Preston's "Formal Response(?)" to My 1st Article on The Fullness of The Gentiles

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. Sam Frost, Ken Palmer, Jason Bradfield, and plenty more could attest that I was a full preterist. This is not disputable.

Do I present myself as God’s gift to the theological world to refute the ‘truth’ of preterism? Hardly! I simply refute what needs to be refuted and that is the works of Don K Preston, a leading proponent of the heresy known as full preterism and I’d argue there’s a bit of projection going on here as Don seems to consistently present himself as God’s gift to the theological world with regards to sharing what he calls the “truth of preterism” despite the fact that no serious bible scholars will take him seriously.

[Lance] is caustic, arrogant, and prideful in his comments. On FB his comments are often laced with expletives, something totally unbecoming for anyone calling themselves a Christian.

I’ll concede there. Don is right. I have a pottymouth. I can also be caustic, arrogant, and sometimes prideful in my comments to people. I made a New Year’s Resolution actually to try and attempt to cuss less. So thank you Don! This is one thing you got correct about me!

However, I’d ask Don Preston to make the same attempts I'll attempt to do. His posts on FB are often laced with condescension, arrogance, caustic comments, and very much laced with complete haughty prideful comments as well. 

Matter of fact, one of the reasons some of my comments have been hotheaded and “unbecoming for anyone calling themselves a Christian” is because I can’t stand a liar or someone who misrepresents me. 

Also, Preston and I have been expressing quite a bit of vitriol ever since I left FP. I assume it is because when I left I joined up with Samuel Frost, since he can't stand Frost but I usually am not a jerk to anyone unless they're being a complete jerk to me and well... when I left FP and raised questions 5 years ago, Preston sure wasn't being Mr. Friendly but I digress on this matter. I'll attempt to do it and I ask Preston to cut it out too. He isn't a Christian because of FP but he is right that those who profess Christ should try and be better than this. So let's try it Don.

At the time, Preston had told Joel Sexton that he would not be answering my article and left in his 3^rd installment of answers to Israel Only that I was a Calvinist, which, he absolutely knows I am not as he has belittled and given condescending remarks filled with arrogance and haughty prideful and caustic comments toewards me for adhering to Creeds, Councils, and taking the words of Church Fathers commentaries seriously. So yes, when someone attacks my faith, belittles men of God, and misrepresents me (I still stand by that statement because Don has known me for enough years, going on probably 8 now since I became a FP in 2011, that I am Eastern Orthodox and not a Calvinist whatsoever. But aside from that I will gladly accept and forgive and accept his apology as he rescinded that claim in an edit of his 3^rd installment by saying:

“Edit– Conley has informed me, rudely and crudely, (he accused me of lying) that he is not a Calvinist. He tells me he is Eastern Orthodox, but not a Calvinist. I apologize for making that ill-informed accusation. It is never my intent to purposefully misrepresent the beliefs of anyone.”

I accept this apology. I also apologize for having a hothead when I read lies or misrepresentations about me. I got mad because I was being obviously misrepresented and it appears a lie to me but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he wasn't lying to poison the well. 

On December 7, Conley posted a lengthy article seeking to counter the arguments that I had made against the Israel Only position on Romans 11:25-27. When I did not respond immediately, Conley began boasting that evidently I realized that I could not answer him. Others joined in boasting of my failure to respond. (It is amazing that every time someone posts an objection and I don’t respond when they think I should – on their time line– that this ostensibly proves that I know I can’t answer them. Yet, when they never – ever – respond to my posts, that means nothing! At least Conley attempted to answer my article, no matter how bad his “response” so I will give him that).

This is blatantly false. I repeatedly gave Don all the time in the world and periodically tagged him in some posts so he could get to it when he gets to it. After a month and multiple appearances where he managed to respond to quite a ton of people on other matters and responding to Joel Sexton (who was asking about an article of his as well as an answer to my first article) Preston appeared to give a statement to Joel that he wouldn’t be giving a response. So I conceded as any rational person would that he was conceding he had no answer since he wasn’t bothering to make a response as he is the one who challenged me to write a response to him on the article in question.

Conley’s article was ostensibly a “point by point” response.

Obviously.

“Funny thing is however, that in that article, he not only ignored many of the points that I made, but, he agreed that my linguistic arguments on the word pleroma and hettema were correct:”

This is a lot of stretching. I agreed on the fact that in the Greek language, plemora and hettema CAN be used in the way Preston says they can be. There is no dispute over that. The words plemora and hettema can be used to represent non-numeric values. Paul does this when he uses hettema but doesn’t do it when he uses plemora. The word hettema for example is used twice. Once in Romans 11:12 and the other in 1 Cor 6:7. Both times the word clearly means shortcomings. There really can’t be a dispute on this matter with hetemma. I stand by my original statement he quoted because you can indeed translate the words plemora and hetemma and use them in a sentence the way that Preston has said. It is very possible to do that in the Greek language. There are even instances in the bible where there is not a number given specifically for plemora like in Mark 8:20 where “When Jesus fed the multitude, they took up twelve baskets ‘full of the leftovers’. We don’t get the full amount in numerical terms of how many leftovers were in the 12 baskets. We can only guestimate the exact amount.

“However, after admitting that my linguistic analysis is correct, Conley then tried to claim that numbers are involved in Romans 11. This in spite of the fact that he actually came back and admitted that hettema is not numeric but means fault or failure! As I pointed out in response, since hettema is the antonym of pleroma, then if hettema is not numeric as he admitted, then that demands that pleroma is not numeric, thus falsifying his claims.”

Another huge stretch to make even by Preston’s standards. Numbers have to be involved with this usage of plemora because in context it says in Romans 11:25 “When the fullness of the Gentiles comes in”. When the fullness of the Gentiles comes, that is, arrives, is completed. There is an end to this fullness here. It is temporal and has a moment when to put it bluntly, the basket is filled to the brim. This is obviously numeric and has an exact number since it does not continue to be filled up if it has been completed and come as Preston, a fulfilled eschatology believer, would have to concede unless he’s decided to recant full preterism.

Now we know it is numeric but can we human beings know the exact number? Absolutely not! Just like in Mark 8:20 we don’t and can’t know the exact amount of leftovers that are still in those 12 baskets as they are not specified. The exact number is not specified either in Romans 11:25 but we know that in Mark 8:20 the baskets are full and filled to the brim. In the same way, we know one day that the fullness of the Gentiles will come in and it will be completed in number. In other words filled to the brim. The same I will note is true for Galatians 4.4 and Eph 1.10 in context that when time is filled to the brim. We don’t know the number exactly, we just know because of pleroma that it is completely filled, therefore numeric in context. Like I keep hammering, humans may not know the exact number. If Preston ever asks what the exact number is I’ll concede he and I will not know the exact number. However, I know one who does. Christ, the eternally Divine and eternally physically human!

I doubt Preston will ever admit to this because it kills his argument but God does know the exact number here. You may not know how many apples are in a basket filled to the brim but there is an exact number of apples in the basket nonetheless. In the same way, we don’t know how many Gentiles will be counted numerically before the basket is filled to the brim with Gentiles, metaphorically speaking, but we know the number is exact.

Before I go on with refuting Don K Preston on his points about my mentioning of Romans 8 I want the reader to remember this: Don throughout this whole article never once addresses my point that we must include election and predestination in this discussion because they are both intrinsically tied to Romans 11:25.

Another point… the article was talking about whether Romans 11 was numeric. When Preston gets on this rant about Romans 8 and accuses me of not discussing martyrdom, shame, guilt, etc., I obviously didn’t and the reason is because we were discussing Romans 11 being numeric or not and whether or not there is an exact numbering. Preston’s arguments fall flat.

I think it’s clear I’ve shown why Romans 11:25 does have a numerical number. I’d also argue I’ve shown why it has to be an exact number but I digress. Don Preston has to have this number be fulfilled in his eschaton because under the FP paradigm, the 2nd Coming has already happened. Therefore, one must conclude that Romans 11:25 happened and was completed. The exact number that God foreknew had to have been completed by AD70. Therefore, all of Israel must have been saved in AD70, with the number of Gentiles complete and full that God decided to choose or elect and as I said in my first article, this isn’t looking good for Don and his arguments as they continually fall flat.

“How are we to know that Romans 8 is yet future? It is because of Conley’s pre-suppositional theology; because he says so“!

Preston uses this argument “because I [Lance] said so” but I’ll just respond with not exactly. Preston seems to be setting up a red herring or a false trail here. I used Romans 8 and 9 to explain the concept of election and predestination which ties in to “the fullness of the Gentiles” but I digress here. Let us continue.

“He says that we can know that Paul had the full number of Gentiles in mind because of Conley’s view the elect. Conley, an Eastern Orthodox believer, (not a Calvinist) believes that the elect is a given, fixed, unalterable number. He likewise believes that when the last elected Gentile is converted, the imaginary “end of time” comes”.

Yes. Although Paul doesn’t know the exact number, God does. If fulfilled, this number is not ongoing nor is it being filled up as it was made full and filled by AD70; and God knows all the Gentiles who were selected, or elected in AD70, if one holds to the all is fulfilled eschatology paradigm Preston holds to. Preston would have to prove also that the elect is not a given, fixed, unalterable number. God knows who will choose Him. Is God not able to know the exact number of His elect? Is God not omniscient? Show otherwise. 

“Underlying Conley’s argument on Romans 11 are two foundational – unproven – pre-suppositional arguments. Conley imposes those pre-suppositional concepts onto the context and declares that even though my linguistic analysis is true, and my proof that Paul never- never- uses pleroma numerically, that evidence must be discounted because of Conley’s preconceived views of the election and the imaginary end of time. That is hardly convincing.”

Yes I am a futurist. As I’ve shown, just because you can use plemora and hettema in a sentence the way Preston says, this doesn’t mean the Scriptures use it that way in Romans 11:25 for plemora.

I’d also challenge Preston to give his view on the election and how, if all is fulfilled, it is ongoing and continual if the elect were elected in 70 like he claims (Mt 24:31). If he does, I’ll be surprised but we’ll see what happens there with that. I think it is going to be unavoidable for him at some point so he might as well I believe get it over with and attempt to redefine and non-re-definable word.

“Key to Conley’s futurist views is Romans 8:18f, that he spends a good deal of time on in his article. My first two posts will deal with the underlying context of Romans 8:18f– a context totally ignored by Conley. By demonstrating that Conley’s arguments on Romans 8 are false then his entire house of cards comes crashing down. With that in mind, I turn to an examination of the actual context of Romans 8:18f and that is Romans 8:16-17. The first thing to be noted about Conley’s development is that he begins with verse 18, and not verse 16-17 which reads:”

For one thing I quoted Romans 8:19-23 and 29, 30, and Romans 9. So this isn’t factual that I spent a good amount of time on my article with Romans 8:18. I began on v. 18 because I am talking about election and predestination in that section of my article. I find this odd and I think it’s an attempt to divert his audience away from Romans 11; perhaps him shying away from facing the facts? I have no idea. His points get a bit strange since the article was discussing whether or not the plemora and hetemma are numeric values or relational. They can be either/or but in context of Romans 11:25 in particular it is numeric as I’ve noted.

Preston quotes Romans 8:18 then states “A word here about context. The old saying is that a text taken out of context is a pretext, and there could hardly be a clearer example of ‘pretexting’ than Mr. Conley’s article. Here is what I mean, based on the fact that Romans 8:16-17 sets the context of Paul’s discussion of the coming redemption. Notice that in these two verses Paul discusses son ship and the ‘sufferings of Christ’. These two motifs are clearly the context of verse 18f. Yet, in his article, Mr. Conley does not so much as mention verse 16-17. He does not mention the ‘sufferings of Christ’. (And he does not expend much time on the issue of ‘son-ship’.”

For one, again, no, I didn’t discuss son-ship nor the sufferings of Christ much because the context of this article was about Romans 11 which touches on election and predestination. But if Preston wishes me to touch on these issues I have no qualms about doing so but this seems to be Preston saying “you didn’t mention suffering so therefore you’re wrong” in an article response that was talking about numeric values. Does he want me to give a commentary on Romans 8 or is this just Don Preston obfuscating the issues?

“I did a search of his article for the words, ‘persecution,’ ‘persecuted’, ‘sufferings of Christ’, ‘suffering’, ‘martyrs’, ‘martyrdom’, ‘vindication’, ‘vindicate’, ‘tribulation’. Not one of those words is in Mr. Conley’s article! Not one of them! And yet, ‘the sufferings of Christ’ being endured by the Roman saints is the context of Paul’s discussion of ‘the glory about to be revealed’. For anyone to think, and to claim, as Mr. Conley has repeatedly since publishing his article, that he has refuted my view based on an article that absolutely, totally ignores the actual context of the text in view is presumptuous and specious in the extreme.”

Clear obfuscating from the actual issue. If Preston wanted me to discuss this as well in the article I could have done so. Matter of fact just for Preston I will go through Romans 8:1-39 if he really wants me too so much if he really desires me to do so. Offer’s out there.

He makes 3 points about Romans 8 to continue obfuscating from Romans 11.

“There are several things to be noted about Romans 8:16-17f:

Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit as the “witness to our Spirit that we are children of God.” This witness of the Spirit is nothing less than the miraculous gifts of the Spirit given to the early church to vindicate their claims to being the true children, the true seed of Abraham. This was not some unfelt, unseen, inner “still small voice” of the Spirit, but the overt, active, undeniable working of the Spirit, bearing witness to the identity of the early church. (Mark 16:19-20 / Acts 14:1-3, etc.). Thus, if Conley wants to put the “manifestation of the Sons of God” of 19f into the future, he must of necessity also believe in the current, active, undeniable charismatic gifts of the Spirit.

My response is that yes, I do believe that the Spirit of God is currently active in Creation and I do believe there are undeniable gifts of the Spirit that God still gives out today. Being Eastern Orthodox, I find this evident through the Scriptures and with many of the saints who have done many miracles and saintly things that could only have happened through Divine Grace being imparted on them by God to do so.  

To his 2^nd and 3^rd point

Paul not only says they had the Spirit as the witness to their son ship, but, they were eagerly waiting for the ‘manifestation of the sons of God’. Thus, v. 16 is inextricably bound to later verses.
Conley seems totally oblivious to the concept of Shame-Versus- Glory that was such an incredible and fundamental part of the ANE – and Biblical – thought world of Paul’s day. Simply stated, when a person or nation was conquered, oppressed, dominated, persecuted etc., they were humiliated, they were even considered dead, although patently alive physically. However, if / when they were delivered from that oppression, that ostracism, that shame and humiliation, they were glorified, they were manifested, they were even raised from the dead!
This is clearly the thought in Romans 8:17f. The Romans were being persecuted. Like Christ who suffered an ignominious death, they were suffering with him and for him. They were thus, in the Shame-V-Glory thought world, in a body of humiliation and a body of death. But, Paul assured them that vindication was coming, and coming soon – it was “the glory about to be revealed.” We have right here on the pages of the text, the “Shame-v-Glory” motif being laid out for us. Lamentably, far too many Bible students today have any recognition or knowledge of the Shame-v-Glory motif and how dominant it is in the NT scriptures. If Conley has any knowledge of this motif, then he totally ignored it in his comments on Romans 8.”

Again, Preston is simply going on an assertion that I’m wrong because I never mentioned suffering in an article where we were debating Romans 11’s usage of plemora and hetemma. I find it utterly ridiculous.

“Similarly, as just noted, Conley also seemingly disassociates his discussion in verses 18f from the motif of the “sufferings of Christ” found in v. 17. But, verse 17 is the context setting statement! To ignore the context of the sufferings of Christ in any attempt to understand verses 18f is totally wrong. Fatally wrong. Notice that Paul mentions the suffering of the Romans and then says, “for, I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed.” I will discuss the incredible imminence found in this text later.”

In the context of this topic, I didn’t bring up sufferings of Christ because the topic was on God’s election and predestination as it is tied to Romans 11 eschatologically… we can get into the topic of sufferings and the Church of Rome being persecuted, but as far as the topic goes, I was not bound and determined to go on a rabbit trail and wanted the reader to be able to follow the topic instead of trailing on a whole different topic that is, in context, irrelevant to the topic, as we were not discussing the persecution of the church. We were discussing whether or not plemora and hetemma in context are numeric, which it quite clearly is.

“Take particular note of that connective particle, “for” that begins verse 18. It ties Paul’s discussion of the coming glory to their then present suffering, just as he was concerned in his other epistles with the then very present, very contemporary suffering and martyrdom of the first century saints at the hands of the Jewish authorities. What Paul discusses here is identical to what he taught in throughout his epistles and what the other NT writers said about their then present suffering. (Unfortunately, Mr. Conley seems unaware of “audience relevance” in his so-called exegesis). Thus, there is no question whatsoever that Paul was concerned with the suffering of those Roman Christians 2000 years ago. He was not focused on the persecution of the church throughout two millennia, some future unknown persecutors, and some proposed “end of time” as demanded in Conley’s paradigm.”

One thing the reader should know is I’ve never argued otherwise that Paul doesn’t address fellow believers of Rome. Paul does address the believers of Rome and shows in v. 18 that to be glorified with Christ, they must suffer with Him. Paul then ties this into the “creature (kritis) awaiting the manifestion of the sons of God” because we, humans, after all, are part of Creation. We are creation and therefore creatures. Which ties into Paul later in V.21 making an obvious reference to the 2^nd Coming and speaking of the effects that will come by the effects of the Lord’s 2^nd Coming. But one has to ask Preston… if the 2^nd Coming happened as he demands, why hasn’t suffering ended? Why does the creation still groan and await the manifestation of the sons of God? We are to be like Christ’s physical body and this clearly hasn’t happened yet. Of course, Preston can, and he does, argue that Christ doesn’t have a physical body anymore post-Ascension, but I digress as I will cover that heresy in what I assume will be the very near future.

Instead of going through all these time texts I’ll just say this on the topic. Paul is in the end times, the latter days. So are we if Christ hasn’t returned. There is nothing wrong with saying this as we are on God’s time. Not our human understanding of what time has to be. Preston will jump all over this statement but so be it.  Theologically, we are all in the last days. Christ hasn’t come back. Creation and the creature still groans and suffers but good news! As Romans 8:18 clearly shows to be glorified with Him, we must suffer with Him. If we endure and will be faithful we too can inherit as an adopted son of God the promise of eternal salvation and the promise that we will be with and united with Christ, the God-Man.

I’d agree that if we had been talking about Romans 8 just in general and not on Romans 11 particularly that Preston would be right that “the motif of the sufferings of Christ…simply cannot be ignored in any discussion of Romans 8”. But that wasn’t the case. I decided to stick to the topic and not go off on a rabbit trail like this article of his (can I call it his attempt at a rebuttal even?).

Had I been on the topic of martyrdom and eschatological suffering more so instead of just bringing up the points I did, which have yet to be disproven, I would have covered that. Furthermore, on that note, I would have brought up quite a few verses all the way throughout. I note Preston brings up Matthew 21. I would’ve gone into the topic more so about how one’s suffering for Christ can make them a “heir” before the 2^nd Coming and brought up Matthew 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-12; Luke 20:9-19 where Christ talks of these things and talks about the son who has come to call the tenants to account or perhaps discussed Hebrews 1:2 as everything is naturally God’s and as the Incarnate Son of God, the God-Man, He became the Heir so that those who’s nature Christ shares (us humans) can also become heirs through Him.

Matter of fact, to touch on it briefly, Romans 7:17 shows us the motif of the chosen people of God receiving an inheritance from God, that is, the land allotted to them. We know today this material land and possession was and is a figure for all the rest of the people that through faith would become one of His. Christ is clearly the Heir to Abraham’s promise. His death and suffering are the means whereby “they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Heb 9:15). In Christ, those who are His become heirs of God “joint-heirs with Him” (synkleronomoi), because they’ve become God’s children. As a result, they will “be glorified together” with Him (syndoxasthomen). (Gal 4:17 and Acts 26:18). Those who are truly Christ’s will suffer with Him (sympaschomen) as well (see 2 Cor 4:17 and 1 Peter 1:6-7 and Phil 1:29). But I digress. I could have very well gotten all into this topic but Preston and I were discussing an entirely different topic so I didn’t cover it.

“Conley would have us believe– as his article claims – that we are still in the midst of those birth pains!”

Yes. I would very much say we are. Creation still suffers. God promises no more suffering. No more death. No more heartache. No more evil. No more sin. Etc. Preston would have us believe apparently that murder, crime, death, etc. aren’t happening anymore. He’d also argue that this is supposed to go on forever. That Christ is perpetually putting all under His feet over and over again and will never bring all things to subjection as 1 Cor. 15 speaks about… but I digress. We could go on and on about what implications there are to Preston’s fulfilled eschatology belief! There’s plenty to choose from!

“Conley and his crowd would have us to believe that God did in fact bring to the time of delivery, the birth pains set in, but, 2000 years later, the church has not brought forth!! That is the longest period of birth pains in the history of mankind!”

If I am awaiting I’m in good company with the 12 Apostle’s disciples too as Clement and others attest to the 2^nd Coming and Resurrection having not happened yet. But hey ask Preston to find us one historical affirmation that Christ has come back in AD70 and you’ll be awaiting a long time! (pun intended)

Preston’s last closing argument is all the same stuff he’s said earlier and I'll just say do not waste your money buying “The Elements Shall Melt With Fervent Heat” unless you are a glutton for giving yourself a migraine headache and want to experience suffering (which Don apparently doesn’t believe exists since Christ supposedly came back in 70AD).

In conclusion, Preston hasn't answered anything. Made assertions. Didn't back things up. Has not proven a thing and attempted to divert attention from that fact by going on a tangent about me not mentioning shame which had nothing in context to do with the argument over Romans 11 being about numbers. Will I respond back to any future stuff? I don't know. We'll see. So far nothing has proven to me there's much else a reason to.