Preston vs. Simmons Debate Negotiations

[Prabhu Das]

Following Debate proposal between Don and Kurt has been made know in the November '09 issue of The Sword & The Plow (a eNewsletter forwarded by Kurt Simmons). Please have a look at it and leave your comments or discuss if anything is important Thanks!!
---
We are pleased to announce we are presently in discussion with Don Preston about a debate. Don wants the debate to focus exclusively upon the validity of the law until AD 70, and proposed to affirm the following resolution:

Resolved: The Bible teaches that the Mosaic Law (also called the Old Testament, the Old Covenant, or Torah), remained valid until the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

However, we feel this evades the larger issue of the nature of the resurrection. The “corporate body view,” which Don espouses, assumes that the law was valid until AD 70. Indeed, the validity of the entire “Covenant Eschatology”
system Max King whipped up is founded upon this assumption. Therefore, we have proposed that the debate include the nature of the resurrection, and have offered to affirm something along these lines:

Resolved: The Bible teaches that the law of sin and death was fulfilled at the cross. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was irrelevant in terms of man's reconciliation to God.

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

The actual propositions have not been decide; these are provided here merely to give an idea of the direction the debate will take. I have not heard back from Don, but we are in discussion and there does appear to be a written debate coming sometime in the beginning of next year. Stay tuned as we try to work through these enormously important issues regarding fulfilled eschatology!

[thomas greenlee]

Thanks Michael,

I am sorry that you think that I am not being positive or am ranting when I attempt to apply the Clarkian principles and method to scriptural inquiry. My original observation of the fallacy of ambiguity is about as Clarkian as it is possible to be.

As for Calvanism and Arminianism. I would understand that logically all 5 point Calvinists are Arminians and all Arminians are 5 point Calvanists.. The only difference that could be maintained as far as I can determine is if Calvanists deny that Arminians can be saved by predetermining that no Calvanist could at any time ever have been an Arminian. If the profession of faith in the gospel of Christ by every Arminian does not mean that he is a Calvanist then it is only because Calvanists pronounce his profession is false.

Tom

[Chuck]

Chuck's view is that heaven and earth passed away and therefore every jot and tittle of the Old Covenant system vanished in 70 AD. How do I know? I asked him this afternoon. I thought I stated rather clearly (maybe not), in terms of a legally binding system, that the law no longer is providing condemnation. I was speaking practically not judicially Tom.

[Michael Bennett]

Tom - I could say the same thing about your Arminian free-will view. Why dont you email the debaters and try to help them instead of ranting here? Thanks.

[thomas greenlee]

I would ask who is not prepared to prove the contradiction of both the affirmative and the negative of Don's proposed resolve?

The contradiction of the affirmative is "Some of the law has not been terminated", this I understand is Chuck's view.

The contradiction of the negative is "Some of the law has been terminated", this I understand is also Chuck's view.

Who is prepared to argue that both contradictions are not valid?

What of the contradiction of faith and the law? Who is prepared to argue that it is not true that man does not live by bread alone , but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, and who is prepared to argue that the law was not words that proceded from the mouth of God?

Who then is prepared to deny the contradiction of the scriptures that sin is the transgression of the law or that which is not of faith is sin?
"Sin is the transgression of the law"
"That which is not of faith is sin"
The contradictory conclusion: "That which is not of faith is the transgression of the law"
Or the positive conclusion: "That which is of faith does not trangress the law"
Any claim of the validity of the sacrificial system of the blood of bulls and goats contained in the law after Christ shed his blood on the cross is a contradiction and denial of Christ and the gospel..

Tom

[Chuck]

I agree Mike. It's not like the law is the antithesis of God's character. Why can't the law be a guide? We certainly can't be justified by the law but has it not been swallowed up in the law of Christ? Simply because the law was fulfilled in the person of Christ, does not mean that it was rendered valueless---useless.

Love God and love your neighbor. How about coveting? If I love my neighbor's stuff how is that in violation of loving my neighbor unless I act upon my lust of his possessions? Yet we know that coveting is wrong. Why? Because God told us that it was wrong. It violates God's standard. So in my view, the law is absolutely valid in teaching me about the character of God and it offers a light to my path.

I don't trust in the law. It doesn't save. I am no longer bound by the written code. I'm free in Christ. New moons and sabbaths...picking up sticks on the Sabbath? No, we are not bound by these things. The law pointed us to Christ but once Christ plucks us out of the pit, do we deliberately violate the moral code?

So I am still very much interested in the relevance of the law both today and during the transition period. I don't think anyone here believes that because the law passed away that is should never be cited again. The whole OC law/sacrificial system waxed old and vanished. How that played out is interesting to me.

[Michael Bennett]

Thomas - people still use the law in conversion all the time today. People still are trying to hammer out exactly what the transition was like fore apologetics purposes. People are constantly still trying to figure out how the law would (if at all) apply today. No Christian is trying to use it to argue for justification. I think these are noble reasons. Trying to "have an answer" apologetically for what we believe in my opinion is stll important and valid. + I also know those 2 will be very professional in the conversation.

[Chuck]

Thanks for the clarification Tom. I guess I put more faith in Don and Kurt, believing that whatever topic they choose to debate would be worth the price of admission. If they debate nothing we care about I guess it's all a moot point. I want to give those guys the benefit of the doubt simply because these guys are not time-wasters and I have a difficult time believing they would deliberately spend their valuable time on subterfuge.

[thomas greenlee]

Chuck,

I was not being hard on Mike personally, I was being hard on the idea of Christians debating the Law. We know the first covenant was temporary and imperfect and was ended when the Deliverer came out of Sion. And I concur completely with your question: "So that basically leaves us wondering what in the world these guys are debating." My first consideration remains, as evidenced by virtually all of the comments, the conversation is so ambiguous it is absurd to pursue it, otherwise it just becomes a matter of "He said, She said, and no necessary conclusion is reached and no one convinced and no one is edified. The debate for Christians is the efficacy of the gospel of Christ, the power of God unto salvation. Unless someone is prepared to argue that the first covenant was the power of God unto salvation then there is no similarity between the two and nothing in common to debate.

Tom

[Michael Bennett]

Chuck - that's just Tom's way of showing me that the "end of the commandment is love" LOL - I mean Tom NEVER "vain jangles" or does any thing remotely like it - only others do =)

[Chuck]

I agree Martin. Adherence to the written code never produced life. It was always a signpost of our depravity. Faith has always been the mode whereby life springs. So that basically leaves us wondering what in the world these guys are debating. I believe neither Don nor Kurt would disagree with your conclusions...