A06 (Bunch-V-Preston) 3rd Negative by Larry Bunch

Larry Bunch Versus Don K. Preston

Larry Bunch Third (Final) Negative

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 

Don wrote: <Let me say first that on the whole, I appreciate Larry’s demeanor in the exchange.>

Thank you, Don.

Don wrote: <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?>

No, Don, I would not want you to call me that. I did not call you ANYTHING! I referred, in my 2nd negative, to ??your Max King doctrine?? and ??imagination of Max King and others.? I did not apply ANY epithet to you nor did I say your doctrine originated with Max King. Your doctrine, however, seems to be the same as that of Max King. I would not mind at all if you accused me of ?my? doctrine as being the same as "Foy’s" doctrine.

Don wrote: <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.>

I deny that it came from Scripture and I suspect you had SOME help coming to such a conclusion as you are debating. I am not saying you did not originate this on your own, but suspect you read someone, somewhere who had to the same ideas as you currently endorse.

Don wrote: <I offered arguments on Romans 11, IGNORED.>

Don, that is just not so! In my first negative there are 1,021 words in reference to my ANSWERING your argument on Romans 11. Some of that were quotations from another source and I?m sure what was presented was not what you wanted but you can hardly refer to Romans 11 as being IGNORED! There is even another sentence regarding it later in my post.

Don wrote: <I offered numerous arguments on 1 Corinthians 15 and its relation to Daniel 9. IGNORED.>

I have repeatedly stated that I would deal with 1 Corinthians 15 in my affirmative. I DID write, in my second negative: <<1 Corinthians 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory.">> <<This has reference to the end of time, when the Lord returns, the dead are raised, judgment (sentencing) is handed out, eternity begins, rewards and punishments are realized.>>

Don wrote: <I offered numerous arguments on Hebrews 9, IGNORED.>

Again, WRONG! In my first negative, Hebrews 9:28 was quoted and one paragraph dealt with it. Hebrews 9:26 has a paragraph in reference to it. While my writing was brief, it cannot be said that Hebrews 9 was IGNORED.

Don wrote: <So, Larry criticizes me, falsely saying I did not answer his ONE question.>

Don, I cannot count QUESTIONS as ANSWERS to MY question! And I do not falsify (lie) intentionally.

Don wrote: <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.>

Don, I?m really going to get ugly here by saying, ?That is just plain dumb!? Everything in the N.T. does not depend on an O.T. prediction! Because I believe the Lord has promised me resurrection from the dust of the earth to eternal life in Heaven does not make my eschatology false. It makes YOUR DOCTRINE FALSE and HOPELESS!

Don asked: <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.>

Oh, Don, you have me in a bad fix now! If I say "Yes," I’m wrong and if I say "No," I’m wrong! Well, I’m going to say, "I don?t know!" Why? Because I’m not sure regarding some things in the O.T. that MIGHT have to do with the resurrection at the end of time and the eternal punishments and rewards.

I do KNOW THIS, though, Don, your conclusion as to what must have occurred if I say "Yes" is just wrong! The resurrection of the dead from the dust of the earth (or wherever they may have been buried) and the judgment and eternal punishments and rewards HAVE NOT YET OCCURRED!

Don asked: <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.>

Yes, the O.T. AS OUR LAW TODAY has been completely removed. That does not, necessarily, mean it is all fulfilled. This is getting redundant, but there MAY BE some things in the O.T. relating to the end of time and the things related to the Lord?s return AT THAT TIME that have not been fulfilled, obviously.

Don asked: <ARE ANY ELEMENTS OF THE O.T. STILL VALID TODAY? Yes or No?> <If Yes, the O.T. remains completely valid.>

No elements of the O.T. regarding our law for today is valid today. That does not, necessarily, mean it is all fulfilled. Your questions are redundant as are my answers to them.

Don asked: <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.>

Yes. No, the last resurrection at the end of time has not occurred.

Don writes extensively in regard to ALL the O.T. PASSING or not. He accuses me of not saying anything about this or of saying that it was done at the cross of Jesus. I have, however, in my previous writing showed that what I?m speaking of, in my second negative: <<All was not fulfilled at Pentecost but the remission of sins was certainly fulfilled and did not have to wait until 70 A.D. for this to occur!>> << 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.>>

Don writes <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 don?t know how it helps Don in his affirmation to continually accuse me of confusion but he is just wrong about that, too! The O.T. CAN be done away as far as being our Law for today and STILL have something in it that refers to the end of time.

Don writes <I made a series of arguments on Hebrews 9? ARGUMENTS TOTALLY, 100% IGNORED BY LARRY. Let me ad
d some additional thoughts.>

Again, Don is mistaken about the matter. See my comments earlier in this negative reply.


No, Don, it remained as something the Jews engaged in, as part of the law of the land for the Jews, until the destruction of Jerusalem. But it was taken out of the way as the Law of God when Jesus died on the cross and presented Himself in Heaven as the sacrifice for sin.

Don writes <? Larry Bunch has not said one word about the entire series of arguments I have made about this.>

Don can make this claim from now on, but it doesn?t make it so!

Don writes <Larry says Christ has not come.>

Don, if you give a quote from me, please give the source. So far as I know, I have NEVER said Christ has not come!

1) Christ came when He was born of a virgin.

2) Christ came, not IN PERSON, but in JUDGMENT on Jerusalem.

3) Christ WILL COME at the end of time for the final resurrection / judgment / punishments / rewards.

Don then makes a lot of arguments about the resurrection and such things as ?Peter?s eschatological hope based on, and taken from the O.T.?

The problem is, Don wants to put the resurrection, judgment, punishments, rewards at the time of Jerusalem?s destruction when the N.T. very clearly gives such as being at the end of time. This will be dealt with in my first affirmation.

Don protests some more of my perceived confusion which confuses him: <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.>

Again, I don?t know how this helps him in his affirmation. I have complained about the amount of material Don has written and the number of Scriptures he has used and how hard it is to answer that. So, perhaps we both should quit complaining and just try and debate.

Don wrote: <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.>

No, Don, my source did not in any way relegate the resurrection to A.D. 70! Victory over sin does not mean that the resurrection had to take place when the Lord destroyed Jerusalem via the Roman army.


I DON?T KNOW! However, IF Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13 predicted the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15, that does NOT mean said resurrection took place in 70 A.D.!

Don writes: <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?>

And then DEMANDS: <Please do not fail to answer the questions!>

All right, all right, Don. Here is the answer: See my first affirmative!

I tire of Don?s charge: <Patently, Larry does in fact preach a different message then the apostles.>

I steadfastly maintain that I preach the N.T. and refuse to involve myself in wild speculations concerning O.T. prophecy that has led many, like Don, into error.

Don charged: <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!>

I haven?t a clue as to what he means by this. We die to sin, are buried in the watery grave of baptism and arise to walk in newness of life. That is our spiritual death, burial and resurrection. At our physical death we are buried in an earthly grave and at the end of time, for those of us who have died before the Lord returns, we will be raised from this grave, given a different body fit for a Heavenly Kingdom and reunited with our spirit.

The FIRST RESURRECTION TO LIFE is from baptism. John 5:25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, AND IS NOW HERE (emp. mine, Larry), when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."

The SECOND RESURRECTION TO LIFE will be at the end of time. John 5:28 "Do not marvel at this, for AN HOUR IS COMING (emp. mine, Larry) when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.?"

Don tiredly accuses me again: <Larry has completely, totally, ignored my arguments.>

Not so, Don, anything I have failed to look at, such as 1 Cor.15, has been expressly stated as going to be in my affirmative. So, it is NOT a total, 100% ignoring of what you wrote.

Don wrote: <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.>

Don claims to have proved it irrefutably! So, I guess I’ll just have to irrefutably prove in an irrefutable affirmative how wrong Don is by refuting the irrefutable! No, I’m not going to do this by examining all his affirmative arguments. I’ll do it by looking at some plain, easy to understand New Testament passages that refute Don?s arguments and show he is just wrong in his affirmation.

I haven’t written any books, so I can’t advertise them.