Written Debates

Written Debate: The Cessation of the Charismata-Preston's Second Affirmative

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Attention! Other Websites, YouTube and Facebook Users. You are free to post this debate on your spaces / sites, on the condition that you post the entirety of the debate, with no alterations, no deletions, no additions of any kind. This is copyrighted material.  We expect those who wish to publish it themselves to honor this. This is the only ethical thing to do.
Don K. Preston

 

JACKSON-PRESTON FORMAL WRITTEN DEBATE

Don K. Preston’s Second Affirmative

Let me express my genuine sympathy to Mr. Jackson for the recent death in his family. We can all certainly share in his sorrow and extend our heartfelt condolences.

 

I appreciate the tenor of Mr. Jackson’s first negative. I must say in all candor that I was hoping for more of an actual negative presentation in which he would examine my arguments carefully, exegetically and logically, but this was totally lacking. It is one thing to assert that my position is wrong, even heretical. It is another to actually engage in exegesis and prove those claims. And let me say as kindly as possible that Mr. Jackson utterly failed to actually prove anything he asserted. He most assuredly did not falsify my affirmative.

 

Richard has asked that I more precisely define my concept of a miracle. A miracle, Biblically defined, is the instantaneous, dramatic, undeniable, perfect manifestation of the divine power, through the agency of God’s representative. For instance, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. The instant and perfect healing of the lepers. The giving of sight to a man born blind. The healing of the man born lame. All of these were instantaneous, perfect, dramatic, undeniable, divine actions through God’s representative. I hope this helps.

 

I presented a series of logical syllogisms –ten of them to be exact— in my affirmation. Richard never attempted to exegetically critique a single one of those arguments!

 

One of my arguments was:

The miraculous gifts of the Spirit were to cease their function at the end of the age.

The Christian age has no end.

The Mosaic Covenant age was to end, and it is the only age in scripture that was to end.

The disciples well understood that the end of the age would be when the temple was destroyed (Matthew 24:2-3).

The end of the Mosaic Covenant age was at hand and coming soon in the first century, and arrived in AD 70.

But, since the Christian age has no end, and the only age that was to end was the Mosaic Covenant age, this demands that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit ceased at the end of the Mosaic Covenant age in AD 70.

 

All that Richard could do was to say that the Christian age will indeed end. What was his proof? He did not give it. But let me reiterate: The Christian age has no end!

Ephesians 3:20-21– “unto him (God, DKP) be glory in the church by Jesus Christ, throughout all ages, age without end age, Amen!” Richard did not mention this text.

Hebrews 12:28 says that the Hebrews Christians were at that time receiving a kingdom that can never be removed, never be destroyed. Richard ignored the argument.

Revelation 11:8-15f says that at the time of the destruction of the city “where the Lord was slain”, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ, and they shall reign for ever and forever.” Once again, Richard completely ignored my argument.

 

Let the reader fully understand that this one argument– the unending nature of Christ’s kingdom age– which is the current age– totally destroys Richard’s arguments.

 

Let me emphasize that first argument with this: the end of the age, when the charismata was to end, was near in the first century.

 

Paul said the end of the age had arrived (1 Corinthians 10:11).

Christ appeared in the last days, at end of the age (Hebrews 1:1-2; 9:26).

The Hebrews author said Christ was coming “in a very, very little while, and will not delay” (10:37).

James said “the parousia of the Lord has drawn near”; “the Judge is standing right at the door” (James 5:8-9). Note that Jesus had told his disciples that when the signs of the end appeared, they could know that the kingdom was near “right at the door.” Here is James affirming what Jesus predicted! The objective nearness of the end is proven.

Peter said “the end of all things has drawn near” (1 Peter 4:7), and “the appointed time has come for the judgment to begin” (1 Peter 4:17).

Jesus told John, “Behold, I come quickly”(Revelation 22:10-12). The fulfillment of the Apocalypse was so near that John was told “do not seal the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand” (Revelation 22:10).

 

These temporal statements about the nearness of the end of the age, the judgment and parousia cannot be mitigated. So, here is another form of my argument:

The miraculous gifts of the Spirit were to cease at the end of the age (Jackson and Preston agree).

But, the end of the age was near in the first century.

Therefore, the end of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit was near in the first century.

 

Now, Richard agrees with the major premise. The minor premise is indisputable. Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable.

 

I demonstrated that in Daniel 9:24, the term “seal up vision and prophecy” means: “Prophecies and prophets are sealed, when by the full realization of all prophecies prophecy ceases, no more prophets any more appear.” My friend rejoined by pointing out that the writers of these statements were all futurists, not preterists. But this in no way mitigates my argument!

1.) Richard did not disagree with the definition of “seal up vision and prophecy.” This is critical.

2.) The fact that the men who defined the term were inconsistent in their concepts about when all prophecy would be fulfilled does not, in any way, falsify the definition.

3.) I proved beyond any doubt that Daniel 9 terminates in AD 70. All that Richard did was to reiterate the dispensational view, without exegetically proving it.

 

Let me remind the reader that Richard has stated that there are no inspired prophets around today. (Let me quickly insert the fact that Zechariah 13:1-2 posits the time when the prophets would cease to function as the time when two thirds of the people would be destroyed, at the coming of the Lord against Jerusalem, Zechariah 13:8f– 14:1-5. This would likewise be when they would look on him whom they had pierced and mourn Zechariah 12:10– which Jesus said would occur in his generation, Matthew 24:30-34).

I asked him
why this does not mean that “vision and prophecy” have been fulfilled and the prophetic office has ceased? He gave no answer.

The prophetic office would cease when vision and prophecy was fulfilled and Mr. Jackson says we no longer have inspired, infallible prophets operative in the church today. The inexorable conclusion is that the charismata have ended. More on this below.

 

Based on this and much more, I argued:

The establishment of the kingdom, the fulfillment of all prophecy and the end of the charismata, all lie at the end of the seventieth week. (Jackson agrees).

 

But, John the Immerser and Jesus affirmed that the establishment of the kingdom (and by implication the fulfillment of all prophecy and the end of the charismata) had drawn near when they spoke.

 

Therefore, the end of the seventieth week (and by implication the fulfillment of all prophecy and the end of the charismata) was near when John and Jesus spoke in Matthew 3 and Mark 1 / 4.

 

My friend was totally silent about this argument! Not a word! This is revealing to say the least.

 

What Richard did do, as a generic rejoinder, was– as I predicted– to appeal to the standard dispensational claim that there is a gap in Daniel 9 between the sixty ninth and seventieth week. (See my extensive refutation of the Gap Theory in my Seal Up Vision and Prophecy book). If there was not to be a 2000 year gap between the sixty ninth and seventieth week, then clearly that view is falsified, and the charismata have ceased.

 

Anticipating Richard’s argument, I offered the following material that Richard completely ignored. This argument is fatal to his “gap theory.”

 

Seventy weeks were determined to make the Atonement and put away sin. (That is, the making of the Atonement and the putting away of sin belongs to the seventieth week). This is irrefutable. But Richard ignored it.

 

The death of Messiah to make the Atonement and to put away sin would be after the sixty ninth week (Daniel 9:26). This is indisputable. But Richard ignored it.

 

Therefore, the death of Messiah to make the Atonement and to put away sin was in the seventieth week. This is undeniable. Richard ignored it.

 

So, the death of Jesus, to make the Atonement, was part of the seventy week countdown and integral to it. This totally nullifies the idea of a 2000 year gap between the sixty ninth and the seventieth week, and, it likewise demands that the cessation of the charismata was not delayed for 2000 years!

 

Now notice that just like the death of Messiah was after the sixty ninth week, but, belongs to the seventy weeks, the destruction of Jerusalem likewise belongs to the seventy weeks: “Seventy weeks are determined… on your city” (Daniel 9:24). Notice the coordinating conjunction that speaks of the death of Messiah and the fall of the city in v. 26. “Messiah will be cut off, but not for himself and the people of the prince that shall come will destroy the city.” Richard ignored this.

 

Both the death of Messiah to make the Atonement and the destruction of the city lie within the seventy weeks! It is little wonder that Richard chose to ignore this argument. But, let the reader focus on how critical this argument truly is. Will Richard ignore this again?

 

Since the gap concept is so fundamentally important to Richard’s theology, he should tell us, very plainly, if this supposed gap of so far 2000 years, is actually in the text of Daniel 9:24-27. And if it is in the actual text, which verse is it in? The argument concerning Jesus’ death to make the Atonement, which belongs to the seventy weeks, patently refutes any such idea. But, we will await Richard’s evidence. In the meantime, let me offer this:

 

If there is a gap, in the text of Daniel 9, then if Jesus knew about that predetermined gap– and who would argue that he would not know?– then Jesus was patently wrong to say “the kingdom of heaven has drawn near” (Matthew 4:17). He knew the kingdom could not be near, for he knew that Daniel included a gap of so far 2000 years! The fact that Jesus said that the kingdom was near proves definitively that there is no gap in the text of Daniel 9.

 

If there is no gap

in Daniel 9:24-27, and the kingdom is posited at the end of the seventy weeks, then Jesus and John were right to say the kingdom was near. The end of the 70th week was at hand!

 

If there is no gap,

and Jesus and John were right, but, God postponed the kingdom, then Daniel’s prophecy failed because the seventy weeks has no gap in it. The claim that God postponed the kingdom– thus creating a gap where there was none in Daniel– means that Daniel’s original prophecy, which contained no gap, failed!!

 

So, my argument stands:

The charismata would end at the completion of the seventy weeks.

The end of the seventy weeks was near in the first century.

Therefore, the end of the charismata was near in the first century.

 

Let me build on all of this to offer another affirmative argument:

Daniel 9 and the prediction of the seventy weeks is a prediction of the resurrection, being a prediction of the making of the Atonement and the putting away of Israel’s sin, which occur at Christ’s second coming (Hebrews 9:28; Romans 11:26-27).

The second coming (and the resurrection) is the time of the cessation of the charismata.

Daniel 12 is a prediction of the resurrection (and thus the second coming).

But, Daniel 12 said the resurrection (thus the second coming) would occur when the power of the holy people was completely shattered (i.e. in AD 70).

Therefore, the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 were consummated– and the charismata ended, when the power of the holy people was completely shattered (i.e. in AD 70).

 

This proves there was no gap in Daniel 9, and is prima facie proof of the cessation of the charismata in AD 70.

 

Re: Daniel 12

Let me say as kindly as possible that friend Jackson has, inadvertently of course, completely surrendered his position.

 

I made the following argument, syllogistically, from Daniel 12:

The function of the charismata was to end at the end of the age (Richard Jackson agrees).

 

Daniel 12 predicted that the end of the age would be when Israel’s power was completely shattered (Daniel 12:7).

 

Israel’s power– her covenantal standing with YHVH– was totally destroyed in AD 70. (I stated that Mr. Jackson does not believe that Israel will be completely shattered at the end of the Christian age. Richard did not challenge this.)

 

Therefore, the function of the charismata ceased in AD 70.

 

Now, let the reader catch the power of Mr. Jackson’s admission. He admits that Israel’s age ended and Israel’s power was completely shattered in AD 70! He said:

“I understand that Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D.70 put a catastrophic end to what may be referred to as the Jewish Age…well put by Don when he says this historical event broke “…Israel’s power(and) her covenant relationship with God”(DP). But this spiritual coming of Christ in judgment upon Jerusalem, the temple, & the people can only be looked upon as a precursor, prophecy, & type of the judgment at the end of the ‘final age’ described by God’s prophets & apostles.”

 

Richard’s admission means one thing:

Only one age was to end, and the charismata would terminate at the end of that age.

AD 70 was the end of the age, the end of the only age that was to end.

Therefore, the charismata ended in AD 70.

 

I have proven irrefutably that the Christian age has no end. It is not enough for friend Jackson to simply claim that AD 70 was a type of the end of the final age! The final age has no end!

 

Notice that Daniel foretold the Great Tribulation.

He foretold the resurrection at the time of the end.

He foretold the time of the end.

All these things would be fulfilled, “When the power of the holy people is completely shattered” (Daniel 12:7)

Richard Jackson says, yes, AD 70 was the shattering of the power of the holy people at the time of the end! It was the end of the age. But, he claims that AD 70 was typological of the real end of the age.

 

Mr. Jackson’s admission demands that the resurrection to everlasting life occurred in AD 70! Daniel was told that “ALL” of the things foretold would be fulfilled “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.”

 

The argument is very simple:

The resurrection–when the charismata were to end– would be at the end of the age when the power of the holy people is completely shattered (Daniel 12:2-7).

But, the power of the holy people was completely shattered in AD 70 (Richard Jackson).

Therefore, the resurrection at the end of the age–when the charismata were to end– was in AD 70.

 

Notice now an affirmative argument based on these indisputable facts:

 

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would occur at the end of the age– the time of the end of the charismata. Richard Jackson will agree with this.

The resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 is the resurrection of Daniel 12.

But, the resurrection of Daniel 12 would be at the end of the age when the power of the holy people is completely shattered, i.e. AD 70.

Therefore, the charismata ended in AD 70.

 

For this argument to stand, I must prove that Daniel 12 and 1 Corinthians 15 are the same resurrection. So….

 

Daniel 12 is an OT prophecy made to and about Israel. Paul said that he preached nothing but the hope of Israel found in the OT prophets (Acts 24:14f; 26:6f; 26:21f). In fact, in Paul’s longest discussion of the resurrection, he emphatically says it would be in fulfillment of the OT promises to Israel (1 Corinthians 15:54-56).

Daniel foretold the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15 predicted the resurrection.

Daniel predicted the kingdom (12:3), just as Paul anticipated the entrance into the kingdom (15:50-51).

Daniel prophesied the resurrection to eternal life and Paul predicted the resurrection to eternal life.

Daniel was told that the resurrection would be at the time of the end. Paul said the resurrection would be at the time of the end (15:24).

Daniel’s prophecy would be fulfilled, “when the power of the holy people is completely shattered.” (Remember that friend Richard has admitted that Israel’s power was her covenant relationship with God and that ended in AD 70! He even said: “well put by Don when he says this historical event broke ‘Israel’s power (and) her covenant relationship with God’”). In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul was looking for the end of Torah–”the power of the holy people.” He said the resurrection would be when “the law that is the strength of sin” would be removed (1 Corinthians 15:56). “The law,” that is “the strength of sin” was Torah. See Romans 7; 2 Corinthians 3.

 

There is a point by point perfect parallel between Daniel and 1 Corinthians 15. Paul was anticipating the fulfillment of Daniel, not something beyond and different from what Daniel foretold! The fulfillment of Daniel 12– per Richard’s own admission– was in Paul’s imminent future. And Paul was expecting fulfillment in his generation: “We shall not all sleep!” (1 Corinthians 15:50-51).

 

Let me frame my argument like this:

Paul was anticipating the resurrection at the end of the age when the charismata would cease (Richard Jackson will agree with this).

But, Paul was anticipating the resurrection at the end of the age foretold by Daniel 12.

The resurrection at the end of the age foretold by Daniel was fulfilled in AD 70, at the end of the Old Covenant age of Israel.

Therefore, the resurrection at the end of the age, when the charismata ceased to operate, was in AD 70, at the end of the Old Covenant age of Israel.

 

The only way for Richard to counter this argument is to prove beyond any doubt that Paul was anticipating something radically different in time and nature from what Daniel foretold. I am going to ask that friend Richard give careful, exegetical attention to this argument, and not simply brush it aside with unfounded, presuppositional claims.

 

Richard insists that AD 70 was typological of the end of the Christian age. We ask:

What holy people, and their power, will be completely shattered at the end of the Christian age? Since it was Israel’s power– her covenantal relationship with YHVH– that was completely shattered in AD 70, it cannot be Israel’s power that is completely shattered at the end of the Christian age. Will the power of the church be completely shattered? No, the church can never be destroyed, as we have proven beyond dispute. And see Daniel 7:13-14.

 

You cannot affirm that AD 70 was typological of a yet future event, without that future event being the reflection of the type. So, AD 70 was the end of the covenant relationship, the end of the Old Covenant, the creation of a “New People” with a New Name (cf. Isaiah 65:13-19).

 

Will Richard affirm that at the end of the Christian age that a New People, with a New Name and a (another!) New Covenant is created?

 

The power of the church is the New Covenant of grace sanctified by the blood of Christ, is it not? If then AD 70 foreshadowed what will happen at the end of the Christian age, and AD 70 was the destruction of the Old Covenant relationship with God, then Mr
. Jackson’s argument logically demands that the church’s New Covenant relationship with Christ will be shattered! What an awful, horrifying and un-Biblical thought! Christ said his words– his New Covenant of grace– will never pass away!

Let me add now to my first affirmative about the fulfillment of all prophecy.

I documented that scholars of all stripes agree that “seal up vision and prophecy” refers to the comprehensive fulfillment of all prophecy.

 

Let me offer this:

The fulfillment of all prophecy–including the cessation of the charismata– occurs at the time of the resurrection at the end of the age.

The resurrection at the end of the age would occur at the time when the power of the holy people is completely shattered (AD 70).

Thus, all prophecy was fulfilled–including the cessation of the charismata in AD 70.

Jesus’ words “these be the days of vengeance when all things that are written must be fulfilled” are therefore proven to be comprehensive and the charismata ceased in AD 70.

 

Consider also:

Daniel 9 foretold the fulfillment of all prophecy confined to the seventy weeks– and we have shown there can be no 2000 year gap in the countdown.

Daniel 12 foretold the time of the resurrection– the time of Israel’s salvation and judgment– and the end of the age at the time when the power of the holy people is completely shattered– AD 70 (Richard Jackson agreeing).

But again, the time of the resurrection at the end of the age, when all things would be fulfilled, is the time of the cessation of the charismata.

Since Daniel and Jesus agree as to the time of the fulfillment of all things, and the resurrection, it therefore follows inexorably that the charismata ended in AD 70.

 

Here is another affirmative argument:

Daniel 12 said the resurrection to eternal life in the kingdom– including the rewarding of the prophets (Daniel 12:2-13)– would be when the power of the holy people was completely shattered, i.e. AD 70.

The time of the judgment and rewarding of the dead– including the rewarding of the prophets– would be at the time of the full establishment of the kingdom (Revelation 11:15-18). And note that this happens at the time of the destruction of the city “where the Lord was slain” (Revelation 11:8)!

Therefore, the resurrection and the rewarding of the prophets–at the full establishment of the kingdom– would be when the power of the holy people was completely shattered, i.e. AD 70.

 

So, we have perfect correspondence between Daniel 12 and Revelation 11. Daniel unambiguously posits the resurrection, the kingdom and the rewarding of the prophets at the time of Israel’s destruction. Revelation 11 follows the identical pattern: destruction of Jerusalem, resurrection and the rewarding of the prophets. Revelation 11 clearly echoes Daniel 12. (See my Who Is This Babylon book for a discussion of the direct connection between Luke 21 and Revelation 11 as well).

 

If Richard denies the correspondence between Daniel 12 and Revelation 11 let him demonstrate his case with careful exegesis, textual and contextual proof, not simple denials. To prove that Daniel and Revelation 11 are different times and events, the burden of proof is squarely on him to show that there would be two different resurrections at two different times, two different times of the judgment of the dead, two different times of the establishment of the kingdom, two different times of the rewarding of the prophets. We will eagerly await his attempt to negate my evidence.

 

Notice now another argument based on Daniel 12 and Revelation 10-11:

 

“The angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised up his hand to heaven and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be delay no longer, but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, the mystery of God would be finished, as He declared to His servants the prophets.”

 

Virtually all scholars agree that Revelation 10 is a direct echo of Daniel 12. So, Daniel 12 and Revelation 10 predicted the same time and the same events. Let me make my argument based on this connection:

 

The charismata would cease to function when all prophecy would be fulfilled (the mystery foretold by the prophets, e.g. Daniel 12)– at the seventh trump (Revelation 10:5-7).

The sounding of the seventh trump is the time of the resurrection when the prophets would be rewarded (Revelation 11:15f).

The prophets would be rewarded at the time of the resurrection when the power of the holy people is completely shattered (Daniel 12:2-13– and Richard has admitted that Israel’s power was shattered in AD 70).

Therefore, the charismata ceased to function at the sounding of the seventh trump– when all prophecy was fulfilled and the prophets rewarded– when the power of the holy people was shattered– AD 70.

 

All of this proves that there is but one end of the age anticipated in scripture, the end of the Old Covenant age. And in turn, since the charismata were to end their active function in the church at the end of the age, this demands that the charismata terminated their active function in AD 70.

 

Let me present two more affirmative arguments.

 

Affirmative argument on Acts 3:19-24

:

Richard says the perfect–when the charismata would end– arrives at the coming of Christ foretold in Acts 3:19f. Let’s take a closer look at Acts 3.

 

Peter was anticipating the full arrival of “the restoration of all things foretold by the prophets.” (Note the perfect correspondence with Daniel 12 and Revelation 10-11 that we just examined!)

 

For brevity, let me express myself like this:

The charismata would cease to function with the arrival of “the restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21– Richard Jackson and Don K. Preston agree on this). Lets look a bit deeper, shall we?

The word translated as “restoration” is apokatastasis. According to all the lexicons, it means to put something back into its proper and right condition. (I will be more than happy to document this if Richard wants to question it).

 

Now watch:

In Hebrews 9:6f the writer speaks of the prophetic significance of the Old Testament cultus. Specifically, his focus is on the high priest and his service on the Day of Atonement, and the wider application of the liturgical system that stood in “foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances until the time of reformation.”(This is the Greek word diorthosis; 9:10. This word, just like apokatastasis, means to put back into the proper condition. See my lengthy discussion of apokatastasis and diorthosis in my just revised and enlarged Like Father Like Son, On Clouds of Glory book. www.bibleprophecy.com).

There are several things to be noted:

 

 

 

1.)

We must honor the author’s chronological perspective. He spoke of the OT system as, “symbolic for the present time” (v.9). The “present time” was his first century generation, not our present day. Otherwise, the Old Covenant cultus still stands as a type and shadow of, “the good things (about) to come” (Hebrews 10:1-4).

2.)

As long as the Old Covenant cultus had validity there could be no access to the Presence of God (v.8).

3.)

The Old Law would continue valid until what it foreshadowed became a reality at the time of the diorthosis. As long as the types and shadows were unfulfilled there was no access to the Father. Those Mosaic institutions were imposed until the time of the “reformation” (v.10). It would, therefore, be through the fulfillment of the typological significance that the old system would pass, and man would be brought into the Presence of the Father at the parousia (Hebrews 9:24-28).

4.)

Christ’s High Priestly actions would fulfill the Old Covenant types and shadows. Jesus sacrificed Himself and entered into the Most Holy to prepare it (v.23-24). He was to return, “for salvation” to those who “eagerly await Him” (v.28). Christ would appear (the parousia) to bring man into the Presence of God--where the Old Covenant could never bring him. Christ’s second coming, to bring man into the Presence of God, is the time of “the reformation” (the diorthosis) when what the OT could never accomplish was to be done! Notice the direct correlation with Acts 3.

 

Peter says Christ would come when all Old Covenant prophecies were fulfilled when what they foretold– the apokatastasis– was realized.

 

Hebrews says the OT was typological, (prophetic) intended to stand only until what it foretold- the diorthosis— was realized.

 

Peter anticipated the “restoration of all things.” Hebrews anticipated the “time of reformation.”

 

Consider carefully the following thoughts:

The Greek words apokatastasis (restoration, Acts 3:21) and diorthosis (reformation, Hebrews 9:10) are synonymous terms referring to the same time and same event. (The LXX used these words synonymously to speak of the restoration of Israel under the Messiah).

 

Jesus’ Second Coming was to occur at the time of the apokatastasis (Acts 3:21). This is the time of the cessation of the charismata, per my friend Richard.

 

In Hebrews, Jesus’ Second Coming was to occur at the time of the diorthosis (reformation, Hebrews 9:10), when man would be brought into the Presence of God (Hebrews 9:28).

 

Thus, Jesus was to come at the time of restoration/reformation, (Acts 3; Hebrews 9:10). This is the time of the cessation of the charismata.

 

But the time of reformation (diorthosis) was the end of the Old Covenant age (Hebrews 9:10). The Mosaic Law would stand valid until the diorthosis!

 

Therefore, Jesus’ parousia– and the cessation of the charismata– occurred at the end of Old Covenant age– which Richard has already admitted was in AD 70!

 

To counter this argument, Richard must exegetically or lexically demonstrate beyond any doubt, that apokatastasis and diorthosis cannot be used synonymously. He cannot do this.

 

Let me now present a final affirmative for this presentation:

 

Paul preached nothing but the hope of Israel. He affirms this repeatedly (Acts 24:14f; 26:6f; 26:21f; 28:20). He did not preach promises to the church different from the promises made to Israel! This is crucial to understand, since in Richard’s view, the promises to the church and the promises to Israel are totally separate. Paul’s emphatic statements about the source and content of his gospel message falsifies this, however.

 

Paul preached the arrival of “that which is perfect” the time of the cessation of the charismata (1 Corinthians 13:8-13), as Richard and I both agree.

 

“That which is perfect” is the “face to face” state.

 

Thus, the arrival of “that which is perfect” the “face to face” state was the hope of Israel.

 

The face to face state promised to Israel is found in Isaiah 52:1-10– (“for they shall see eye to eye,” v. 8), when Israel would be restored under Messiah in the New Jerusalem, and “all nations shall see the salvation of our God” (52:10). I could say much about this, but space forbids. I will focus here on one specific aspect of the fulfillment of the OT promises made to Israel.

 

Jesus said, “Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law until it is all fulfilled!” (Matthew 5:17-18). The Law that Jesus was discussing is the Old Law discussed in Acts 3 and Hebrews 9! This is inclusive of the promise of the “face to face.”

 

Let me express this succinctly:

Not one iota of the Old Testament could pass until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).

The promise of “the face to face” state (“the eye to eye” state) when the charismata would cease to function, was a part of the Old Testament.

Therefore, not one iota of the Old Testament would pass until the arrival of the “face to face” state– at the time of the cessation of the charismata.

 

What this undeniably demands is that if the charismata still actively function today, the entirety of the Old Law–(inclusive of the animal sacrifices, that you will remember from Hebrews 9, would remain valid until the fulfillment of everything they typologically foretold)– remains valid and binding today!

 

Richard, is the Old Law still valid and binding today–ANY OF IT? Yes or No?

If not, the charismata have ceased to actively function.

If Yes, then we have no access to the Father– per Hebrews 9.

 

To counter this argument, Richard must prove:

That the face to face state of 1 Corinthians 13 is not part of the hope of Israel.

That the face to face state of 1 Corinthians 13 is not the eye to eye state of Isaiah 52.

That part of the Old Law could in fact pass, while some of it remains valid.

 

Richard cannot prove any of this.

 

I have responded to every major objection that Richard raised. I have offered additional affirmative argumentation, even taking passages that Richard offered
as refutation, and demonstrated that they actually prove my proposition and falsify his.

 

Thus, my affirmative stands.

I will very eagerly await Richard’s response. But remember, it will not be enough for Richard to throw out simple assertions. We need exegetical proof. We need solid hermeneutics. So far, my friend has given us none of this.

SUBJECT: THE TIME OF THE CESSATION OF THE CHARISMATA

(THE MIRACULOUS GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT)?

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE BY DON K. PRESTON


Warning: include(/index.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/biblepro/public_html/wp-content/plugins/social-share-button/includes/class-shortcodes.php on line 41

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/index.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/local/php73/pear') in /home/biblepro/public_html/wp-content/plugins/social-share-button/includes/class-shortcodes.php on line 41