Case Has Already Been Tried
No New Facts Put in Evidence.
Sam’s Case Dismissed on the Merits
In our first debate, Sam failed to demonstrate that King’s Universalism comes
from a source other than his Covenant Eschatology. Because he had no
case he could lay before the reader, Sam threw a temper tantrum and quit. Sam
now wants to rehabilitate himself; not by proofs he
has suddenly found and wants to place in evidence, but by throwing more dust in
the air to create confusion and divert attention from the question at hand. Ask
yourself: have any of Sam’s articles shown that King
arrived at Universalism by some route other than Covenant Eschatology?
Has Sam made any attempt to refute the evidence we
have set before the reader showing the logical implications of Covenant
Eschatology’s basic assumptions? No.
Syllogisms and the Logical Implications of King’s Doctrine
Sam wants to talk about the
proper form of a logical syllogism, but will never address the logical implications
of King’s eschatology. He wants to talk about the
number of translations that support his view of Romans five
(all of two), but does not show how if a thousand such translation could be
produced this would exculpate Covenant Eschatology from Universalism. Sam wants
to talk about all his training in logic and Greek grammar, he drops names of
commentators no one knows or cares about (all of which is supposed to impress
us), but he never gets around to sustaining the proposition he challenged me to
debate! In short, Sam’s whole presentation is consumed
in irrelevant material and non-issues. He has failed to carry the debate and
now wants to save face.
The logical implications of King’s Covenant
Eschatology clearly lead to Universalism and other serious errors. We have
demonstrated these by prose (narrative), explaining King’s
view, and how it led him and Presence Ministries to Universalism. The
basic premise of Covenant Eschatology is that the power of sin and death
resided in the law of Moses. Hence, Larry Siegle says “As long as the Law was in force there was no
way to be restored to the presence of God.”[1] Max King affirms the same: “The defeat
of sin is tied to the annulment of the old aeon of
law”[2] This then becomes the basis of Tim King’s
Universalism: “Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives under the
rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world.” In other words,
King’s is a system of Universalism via Antinomianism. Take away the
source of condemnation and mankind is acquitted and
justified before heaven’s throne. Did Sam ever deal with this? Did he ever
attempt to demonstrate that this is not King’s view, or that, even if it is, it
does not logically lead to Universalism? No. If he could have, he would
have. His failure can only be interpreted as defeat; a
tacit confession that Covenant Eschatology does lead to Universalism and all
the other errors we have assigned.
This same teaching of King also diminishes the cross
and bifurcates man’s redemption. It denies that the cross triumphed over the law, affirming instead that the law
had to be taken away before man could be saved! Here are the quotes of Siegle and King again. Read them and see that we are right:
“As long as the Law was in force there was no way to be restored to the
presence of God.”[3] Max King affirms the same: “The defeat
of sin is tied to the annulment of the old aeon of
law”[4] The law was not taken away so man
could be saved from sin; it was because man was saved from sin that the law was
taken away. It was schoolmaster to lead us to Christ, nothing more. Once Christ
redeemed us from the debt of sin, the purpose of the law was
fulfilled. Sam asks: “If the death is
defeated at the cross, according to Simmons, then why is Paul still looking
forward to its defeat at the parousia of Christ?”
The reason death is not defeated until the eschaton
is not because the law needed to be removed, but
because Christ needed to carry his blood within the Holy of Holies. When
that was accomplished, Christ would emerge from the
heavenly temple, to avenge his saints and raise the dead. (Heb. 9:24-28) We
stated this in our last article. Why didn’t Sam deal
with it, since he felt the need to make another response?
We stated in our last article that the passage of
the law was soteriologically irrelevant; that
it did not change man’s standing before God. We
pointed out that the law of Moses was impressed
with no power not present in moral law binding upon men today. Could
anything strike more at the foundations of Covenant Eschatology than to assert
the passage of the Mosaic law was a complete
irrelevancy in terms of man’s standing with God? Hardly!
King’s whole system is founded upon the assumption that law of Moses was “the
state and power of death to be destroyed by the reign of Christ”[5]and that “The defeat of sin is tied to the
annulment of the old aeon of law.”[6] We then pointed out that if the moral law
is invested with the same power of condemnation that sin under the Mosaic law held, there could be no resurrection as asserted by
Covenant Eschatology. Did Sam attempt to refute these arguments, which strike
at the very the key-stone in the King arch? No. He
never mentioned one word!
We attempted to reduce what we demonstrated by prose
(narrative) to the form of logical syllogisms. Our case does not depend
upon these syllogisms; they do not express any arguments we did not make by
narrative or prose. They are provided merely for the
convenience of the reader that he may visualize the arguments “at a glance.”
Sam focuses all his energy on the “form” of the syllogism and ignores the
implications of King’s doctrine which they attempt to
express. Take the syllogisms away; get rid of them entirely! The
arguments they embody still remain and Sam must deal
with them. But he has not and cannot. Not one word.
Here are the syllogisms again for the convenience of
the reader. Any person with average intelligence will recognize immediately
that they express the substance of King’s system as we have shown by narrative
and argument elsewhere.
Syllogism
No. 1
Major
Premise: The reign of sin and death over man was determined by the Mosaic law
Minor
Premise: The Mosaic law was annulled at the eschaton, losing all men of its power; therefore,
Conclusion:
All men are loosed of the power of sin and death
(viz., universally reconciled to God).
Syllogism
No. 2
Major
Premise: The power of sin and death over mankind
resided in the Mosaic law.
Minor
Premise: The Mosaic law was done away for all men for
all time in A.D. 70. Therefore,
Conclusion:
All men are freed from the power of sin and death.
Syllogism
No. 3
Major
Premise: The resurrection consisted in the removal of legal condemnation.
Minor
Premise: Legal condemnation exists today despite annulment of the Mosaic law. Therefore,
Conclusion:
There was no spiritual resurrection based upon annulment of the Mosaic law.
The first is based upon Tim
King’s statement: “Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives under
the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world. Through the gift
of Christ he dwells in a world of righteousness and
life. The issue is cosmic and corporate, not individual and limited.” (The
reader will notice how similar this is to Sam’s statement that sin and death have been banished from the cosmos.) The premises are not
ours. They are Tim King’s. We disagree with them, but
that is beside the point. These are King’s reasons for urging “comprehensive
grace.” They rest 100% upon Covenant Eschatology, just as we have charged. We
reworked the conclusion in the first syllogism in our last article to remove
the objection that it was in “bad form”; Sam still has not dealt with it, nor
has he dealt with the narrative form of argument it represents. When he does,
perhaps we will have a debate. Until then, it is all bluff and bluster. (Since
Sam cannot, I invite any other proponent of Covenant Eschatology to attempt to
extricate the system from Universalism and error. I will meet anyone King or
anyone else cares to put forward in debate. Jack Scott previously offered Don Preston’s and William Bell’s and his own help. To these may
be added Tim King, Kevin Beck, and Larry Siegle.
Brethren, Sam requires your rescue; he calls to you for help. Alone or
together, I humbly await your acceptance of this gentle offer. You are seven
(eight with Max). I am one. Surely together you should be able to make a
defense. If you cannot rescue Covenant Eschatology, who can? We do not urge you
from malice, but brotherly affection, knowing we are friends, and are all
equally committed to the truth. Rescue Covenant Eschatology from Universalism
and the errors we have assigned if you can.)
The second is formulated from King’s teaching in
general, particularly the notion that the law was the source of mankind’s condemnation and the power of sin and death. Like
the first syllogism, it shows King’s system leads to Universalism.
The third shows that if a source of legal
condemnation still exists beyond the Mosaic law (the
moral law, for example) convicting all men of sin, then the “resurrection”
affirmed by Covenant Eschatology could not have occurred. This has the happy
affect of rescuing the system from Universalism, but it overthrows the
spiritualized view of the resurrection that makes Covenant Eschatology unique.
Thus, no matter which way they turn, proponents of King’s system are stuck – either with Universalism, or abandoning the corporate body
view of the resurrection. The choice is theirs. Sam and Larry appear to choose
Universalism, for they are unwilling to let go of the corporate body view.[7]
Definition
of Death
Sam says that the definition of “the death” is the
crux of the issue and decides it all. “It is the conclusion of what is
really and always the issue for me: the definition of "the Death… This is
the very crux of the issue.” Am I glad that Sam says the definition
of death is the crux of the matter before us. His
definition (imputed Adamic death) leads to
Universalism. It does this because he condemns all men by this law, then casts
it out of the cosmos, leaving nothing to condemn them. “The Sin has been
removed from the cosmos along with the Death. This is not just true for
believers in Christ, but true for all men, everywhere.” Sam says “There is no law taking into account our sins.”[8]
Thus, by Sam’s view, all men are acquitted; all
are justified. This is precisely the position of Tim King when he says “Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives
under the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world.”
Sam admits his system falls into Universalism: “Many
would assume that the only result of such a theology is universal salvation for
every man. This would be true.” So, Sam
devises the “great escape.” Jesus’ death took away the “cause” of sin and
death, but left the “effect” in place. All the logic in the
world cannot make this system fly, and Sam knows it. He just hopes you
will forget what he said! Dear reader, sin is the cause; the effect of sin is
death. The cause cannot be “un-done.” Jesus did not
un-do Adam’s or any other man’s transgression. Rather, Jesus paid the penalty
of death, remitting the punishment (legal effect) of sin for those who
accept Jesus’ sacrifice in faith. By his sacrifice, Jesus acquits the believer
of juridical death and its sentence of eternal/second death. But,
for those that do not believe, the bondage of sin and death remains. Sin and
death have not been removed from the cosmos one
whit (Hades exists beyond the cosmos.)
Sam’s
Last Attempt to Impugn Us
Sam thinks he has found a way to prove us wrong when
we say that only Hadean death was destroyed in AD 70.
His argument goes like this: Rev. 20:14/21:4 = I Cor. 15:55 = Isa. 25:6-8 = Adamic death (Mosaic law by King’s
view). He then says that swallowing up death in victory means “salvation” is
come. (“One can see from the context that this swallowing up of "the
death" means "His Salvation" has arrived.”) Now, according
to Sam, “all peoples” and “all nations” of Isa. 25:7 means
all that shall ever be born. Thinking he has turned the tables, Sam then
says that since all those born until that time were in Hades, therefore we
(Simmons) are affirming universal salvation. (“All peoples are in
Hades. Hades is swallowed up for "all
peoples" so that "all peoples" are released from Hades.
The swallowing up of Hades is the coming of "His Salvation."
Conclusion: all peoples are saved.”)
The short answer to Sam’s argument is his definition
of “all peoples.” “All peoples” and “all nations” in Isa. 25:7 does not mean every man ever born as Sam asserts. It
means that every race and language of people would see and share in the
salvation Christ offers to mankind. The prophet says,
“all flesh” shall come and worship before him. “All
flesh” should see the glory of his salvation. (Isa. 40:5; 66:23) Does the
prophet mean every man? Not at all! He means every
race and language of men would partake in the salvation of Christ. Isaiah says
elsewhere, “All nations” shall flow into the church; “many people
shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord.” (Isa.
2:2, 3) Simple. Since all peoples and all nations does not mean every person, Sam has not turned the tables on
us at all, and Sam’s argument comes to naught. Nothing we say can be made to affirm Universalism.
Dear reader, test it for yourself. There are five
kinds of death that can be identified in the Bible. 1) Moral/spiritual; 2) legal/juridical; 3) physical; 4) Hadean; 5)
eternal/second death. If any of these were
destroyed in AD 70 other than Hadean death, Universalism will result. If
moral death (original sin/inherent fallenness) is
gone, all men are returned to Edenic
innocence and justified from sin; we are as Adam before the fall. If
legal/juridical death is abolished, then the sentence
of death attached to sin is removed and all are acquitted; there is nothing to
hold them accountable. If physical death is annulled,
all men will live forever on earth. And if
eternal/second death is done away, the penalty for sin is removed and all men
go free. Simple. These are not difficult concepts. I don’t know why Sam cannot deal with them.
Sam goes into a fit because I affirm that Rev. 21:4
is talking about death resulting from persecution under Nero. Hear him: “Simmons
wrote, "When Revelation says there will be no more death, this should not
be taken in an absolute sense. This is clear from the fact that it also
says there will be no more sorrow, crying, or pain. Since these are still
a very real and permanent part of human existence this side of eternity, it
seems clear that the statement is intended to be understood in a relative
sense." In Simmons' exegesis Revelation
21.4 is not in reference to Isaiah 25.8! Folks, SEE THE CONFUSION
HERE! Revelation 21.4 cannot, for Simmons, be Isaiah 25.8, because in the
above quote, Simmons quotes I Co 15.54 WHICH QUOTES ISAIAH 25.8!!!!! But, THERE, he says
Paul is talking about the removal of HADEAN DEATH. But, in Revelation
21.4 WHICH IS A DIRECT ALLUSION TO ISAIAH 25.8, Simmons FLIP FLOPS AGAIN saying
that "the death" that is no more is NOT HADEAN DEATH!!!!!
However, as the context shows, "the death" that is thrown into the
Lake of Fire is the same "the death" that is no more AS A RESULT OF
BEING CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE!!!! How
boneheaded does one have to be not to see the OBVIOUS run around we get here
when we press the details of Simmons' exegesis!”
According to Sam, then, Rev. 20:14/21:4 = I Cor.
15:55 = Isa. 25:8 = Adamic death (Mosaic law per King). Alright, Sam,
have it your way; let these texts all refer to juridical death. The result is
Universalism. For if there is “no more” juridical death, all men are justified.
Remember, you said it, Sam: “Many would assume that the only result of such
a theology is universal salvation for every man. This would be true.” Tim
King said it too: “Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives
under the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world.” Maybe I
should quit at this point; Sam just gave away the debate.
What about Rev. 21:4?
But
does our position regarding Rev. 21:4 conflict with Isa. 25:6-8? Not at all. In its historical context, the prophecies of
Isaiah speak to the Assyrian and Babylonian armies that wasted
the world from Egypt to Elam on the Caspian Sea, bringing fire and sword,
famine, pestilence, and death. In its historical context, Assyria and Babylon
were the source of gloom and pall of death, “the veil cast over all nations;”
in its historical context, Assyria and Babylon represented the
overflowing scourge of death that would pass through the land and trod down
men. (Isa. 28:18) It was in the destruction of Assyria and Babylon
that the Lord would remove the veil of death and destruction from all nations.
The whole context of Isa. 25 is involved with the captivity under Assyria and
Babylon and the defeat that God would ultimately deliver. The chapter opens,
mentioning how the Lord had made cites ruins, and defenced
cities an heap (v. 2); it talks about the storm
and blast of the nations, and the overthrow of Moab, the enemy of God’s people.
(vv. 4, 5, 10) And in the midst of this, he
mentions the defeat of death in the mountain of the Lord. How did he do this?
When Hezekiah was king, 185,000 Assyrians died before the walls of Jerusalem by
a plague from the Lord (Isa. 37:36); the dead bodies of the Assyrian host were cast into Tophet (Gehenna) where they were consumed by fire and maggots
(worms). (Isa. 30:31-33) It was also accomplished in
the return of the captivity, which is characterized a ransom from death. (Isa.
26:19) Most commentators acknowledge that Hosea has the return of the captivity
from Babylon in view when he says “I will ransom them from the power of the
grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave,
I will be thy destruction.” (See Clarke in loc.) Homer Hailey thus says,
“Hosea looks not to Christ’s resurrection or to ours, but to the restoration of
the people.”[9] All are agreed,
of course, that in their Messianic context, these passages look beyond
the captivity to Christ; but the point remains: the death to be defeated spoke
initially to the oppression of Assyria and the people’s captivity. If that is true of Hosea and Isaiah, why not John?
Obviously, Paul does not have Assyria in view in I
Cor. 15:55. Paul is looking to another plague and scourge of death – Hades. This
is why Paul says “Where O Hades is thy victory?” (I
Cor. 15:55) Hades was the prison that held man in its clutches. Hades kept man
from ascending to be with God in heaven. Sin was defeated in Christ’s cross;
but the last enemy (death/Hades) remained to be defeated. This would occur in
the resurrection of the last day. John portrays this in Rev. 20:11-15, where
Hades is cast into the lake of fire, signifying the
defeat of the long enemy of man. But in Rev. 21:4, he
seems to have the death, sorrow, and tears of martyrdom and persecution
in view – just as Isaiah and Hosea did before him. Evidence of this is seen in the fact that tears, sorrowing, and crying are
still present in the world and the church. The prophet is only speaking
relatively, not absolutely; he has in view the great tribulation, which was now
past. We give again Foy E. Wallace’s comments:
This passage was the fulfillment of the promise in chapter 7:14-17 which was vouchsafed by Christ himself that the faithful through tribulation would become recipients of the blessings signified in the symbolic phrases of these two texts. The same figures of speech are employed by Isaiah in the descriptions of the blessings that should come upon Israel when freed from exile and returned to their land [Isa. 25:8; 35:10]…no more death referred to the martyrdom of the saints as chapter 2:10; neither sorrow nor crying referred to the sorrows of persecution; and neither any more pain was just another phrase for no more tribulation.[10]
[1]
According to Siegle, the “body of death” is mankind under the Mosaic law: “This is why Paul cried out
for deliverance from the Mosaic "body of death" (Rom. 7:24).” Siegle; from a
comment posted on PlanetPreterist.
[2]
Max R. King, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ, p. 644.
[3]
According to Siegle, the “body of death” is mankind under the Mosaic law: “This is why Paul cried out
for deliverance from the Mosaic "body of death" (Rom. 7:24).” Siegle; from a
comment posted on PlanetPreterist.
[4]
Max R. King, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ, p. 644.
[5]
Max R. King, The Spirit of Prophecy
(Warren, OH, 1971), pp. 144.
[6]
Max R. King, The Cross and the Parousia of Christ, p. 644.
[7] “The
essence of "Covenant Eschatology" is the removal of the effects of
sin and death through the applied meaning of Christ's death carried through the
Parousia in A.D. 70. The "collective" or
"corporate" view is the only logical approach that takes up the theme
of redemptive history and carries it to its victorious conclusion in Christ
Jesus.” – From a post by Larry Siegle on
PlantetPreterist.com appended to Sam’s last article. Notice how much Larry
sounds like King, and how little he sounds like the Bible.
[8]
Samuel M. Frost, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead
(Truth Voice Pub. 2004), p.157.
[9]
Homer Hailey, The Minor Prophets (Hosea)
(1193, Religious Supply, Inc.), p. 181.
[10]
Foy E. Wallace Jr., The Book of Revelation
(Ft. Worth, 1966), pp. 429, 430.