETER 3

Kurt denies the covenantal context of the destruction of “heaven and earth.” He says, “There is not one single occasion in the whole Bible where the “heavens and earth” refer to the Old or New Testaments – not one.” This is just sad. 

Response: Isaiah 65:17f said that the Old Heaven and Earth would pass and would be “remembered no more.” Now, watch... In his comments on Revelation 16:18, which describes the destruction of “Babylon” it says she would be “remembered before God.” Kurt says of this word “remembered”: “‘Remembrance’ is a uniquely covenantal term...Similar usage nowhere appears with reference to any nation of the Gentiles” (Consummation, p. 313). Well said! He then gives verses that prove that “remember” carries covenantal significance.

Well, in Isaiah 65, the Old Heaven and Earth would “not be remembered any more”! This demands that the Old Heaven and Earth was a covenant heaven and earth. But, that covenant relationship would cease! This is Covenant Eschatology established beyond dispute. (See Jeremiah 3:14f-- in the Messianic kingdom, the Ark of the Covenant would “not be remembered” anymore). Once again, Kurt has falsified his own theology.

 

I have now refuted every salient point in Kurt’s affirmatives, so, let me recall some of the arguments of this debate.

 

A BUNCH OF EMPTY BOXES!

 

#1 – I have offered multiple logical syllogisms. Kurt urged the readers to beware of my use of logic, and openly stated he had no responsibility to respond to anything I would present. This after signing an agreement to answer my arguments without evasion! Lamentably, when he has attempted to answer my questions– after much pressure– he has done nothing but obfuscate.

 

#2 – ISAIAH 27 AND 59

Kurt began by telling us that proper exegesis of Isaiah 27 and 59 is irrelevant. This alone should alarm any student of scripture!

Paul said that the coming of the Lord would fulfill Isaiah 27 and 59.

Isaiah 27 and 59 were predictions of the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood.

Kurt changed positions four times on Isaiah 27! This is unmitigated desperation.

Kurt never explained why Paul cited these prophecies, when, per Kurt, they had nothing whatsoever to do with what Paul was predicting.

 

#3 – DANIEL 9

I demonstrated that everlasting righteousness promised by Daniel 9 was still future when Paul and Peter wrote, thus demanding that salvation was not yet perfected. Kurt’s response? An empty box!

 

#4– DANIEL 12

My argument: The power of the holy people would be shattered at the time of the resurrection– in AD 70.

The power of the holy people was Torah.

Therefore, the power of Torah was not shattered until AD 70.

Incredibly, Kurt claimed that Israel’s “power” was identical to the pagan nations. I proved (First negative) that it was Israel’s covenant with YHVH that was her only power. Kurt totally ignored this. This argument alone falsifies his theology.

 

# 5 – I challenged Kurt to give us commentary support for his view of 1 Thessalonians 4– Just one! Resounding silence! 2000 years of church history knows nothing of his view! On the other hand, Kurt challenged me to provide commentary support that Isaiah 27 applied to AD 70. I provided that proof, but instead of acknowledging it, he ignored it!

 

#6 – For all of his appeal to “2000 years of church tradition,” Kurt claimed that Jesus had to enter the MHP TWICE. Hebrews 9:12 says he entered ONCE! 2000 years of church history knows nothing of Kurt’s claim! I challenged Kurt to produce even one commentary to support  his claim. The result? An empty box! Kurt is wrong.

 

#7 – Kurt claims that the Transfiguration was not about covenant transformation and was a vision of Jesus’ incarnation. I challenged him to prove this. Not a word of response! And, 2000 years of church history knows almost nothing of his claim. Kurt is wrong.

 

#8 – He claims 2 Corinthians 3 refers to the already abolished Torah. (Although keep in mind that Kurt is on record as saying that it was not Torah that was nailed to the Cross! Do not forget this!) Look at 2 Corinthians 3 again.

Paul, speaking of the passing of Torah says, “Seeing then that we have– present tense– such hope.” Paul does not say the hope of the passing of Torah had been fulfilled.

Paul likewise says that “in the reading of Moses, the veil is still present, but when one turns to the Lord the veil is taken away.” Paul speaks here of a person dying to Torah, not Torah being already dead! Kurt turns the text on its head.

Paul said that the transformation “from glory to glory” the transformation from the glory of Moses to the glory of Christ and the New Covenant was being accomplished by the Spirit, through his personal ministry. Kurt totally ignored these irrefutable facts because they falsify his new doctrine.

 

#9 – THE GREEK TENSES

In his books, Kurt insisted that we honor the Greek present and future tenses of the process of salvation, begun at the cross, perfected at the parousia. I have challenged him repeatedly to give us any kind of lexical, grammatical, textual proof for why we should now ignore these tenses. The answer? An empty box!

Kurt presented 88 verses telling us we must accept the past tense objective reality of the finished work of salvation before AD 70. When pressed with the implications of this, he now denies ever saying that the living saints had received the benefits of the atonement before AD 70!

 

#10 – I challenged Kurt to tell us if he still accepts– as he affirms in his books-- the lexical definition of mello, as “about to be.” His answer? Empty Box!

 

#11 – I have challenged Kurt with his inherently contradictory view that Torah was nailed to the Cross, but then arguing that Torah was NOT nailed to the cross. Response? Total silence!

 

#12 – Kurt claimed that Hebrews 8:13 did not mean that Torah was ready to pass, but, only the already dead external form of Torah was ready to pass. But, if Torah was already dead, and could no longer prevent entrance into the MHP, but the saints still could not enter the MHP until AD 70, why could the saints not enter the MHP? Total, abject silence!  

 

#13 – I have asked repeatedly: If salvation was completed at the cross why did the dead saints have to wait until AD 70 to enter the MHP?  NO ANSWER!

 

#14 – Kurt says AD 70 was “soteriologically irrelevant.” Yet, he says, the dead saints could not enter the MHP until then. I asked him why the dead saints had to await that irrelevant event to receive their salvation. In six presentations, he typed not one word of explanation!

#15 –  I asked: Is the forgiveness of sins and entrance into the MHP, which would only come at the end of Torah, necessary to salvation? Kurt refused to answer.

 

#16 – The only thing, that prevented man from entering the MHP was sin, and by extension, Torah because of its inability to forgive (Hebrews 9:6-10). Kurt says the pre-AD 70 saints fully enjoyed forgiveness– although he now denies saying they had the atonement! I repeatedly asked, if the separating barrier– sin and Torah-- was “completely removed” at the cross what prevented them from entering until AD 70? He refused to answer! Why? Because the correct answer destroys his rejection of Covenant Eschatology.

 

#17 – Kurt claimed that removal of Torah was unnecessary for salvation. I asked: Why then did Christ die to remove Torah and apply grace?

Hebrews 9 says as long as Torah stood valid, there was no entrance into the MHP. If, however, my friend’s new doctrine is correct, the removal of Torah was not necessary for entrance into the MHP! Yet, Paul is clear that as long as Torah remained valid there was no entrance! Kurt’s view contradicts Hebrews 9.

 

#18 – Kurt claimed Torah had no “negative power.” I presented seven passages which speak emphatically of the negative power of Torah: no forgiveness, the curse, no righteousness, no justification, no life, condemnation, death, prevention of entrance into the MHP. I challenged Kurt to explain how these were not negative powers. Surely, if Torah truly had no negative power, Kurt could explain these passages for us, yet, not one word of response!

 

#19 – Hebrews 9 says there would be no entrance into the MHP while the Mosaic Law remained imposed. Revelation 15:8; 16:16f says there would be no access to the MHP until Jerusalem was judged. Of logical necessity, the Mosaic Law remained imposed until the judgment of Old Covenant Jerusalem in AD 70. I challenged Kurt to give at least some response to this. Not a key stroke was offered!

 

#20 – Re: The salvation of Hebrews 9:28. Kurt says it was deliverance from persecution. I challenged him to document that this is the traditional view of the church. The box remains empty, because his view is unknown in church history!

 

#21 – I have shown (Hebrews 11:40 and 1 Thessalonians 4) that the living and dead saints would receive salvation at the same time– at the resurrection. Kurt says the living received the benefits of the atonement / justification before then. I challenged him to harmonize this with these verses. He then claimed he had never said the living saints received the atonement before AD 70!  Of course, all readers of this debate know that he did make that claim. Kurt was simply desperate to escape the contradictions in his own statements.

 

#22 – I asked 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?

The souls in Hades could not enter heaven until they received the benefits of Christ’s atoning blood (Kurt Simmons, October, 2009).

But, the souls in Hades could not enter heaven until the resurrection in AD 70 (KS, November, 2009).

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

Kurt refused to answer.

 

#23 – 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). Hades existed 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.

In his Sword and Plow, October / November2009, he said 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– at least we think so! –  that the dead saints could not enter heaven until AD 70 and the “general resurrection.” This is crucial!

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. 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.

Since Hades existed until AD 70 then Torah remained binding until AD 70! 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 says Hades was not destroyed until AD 70. Therefore, Torah remained binding until AD 70. (Because Torah could not provide forgiveness!) Kurt owed it to the readers of this debate to address this argument without evasion, as he promised to do when he signed the debate rules. But, lamentably, Kurt’s silence reverberates in this empty box!

 

#24 – The ceremonial sacrifices foreshadowed entrance into the MHP.

As long as the sacrifices (The Mosaic Covenant) were imposed there was no entrance into the MHP.

There was no entrance until AD 70– Kurt Simmons

Therefore, the sacrifices (and the Mosaic Covenant) were imposed until AD 70.

Not a word of response!

 

#25 – I presented extensive argumentation on Israel’s feasts days.

The ceremonial feast days were typological of the better things to come– including the arrival of salvation.

Kurt said that all types of the ceremonial law had to be fulfilled for Torah to pass.

The feast days were still typological (and unfulfilled) of those better things when Colossians and Hebrews were written.

The Feast of Trumpets and Harvest typified Judgment and Resurrection (the time of salvation) which Kurt posits at AD 70.

This demands that the ceremonial law remained valid until AD 70!

Kurt said not one word in response! There is no answer in Kurt’s new theology. The feast days of Israel are prima facie, irrefutable falsification of Kurt’s proposition and theology.

 

Twenty Five Empty Boxes!!

 

The contrasts in this debate could not be clearer, or more dramatic.

1.) I have appealed to scripture alone. Kurt has appealed to church tradition, yet that very tradition condemns his preterism.

2.) I have utilized proper logic. Kurt has openly eschewed logic, and could not even frame a proper syllogism without violating the rules of logic.

3.) I have relied on proper exegesis; Kurt actually said proper exegesis was irrelevant.

4.) I have answered Kurt’s questions and arguments without evasion. Kurt persistently refused to answer my questions or my arguments, as demonstrated by the 25 empty boxes (there are more!). He even stated he had no responsibility to answer anything I said!

5.) I have relied on the emphatic words of scripture; Kurt has denied and manipulated the words of scripture.

6.) I have been consistent in my argumentation; Kurt has repeatedly changed his arguments from presentation to presentation, often denying that he said what everyone knows he did say. He told us the pre-70 living saints did possess the atonement, then he denied ever saying that!

 

My affirmative arguments and proposition stand indisputably proven, untouched by Kurt.

                                               

My negative arguments have falsified Kurt’s affirmatives. His refusal to answer my arguments prove this. His offering of historically unprecedented arguments proves this. His open rejection of the emphatic statements of scripture proves this.

 

I appreciate my friend for engaging in these discussions, which allows the readers to see the indisputable truth of Covenant Eschatology: The coming of Christ for salvation in Romans 11:25-27 occurred in AD 70 at the climax and termination of the Mosaic Covenant Age.

                                                                                    .

▲ Top of page

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

SUBSCRIBE

 

All rights reserved.