Response to Preston's "Formal" Response #2
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 clearly shown pleroma is and hettema is not used in that fashion; hetemma is used to mean shortcoming or fault. This is consistent with Paul’s other usage of it which he only uses another time in 1 Corinthians 6:7 for shortcoming. Preston quite frankly needs to get a grip.
The rest of this article is Preston going deeper down the rabbit trail to try and divert and distract his viewers from his trap he set on himself. I can argue all day with Preston about the time texts but at the end of the day the onus is on Preston to deal with the implications of his fulfilled paradigm. I have the 2nd Coming as future. Preston does not.
He claims one of his books totally refutes my claims… we’ll see. Maybe I’ll cover it in my future book. Preston continues on with his rabbit trail instead of dealing with Romans 11:25-27 but alas this is something all who ever debate or disagree with Don usually finds happens when he corners himself into a trap of his own making.
Don can never be consistent because if he does he will have to admit that all who were going to be saved aka Israel, were saved in AD70; that all who were of the elect would be elected in AD70… knowing what the word eklektos actually means well… Don is not part of the elect if this is the case as all Israel was saved (Jew and Gentile) in AD70. Matter of fact, this consistently means that post-2nd Coming by Don’s own paradigm, all have been saved in AD70. Since election aka those who were chosen (chose Christ) in AD70 this means the process ended.
Preston can state all this stuff about time texts all he wants but at the end of the day if he is going to hold to this position he needs to deal with the implications of what he is saying and teaching. And as we all know and see clearly, he refuses to do so because this would hurt his book sales and very likely diminish his following dramatically if he says the Gospel isn’t for us anymore as we aren’t part of the elect and that was for those believers in the 1st Century...
I will answer Preston’s question though with this first. Preston gives a false premise and a false assertion and a false dichotomy. Paul is not a liar just because I answer no. Romans 8 is not falsified either just because Preston says and asserts this to be the case.
Perhaps Preston should consider listening to someone other than himself when it comes to eschatology or anything else theologically. Just a suggestion. May I suggest learning about why Christ has and continues to have assumed human nature 100% but without sin?
Preston goes on a rant about how evil and malicious non-preterists are and without breaking a sweat as usual decides to deride not just me but also Sam Frost as always because he has, quite clearly, got it out for Frost and absolutely despises the guy. Guess it does suck though… Frost is clearly a better writer and a better and more able-minded theologian than Preston will ever manage to be. It must sting to base 20+ years of your life on a pile of dung you kept piling up into a small hill as your idol and see it crumble.
All Preston proceeds to continue doing is a rant to seek to divert attention away from the fact that he never once addresses the actual issues. Because of that I am not going to bother touching this part of his article.
On Facebook comments Preston asks these questions:
To the first question “All men of all time are either elect or not elect”.
The answer is yes. God is omniscient. He knows who will choose Him or not. He knew Jacob and Esau’s free will choices would be made the way they would make them before they made them. This is why Jacob was/is of God’s elect. Romans 9 speaks clearly on this.
This is not a Calvinist issue either. You can read St. John Damascus on Providence and God’s Divine Plan or St. John Chrysostom on the subject… something I talked about in my first and second article that Preston avoided like the plague.
Second I’ll answer the does God know the number of the elect question as it’s the most ludicrous and ridiculous one. GOD IS OMNISCIENT! Like I stated in my first article! Just because I don’t know the number in exact, this does not mean God does not. He is God after all and He is omniscient! Does Preston deny God’s omniscience? Apparently so which would not be surprising!
Here’s texts for omniscience...
“To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. O LORD, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it”. (Ps 139:1-6)
“The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3).
“Can anyone teach God knowledge, since He judges those on high?” (Job 21:22).
God knows every past action. At times, humans struggle to interpret history because we often lack complete historical information. The eternal God, Who had no beginning, has no problems seeing clearly through the mists of time, for history is ever before Him (Isaiah 57:15)
Isa 57:15 “For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: “I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite”.
John 8:58 reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am.’ ”
God cannot be taught anything about the past. He knows all (Isaiah 40:14). “Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?”
God knows every present action. Psalm 33:13-15 reads: “The LORD looks down from heaven; he sees all the children of man; from where he sits enthroned he looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth, he who fashions the hearts of them all and observes all their deeds”.
“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered” (Matthew 10:29-30).
God knows everything done privately (Matthew 6:4).
If God can prophesy then He knows the past, present, and future.
Do I really need to continue? This satisfies that. If God knows the hair on all of our heads He knows the exact number of who all shall choose Him and choose to be one of the elect.
“Is the number of the elect is fixed and cannot be altered?” God knows all and Christ claims that in His 2nd Coming ALL the elect from the four corners of the earth will be gathered. (Mt 24:31).
Clearly since “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Mt 24:31).
“And by the way, I do not claim that any such fixed notion of the elect continues after AD 70-- it is all about free will-- whosoever will may come. Another straw man by you.”
God is again omniscient. If Matthew 24:31 happened already, all the elect were elected in AD70 and all the chosen people of God were elected in AD70. Preston claims this is a straw man but clearly he, as I said from the get go, will have to redefine the eklektos OR redefine God’s omniscience… his choice. Both will result in nonsense and just sink him even deeper into his heresies and their obvious inconsistencies when put to the test.
Going by Preston’s logic, Christ HAD to come back in AD70! Otherwise, if He didn’t shorten the days “there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened”. “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect”. And when He came in the 2nd Coming in AD70, this had to take place “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other”. Christ had to gather ALL of “His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Mt 24:31; 1 Cor 15; 1 Thess; 2 Thess).
Is Preston going to seriously deny his own paradigm? The elect, who God foreknew from the beginning to the end of His plan for AD70 had to be elected in full in AD70, the exact number, otherwise it didn’t happen in AD70. If it did, election is over. That’s how the word eklektos works. (1 Peter 1:2)
Preston clearly has failed. Romans 11:25-27 and other verses destroy his argument. He is either one of the elect or he isn’t.
Which will it be for Preston?
If Preston answers yes that Matthew 24:31 is fulfilled, then the elect were ALL elected in AD70, and he is not part of the elect. Therefore, he will not be with Christ and neither will anyone else post-AD70. If Preston answers no, he could be part of the elect but this will require him recanting his full preterist position and giving up this heretical life he’s led for 20+ years.
I don’t deny Christ’s body was destroyed in the Ascension so yes, since Christ is to come and restore those in Adam to physical and not just spiritual life and Adam’s sin caused the Fall which corrupted the entire universe, when Christ returns bodily and physically I definitely believe that physical creation will be redeemed!
Clearly Preston’s logic is unsound. Hetemma can mean what he’s claimed as well as plemora if you go by the Lexicons. Greek can work that way. It doesn’t mean that this works in every case. There are many ways to use hetemma and plemora. In Romans 11 and 1 Cor 6:9 hetemma every case this is the case. It can also mean other things. In Romans 11 hetemma means fault or shortcoming. In Romans 11 plemora means fullness or fullness in number, completed number, and is alluding to a picture of a basket being filled to a brim in context. It’s numeric obviously but I digress.
Preston’s attempts “to falsify Mr. Conley's feeble ‘response’” continue to fall flat. Stay tuned! I’m sure Preston will have another installment with me mentioned in it and pull more lies and false claims. He hasn’t stopped yet and will continue as far as I can tell going down this rabbit trail lying, denying, and diverting and running away from the argument as much as possible.
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 clearly shown pleroma is and hettema is not used in that fashion; hetemma is used to mean shortcoming or fault. This is consistent with Paul’s other usage of it which he only uses another time in 1 Corinthians 6:7 for shortcoming. Preston quite frankly needs to get a grip.
Conley introduced Romans 8 as a key argument against my articles on Romans 11. So, to him, Romans 8 is clearly extremely relevant to the discussion. If not, why introduce it and offer lengthy comment on it? And yet, when I pointed out that he had totally, absolutely, 100% ignored the controlling motifs of Romans 8:16, i.e. son ship, martyrdom and vindication and Shame Versus Glory, he ignored those context establishing, context controlling motifs because they are ostensibly “irrelevant”! As I asked in the first installment of this series, how can you claim to have done a serious, honest exegesis of a text when you admit that you have totally ignored the actual context of that passage? That is a horrible perversion of hemeneutic and it is not exegesis.Again, since the number is numeric but doesn’t specify specifically how many Gentiles there are, I, to discuss how we know the number is exact quoted Romans 8. This is not rocket science. I was clearly discussing how election and predestination were relevant to this particular topic. Shame and glory could be discussed but no, I did not do so because this topic was about plemora and hettema. Preston is clearly trying to make this something it isn’t because he has been caught up in his own trap and desperately wants to get out. It’s a dishonest tactic from Preston and he quite frankly should be ashamed of himself.
This is typical of Mr. Conley. He ignores the actual context of passages and simply asserts his presuppositional theology, imposing on those passages, and assuring us that he stands with the ancient church Fathers– as if that is determinative of truth.Fact is I do stand with the Orthodox Church but Preston is trying to set up a poisoning of the well again. I have explained this enough. If Preston wants to talk about shame in Romans 8:18 he can go right for it. I was discussing election which is relevant to the topic at hand. Preston needs to quit trying to distract his audience but he won’t because this is probably out of fear that others will see the ramifications of what this means if my points (which have not been refuted) are in fact correct as the implications of it are that if all is fulfilled, Christ came and Christ gathered all of His elect in AD70 (Mt 24:31) and all of Israel was saved that day and all the Gentiles’ number was filled, aka the “fullness of the gentiles” (Rom 11:25-27). If this is what Preston is going to keep doing I'm pretty much over it. He's conceded essentially that he was wrong if he continues this path. Similarly he is doing the same thing with Joel Sexton's posts with him over justification. This happens a lot with Preston.
The rest of this article is Preston going deeper down the rabbit trail to try and divert and distract his viewers from his trap he set on himself. I can argue all day with Preston about the time texts but at the end of the day the onus is on Preston to deal with the implications of his fulfilled paradigm. I have the 2nd Coming as future. Preston does not.
I noted that invariably, the NT posits the vindication at the Day of the Lord as truly imminent and coming soon. In his “response” Conley just waved his hand at the time element just claiming- with no proof- that they are not to be taken seriously because they are God’s time and not man’s time. Nothing could be more wrong.Coming from a guy who has no historical proof that Christ came back… has no historical backing… argues from silence… and who believes Christ’s physical body was destroyed/divested/stripped (whatever Don wants to call and define it these days)… this is a lot of him blowing hot air.
He claims one of his books totally refutes my claims… we’ll see. Maybe I’ll cover it in my future book. Preston continues on with his rabbit trail instead of dealing with Romans 11:25-27 but alas this is something all who ever debate or disagree with Don usually finds happens when he corners himself into a trap of his own making.
Don can never be consistent because if he does he will have to admit that all who were going to be saved aka Israel, were saved in AD70; that all who were of the elect would be elected in AD70… knowing what the word eklektos actually means well… Don is not part of the elect if this is the case as all Israel was saved (Jew and Gentile) in AD70. Matter of fact, this consistently means that post-2nd Coming by Don’s own paradigm, all have been saved in AD70. Since election aka those who were chosen (chose Christ) in AD70 this means the process ended.
Preston can state all this stuff about time texts all he wants but at the end of the day if he is going to hold to this position he needs to deal with the implications of what he is saying and teaching. And as we all know and see clearly, he refuses to do so because this would hurt his book sales and very likely diminish his following dramatically if he says the Gospel isn’t for us anymore as we aren’t part of the elect and that was for those believers in the 1st Century...
Unless Conley and cohorts can demonstrate a radical delineation and distinction between these texts, then all of his blow and bluster about the election is moot. It means nothing. It means that his view of election is wrong. (And it is).Preston has never once shown how my view of election is wrong. All he has done so far is assert that he, Preston is correct in his interpretations and therefore we are all wrong. That’s the rabbit trail of his logic here.
I will answer Preston’s question though with this first. Preston gives a false premise and a false assertion and a false dichotomy. Paul is not a liar just because I answer no. Romans 8 is not falsified either just because Preston says and asserts this to be the case.
He asks: Did Jesus come, in the life time of the first century Thessalonian saints, and give them relief from that then on-going persecution, when he brought judgment on the Jews? Yes or No? If Conley says “Yes” then his entire argument on Romans 8 is falsified. If he says No, then he calls Paul a liar or false prophet. Which is it?The answer is no. Preston misinterprets 1 and 2nd Thessalonians like he does most scriptures. Christ didn’t come back in AD70. And if he did there are many implications Preston refuses to answer.
Perhaps Preston should consider listening to someone other than himself when it comes to eschatology or anything else theologically. Just a suggestion. May I suggest learning about why Christ has and continues to have assumed human nature 100% but without sin?
Conley and his crowd are now fond of saying, “Well, all the preterists have are the time statements.” Such an “argument” is truly revealing. It shows us that the Word of God actually means nothing to them. Their argument essentially says: “All the preterists have is the Word of God, an entire vocabulary of words, terms, phrases, motifs and themes! That is all they have!” Do you catch the power of what they are doing? They are willingly, purposefully, rejecting God’s Word! Are we supposed to believe that we are not to believe what God said about when He would fulfill his promises? Futurists are telling us that although the language of time is clear, emphatic and explicit, that we are to ignore it, deny it, and seek to mitigate it. Such a sad testimony to the power of prejudice and tradition!I’ve never attested to this and I’ve never said “all the preterists have are the time statements”. This is false. I’ll go on record to say I do not believe preterist have time statements down-pat. I actually think they get most of them wrong, especially full preterist’s brand of preterism. They misinterpret the Word of God and the full preterist especially willingly, purposely, rejects God’s Word. Don K Preston is the prime example of this conceited egotistical narcissistic arrogance. The kind of arrogance that blatantly yells out “how could you believe in a 5’ 5” Jewish man named Jesus!?!?” Well I Don Preston can absolutely believe in a physical bodily God-Man. He is my Savior and you sir are not God’s gift to the theological world. In fact, you sir are a tragedy and should abort all theological attempts on all levels. But I digress.
Preston goes on a rant about how evil and malicious non-preterists are and without breaking a sweat as usual decides to deride not just me but also Sam Frost as always because he has, quite clearly, got it out for Frost and absolutely despises the guy. Guess it does suck though… Frost is clearly a better writer and a better and more able-minded theologian than Preston will ever manage to be. It must sting to base 20+ years of your life on a pile of dung you kept piling up into a small hill as your idol and see it crumble.
All Preston proceeds to continue doing is a rant to seek to divert attention away from the fact that he never once addresses the actual issues. Because of that I am not going to bother touching this part of his article.
On Facebook comments Preston asks these questions:
And don't tell me I don't discuss election. When will your answer my questions about that subject? Where are the texts that teach: All men of all time are either elect or not elect, that God knows the number of the elect, that the number of the elect is fixed and cannot be altered?These questions are hilarious.
To the first question “All men of all time are either elect or not elect”.
The answer is yes. God is omniscient. He knows who will choose Him or not. He knew Jacob and Esau’s free will choices would be made the way they would make them before they made them. This is why Jacob was/is of God’s elect. Romans 9 speaks clearly on this.
This is not a Calvinist issue either. You can read St. John Damascus on Providence and God’s Divine Plan or St. John Chrysostom on the subject… something I talked about in my first and second article that Preston avoided like the plague.
Second I’ll answer the does God know the number of the elect question as it’s the most ludicrous and ridiculous one. GOD IS OMNISCIENT! Like I stated in my first article! Just because I don’t know the number in exact, this does not mean God does not. He is God after all and He is omniscient! Does Preston deny God’s omniscience? Apparently so which would not be surprising!
Here’s texts for omniscience...
“To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. O LORD, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high; I cannot attain it”. (Ps 139:1-6)
“The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good” (Proverbs 15:3).
“Can anyone teach God knowledge, since He judges those on high?” (Job 21:22).
God knows every past action. At times, humans struggle to interpret history because we often lack complete historical information. The eternal God, Who had no beginning, has no problems seeing clearly through the mists of time, for history is ever before Him (Isaiah 57:15)
Isa 57:15 “For thus says the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: “I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a contrite and lowly spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly, and to revive the heart of the contrite”.
John 8:58 reads: “Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am.’ ”
God cannot be taught anything about the past. He knows all (Isaiah 40:14). “Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?”
God knows every present action. Psalm 33:13-15 reads: “The LORD looks down from heaven; he sees all the children of man; from where he sits enthroned he looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth, he who fashions the hearts of them all and observes all their deeds”.
“Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered” (Matthew 10:29-30).
God knows everything done privately (Matthew 6:4).
If God can prophesy then He knows the past, present, and future.
Do I really need to continue? This satisfies that. If God knows the hair on all of our heads He knows the exact number of who all shall choose Him and choose to be one of the elect.
“Is the number of the elect is fixed and cannot be altered?” God knows all and Christ claims that in His 2nd Coming ALL the elect from the four corners of the earth will be gathered. (Mt 24:31).
Clearly since “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Mt 24:31).
“And by the way, I do not claim that any such fixed notion of the elect continues after AD 70-- it is all about free will-- whosoever will may come. Another straw man by you.”
God is again omniscient. If Matthew 24:31 happened already, all the elect were elected in AD70 and all the chosen people of God were elected in AD70. Preston claims this is a straw man but clearly he, as I said from the get go, will have to redefine the eklektos OR redefine God’s omniscience… his choice. Both will result in nonsense and just sink him even deeper into his heresies and their obvious inconsistencies when put to the test.
Going by Preston’s logic, Christ HAD to come back in AD70! Otherwise, if He didn’t shorten the days “there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened”. “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect”. And when He came in the 2nd Coming in AD70, this had to take place “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other”. Christ had to gather ALL of “His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Mt 24:31; 1 Cor 15; 1 Thess; 2 Thess).
Is Preston going to seriously deny his own paradigm? The elect, who God foreknew from the beginning to the end of His plan for AD70 had to be elected in full in AD70, the exact number, otherwise it didn’t happen in AD70. If it did, election is over. That’s how the word eklektos works. (1 Peter 1:2)
Preston clearly has failed. Romans 11:25-27 and other verses destroy his argument. He is either one of the elect or he isn’t.
Which will it be for Preston?
If Preston answers yes that Matthew 24:31 is fulfilled, then the elect were ALL elected in AD70, and he is not part of the elect. Therefore, he will not be with Christ and neither will anyone else post-AD70. If Preston answers no, he could be part of the elect but this will require him recanting his full preterist position and giving up this heretical life he’s led for 20+ years.
I don’t deny Christ’s body was destroyed in the Ascension so yes, since Christ is to come and restore those in Adam to physical and not just spiritual life and Adam’s sin caused the Fall which corrupted the entire universe, when Christ returns bodily and physically I definitely believe that physical creation will be redeemed!
Clearly Preston’s logic is unsound. Hetemma can mean what he’s claimed as well as plemora if you go by the Lexicons. Greek can work that way. It doesn’t mean that this works in every case. There are many ways to use hetemma and plemora. In Romans 11 and 1 Cor 6:9 hetemma every case this is the case. It can also mean other things. In Romans 11 hetemma means fault or shortcoming. In Romans 11 plemora means fullness or fullness in number, completed number, and is alluding to a picture of a basket being filled to a brim in context. It’s numeric obviously but I digress.
Preston’s attempts “to falsify Mr. Conley's feeble ‘response’” continue to fall flat. Stay tuned! I’m sure Preston will have another installment with me mentioned in it and pull more lies and false claims. He hasn’t stopped yet and will continue as far as I can tell going down this rabbit trail lying, denying, and diverting and running away from the argument as much as possible.
Comments
Post a Comment