|
This is not an official Response to the supposed "debate" between
Simmons and me. I stopped that. But, I will not stop writing about
what has come about recently. I want to make some points that
should clarify the issues involved even further.
1. Simmons first claimed that it was the
corporate body view that "necessarily leads" to Universalism. He
wrote, "This debate is to decide whether Max King's "covenant
eschatology," including his "corporate body view" of the
resurrection, necessarily lead to Universalism. By "necessary" we
mean only that Universalism is a logical consequence of
King's views." Now, he wrote to Larry Siegle, "The corporate aspect
of King's system is not the central issue. It is his
spiritualization of the resurrection and his premise that the law
had to be removed for man to be redeemed that is the source of so
much error." This was written afterthe first statement was.
I originally set out to show that the corporate view, in and of
itself, does not lead to Universalism. Simmons has now offended all
Reformed Preterists in that he denies that Adam ever was a Federal
Head of the human race, and that there was no corporate
dimension in Paul's argument in Romans5. He has brought into
the picture the "age of accountability", "freewill" and other
aspects that would be entirely at odds with Reformed theology. In
Simmons' view, Jesus didn't die for anyone. He merely makes it
possiblefor anyone to be saved if and only if they exercise
their "freewill." Clearly, this issue is notabout Max King
and Kurt Simmons. The reason why so many Reformed Preterists have
borrowed from King is that a "corporate" theology was already at
work within Reformed theology.
2. The above statement also reflects
another belief of Simmons. The resurrection is not spiritual. It
is when you physically die. Therefore, no one is entirely "saved"
until then. This has been a long time issue within Preterist
theology. It is something that must be considered when pondering
Simmons' overall view.
3. Simmons continues to "dodge" the points raised in my
second article. He stated that "not one" translation agreed with
me.
We produced two. His response is telling:
"Your [Jason Bradfield] charges are frivolous and unworthy the
dignity of response. You act as if because one or two
translations can be found out of the thousands and thousands
made over the centuries that Sam's whole position is wondrously
validated. Let there be a hundred translations produced! They
would still be a tiny minority and still have no bearing upon
the question at hand. The issue here is not Sam's idea and the
translation it causes him to produce is valid, but whether
King's covenant eschatology leads to Universalism. The whole
question of translation nothing to say about the issue in debate
at all."
Let's see. "Not one" and now, "Let there be a
hundred." Simmons' logic here is again deplorable. Anyone ever
hear of arguing from the majority? Remember those anti-Preterist
arguments that said, "over the last two thousand years no one has
ever believed that Jesus returned in A.D 70?" Remember your
response? Argumentum ad populum! But, here, Simmons uses
this argument. And here I thought flip flops were shoes we wore in
Florida.
4. Simmons quotes from no Greek source,
mind you. I can quote from every Greek grammar I have on the
subject. This is "Greek according to Simmons" and "Greek according
to known authorities quoted by Frost." That's the argument. But,
aside from this. Let's look at Romans 5 from a purely
translational perspective. Verse 15 has "the offence" in the KJV
and virtually every other translation. The Greek has the article,
too. In verse 16 "the judgment" is found. In Greek the article is
found. In fact, to save space, go through your NIV, ESV, RSV or KJV
and find how many times "the" occurs from 5.12-21. Question: "the"
occurs before "sin" and "death", too, so why is the article not
translated in front of those nouns, but is in front of the others?
Even more telling, when Paul wrote, "for if by the offence of
the one man..." Notice that the article here is clearly,
clearly addressing the single offence committed by the single
man, Adam. That's "the Sin" or "the offence" or "the
transgression." Simmons entirely misses the boat here and cannot
bring himself to admit it. Basically, Simmons argument is based on
English translations that are supposed to tell us the correct
Greek! Since English translations leave out "the", then "the" is
not important in Greek. Talk about having the rabbit ahead of the
carrot!
5. Simmons' logic has been questioned and
here he fudges. There is a bit of trickery on his part, too.
First, the most amazing thing is that Simmons admits that his
"form" logically speaking is off. But, he says, his substance
is correct! Let me quote to you a definition of a valid
argument: "When an argument is valid, its premises are said to
entail its conclusions" (Wilfred Hodges, Logic, Penguin, p.
55). Simmons says that I am being "technical" here. He admits that
his "forms" are invalid. But that is the very definition of a
valid argument. If an argument is invalid, it is not an argument.
It is nothing.
He tries to salvage this by using trickery:
Syllogism No. 1
Major Premise: The power of sin and death over mankind
resided in the Mosaic law.
Minor Premise: The Mosaic law was done away for all men
for all time in A.D. 70. Therefore,
Conclusion: All men are freed from the power of sin and
death.
Sam says I add a subject in the conclusion that is not in the
premises. I believe he is mistaken in this. What does the
conclusion contain that is not in the premises? Only one word!
"Freed." "
This is not the syllogism of Simmons I used in my
example. I used this one:
Major Premise: The reign of sin and death over man (A)
was determined by the Mosaic law (B)
Minor Premise: The Mosaic law (B) was annulled at the
eschaton, losing all men of its power (A); therefore,
Conclusion: Men are universally reconciled (C) to God.
"Universally reconciled to God" is more than just
one word! It is an entire doctrine! A doctrine not contained
in the two premises at all. It is an implication but not a
necessary correlate of the premises. Simmons can cry about
this until he is blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is
that his argument is illogical by any standard and he
admits this but wants to get away with saying that the
substance is true! Can you imagine any student saying this to
his logic professor? Secondly, he used a different syllogism in
his response other than the one I used! Does this not tell you
that he is not paying attention to the true issues? He just rams
home his points and hopes no one will "technically" analyze them.
It's not so amazing that people do this, but that people listen
to it and say, "wow! Great argument, man! It's false and
invalid, but entirely right on the money!" Simmons wrote, "he has
faulted my ability to express King's position in perfect logic as
taught at the University level." And then, "If this [syllogism] is
not in proper "form" it is nonetheless of perfect "substance" and
represents the basis for King's Universalism." Therefore, Simmons
version of "perfect logic" as taught in the University allows for
invalid forms to make valid arguments! Mr. Simmons, Postmodernism
is calling...it wants its shirt back.
6. Aside from the Greek errors and the
Logic errors, both of which are devastating, Simmons makes an
exegetical blunder of such ramifications that I do not need to deal
with hardly anything else. It is the conclusion of what
is really and always the issue for me: the definition of "the
Death." King and myself define "the death" in pretty much the
same terms. One can decide for themselves if that is an accurate
definition. But, I wrote in my second paper that Simmons must
deal with Isaiah 25.8 and I listed 5 Exegetical
considerations, none of which he really dealt with on any level.
However, he does attempt to define "death." This
is where his view necessarily leads. After one reads this,
it should be clear that Simmons' alternative to my approach is to be
utterly abandoned. First off, if one cannot see the clear allusion
to which every commentary mentions between Revelation 21.4
and Isaiah 25.8, then one is blind. Simmons never
makes the comparison. Both verses, including the use of the phrase,
"the death" (in Hebrew and Greek), use the exact same words.
Therefore, what John pictured here is what Isaiah saw there.
Isaiah 25.8 is fulfilled in Revelation 21.4.
Simmons wrote, "Only Hadean death was destroyed
in A.D. 70. This is confirmed by the very context of the passage
(Rev. 20:11-15), which shows death and Hades cast into the lake of
fire together. Paul is to the same effect: "Then shall be brought to
pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is thy sting, O Hades, where is thy victory?"
(I Cor. 15:54, 55) It was Hadean death that was destroyed at the
eschaton, and none else. Anything else will produce
Universalism."
This is the very crux of the issue as he has
noted. He cannot have "the death" mean anything else except the
destruction of Hades. "The Death" is the same thing as "the
Hades." Based upon his own view, then, Isaiah 25.8 is
predicting the destruction of Hades. Let's read Isaiah
25.6-10:
On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make
for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine,
of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. 7 And he
will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over
all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. 8 He will
swallow up death forever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears
from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away
from all the earth, for the LORD has spoken. 9 It will be said
on that day, "Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him,
that he might save us. This is the LORD; we have waited for him;
let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation." (ESV)
Now, according to Simmons, this is only
swallowing up of Hades. Judicial death remains and the other three
deaths he has defined (he has five overall). However, one can see
from the context that this swallowing up of "the death" means
"His Salvation" has arrived. Therefore, "salvation" is the
"swallowing up" of Hades, in Simmons' view! But, everyone
("all peoples") are in Hades (Sheol, Hebrew). And "all peoples" are
set free from Sheol! Therefore, all peoples are saved because
the swallowing up of Hades means that His Salvation has come!
If it does not mean this, then Simmons himself must conclude that a
universal event does not mean universal salvation!
This is what I have argued!
Let me state this again. All peoples are in
Hades. Hades is swallowed up for "all peoples" so that "all
peoples" are released from Hades. The swallowing up of Hades is the
coming of "His Salvation." Conclusion: all peoples are saved. But,
we know that Simmons would not conclude this, nor would I. Notice
here that "Hades" is not even mentioned in Isaiah 25.8.
Notice that the connection between the swallowing up of "the death"
and the "removal of the reproach" of Israel is in view here.
Notice, too, that the swallowing up of the death and His Salvation
are simultaneous events.
Simmons has the Parousia occurring in A.D.
70 when the Death is swallowed up, yet wants no connection to the
annulment of the Law of Moses to this event, even though this event
was future to the cross. This was "His Salvation" coming
into its fullness for His People. Simmons has a mess
on his hands here. Israel is saved at the parousia of
her Messiah and Bridegroom to be. The rich banquet is set for all
peoples on Mount Zion, the New Jerusalem. The reproach of
the death is what is removed, and it is this same "the death"
identified in Paul as having come through the "one man" and the "one
transgression." Simmons states that Jesus did not remove Adam's
curse. "No amount of magic can do this" he wrote. Therefore, in
his view, we are all still under the Reproach, the Sin and the
Condemnation while alive here on earth. However, we have good news:
Hades is gone!
Folks, I am appealing to your senses here. How
can Simmons have Hades removed, but not "the reproach" and "the
veil"? By Hebrew parallelism (see any commentary here, for I am
afraid Simmons will accuse me of not knowing Hebrew, either), "the
covering", "the veil", "the death", and "the reproach" are all
speaking of the same thing. For Simmons, this is Hades! Let's use
some logic here: if the Hades contained "all men" and the Hades is
"the reproach", then the swallowing up of the Hades means the
swallowing up of "the reproach" for all peoples. And, since the
Hades, in Simmons view (and all Preterists agree here) is gone
for everyone (since no wicked person goes to Hades when he
dies), then the reproach is removed for all peoples! It's
ironic: Simmons equation of "death" as "hades" means the removal
of the reproach for all peoples since the Hades exists no more for
no man! Result: Simmons' exegesis leads to Universalism!
I am not done. Simmons wrote, "When Revelation
says there will be no more death, this should not be taken in
an absolute sense. This is clear from the fact that it also says
there will be no more sorrow, crying, or pain. Since these are
still a very real and permanent part of human existence this side of
eternity, it seems clear that the statement is intended to be
understood in a relative sense. " In Simmons' exegesis
Revelation 21.4 is not in reference to Isaiah
25.8! Folks, SEE THE CONFUSION HERE! Revelation 21.4
cannot, for Simmons, be Isaiah 25.8, because in the above
quote, Simmons quotes I Co 15.54 WHICH QUOTES ISAIAH
25.8!!!!! But, THERE, he says Paul is talking about the removal of
HADEAN DEATH. But, in Revelation 21.4 WHICH IS A DIRECT
ALLUSION TO ISAIAH 25.8, Simmons FLIP FLOPS AGAIN saying that "the
death" that is no more is NOT HADEAN DEATH!!!!! However, as the
context shows, "the death" that is thrown into the Lake of Fire is
the same "the death" that is no more AS A RESULT OF BEING CAST INTO
THE LAKE OF FIRE!!!! How boneheaded does one have to be not to see
the OBVIOUS run around we get here when we press the details of
Simmons' exegesis! What Simmons must do is this: Revelation
20.11-15 speaks of "the death" (Greek) as being thrown into the Lake
of Fire. For Simmons, this is ONLY hadean death. Just four verses
down, "the death" (Greek) is said to be "no more." But, THIS IS NOT
THE SAME "THE DEATH" MENTIONED JUST OVER 30 WORDS BEFORE IN THE
CONTEXT for Simmons!!!! This is a different "the death" than "the
death" thrown into the Lake of Fire!!!! Someone help me...I am
going mad!!!! (lol).
Conclusion: It should be quite apparent
now that Simmons' alternative leads to Universalism if in fact "the
death" is defined as merely "hades." We have PROVEN that this is
not the correct definition, and Simmons has a hard mountain to climb
to prove otherwise. Our exegesis, following many, many commentaries
and Greek and Hebrew grammars as described in the Grammars, is
sound. I am appealing to every reader to honestly look at what
Simmons is doing in order to "make his point." I do not dislike Mr.
Simmons. He's a brother. I abhor his methodology and exegesis.
It's poor. It clearly runs into massive problems. This last
example should show to any objective reader that Simmons has a
serious, serious exegetical problems. If a view cannot undergo
rigorous exegetical scrutiny, then it cannot pass the test as being
"the best in Preterism." |
