Conley's Blog

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

Recently, Don K Preston wanted me to rebut and refute his article “The Fullness of the Gentiles – Numeric or Relational - #1 A Response To “Israel Only” http://donkpreston.com/the-fulness-of-the-gentiles-a-response-to-israel-only-1/?fbclid=IwAR2fg4yhKEF5SmuJlz2dx1_-r2zOfpBAb7ywY_kMf-F6LRfTIN_cCIVv6Wc For the record, I do not accept Israel Only and I never would for any reason. It is just another batch of heresy in the realm of full preterism. While never shall I be Israel Only, Mr. Preston wished me to challenge his article so I accept Don K Preston’s challenge to rebut and refute his article. I will simply do it in the form of correction. Anything he might have correct, I will simply say is correct. Anything incorrect, I’ll offer the correct orthodox position. In this article, IO means Israel Only and FP means Full Preterism.  “An absolutely fundamental tenet of what is known as the IO crowd is when Paul said that at the coming of the Lord “the fullness of the Gentiles