Conley's Blog

Recently a friend I'll write as D.W. asked me an eschatological question. This is the response I felt would be adequate. I hope it assists others as well. My friend asks how I would respond to full preterist when they try and use Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 26:64. Jesus told His Apostles in Matthew 10:23, “You will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.” How would you handle that passage of Scripture? From an honest perspective, Matthew 10:23 I would say can be interpreted a few ways. For example, one could say maybe that it is referring a bit about the destruction of Jerusalem to some extent. If it was then this would not contradict the Patristics as they all say that the destruction of Jerusalem was a type and prefiguring event of what is to come in the future when the Christ in His 2nd Coming comes in a visible, physical bodily event. Some thoughts though... If “before the Son of Man comes” meant that the Parousia is expected before the...

Theologically speaking I do have a serious question for Don K Preston which is also a pastoral one as well. So far all that has been given is a non-answer and a call to call the question a "fabricated, nonsensical, and an illogical question" from Don K Preston. My response to that is that it really is not fabricated, nonsensical, or illogical just because Don Preston says so. My question is this. I am not one but hypothetically, if I were and apply CBV preterist theology to my life and hold to it is there anything wrong with taking one's own life? Preston fully believes that Christ divested Himself of His humanity in the Ascension. Therefore, during the Ascension Christ got rid of His physical body to be in Heaven. This is ultimately the goal is to be with Christ. So why not just get there quicker by divesting one's own self from their body and going to be with Christ instead? If one wishes to take one's life and I use Don K Preston's own theolog...

Can I just say first how amazing it is that Preston has gone 2 whole articles off on a rabbit trail in an attempt to hide from facing his first topic Romans 11:25-27? I find this utterly fascinating how far someone will go to deny the truth even when they know it’s been laid out right there for them. The lengths some heretics like Preston will go to deny the truth is astounding. He didn’t even bother tagging me either. I suppose it was to try and claim I never responded or something? Who knows? In this new article he continues to not answer Romans 11:25-27 as he didn’t last time but continues the same spiel that I need to do something about shame vs glory motifs in Romans 8… Should I bother doing this he’ll just claim I need to do an entire commentary on Romans which I will not be doing. You can go order Archbishop Dmitri Royster’s Commentary on Romans or read St. John Chrysostom’s commentary of Romans for one. I already explained this in the last 3 articles why I didn’t go into th...

In his last blog post, Preston has continued, as I wrote in my last blog on this topic, to push the narrative towards Romans 8:18 and all of Romans 8 instead of sticking to Romans 11:25-27. This is all a clear attempt to distract his readers from the issues I raised and these are issues he has not actually responded to with anything meriting legitimacy. I have already in my last blog explained why I did not focus on the shame versus glory motif he so desperately wants me to do, and for obvious reasons, the focus of this formal written debate was not and is not about Romans 8. The main reason I put something about Romans 8 was because it has to do with election which has got everything to do with the fullness of the Gentiles being completed eschatologically and causing the hearts of the Jew to remove their hardening of hearts so that all Israel can be saved (Romans 11:25-27). He has continually poisoned the well, dodged, deflected, and outright been dishonest as is to be expected when...

I gave Preston an ultimatum in the last post that he too should refrain from some of his blasphemous rude obnoxious haughty caustic prideful comments he likes to leave but alas, narcissistic people like Preston cannot do such a thing. I can only foresee this will just continue on his side and that it will only get worse, as it hasn't changed in the last 8+ years I've known Preston to be. I stand by what I said earlier that Don Preston is doing nothing but evading, dodging, and trying to create a distraction and diversion by moving the original article he wrote and challenged me to respond to by moving to other topics so he can try desperately to avoid the monster of his own making he created by finally trying to address Romans 11:25-27. But I digress. Yes. I called his response to Romans 11 silliness and I stand by this. I did not find it relevant to a discussion about Romans 11:25-27’s usage of pleroma and hettema and whether or not it was numeric or not (which I’ve clearl...

Don K Preston after originally claiming he wouldn’t be responding to my article evidently finally has. So let us address it. https://donkpreston.com/8281-2/ Lance Conley says he is a former preterist, and now presents himself as God’s gift to the theological world to refute the truth of preterism. He is caustic, arrogant and prideful in his comments. On FaceBook his comments are often laced with expletives, something totally unbecoming for anyone calling themselves a Christian. I already knew this article, if he did it, would start off with something to poison the well but I’ll go ahead and address it. Yes I am a former full preterist. Don is correct. He has known me and of me for 5+ years. This “says” business is an attempt to cast doubt that I ever was one to begin with. Truth of the matter is, though I wish I hadn’t been one, I was indeed a full preterist for 2011-2014 (give or take a few months). I was part of a trio that involved myself, Jason Watt, and Joshua Lange....

It seems Mr. Preston has conceded defeat to our written debate. When given ample time to respond to my article, the most he has done is tell Joel Sexton, an ex-full preterist friend of mine (who is also waiting on a response to Don on an article he's written about the ramifications and implications of full preterism in regards to justification) that he basically will not be responding to the written debate. One should note that Preston was the one who challenged me to this written debate and I accepted under the supposition that Preston would attempt to refute me point by point as I did so in my article. As of yet, his only response has been to label me a Calvinist in his 3rd installment of "The Fullness of the Gentiles post #3 where he says: Note: Lance Conley- who is not IO – did write a lengthy article attempting to answer, but his entire article can be summed up like this: Preston is wrong because he rejects the Calvinistic view of “election. Preston is wrong because he...