DOBBS-V-PRESTON WRITTEN DEBATE
DON K. PRESTON
SUBMITTED 10-8 -06
Dobbs admits he has not answered my arguments!
Dobbs assumes, with no exegesis, that Peter predicted the end of time, so, Preston is wrong. That is the depth of his ridiculous "rebuttal."
2 Peter 3 discusses Jehovah’s promise of the Day of the Lord. Dobbs purposely ignored my argument that the promise is from Isaiah 64-66. To admit this destroys his theology.
Peter’s prediction of the parousia is from the O. T. (2 Peter 3:1-2, 13).
Dobbs does not believe that the O. T. predicted Christ’s final parousia at all!
Catch the power of this!
Dobbs admits that his eschatology is different from Peter’s!
Peter’s eschatology (gospel!) was from the O. T. (Cf. Acts 3:21f).
Dobbs’ eschatology is therefore, a different eschatology (gospel) than Peter’s!
Dobbs "gospel" is therefore, prima facie, falsified!
Paul also said his eschatology (gospel) was nothing but the hope of Israel, and found in Moses and the prophets (Acts 24:14f; 26:6f, 21f).
Dobbs says his eschatology (gospel) is not found in the O. T.!
Therefore, Dobbs preaches a different gospel than Paul.
Peter said his prediction of the New Creation was from the O. T. prophets (2 Peter 3:1-2, 13).
The O. T. prophecy that foretold the New Heavens is Isaiah 64-66.
In Isaiah, the New Creation would come, when Jehovah came, as He had come in the past (Isaiah 64:1-4).
Jehovah had never literally, visibly, come out of heaven in the past.
Therefore, the coming of the Lord in 2 Peter 3 was not to be a literal, visible coming.
Unbelievably, Dobbs claims: "He asserts, offering no proof, that 2 Peter 3:1-2 repeats statements in 1 Peter chapter one."
My proof is Peter=s own words: "This second epistle I write unto you, in both of which I stir up your minds by way of remembrance."
1 and 2 Peter said the same thing, and your desperation is exposed!
Dobbs says 1 Peter 1 does not speak of the parousia.
But, Peter spoke of their salvation "ready (Greek hetoimos, meaning imminent), to be revealed in the last days," at, "the revelation of Jesus Christ."
Dobbs says this refers to Christ’s birth!
Yet, Peter said that his audience was still waiting for "the end (telos, goal), of your faith, the salvation of their souls," and they were being "kept by the power of God through faith for salvation to be revealed in the last time." (Literally, in the appointed last timeBthis is the appointed time that Peter said in 4:17 had arrived!)
Buster, that revelation for salvation was still future, and predicted by the O. T. prophets!
Peter’s prediction of the Day of the Lord in 2 Peter 3 is a reiteration of what he said in 1 Peter (2 Peter 3:1-2).
But, in 1 Peter, he said the parousia was near.
It was not near in the days of the O. T. prophets, but had drawn near when he wrote.
Dobbs= claim that "has drawn near" "means it, "could happen any time," is falsified.
Buster, when John and Jesus said "the kingdom has drawn near" does that simply mean that it "could happen at any time"? Yes or No? If it does, the millennialists are right after all!
The contrast between what was once far off, but had now drawn near totally refutes your desperation.
Dobbs completely ignored the other time references:
Christ was ready (hetoimos again), to judge the living and dead.
Dobbs ignored the use of the anaphoric article in V. 17 that says that the appointed time for the judgment, i.e., the judgment of the living and the dead, had come. This is an emphatic declaration of the nearness of the resurrection.
Let me reiterate an ignored argument.
The New Creation prophecy of 2 Peter 3 is based on the O. T. prophecies (2 Peter 3:1-2, 13).
The O. T. prophecy that specifically predicted the New Creation is Isaiah 65-66.
But, the New Creation promised by Isaiah 65-66 would arrive when Old Covenant Israel was destroyed: "I will destroy you, and call my people by a new name… for behold, I create a new heavens and earth" (v. 13f).
Therefore, the New Creation of 2 Peter 3 would arrive when Old Covenant Israel was destroyed.
Buster gets increasingly desperate. I have presented a variety of arguments, based on the emphatic statements of scriptures, to prove my proposition. If grammar has any meaning, if words have meaning, if context has any meaning, my proposition is proven, and Dobbs is exposed as false.