| Tim Martin Challenges Kim Burgess to Public Formal Debate
May 10, 2023
The recent Gary DeMar Controversy has spawned a great deal of discussion about biblical eschatology.
One of the most intriguing developments is an American Vision podcast series titled "Covenant Hermeneutics" hosted by Gary DeMar and theologian Kim Burgess. This series began with the intent to clarify a biblical and consistent preterism and perhaps deliver a coherent eschatology for those who are interested in the topic and the ongoing controversy
It was clear after the first few episodes that Kim Burgess would make a significant contribution.
The early episodes laid out a biblical hermeneutic approach that sincerely attempts to understand the Bible in terms of its own categories, definitions, and teachings rather than a presupposed systematic theology that is forced onto the text of Scripture in order to preserve traditional beliefs.
As the series continued, Burgess promoted a fulfilled view of resurrection as a covenant promise to Israel and central to Paul's teaching in places such as Romans 8 and 1 Corinthians 15.
However, later episodes draw out some claims briefly introduced early in the series that the Old Covenant begins with Abraham, and that Noah and the previous Genesis material is not included with this "redemptive covenant" as related to Israel. The opening chapters of Genesis merely "set the stage" for the time of Abraham when God begins to work his redemption with Israel.
Episode 20 titled "Covenants and Ages" argues that the Old Covenant Age, begun with Abraham, came to an end in AD70, but the Adamic age ("this age") continues on while the accomplished gospel is applied to world history.
(The reader should note here how Burgess affirmed, in effect, that Thomas Ice was correct and Gary DeMar was mistaken in all of their old debates on Matthew 24 regarding "this age" in Matthew 24:3. Burgess says this is not the age that concluded in AD70, but the "worldwide" age of Adam. Apparently, the dispensationalists were right all along to see a worldwide question to open the Olivet Discourse!)
Thus, according to Burgess, eschatology is bifurcated between the Abrahamic/Mosaic Old Covenant age ending with AD70, and the Adamic age which did not find fulfillment at AD70 but remains ongoing with an assumed conclusion sometime in our future. Burgess states that there are two transitions in the biblical eschatology picture: "From Moses to Christ" (past fulfillment) and "From Adam to Christ" (future fulfillment). It is an eschatology that sees two "ends" in the Bible and the challenge is to distinguish them as "nuances." There is a "micro" end and a different, completely separate "macro" end.
We hope the baffled reader might start to see some familiarity at this point in the podcast series. It is very simple to understand once you see that Burgess insists on two"ends" for biblical eschatology.
Burgess has effectively presented a brand new form of partial preterism that finds its watershed with Abraham in the Old Testament.
This appears to be a significant proposal and has major implications for books published and promoted by American Vision. Specifically, the Burgess proposal is in direct contradiction to the work of James B. Jordan who always presented the Old Covenant as originating with Adam and the earliest chapters of Genesis. Here is a representative example:
"Theologians sometimes use 'Old Covenant' to refer to the Mosaic covenant. There is truth to this in that the Mosaic covenant published most fully the distinctive character of the Adamic covenant under curse. Yet, ultimately, the Old Covenant is the covenant of the original garden of Eden. Ultimately there are two covenants, Old and New. There are two Adams, Adam and Jesus. There are two heavens and earth, the first in Adam and the second in Christ."
James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes (1988), p. 311.
It seems that now American Vision is simultaneously promoting two contradictory partial-preterist systems: one promoted for decades in the writings of James B. Jordan (See Handwriting on the Wall by James B. Jordan), and now another brand new, never-before-presented model discussed by Kim Burgess. The confusion, chaos, and incoherence regarding partial-preterist eschatology is multiplying with this controversy, and as each weekly podcast episode is released, revealing surprise claim after surprise claim by theologian Kim Burgess.
While Burgess' view contains much truth (as do all partial-preterism views) and is very helpful, particularly regarding hermeneutics and the time-context of biblical prophecy, this model introduces additional chaos and confusion regarding eschatology, as is the perennial problem with partial-preterist systems. It is more than ironic that this entire Gary DeMar Controversy over the last few months has now given birth to another unique partial preterist system that sees the biblical "end" with double-vision. The partial-preterist world continues to fracture into mutually exclusive views with the fallout. It is like a civil war is unfolding within the partial preterist community.
Tim Martin would like to challenge Kim Burgess to a public, formal, 2-hour evening debate regarding the origin of the Old Covenant Order which came to a final end in AD70, as well as Burgess' claim that biblical eschatology must be delineated between two "ends."
American Vision recently published an article titled "We Need a Council on Eschatology." This debate challenge to Kim Burgess is offered in the same spirit and goal of maturing in our biblical understanding.
Shouldn't we have some debate first in order to "prepare the ground" for any sort of future council on eschatology? What harm can be found in a respectful dialogue and exchange of ideas, complete with cross-examination and challenges? Is Burgess up to the task to defend his partial preterism in formal debate? Or will he decline the invitation and remain in the closed and protected environment of podcast recordings?
The propositions for the debate can be determined through mutual consent. Examples to consider might include, but are not limited to:
- The Old Covenant began with Abraham
(affirmed by Burgess)
(denied by Martin)
- The Old Covenant Creation Reaching Consummation in AD 70 is the Genesis 1-3 Creation
(affirmed by Martin)
(denied by Burgess)
- There are Two Ends in Biblical Eschatology
(affirmed by Burgess)
(denied by Martin)
- The Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant are Extensions of the Adamic Covenant
(affirmed by Martin)
(denied by Burgess)
Funding has been procured for all travel expenses, lodging, food, and a generous honorarium for all participants in this proposed debate.
Even the dates are flexible. One option is to hold the debate at the upcoming Church @ the Well #AskThePastor Endtimes Conference in St. Louis, Missouri in August, OR the debate could be held at the Blue Point Bible Church "The Kingdom and Worldview Conference" in New York State in October, whichever is most convenient for Kim Burgess to attend. Finances cannot be a valid excuse since funding has been procured for all costs involved. All the logistics and necessary authorization has been cleared with both conference organizers. In fact, they expressed eager desire to host this proposed debate.
Tim Martin is scheduled to be a speaker at both upcoming conferences and will be ready to defend a full Covenant Creation and Covenant Eschatology paradigm of biblical understanding along with the powerful Christian Worldview implications for all of life (see Chapter 21 of Beyond Creation Science).
The challenge has been laid for Kim Burgess and his novel partial-preterist view.
Can Kim Burgess' partial-preterism be defended in a formal debate? Will Kim Burgess accept and promote his brand of "consistent" preterism to the wider preterist community? Or will he raise some excuse about not debating "hyper-preterists" like the rest of the partial preterist world?
Tim Martin looks forward to this event as a time of learning, discussion, open debate and progress toward a thoroughly biblical, coherent, and consistent eschatology.
Blessings,
Tim Martin
covgardens@gmail.com
Related Material:
Sam Frost vs Martin/Vaughn Formal Debate
(Sam Frost attempted to disprove Covenant Creation by claiming the Old Covenant begins at Sinai, not before, just as Kim Burgess claims the Old Covenant begins with Abraham, and not before. Longtime observers of Covenant Creation should note that Burgess' model bears an uncanny resemblence to what Sam Frost proposed back in 2009.)
The Story of Covenant Creation
Introduction to Covenant Creation
The Promised Land of Lot
|
