Response to Preston's Critics Post #3

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 he claims I think of myself as the theological gift of God to the world.

Yes I openly admit I have and will continue ignoring Romans 8 about suffering because it is irrelevant to the conversation. If we are discussing black holes and talking about the event horizon it is irrelevant to talk about the color of the sea in the Gulf of Mexico.

I absolutely stand by my statement that all Preston has done is "word vomit". His articles are nothing more than diversionary tactics where he rambles on about a topic that has nothing to do with the topic of Romans 11:25-27. Again, it would be like a group at a college discussing black holes and Preston coming up in front of the class and talking randomly about the sea color in the Gulf of Mexico and then rambling on and on and on and on and on about it ad nauseum without ever addressing black holes. I pointed to Romans 8 because of election. Whether the elect are to suffer is irrelevant to the discussion on whether or not Romans 11:25-27 is speaking of a numeric number which quite frankly I think I've given the reasons why I am correct and why Preston is wrong. He will have to once again, redefine eklektos (an unredefinable word), redefine God's omniscience, admit to a form of Israel Only, or the one I would choose if I were him, recant full preterism.

Briefly: "The sufferings of Christ– the filling up of the measure of martyrdom on the part of the first century saints, and the crucial, critical role of the apostles".

Implication: If all were elected in AD70 then the election is over. No more people to become the Bride and be married to Christ. Election is not continual - as I wrote and showed in my 1st blog on this topic. The basket is pleroma - filled to the brim with Gentiles? Then no more Gentile Christians are being brought into the Church (which is the basket allegorically speaking) and there is only some room left for some Jews so that ALL of Israel (Jew and Gentile in Christ natural and spirit born can be saved in entirety).

"The motif of the Shame Versus Glory mind set, world view of the ancients. To be persecuted, downtrodden, defeated, was shame. To be vindicated, to be victorious, was to be glorified. It was to be raised from the dead!"

If the Resurrection happened in AD70 (the bodily, physical resurrection, which Preston denies because he is a heretic and claims Christ left His assumed human nature in the Ascension) then there is no more Resurrection... There should be no more physical bodily death, no more sin... and Satan should be defeated entirely too... Preston's view is Satan is defeated but sin and physical death will continue for all eternity til the sun explodes or we all die from the heat death of the universe. Preston calls physical death good and clearly Thanatos is not good in any form to God.

As to his 3rd point. I will not budge from this. Preston knows it and I know it that he is purposely deflecting, dodging, and being dishonest to put a front up with his readers as he never answered the questions to Romans 11:25-27 and merely did as I call it Preston's word vomit.

The only real thing I care to respond to in the rest of this article of his is where he claims in my "desperation to hold onto a futurist eschatology, [I label] Paul a false prophet or a liar".

This is not at all true. Furthermore, Preston is being dishonest. As is per usual for him. I would never do such a thing or call Christ nor His apostles a liar. But I will say this. Preston clearly believes Christ's apostles were so incapable, stupid, and completely and totally incompetent as they, for whatever reason, never once told anyone of their disciples or taught them that Christ had already came back in AD70. John the Apostle by Preston's logic had 30+ years to tell Polycarp or any one of his disciples this fact but never once did. St. Clement and plenty more of the Early Church teach otherwise and preach a future Resurrection of the saints and a future 2nd Coming to take place at some point. If anyone is labeling the apostles and Christ anything it is, by implication, Don K Preston.

I am perfectly aware of persecution. I may even cover it one day in my blog posts. As it pertains to the debate though? It is just not relevant to the discussion on whether or not Romans 11:25-27 is numeric or not... He perpetually deflects, dodges, and is dishonest about this and I don't foresee it stopping any time soon but God still does work miracles I suppose.

"I say again that to ignore or discount the connection between “the sufferings of Christ” and Paul’s paranesis based on their then present suffering (not some far distant suffering of the church millennia removed) and the coming imminent glorification (The Shame Versus Glory Motif) is an abuse of exegesis and sloppy hermeneutic. Since Lance Conley openly admitted to ignoring these context setting, context controlling motifs, we have every right to totally reject his entire article, as an example of presuppositional, a priori argumentation that has no merit."

I will say this. Preston is going to "reject" my entire article because he is dishonest, can only deflect, and is intentionally dodging because he knows his goose has been cooked here. He did not think I would respond to his debate challenge so I took his bluff and did so and now he is trying in complete and total desperation to save face to his followers because he knows he has been caught in his own trap and is now trying to save face and claim other things other than what is the actual truth.

With that, I believe he'll just continue writing nonsensical article after article claiming he was superior over Lance Conley or something of the sort. I'm personally sick of the complete lack of honesty I find coming from Preston but I hope one day he repents of his blasphemous full preterist ways. He has about 20 (if he's lucky) good years left before he goes to meet Christ and if he refuses to recant and repent the only thing I can say is may the Lord have mercy on Preston and I really hope Preston is ready to answer for his blasphemous question to me about worshipping a 5' 5" Jewish man.

Again, I will reiterate... As I wrote in my last post and I will put it in big letters and bigger font and underline it for Don.

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. 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. 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.