1. Bad Greek
My first argument is the easiest to reveal the incompetence of Simmons.
I had a good laugh over this one. Simmons wants his readers to think
that the Greek article is of no real importance. Yet, anyone can read
any grammar (I have
about seven of them) to see that this is false. He notes that the Greek
article appears before names, like, "the Jesus said..." Why the article?
Simple. It is specific. Names are very limited and specific, and thus
the article often accompanies them. It's just the Greek way.
His second clumsy mistake was to note that "not
one" (italics his) translation agrees with my
translation. All I have to do here is produce one translation to prove
Simmons false. Young's Literal Translation: "because of this, even as
through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin
the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all
did sin." Notice the articles. Romans 5.14 shows that Young translates,
"the death." I could go on, but
if you
happen to have a Young's, read Romans 5.12-21. Score one for Frost,
0 for Simmons.
His next very bad comparison is to make me sound like I am inventing a
translation akin the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah's
Witnesses. False. Since Simmons has not been schooled in Greek, and
since he does not teach Greek, his "knowledge" here is deficient. The
NWT makes a case that "a" god in John 1.1 is a
legitimate grammatical point.
Fact of the matter is Greek has no indefinite article (no "a"). The
second fact of the matter is that my translation
is a literal rendering of the Greek.
Why, then, does English not bring out "the"? Simple. When we learned
translation under the rigors of seminary training (which Kurt has none),
we heard the concept of "smoothing out" the Greek to make it readable in
English. To the Greek, "the death" was perfectly readable because it's
Greek to the Greek! To the English reader, "the Jesus said" is not
"smooth English." But, amazingly, Simmons is trying to make the point
that since "the" is not in most of
our English translations, then it is not really there, and of not much
importance to exegetical considerations! If Simmons tried to
sell this line of garbage to any
Greek professor, they would laugh him out of the class and tell him to
continue pursuing law. Score: Frost, 2; Simmons, 0.
Finally, I'll leave the reader with a quote from someone who actually
knows Greek, wrote a well-received textbook on the subject, and should
put this baby to rest. "There is no more important aspect of Greek
grammar than the article to help shape our understanding of the thought
and theology of the NT writers." And, "...[T]he article is able to turn
just about any part of speech into a noun and, therefore, a concept. For
example, "poor" expresses a quality, but the addition of an article
turns it into an entity, "the poor." It is this ability to conceptualize
that seems to be the basic force of the article" (Greek
Grammar Beyond The Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament,
Daniel B. Wallace, Zondervan, 1996, pp. 208,209). Now, Paul consistently
used "the death" and "the sin." "Sin" is just a quality. "The Sin" is an
entity, a
concept. Paul is not, then,
talking about individual sins,
but the very concept and definition
of the Sin. If Simmons would actually read technical
commentaries that deal with the Greek text, he would see that they talk
about the article and the concept of "death." Frost, 3; Simmons 0.
2. Bad Logic
Simmons uses what he calls "syllogisms" to dismantle my argument. He
states that I must prove that his reasoning here is false. It can easily
be done. In Logic 101, there are valid syllogisms and invalid ones.
Logic operates much like Math. 2+2=4. All A is B cannot imply No A is B
(symbolically written A(ab) ~ O(ab) following the
affirmo and
nego as contradictions).
There are many syllogisms that go under mnemonic devices like Barbara,
Celarent, Darii, Freioque prioris. Notice that each word (in Latin) has
three vowels. The first is Barbara (AAA): All men are mortal. Socrates
is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. That is, A(ba). A(cb) -> A(ca).
That's logic, and there are only 24 valid syllogisms (in Logic AEIO
stands for the four declarative statements).
Another rule of logic is that although a syllogism is true structurally
speaking, it may be false factually speaking. In other words, "All dogs
are cats. Fifi is a dog. Therefore, Fifi is a cat." Perfect logic! But,
is the major premise factually
true? Logic cannot give us definitions. Now, aside from this all too
brief lesson in Logic, Simmons fails on both accounts. He fails on a
third account, too, which I will show.
First off, his syllogisms follow no known logical syllogism of the 24
valid ones. Let's look at Simmons first syllogism:
Major Premise: The reign of
sin and death over man (A) was determined by the Mosaic law (B)
Minor Premise: The Mosaic
law (B) was annulled at the eschaton, losing all men of its power (A);
therefore,
Conclusion: Men are
universally reconciled (C) to God.
Now, from this, we can see that Simmons
adds a subject in the
conclusion that is not
contained in the premises. Very bad logic. In fact, this is a violation
of one of the first rules of syllogistic reasoning. The Conclusion must
contain a subject in the Premises. There is no need, then, to refute a
bad, logical argument! But, even if we grant that somehow Simmons may
salvage some rationale for this mess, he still is
factually false in the
first premise: Max King and Samuel Frost do not teach that the Mosaic
Law determined the
reign of the Sin and the Death! This will be shown under section 5
conclusively from multiple
quotes from King.
Simmons wants to parade around his knowledge and supposed defeat of
covenant eschatology by stating that he is giving "hard evidence" from
King and me. He quotes merely a few sentences from myself then spins his
interpretation of what I meant! He allows for no context. It is like one
observer remarked: Simmons is the master of the cut and paste. Rather,
what Simmons (and Dennis, Dubois, B. Simmons and others) has done is
create an argument;
create a supposed link
between covenant eschatology and Universalism. Once they have created
this illusion through very bad arguments (I have proven some very easily
above), they get others who are impressionable with the use of their
sophistry to go along with it. Then we have to have a "debate." Well, I
am debating, and what I have found so far, as written so far in this
paper, is demonstrably dumb.
Simmons' second syllogism goes like this:
Major
Premise: The resurrection consisted in the removal of legal
condemnation.
Minor
Premise: Legal condemnation exists today despite annulment of the Mosaic
law. Therefore,
Conclusion: There was no spiritual resurrection based upon the annulment
of the Mosaic law.
Anyone spot the error here? If you had a few courses in Logic and
actually paid attention in class instead of waiting for the next game of
beer pong, you would see it. Rule, "Two affirmative premises do not
imply a negative conclusion" (G. H. Clark,
Logic, Trinity Foundation,
p.78; vid.
Basic Logic, Raymond J.
McCall, Barnes and Knoble Pub., pp. 132-196) Yet, that's what we have
here. The Major Premise is affirmative. The Minor Premise is
affirmative. The Conclusion is negative (notice the word, "no").
Simmons' syllogism here is invalid and to be shunned. It is not an
argument. It is nonsense and unintelligible. There does not need to be
any response to a badly constructed syllogism. Frost 4; Simmons 0 (but,
hey, who's keeping score?).
3. Bad Exegesis (or No Exegesis at All)
Unfortunately, there is none at all. Simmons offers no exegesis. He
offers, instead, Arminianism under the banner of
Church of
Christ.
Why he wants to pull Calvinism into this is a smokescreen. Even one of
my most ardent opponents noted this. I can't find any exegesis in
Simmons' two papers. Exegesis that deals with the
Greek text. I will not make
this into a Calvinism versus Arminianism. I deny freewill. I believe in
total sovereignty, down to the number of hairs currently on my head. I
believe that there is no question that could ever be formed that God
could not exhaustively answer. God "knows all things" (I
John 3.20). I guess Simmons wants to "link" that to
Universalism, too. I could argue that the Bible leads to Universalism
since, from Origen on, all Universalists use the Bible as their source!
On the contrary, my first paper was nothing but exegesis. Simmons does
very little to counter this. He does not deal with the 5 Points that are
derived solely from the scriptural material:
Point #1:
In I Co 15.54 Paul
quotes Is 25.8. In the
Hebrew it is "ha muth"
or "the death." The Septuagint also reflects this, and so does Paul.
Paul mentions "the death" in I Co
15.26. There, the "last enemy that is being destroyed" in Paul's day was
"the death." No doubt that "the death" he has in mind here is the same
"the death" he has in mind in 15.54-56.
Point #2:
Paul also quoted from Hosea
13.14 where "death" is addressed in the vocative. Paul links these two
contexts together, meaning that "the death" in
Is 25.8 is the same "O'
Death" that is being addressed in
Hos 13.14. Both of these contexts are Restoration of Israel
contexts, with which no one would disagree.
Point #3:
In I Co 15.56 Paul
links "the death" with "the sin" and "the law." Very recently, many
scholars, none of which are Full Preterists, have noted the clear
connection between 15.56 and Rom
5. In other words, 15.56 is a condensed argument of
Rom 5, which the
Corinthians would have been familiar with since Paul stayed so long with
them. In the letter to the Romans, however, Paul has to expound upon
this doctrine since he has never visited
Rome.
The same can be said for the language of
II Co 3.5, which appeals
and quotes Gen 1.3 and
clearly connects "the death" with the "law written in Stone." The Law of
Moses was "the administration of the Death" (3.7). Unless Paul has more
than one definition of "the death" that consistently occurs in contexts
talking about Israel and the Law of Moses, then we are perfectly logical
in insisting that all
of these usages of "the death" means one thing:
the death that passed on to all men as
the result of the one man.
Point #4:
John's vision of "the death and the hades" (which, in the Hebrew
Scriptures, these words are often coupled together) ends with the
destruction of "the Death." That John has
Isaiah in mind (or, rather,
that the Spirit inspiring John is alluding to His past revelations given
to Isaiah) is plain. The Death is destroyed and John writes, "He will
wipe away the tears from their eyes. There will be no more the Death" (Rev
21.4). Now, let's read Is
25.8: "He will swallow up the Death forever. The Sovereign Lord will
wipe away the tears from all faces." That there is a connection here is
plain for all to see.
Point #5:
Conclusion, John and Paul did not make up a new doctrine concerning "the
death." They explicitly got it from
Isaiah. John pictures the
fulfillment, therefore,
of Is 25.8 in
Rev 21. Paul is looking
forward to the same fulfillment
in I Co 15, using the
same language. It is quite clear and plain that Paul has connected "the
death" with "the law of Moses" and more explicitly with the law given to
Adam, which he transgressed. It is quite plain for anyone to see that
with the "dissolution of the law" of Moses, the "administration of the
Death" would be equally swallowed up. The Law of Moses was "added to"
the Law that Adam broke, and thus became the main "administer" of the
Death which came because of Adam. The fulfillment and subsequent
dissolution of the "written code on stones" would mean that "the Death"
would cease to "reign" over "all peoples." The Death does not
reign in the New Heavens
and New Earth.
It is my conclusion that he cannot deal with these points. Secondly,
Simmons does not ever exegete
Isaiah 25.8, in which
every commentary I have on Isaiah concludes that this
envisions a once and for all swallowing up of "the death." However, the
commentators point out the next verse, as I did, that "Moab"
is destroyed. Universalism cannot be the case. Simmons ignores this
point. Let me repeat it:
"You have to see this picture. If the sheet of the Death that covers
"all peoples" includes
Moab, then it follows that the sheet of the Death is
removed for Moab. Moab is
no longer under the sheet, for the sheet has been removed. However,
Moab is destroyed, not saved!
Isaiah 26 continues to
remark that "in that day" (26.1) "grace will be shown to the wicked,
though they learn not righteousness." What is interesting here is that
Paul speaks of "grace reigning in the righteousness to eternal life"! As
we have shown, "eternal life" is the
result of the swallowing of
the Death. However, just because the Death is swallowed up for all, does
not mean that all
enter into the
Kingdom of
God
wherein is Eternal Life."
Simmons ignores the very framework that Isaiah has laid out here. Get
this, readers. Every commentary
I have on Isaiah sees this passage as referring to the absolute
destruction of the Death. Now, they define it, traditionally, as the
end of any and all forms of
death. That is, when this passage is fulfilled, "there will be no more
the death." Simmons is a full Preterist. He
must do something with this
verse. He must redefine
the traditional reading of this verse like I am in order to stay a full
Preterist.
Now, to be fair, Simmons does offer some sort of explanation concerning
Adam. It is confused, however. Simmons wrote, "At its heart it impugns
the cross, saying men could not be justified unless the law was removed.
But this is wholly false for Christ's cross triumphed
over
the law." King's point
would be that he triumphed over the Law by removing the Law. But, let's
continue to read, "Hence it was hardly necessary for the law to be
removed for man to be justified." Got that? Christ triumphs "over the
law" but it was not necessary for the law to be "removed." In fact,
"Indeed, its very assertion that the "law" was removed is found a lie."
Got that? To assert that the Law is removed at all is "a lie." Simmons
continues, "for the law of Moses was merely the outward and perishable
form temporarily imposed upon the
moral law of God to show man his sinfulness." Now we have
two laws introduced
here! Watch closely, folks, for Houdini is getting ready to perform a
card trick! "The outward form, consisting in the ceremonial and certain
other incidentals, was indeed removed, but the inward part remains
until this very day." Wow.
Now, let's get this straight, if that's possible. Which "law" did Christ
triumph over? Which "law" was removed? If it false to say that "the law"
was removed, and then turn around and identify two laws, one of which
is removed, then for
which "law" is it false to say that it was removed? Confused? Good.
Notice that Simmons' sleight of hand card trick is to introduce the
traditional, theological (Lutheran) version of dividing up the law into
three parts: the Moral, the Ceremonial, and the Legal. The Ceremonial is
removed, but the Moral remains. I guess the Legal is removed, too, since
I like shellfish. Notice that what this "theory" fails to take into
consideration is that the whole Law
stands or falls together. This threefold distinction of the Law is
theologically foreign to Paul. It a man-made theology to "get around"
applying all of the
Law, yet forcing some
of the Law on parishioners. Did Jesus mean this when he spoke about "not
one jot or tittle?" No. There is no exegesis here. Just forced tradition
upon a full Preterist framework. What you get is a freaky theology.
Now, Simmons goes on to say that, "Indeed...the Mosaic law was merely
superadded to the moral law." Wow. The Mosaic Law was added to the Moral
Law. The Moral Law is apart of the Mosiac Law, but here the Mosaic Law
must mean the Ceremonial and Legal Law. But, when Paul uses the phrase,
"the Law of Moses" was he talking about the Moral Law
in Moses' Law, or just the
Ceremonial Law in
Moses' Law? Or maybe the Legal and Ceremonial laws, but not the moral
laws? Confused? Good.
What Simmons fails to see is that for the Jew in Paul's day,
failing to do any part of the law was
immoral. That is, if a person failed to tithe to the
Jerusalem
temple, he was a sinner. If a person failed to offer appropriate
sacrifices, he was a sinner. If a Jew did not perform ceremonial aspects
of the Law, he was regarded as a sinner. No Jew said, "oh, that's just
ceremonial." Simmons is entirely wrong on this point and it is high time
he caught up with good Evangelical theology.
Now, further confusion. Simmons actually thinks that King teaches that
only the ceremonial law
condemned all men. Keep this in mind when we cover section 5. Simmons
wrote, "The "old aeon" of the ceremonial law was not removed so sin
could be defeated and death annulled as asserted by King; just the
opposite: it is because sin and death were defeated that the old aeon of
ceremonial law was removed." I will consider this further in section 5,
but here note that Simmons asserts a "defeat" of "the sin and the
death." When? Notice that he does have a connection between the "defeat"
of "sin and death" and the "removal" of the ceremonial law in A.D. 70.
He never elaborates, but there it is. But, based upon my points above,
the removal of "the sting of the death" is in fulfillment to
Isaiah 25.8, which Paul
clearly saw as still future. When was "the death" in connection with the
"removal of the ceremonial" swallowed up and defeated? If the death is
defeated at the cross, according to Simmons, then why is Paul still
looking forward to its defeat at the
parousia of Christ? The
parousia, mind you, that
coincides with Simmons' "removal of the ceremonial law". When was death
defeated? At the cross? The resurrection? The Ascension? The
parousia? When was the old
aeon of the ceremonial law "removed"?
Finally, and most devastating, Simmons wrote, "the moral law continues
to condemn all men today (for all men sin), it is
impossible that the removal
of the Old Covenant brought about the "resurrection" covenant
eschatology asserts." Let's straighten all this out, okay? The
Ceremonial Law was superadded to the Moral Law. Sin and death were
defeated at the cross, and it was because of this that the Ceremonial
Law was "removed" in A.D. 70.
However, the Moral Law continues to condemn all men and sin
and death continue to reign.
However, sin and death are defeated when one comes to Jesus.
However, since no
Christian alive today can claim to be
raised from the dead, then
he must still be under sin and death
until, in Simmons' view, he
dies and gets a new body. Get that? If that's what Preterism teaches, I
declare to all today: I want
nothing to do with it.
What Simmons fails to see is that sin and death was not pictured by Paul
(and Isaiah) as being swallowed up for some, but not others. The Death
is swallowed up "for all peoples" as Isaiah plainly says. Let's read
Revelation 20.13: "the
Death gave up the dead that was in it." Now, according to point 4 above,
"the death" that John has in mind here is the same "the death" in Isaiah
25.8. Notice that first,
the Death gives up the
dead that were "in it." Notice that,
two, these dead ones
are judged according to their deeds.
It is their deeds that
ultimately condemns them. Abraham was just as much "in Adam" as was
Sennacherib. Both were under the reign of the Death. Abraham, because of
his faith and works that followed, rose to receive eternal life.
Sennacherib did not. Some
of those that are taken from "the death" go on to eternal life, others
do not. Clearly, then, the
swallowing up of the Death did not mean that all would gain eternal life.
The Bible teaches this plainly, and Simmons flatly contradicts the
Bible. Don't be swallowed up by his mess. If we are in the Age to Come,
then all are in the Age
to Come, but, as the Bible teaches, one must "come and enter" to have
eternal life. Preterists must
deal with this framework or, like Dennis, abandon it.
4. Bad Understanding of Calvinism
I am not going to spend a lot of time here because it is so unnecessary.
First off, I'll let you in on a secret: I am a "five point Calvinist"
and since 1989, when I read the
Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Lorraine Boettner, I
always have been. Simmons keeps calling me a "four point Calvinist"
simply because he does not understand Calvinist lingo. This point, and
this point alone, should reveal that Simmons is incompetent. In fact, I
go further. Since 1989 I have been what is called a "supralapsarianist."
That is the "dangerous" kind of Calvinists (chuckle...lighten up,
folks). Since 1989 I have always affirmed what has been called, "limited
atonement." I still affirm it. Simmons does not understand my position
at all, and this fact ought to alert the reader that he misunderstands a
lot of things.
Now, I must talk, briefly, about being a baby killer as Simmons wants to
make us Calvinists out to be. Again, if Simmons actually read Calvinist
theology (like Bede, Turretin, Gill, Hodge,
Clark, Machen, sigh!), he would see that for Calvinists, the question
about God burning up little infants in hell is silly. The Bible does not
answer this question. It is a supposed logical inference emphasized by
Arminianists that if the Calvinist doctrine of election be true, then
God burns babies in hell. Now, in Logic, an "inference" may or may not
be true. That is, Sally was killed by a .44 caliber. Her husband owns a
.44 caliber. Inference: Sally's husband shot her. That
may or
may not be true. We don't
have all the facts.
This applies directly to this strange addition to the debate that
Simmons has brought to the forefront. If I asked Simmons if there are
"babies" in heaven, what would he say? That is, if a three week old
fetus is aborted and goes to heaven, does it go and remain as a three
week old fetus or a person?
I would think that Simmons would say, a whole person, mature. Great
answer. Now, can we get rid of the picture of God burning babies in
hell? Babies are not in hell. People are. Babies are not in heaven.
People are. Mature people.
Usually the Calvinist will respond with his own caricature of the
free-will lovers. It goes something like this: when I was a fetus to the
"age of accountability" I had eternal life. When I was eight I stole a
piece of candy, sinned, and lost it. Now I was on my way to hell. But,
when I was 13 I heard Billy Graham speak and gave myself to Jesus. Now I
was on my way to heaven. However, I had an alcoholic father and could
not quit drinking myself. I fell away from Jesus and now I am bound for
hell again. Maybe I can get saved again before I die. Simmons would
probably reject such a view, and most Arminianists I know do reject it.
Just like we reject to being baby burners. It's a moot point. We don't
know all the facts.
It's another smokescreen from Simmons to further distance people from
Sam Frost. After all, Sam Frost is a baby burner and has helped foster
the massive spread of Universalism amongst the Preterists. Laughing now?
Good. You should be. I am, too. Frost, 34; Simmons 0.
5. Bad, No, Terrible Understanding of Samuel
Frost's
and Max King's Position
Quickly, Simmons believes in two things about King's position: "the
ceremonial law condemned all men."
And, "The power of sin and death over mankind resided in the Mosaic
law." He believes this about my position: "Sam's article [is] irrelevant
to King's covenant eschatology." That is, my paper "said little or
nothing thing about covenant eschatology." All three of these assertions
are as false as false can be. I plan on scoring three more points here.
First off, if one has a copy of The
Cross and the Parousia (CP)
by King, then it would be wise to read pages 612-633. There one will
read the massive material under the heading, "The Fall of Adam." King
wrote, "It is essential...to understand the nature of Adam's fall" (CP,
612). He then moves on to consider the single sin (what I called, "the
sin") which resulted in a universal separation of all that belong to
Adam: "Does it not follow, therefore, that if Adam could not achieve
life on his own strength and power, neither could any of his
descendents?" (617). Further, "Adam's sin was the sin of all men" (617).
Man after Adam was plunged into "a world of sin and death" (617).
The meaning of "for all have sinned" in
Romans 5 is clearly of "a
corporate nature" (616), drawing from the theology of Ridderbos and
Shedd, two scholars I admire. From this foundation King, commenting on
Romans 5.13,14, wrote,
"[W]e believe Paul's argument is structured to establish that the
Gentiles are no less under bondage to sin and death than is Israel of
the law" (623). It is here that King makes the distinction between the
personal sins of those from "Adam to Moses" and
the specific Transgression of Adam
which caused "the death" to reign over all men
before the giving of the
Law to Moses. "This means, as we have pointed out above, that death, and
its entrance into the world, must be seen as occurring when Adam was
driven from
Eden, and from the life and presence of God. Therefore, death (i.e.,
separation from God) became a fixed mode of being in the world of
humanity, which no descendent of Adam possessed the power to change
except the Promised One" (624). King continues to elaborate and I urge
the reader to locate these pages, well over 20, that basically reflect
the exact same points I made. The same points that, according to
Simmons, has "nothing to do with covenant eschatology." Frost, 67;
Simmons 0.
Again, King: "This raises the question about
Israel.
In being placed under the law, their sins are imputed,
but is this why they are under the
reign of sin and death? This
cannot be the reason...Death
reigns where sin is not imputed" (ital.
mine, 624). King goes on to show that it was Adam that
introduced the reign of sin and death, and it was
this reign that Israel was
under. The Law of Moses did not put them under "more condemnation" and
did not make them "more enslaved" (624). The Law of Moses, the
whole law of Moses, was
added to show what Adam's offense
meant (625). The Law of Moses was added to show that
all men are alike condemned,
Jews and Gentiles. The Law was added, also, to typologically point to
the spiritual highway of Deliverance that would come through the Star of
Judah. The theology in these pages by King is masterful as it is
brilliant. But I only want to point out that
the very foundation of
King's "covenant eschatology" is rooted in
Adam and what I wrote about
in the first paper. Remember, as I have pointed out, Simmons says that
my first paper had "nothing to do with King's covenant eschatology."
This is proof that Simmons has no
true grasp of the theology represented by Max King. He
misrepresents it at its very foundation. Nowhere does King see the
reign of sin and death as beginning with the Law of Moses, or
"determined" by the Law of Moses or "residing" in the Law of Moses.
Simmons has mislead his readers.
On pages 628-633 King brilliantly shows that universalism is
not the result of a
corporate reading of Romans
5. Now, based upon my memory, in my last conversation with King, he was
considering redefining the word "all" so as to include everyone. He
stated to me that he knew this would change the definition that is in
CP. But, as I showed,
this has nothing to do with
the corporate view, but with the definition of the word, "all." Anyone
who is a Calvinist or a Preterist knows that "all" in the Bible is a
sometimes tricky little word. The discussion, then, should center in on
"all in Christ shall be made alive" and its relation to Universalism. It
should not focus on baby burning Calvinists who share with King the
Corporate View that leads to Universalism, as Simmons has made it out to
be. Simmons has created a false argument (borrowed from Todd Dennis).
Neither one can hold a candle to King.
CP
goes on to define "death" and "sin" in much the same fashion I did in my
first paper. On page 643, under the heading, "The Defeat of Death", the
material jumps to Isaiah
25.8. Go figure. I could go on and on for pages and pages of material
that refute Simmons' understanding, or rather misunderstanding, of King.
But, one last quote from the book will do well: "The old aeon of the Law
has been done away...but it remains
that apart from Christ creaturely man continues to reside "in the flesh"
from a non-covenantal perspective; a mode of existence that is incapable
of achieving life due to the weakness of the flesh. Hence deliverance
from the flesh through "the circumcision of Christ" always will be the
need of humanity..." (715). That is, all men everywhere live in the Age
to Come, under the Rule of the Grace in The Righteousness that draws
people from all nations
to come and join God's People, the Israel of God, the Body of Christ.
The world has changed. As a result of the
parousia of Christ, "the
kingdoms of the world have become
the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Messiah, and He will reign forever
and ever" (Revelation
11.15). Simmons would have you believe that this is not so. God's
kingdom is not a kingdom or more
reigning of sin and death. The reign of the Death and the
Sin of Adam has been annulled. All the kingdoms (reigns,
Greek) have become the Kingdom (reign,
Greek) of Christ, the single
kingdom. This is exactly
how Zechariah 14
pictured it: "The Lord will be king over the whole earth. On that day
there will be one Lord, and His name the only name" (14.9). Yet, "Then
the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go
up year after year to celebrate the feast of Tabernacles.
If any of the peoples do not come to
Jerusalem, they will have no rain...the Lord will bring a plague and
inflict the nations that do not come up." (14.16-19). That
is, "Outside are the dogs..." (Revelation
22.15). Zechariah is, in effect, saying that the Lord
reigns over all the nations
and He reigns in Grace and Righteousness. Those who come to the New
Jerusalem celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles, or simply understood
typologically as being "in Christ" the "tabernacle of God." Those who
refuse to come "inside" are cursed.
On this passage listen to Milton Terry, "All this glowing picture of the
triumph and glorification of Jerusalem is the prophetic ideal of the
future of the kingdom of God. It was introduced at the coming of Christ
and the overthrow of Judaism and the old Jerusalem. It's one long day is
known to the Lord; for nearly two thousand years it has been neither day
nor night, but a conflict and mixture of both...With this ideal all the
great apocalyptists agree" (Biblical
Apocalyptics, p.167,168). Universalism is denied. Simmons is
mistaken and has created an entire debate and argument based on his own
misunderstanding. It's not looking good for Simmons' at all. Frost,
another 3; Simmons, zilch.
Conclusion
I have set out to dismantle several things about Simmons' last paper. I
have shown that he knows no Greek and does not understand the Greek
article at all. I have shown, no,
proven, that his so called "syllogisms" are logically
incoherent and in fact at every turn violate the most fundamental laws
of the logical syllogism. I have shown that his lack of exegesis is
mainly negative and critical of mine, offering no real alternative
except more of the "same ole, same ole"
traditionalism-rooted-in-futurist-eschatology. His tirade against
Calvinism is completely without merit and his understanding of my own
Calvinistically derived views are completely wrong. Finally, and most
devastating, I have proven
that he has no real, true grasp of King's system as presented in
Cross/Parousia. He has,
rather, based his whole argument on a faulty misunderstanding of King
and me. With all of these considerations in mind, it should become plain
to everyone that Simmons needs to go back to the drawing board and ink
out a new plan. This one has been destroyed. It also places into serious
question the scholarship of Simmons.
I do want to add that Universalism has been entirely defeated by the
Scriptures. It matters not whether one is a Corporate Body guy or a "get
a new body when you die" guy. It matters not whether one is a Calvinist
or an Arminianist. It matters not whether one is Church of Christ,
Catholic or Presbyterian. It matters not if you believe in physical
rapture in A.D. 70. It matters not if you are postmodernist or
empiricist. It matters not if you take Eden literally or merely symbolic
and non-real. Young earth, old earth, global flood, local flood,
whatever. None of these views "leads" to Universalism. Exegetical
considerations of universalistic passages in the Bible (like, "every
knee shall bow...") are the issue and the only issue. To
make it anything else is to have hidden motives and axes to grind; an
attempt to bury someone by "proving" that they are the reason for
something that most of us view as aberrant. It's a game of pin the tail
on the donkey, and the donkey is Universalism. What I am saying is that
this donkey already has its own tail. It's already a complete donkey. It
is its own system. Full Preterism didn't "invent" it and those who are
Full Preterists who have come to believe in Universalism got there from
bad exegetical leaps. It's as simple as that. There...now I have spoken
my peace. As far as I am concerned, this debate is over. Besides, I've
got some babies to burn...