Written Debates

Preston-Simmons Debate: The Perfection of Salvation and Passing of Torah– Preston's First Negative

Attention! Other Websites, YouTube and Facebook Users. You are free to post this debate on your spaces / sites, on the condition that you post the entirety of the debate, with no alterations, no deletions, no additions of any kind. This is copyrighted material. Kurt Simmons and I have agreed that this debate– if / when published– would be published in its entirety, with no alterations of any kind whatsoever. We expect those who wish to publish it themselves to honor this. This is the only ethical thing to do.

Don K. Preston

Preston – V – Simmons Written Debate
SUBJECT: THE PERFECTION OF SALVATION AND PASSING OF THE OLD COVENANT

Don K. Preston’s First Negative

Kurt’s first affirmative reminds me of a dispensational debate I witnessed. The Zionist read passage after passage that foretold the kingdom, the wolf laying down with the lamb, turning swords into plowshares, etc.. No exegesis. As he sat down he said, “That is my position!” So it is with Kurt. He lists some 88 verses that speak of justification, grace, salvation, etc, and says “This proves my position!” No exegesis, no exposition, and of course, no proof for his proposition!

KURT AND THE COMMENTATORS
Kurt has made a great deal of his false claim that no commentator has ever applied Isaiah 27 to AD 70. I have not addressed this because  I am concerned with scripture, not commentators. But, do any commentators apply Isaiah 27 to AD 70? Matthew Henry says Jesus referred to it when speaking of the unfruitful vine being burned up, and it was fulfilled, “in a particular manner in the unbelieving Jews.” John Gill and Albert Barnes applied Isaiah 27 to the second coming. Adam Clarke says that Matthew 24:31 anticipated the fulfilment of Isaiah 27:13. So, commentators do apply Isaiah 27 to AD 70 and the second coming! So much for Kurt’s appeal to the commentators!

ISAIAH 27
It just keeps getting more confusing as we read my friend’s attempt to explain why Paul cited Isaiah 27. He now claims that when he said that Paul cited Isaiah 27 along with Isaiah 59 that he was relating what most commentators say (Sword and Plow, Sept, 2009). This is not true!  He said not one word to indicate that he was relating what the commentators- as opposed to Kurt– say about Romans 11 and Isaiah 27. He was patently admitting that Paul cited Isaiah 27. But now, when that admission backfires on him, he claims that Paul was not referring to Isaiah 27! (But remember, virtually all commentators disagree with him, and he even admits it)!
And now, my friend tries a totally new approach– his fourth position on Isaiah 26-27! He says Isaiah 27:10f is not related to the coming of the Lord of 26:20f, which he now, belatedly, admits again applies to AD 70. And this after saying that Isaiah 26 has “nothing” to do with AD 70! So, he said that Isaiah 26:20f could apply to AD 70. Then he denied it. Now, he admits it!
He says Isaiah 27:9f has nothing to do with 26:10f because Isaiah supposedly changes his subject, over, and over, and over again, all within a few verses. Not so! Notice that the destruction of Leviathan (27:1) would be “in that day” the Day of the Lord when the Lord would avenge the blood of the martyrs (26:20-21). Kurt says 26:20f can be AD 70, but that 27:1 must be the destruction of Assyria. No, 27:1 is the Day of 26:20f that he admits is AD 70! But notice, that “in that day” is likewise the time of Israel’s salvation at her judgment and the sounding of the Great Trumpet (27:10-13). The references to “in that day” falsify Kurt’s desperate claim that Isaiah constantly changes the subject. Thankfully, Isaiah was not as disorganized as Kurt suggests.

Finally– Isaiah 59!
Do you see what my friend has done? I tried for three presentations to get Kurt to address Isaiah 59. He said my only “relevant” argument was on Isaiah 27 (which he now denies has any relevance)! Now he says that Isaiah 59 is the only relevant text. Yet he ignored Isaiah 59 until his last negative, and makes some new arguments.

KS– “The coming in Rom. 11 is taken, not from Isa. 27, but Isa. 59!  That’s right!  “The Redeemer shall come to Zion” is from Isa. 59:20, 21. Isa. 27 is not quoted in Rom. 11 in connection with a “coming” at all.” Kurt cites Jamieson, Fausett and Brown (JFB) for support, (Note: JFB do not deny a connection with Isaiah 27. They simply do not mention it). But notice the following about JFB: 1.) They apply Isaiah 27 (JFB, p. 541) and Romans 11:26 to the second coming– contra Kurt. 2.) They say Isaiah 27 / Romans 11 speaks of a yet future conversion of ethnic Israel, and they say that those (like Kurt) who reject this view  do “great violence” to the text! 3.) They apply Isaiah 59 and Jeremiah 31 to the second coming– contra Kurt. So, Kurt selectively argues from what they do not say, and rejects what they do say, yet claims they agree with him! But, let’s look closer at Kurt’s admission that Paul quotes Isaiah 59. He was silent about the arguments I have made, so, let me refresh the reader’s memory.

In Isaiah 59 YHVH accused Israel of shedding innocent blood and violence (v. 1-8). The Lord saw Israel in her sinful condition and, “His own arm brought salvation for Him; and His own righteousness, it sustained Him for He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on His head; He put on the garments of vengeance for His clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloak. According to their deeds, accordingly He will repay, Fury to His adversaries, Recompense to His enemies.” Isaiah 59 predicted the salvation of Israel at the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for her guilt in shedding innocent blood.

Please catch the power of Kurt’s admission that Paul is citing Isaiah 59. Kurt says of Romans 11: a.) The coming of the Lord is referent to the cross, not AD 70.  b.) Israel is not OC Israel, but the church. c.) The salvation is referent to the conversion of Jews and Gentiles throughout the Christian age. However… The coming of the Lord for salvation, in Romans 11:26-27, is the coming of the Lord predicted in Isaiah 59– Kurt Simmons now agreeing!
But, the coming of the Lord of Isaiah 59 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. (It is not a prediction of the cross, or the salvation of the church throughout time).
Therefore, the coming of the Lord for salvation in Romans 11:26-27, is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. (Which was in AD 70-Matthew 23).
Nothing in Isaiah 59 even remotely resembles Kurt’s view of Romans 11! Nothing! Yet, Isaiah is, Kurt now agreeing, the source of Paul’s prediction in Romans 11:26. Kurt must explain  why Paul cited a prophecy that had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject he was discussing, in order to validate what he was discussing. Kurt has refused to answer this because he cannot answer this. Yet, his admission that the coming of Romans 11 is the coming of Isaiah 59 is 100%
fatal to his new theology. His admission proves that all of the verses in Kurt’s first affirmative must speak of a process begun, but a process to be perfected at the Second Coming. My affirmative proposition is established by Kurt’s fatal admission.

ENTRANCE INTO THE MHP
I asked: What is the one thing that prevented man from entering the MHP– He refused to answer.
I asked: If the destruction of Jerusalem was irrelevant to man’s spiritual justification, and the saints were perfected prior to that event, why did the saints have to wait until AD 70 to enter the MHP? He refused to answer because he has no answer.
Kurt threw up a cloud of dust about the time of reformation. His admission that the time of reformation was not completed until AD 70, when the saints could enter the MHP is fatal to his rejection of Covenant Eschatology.
Note Kurt’s ever shifting position on the time of reformation: He said it began at the cross, (but man could not objectively enter the MHP). He then said that the time of reformation was completed in AD 70 with the completion of the Spirit’s work. But now, he says the time of reformation ended (it was not perfected) in AD 70!
Hebrews 9:6-10– If the time of reformation fully arrived at the cross as Kurt originally contended, man should have begun to actually enter the MHP, from that point. But, no, Kurt tells us man could not truly enter the MHP until AD 70! Kurt admitted, and I agree, “When the gifts of the Spirit ceased, the time of reformation was complete and not before.” (My emp., DKP). But, realizing the fatal nature of this admission, Kurt now says: “The time of reformation ended in AD 70.” (My emp., DKP) Do you see the problem? On the one hand he correctly says the time of reformation was completed in AD 70. But that is self-destructive, so he now says the time of reformation terminated in AD 70. This is a blatantly self contradictory.
Hebrews 9 says there could be no entrance into the MHP until the arrival–not termination- of the time of reformation. The time of reformation began at the Cross– and was guaranteed by the Spirit– but was not perfected until AD 70. And, there was no true entrance into the MHP until AD 70 (KS). If the time of reformation ended in AD 70, Kurt, then man could never enter the MHP, and the time for man to enter the MHP ended without so much as one person ever entering the MHP! Man could not, per Kurt, enter before AD 70. But, per his newest position, the time of reformation (when man could supposedly enter) terminated, in AD 70! Kurt has hopelessly entangled himself.

I have focused on the time of reformation because it is in some respects, what this debate is about. So, let me reiterate my argument, which Kurt has totally ignored, and which he must ignore:
Kurt admits that there was no entrance into the MHP at the initiation of the reformation, i.e. at the cross. Entrance came only when the time of reformation– the work of grace– was completed, at the parousia. Now watch as we apply this to the atonement: 

 

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.


 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *