Written Debates

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

Preston – V – Simmons Debate
Passing of Torah and the Completion of Salvation
Preston’s Second Negative

 

My friend’s desperation mounts. Notice his opening argument:
The church has taught  for 2000 years that salvation occurred at the cross.
Preston denies this.
Therefore, Preston must be wrong.
(Actually, the church has taught that the salvation of Hebrews 9:28 comes at the end of the Christian age, and has never taken Kurt’s view that the salvation was deliverance from persecution!)
Let’s turn Kurt’s logic (?) around:
The church has taught for 2000 years that Christ’s coming occurs at the end of the Christian age.
Kurt denies this.
Therefore, Kurt is wrong.
Do you see how inconsistent Kurt’s use of “logic” is?

Isaiah 27– AGAIN
After staking his claim that if I could not produce “even one commentator” in support of the truth that Isaiah 27 applied to AD 70, did you notice that Kurt ignored the fact that I produced such a commentator? Kurt’s logic (?) was: If Preston cannot produce one commentator to support his view, then he is wrong. Well, conversely, that means that since I did produce one (more), that I am right! Instead of conceding that I fulfilled his challenge, he ignored his defeat.

In spite of Kurt’s protestations, the facts are undeniable:
Isaiah explicitly says that Israel would be saved through judgment, when the altar would be destroyed.
Virtually all scholars– to use Kurt’s appeal to the scholars– agree that Paul is citing Isaiah 27.
While Kurt denies the Messianic application of Isaiah 27, the context is united and predicted the resurrection (Isaiah 26:19-27:1).
Kurt turns Isaiah into a disjointed prophecy full of huge chronological gaps.
Israel’s salvation was under Messiah (Hosea 1:10– 1 Peter 2:9). The consummation was at the sounding of the Great Trumpet– in AD 70– just as Jesus –citing Isaiah 27:13– said (Matthew 24:30-31, 34).

KURT ON ISAIAH 59
My friend’s desperation is lamentable. On the one hand he says that a proper exegesis of Isaiah 59 is “a distraction.” He then proceeds to try (vainly) to exegete Isaiah 59! Since when is proper exegesis ever a distraction?

Kurt’s “exegesis” of Isaiah 59 is some of the most confused (and false) bits of commentary you will read. Kurt argues: “The Redeemer will come to Zion, clearly contemplates the birth of the Messiah, not his second coming, for it was at the cross that Christ’s work of redemption was done.” This is eisegesis. He says the coming of the Lord in Isaiah 59:16-19 is different from that in verse 20f. He offers no proof. He just imposes it on the text, although the context is judgment!
Here is what Kurt does:

He says v. 16-19 is judgment, but v. 20 is incarnation. But there is no 600 year gap between verses 16-19 and verses 20f. Kurt is guilty of doing what my dispensational friends do: inserting huge gaps of time into scripture when they cannot accept the proper exegesis of the text.
The context of Isaiah 59 is undeniably judgment, not the incarnation: “He put on the garments of vengeance…according to their deeds he will repay…the Redeemer shall come to Zion.” There is no huge chronological gap. And this means: The coming of Romans 11:26 is the coming of Isaiah 59. The coming of Isaiah 59 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood. Therefore, the coming of Romans 11 is the coming of the Lord in judgment of Israel for shedding innocent blood, i.e. AD 70. Kurt cannot negate this.

DANIEL 9
Kurt distorts Daniel 9. He says v. 27 refers to the “legal termination” of the sacrifices, not the objective cessation. It says no such thing. Messiah would “cause the sacrifice to cease” (in the middle of the week). Kurt agrees that the 70th week ended in AD 70. But, if the seventieth week ended in AD 70, then three and one half years prior to that- the middle of the week demanded by Daniel 9:27, was AD 66. And, Josephus said this is when the daily sacrifice ended (Wars, 6:2:1– (Whiston, p. 731). See Whiston’s remarks in Josephus, in. loc. Daniel 9 says not one word about a “legal termination.” Further, it was Messiah, acting sovereignly, that caused the sacrifices to end, in AD 66! Neither the Jews nor Titus were acting independently of Messiah when the sacrifices ceased!!
This falsifies Kurt’s claim that Torah– and sacrifice– ended at the cross. (In the P-S, Oct. 2009, Kurt said the prophecy of Daniel 12 and the taking away of the daily sacrifice occurred in 66 AD. Daniel 12 is the reiteration of Daniel 9. Thus, Kurt has falsified his own position, again! The daily sacrifice was not removed at the cross!
Further:
Daniel 9:24 foretold the coming of everlasting righteousness.
Paul and Peter were was still anticipating the arrival of the prophesied everlasting righteousness (Galatians 5:5; 2 Peter 3:13).
Therefore, unless Paul and Peter were anticipating a prophesied world of righteousness different from Daniel, then Daniel 9 was not fulfilled at the cross.

Also, Daniel 9 says Messiah would “confirm the covenant” (not make a new one!) for one week. That week is the final 70th week. The covenant being confirmed is Torah (Matthew 5:17 / Romans 15:8). That final week ended in AD 70. Thus, Torah ended in AD 70!

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 order 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 *