The Attack on Full Preterism:
Which Death Was Destroyed in AD70?
“And death and hades were cast
into the lake of fire.” Rev. 20: 14
By
Kurt Simmons
Introduction
The recent attack upon full
Preterism, alleging that it logically leads to Universalism, has made it clear
that the question which death was destroyed in
A.D. 70 figures prominently in the discussion. In this article, we answer this
question and trace some of the ideological antecedents leading to Universalism
within the Preterist camp. We will conclude that it is
soteriology, not eschatology that has led some into Universalism, and this,
based upon erroneous assumptions concerning imputed Adamic sin and the Mosaic Law.
No Inherent Connection
We should say at the outset that the
argument that full Preterism leads logically to Universalism is completely
without merit. Preterism is merely an interpretative method or school of
eschatology, the study of “last things.” Specifically, it is the position of
Preterism that the events commonly associated with Christ’s second coming were fulfilled in the events culminating in the destruction
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Other interpretative methods or schools include Continuous-Historical,
Futurism, and Idealism (allegorical). None of these interpretative methods expresses
opinions regarding issues of soteriology (sin and salvation); their sole
function is to attempt to interpret or explain biblical prophecy regarding
Christ’s return. It may be that different individuals or groups bring to the
particular interpretive school they have adopted certain basic assumptions
about sin and salvation, but the interpretive method itself should not be
identified with those assumptions. Soteriology and eschatology have no inherent
connection, per se. Rather, it is what people bring to Preterism
(or any other interpretative method) that determines where they come out on
issues of sin and salvation. Therefore, there is nothing to the charge that
Preterism is a logical corollary to Universalism.
Historical Connection
We
should also admit at the outset that there is, indeed, an historical connection
between full Preterism and Universalism. (But then
this is true of every other sect as well.) The historical
connection between Preterism and Universalism has now been documented by Todd
Dennis of PreteristArchive.com and others. The oldest full Preterist
book so far identified, Robert Townley’s, The Second Advent of the Lord
Jesus Christ a Past Event (1845, London), was penned by a man who, within a
year of publication, formally became Universalist, and was ordained as a
minister of that sect. We say formally became Universalist, because it
is clear that Townley held opinions that were Universalistic when he wrote his
book, even though he did not recognize that fact, and actually appended an
article to his book against Universalism.1
Thus, it was not Preterism that caused Townley to become Universalist, or vice
versa. Even so, the historical connection remains a fact. Dr. David Thom,
the Minister who ordained Townley into Universalism, stated, "By some, the
(Apocalypse) is considered to have received its accomplishment in the fact, and
at the period of Jerusalem's destruction. Among the America Universalists
this view is very prevalent." Universalists have traditionally used
Preterism, or, at least, partial Preterism, to prop up their position,
by arguing all judgment was exhausted in AD 70.
This was the position of Universalist, Erasmus Manford in an oral debate
transcribed and preserved in book form with Benjamin Franklin (churchman, not
colonial statesmen). Manford affirmed Universal
salvation, the exhaustion of judgment, and the second coming of Christ in the
events of A.D. 70, but held that the resurrection was still future: “I wish
you to bear in mind, that I admit a future coming of Christ to raise the dead,
but deny that he will then come in judgment.”2 Manford’s position that the resurrection has not yet
occurred would categorize him as a partial Preterist, and would tend to refute
the charge that full Preterism leads to Universalism. Is partial Preterism also
now to become suspect?
The
argument of Universalists that A.D. 70 exhausted divine wrath and judgment cannot be scripturally sustained. While the eschatological
wrath associated with the tribulation of last days may be exhausted, the Bible
is abundantly clear that individual judgment is an on-going fact. The
second death still exists, even if Hades does not, and all who fail to obey the
gospel have their part in the lake that burns with fire. (Rev. 20:15; 21:8)
Christ’s judgment seat lasts as long as mankind
endures on earth’s face. His kingdom is forever, and, therefore, so is the
throne of his judgment. What monarch possesses a throne but does not possess
the judicial power and office? Indeed, Christ could not be king without also
being judge. A.D. 70 embodied the eschatological judgment upon the world for
murdering Christ and persecuting his church, and the execution of sentence against
the accumulated souls kept so long in Hades. But it
did not exhaust all personal and individual judgment. Thus Paul: “For we must all
appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may
receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it
be good or bad.” (II Cor. 5:10; emphasis added.)
Man’s manifestation before Christ’s seat to receive reward for deeds done in
the body happens only after man puts off his body. As the Hebrew writer
states, “It is appointed unto man once to die, and after that the judgment.”
(Heb. 9:27) It is, perhaps, for this reason that Hosea Ballou, the father of
American Universalism, argued for Universal salvation, not upon the ground that
all judgment was exhausted in A.D. 70, but that sin
and its punishment are exhausted at physical death, the soul thus living
forever with God in heaven.
|
|
Rev. Hosea Ballou commenced his
career as a Universalist preacher in 1790. Originally a
Calvinistic Baptist, he was a Trinitarian Universalist until 1795, when he
avowed his belief in Unitarian views of God and Christ; and in 1805 published
his Treatise on Atonement, in which he combated the doctrine of vicarious
sacrifice, contending that the life and death of Christ were for the
reconciling, not of God, but of man, and avowed his belief that the
punishment of the sins of mortality was confined to this life, and that
if punishment were experienced in the life beyond the grave, it would be for
sins committed there. In 1818, he had satisfied himself that there
is no sin beyond the grave, and consequently no punishment after death.3 |
|
Trying to confine punishment for sins to this life is
refuted by Heb. 9:27, which places judgment after
this life. It also proves that Preterism does not provide the escape
Universalists have traditionally thought. Although some Universalists have
found Preterism useful in trying to avoid Biblical teaching by placing
all judgment at A.D. 70, others have recognized that this reliance is
misplaced, and have been forced to address continuing,
individual judgment by other means (viz., Ballou). This, in turn,
demonstrates that Preterism itself does not logically lead to Universalism or
sustain that view.
Calvinist Connection
The
historical connections between Calvinism and Universalism are many and varied.
Other churches and disciplines also have connections to Universalism, but, historically,
Calvinism seems to have more. In England in 1750, James Relly, who had been a
preacher in Whitefield's connection, shocked at the doctrine of reprobation,
wandered into Universalism. David Thom, the Universalist minister who ordained
Robert Townley into the Universalist church, began as a minister in the
Scottish Presbyterian church. Thom later authored a book entitled Assurance
of Faith: Calvinism Identified with Universalism. Moreover, many
Congregationalist churches in England, historically Calvinist, embraced
Universalism.
Colonial
America was strongly Calvinistic, brought over by the Puritans from England and
Holland. However, in the late 1700’s – early 1800’s Unitarianism and
Universalism made strong inroads into New England life and culture, taking over
a goodly number of Congregationalist churches (called “hyper-Calvinists” by
their more liberal counterparts among Presbyterians of the day), including the
famous Federal Street Church in Boston, whose minister was William Ellery
Channing (1780–1842). Unitarianism and Universalism also eventually captured
the Puritan institutions of Yale and Harvard. The “father of American
Universalism,” Hosea Ballou, was originally a Baptist Calvinist. Other
Calvinist (Congregationalist) ministers of New England that became
Universalists include Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, minister of the West Church in
Boston from 1747 to 1766.4
Dr. Charles Chauncy, minister of the First Church in Boston from 1727 to 1787,
issued a pamphlet on the subject in 1782, which was reviewed by Dr. Samuel
Mather. In 1784 his larger work The Salvation-of All Men was published, a second edition following in 1787. Moreover,
Dr. Joseph Huntington, minister in Coventry, Conn., from 1762 to 1794, left a
work in favor of Universalism, entitled Calvinism Improved,
which was published in 1796.
Some
of the crossover between Calvinism and Universalism can be
attributed to historical accident, but not all. We would expect a
certain amount of exchange between any two disciplines thrust together in the
comparatively limited space of colonial New England, but it is hard to explain
the widespread defection and takeover of major churches and universities simply
on the basis of the historical accident that they
shared a common place and time in history. Surely, there is something more here
at work. According to the Presbyterian Church USA, the take-over by
Unitarianism and Universalism in colonial and post-Revolutionary war New
England was a three step process, beginning with the
famous Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards, followed by Samuel Hoskins, and
culminating with Nathaniel Taylor. In briefest terms, Edward taught that God was holy and therefore committed to disinterested
benevolence. God was required as a holy being to do all things in order to
achieve the greatest good for the greatest number, to maximize happiness
in his creation. Hoskins, a close associate, official biographer, and executor
of Edwards, published his “System of Doctrines” in 1793. Hoskins taught all
holiness and virtue consists of disinterested benevolence. Since God is
required to be benevolent, there is no such thing as personal penal justice.
God's attributes of justice and righteousness are thus
swallowed up by the dominant attribute of benevolence. This was known as the “New Divinity.” Next was Nathaniel Taylor,
a professor of theology at Yale, in New Haven, CT, who developed what is known as the “New Haven” theology. Taylor stated that
Christ died, not as a substitutionary sacrifice, but only as act of divine
benevolence towards sinners and as a display of divine displeasure with
sin. The sum of these teachings led logically to Universalism: By equating
holiness with benevolence for the greatest number, coupled with the notions
that there is no personal penal justice, and salvation is merely an act of
divine benevolence, the result is that God must extend benevolence (salvation)
to the greatest number possible; viz., all of mankind.5
Admittedly, there
is nothing about the teachings of Edwards, Hoskins, or Taylor that required
they originate in Calvinistic quarters; they might just as easily have
grown up in any church or denomination. However, the fact is they did not. The explanation offered by the Presbyterian church is that
Calvinism in early America declined by stages from orthodoxy, where scriptural doctrines are believed and expounded from
the word, to traditionalism, where the traditional doctrines of
orthodoxy are still believed but are separated from the active exposition of
the word and based on tradition, logical systems of doctrine, and defended by
reason and philosophy, and, finally, to heresy. The departure began
with Edwards:
|
|
Jonathan Edwards was
the person responsible for the transition from orthodoxy to traditionalism.
His speculations defended and explained the Calvinist system he inherited by
means of logic and philosophy apart from the scriptures. The results were
disastrous.6 |
|
However, we can go further and say that Calvinism’s concept of limited
atonement, whose basic premise is a God who imputes condemnation to all, but
withholds justification from some - a God who savingly loves some, but not all,
and therefore sends his Son to die for only a few – virtually invites the sort
of over-correction that leads to Universalism. And, in
fact, this is precisely what has occurred, and brings us to the next section -
“Hypothetical Universalism” or, “four point Calvinism.”
Hypothetical Universalism (Four Point Calvinism)
Another
connection between Calvinism and Universalism is Amyraldianism. Dr. C.
Matthew McMahon, in an article entitled Amyraut and Hypothetical
Universalism, states that “Hypothetical Universalism is the theological
system which most of the 21st century [Reformed] church adheres to
as the banner and truth of their view on the atonement of Jesus Christ.
In essence, it teaches that Jesus Christ actually and savingly died for all
men, though only the elect receive the benefits through faith.” Moise Amyraut
(1596-1664) is credited with formulating “Hypothetical
Universalism,” which, in simplest terms, is the Calvinist T.U.L.I.P. without
the “L” of limited atonement (four point Calvinism).7
In his Traite de la Predestination (published in 1634), Amyraut claimed
that God, moved by his love for mankind, had appointed all human beings to
salvation provided they believe and repent. However, since human beings would not on their own initiative believe and repent, God
chose to bestow a special measure of his Spirit to some only, who are
the elect. This is briefly comprehended in the saying “Christ died
sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect.”8
However,
attempting to limit election, while opening atonement, cannot be reconciled.
Removing the concept of limited atonement from Calvinism leads to Universalism
in that, if Christ died out of God’s great love for all men, then God, whose
responsibility alone it is to save him, is morally required to save them all.
For God cannot savingly love all men, impute guilt to all, but justify only
some.9
The God, by whose decree all men are vicariously deemed
guilty, based upon the transgression of one, is morally required to apply
equally the substitutionary death and atoning blood of Christ to all. In the words of one writer, “The bottom line is, if Christ’s atonement is sufficient to save every person,
then God in the end sends billions of redeemable people to hell.”10
Of course, these are only quandaries for those that deny man’s
ability to obey the gospel by the persuasion of God’s word upon his heart and
the exercise of his own free will, apart from the supervening power of God.
Where men are morally responsible to obey the gospel, unlimited atonement
leaves the choice up to man whether he will avail himself of the offer of grace
or not, relieving God of the moral blame for the sinner’s refusal to believe
and be saved. However, where, by the doctrines of election and reprobation, and
total depravity, the responsibility is shifted to God, who directly supervenes
to save some and harden others, God bears the moral implications of failing to
save mankind. Thus, the moral implications of four
point Calvinism argue strongly in favor of Universalism.
|
|
Those who have opposed the
Calvinistic scheme have often said that Universalism is its legitimate
fruit. I think for the theoretic
denial of free will I have just named, that this is true.
The Calvinists, by a happy inconsistency, have maintained a deep sense of the
evil and wickedness of sin. But when they had, by a method "more
honored in the breach than in the observance," made the Author of man's
nature and surroundings responsible for all man's doings, it was natural that
men should infer that God's fairness required the salvation of one as well as
another. The principle, or rather the lack of principle, by
which God elected one man, appeared equally good for the election of all men.
Hence we need not wonder that the Universalism of eighty years ago was
offered as a "Calvinism Improved' - a title given by Dr.
Joseph Huntington to his Universalist book. The Old-School doctrine of
the nature of the Atonement made it a legal satisfaction for the sins
of the saved. The New-School doctrine of the extent of the
Atonement makes it sufficient for all men. Combine the two, and all
are saved at the stroke of logic, and the
result of the reasoning abides, though the old and false view of the
Atonement is discarded.11 |
|
The Preterist Connection
The same result obtains
as well logically, not just morally: those who argue for unlimited atonement
quickly find themselves in the Universalist camp. Here
are some quotes by Preterist writers concerning the
destruction of death at the eschaton. The first is by a Reformed minister. The
second is also Reformed but, seeing the Universalist
implications of full Preterism as interpreted through the rubric of Calvinism,
now argues for Pret-Idealism. The last is from a Baptist background, but
verbalizes Calvinism nonetheless, it being generally
acknowledged that the Philadelphia Confession of Faith used by Baptist
churches was taken from that source.12
As we will see, their statements are unequivocally Universalist:
|
|
“This was a reorganization
of the cosmos.
The whole world was changed.
What once reigned over all the world (the Sin and the Death of Adam) was now replaced with a new reign, a new kingdom:
the Grace and Righteousness…Now, this raises a question concerning Man, all
men, in the age to come. Let me assert quite plainly: all men
are under the rule of the Grace and Righteousness. No man is
under the rule of the Death and the Sin. How can anyone
who is a Preterist claim that any man is under the reign of "the
Death" when clearly "the Death" has been defeated and
"swallowed up in victory" as Rev 20.14,15 clearly
illustrates? And, if "the Death" has
been defeated entirely for all men, then "the Sin" that
reigned "in the Death" has equally been hurled into the "lake
of fire." In other words, 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 Frost, Observations,
www.thereignofchrist.com (2007). |
|
|
|
“The premise is
incontrovertible. If death has been nullified,
it can only be nullified completely. This means eternal life is imputed
to all men, regardless of faith.” Brian Simmons, How Preterism Led
me Into Universalism (emphasis added). |
|
|
|
“In Adam all
died, and now that AD 70 has occurred, all men are no longer in Adam. That
condemnation has been put away.”
Nathan
Dubois,
Full Preterism vs. Idealism, Part 2: Full
Preterism's Achilles Heel (emphasis added). |
|
Each of these sentiments is
thoroughly Universalist. The authors postpone the universal efficacy of
Christ’s atonement until A.D. 70, rather than placing it at the cross, but
there is no question that each states that the imputed condemnation of Adam was
done away for all men at the eschaton. In other words, they have taken
the “L” out of T.U.L.I.P., making Christ’s sacrifice unlimited in effect.
Having arraigned mankind before the bar of heaven upon
the charge of imputed Adamic guilt, the indictment is rendered null when the
underlying law is repealed. You cannot unconditionally
repeal a universal law without conferring universal and unconditional amnesty
and pardon. Hence, based upon the interpretation that imputed Adamic guilt was done away in A.D. 70, it becomes an axiom of law that
“all are made alive.”
Max King Connection
Lest Calvinism seem to shoulder all
the blame (this article is not about blame, but understanding and correcting
our errors), it is clear that Armenians are also implicated in the scandal.
Indeed, let us be clear that while there are Preterists from a Reformed
background making statements that lead to Universalism, few if any have
actually crossed over. Those going over to Universalism appear to come almost
exclusively from an Armenian or quasi-Calvinist back-ground
(viz., Baptist and similar churches that hold certain Calvinistic
doctrines). Moreover, while some Reformed Preterists have definitely swelled
the tide of those falling into Universalism by the things, they say and write;
Max King has contributed more than the rest.
Max King, credited by some with the
birth of the modern Preterist movement, has given numerous indications in
recent years that he has gone over to Universalism. In 2002, Tim King, Max’s
son and president of the King’s Presence Ministries, published an article
entitled “Comprehensive Grace,” which bore many markings of Universalist
thought and sentiment.
|
|
We need to see anthropology
through the lens of a transformed cosmology. Simply stated, man is changed because his world is changed. 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. Now, as then, evil does not thwart the
"much more" of God's grace (Romans 5:9, 10, 15, 17, 20). |
|
As
we have already seen, the essential tenant of Universalism is the corporate
justification of man irrespective of faith or obedience. King’s
“transformed cosmology” clearly holds the germ of Universalism: Salvation
“is cosmic and corporate, not individual and limited.” In
2003, King followed up with an article entitled “Beyond Salvation” which stated,
“you didn’t have to do anything to be accepted.”
One wonders what happened to faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. The
present president of Presence Ministries, Kevin Beck, has made similar
statements.
|
|
All
that God wants is for you to experience love because in experiencing Love you
experience God…But what
about unbelievers?
Well, is there anyone who does not believe in love? As far as I can
see, there are no atheists because everyone believes in Love, and to
believe in Love is to believe in God. 13 |
|
All
God wants is for us to experience love?
There are no atheists? Beck goes on to affirm that even the enemies of
the gospel will be saved.
|
|
The issue, then, is not
resurrection per se. The question is:
resurrection for whom? Paul affirms resurrection for all Israel—including
the “enemies” of the gospel (Romans 11:28-32)—as well as for the
Gentiles… Throughout his letters, Paul argues for ultimate integration
of Jews and Gentiles. None would be excluded.14 |
|
More recently (Oct. 2006), Presence
Ministries published its first indisputable, full Universalist article, by
David Timm. (The reader should note how the idea of imputed Adamic guilt keeps
showing up in these Universalist sentiments.)
|
|
The
second Adam (Christ) reversed all the spiritual separation brought by the
first Adam, not just part of it…in the new
world people are reconciled to God without any say in the matter. God
loves all those that He has made in His image equally.
I believe that the last Adam
(Christ) reversed all the spiritual separation (Col 1:20; Acts 3:21; Isa.
25:7) that was brought by the first Adam. This means that God the Father sees humanity through
Christ's righteousness…Today we are people within a reconciled humanity.15 |
|
King shares many points of contact with early Universalist Preterists. King
spiritualizes the resurrection in what has become known
as the “corporate body view.” According to King, the primary application
of passages touching the resurrection should be interpreted
corporately and covenantally. The resurrection is corporate
in that it spoke to the collective body of believers being
raised out of the so-called “grave of Judaism.” The meaning of
Paul’s statement, “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body”
refers to Judaism and Christianity.16
“The natural body that was sown answers to the fleshly or carnal system of
Judaism.”17
“New Testament Christians…were in that natural body…anticipating their coming
forth into a fully developed spiritual body.”18
“When the natural body died, there arose from it a spiritual body
clothed with incorruption and immortality.”19
One must ask at this point, if death reigned over all men through the
law, and if the law was taken away, were all raised in
Christ? If all men are not in the new, risen
body, where are they? Are they in limbo, neither condemned in Adam or Moses, nor
justified in Christ? Thus, we begin to see inherent problems and the seeds of
Universalism in the earliest and most basic formulations of King’s doctrine.
According
to King, the resurrection was also covenantal because “the
primary application of the resurrection is applied to the death of Judaism, and
to the rise of Christianity.”20
In the New Testament, the “resurrection has reference many times to the change
from the Jewish system to the Christian system, where the material body of
Judaism is put off in death and the spiritual body of Christianity is
resurrected in life.”21
For example, in I Cor. 15:1-18, “the primary application deals
with the development and rise of the Christian system itself.” II Cor.5:1-10
“primarily…applies to the fall of Judaism and the rise of Christianity.”22
Indeed, the fall of Judaism and rise of Christianity is the “primary
resurrection.”23
“One must look to the Jewish system as the state and power of death to be
destroyed by the reign of Christ.”24
“Paul is conscious that death’s defeat hinges upon sin’s defeat, and that
the defeat of sin is tied to the annulment of the old aeon of law…For Paul,
death is abolished when the state of sin and the law are abolished.”25
“When the ‘ministration of death written in tables of stone’ was finally
destroyed, death was swallowed up in victory.”26 Here
we encounter the same problem presented by imputed Adamic guilt: if all men are
condemned in Moses, how can annulment of that law justify only some?
Corporate Body View Familiar Friend of Universalism
As we have seen, although King
started out affirming merely the corporate resurrection (regeneration) of the
church, he has since moved on to affirm the justification of the whole body of mankind. The sentiments of King correspond to an astonishing
degree with the earliest known Universalist-Preterists. Consider the following:
|
|
Now we are of the opinion that the
expression, ‘there is a natural body,’ may be predicated most justly of the
Jewish body of worship, which body was then in existence in all its
primitive force, when the apostle indicted I Cor. XV., as much as when Moses indicted
the book of Leviticus….We know that the apostle was a Hebrew of Hebrews: and
we apprehend, therefore, that when he expresses his soul’s desire, “O,
wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of death,” he
is speaking in reference to the Jewish worship, which was the
ministration of condemnation and death…we apprehend, moreover, that when he
speaks of an earthly house of this tabernacle being dissolved, of a
groaning, being burdened, and such like, his mind is still upon the
worship under the law; for it may well be asked, how can he speak of
human bodies of clay as houses builded with hands?” 27 |
|
Here is King’s “corporate body” view
one hundred and twenty five years before he took up a pen, and by a man who,
like King, became Universalist! Hear him again:
Covenant Eschatology: Inherently Universalistic
According to
King and adherents of covenant eschatology, the veil of sin and death cast over
all nations resided in the Mosaic law. (Isa. 25:7; cf.
II Cor. 3:13-18)30 For
proponents of the corporate body view, the removal of the law thus becomes the
eschatological resurrection.31
However, as there is no way to limit annulment of the law merely to the church
(for it was done away for all men, for all time), all men end up and are
justified, whether they have obeyed the gospel or not. This result obtains
because “where no law is, there is no transgression.” (Rom. 4:15) If there is
no transgression, there is no condemnation, and where there is no condemnation,
then all are justified. On the other hand, if, in order to avoid universal
justification, it is owned that the Mosaic law was not the sole source
of man’s condemnation before God and that law, transgression, sin, and death
are present realities today, then removal of the Mosaic law would not
constitute the spiritual resurrection King’s corporate body view assumes.
According to King, “death is
abolished when the state of sin and the law are abolished.” Therefore, as
long as sin and law exist, death exists, and there is no spiritual
resurrection. Thus, it is either the corporate body view and Universalism, or
no corporate body view and particularism. A couple syllogisms will help make it
clear:
If there is a
spiritual resurrection taught in scripture, it is by participation in the
gospel, to which the passing of the law contributed not one wit. King says “The defeat of
sin is tied to the annulment of the old aeon of law.”32 But this is wrong. King compromises and impugns the
efficacy of the cross by making it share man’s redemption with the
annulment of the Mosaic law, as if as long as the law
endured man could not be freed from sin. Sin was not defeated by annulment of
the “old aeon of the law,” but by the cross of Christ. Christ’s cross triumphed over the law and is fully sufficient for
man’s salvation; his substitutionary death paid the debt man could not pay.
(Col. 2:14) Hence, it is hardly possible that it was necessary that the law be
removed for sin to be defeated or man to receive
spiritual resurrection as King asserts. Indeed, as we have seen, except for the
ceremonial and other incidental parts, the law still exists!
Max King: Father of Modern Universalism?