Preterism:  A ‘Partial’ Response
By Joseph R. Balyeat

A ‘Full Preterist’ Response
By Edward E. Stevens

4. Ed uses a similar approach regarding my question about the two resurrections. He writes, "Many throughout church history have assumed that a physical body is the subject of all NT resurrection texts." He then provides a great wealth of information about the fact that the nature of a resurrection could be spiritual rather than physical. But I never said that "all resurrections are physical." In fact, I agree completely with Stevens (and with Augustine) that the first resurrection mentioned in Revelation 20 is spiritual, not physical. But this leads to the very crux of my question, which brother Stevens failed to even address: There are two resurrections discussed in both Revelation 20 and John 5. What distinguishes one from the other? Why did Jesus and John mention two different resurrections? I fully agree that one resurrection seems to be a spiritual resurrection. But if one is spiritual, don’t the comments of Jesus and John imply that the second resurrection is physical? While I’m sure brother Ed must have some rationalization for this dilemma, it still seems to me that the most natural interpretation of these passages depicts a spiritual first resurrection (when we are born again) and a yet future bodily resurrection at the Last Day. Examine the pertinent passages in Revelation:

They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy be those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years. When the thousand years are over Satan will be released... gather the ungodly... be defeated... cast into the lake of fire... The sea gave up the dead that were in it and death and hades gave up the dead that were in them and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. ...The unbelieving... the idolaters and all liars – their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death. (Rev. 20:4 14; 21:8).

5. There are apparently two resurrections for the righteous and two deaths for the wicked; both of which are separated by a very long period of time. If the first of these resurrections is spiritual, isn’t the second physical? If the first death of the wicked is physical, isn’t the second death spiritual? How could these events which are to take place over "a thousand year" time span, all be fulfilled in 70 AD or shortly thereafter?

A time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live [the first resurrection, a spiritual one, was already occurring]... Do not be amazed at this for a time is coming [not yet come] when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out – those who have done good will rise to live and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. [Later a yet future resurrection, which appears to be physical, would also occur]... And this is the will of him who sent me that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day... For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. [Not just the first century saints, but "all" and "everyone"]... No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 5:25, 28, 29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54). [Whoever – all, everyone – who believes in Christ will be raised up on the last day. Brother Ed, without resorting to super-symbolism, explain to me how we believers today were "raised up at the Last Day" if the Last Day occurred in 70 AD?]

5. Joe simply asserts the second has to be physical, but offer no compelling reason why. I can just as easily assert that it is spiritual, especially since both parts of a harvest are normally of the same nature. Why does he feel compelled to have one of the resurrections spiritual and the other physical? What demands it? Why can’t both be related to the physically dead in Hades as well as the physically alive?

He obviously missed what I said about Russell’s explanation of the millennium and the flashback as well as the idea of two generations down to Bar Kochba being "a long time," in my original explanation of the millennium (July-Sept 1992 issue of KC, pp. 16-18). I will not repeat that lengthy discussion here, but it is the answer to his question as to "how" all this could have been fulfilled "in 70 AD or shortly thereafter." If he can’t swallow that, no problem. It was offered as only one possibility. Even his own solution has a flashback to 70 AD events inserted at the beginning of Rev. 21, just like Ken Gentry does in his latest book, He Shall Have Dominion. Max King’s view of the millennium (from 30-70 AD) necessitates a flashback to be inserted at the beginning of the millennium section (beg. of Rev. 20). While his view may seem to be a problem to Joe in terms of the short period of time in which the millennium is fulfilled, I believe the term "millennium" can legitimately be interpreted as a generation of time like Max King does. Second Peter Three seems to use the term "thousand years" in reference to the generation from 30-70 AD. If Peter could use it that way, I don’t see why it isn’t legitimate for Apostle John (in Rev. 20) and preterists today to do the same. I checked with both Max King and Don Preston, and they felt comfortable with this application of 2 Pet. 3:8 to Rev. 20. The forty year period from 30 to 70 AD probably seemed like a thousand years to those saints having to endure the humiliation of the tribulation. It is no wonder they cried, "How Long?" It definitely seemed like "a long time" to them. See Jesus’s parables where he speaks of a man’s lifetime, one generation, as a "long time" (Mt. 25:19; Lk. 12:45; 20:9). I definitely have to defend Max's position here. He could be right. I don’t see any fatal weaknesses in it. There is a lot to recommend it. It certainly needs to be more carefully looked at, just like the Bar Kochba theory does. See my further discussion about it at point #40.

In Joe’s paraphrase and quote of John 5:25, 28, 29; 6:39, 44, 54, he inserted his own assumptions into the text! He must prove them first. He can’t build a convincing case on mere assertions. I can simply assert the opposite. He hasn’t proven that this resurrection includes all who will ever live or just all who had lived to that point.

Who was Jesus speaking to (or speaking about)? Who was Jesus sent to (the house of Israel – Matt. 10:6; 15:24). If Joe wants to make an application to us today, fine, but the fulfillment belongs to Israel in the first century. Again, I have to recommend Wanda Shirk’s and Max King’s excellent material on the resurrection. They show that it is the "dead" (in Hades) who needed resurrection, while those who are living in Christ have already "passed out of death into life." Another idea that suggests the two resurrections are of the same nature is the fact that in Rev. 20 the second resurrection is said to be of "the rest of the dead." So if the first resurrection was spiritual, why weren't the rest of the dead raised the same way?

Joe asked me to explain how believers today derive any benefit from the "Last Day" resurrection at 70 AD? We enjoy the benefits of going directly into His presence because of that resurrection. Col. 3:1-4 shows what the saints in the transition period only had a taste of, but which we now have the fullness of. Paradise has been restored. God walks and talks with us again. We have direct access to the Tree of Life (Christ) again. We have access to the Water of Life. Eternal Life is ours because Death has been destroyed by Christ who is "the Resurrection and the Life."

6. Major difficulty in Joe’s reasoning here at Luke 17:22. The phrase "days of the Son of Man" in verse 22 is not referring back to "the good old days when Christ was physically with them." Rather, it is talking about "one of the [good new] days" in the future after "the Son of Man" had conquered their persecutors and returned (at 70 AD) with the kingdom blessings. Joe’s position makes "the days of the Son of Man" in verse 22 a different period than the "day(s) of the Son of Man" in verses 24, 26 and 30. Talk about "gerrymandering" a text! Joe admits in the next point that the (sing.) "day" of the Son of Man in verses 24 and 30 refer to 70 AD. So, it seems obvious that "days (pl.) of the Son of Man" in verse 22 refers to 70 AD as well, since the "days (pl.) of the Son of Man" in verse 26 are connected with the "day" (sing.) of verse 30 which he says is 70 AD.

Joe is right on verses 27-29. I should not have listed them since they deal with Noah and Lot’s days. But they are further evidence of the fact that day (sing.) and days (pl.) can both have reference to the same period of time, since both Noah’s day(s) and Lot’s day(s) are referred to in the singular and plural (Luke 17:26-29). The verses in Luke 17 which deal specifically with the day(s) of the Son of Man are 22, 24, 26, 30, 31. And, for further interesting ideas, note that verse 34 says "on that night." During the days (pl.) of the Son of Man there will be a "day" (sing.) and a "night" (sing.).

It sounds like Joe missed my point in this whole "day" vs. "days" discussion. My intention was simply to show that "day" and "days" can be used of the same period, and that automatically supposing they are two different times or events is not justified. He admits in his next point that his use of this argument was an oversimplification. There will have to be better evidence than this to justify splitting "last days" and "last day" into two different widely separated events. And that was my whole point, simply to show that Joe’s distinction on the use of the word "day" was contrived.

9. Isaiah does not teach two different returns of Christ on two different nations in two different "last days" periods. He spoke of only one coming with two phases (suffering and glory), all of which would occur in one generation to one nation of people (the Jews). The idea of two different comings of the Messiah separated by thousands of years is foreign to Isaiah. The quotes from Jewish critics show that plainly. And J. N. D. Kelly advocates this was the original authentic concept of the coming in the primitive church (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 459-461). Joe’s argument is with them. Did God have two different judgment comings on Assyria? How many end-times would Israel have? Isaiah and the other OT prophets clearly distinguish between the nations upon whom these "comings" come.

The NT writers (esp. Paul in 1 & 2 Thessalonians) do not distinguish between two different judgment comings on two different nations. They deal with the same coming on the same nation. Otherwise they would need to give their first century readers a clue of some kind to let them know a different coming is under consideration. In our discussions by phone, Joe said he believed 2 Thess. 2 was fulfilled in 70 AD and that 1 Thess. 4:13-18 is still future (even though both books use the Gr. word parousia and both have numerous 70 AD "time indicators" in them)? We are not talking about just a few insignificant cases of somewhat similar language in these two books. We are talking about the same identical Greek words and phrases in both books without a hint that Paul has changed subjects between books. Compare 1 Thess. 1:10 with 2 Thess. 1:7-10; and 1 Thess. 4:17; 5:23 with 2 Thess. 2:1. I don't think the Thessalonians would see two different events.

11. Again, Joe’s argument is with the "original" "authentic" view and those who suggested it, not me. He admits that the "long time" here was no longer in duration than the lifetime of the master in this parable (one generation). So, it doesn’t mean hundreds or thousands of years. Having two advents (parousia’s) would make the master in this parable have two different lifetimes separated by thousands of years. But it was to be only one lifetime/generation (advent) of the master. He made two appearances at His vineyard during His one and only lifetime/ownership of that vineyard. Joe’s argument is with the original idea of a single advent.

The NT is different because it doesn’t mention two or more different nations as subjects for separate comings of Christ, nor separate eschatons (or last days); and it deals with the "final" coming to consummate redemption. Would Joe be willing to affirm that the NT teaches two different eschatons, two different "last days" and two different schemes of redemption to be consummated separately and independently of each other thousands of years apart? That’s the net effect of his idea of two different comings (parousias) of the Son of Man separated by thousands of years. It needs to be remembered that the idea of two different parousias was not taught in the early church until after the middle of the second century. The primitive (apostolic and sub-apostolic) church before the middle of the second century viewed Christ’s coming in the flesh to suffer and His re-appearance from heaven to be merely two aspects or phases of a single eschaton/advent. And they believed it was imminent. Joe’s quibble is with them. I am simply stating historical facts.

13. I repeat my previous observation - why is it that those passages which include "near at hand" time indicators are easily and naturally applied to 70 AD, while passages which do not include such time indicators (i.e. 1 Thess. 4:13-18, John 5:28-9; John 6; and 1 Cor. 15:24-28) can only be applied to 70 AD under the most strained, super-symbolic interpretation?

13. Show me how it is strained. Just because Joe has difficulty understanding it doesn’t mean it isn’t correct. His mere assertions that it is "strained" does not cut it. All I have to do to refute it is to assert, "they aren’t strained." We’re not talking about just "similar language" here. The burden of proof is on Joe to show why identical language used in reference to identical subjects is talking about two totally different events separated by thousands of years, especially when the Biblical writers don’t indicate a distinction.

14. Do You Realize What You’ve Done?
As with spiritual resurrection, brother Ed again finds total agreement from me when he writes extensively concerning the realized kingdom – "The full establishment of the Kingdom could not be delayed," he argues. I and other present-day postmillennialists fully agree with realized eschatology regarding Christ’s kingdom. It has already come. But it is a major leap of logic for Ed to say that a realized "kingdom" must also mean a realized "Last Day" and final resurrection. To my reading, few (or none) of the early church fathers or modern historical scholars quoted by Ed in his section on realized eschatology were writing in favor of this broader definition of "realized eschatology." I cannot find one of them who refer to the "Last Day" and the final resurrection as previously occurring events. When they speak of a "realized eschatology," they are speaking merely of the fact that Christ’s kingdom has already been established and his "millennial reign" has begun. Brother Ed is placing words in their mouths by redefining their terms.

14. A realized kingdom DOES necessitate a realized "Last Day" and final resurrection. This is exactly what it meant to the OT Jews and even to orthodox Jews today. Just because "the early church fathers or modern historical scholars" (or the creeds) didn’t recognize this Biblical "definition of realized eschatology" doesn’t mean it isn’t correct. Why isn’t Joe appealing to sola scriptura here, instead of ecclesiastical authorities? To separate these events is to rend asunder the very fabric of the redemptive plan of God woven throughout the OT. Eschatology (the last things) is not independent of, nor unrelated to redemptive history. Eschatology is in fact the final acts in God’s redemptive drama. By separating eschatology (last things) from redemption Balyeat is the one who really makes the "major leap of logic." If the Last Day and the resurrection associated with it have not happened yet, then redemption has not been completed and Death (the last enemy) has still not been conquered. Jewish critics of Christianity just love to hear futurist Christians separate the Messianic kingdom from the consummation of the redemptive plan of God and the resurrection in the Last Day. It proves their point: Jesus cannot be the Messiah if he hasn’t redeemed us from Death and Hades and consummated all things in the days when the kingdom was to be set up. The book of Daniel, especially chapters 7-12 show that the coming of the "Ancient of Days," the judgment, the arrival of the kingdom (Dan. 7:22), the resurrection (Dan. 12:2, 13) and "all these events" (such as the tribulation – Dan. 12:1, and the abomination of desolation – Dan. 12:11) were to occur by the time "they finish shattering the power of the holy people" (Dan. 12:7) in a "complete destruction" (Dan. 9:27) that was to be poured out "at that time" (Dan. 12:1) in the "last of the days" (Dan. 12:13) which was the "time of the end" (Dan. 12:9). My case rests on Biblical grounds, not just on human authorities and creeds. In the last issue (Jan-Feb-Mar. 1993), I quoted several statements from Eusebius and Athanasius to show that early Christians indeed had the concept that the "Last Enemy" (death) had been destroyed and that they believed they had been raised from the dead in some sense. There is only one thing that can forever wipe out the Last Enemy (Death), and that is Eternal Life. Life has to be eternal, or it cannot conquer death. Life (brought about by a resurrection) reversed death’s grip on humanity. Jesus said that He is that Resurrection and Life which defeats the power of death (John 5:24; 8:51; 11:25). He has come and death has been conquered, therefore we also know that the resurrection has taken place. I’m not putting words in their mouth, I’m simply taking their statements to their logical conclusions. If the Last Enemy (Death) has been conquered, the resurrection of 1 Cor. 15 has also occurred. Either Joe affirms that Athanasius (and the framers of the Nicean Creed) were mistaken in believing that Death had already been defeated, or they were inconsistent in believing Death was defeated without the Resurrection having occurred.

15. In fact, as I will show later in this article, a consistent full preterist view is actually in opposition to a realized "kingdom now" theology because (in accordance with 1 Cor. 15:24-28) it must maintain that Christ’s kingdom has already come and gone; Christ having already handed over His kingdom to the Father in 70 AD. I’m not sure this is any better than the dispensational view which says Christ’s kingdom hasn’t come yet. But I shall return to this issue later. For now, suffice it to say that full preterism has its biggest holes not on the front end, but on the back end. A perfect example is the reader’s letter (from a confirmed full preterist) which admitted that Stevens’ "section regarding the meaning of the ‘thousand years’ was the least persuasive part of [his] article." Exactly. If we concede to Ed that "1000 years" could possibly mean "65 years;" we have just thrown out the window our best argument against full futurist prophetic speculations. When full preterists say that "many years" could possibly mean "few years" in the eyes of God; this is no different than full futurists saying "soon" could mean "2000 years."

15. We will deal with his 1 Cor. 15:24-28 arguments at point #38 where he deals with it more fully. Suffice it to say here that Balyeat misunderstands what full preterists believe and doesn’t realize the dilemma his own view puts him in. More on this at point #38. We deal with the millennium in point number 16 (next).

16. But, even if we concede to Ed this minor manipulation of "time indicators," there are further difficulties. Stevens puts forth two pages of "least persuasive" arguments for a 135 AD end to the "1000 years." But several paragraphs earlier he has already told us that the 1000 years ended in 70 AD. Ed writes, "Both DEATH and HADES were done away with at 70 AD." Since a simple reading of Revelation 20:7-14 reveals that this event happens at the end of the 1000 years, Ed appears to argue for a 70 AD end to the "1000 year" reign. Which is it – AD 70 or AD 135? Moreover, if Christ’s "1000 year" reign ended in either 70 AD or 135 AD (whichever Ed chooses), who’s reigning now? Before we explore that question, we must first turn and examine Ed’s related arguments regarding the Holy Spirit.

16. The Millennium: Here again Balyeat blew right over the top of my arguments about the millennium and obviously missed what I said about a flashback being inserted at Rev. 20:11 in my view. This completely removes the problem that Balyeat suggests. All three of our views (Max’s, Joe’s and mine) require a flashback. Max flashes back to 30 AD at Rev. 20:1. I flash back to 70 AD at Rev. 20:11, and Balyeat flashes back to 70 AD at Rev. 21:1. If Balyeat objects to my flashback at Rev. 20:11, then he should abandon his at Rev. 21. So, I was not teaching a 70 AD end to the millennium, but a 70 AD beginning to it. The reason "death and Hades" happen at 70 AD even though they are mentioned after the end of the millennium is because of the flashback at Rev. 20:11. Joe just missed what I said about it.

There are several valid ways for full preterists to approach the millennium. Max King’s position (that the millennium is the period 30-70 AD) does not compromise Balyeat’s "longly cannot mean shortly" principle. If 2 Pet. 3 refers to the 30-70 AD generation as being like a thousand years, it would not be hard to believe that Revelation 20 does the same. Max could be right. And the Bar Kochba theory is even less affected by Balyeat’s criticism.

Who’s reigning now? – Does Joe believe there will ever be an end to Christ’s reign? I thought postmils believed in an eternal reign of Christ. If Balyeat doesn’t even believe Christ’s reign will cease based on this passage (Rev. 20), why does he try to force me into that position? Rev. 21 and 22 answer his question. Jesus co-reigns with the Father. He will continue that co-reign eternally.

17. The Gifts, The Spirit, and The Kingdom.
Regarding the debate over miraculous giftings in the Church, it will be perhaps futile to spend time on the issue, because brother Ed has framed the rules of the game in such a way that there is no way he can lose. It is easy to win the contest if you are both referee and contestant. Example: If I quote early church leaders’ statements that miraculous gifts were evidenced in the church well beyond 70 AD (e.g. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Justin Martyr), brother Ed says this is meaningless hearsay testimony. Of course it’s hearsay (not from eyewitnesses); if any of the eyewitnesses were still alive 1800 years later, that would be a miracle far greater than any healing or prophecy! Meanwhile, brother Stevens appeals continuously to the statements of early church leaders to support his own arguments.

17. Joe was the one who brought up the early writings and said they taught what he did. He challenged me to produce evidence from them for the preterist view. I was only following his arguments. Now he complains because I did. If I hadn’t followed him, he would have clobbered me. When one can’t answer an opponent’s arguments, it is common for him to complain about how unfair his opponent is. This is a concession of Joe’s difficulty. He cannot answer all the arguments I raised. Reader, go back and read my original article to see for yourself.

18. On the other hand, if I instead appeal to eyewitnesses (such as myself), Ed discounts this testimony as mere anecdotal evidence which is not reproducible in a laboratory with microphones present; and these modern witnesses are not trustworthy sources like the early church leaders would be. At the same time, while Ed discounts my personal experience, he himself utilizes the exact same "personal" testimony when he alleges that some "tongues" tape somewhere was interpreted differently by some alleged "interpreters" and that he, Stevens, was somehow close to the scene when this counterfeit charismata revealed itself.

18. Balyeat has a valid point here. It is a mistake to allow any subjective evidence or early Christian testimony to have any weight in the decision about whether the charismata continued past 70 AD. Only Scripture (sola scriptura) can provide that authoritative evidence on which to make the decision. Deut. 18 and other passages say that all such claims must be judged by God’s Word. When he brought up the subjective evidence in the first place I should not have responded in kind. The point I should have made with my "personal experience" is that such subjective evidence proves nothing. There is always other subjective evidence to counter it. I am perfectly happy with letting Scripture be the focus of our attention. That’s where the arguments for a continuation of the charismata stand or fall.

19. So if I testify that I saw a young girl named Kathy Christiansen (two weeks from death) healed instantly of leukemia, this bears no weight; while Ed’s testimony about a person he knew once who didn’t get healed bears great weight. I point out further that this same girl (with four years of French training) heard my own wife praying in French (a language my wife does not know) and that this girl wrote down the words and subsequently did a word-for-word translation (not interpretation). This translation resulted in an extremely beautiful prayer which even mentioned the girl by name (in French) and ministered to her faith greatly. However, this incident would certainly be discounted by brother Stevens because I can’t guarantee that such a miraculous event would ever occur again with cameras rolling and microphones buzzing. "It’s not scientifically verified," he would argue.

20. I then report that my own aunt (within days of death) was prayed over and healed miraculously of cancer, and the medical doctors themselves wrote "It’s a miracle!" on her medical transcript. Brother Ed would probably argue that this was merely a "psycho-somatic phenomenon." I respond that I participated in praying for (and doctors verified the healing of) a small four year old boy who had no conscious knowledge of the fact that he was about to die from two holes in his heart. Surely this mindless toddler’s healing had nothing to do with mind-over-matter or "self-hypnosis," or "fakery" or any other of Ed’s manifold arguments. Brother Stevens would then respond that he too has seen miraculous healings but that these supernatural occurrences (for some mysterious reason) don’t fit his definition of charismatic gifts. We would debate on and on in circles throughout dozens of such cases that I myself have witnessed.

19-20. I asked Joe for a photocopy of the original transcript (not a doctored-up revised edition of it) in which Kathy Christiansen recorded the words Joe’s wife spoke and then translated them. Joe told me it happened several years ago in another city. He believes Kathy Christiansen has since married and moved away from that city. He hasn’t seen her in eighteen years. He did not think he could get a copy of it. I asked him what it looked like. Was it several pages or just one page? He said it was nothing like that at all. It was only about a paragraph. And Joe calls this evidence of the charismata still being around today?!? I have seen better "evidence" than this from well-known and publicly-exposed fake-healers, magicians, charlatans and con-artists. Joe will have to do better than this. All of the evidence he has brought up here can easily be explained either by emotionalism, ecstatic utterances (which even all the false religions of the world have), psycho-somatic phenomenon, or the special providence of God. None of these provide any evidence of the kind of gifts and sign miracles they had in the first century. Joe missed my point in the last article about the providence of God. All of this healing in response to prayer is just God’s providential care of His people. It has nothing to do with revealing additional information about God’s plan of redemption or confirming the validity of someone’s revelation of it, which is what the charismata of the first century were designed to do. The best way (and perhaps the only way) to settle this issue is on the basis of Scripture. Again, what the early Christians or the historical church believed, or our feelings and experiences today, must never be allowed to take precedence over Scripture. Nothing can be proven either way by such things. Only Scripture can decide the issue of whether the charismata are still available today. In my conversations with Joe over the phone he agreed that Scripture is the fairest way to test our beliefs regarding the charismata today.

21. As you can see, there is no way to win at the game when your opponent is making up the rules as he goes. Ed’s anti-charismatic argument has more layers to it than baklava. To slice through it effectively would require a very sharp knife and several books to deal with each of his objections. Thus, while I will make no attempt to convince brother Stevens or refute his entire argument, I will simply point out a few misconceptions and logical errors he presented in his article.

21. There is no way I can compete with the charismatics in this business of subjectively arriving at truth. Never mind what the Scriptures say, they go by what they feel. Don’t confuse them with layers and layers of Biblical and historical facts. Balyeat reveals his weakness here and admits he cannot answer all the arguments. He complains again about how unfair I am. If there are any seeming misconceptions or "logical errors" in my arguments they were a result of either my failure to adequately explain my position or Balyeat’s failure to understand what I said.

22. First, proving the negative does not disprove the positive. Even if he can prove there is error and fraud within charismatic ministry, this does not prove that all miraculous giftings are counterfeit. While I need only provide evidence of one true miraculous gifting to prove my point, Stevens must disprove all miraculous giftings throughout history (beyond 70 AD) for his full preterist interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13 to stand.

22. Here is a classic mistake in reasoning. Notice what kind of proof Balyeat accepts here. Never mind that there are strong Biblical arguments against his position which he refuses to deal with (too many "layers" to it), he wants experiential proof. I must show that all experiences are wrong or else we have to assume some are correct??? Get real! The false prophets of Biblical days would have loved this basis for testing their prophecies! Where’s Joe’s allegiance to sola scriptura? Is he basing his beliefs on exegesis or experience and feelings? Experience proves nothing unless it is in harmony with Scripture.

23. Secondly, because I claimed to be a "partial charismatic," Stevens erroneously concluded that I only believed some of the gifts were still operational. On the contrary, in the context of my original comments my use of the word "partial" was merely a short way of stating that I accept the plausibility of all 1 Cor. 12:8-10 gifts being available to the Church today, but I do not accept much of what is being passed off as "gifts" in charismatic circles today. In other words, theologically I am a charismatic, but operationally I am highly skeptical of many modern charismatic giftings - particularly prophecy. I do believe that all nine of the miraculous giftings (mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:8-10) are available to the Church today. Since one of Stevens’ main arguments was based upon the false premise that I only believed in some of the gifts, that particular argument is irrelevant to the discussion.

23. Balyeat left himself wide-open for this misunderstanding by not stating in his original presentation what he actually believes. There is no way I could have known what he meant by "partial" since he didn’t explain it. The most logical conclusion would have been to think he only believed part of the gifts were still around. I’m glad he finally let us know what his real position is. Why keep it such a big secret? Is he ashamed of being charismatic? Why doesn’t he accept all the current claims of modern charismatics? How does he tell which ones are true charismata and which ones are false? What is his criteria for judging between them? His acceptance of "the plausibility" of "all nine" of the gifts mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:8-10 is a cop-out. What about the other gifts mentioned in Mk. 16; Eph. 4; Rom. 12:6-8; 1 Cor. 12:28-30; 14:6, 26-40 and the book of Acts (i.e. casting out demons, drinking deadly poison, handling uncharmed deadly snakes, gift of apostleship, raising the dead, curing lepers, giving sight to those born totally blind, et al)? I asked him over the phone if he believed all the other gifts mentioned in the other passages are still around, and he said he wasn’t ready to take a position on that one way or the other. All he felt comfortable in saying was that the nine gifts mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:8-10 were still around. When I asked him if the gift of speaking and writing by inspiration were still around, he said speaking by inspiration was, but not writing by inspiration. Isn’t that what the Pope claims as his prerogative (speaking by inspiration)? Is this dangerous or what? What is the real truth here? Is Balyeat really only "partially" charismatic after all? Either all the gifts are still around, or something has changed (or they have ceased). I contend that my original understanding of Balyeat being only partially charismatic was correct, and that all the arguments I made regarding that do apply. This is a real weak spot for him.

24. Interestingly enough, Stevens himself falls prey to his own argument at this point because he finally admits that miraculous healing is still available to the Church today - "I have also known people whom God healed providentially...," says Stevens. Several stirring paragraphs later he states, "If someone doesn’t believe ALL the gifts are still around, then consistently he would have to deny that ANY are still around." By his own definition, my "consistent preterist" friend has again painted himself very "inconsistent."

24. Here is another clear case where Balyeat totally misunderstands my very clear statement – "I have also known people whom God healed providentially...." He jumps to the conclusion that I believe the "gift of healing" is still around. There is a big difference between God’s providential care for His creation and the special "sign" gifts He gave during periods of revelatory activity associated with the unfolding and consummation of His plan of redemption. Notice I said "God" does the healing, not a supernaturally-gifted healer or prophet. God does it directly through His providence. I have not contradicted myself. I do not believe any of the gifts are still around today. Balyeat failed to understand my clear statement that he even quoted, and fails to distinguish between the providence of God and the charismatic gifts. This is how a lot of Christians get unwittingly drawn into the charismatic movement. The occurrence of providential healing by God in answer to prayer is not proof that any of the gifts are still around. It is just proof that God exists and that He providentially cares for His people. (Acts 14:17; Matt. 5:45).

25. In addition, brother Stevens has made a major logical leap when he argues that any Spirit-inspired prophetic utterances must be on the same level as scripture itself and would have to be written down for us as additional books of the Bible. In NT scripture itself we see numerous instances where various persons were given divine revelation and spoke under inspiration of the Spirit, yet their words were not written down and preserved as scripture. (Acts 4:31,33; 6:10; 10:46; 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 19:6; 21:9; Mk. 13:11; etc.). Church historian Eusebius (circa 300 AD) points this very phenomenon out dramatically:

[Most of] our Savior’s pupils - the 12 apostles, the 70 disciples, and countless others besides ...[having] divine wonder-working power bestowed on them... had neither ability nor desire to present the teachings of the Master with literary skill [in writing]. They relied only on [verbally] demonstrating the divine Spirit working with them, and on the miraculous power of Christ fully operative in them... giving very little thought to the business of writing books... Of them all [only a few] have left us memoirs... (History of the Church; 3:24).

26. If Christ’s original disciples could speak under inspiration of the Spirit without God deeming it necessary to write the words down and add them to the canon, then why does brother Stevens insist on such a strict interpretation and procedure in the Church today.

25-26. Balyeat’s comments and questions here cut right to the heart of the issue. Balyeat fails to align his concepts of the gift of prophecy with its Biblical examples and definition. Notice how the following logical argument puts him in a dilemma:

• All of the same gifts they had in the first century are still around today.
  
• One of those gifts was prophecy (speaking and writing by inspiration) (1 Cor. 14).
  
• Some (but not all) of the prophecies/revelations in the first century were written down.
  
• Nothing has changed.
  
• Therefore, there should still be some inspired utterances being written down today if all the same gifts are still around and nothing has changed.

Either Balyeat has to admit that all the gifts (including written prophecy) are still around and nothing has changed, or admit that something has changed (or ceased) after all. Balyeat has not addressed this dilemma. He tries to sidestep it by stating that not all prophecies in the first century were written down. Well, of course, they weren’t all written down. Nobody said they were. But that’s not the point. Some prophecies were written down, and if nothing has changed, there should still be some of them being written down today. Why are only Ellen G. White, the Mormons and a handful of cult groups consistent on this point? Why aren’t the rest of the charismatics producing the logical extension of their belief in modern charismata (more inspired books of the Bible)? If they don’t have the ability to write by inspiration, I question whether they have the ability to speak by inspiration. If there are any doubts about whether written revelations were included in the gift of "prophecy," just do a concordance study of the words reveal, reveals, revealed, revelation, mystery, mysteries, prophecy, prophecies, prophesy, etc. and see how many times a written revelation is under consideration (for instance, see 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Rev. 22:7,10,18,19). It is there and it can’t be ignored. Paul said the Thessalonians had received their understanding of truth by "spirit," "message" and "letter." (2 Thess. 2:2). And the things Paul taught the Thessalonians (including his letters) were considered to be "the word of God." (1 Thess. 2:13; cf. 1 Cor. 14:37). And the "word of God" is what prophecy and revelations from God are. Do a concordance study of the phrase "word of God" to see for yourself. There is no way to separate written prophecy from spoken prophecy and say that, "spoken prophecy continues but written prophecy ceased." Balyeat would have to produce a passage that predicts just the written prophecies to be done away with. 1 Cor. 13:8 says "prophecy" (not just written prophecy) would be done away with. They both go together. Balyeat has a real dilemma here.

27. There is absolutely no scriptural basis for Ed’s assertion that to allow for the present-day operation of prophecy and healing, we would also have to permit modern written inspiration and other similarly unique supernatural phenomena. I can imagine a similar skeptic in the first century arguing against Jesus’ miracles simply because He didn’t make an ax head float on water "the way Elisha used to do it in the good ole days" (2 Kings 6:5-6). We are putting God in a very small box when we start saying He either has to give us everything supernatural in every generation, or give us nothing miraculous whatsoever.

27. I think the above provides more than adequate "scriptural basis" for the idea that written prophecy and verbal prophecy are inseparable. Balyeat is the one who claims nothing has changed. Now he’s trying to weasel out of it and clobbers me for holding him to his own contention that things must be the same today!

I didn’t say the exact same miracle had to be performed today, but rather the same kinds of miracles. Jesus may not have made an ax-head float, but He did the same kind of miracle when He told his disciples to go get the coin for tax payment out of the fish’s mouth (Matt. 17:27). All I’m saying is that the same kind of miracles would have to be available today. If some spoke and wrote by miraculous inspiration back then, there should also be some doing it today. If not, something has changed.

Balyeat told me over the phone he believes speaking by inspiration (verbal prophecy) is still around, but not writing by inspiration (written prophecy). Yet he keeps saying he believes all the gifts are still around (at least those few mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:8-10). And he keeps quoting Heb. 13:8 which says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever." If the gift of prophecy in the first century included both speaking and writing by inspiration, and if "nothing has changed," why aren’t there at least some instances of written prophecies today? Has something changed? Are all the gifts still around? Or will Balyeat simply say that the list of gifts he believes are still around (1 Cor. 12:8-10) does not include "written" prophecy (even though it does include "prophecy")? When did "prophecy" get divided up into two separate gifts (spoken & written), and where do we see the NT writers distinguish between "spoken" and "written" gifts of prophecy? Where does the NT indicate that the "written" kind of prophecy would cease, but not the "spoken" kind? Reader, you judge who has really "painted himself very inconsistent" here?

28. By insisting that all inspired prophecy must be on a par with scripture and preserved (in writing) as relevant for all generations of the Church, brother Ed has painted himself into another contradictory corner. He argues that there is absolutely no practical need or use for supernatural gifts beyond 70 AD, because the New Testament books were all that was needed, and that the first century "church had [already] reached maturity" by 70 AD; so that there is no need for any further revelation from God. Is this the same Ed Stevens who argued in last month’s issue that even now, 2000 years later, we are "the early church... still in the formative period... of understanding. ... The Dead Sea Scrolls are just now being examined... There is so much more to understand... We have really only just begun."? If the Church reached maturity back then, why is it in infancy now? If God can shed additional theological light through extra-biblical sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, why can’t He speak into life-situations through prophecy, or a supernatural word of wisdom, or whatever other means He so chooses?

28. Where did I "insist that all inspired prophecy must be on a par with scripture and preserved in writing?" I only said that "if the gifts have continued ... more inspired revelation is still being given," and that "if written down" (like some in the first century were) they "would be considered additional canonical books of the Bible." Balyeat said he believes "speaking by inspiration" is still going on today. Why not writing by inspiration? If we have the same gifts they had, then we should be producing at least some of the same things they did with their gifts (more inspired scripture), unless something has changed. Not all of the prophetic utterances of the NT era were written down, but some were, and if nothing has changed, there should still be some being written down today. Is Balyeat admitting that something has changed?

Balyeat creates a false impression by not quoting my whole statement (about the early church reaching maturity) which says exactly what I am reaffirming here: "This is still the formative period in terms of understanding Christ’s kingdom." Notice the part he left out of his quote (boldfaced). It changes the meaning significantly. There is a difference between saying our understanding of the Kingdom is still in the formative stage and that the Kingdom itself is still in the formative period. The process of building the kingdom reached its completion/maturity at 70 AD, but the church’s process of understanding it just started then, and this process of gaining a better and better understanding of it will go on for as long as there are humans alive in this universe. When the earth has progressed even as far as the 34,000 more years that Balyeat suggested, they will certainly look back at our times (the first two millenniums) as the early church. The church during the period from 30 to 70 AD was in a very vulnerable position. The only group of people who ever posed a serious threat to the very existence of the church during this vulnerable period was the Jews. And they did not think kindly of this new sect following the Nazarene carpenter. They would stop at nothing to crush the church. Saul (apostle Paul) said his purpose before conversion was not just to have some friendly debates with the church to prove they were wrong. He and the Jewish leadership (who commissioned him) were out to "destroy it." (Gal. 1:13). And "unless those days had been cut short" by the destruction of Jerusalem, the church might very well have been destroyed (Matt. 24:22). The church needed all the help it could get to reach a mature state where it could stand on its own without constant miraculous intervention (Eph. 4:13). The manna (miraculous gifts) ceased at 70 AD because they inherited the better things in Christ and His kingdom. The building-up process had reached its completion. The threat from the Jews was over. The church was permanently established. It had all the prophetic revelation from God (both spoken and written) it would ever need. The task ahead of it then was to understand that revelation and put it into practice, a task we are still undertaking today and will be forever.

Balyeat asks a moot question here. The question is not whether God can or cannot "speak into life situations through prophecy" today. God can do anything, anywhere, anytime He wants to. The key is whether He wills to do it, not whether He is able to do it. Is it His will to do those things today? Does it fit the plan of redemption that He has revealed His will through? God could have given the Jews manna to eat the rest of their national existence, but He didn’t. Why not? Why did the manna cease the very day they set foot in the land of Canaan? Why did the charismata cease forty years after they began (at 70 AD)?

29. While I agree that all NT books were probably written prior to 70 AD, Ed’s argument against any further need for divine guidance breaks down when you pass from theoretical theology to practical life circumstances. Even though the various NT books were all written very early, it took several generations before these various letters and gospels were compiled together, spurious books eliminated, and anything close to our NT circulated amongst the local churches. "Athanasius (AD 367) gives us the earliest list of NT books which is exactly like our present NT." (McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, 1972). The canon of NT scripture as we now know it wasn’t even fully compiled and commonly recognized until well into the fourth century; and certainly nothing close to it circulated amongst the churches until well into the second century. So what did believers rely upon between 71 AD and then? Were several generations of Christians simply left in the dark, without the Spirit, without the complete word, and without answers to real life dilemmas? Or did God’s Spirit "guide them into all truth" despite brother Ed’s contention that the Spirit left the scene in 70 AD? (more on this later.)

29. Balyeat is not correct here. He leaves the impression that the NT canon was not available nor accepted widely among the churches until "well into the second century." Conservative theologians who are not preterists would heatedly contest Balyeat’s statements. It is certainly not an easy position to establish one way or the other, and does not make the case for a continuance of the gifts any stronger. It only serves to undermine God’s credibility in not providing for His people better than that. The only thing that could strengthen Balyeat’s case for a continuance of the charismata during this period (71-367 AD) would be to prove that some of the NT books were not written until late first or early second century and that more NT books were continually being produced. Continued production of inspired books is essentially linked to a continuation of the gifts. Balyeat needs to do better research on the sub-apostolic and ante-Nicene periods. Even Josh McDowell whom Balyeat quotes, notes that Polycarp (of Smyrna – 115 AD), Clement (bishop of Rome – 92-101 AD) and others quote from the NT books and refer to them as "scripture" (Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p. 41). From looking at their quotes and allusions it is apparent that they knew of and had access to the NT books. Note what Paul said to the Colossians, "And when this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). The NT books were definitely in circulation before 70 AD. The book of Revelation was initially circulated among at least seven different churches (Rev. 1:11). And Paul carried books and parchments with him on his travels (2 Tim. 4:13). A study of the development of the many different textual variations shows that copies of NT documents must have circulated very early and very widely. Balyeat’s contention here plays right into the hands of liberal theologians, skeptics and critics of the Bible. I certainly do not share his opinions on this.

It is interesting that Balyeat believes the Holy Spirit (the Paraclete) was still "guiding them into all truth" during the period between 71 AD and "well into the second century," even though he supposedly believes the canon was closed at 70 AD and the 27 books were sufficient (sola scriptura). At this point Balyeat’s question to me needs to be asked back to him: "Do you realize what you’ve done?" Does Balyeat believe the faith had really been "once for all delivered to the saints" by 70 AD (Jude 1:3)? Could more books be "added to them" without penalty (Rev. 22:18)? Were the 27 books sufficient? Montanus (considered heretical) who lived early second century, not only believed the gifts were still around, but also that he himself was the Paraclete. It is not surprising that many charismatics (such as Ronald Kydd in his book, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church, pub. by Hendrickson) take the position that "the Montanists were bona fide Christians ... who valued the spiritual gifts highly" (pp. 39, 40). I think Balyeat is treading on some pretty thin ice here (if not trying to walk on air) by saying that the Paraclete was still "guiding them into all truth" "well into the second century." Does he realize what he’s done?

30. There are further internal contradictions in his argument. He argues that modern-day charismata can’t possibly be legitimate because the people practicing them belong to many different (and less than theologically pure) groups - "Catholics... Baptists... cults... How can the same Spirit give such signs to confirm the teaching of so many radically different doctrines?" His argument is that God wouldn’t be willing to give His supernatural stamp of approval to these faulty doctrines. Yet three pages later Stevens himself points out that God granted the Corinthian church supernatural gifts "in all their variety, even though they were a tremendously decadent church in many ways... The Corinthians had as many problems as any church ever did, yet they were not lacking any of them... Surely they had as bad a case of ‘corruption’ and fleshly ‘frailty and sinfulness’ as any church in their day, yet that didn’t stop them from having all the gifts."

30. This does seem like a contradiction in my presentation and I do appreciate brother Joe bringing it to my attention. I’m sorry I didn’t explain it better. I will give it another try. Within the Corinthian church there were individuals who were morally as well as doctrinally/theologically impure. I don’t see any evidence that any of those impure folks had the gifts. It was the morally and doctrinally upright within those churches who had the gifts. Paul wouldn’t lay hands hastily on novices (1 Tim. 5:22). And the apostles wouldn’t pass the gifts on to just anybody (Acts 8:20). None of those speaking by the Spirit contradicted the already revealed word of God. God was not speaking contradictory or confusing things. The things I see happening in today’s charismatic assemblies do seem to make God a "god of confusion." Various charismatics today differ widely in their doctrinal (and moral) stances, quite often in complete and total disagreement with each other, and I’m talking here about the actual leaders today who are supposedly speaking by the Spirit. Miraculously-gifted leaders in the first century did not contradict each other like that. It is obvious that at least some who claim the gifts today are false. It is not enough just to claim one has the gifts. His teaching and life must also be in harmony with Scripture.

31. While Stevens poses a good question (why would God grant supernatural signs to imperfect churches?); he then disarms his own argument by pointing out from scripture itself that God has apparently chosen to do just that - grant supernatural gifts to imperfect churches and imperfect people. Why does God do this? Neither I nor Ed can answer that one. (This is just one more reason to believe that "Now we see dimly as in a mirror" is still relevant to our day.) Ed’s error is that he assumes that God is "confirming the [imperfect] teachings" of such groups by working miraculously in their midst. Jesus did not say "You will know my disciples by their gifts." He said, "You will know them by their fruits." Nowhere in scripture do we find miracles used as proof of godliness or doctrinal correctness. Fruit is the test of godliness, not gifts. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." (Gal. 5:22-23)

31. "Why does God do this?" See my answer above. I don’t believe He gave the gifts to morally or doctrinally impure people. The false prophets simulated/counterfeited the gifts (2 Thess. 2:2). And Jesus had warned them that it was possible to think one was practicing the gifts and still not know Christ (Matt. 7:21-23). The reason the apostles wouldn’t pass the gifts on to just anybody (Acts 8:20) was because they knew there was a connection between the integrity of the messenger and the integrity of the message. God’s prophets were always expected to be righteous. God’s message could be ignored or rejected if the messenger was corrupt. The Holy Spirit would not give gifts to persons He knew were corrupt and impure. Balyeat’s mistake is that he forgets what one of the main purposes of the miraculous gifts was. They were to be "signs" to confirm (Mark 16:20) the validity of the new revelation that God was giving through the apostles and prophets. Because they only had part of that revelation then, they saw "in a mirror dimly." We have the complete revelation now, so can see what God’s plan of redemption is. Without the miraculous gifts’ confirmation, the Jews (and Gentiles) would definitely have rejected the gospel message. Of course, the gifts also had edification of the church as another of their purposes. But Balyeat and other charismatics try to cover up the "confirming sign" function of the gifts. Jesus did teach that unbelievers could know that He and the apostles and prophets were speaking from God by the sign miracles they performed. I agree with Balyeat on one thing: The gifts were not given to prove that the recipient was a perfect person. But they were given as signs to prove that the message being spoken (or written) was from God. In view of this, all Balyeat’s arguments in this point collapse.

32. There is a big difference between fruit and gifts. Fruit is something you grow into until you reach maturity. A gift on the other hand is something bestowed upon you without merit or service on your part. You don’t earn it, you don’t deserve it, it is simply given to you out of the goodness of the Donor’s heart – that’s what makes it a "gift." Stevens misses this point even though he examines Rom. 11:29 "... the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." It seems clear enough from this verse that God grants gifts for His own purposes even when the recipients don’t deserve them. Because this is not logically palatable to brother Ed, he discounts the verse by saying it only applies to Israel. Ed’s argument comes straight from the pages of a dispensational debater’s manual, "Disregard any verse you don’t like by saying it only applies to Israel or by saying it doesn’t apply to our dispensation." Our dilemma - Is God in error because He chooses to grant supernatural gifts to imperfect vessels (such as the Corinthians), or is brother Stevens in error because he chooses to see such gifts as a validation of doctrine when he really should be looking for fruit instead? Though I like brother Stevens a great deal, I would have to side with God on this one.

32. I don’t miss Joe’s point. I agree that the covenant blessings faithful Jews received were not earned nor deserved. But that is not Paul’s point here in Rom. 11:29. Balyeat missed the fact that the word "gifts" in this passage refers to the faithful remnant of Israel being "saved" and having their sins taken away (Rom. 11:26,27), not to the charismatic gifts. The way Joe applies it here takes it totally out of its original context in reference to the Jews. The word "gifts" in Rom. 11:29 has nothing at all to do with the charismata. God’s promises were irrevocable to Israel (but only to those who really were the Israel of God). The Kingdom blessings were spiritual in nature and would be given to spiritual Israel (the faithful remnant within Israel) in spite of the fact that most of the nation had broken the covenant. God didn’t reject the whole nation, He saved the real (spiritual) Israel. The charismatic gifts are not germane to Paul’s arguments here against the Gentiles. Balyeat is the one using dispensational tactics by trying to rip it out of its first century context, redefine its terms and use it as a prooftext for the continuation of the charismata today. Who is right here, Paul or Balyeat? Though I like Balyeat a lot, I have to side with Paul on this one! The rest of this point I have already covered above under points #30, 31.

33. In addition, it seems Stevens is reading words into Acts 2 which simply aren’t there. He states, "If the charismatic gifts are still here, then we are still in the Last Days." He properly points out that I believe the "last days" (plural) in Acts 2 was the last days of old covenant Israel rather than the last days of the world. However, he then erroneously assumes that since Peter said the supernatural outpouring of the Spirit would occur "in the last days;" this necessitates that the supernatural gifts would cease when the last days ended. Acts 2 says no such thing. Peter simply asserts that this supernatural power would begin to be poured out in the last days of the old covenant. He nowhere claims that it would cease at the end of these days.

33. I believe Acts 2 does imply a cessation at the end of the Last Days "before the great and glorious day of the Lord" at 70 AD, but I agree it does not come right out and say it. At best this passage only provides cumulative evidence to increase the probability that the gifts ceased, in the event that we can find evidence that is more explicit. 1 Cor. 1:7,8 definitely adds more cumulative evidence, and probably moves a little more down the road toward explicitly saying the gifts would end by saying they would be there right up to the very end. [Reader note that Balyeat believes the coming of Christ and end mentioned in this text applies to 70 AD.] This text implies the Corinthians felt the gifts might cease before the going got tough. Paul reassures them the gifts would carry them right to the very end. The implication is that once they made it past that end they would not need them any more. The kingdom would be theirs. The enemies would be crushed. But this particular text does not say all that. This is merely an inference drawn from the larger context of both 1 & 2 Corinthians. Even though I cannot prove that these two passages teach a cessation at 70 AD, there is a possibility that they do, and therefore Balyeat cannot use them to prove his case any more than I can. Neither of us can use them for proof. The real text we are looking for is 1 Corinthians 13. Take a moment to skim through the rest of Balyeat’s "partial response" to look for his full exposition of 1 Cor. 13 in defense of a continuation of the charismata and it will be apparent why "partial" is a good word to describe his response. There is no defense of his position on 1 Cor. 13. He barely even cites the text twice in passing (points #22 and #36). I dealt with this passage in great detail for over two pages. We did lexical and concordance and usage studies. We looked at all the objections regarding 1 Cor. 13 that he brought up in his original critique. But in his "partial response" he barely mentions the text, much less deals with it. In debates when an opponent doesn’t deal with something he was challenged on it sends up red flags all over the place. I have a ream of notes in my file on this which I would love to print here, but there is no need. It is obvious that he could not answer my arguments on 1 Cor. 13. If he could have, he would have. It is a critical text. It is precisely where the charismatic continuation stands or falls. There is no getting around the fact that this text says "prophecy ...will be done away" and "tongues ...will cease" (1 Cor. 13:8). And this means all the gifts, because Paul had just alluded to all of them in the previous chapter. There is no partial cessation taught here. The only question that needs to be discussed is WHEN would they cease? Paul says it would be done away and cease "when the perfect comes" (1 Cor. 13:10). In the Oct-Dec 1992 issue of KC where my first article on the Charismata appeared, I dealt with this question at length and showed precisely what the meaning of the word "perfect" was. Not a word from Balyeat about it. He doesn’t challenge it at all. What’s the implication? He obviously doesn’t agree with my views on it, so he simply must not have any answer to it. Case closed! Turn out the lights, the party’s over. This text is the crucial one. If he can’t answer this one, we don’t need to look at any others.

There were several other "layers" in my refutation which he did not challenge at all (like the "sign" arguments in 1 Cor. 14; the "Paraclete" arguments; the "providence" arguments; the historical arguments; and on and on). The best he could do was simply assert that I was wrong. No scripture, no proof. Just assertion after assertion. All I have to do to refute that is assert he is wrong! Presto. Case closed.

Balyeat also didn’t deal with my arguments concerning the Greek word parousia. Folks, go back and read what I said about it in my "Answer" to his questions and you will see why he gives such a "partial response" here! He doesn’t have an answer. I pray that he will take a serious look at the full preterist view. It has the answers he is looking for.

34. In fact, to the exact contrary, Peter clearly declares that this outpouring of the Holy Spirit would continue throughout the new covenant era: "...You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off; for all whom the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:39) Some who want to deny the ongoing reality of the Holy Spirit and the gifts have argued that Peter was speaking about "geographically" far off, not chronologically far off. However, it seems evident that Peter could not possibly be speaking geographically here for a couple reasons. First, it must be remembered that Peter didn’t even think the gospel was available to Gentiles until Acts chapter 10. Even after a heavenly vision, he still only reluctantly accepted the fact. Thus, in Acts 2 he couldn’t have been saying that the Spirit was promised to those geographically far off. Secondly, if Peter were speaking geographically (as opposed to chronologically), he would have said "for you, and for your neighbor, and for all who are far off," not "for you and for your children...."

34. "Geographically" and "chronologically" are not the only possibilities, nor are Gentiles the only ones who were geographically "far off" from Palestine. The diaspora Jews also lived geographically "far off" from Palestine. It could also mean "spiritually" far off (in the sense of Gentiles separated from God – see Eph. 2:11-22). The Greek word "makran" (makran) which is translated "far off" in Acts 2:39 is never used in a chronological sense. It is always used either in a literal geographical sense or a figurative spiritual sense. Acts 22:21 is a good example of the geographical sense applied to Gentiles. There are only ten occurrences of this Greek word in the NT. Check them for yourself: (Matt. 8:30; Mark 12:34; Luke 7:6; 15:20; John 21:8; Acts 2:39; 17:27; 22:21; Eph. 2:13, 17). Based on the above usage of the word, it seems certain that the word was used in reference to the Gentiles in either a geographical or spiritual sense. Peter would have assumed the Gentiles had to become Jews first, just like all the other apostles would have when Jesus told them to "make disciples of all the nations" in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19). So it is no "leap of logic" to see the Gentiles being referred to in Acts 2:39 as those who are "far off," especially since in Acts 10 we see Peter himself witness the gifts given to the Gentiles just as they had been given to the apostles on Pentecost (Acts 11:15). The phrase "your children" used in Acts 2:39 does not refer to many generations of the Jews either. This phrase is only used eleven times in the NT (Mt. 7:11; 23:37; Lk. 11:13; 13:34; 19:44; 23:28; Acts 2:39; 1 Cor. 7:14; Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21; and 2 John 1:4). And just like the case with "far off," it is never used in the chronological sense of many generations. It speaks only of one's immediate children in the present generation. Sorry, Joe, there is no evidence in Acts 2:39 to support the idea of a continuation of the gifts past that present generation.

35. Thus, this is a plain statement by Peter that, although the gifts would begin to be poured out in the last days of the old covenant, they would continue to be poured out upon believers throughout the new covenant era for many generations to come. In fact, this is one of the main distinctives of the new covenant (as opposed to the old) - with the coming of Christ the very Spirit and supernatural power of God would now dwell within all believers; not simply rest upon a few special prophets.

35. Joe thinks the indwelling of the Spirit and the miraculous demonstrations of the power of God were to be "the main distinctives" and permanent fixtures throughout the new covenant era. I glean a different idea from the Scriptures I read. The Holy Spirit was given as a "pledge" of their future inheritance (Eph. 1:14) of the Kingdom (cf. Lk. 21:31 and Matt. 25:31ff) and a "seal" toward their day of redemption (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:14; 4:30). Joe believes the Kingdom has fully arrived, so there should no longer be any need for a "pledge" (security deposit or down-payment). And Jesus said that when they see all the things mentioned in Matthew 24 and its parallels occurring, they should "straighten up and lift up [their] heads, because [their] redemption [would be] drawing near." (Lk. 21:28). Both the full inheritance of the Kingdom and redemption were to be received at 70 AD. When Paul wrote Romans, he said they had "the first fruits of the Spirit" and were "waiting eagerly for ... the redemption of [their] body." (Rom. 8:23). That generation had already been given a taste of "the powers of the age [about to] come." (Heb. 6:5). If what they had was only a partial taste, firstfruits and seal of what was about to come, then how much better the actual full course feast, full harvest, full inheritance of the kingdom and full redemption would be when it came. Reasoning like Balyeat, we would think that surely they would receive miraculous signs and gifts much more abundantly and gloriously in this new age after 70 AD than anything witnessed in the period from 30-70 AD (assuming that Balyeat is right in his contention that the charismata were to be "one of the main distinctives" of the new covenant era). Something is obviously wrong. We don’t have as many gifts today as they had then (if any), but we are supposed to have it better? Evidently the "better" things we were supposed to get did not include a bigger and better supply of miraculous gifts. Maybe it was supposed to be "better" in some other way? Even though the Israelites had to put some sweat and blood into it before they could eat the "milk and honey," I suspect they deemed it "better" than eating manna for another forty years. Just because we don’t have the charismata today doesn’t mean we don’t have it better. The better things are obviously not the charismata.

36. With the short space available, it would be impossible for me to convince the readers concerning charismatic giftings. But let us return to the main point of my whole argument regarding miraculous giftings and "full preterism." My only intent was merely to make sure that individuals toying with the "full preterist" idea realize the implications of 1 Corinthians 13 - that full preterism mandates the cessation of miraculous giftings in the Church today. Anything less than that is not "consistent" preterism. With brother Stevens’ help, I believe I have fully demonstrated that argument.

36. It reveals a lot about the nature of modern "gifts" when Balyeat says, "it is impossible for me to convince the readers concerning charismatic gifts." He shouldn’t have to convince us. The gifts were "signs" and were so obviously miraculous that the unbeliever "will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you." (see 1 Cor. 14:20-25). Most of the occasions where the gifts are exercised today are all-believer gatherings, and not performed as signs to the unbeliever but for the edification of the believers present. Something has radically changed since the first century! Enough said. It sounds like Joe would agree with this statement: If the "full preterist" view is correct, it would "mandate the cessation of miraculous giftings in the Church today." It is nice to see that even though Balyeat doesn’t agree with the "full preterist" view, he recognizes that the "full preterist" view is consistent when it takes the position that the gifts ceased at 70 AD. And, I would go so far as to say that the "full preterist" view is the only eschatological view that can consistently believe the gifts have ceased. The partial preterist view that Ken Gentry and many other reconstructionists hold (and which Balyeat shares here) obviously cannot consistently prove a cessation. I agree that consistency demands that "full preterists" believe the gifts ceased at 70 AD.

37. In fact, brother Stevens has pushed the cart even further down the road. He ably points out that his view necessitates not only the cessation of the gifts, but the cessation of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as well. "The Holy Spirit’s work is done," says Stevens; and "the idea of [even] a non-miraculous indwelling of the Holy Spirit today" is inconsistent with full preterist theology. Let the reader understand that Stevens is arguing that believers no longer have even the presence of the Spirit to guide them, much less His power to strengthen them. He makes this assertion despite the fact Peter plainly states that the promise of the Holy Spirit would be to believers in all generations, "to all whom the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:38-39). Ed likewise must argue with Jesus Himself, Who said that no one can even enter the kingdom of God without the Spirit (John 3:5). How is it possible to claim that "the Holy Spirit’s work is done?" Brother Ed adds to this large pill by also arguing for a preterist interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:24-28:

Then the end will come when He [Christ] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For He "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under Him it is clear that this does not include God Himself who put everything under Christ. When He [Christ] has done this then the Son Himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under Him so that God may be all in all.

37. Yes, I believe the Paraclete’s work was to be temporary while Christ was away. When Christ returned the Paraclete’s work would be finished. Now instead of the Holy Spirit occupying us until He comes back, we have "Christ in us, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27). The glorious hope of those first century saints was not a permanent presence of the Paraclete, but the return of Christ to be with them and in them. Instead of just the temporary "Comforter" we have the living and abiding presence of Christ Himself, our Immanuel – God with us. The Paraclete had some good manna to offer us, but how much better it is to have Christ in us instead. Christ did not pull out the Spirit and leave us orphaned. He indwells us and providentially cares for us today. We live in His presence. We are His temple. We eat and drink at His table in the Kingdom. He is the tree of life and the water of life that keeps us satisfied. Balyeat’s reference to Acts 2:39 is easy to explain. In the context of the book of Revelation and Matthew 24, the people of God are called out of an old doomed wicked city (cf. Matt. 24:16-18; Rev. 18:4), and called into the New Jerusalem. The "calling out" and "calling into" passages in the NT (like Acts 2:39) have a definite connection to the end of Biblical Judaism at 70 AD. In regard to John 3:5, Jesus was simply saying that one could not enter the kingdom without being made new spiritually. It is talking about repentance and regeneration, not the charismata. The charismata had not even been given yet. Nicodemus could not have obtained the gifts yet. But it is evident that whatever this spiritual rebirth was that Jesus was talking about, it was something that Nicodemus could have right then and there.

38. Brother Stevens’ full preterist understanding of this passage requires us to believe that Christ has already ceased reigning and has handed over His kingdom to the Father, because "the end" has already come. So the gifts have ceased, the indwelling presence of the Spirit has ceased, and even Christ’s kingdom reign has ceased. Brother Ed himself has peeled away the layers