This is the last installment in response to an accusation by Joel McDurmon that in our formal debate, held in Ardmore, Ok. July, 2012, I misrepresented his views, exhibited dishonesty, a lack of scholarship, and outright false quotations of multiple “quotations.” Be sure to read all of the articles in this series #1, #2, #3, #4, #5.
In addition, be sure to get your own copy of the debate, either in Kindle, DVDs, or the book, (Very special price offered on the book form for a short time only, so take advantage!!) and you can read for yourself that I did not misrepresent McDurmon’s views.
I have noted that I did omit a few words from his actual quotation, but, the omission of the few words did not materially alter the meaning of his quotation. I have shared that in private correspondence after the debate, McDurmon said that he did not even challenge my understanding of his words!
In the last article I demonstrated that McDurmon claimed in his “post debate” Appendix that he never taught that “Zion” arrived in AD 70. Here is what he claimed in that Appendix, (written months after the debate): “I noted that this “spiritualized” promise was fulfilled in the ascension of Christ—not in His AD 70 judgment! Don not only totally ignored this part, he misled the audience in suggesting it could be applied to AD 70.”
Well, evidently, McDurmon either forgot what he has written and said elsewhere (very possible since we are all susceptible to human error), or, he was purposely guilty of making a false claim about what he believes.
Here is an excerpt from the previous article in which I document, from McDurmon’s own words, that he believes Zion did in fact arrive in AD 70!
Commenting on Revelation 21 and the New Creation, McDurmon said this:
“This passage is describing among other things the results of an historical event: namely, the passing away of the Old Covenant “heavens and earth” and the arrival of the New Covenant “new heavens and new earth.” The New Heavens and New Earth complex is also called New Jerusalem, which is the bride-city-dwelling place of God, or “the church” as we commonly say.
The passing away here refers to the passing away of the Old Covenant order. It is passed away for good never to return, and has been replaced by the New Covenant order. This replacement “event” began with the Incarnation of Christ, and culminated with his Ascension and Session at the right hand of God. The final expression of the demise of that old order was the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in AD 70.”
This quote can be found in an article on the American Vision website.
So, McDurmon claimed that I falsely represented his view on Zion and that he never taught that Zion arrived in AD 70, but that he believes Zion arrived in / at Jesus’ ascension. And yet, it is undeniably true that he is on written record saying that in fact, Zion did arrive in AD 70! Words could hardly be clearer, more emphatic, or undeniable.It is, therefore, indisputably true that Joel McDurmon falsely accused me of misrepresenting his views on Zion’s arrival in AD 70.
But, let’s continue with more on McDurmon’s charge that I misrepresented him.
Notice that McDurmon charged me with giving “alleged quotations.” Notice the plural form of his accusation. Go back to the earlier article and examine the longer quotation in which McDurmon addresses the Zion issue, you will notice how long it is. And let me say this: I cut and pasted that quote directly from the article on American Vision website! This is where it gets interesting.
McDurmon accuses me of falsely representing him by giving “alleged quotations” plural. Just how did I misrepresent McDurmon in these other “alleged quotations? McDurmon gave no example, no proof of his claim. In fact, McDurmon exaggerated his claim about my so-called “misrepresentation” and “alleged quotations” (plural). And, as his email testified, “I am not sending this to you in confrontation or even to say that I disagree with your interpretation of it…”
Let me summarize McDurmon’s false claims in regard to my supposed misrepresentations of his views.
He said I ignored the fact that he says Zion came in Christ at the ascension, and he says I misled the audience in saying he posited the arrival of Zion in AD 70. In truth, Joel McDurmon’s own explicit, undeniable words verify what I said: He believes Zion came in AD 70. His charge against me is therefore false.
He claimed that I misrepresented him in multiple “quotations” plural, when in fact, I omitted a few words in one quotation. Remember, he never offered a syllable of proof for my supposed misrepresentations of “quotations” plural. And again, what is so significant is that in private correspondence he admitted that he did not necessarily disagree with my interpretation of his words.
He claimed: “I never said, ‘Zion has been spiritualized and fulfilled.’” Yet, he did say:
Zion has been “spiritualized.”
He did say Zion has been “fulfilled in Christ.”
His attempt to focus– post debate– on his words “as it were” is pure desperation. He seeks to say that “as it were” negates the reality of the actual fulfillment of Zion which he elsewhere undeniably affirms! This is desperation exemplified.
I wonder if McDurmon should contact Horton, who he attacked in his American Vision article. Perhaps he should apologize for claiming that Zion has been fulfilled, that we need to focus on the past tenses of Hebrews 12 which demand the fulfillment and arrival of Zion. Perhaps he should apologize for castigating Horton for his view that there will be, in the future, a physical Zion that will come down from God out of heaven? After all, McDurmon said in our debate that Zion is yet to come in fulfillment of Revelation 21, and that this will be a physical, earthly kingdom! And yes, this is after saying that Zion did come in fulfillment of Revelation 21, in AD 70!!
For McDurmon to focus on the omission of a few words in his quote above and deny that he gave it, while at the same time admitting he believes Zion was spiritualized and Zion was fulfilled– in AD 70-– is clearly an attempt to mislead the reading audience and to escape the force of his own words.
The facts and the truth is very evident here. McDurmon was entrapped by his own words and his own theology. Entrapped and exposed, McDurmon resorted to the old “debater’s trick” of claiming I had misrepresented him. He denied believing that Zion came in AD 70, yet, his own article, his own words falsifies this claim. He said I misquoted his “quotations” (plural) which is a patently false claim, and he never even attempted to offer so much as a syllable of proof for these alleged multiple misquotations.
In truth, I did not misrepresent him in by giving multiple erroneous“ quotations.” I did not misrepresent his view of Zion coming down in AD 70. I was not dishonest, or unscholarly. It is McDurmon himself that has demonstrated an un-scholarly attitude. He has made false accusations against me and misrepresented the facts, as the record clearly shows.