Observations on the Gary Demar/Michael Brown Debate (Has Church Replaced Israel?)

Status
Not open for further replies.

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
Available for free here.


Opening statements:


Brown: points out that specific promises to Israel do not make sense if used as “fulfilled in Christ.” Very polished delivery.

Demar: All of these promises to Israel were fulfilled in the Book of Acts. Quotes Peter’s words to Israel, and notes that when Israel converted on Pentecost, that was the fulfillment. His presentation improved over the time of the opening statement. It’s not clear, however, how Demar avoids the charge of full preterism when he says “all” was fulfilled in Acts, yet Christ must remain until the time of completion. If all is fulfilled in Acts, and that is the condition for Christ’s return, then Christ must have returned in AD 70.

In other words: When it says that heaven must receive Him until...." was that, too, fulfilled in Acts? That is where Brown wins the debate.

Demar’s presentation suffers in that while he realizes Brown is not a pretribulationist, most of the sources he attacks are pre-trib. Further, it’s not clear how “the gospel has been preached to all the earth” (Demar’s exegesis of Acts) when Paul specifically wants to go to Spain.

Conclusion:

Brown could have pushed Demar’s preterism harder and made Demar accept the full conclusion: what justification do you have for saying Revelation 20:9ff is not already fulfilled? Further, while I think Brown won the debate by technical knock-out, I’m uneasy about all of the land promises.
 
Available for free here.


Opening statements:


Brown: points out that specific promises to Israel do not make sense if used as “fulfilled in Christ.” Very polished delivery.

Demar: All of these promises to Israel were fulfilled in the Book of Acts. Quotes Peter’s words to Israel, and notes that when Israel converted on Pentecost, that was the fulfillment. His presentation improved over the time of the opening statement. It’s not clear, however, how Demar avoids the charge of full preterism when he says “all” was fulfilled in Acts, yet Christ must remain until the time of completion. If all is fulfilled in Acts, and that is the condition for Christ’s return, then Christ must have returned in AD 70.

In other words: When it says that heaven must receive Him until...." was that, too, fulfilled in Acts? That is where Brown wins the debate.

Demar’s presentation suffers in that while he realizes Brown is not a pretribulationist, most of the sources he attacks are pre-trib. Further, it’s not clear how “the gospel has been preached to all the earth” (Demar’s exegesis of Acts) when Paul specifically wants to go to Spain.

Conclusion:

Brown could have pushed Demar’s preterism harder and made Demar accept the full conclusion: what justification do you have for saying Revelation 20:9ff is not already fulfilled? Further, while I think Brown won the debate by technical knock-out, I’m uneasy about all of the land promises.
Still have to deal with the aspect of as per Peter, how God is holding Jesus from returning until the time of restoration, and Paul springs off that to when Israel receives their Messiah, how great that restoration shall be for the whole world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top