PRESTON- SIMMONS FORMAL WRITTEN DEBATE
THE PERFECTION OF SALVATION AND PASSING OF THE OLD COVENANT
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE BY DON K. PRESTON
My worst fears have been realized. I shared with some close friends that I was concerned that my friend Kurt would not actually engage in a debate, following my affirmatives as a negative is pledged to do, but, would simply use this to promote his personal agenda. Lamentably, this is precisely what has happened. Kurt spent five pages presenting material that is totally irrelevant to responding to my affirmative arguments, in spite of the fact that he signed rules not to introduce material not “directly relevant to proving or disproving the respective positions!” Five pages of irrelevant material!
Take note that each of us signed rules for the debate. One of those rules reads: “Each man agrees to answer the other man’s arguments directly, without obfuscation or evasion, to the full extent of their ability and knowledge.” What does my friend do? He gave an affirmative presentation, that has the appearance of being pre-prepared. He did not follow my arguments! Then he says: “I am sure Don would like me to take the bait and use up my allotted space following him down all sorts of rabbit trails, answering questions, and interacting with his affirmative. Why should I?”He even asks: “Why should I involve myself in discussion about the proper exegesis of Isaiah 26, 27 and 59 and what light that may or may not throw on Rom. 11:25-27 if Don cannot produce even ONE VERSE to show the debt of sin still hung over the saints from and after the cross?”
Well, Kurt, here are just a few of the reasons you should follow my affirmative arguments:
1.) You gave your word to do so! Is that not enough?
2.) Because my arguments– in spite of your declarations to the contrary– prove my position!
3.) Because your failure to follow my arguments will demonstrate irrefutably your inability to answer my arguments.
Why should my friend involve himself, “in discussion about the proper exegesis of Isaiah 26, 27 and 59 and what light that may or may not throw on Rom. 11:25-27”? Well, he should do so, because if he does not properly exegete Isaiah 27 / 59, and I do, then I have proven my point in regard to Romans 11, and at the same time falsified my friend’s entire rejection of Covenant Eschatology!
With that in mind let me offer here three more affirmative arguments from the prophetic source of Romans 11. We will see if Kurt will ignore these new arguments.
#1– ISAIAH 26-27 AND THE SALVATION OF “ISRAEL”
Re: Romans 11:26f– The coming of the Lord to take away Israel’s sin is the coming of the Lord to take away Israel’s sin foretold by Isaiah 26-27 / Isaiah 59. But note this…
Kurt claims that Romans 11:26f predicts the salvation of individual Jews, via obedience to the gospel, throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age.
This demands that Isaiah 26-27 / 59 predicted the salvation of individual Jews, via obedience to the gospel, throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age.
But, Isaiah 26-27 /59 does not predict the salvation of individual Jews, via obedience to the gospel, throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age.
Isaiah 26-27 / 59 predicted the salvation of Israel at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. This is irrefutably true, and Kurt has totally ignored it.
Therefore, the prediction of the coming of the Lord in Romans 11:26f is not the prediction of the salvation of individual Jews, via obedience to the gospel, throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age.
Kurt simply must deal with this! He pledged himself to follow my arguments. This argument alone proves my affirmative. But there is more.
#2– ROMANS 11:26-27 AND THE SALVATION OF THE REMNANT
When Paul discusses the salvation of “all Israel” he actually has the salvation of the remnant in mind (see Romans 11:1-11). This is affirmed in the prophetic passages he cites (cf. Isaiah 27:12-13; 59:18-20). Now watch this!
Romans 11:26-27 is the salvation of the remnant of Israel (Kurt, is it the salvation of only a remnant of the church?) at the coming of the Lord foretold in Isaiah 26-27 / 59.
In Romans 9:25-28 Paul (citing other OT prophecies of the salvation of the remnant of Israel) says: “Though the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea the remnant will be saved. For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness because the Lord will make a short work on the earth.”
Here is the argument:
The salvation of Israel in Romans 11:26f is the salvation of Israel in Romans 9:28.
But, the salvation of Israel in Romans 9:28 would be finished in a short time.
Therefore, the salvation of Israel in Romans 11:26f would be finished in a short time.
But this can’t be, per Kurt, for he demands that Romans 11:26f is the continuing salvation of Jews throughout the entirety of the endless Christian age!
Kurt’s position denies what Paul (and Isaiah) had to say about the salvation of the remnant.
Unless Kurt can prove that the salvation of “all Israel” is to be divorced from Paul’s discussion of the salvation of the remnant of Israel, then my affirmative is established beyond dispute. And of course, Kurt cannot prove this.
#3– ROMANS 11–ISAIAH 27 AND THE SALVATION OF THE REMNANT AT THE SOUNDING OF THE GREAT TRUMPET AT THE RESURRECTION
Please follow this carefully.
The coming of the Lord to take away Israel’s sin in Romans 11:26f is the coming of the Lord at his coming in judgment of Israel foretold by Isaiah 26-27, when He would call the dead–those scattered to the four winds– to Him (i.e. the resurrection) by the sounding of the Great Trumpet (Isaiah 27:13).
Jesus said that the calling of the remnant, those scattered to the four winds– would be at his coming in judgment of Israel– at the sounding of the Great Trumpet– (Matthew 24:30-31) the time of the resurrection per my friend Kurt Simmons– in AD 70.
Therefore, the coming of the Lord to take away Israel’s sin of Romans 11:26 was to be (it was) at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel– the time of the resurrection at the sounding of the Great Trumpet– per my friend Kurt Simmons– in AD 70. (The coming of the Lord in Romans 11 is not the individual conversion of Jews throughout the endless Christian age).
I proved that the coming of the Lord in Romans is the coming of the Lord of Isaiah 26-27, which is the coming of the Lord at the resurrection. Kurt says the resurrection was in AD 70. Therefore, the coming of the Lord in Romans 11 was in AD 70. I likewise proved that Isaiah 27 (thus Romans 11) foretold the defeat of Satan at the parousia. Kurt admits the defeat of Satan was in AD 70! Therefore, Romans 11 must be AD 70. Kurt ignored these arguments! My affirmative is established.
I have proven beyond any doubt that Isaiah 26-27 / 59 and thus Romans 11:26-27 fit, very firmly, in Kurt’s box.
As I pointed out several times in my first affirmative, this debate is about proper hermeneutic. Kurt, proper exegesis of scripture is the only way that you can prove your point, and negate mine! Thus, refusal to even mention my arguments about the
prophetic background of Romans 11 is a tacit surrender of your negative. You have virtually admitted that you cannot deal with the exegetical material I presented. You refused to answer my questions based directly on the text (Yet, interestingly, you asked me questions, expecting an answer)! And you question what relationship proper exegesis of those prophetic texts would have on this discussion!……
The remainder of this presentation, and the entirety of the debate, is now available in book form from Don K. Preston.
Price of the book is $19.95 + $4.50 postage.
You can ordering a copy of the book by sending the funds to Don K. Preston, via PayPal. Be sure to include a note that you are ordering the Preston – Simmons Debate.
You can also send payment via check to Don K. Preseton, 1405 4th Ave. N. W. #109, Ardmore, Ok. 73401. Again, be sure to include a note that you are ordering the Preston – Simmons Debate.