Written Debates

PRESTON- SIMMONS Written Debate: Second Negative by Kurt Simmons

<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } –>

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. Kurt Simmons and I have agreed that this debate– if / when published– would be published in its entirety, with no alterations of any kind whatsoever. We expect those who wish to publish it themselves to honor this. This is the only ethical thing to do.

Don K. Preston

 

PRESTON- SIMMONS WRITTEN DEBATE

 

Second Negative by Kurt Simmons

 

A Vindication of Christ’s Cross against the Errors of

Covenant Eschatology

 

I always smile when I recall the folksy saying the Texas preacher used after stepping on someone’s toes in a Sunday sermon: “Throw a rock at a bunch of dogs; the one that screams is the one that’s hit.” Apparently, Don has been hit because he sure is screaming! Accusations are flying! Don protests I am not keeping to the terms of the debate. He says my first negative has five pages of irrelevant material! Really? What could be more relevant to a debate about Covenant Eschatology than to provide the reader with facts about the origin of the doctrine and the man who authored it? What could be more relevant in a debate about Covenant Eschatology than to tell the reader that this doctrine has led its author into the false gospel of Universalism? What could be more relevant to a debate in which Don affirms that sin was not blotted out at Calvary than some explanatory material about how Covenant Eschatology denies the cross of Christ? In his first affirmative, Don said “this debate is not about the cross.” But as we have seen, that is EXACTLY what this debate is about! If Don asserts the debate is not about the cross, am I not entitled to show the reader that in fact it is? Of course I am!

 

Don complains I have not answered his arguments about Isaiah 26, 27, and 59. Really? Did I sign a proposition to negative Don’s arguments? No! I signed a debate to negative Don’s proposition! I am under NO obligation to answer even one of Don’s arguments. If I can negative Don’s proposition by marshalling dozens of verses showing the debt of sin was paid at the cross, if I can negative Don’s proposition by marshalling dozens of verses showing the law was fulfilled and abolished at the cross, is there any reason I should withhold these verses? Of course not! And if I can negative Don’s proposition by simply producing verses (and pointing out that he can marshal none) is there any reason I should waste time discussing Isaiah 25-27? Of course not. Even so, in this article, we will deal with many of Don’s arguments. We will show there is not one particle of credibility to his argument that Isaiah 27:7-11 is about AD 70. We also address his arguments based upon his misrepresentations of what I have said. Four times in his last affirmative he misrepresents me. He sets up “straw-man” arguments by putting words in my mouth then proceeds to tear them down. We will address these and other arguments of Don in their proper time and place. But first, let us make certain the reader understands exactly what this debate is about. The TWO most basic and important issues in this discussion are:

 

  • When did the legal validity of the Old Testament cease? and

  • When did the legal efficacy of Christ’s blood justify the saints? AD 33 at Calvary, or AD 70 at the fall of Jerusalem?

 

Dear reader, this is what this debate is about! Not the proper exegesis of Isaiah 25-27! Issues of Isaiah 27:7-11 are a distraction at best. They enter at all only because Don proposed the debate be framed around Rom. 11:25-27, and I accepted lest there be no debate at all. Even so, we have signed the proposition and are willing to discuss all matters connected with Rom. 11:25-27, but issues of Isaiah are collateral at best compared with questions about the efficacy of Christ’s cross. My charge is that Covenant Eschatology denies the cross of Christ! I have shown that when you spiritualize (“figurize”) the resurrection and make it equal to justification, that when you argue justification occurred in AD 70 by removal of the law rather than the addition of grace, you OVERTHROW the cross of Christ. When you say that the saints languished under the debt of sin until the second coming, YOU OVERTHROW THE CROSS OF CHRIST! I said in my first negative,

 

If the cross did not triumph over the law at Calvary, if man had to wait until the law was purportedly removed in AD 70 to be justified from sin, then nothing happened at the cross.

 

Don claimed in his last affirmative that my argument was illogical, that my logic here is bad. Alright then, Don, tell us what happened at the cross! You deny that atonement was made there, that redemption happened there, that reconciliation happened there. You deny that salvation happened there, that the debt of sin was then and there blotted out. Tell us, please, what did happen at the cross? I said I could not find the cross in your system of soteriology/eschatology. I charged that the cross had dropped out of your theology of salvation. I charged that in a system which claims the law continued to hold man under the debt of sin until it was separately removed in AD 70, the cross cannot rationally be said to have triumphed over any thing. I invited you to explain to us where the cross fits in and what happened at Calvary, but you absolutely have not told us. So, I renew the invitation; tell us what did happen at the cross?

 

Don Gives Away the Debate

 

We asked Don two questions at the end of our first negative. Since the cross has come up,
we might as well address this now, before moving on to Don’s argument about Isaiah. Here are the questions: 1) Did the cross cancel the debt of sin under the law? 2) Does the cross (grace) triumph over law, or did law have to be removed for man to be justified? I found Don’s answer to the second question particularly interesting: Here, in pertinent part, is what Don said: “Response: The cross did triumph over law.”

Don affirms that the cross triumphed over the law! Good, that is the correct answer. But if the cross triumphed over the law, how could the law continue to hold the saints under bondage until AD 70? Fair question, right? If the Persians triumphed over the Babylonians, would Babylon still have power over the nations of its former empire? No, of course not, Persia would! If the Greeks triumphed over the Persians, would the Persians still have power over the nations of its former empire? No, of course not, the Greeks would! Yet, Don says the cross triumphed over the law, but the law still had power to keep the saints under condemnation until AD 70! Don, please explain to us how the cross can triumph over the law and not triumph over the law at the same time!

*********

The remainder of this presentation, and the entirety of the debate, is now available in book form  from Don K. Preston.

Price of the book is $19.95 + $4.50 postage.
You can ordering a copy of the book by sending the funds to Don K. Preston, via PayPal. Be sure to include a note that you are ordering the Preston – Simmons Debate.
 

You can also send payment via check to Don K. Preseton, 1405 4th Ave. N. W. #109, Ardmore, Ok. 73401. Again, be sure to include a note that you are ordering the Preston – Simmons Debate.

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *