Written Debate: The Dating of Revelation: Olson's Final Affirmative


Greetings to the owner(s) of Religiousdebates, its moderators, members, and to you Mr. Preston.

Proposition: Resolved: The Bible teaches that the Book of Revelation was written AFTER the fall of Jerusalem around A.D. 96.
Affirm: Dr. Olson
Deny: Don K. Preston

Preston tries to characterize my presentations as “desperation” and “bombastic.” Nothing could be further from the truth. His opening remark only shows a cry from a bruised ego that cannot stand to come face to face with the truth. The truth is not bombastic to those who embrace the truth. The truth is only bombastic to those who hold tightly to their error. That Preston thinks I’m bombastic should be a rather good indicator that he is holding far too tightly to my target – a false presentation of God’s holy Word. It is the truth that is being debated – not whether or not Preston likes to see himself standing on the wrong side of the truth. The truth must be presented even if it leads to childish whimperings and a bruised ego that lashes out with diatribes.

Mr. Preston’s fifth response in this debate is as embarrassing as his previous four. His unscrupulous hermeneutics, which surfaced in his very first post, continue unabated in his most recent embarrassment. Since this is my last post in this debate, it is fitting that I highlight five rounds of Preston’s embarrassing hermeneutical tactics – tactics that only a cult would use in abusing God’s holy Word.

Since Israel was the focus of both propositions let’s highlight Preston’s contemptible cultic hermeneutics beginning with Israel.

Preston’s preterit position demands the destruction of Israel in AD 70. Notice that Preston repeatedly declares that Israel was DESTROYED. Preston uses this word to mean Israel’s total, final, and complete destruction. However, pillage of one city doesn’t imply the destruction of the entire nation.

Any one of us can grab a newspaper and read about Israel. We can all find a map of the Near East and see Israel’s position. The daily news, maps, commerce, and common sense all dictate that Israel is still functioning today. Violation of basic common sense has been one of Preston’s most used deceptions throughout this debate.

History tells us that the Roman conquest of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the entire nation. Note the subtle deceptive generalization from the pillage of a city to the destruction of a nation. This is standard tactics for cults. Preston unashamedly bends God’s Word to suit his own unsupportable purposes.

Now let’s look at the word DESTROY. I mentioned that this word is not found anywhere in scripture associated with Israel. So Preston scurries to Daniel 9:24 which talks about a kingdom that shall NEVER BE DESTROYED. This is quite the opposite of Preston’s dribble. God’s Word says that ISRAEL shall NEVER BE DESTROYED. But common sense and context don’t stop Preston. He rips the word out of context and denies common sense.

Preston then runs to Isaiah 65-66 to say that the destruction of Old Israel would happen when the old “heaven and earth” was destroyed. Wow! This is my argument. I just love it when my opponent is so confused that he witlessly shoots his own foot off. Preston is so confused and so bent on answering that he doesn’t realize the folly of using my argument to destroy his own position. What a laugher. As I’ve repeatedly mentioned, Jer 31 promises the perpetuity of Israel until the sun and moon are replaced. We know from Holy Writ that this happens when God introduces the New Jerusalem (Rev 21-22). The CONTEXT (something Preston never uses) of Isaiah 65-66 is Christ’s millennial rule

What is important about Preston’s folly is that all of these arguments prove that Israel was NOT DESTROYED in AD 70. But Preston isn’t done with his deceptive cultic hermeneutic.

In the last round, Preston showed up with a horrible misunderstanding of Dispensationalism. In this response, he shows continued confusion. He writes,

. . . Mr. Olson says I ignore the rest of the text, which speaks of Israel in the millennium. NO, that cannot be Old Israel, because, remember, Mr. Olson, they would be D-E-A-D! Those in the verses cited are the New People, with the New Name!

Because Preston doesn’t understand biblical Dispensationalism he is hopelessly confused. People who enter into the millennium are NOT DEAD. Those in old Israel who believe in Jesus Christ and are saved in one day (Isa 66:8, Jer 50:20, Zech 3:9, and Rom 11:29). New Israel is saved old Israel. Preston simply refuses to use EZ to see common sense scriptures. Israel is not destroyed. Israel is miraculously and sovereignly preserved throughout all world history.

Josephus is another fine example of Preston’s non-logic. First, Preston quotes the historian:

. . .”What does Josephus say of the A.D. 70 destruction: Josephus Wars, Bk 7:1 (Cornfeld, p. 454) “Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up tothe foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited.”

Even Preston’s quote from history shows that the towers were left standing. Jerusalem was not totally destroyed. Jerusalem remained: pillaged – not destroyed, ransacked – not annihilated, conquered – not obliterated, raped – not eradicated. History shows the opposite of what Preston suggests. The Wailing Wall (the western wall of the temple) remained. This, of course, means that the Matt 24 fulfillment is still a future event! Thousands survived the Roman conquest. Thousands of Jews who had fled the Romans returned [Catholic Encyclopedia, “Holy Sepulchre,”].

Finally, I must comment on Preston’s unethical violation of basic linguistics. Preston wrote:

.”Daniel 9:24f emphatically predicted that the holy city would be destroyed.” You ignored the “24f,” which means “following.”And, verse 26- which follows v. 24- emphatically says, “the people of the prince that shall come shall DESTROY the city…”

Let’s see what Dan 9:24 actually says.

“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”

READER TAKE NOTE: the word “destroy” isn’t used in verse 24! But get a load of this. The word “destroy” isn’t used in the NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV, ASV, YNG, DBY, WEB, or HNV translations. So Preston doesn’t use any of the standard translations for “24f.” Clearly, it is yet another of Preston’s unscholarly unethical inventions.

But what about Preston’s claim about verse 26? Here is where the word “destroy” is used. But how is it used? From the context we see that this happens when the prince that shall come confirms the covenant with many for one week (seven prophetic years). This DID NOT happen during AD 70. This 7 year covenant is referring to a yet future event. Because Preston will not use context, he mindlessly rips the word “destroy” out of its context and forces his own wrong definition upon the word. This is the only way that the false preterit view can stand. Context declares that the destruction of Jerusalem is a FUTURE event. Context declares preterism to be wrong.

But Preston boldly declared that he answered my every argument. What a laugher! Yes Preston – you answered every argument in word only.
There was nothing of real substance in anything you wrote. Your answer to every other point follows the same pattern as to how you answered the argument about Israel. You ignored context and ripped words out of context. You demonstrated an inability to represent Dispensationalism. You violated basic linguistics and ignored common sense. Your every unethical unscrupulous argument is vaporized. Answering an argument doesn’t count unless you can do so while rightly dividing God’s holy Word! To this ethical accounting and godly standard – you failed miserably – embarrassingly so!

GALATIANS 4:22fPreston appeals to Paul’s allegory about Sarah and Hagar in a feeble attempt to show the demise of Israel. He says,

. . .”the two women Sarah and Hagar, represent TWO PEOPLE
. . . – Israel of the flesh, and Israel of the promise. They
represented . . . THE TWO COVENANTS, the Old Covenant and the New.”

But now watch him deceptively twist the common sense meaning of these two covenants. He tries to equate the physical path to God by the self-righteousness associated with Hagar to the physical nation of Israel. So now when it says “cast out the bondwoman and her son,” he thinks this is proof that Israel must be cast off. WHAT DISHONEST TREACHERY!

This is quite typical of what any and every cult does in an attempt to put their denominational rhetoric above God’s Word. Of course, none of this has anything to do with the dating of the Book of Revelation. But cults don’t follow logic and Preston writes just to see the heap of words he has piled up.

The right way to view this section is to use CONTEXT – something Preston never uses. From CONTEXT, we see that Paul is teaching about two paths to obtain righteousness before God: self-righteousness and Christ’s righteousness via faith. Paul is not teaching about the physical nation of Israel. The words “cast out” do not refer to the physical nation of Israel. They refer to eliminating the self-righteous path to God (physical circumcision was the focus at that time).

Preston’s cult falls victim to this same context error in Gal. 5:4: “Ye have fallen from grace.” The whole context of the book is dealing with a perverted gospel by which something is added to faith in Christ as the gospel presentation. In Galatians the focus is on physical circumcision. Today, water baptism is a popular but equally wrong substitute. From context “falling from grace” has the same meaning as “cast out.” Falling from grace is not losing one’s eternal security. “Falling from grace” means choosing the wrong path of righteousness to please God. You either choose the path of promise via faith in the gospel or you fall from that path via circumcision, water baptism or other self-righteous works of the flesh.

Per norm, Preston can quote a verse but can’t give the right interpretation.

THE 144,000
Here, Preston thinks that the naming of the 144,000 Jews (Rev 7) during a time of distress proves that this was AD 70. With embarrassing consistency Preston disdains context. If Preston had used context, he would have seen that Rev 7 COMES AFTER Rev 6 (the first six seal judgments). Since none of these six seal judgments happened during AD70, it is the height of folly to think that Rev 7 happened in AD70. Since history and common sense tell us that 25% of the earth’s population WAS NOT killed during AD70, Rev 7 belongs to the unfulfilled future. It was not fulfilled during AD70. This passage points to a late date for the Book of Revelation.
For the disdain of context Preston perishes.
The word “forever” must be understood in CONTEXT – something Preston never uses. The progressive revelation of the word “forever” with the nation of Israel in scripture shows that they are both linked with Christ’s future Messianic kingdom. Preston leaps from this truth to theological folly by insisting that God’s anger stopped in AD70 with the destruction of Israel.Any one with common sense can see that today Israel – while never being totally destroyed – is an occupied land. God’s anger yet burns against them. Anyone who has read the Bible through even once knows that Israel play an important role in the future history of the world.

Preston has so long misquoted and misrepresented huge portions of prophecy that he automatically thinks AD70 was the fulfillment of everything that is in the Book of Revelation. As was done above, we only have to use context. Where the seal judgments were fulfilled in AD70? Again common sense must rule. Since Israel was NOT destroyed, we know that God’s anger against Israel is forever linked with Christ’s millennial kingdom – a time that is yet future.

Reader take note. Preston hasn’t offered anything new in his second negative. Merely repeating arguments that have been debunked is one sure sign that Preston has nothing of substance to use. The debate has long since been over. It really ended with Preston’s first affirmative in round 1 when he abused God’s holy Word through denominational rhetoric, redefinitions of words, willful disdain of context, violations of basic linguistics, and lack of common sense. Since the debate requires six posts, Preston has the opportunity to pursue these unbiblical patterns six times. As nice a format as this can be, it only shows that there can be no real dialogue with cults who are not truly interested in the truth.

Preston cites Ezek 44:9 where physical circumcision is mandated. He thinks that this means that there is a return to the Mosaic Covenant thus replacing the gospel. This is quite some statement – especially when we consider that it is made by a person who doesn’t realize that his cult has replaced the one OT gospel (Heb 4:2) by the addition of water baptism. Preston has made at least five glaring errors with this babble.

First, this shows Preston’s failures wrt basic theology. The Mosaic Law/Covenant has never been the gospel. Eternal life has never been granted on the basis of obedience to the Mosaic Law. Law and promise are antithetical in nature (Gal 3:12-18). Circumcision of the flesh has never had any part { of / with / concerning } eternal life.

Second, Preston fails wrt the differentiation between signs and promises. Physical circumcision was a sign of the Mosaic Covenant for one specific people: Israel. Physical circumcision was not commanded in the Old Testament for any other peoples. When Israel rejected Jesus, her Messiah, God implemented a new dispensation. The new dispensation was a generalization of physical laws to spiritual principles. This escaped Preston for he continues to try to tie this to God’s land promise. While physical circumcision was a sign of the covenant, it has nothing to do with the perpetuity of God’s covenantal faithfulness. Preston’s confusion is apparent in his question:
. . . If circumcision is now spiritual, why is the land not spiritual, just as Hebrews 11:13f indicates?

Again, circumcision was the sign. It was never the reality of anything. God’s promise was real and perpetual. It is the height of theological folly to confuse perishable signs with perpetual promises.

Third, Preston fails wrt progressive revelation. When Israel had rejected Jesus, we Gentiles had an upgraded part in God’s history. Our new part in God’s history is not a different gospel. This dispensation has nothing to do with a new or different gospel. A future dispensation wherein Jesus reigns from Jerusalem for 1000 years has nothing to do with a new or different gospel. The gospel is ONE: faith in Jesus Christ.

Paul used “father Abraham” as an example of the ONE gospel. Abraham was justified by faith – apart from works. He was saved without rites and without water baptism. Any change – any addition to the gospel as given in the OT is a different gospel worthy of nothing but anathemas (Gal 1:8,9). The same gospel we have today was preached unto the OT saints as well (Heb 4:2
). This is why Jesus used the murmuring Israelites (Num 21) as an example for Nicodemus (John 3:9-18). The new birth in the NT is the exact same way as it was for the murmuring Israelites: faith without any other qualifications, additions, or commanded rituals. This is why there is no essential difference between the Churches of Christ and harlot Roman Catholic Church. They both teach obedience to a different gospel than that which saved the murmuring Israelites (John 3) or father Abraham (Rom 4).

Fourth, Preston abuses Heb 11:13f. One must use CONTEXT – something Preston never uses. Heb 11:13-19 begins by telling us about the OT saints who died in faith not having received the promise about the land of Canaan. However, they weren’t disappointed for they were looking for a “BETTER COUNTRY, THAT IS, AN HEAVENLY” country (v16). The right interpretation involves heaven – not Canaan. Per norm, Preston can quote a verse but not give the right interpretation.

Fifth, Preston ignores the CONTEXT of Ezek 44:9. There physical circumcision is required if one wants to enter into God’s sanctuary. Ezek 44:9 has nothing to do with the gospel of eternal life via faith in Jesus.

So when a new dispensation arises that requires physical circumcision, it has nothing to do with the ONE gospel of eternal life by faith in Jesus Christ – alone – without works – without water baptism. Since physical circumcision never had a part in the gospel at any time, then how could it become part of the gospel? Preston has his head in the theological sands with his question. There is so much basic material over which he is clueless. So the dilemma to which Preston points was nothing but his open confusion. What has truly been on display throughout this debate is his deep and open confusion; a confusion over kinder garden material.

In my first affirmative I brought quotes from Irenaeus (120-202), Eusebius (263-339), Victorinus in a comment to Apollinarius (40-120), Clement (150-220), and Jerome (347-420).

Preston’s response was yet another embarrassment in a long series of embarrassments. He writes of Irenaeus as a “lunatic” and implies that we should not believe anything this man wrote. Then, he makes a cavalier dismissal of Apollinarius’ factual historical statement simply because he wasn’t a Christian.

However, Preston is as blind here as everywhere else. In utter desperation he simply accepts the embarrassment for shoddy responses and blurts out that my list of quotations were dependent upon Irenaeus. However, this is merely Preston writing to see himself pile up words. He ignored the totally independent and confirming quote from Clement where John was an old man. He ignored the totally independent quote from Victorinus about John being dismissed from the mines after the death of Domitian. Preston dismissed this simply because Victorinus wasn’t a Christian. Eusebius similarly wrote that John returned from banishment after the time of Domitian.

All Preston could do was cast doubt upon Irenaeus. Yet get a load of this – – – Preston later used Irenaeus as a quote. Another fine example of saying “Yes” and “No” out of the same mouth. This is standard practice for cults.

Preston fell really hard here. The united voice of the ancient Church Fathers supports a late date. Preston could offer nothing from the early Church Fathers to support an early date.

Preston’s arguments wrt the Book of Revelation are simply that he avoids CONTEXT. Without the use of context he can interpret the biblical language in any way he desires. When the Bible says one-fourth of the world’s population died in the fourth seal, Preston retreats to aimless symbolism and ignores the context for what follows. However, God’s Word was written to common people. If the fourth seal and other passages are symbolic, then Preston should have a ready explanation for the symbolism.

Merely saying that the passage is symbolic is not a valid answer! There is simply far too much in the Book of Revelation for a mindless and unexplained symbolic interpretation – unless of course God has given us the key to the interpretation as in the Great Dragon.

In my first affirmative, I presented 30 some passages from the Book of Revelation that were not fulfilled during the Roman AD70 pillage of Jerusalem. This is the CONTEXT over which Preston stumbles. Consider the following list:
.1 one fourth of the earth’s population destroyed (Rev 6; 4th Seal),
.2 the kings of the earth hide in caves (Rev 6; 6th Seal),
.3 the 144,000 Jews are instrumental in a great conversion of
. . . . countless souls (Rev 7),
.4 a third part of the trees burned up (Rev 8; 1st Trumpet),
.5 a third part of the sea became blood (Rev 8; 2nd Trumpet),
.6 a third part of rivers became wormwood (Rev 8; 3rd Trumpet),.7 the sun / moon loose part of their light (Rev 8; 4th Trumpet),
.8 locusts torment those with the mark of the beast for 5 months
. . . . (Rev 9; 5th Trumpet),
.9 an 200 million army converges on Israel (Rev 9; 6th Trumpet),
.0 two witnesses prophecy and do miracles for 260 days (Rev 11),
.1 God’s temple is visible to the earth (Rev 11; 7th Trumpet),
.2 The beast and false prophet (Rev 13),
.3 Three angels preach the gospel from heaven (Rev 14),
.4 a battle makes a river of blood 4 foot by 184 miles (Rev 14),
.5 a sore on those who had the beast’s mark (Rev 16; 1st Vial),
.6 the sea dries up (Rev 16; 2nd Vial),
.7 the rivers dry up (Rev 16; 3rd Vial),
.8 the sun scorches the earth (Rev 16; 4th Vial),
.9 a painful darkness falls on the earth (Rev 16; 5th Vial),
.0 an earthquake split the great city into 3 parts (Rev 16; 7th Vial),
.1 the Great Harlot is destroyed (Rev 17),
.2 Mystery Babylon is destroyed (Rev 18),
.3 the Second Advent of Christ (Rev 19),
.4 the beast and false prophet cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev 19),
.5 Satan is bound for 1000 years (Rev 20),
.6 Saints reign for 1000 years (Rev 20),
.7 Satan leads a last rebellion (Rev 20),
.8 Satan cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev 20),
.9 the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev 20),
.0 New Heaven / Earth (Rev 21),

Each of the events described in these passages deny fulfillment during the Roman sack of Jerusalem in AD 70. If Preston is right about symbolism, then there should be a ready { answer – interpretation – explanation } for these passages. All Preston could manage was the weak miserable embarrassing plea for unexplained symbolism. Really, what should we believe: Preston’s context-less opinion or the common sense contextual understanding of God’s Word? What is incredible about Preston’s denials of a common sense literal interpretation is how his unexplained symbolism fails to handle the really big events such as the demise of 25% of the world’s population, the Second Advent, Satan being bound in the bottomless pit for 1000 years, etc. These are future events. They were not fulfilled during the Roman plunder of Jerusalem in AD 70. These, like every other event listed above, cry for a late date for the writing of the Book of Revelation.

Another interesting passage that Preston ran away from is the three angels who preach the gospel. If this isn’t a literal event, then what explanation could this symbolism have? Preston can give none for God wrote the Bible to be understood by the common person. Common sense communication is literal – not symbolic. All we have to realize is that there is NO HISTORIC REPORT of three angels preaching the everlasting gospel during AD 70.
There are several of the 30 events that refer to the beast and/or the mark of the beast. There is NO HISTORIC REPORT of any world wide system requiring a mark of some world ruler for the purpose of commerce. Preston’s symbolism simply cannot yield any valid interpretation.

Common sense should rule against Preston’s view from every biblical point. To each of the
above 30 points all the common layperson should have to do is ask the following question:

. . . Was this event fulfilled during the Roman pillage and conquest of Jerusalem in AD 70?

Common sense will answer: “NO” and with it Preston’s arguments go down the toilet – a fitting ending for arguments so violently abusive to God’s holy Word.

To date in this debate Preston has given us five posts utilizing embarrassingly horrific hermeneutics. The goal of Christian debate is an exchange of ideas based on God honoring study methods such as common sense, literal interpretation, a right understanding of covenants and dispensations, the right use of context, basic linguistics, and definitions based on context Preston has not used any of these God honoring techniques.

1. GOD’s KEY
From his very first post, Preston has demonstrated a willful disdain for the contextual clue of the Book of Revelation. On one hand Preston used Rev 1:1-3 to force everything in the Book to fit the AD70 time period. On the other hand, God provided us with Rev 1:19 as the key to understand the Book’s three historical contexts:

. . . (1) the things which thou hast seen (past),
. . . (2) the things which are (present), and
. . . (3) the things which shall be (future).

Rather than seeing individual verses in their context, Preston has repeatedly ripped technical terms out of context and forced his own view of Rev 1:19 upon them. Many of the “near term” events of Revelation are linked with the things which shall be (Future). They have an adverbial or qualitative meaning rather than Preston’s mindless chronological meaning.

I’ve lost count of the number of ways Preston has confused and misused the Mosaic Covenant. He thinks the Mosaic covenant is the gospel. In Preston’s first affirmative, he actually stated that the Mosaic covenant embraced the Abrahamic covenant! In this statement he shows a blatant misunderstanding of promise versus law.

He also thinks that the provisions for national Israel within the Mosaic Covenant can be applied to everyone at any time period – notably Christ’s coming millennial kingdom. He does not think that God can have two plans at the one same time: the gospel for the entire fallen race and one for national Israel (not the gospel).

Preston waxed unscrupulous, deceitful, and unethical in this area. He posted vicious unprincipled lies about dispensationalism. These lies only highlighted his anemic understanding of covenants and the relationships of promise to law. Preston attributed errant quotes to well known dispensationalists. For example, he implied that John Hagee teaches that the Jew does not need Christ or the gospel. When challenged for a scholarly source for his unethical comments, he could not produce one.

Preston’s dreadful misunderstanding about Dispensationalism showed when he mocked that Dispensationalism “makes Israel a temporary role in God’s scheme.” It is hard to understand how anyone can miss Israel’s place throughout God’s Word. Jeremiah 31:35-37 shows that God will be faithful to His covenantal promises as long as we have a sun for light by day and the moon for light by night (Jer 31:35-37).
Even in the NT, God repeats His covenantal faithfulness in Heb 8:8-12. Paul affirms Israel’s place in God’s plan even while they are ruled by the Romans (Rom 9-11). So the Old Israel is dismantled only when the sun stops shining. We know from Rev 21 that this happens with the New Jerusalem. The inhabitants of the New Jerusalem are all the saved Jews and Gentiles from any and every dispensation.

Preston wrongly thinks that Dispensationalism “replaces the blood bought body of Christ with a nation ordained by the blood of animals.” With this statement we realize that Preston is a raving
madman. Dispensationalism does NOT replace the blood of Christ with anything. Preston’s fallacious statement stems from his cultic failure to comprehend the gospel promise. In Preston’s cult, Christ’s Cross is not totally and finally sufficient. Individuals must consistently do something to stay in God’s good graces. Preston’s uses specialized terminology such as “obedience” to delude himself into thinking that his cult is different than the Mosaic Law. In this
way, he can attribute something that never saved a soul in the OT to Dispensationalism. His attacks are terribly unethical and devious. The reader is encouraged to turn to my Second Affirmative to review more of Preston’s embarrassing and dishonorable remarks.

Preston wrote that Dispensationalism “demands a future time when the gospel will be replaced with a covenant that demands circumcision.” He pointed to Ezek 44:9 for proof. However, the context of Ezek 44:9 is the future millennial rule of Messiah Jesus. The ending chapters of Ezekiel describe the future temple, the return of God’s glory to the temple, the duties of priests during that time, and the land of Israel. It is important for the reader to note that since no temple duties of the Mosaic Law ever replaced the gospel, it is rather embarrassing for Preston to suggest that future temple duties of the Millennium would ever replace the gospel. The specifics of Ezek 44:9 apply not to the gospel but whether Jews or Gentiles would be granted access to God’s sanctuary. It is obvious that Preston only read and used half a verse before leaping to some half-cocked error of personal opinion.

Dispensationalism doesn’t teach different gospels. There is but one gospel. Dispensationalism teaches that there are several prescriptive ways to honor and obey God for fellowship – not for eternal life. There is but one way to eternal life: faith in Jesus Christ. Any addition to faith – even obedience to commands for sanctification, fellowship, and consecration – is a perversion of the one single gospel.

Preston failed to admit to his ignorance of Dispensationalism and he failed to apologize for unethical accusations. This is what is to be expected from one who perverts the gospel.

Virtually every argument that Preston puts before us is violated by ignorance of CONTEXT. For example, in the first proposition Preston used Matt 24:36 to show the destruction of Israel. Yet, the first few verses of that chapter show that Jesus is talking about His Second Advent and the end of the world. Preston missed both of these and a dozen other important context clues.

Context was a rather huge point in my proposition. Note that Preston failed in every response to discuss the 30 events listed above that were NOT FULFILLED during the Roman sack of Jerusalem in AD 70. Every one of the thirty events forms a tightly knit, well integrated, self-supporting view of future events. All Preston can do is write weasel words based on his fanciful leaps of personal opinion in hopes of confusing a reader who is willing to leave common sense.

Preston desperately needs Israel to be totally, completely and finally destroyed for his preterit perversion to be right. While I can understand a view like this developing after Israel’s dispersion
to the four corners of the world, common sense should tell everyone since 1948 that the preterit view is wrong. After all, we have maps that show us Israel’s existence. Israel is honored with a place in the nations of the world.

Rather than common sense, Preston’s responses have been the embarrassments of fanciful leaps of personal opinion. He is quick to rip every warning passage out of context and force his errant
fanciful opinion upon God’s Word. For example, Peter warned his fellow countrymen to escape the judgment coming on that untoward generation (Acts 2:40). But this is not proof that the Book of Revelation was written before the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70. It is only showing that judgment is coming upon that generation. Just because one can
quote a verse does not mean that one can come to the right conclusion. Fanciful leaps of personal opinion are not valid responses.

Violations of context allow Preston to equate a word from one context to a word in another context. Let the reader note that this is the same as taking the word “run” from sentence 1 below and using it in sentence 2.

. . . 1. You run a race.
. . . 2. Your nose runs.

It would be funny to think about a nose with legs going down a race track. Yet this is the hilarity of Preston’s arguments. This type of willful abuse of context combined with ignorance of elementary linguistics brought Preston to some hilarious and embarrassing conclusions.

For example, Preston thinks that Jesus’ pronouncement in Rev 22:20, “I come quickly” is an objective nearness. Preston thinks Jesus came sometime in the past. Surely the common sense reader can see that the 30 events of Revelation to which I pointed to earlier have not yet happened. It has been some 2000 years since Jesus made this declaration. The nearness to which He refers is adverbially near for each one of us no matter in which objective time period we live.
As another example, Preston writes that Israel is under a PERPETUAL REPROACH (Jer 18:16) as a result of disobedience to the MOSAIC COVENANT. Again, this is linguistic confusion. The very Book from which Preston quotes also shows that things will change in the days when the LORD will raise up to David a righteous Branch (Jer 23:5). Isaiah shows that under His reign things will change (Isa 54-66). It is wrong to rip a verse out of context, force one’s personal opinion upon the verse, and ignore basic linguistics. The word “perpetual” is qualified by the context and linked with the Second Advent of Christ. At that time God (through Jesus Christ) will seal up vision and prophecy and anoint the most Holy (Dan 9:24). Perpetual reproach has a definite ending that Preston refuses to admit. If he ever admitted this truth, he would have to give up his treasured heresy.

Preston has provided this forum five wordy posts without any substance. However aimless posts without any substance is a far better summary than Preston’s tactics. Anything that starts with an
hermeneutic that WILL NOT HONOR God’s holy Word incurs divine displeasure. I’m sure we can all anticipate Preston’s final God dishonoring post with words piled upon words yet without saying anything of substance. Why does Preston choose to debate when he obviously isn’t up to the task?!? But he may want more of this!

So Preston, twice now I’ve talked about my already posted debate challenge. Have you read my next debate challenge about how your cult is no different from the Roman Catholic Cult? I’d like to once again expose your heresy in that format! I extend the challenge to you personally. I pointed this out to you in the last post – but all I saw in return from you was ego rhetoric about Thomas Ice. I can’t do much about your flops with Thomas Ice, but I can allow you to once again dishonor God, His plan of redemption, and the sufficiency of Jesus Christ through your vile hermeneutic, disdain of context, lack of common sense, and violation of basic linguistics – – just as you’ve been doing in this debate. There is nothing else for me to do but wait and see if you can do something beyond empty egotistic words. I’ll understand when you choose to run. After all, you have nothing of substance to say. Your position can never be blessed – only cursed (Gal 1:8,9). A tail tucked run is my recommendation to you. I understand! Really!

Just as the medieval confusion over justification by faith alone was brought to the public and exposed and debunked – so also must Preston’s preterit heresy be exposed, debunked and buried. Preterism must be exposed for its devious denial of the sufficiency of Jesus Christ and the future glorious reign of the Messiah over the earth from Jerusalem. Preterism must be exposed for its denial of Israel’s rightful place in God’s world history. Preterism must be exposed for it vile and deceptive hermeneutic that dishonors God’s Word. Preterism is an embarrassment for any individual to endorse. It will bring future judgment and shame from God.

May our theology affirm the total, complete, and final sufficiency of Jesus Christ in every aspect!
Dr. Olson