DOBBS-V-PRESTON WRITTEN DEBATE
DON K. PRESTON
SUBMITTED 11- -06
Readers, see Dobbs’ response to my question #1!
Dobbs said the O.T. never predicted the ultimate coming of Christ!
Now he admits: “Prophets may have foretold it, but did not understand it (See 1 Pet 1:10-11).”
Buster, did the O. T. prophets predict the ultimate coming of Christ, yes or no? First you say no, now you say yes. Which is it?
Paul’s hope of the resurrection came from “the Law,” Moses and the prophets (Acts 23/24:14f).
The resurrection would be when Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 were fulfilled, “then shall be brought to pass the saying.” (1 Corinthians 15:54f).
The promised “adoption, the redemption of the body” belonged to “Israel after the flesh” (Romans 8:23-9:5).
Peter’ eschatology was from the O. T..
He anticipated the ultimate coming of Christ at, “the restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all the prophets since the world began…yea, Samuel and all the prophets” (Acts 3:21-24).
This proves, definitively, that Peter’s eschatology was– contra Dobbs –based on the O.T. promises made to Israel.
Buster, tell us, please:
What prophets spoke before the apostles of Jesus spoke? (2 Peter 3:1-2).
What prophets foretold the revelation of salvation at the parousia, and yet, were told it was not for their day, but for Peter’s day (1 Peter 1:5-12)?
Dobbs now admits that these were the O. T. prophets! This is a fatal admission!
Dobbs’ entire eschatology falls on the indisputable fact that all N. T. eschatological promises were based on the O.T. promises to O. T. Israel.
None of the O. T. could pass away until all O.T. promises were fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).
The promise of the ultimate coming of Christ was an O.T. promise (Acts 3/2 Peter 3).
Therefore, none of the O. T. could pass away until the ultimate coming of Christ.
Paul and Peter’s eschatology is drawn from the O. T. promises made to Israel.
Dobbs’ eschatology –by his own admission– is not drawn from the O.T. promises made to Israel.
Therefore, Dobbs’ eschatology is an eschatology different from that of Paul and Peter.
See now my question #6 and Dobbs’ response.
In scripture, the Law that was the “strength of sin” was the Mosaic Law.
Dobbs’ answer agrees!
Paul uses the term “the Law” 117 times. When used without a qualifier, it invariably refers to the Mosaic Law. There is no qualifier in 1 Corinthians 15.
The resurrection would be when “the Law” that was the strength of sin would be removed. This is incontrovertible.
But, the Law that was the strength of sin was the Mosaic Law (Dobbs–and scripture). This is irrefutable.
Therefore, the resurrection would be when the Mosaic Law was removed.
Dobbs says I have made no argument on 2 Peter 3. False.
Peter’s prediction of the New Creation is from the O.T. prophets (2 Peter 3:1-2, 13). Dobbs now admits this!
Isaiah 65 predicted the New Creation.
The New Creation of Isaiah 65 would come when Old Covenant Israel was destroyed (Isaiah 65:13-19).
Therefore, since 2 Peter 3 is taken from Isaiah 65, the New Creation of 2 Peter 3 would come when Old Covenant Israel was destroyed, i.e. in A.D. 70.
Buster, if Isaiah 65 is not the source of Peter’s prediction, then provide the O. T. prophecy of the destruction of literal creation, as you perceive it!
Demonstrate that Isaiah 65 is not the source of 2 Peter 3!
I challenge you to even try!
Peter anticipated the world of righteousness foretold by the O. T. prophets.
Daniel 9:24-27 predicted the establishment of everlasting righteousness by the end of the “seventy weeks.”
The end of the seventy weeks was the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:27). This is irrefutable.
Therefore, the world of righteousness foretold by Peter would arrive at the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem.
The world of righteousness foretold by the Old Prophets was still future to Peter.
Unless Dobbs can prove that Peter’s world of righteousness, (foretold by the O. T. prophets), was different from Daniel’s world of righteousness, then Peter’s anticipated New Creation would come at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Not once, not once, has Dobbs examined even one of my syllogisms, and even attempted a refutation. He says he does not have to! He makes empty claims, but his failure to honestly examine my arguments reveals the falsity of his doctrine. The negative is to follow and respond to the affirmative. He has abjectly failed, again.