Larry Bunch Versus Don K. Preston
Don K. Preston’s Third (Final) Affirmative
Submitted 12-9-06
Proposition: The Bible teaches that the Second (i.e. final) coming of Christ, the judgment and the resurrection of the dead occurred at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Affirm: Don K. Preston
Deny: Larry A. Bunch
In my final affirmative, I want to emphasize and reiterate some of the ground covered, and introduce one more affirmative argument. Of course, this will allow Larry to say some things in response that I cannot respond to. Nonetheless, I will make the argument, in the assurance that the readers will see the validity of the argument.
Incidentally, like Larry, I will also use Caps for emphasis. It is not to be considered yelling! 🙂
Let me say first that on the whole, I appreciate Larry’s demeanor in the exchange. With the exception of the"Max King doctrine" references, his demeanor has been laudable. The readers of this exchange would be far better served, however, without such false, pejorative terms. I am no more a Kingite, than Larry is a Campbellite, and I am sure that he would reject such an epithet. It is interesting in this regard that I HAVE NOT CITED OR ALLUDED TO KING EVEN ONCE. Yet Larry has cited Wallace repeated times. Should I accuse Larry of being a Wallacite?
The historical fact is that Covenant Eschatology did not originate with Max King. On a personal level, I had–strictly from scripture– come to my own conclusions about the coming of the Lord before I had heard of or read a word of Max King’s books. On with the actual discussion.
Larry chides me for not answering one question, concerning whether a person can be saved without studying the O.T.. I asked him five questions in response, and he says I did not answer him.
1.) The point of asking my questions was that the proper answer to my questions would answer his. Asking questions in response to questions is valid, isn’t it, Larry? Jesus did it an awful lot.
The point of asking my questions was that the proper answer to my questions would answer his. Asking questions in response to questions is valid, isn’t it, Larry? Jesus did it an awful lot.
2.) If I am to be chided for not answering ONE question, WHAT SHOULD WE THINK WHEN I ASKED LARRY 22 DIRECT QUESTIONS THAT HE TOTALLY IGNORED! (I went back through my presentations and counted them. I might have missed even more!) I have made a list if anyone wants it.
If I am to be chided for not answering ONE question, WHAT SHOULD WE THINK WHEN I ASKED LARRY 22 DIRECT QUESTIONS THAT HE TOTALLY IGNORED! (I went back through my presentations and counted them. I might have missed even more!) I have made a list if anyone wants it.
3.) IN ADDITION TO THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, LARRY HAS TOTALLY IGNORED MY MANY LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, REPEATEDLY!
IN ADDITION TO THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, LARRY HAS TOTALLY IGNORED MY MANY LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, REPEATEDLY!
IN ADDITION TO THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, LARRY HAS TOTALLY IGNORED MY MANY LOGICAL ARGUMENTS, REPEATEDLY!
I offered arguments on Romans 11, IGNORED.
I offered numerous arguments on 1 Corinthians 15 and its relation to Daniel 9. IGNORED.
I offered numerous arguments on Hebrews 9, IGNORED.
So, Larry criticizes me, falsely saying I did not answer his ONE question. Yet, he fails to answer 22 DIRECT QUESTIONS RELEVANT TO THE PROPOSITION, AND TOTALLY FAILS TO ANSWER MY REPEATED ARGUMENTS BASED SQUARELY ON THE INSPIRED TEXT!
I stated concerning the apostles, "Their eschatology was the hope of Israel. Larry says his eschatology is the hope of the church, cut off from Israel. That is a different message."
Larry responds: "I searched my first negative and found nothing like you wrote above. I don’t even know what you mean by such a statement."
Larry, how about clearing this issue up for us?
Here is the proof of what I said.
I wrote: <Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection is from and based on the fulfillment of the O. T. promises to Israel.>
Larry responded <No, Don, 1 Corinthians 15 is not based on such a fulfillment.> (More on this momentarily.)
So, Larry, you deny that the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be in fulfillment of the O.T. promises made to Israel. You place it at the end of the Christian age THEREFORE, YOUR ESCHATOLOGY IS NOT BASED ON THE O.T. PROMISES MADE TO ISRAEL. INSTEAD, YOU CLAIM IT IS BASED ON THE PROMISES MADE TO THE CHURCH, UNRELATED TO THE O.T. PROMISES TO ISRAEL. That makes your eschatology false.
I am sure the readers of this debate would appreciate some clarification. On the one hand you tell us that the O.T. was removed, and then you tell us that there may be parts of the O.T. that are still unfulfilled (i.e. valid!). Here is Larry’s quote in regard to my question about when the Law was completely fulfilled and removed: <I don’t know. The OT covenant was terminated with the institution of the NT by the death of Christ.>
So, Larry, another couple of critical questions:
HAS THE O.T. BEEN COMPLETELY FULFILLED? Yes or No?
If you say Yes, the parousia and resurrection have occurred. If you say No, then the O.T. remains valid.
HAS THE O.T. BEEN COMPLETELY REMOVED? YES OR NO?
If removed, it is fulfilled, and the resurrection has occurred. If not removed, it is still valid.
ARE ANY ELEMENTS OF THE O.T. STILL VALID TODAY? Yes or No?
If Yes, the O.T. remains completely valid.
HAS GOD FULFILLED ALL (NOT SOME OR EVEN MOST), OF HIS PROMISES TO O.T. ISRAEL, AND CONSUMMATED HIS COVENANT RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM? Yes or No?
If Yes, the resurrection has occurred. If No, the O.T. remains valid.
I hope you will give the readers clear, precise answers for these questions.
Based on the foregoing, let me make an affirmative.
Matthew 5:17-18– Jesus said, "Verily I say unto you, until heaven and earth passes, not one jot and not one tittle shall pass from the Law until it is all fulfilled."
Notice some critical facts, and I will anticipate Larry’s response and include my answers.
JESUS DID NOT SAY "until SOME of the Law is fulfilled, the Law will not pass." Larry believes that with the Passion, the O.T. passed, yet, acknowledges that Daniel 9 was not fulfilled until A.D. 70! HOW COULD ANY PART OF DANIEL 9 REMAIN VALID IF THE O.T. WAS COMPLETELY REMOVED AT THE CROSS? If you admit that Daniel remained valid (unfulfilled) until A.D. 70, this means that the entirety of the O.T. remained valid until then. Of course, this is what Jesus said when speaking of the coming destruction, "These be the days of vengeance, when all things that are written must be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22). It is why the writer of Hebrews, writing shortly before that event, said that the Old Covenant was then "nigh unto passing" (Hebrews 8:13).
JESUS DID NOT SAY "the LAW will pass, but the PROPHETS will remain valid."
THE LAW PROPHESIED (Matthew 11:13). You cannot therefore, delineate between the Law and prophecy.
THE PROPHETS WERE "THE LAW" (1 Corinthians 14:20-21–citing Isaiah 28–A RESURRECTION CONTEXT!!).
Since the Law prophesied, and the prophets were "the Law" then, when Jesus said "not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law," he was asserting the absolute necessity for the fulfillment of ALL of the O.T. before any of it could pass away.
Larry tells us that there may be parts of the O.T. that are still valid (unfulfilled) today.
THIS MEANS,
OF NECESSITY, THAT ALL OF THE O. T. REMAINS VALID TODAY.
JESUS DID NOT SAY, "when SOME or MOST is fulfilled, ALL will pass."
Larry’s position, in reality, is that when SOME OF THE LAW (Christ’s passion), was fulfilled, ALL OF THE LAW PASSED. Here is his quote again: <The OT covenant was terminated with the institution of the NT by the death of Christ.>
HOWEVER, LARRY ALSO SAYS THERE MAY BE PARTS OF THE LAW (THE O.T.) THAT REMAIN UNFULFILLED (VALID) TODAY! The problem is that Jesus said NONE would pass till ALL was fulfilled.
Larry says he is not confused about the O.T.. His answers and writings say otherwise. To say on the one hand that the O.T. has passed away, and to then say that parts of the O.T. may still be valid demonstrates self-contradiction and confusion.
I made a series of arguments on Hebrews 9– ARGUMENTS TOTALLY, 100% IGNORED BY LARRY. Let me add some additional thoughts.
The O. T., INCLUDING ALL OF ITS PROPHETIC TYPES MANIFESTED IN THE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM, WOULD REMAIN VALID (binding) UNTIL THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION (Hebrews 9:6-10).
The time of reformation is the time of the FULFILLMENT of those typological (prophetic) actions.
Therefore, the O.T. would remain valid (binding) until the fulfillment of the typological (prophetic) elements of the O.T. sacrificial system.
The O.T. would remain valid (binding) until the fulfillment of the typological (prophetic) elements of the O.T. sacrificial system.
Those prophetic types included the High Priest’s Day of Atonement praxis of killing the sacrifice, entering the MHP, and returning. (Hebrews 9:6-10:1-3).
The coming of the High Priest out of the MHP typified (prophesied), the coming of Christ out of the MHP, to bring salvation (Hebrews 9:6-10:1-3).
Therefore, the O. T. would remain unfulfilled (valid) – until the time of Christ’s "Second coming" in fulfillment of the O.T. typological (prophetic) sacrificial system.
Stated another way, the argument is:
Not one single aspect of "the Law" would pass until it was all fulfilled.
But, the coming of the High Priest out of the MHP was part of "the Law" and prophetic of Christ’s second coming.
Therefore, not one single aspect of the Law would pass until the second coming (resurrection).
HEBREWS 9 SAYS THE SAME THING AS MATTHEW 5:17-18– "NOT ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE SHALL PASS FROM THE LAW UNTIL IT IS ALL FULFILLED."
LARRY, WERE THOSE TYPOLOGICAL (PROPHETIC) TEMPLE ACTIONS OF THE ATONEMENT PART OF "THE LAW"? YES OR NO?
The right answer of course is, Yes! If you venture to say No, please PROVE your case.
The typological (prophetic) actions of the atonement (including the coming out of the MHP), were part of "the Law."
Not one jot or tittle of "the Law" would pass until it was ALL fulfilled.
Therefore, not one jot or tittle would pass from the Law until all of the typological (prophetic) actions of the atonement (including the coming out of the MHP), were fulfilled.
That is, after all, precisely what Hebrews 9 says. Those things were imposed "until the time of the reformation."
HEBREWS 9 POSITS THE CONTINUING VALIDITY OF THE LAW UNTIL THE PAROUSIA AND THE ARRIVAL OF THE TIME OF REFORMATION, WHEN MAN COULD ENTER THE MHP. Larry Bunch has not said one word about the entire series of arguments I have made about this.
Larry says Christ has not come.
Therefore,
The sacrificial system of the O.T. remains unfulfilled, since Christ has not fulfilled the High Priest’s actions.
If Christ has not fulfilled the typological (prophetic) aspect of the High Priestly Atonement praxis, then the O.T. system remains valid, because it was "imposed on them until the time of reformation" i.e. the time of fulfillment!
Now let’s apply this to the resurrection.
Not one jot or tittle of "the Law" would pass until it was ALL fulfilled..
Paul said that the resurrection was part of "the Law"; "I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things that are written in the Law and the prophets. I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead." (Acts 24:14-15; See also Acts 26:21f).
Therefore, not one jot or tittle of "the Law" would pass until the resurrection was fulfilled.
Let’s establish something else, corollary to the above, in spite of Larry’s protestations.
The eschatology of the N.T. writers was based on and drawn from the O.T. promises made to Israel, after the flesh–it was the hope of Israel (Acts 26:6-7).
Peter said that Christ would come at the time of the restoration of all things: "Whom the heavens must receive until the restoration of all things spoken by all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21). Larry, here is the argument:
The second coming of Christ (the time of the resurrection), would be at the time of the restoration of all things.
The restoration of all things was foretold BY ALL GOD’S HOLY PROPHETS SINCE THE WORLD BEGAN. (That would be O.T. prophets, wouldn’t it?)
Therefore, the second coming of Christ (the resurrection), would be in fulfillment of what was foretold by all God’s holy prophets since the world began.
LARRY, WAS PETER’S ESCHATOLOGICAL HOPE BASED ON, AND TAKEN FROM THE O.T.? YES OR NO?
I must confess that the more I read Larry’s responses, the more confused I get about what he believes. He claims not to be confused on what he believes, but, his negatives reveal otherwise.
I wrote: <Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection is from and based on the fulfillment of the O. T. promises to Israel.>
Larry responded <No, Don, 1 Corinthians 15 is not based on such a fulfillment.>
Here is (part of) the problem. When I asked Larry to define "the Law" that is the strength of sin. He gave a citation from Willis that included this, <When death can no longer assault the living and when those who have already died are risen from the dead, then death will have died. THE PROPHET ISAIAH, UNDER DIVINE INSPIRATION, FORETOLD THIS GREAT VICTORY THAT GOD HAS PREDETERMINED FOR MAN TO HAVE OVER DEATH. >
Larry, YOUR SOURCE says Isaiah (quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:54f), did predict the resurrection and victory over sin. That means Isaiah was the source and context for Paul’s doctrine of resurrection.
So, on the one hand you deny that the O.T. is the source of Paul’s resurrection doctrine.
On the other hand, you give us a source that affirms that Isaiah was the source of Paul’s doctrine!
SO, WAS WILLIS WRONG TO SAY THAT ISAIAH PREDICTED THE RESURRECTION?
If Willis was right, then you are patently wrong to deny that the O.T. was the source of Paul’s resurrection doctrine. WHICH IS IT?
TELL THE READERS VERY PLAINLY, DID ISAIAH 25 AND HOSEA 13 ACTUALLY PREDICT THE RESURRECTION THAT PAUL WAS PREDICTING IN 1 CORINTHIANS 15? YES OR NO?
If Isaiah and Hosea did not actually predict the resurrection that Paul was describing in 1 Corinthians 15, what did Paul mean when he said that at the resurrection, "then shall be brought to pass the saying…" and quoted from Isaiah and Hosea? Please do not fail to answer the questions!
If Isaiah and Hosea actually predicted the resurrection that Paul was describing in 1 Corinthians 15, and if the resurrection has not occurred, then Isaiah and Hosea remain unfulfilled.
If Isaiah (REMEMBER, PAUL CALLED ISAIAH "THE LAW"), and Ho
sea remain unfulfilled, then "the Law," ALL OF IT, remains valid.
Peter’s resurrection doctrine, (the restoration of all things), was from the O.T. prophets.
Larry, was Paul’s resurrection doctrine (the restoration of all things), NOT from the O.T.?
It is irrefutably true that the apostles got their eschatological hopes and promises from the O.T. prophecies made to Israel. They preached nothing but the hope of Israel. Larry is now on record as saying that, "1 Corinthians 15 is not based on such a fulfillment." Patently, Larry does in fact preach a different message then the apostles.
On Daniel 9:24-27–The Putting Away of Sin
I have asked Larry repeatedly to prove, exegetically, that the putting away of sin in Daniel is unrelated to the putting away of sin at the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. Larry says he has done this, and denies my application. Well, Larry, what is your proof? Where have you exegeted the two texts, showing the contrast in subject, time, nature and framework? All you have done is say, "I don’t accept your view!" We know that, Larry. We want some PROOF, not mere assertions.
I have shown that Daniel’s prophecy was given to Israel. Paul’s resurrection hope was given to Israel (Isaiah 25 / Hosea 13).
I have shown that Daniel was about the time of the end, the end of the Old Covenant world of Israel. 1 Corinthians 15 is about the time of the end when Israel’s prophecies would be fulfilled.
Larry has offered not one word of exegetical refutation, saying only that if resurrection is in Daniel he missed it! This is an ad hominem argument, and proves NOTHING! All it proves is that you missed it, just like I missed it for years!
When I asked for his explanation of the putting away of sin, Larry wrote <There is NO resurrection from the grave connected with the putting away of sin EXCEPT in reference to the promise to the Christian that this will occur when the Lord returns at the end of time>. He also mentioned baptism, and resurrection, so, Larry has two deaths, two burials, two resurrections, all for the purpose of putting away of sin!
Once again, Larry assumes the "end of time" doctrine without offering so much as a word of proof. This is petitio principii, (begging the question), and is useless as argumentation.
Perhaps in his affirmatives.
On Daniel 9 and the Atonement
I wrote: <Larry denies that resurrection / parousia would finish the atonement, insisting that the atonement was finished at the Cross.>
Larry wrote, <When referencing the CROSS as finishing the atonement, I mean that all things connected with the CROSS have (now) been fulfilled. Certainly a little time after Jesus’ death was necessary to accomplish ALL things. He did not enter into Heaven itself (Holy of Holies) to present Himself as a sacrifice for our sins for several days (40?) after His death/resurrection. The Jewish economy was not completely ended until the destruction of Jerusalem. This, however, does not affirm or prove your contentions that the taking away of sin was not consummated until 70 A.D. and that the resurrection was accomplished in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem.
I want the readers to remember that in regard to the atonement, I MADE AN ENTIRE SERIES OF ARGUMENTS, ALL 100% IGNORED BY LARRY. I then I asked the following questions, urging Larry not to fail to answer them. HE FAILED TO ANSWER ANY OF THEM!
1.) Did the High Priest have to come out of the MHP to "bring salvation" and finish the Atonement, Yes or No? If your answer is "No," please give us some proof.
2.) According to Hebrews 9:28, would Christ have to come in order to bring salvation? Yes or No?
3.) If Christ would come, to being salvation, is the coming of Christ in Hebrews 9:28 the completion of the atonement process begun by his death, Yes or No?
I want you to note that Larry ADMITS THAT THE ATONEMENT WAS NOT FINISHED WITH SIMPLY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. Jesus had to enter the MHP as an intrinsic part of the atonement process! CATCH THE POWER OF THAT ADMISSION!
If the atonement process was not completed at the Cross, if it was essential that Jesus enter the MHP as part of that process, THEN IT WAS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT HE COME OUT OF THE MHP TO CONSUMMATE THE ATONEMENT PROCESS!
The coming out of the MHP is the second coming of Christ at the time of the resurrection.
Larry, if Jesus had to die to fulfill the typology of the atonement, and if he had to enter the MHP to fulfill the typology of the atonement, then, please, explain why he did not have to come out of the MHP (the parousia and resurrection), to fulfill the typology of the atonement.
Larry refused to address any of my critical questions, for to admit this climactic, critical point destroys his eschatology!
If Christ has not returned, the atonement is not finished.
If the atonement is not finished, the Old Testament remains valid today, sacrifices and all!
The consummation of the atonement is Christ’s parousia (at the resurrection). But, the consummation of the atonement would be at the end of (at the fulfillment of) the Old Covenant system (Hebrews 9:24-28). Therefore, the resurrection would be at the end of (at the fulfillment of) the Old Covenant system.
I noted that it was the deficiency of the O.T.–the lack of true atonement– that prevented man from entering the MHP, and that Larry teaches that man, EVEN UNDER THE NEW COVENANT, still cannot enter there.
I asked, WHAT IS THE DEFICIENCY OF THE NEW COVENANT THAT STILL PREVENTS MAN, ALTHOUGH NO LONGER UNDER THE O. T., FROM ENTERING THE MHP?
Larry has not so much as indicated that I made this series of arguments.
Larry writes, <There is not a word in Daniel, much less in Daniel 9, about a resurrection! If there is, I MISSED IT and it will have to be pointed out to me! Don’s CONCLUDING, by his erroneous arguments, that it includes the resurrection DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!>
I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the motifs found in Daniel are resurrection motifs. All Larry has done is assert that Daniel 9 says not one word about "the end of time," so, Preston is wrong. THAT IS NOT PROOF.
I have shown, exegetically, the direct connection between Daniel and 1 Corinthians 15.
I have demonstrated, exegetically, the direct connection between Daniel 9, Hebrews 9, THE ATONEMENT AND RESURRECTION. Larry has completely, totally, ignored my arguments. So, for Larry to say, "if the resurrection is in Daniel 9 I missed it," simply shows that he missed it!
On Romans 11
Larry wrote, <What you need to realize is that the sin of Israel is taken away also IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AS THE SIN OF ANYONE AND ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, NOT A NATIONAL ONE!>
The problem is that Larry sought to establish his case on Romans 11, and I proved irrefutably that ROMANS 11 DOES NOT TEACH WHAT LARRY CLAIMS.
I proved, from Isaiah 59, the O.T. prophecy that Paul was citing in Romans 11, that the coming of the Lord for the salvation of Israel, WAS THE COMING OF THE LORD TO JUDGE ISRAEL FOR SHEDDING INNOCENT BLOOD.
What did Larry say about this? NOTHING. NOT ONE WORD.
Thus, Larry’s unsubstantiated claim that Romans 11 cited Isaiah 59 in reference to Jesus’ incarnation and the preaching of the gospel is false. His posit falsifies his claim that he does not need to study the O.T. to understand eschatology. BY IGNORING ISAIAH, HE HAS DISTORTED ROMANS! And, we might add, by ignoring Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13, he has distorted 1 Corinthians as well. He has promised that in his affirmatives he will take us to Corinthians, and we are hopeful he will. If and when he do
es, we will show even further how his refusal to take the O.T. into his hermeneutic destroys his eschatology.
Summary and Conclusion:
In spite of Larry’s protestations to the contrary, I have proven my proposition: The Bible teaches that the Second (i.e. final) coming of Christ, the judgment and the resurrection of the dead occurred at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.