Middleism...
Stephen Whitsett BA
Giving an orthodox apologetic answer for Preterism / Dispensationalism
A Logical Failure in Logic

Abstract:
One’s ability to logically reason through an argument is directly proportional to one’s education. It easy to assert a position but when the time comes to prove and establish the position based on the reasoning of scriptures it requires a complete depth and knowledge of the whole of scriptures. To carefully go through a logical progression as does John Noe when debating or presentation his position based o if two arguments are true then the conclusion must be true: If A = c and A = r then R and C are also equal and true. The problem then that presents itself is proving to begin with that A is equal to c.


In the Miano vs. Whitsett debate a question was asked in the challenge part: In Revelation 20:4 it states: I saw thrones and standing before the thrones were the souls of those who had been beheaded… they came to life.” And it was established these are dead people in Christ who are standing before the throne, not spiritually dead people but people who had been in Christ and died for their faith during the tribulation. Miano’s clarified answer is this;
the first resurrection are of those who put their faith in Jesus Christ. They went from death to life. The second resurrection that we are reading about here would be the resurrection of the dead ones.

Based on Paul’s teaching of the new birth in that he associates it with us being raised to new life in Christ is not disagreed with but Miano is claiming Revelation 20 is talking about the first resurrection in which people experience is the new birth. The position is advocated by Ed Stevens who argues for a two-part resurrection. So Miano is arguing this passage is referring then to the two resurrection the first the new birth and the second, of the rest of the dead is of those souls who existed Sheol at the end of the age.

 Here is the fundamental problem and the logical fallacy created when trying to apply “covenant” eschatology. Michael forgets the picture painted is one of what happens before the throne, in heaven. Secondly he agreed these dead people in heaven were killed (physical death) during the tribulation for their faith in Christ: based on his argument, if the first resurrection is of their new birth they had to experience that in order to be in heaven after they are killed, you cannot call them “coming to life” as the first resurrection. Michael understood this does point to a physical resurrection as dead people in heaven can only come back to life in one way but he seeks to misdirect this and head it off. So the dishonesty began with his first answer in which he stated the bible does not explain what it means to come to life in this passage as this passage is a “conceptual reality”.

Secondly to be killed in the tribulation for their faith means, they were killed after having been “born again” and raised to new life in Christ before they died so therefore these dead people before the throne were not experiencing the new birth but the physical resurrection in order to reign with him.
Michael states at about the 1:40 mark in the video, the first resurrection is of those who put their faith in Jesus Christ which denies the corporate nature of the resurrection that happens at his coming. “in the physical being alive….” These people in heaven are physically dead.
But allow me to point out one other fact.
The Preterist claims this resurrection of all those in Sheol were raised in 70 AD. How then are dead people, people who are killed during the tribulation, in heaven before the “second” resurrection as he puts it could happen?

Thirdly, Mathew 27:52 is a resurrection of dead people coming out of tombs. Where do these souls come from? Other than Sheol.
If these souls came out of Sheol why would some be released and not all of the “dead ones”? Paul teaches Christ Resurrection is the “firstfruits” then the release of these captives is the “firstfruits” resurrection. What makes this the “first” is that Christ was raised immortal. If it is the first, then all other previous resurrection of others such as Lazarus would be of a different nature since this is a “firstfruit” of a different kind. And we know Christ being raised from the dead cannot die again.
Theologically speaking the blood of Christ purchased their freedom.
Psalm 68:18 You ascended on high, leading a host of captives in your train and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the LORD God may dwell there.

Ephesians 4:8 Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”

9(In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth? 10He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Systematic theology points to the fact that Christ set the captives free at his resurrection. (Mathew 27:25) based on:

Acts 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Rev 5: for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
10and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth.”


 3084 lytrˇo (cognate with 3083/lytron, "a ransom-price") – properly, to release (set free) by paying the full ransom; "to release, on receipt of ransom" (Vine); (figuratively) to restore "something back, into the possession of its rightful owner – i.e. rescuing from the power and possession of an alien possessor" (Wm. Barclay).
There is no reason to assume if the purchase pried had been paid, Christ having now the keys to death and Hades, would have to wait forty years for their release.
Ephesians 4:8 Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”

He led captivity captive - The meaning of this in the Psalm is, that he triumphed over his foes. The margin is, "a multitude of captives." But this, I think, is not quite the idea. It is language derived from a conqueror, who not only makes captives, but who makes captives of those who were then prisoners, and who conducts them as a part of his triumphal procession. He not only subdues his enemy, but he leads his captives in triumph. The allusion is to the public triumphs of conquerors, especially as celebrated among the Romans, in which captives were led in chains (Tacitus, Ann. xii. 38), and to the custom in such triumphs of distributing presents among the soldiers; compare also Judges 5:30, where it appears that this was also an early custom in other nations. . When Christ ascended to heaven, he triumphed ever all his foes. It was a complete victory over the malice of the great enemy of God, and over those who had sought his life. But he did more. He rescued those who were the captives of Satan, and led them in triumph. Man was held by Satan as a prisoner. His chains were around him. Christ rescued the captive prisoner, and designed to make him a part of his triumphal procession into heaven, that thus the victory might be complete - triumphing not only over the great foe himself, but swelling his procession with the attending hosts of those who "had been" the captives of Satan, now rescued and redeemed. Barnes notes on the Bible

An old testament example of this principle is found in Genesis 14.

14When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. 15And he divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and defeated them and pursued them to Hobah, north of Damascus. 16Then he brought back all the possessions, and also brought back his kinsman Lot with his possessions, and the women and the people.

Conclusion:
What’s demonstrated above in the presentation of facts Preterist fail in their system of applying “covenant Eschatology” when certain established principles are violated and render sound doctrine “twisted”. It becomes clear and demonstrated above uneducated Preterist fail to comprehend simple logic that is used to formulate doctrine such as the Trinity and by the same token accept anhilationism, universalism, and even modalism because they are not able to process thoughts that lead to sound theology.
Orthodox
Redemption of Creation
Preterist Mill Problem
Logical Fallacy
Home