Written Debates

McDonald -V- Preston Debate– Preston's First Negative Response

McDonald -V- Preston Formal Written Debate
Don K. Preston’s First Negative

 

Let me begin by noting that Jerry’s proposition directly contradicts Scripture. Jerry affirms that the current Christian age will cease to exist! You simply must catch the power of this!

Jerry is affirming the end of what the Bible emphatically and irrefutably says has NO END! And of course, Acts 1 is the foundation of his affirmative. But take a look:

Jerry Says the Christian Age will “Cease to Exist” at the coming of Christ in Acts 1.
However, Scripture Says Christ’s Kingdom—and, Of the increase of his government there shall be NO END!” Note: The “Increase of his government” demands EVANGELISM. Thus, once again, Jerry’s misguided presuppositions about the nature of the end are wrong.
Dan. 2:44; 7:13f – Never Destroyed- NEVER PASS AWAY!
Matthew 24:35– “My Words Will NEVER PASS AWAY!”
Luke 1:32f– Of his Throne and kingdom There will be NO END!
Eph. 3:20f– AGE WITHOUT END!                         
JERRY, TELL US HOW THAT WHICH HAS NO END, CAN “CEASE TO EXIST?”

ACTS 1 CANNOT BE WHEN THE CHURCH AGE CEASES TO EXIST BECAUSE THE CHURCH AGE WILL NEVER CEASE TO EXIST!

So, no matter what else one might think or claim about Acts 1, 1 Corinthians 15, Thessalonians or Revelation–  Jerry’s affirmative contradicts Scripture. Let’s look closer at Acts 1, but first, let me make an observation.

In my affirmatives, I presented numerous syllogisms. Jerry signed his name to follow my arguments before introducing any of his own. Yet, Jerry consistently ignored them, even admitting that he did so, because they were “interpretative.”

But now, Jerry, who refused to address my syllogisms, introduces several syllogisms. What if I ignored his syllogisms because they are “interpretive?” Why, he would have a fit! He would say that the reason I refused to answer them is because I am a false teacher unable to answer. And yet, he adamantly refused to address my syllogisms because they were “interpretive.” His self contradiction is glaring.

Jerry’s syllogisms are rife with presuppositions- petitio principii. He assumes as true what he must PROVE to be true. Let me illustrate with a refutation of his first syllogism:

<All total situations, the constituent elements of which are factual are total situations which are true.

The total situation described by my proposition is a total situation the constituent elements of which are factual.

Therefore, the total situation described by my proposition is a total situation which is true.>
Now, Jerry’s major premise is true. However, his minor is false to the core. Why? BECAUSE A FOUNDATIONAL CONSTITUENT ELEMENT OF HIS “TOTAL SITUATION” IS THAT THE CHRISTIAN AGE CEASES TO EXIST, WHICH IS IRREFUTABLY FALSE! Let me turn his argument around at bit:

Jesus said none of the law would pass until all constituent elements were fully accomplished (Matthew 5:17-18).

The Law of Blessings and Cursings (among other things) was a constituent element of “the law of Moses.”(See below).

Therefore, until the Law of Blessings and Cursings, a constituent element of the law of Moses– was  fully accomplished, not one iota of the law of Moses will pass away.

The Law of Blessings and Cursings- a constituent element of the law of Moses- was not fully accomplished until the fulfillment of Malachi 3-4– in the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Therefore, not one iota of the Law of Moses passed away until the fulfillment of Malachi 3-4– in the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Jerry’s own argument has falsified his eschatology.

Now to Acts 1 with a look at some of the things we have already presented.

Acts 1 and Daniel 12
The parousia of Acts 1 is the end of the age resurrection of Daniel 12.
But, the resurrection of Daniel 12 would be when the power of the holy people was completely shattered.
The power of the holy people was Torah– Israel’s covenant relationship with YHVH. Chart
Therefore, the parousia of Acts 1 was to be when the power of the holy people– Torah– was completely shattered.

No matter what Jerry may claim, Daniel posits the resurrection and Acts 1 at the end of Israel’s Covenant age– not the end of the Christian age.

Acts 1 and 1 Corinthians 15
The parousia of Acts 1 is the time of the end of the age resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15. (The End- 1 Peter 4:7)
But, the resurrection of 1 Corinthians 15 would be when the “the law” that was the strength of sin was removed.
The law that was the strength of sin was “the law of Moses” (Jerry)
Therefore, the parousia of Acts 1 was to be at the end of the Law of Moses.

Jerry has obfuscated, denied and fomented about this material, but he has not refuted even one word! His entire proposition is therefore falsified.

Acts 1- This Same Jesus– The Body Of Jesus
I asked Jerry if the post resurrection, pre-ascension body of Jesus was unchanged. He said it was unchanged. Now, Jerry tells us that Jesus must return in precisely the manner in which he left. Let’s see if Jerry will actually accept his own “logic.”

Jerry’s Argument:
The identical Jesus that ascended must come again- “this same Jesus, in like manner.”
BUT, JESUS ASCENDED IN AN UNCHANGED MORTAL HUMAN BODY (JERRY)
Therefore, Jesus must return from heaven– where Jesus’ unchanged mortal body could not go – in a mortal human body– at the end of the (endless) Christian age!
This falsifies Jerry’s presumptive syllogism on the literalness of “in like manner.” You see, Jerry is assuming that the focus of the “in like manner” has to do with physicality and not what it meant.
This likewise falsifies Jerry’s argument on Jesus appearance in the flesh demanding a return in the flesh.

By the way, Paul said, “though we have known Christ after the flesh, henceforth we know him thus no longer” (2 Corinthians 5:16). Jerry demands to know Christ after the flesh at his parousia. Paul said Christ is no longer known after the flesh.

WHAT DOES IN LIKE MANNER MEAN? DOES JERRY REALLY BELIEVE THIS?
Jerry says Christ must return precisely as he left. Really, Jerry? Take note:
Jerry, Jesus’ ascent was SILENT! What about the shout, the trump, what about the earth burning up with a violent noise?
His ascent was witnessed by only a FEW WITNESSES– What about Rev. 1:7, Jerry?
PHYSICAL BODY?  Really, Jerry– in a mortal, human body of a 5′ 5″ Jewish man?

Folks, ask yourself, Was Jesus to return as King of kings and Lord of lords, or was he to be revealed as a mortal human man again?
Jesus himself said he was coming “in the glory of the Father” (Matthew 16:27) which means he was going to come as the Father had come.
Jesus said he was going to judge as he had seen the Father judge (John5:19-23).
So, Jerry, show us one single time when the Father had come in judgment, visibly, physically on literal cumulus clouds.
Furthermore, the Transfiguration was a vision of Christ’s second coming (2 Peter 1:16f), yet, the Transfiguration bears absolutely no “in like manner” comparison with Jesus’ ascension!

Jesus’ Resurrection Was Not A Sign?
Jerry says Preston is wrong to see Jesus’ physical resurrection as a sign of a greater spiritual resurrection. Let’s see.
There are seven signs / miracles in John.
John called Jesus’ physical resurrection a sign (20:30-31).
All of the
seven signs pointed to something greater– something spiritual. Jerry, are you going to tell us that the feeding of the five thousand people was a sign of a greater physical feeding of people at some point in the future?
Jesus also said his physical resurrection was in fact a sign (Matthew 16:4).
Jerry, do you deny this?
Signs do not point to themselves, but to something else. Physical realities pointed to spiritual realities.

The Lord’s Supper
I knew Jerry would want to bring up the Lord’s Supper and Baptism as an effort to poison the mind of the church of Christ readers. That is why I answered as I did.  Jerry denied that he was attempting to “poison the well” claiming that these topics are directly relevant to proving whether Lord came or not. That is totally illogical.

As I noted, these are (valid), “If the Lord came, what now?” questions. But they do not prove or disprove the propositions! Let me make a couple of observations about the Supper that will apply equally well to baptism.

Jerry completely ignores the audience relevance of 1 Corinthians 11. Paul uses the personal pronoun “you” 17 times from v. 17-34. Jerry, was Paul addressing a specific historical circumstance in a specific historical church? Yes or No?

Let me illustrate: In John14-16 Jesus promised to send the Spirit to his disciples. He used the personal pronoun “you” when he made that promise. Jerry would insist that the personal pronouns there do not apply to all believers of all time! “We must honor the personal pronouns!” Right, Jerry?

Well, what is the hermeneutic for ignoring the personal pronouns in 1 Corinthians 11:26 where Paul said “As often as YOU – who is that “YOU” – eat bread and drink the cup, you – who was that “YOU” again?– do show the Lord’s death UNTIL HE COMES!”

Proper hermeneutic demands that we honor the personal pronouns. The text is a promise that the Lord was coming in the lifetime of the Corinthians! “YOU do shew forth, UNTIL he comes.” Now, were other churches in the empire observing the Supper, like the Corinthians? Yes, but, they were still undeniably part of the generation of the Corinthian “you”!

I have produced several articles and even an MP3 series on why the Supper has its fulfilled, consummated meaning today. But that discussion does not prove whether the Lord came or not and Jerry knows it. His concluding remark proves this: “Don’s position on 1 Corinthians 11:26 has done away with… the Lord’s Supper.”
YOU SEE, I WAS RIGHT! The question does not prove or disprove the proposition. Jerry used the questions to talk about “WHAT NOW” as I claimed. He simply intended to prejudice the reader’s mind, and nothing else.

Matthew 28:18 and Baptism
Remember all of Jerry’s fomentation on the meaning of “until”, that it must have a terminal definition? Of course, he misrepresented what I said. Go back and read that.
Now, he argues that if the end of the world came- baptism is invalidated.
Do you catch the power of that?
Jerry conveniently ignores what Jesus said, but, when coupled with Jerry’s presuppositions about the end of the age (not world!) and his insistence on the terminal meaning of “until” he has falsified his soteriology– and eschatology.

Jesus said: “I am with you, until the end of the age (not world).” Let’s apply Jerry’s “logic” such as it is.
The word “until” means up to the point of, and not after” (Jerry).
Preston says the end of the world came in AD 70.
But, Jesus told them to baptize, “until the end of the world.” (Which in truth is not what Jesus said).
Therefore, since the end of the world has come, baptism is no longer valid.

My, my. Let’s turn that around, shall we?
The word “until” means “up to the point of, and not after” (Jerry).
Jesus will be with the church, “until the end of the world” (Jerry).
Therefore, at the end of the world, (as defined by Jerry) JESUS IS NO LONGER WITH THE CHURCH.
This is where Jerry’s “logic” winds up.

Jerry’s questions on the Supper and Baptism are in fact irrelevant to the question of whether Christ came. He has not demonstrated otherwise and his own “arguments” are an admission to this.

Speaking of relevant questions and refusal to answer
In written questions, I asked Jerry to identify when Revelation 11:15-19 was or will be fulfilled. His initial response was that Revelation was written to the seven churches and cannot be applied to whatever I want. Well, that patently does not answer the question of when the prophecy was fulfilled! So, I asked him, again, to answer, without obfuscation, when Revelation 11:15-19 was, or will be, completely fulfilled.

Jerry told me that the question was not relevant to our discussion because he is in the affirmative, and does not have to answer. Pure desperation. If you will remember, he said he did not have to answer one of my questions because he was in the negative. Now, he says he does not have to answer because he is in the affirmative. Convenient, eh?
He also told me that it is apocalyptic language. Well, once again, Jerry’s desperation is on parade.

Revelation 11:15-19 predicts the judgment of the dead, i.e. the resurrection, and the rewarding of the prophets. Surely it is relevant to our discussion of eschatology to know when that was, or will be fulfilled. No, Jerry says it is not relevant.
Jerry, how in the world is it irrelevant to our discussion to know when Revelation 11:15-19 was or will be fulfilled? Stop evading this question!

Jerry has patently not answered the question. I did not ask to whom Revelation was written or what kind of language is used. I asked WHEN WAS IT, OR WHEN WILL IT BE FULFILLED?
Jerry claims he answered my question.

Well, if so, Jerry, cut and paste that answer from your previous posts, in which you identified  WHEN REVELATION 11:15-19 WAS, OR WILL BE FULFILLED. Not to whom it was written, or what kind of language is used, but, show us where you clearly identified when Revelation 11:15-19 was, or will be completely fulfilled.
Jerry knows he has not answered my question. This is all smoke.

Notice the problem that Revelation 11 presents Jerry.
Jerry says the great city of Rev. 11 is Rome.
But, the two witnesses had miraculous power until the fall of that city (v. 5-6). Yet, Jerry says the charismata ended with the completion of the canon in the first century! (See this Chart)

Little wonder that Jerry has adamantly refused to say when Rev. 11 was– or will be– fulfilled.
If the great city was Rome- the charismata continued until the fall of Rome.
If the great city was Rome- the resurrection occurred at the fall of Rome.
If the great city was Rome- the kingdom came in glory at the fall of Rome.
If the great city is Rome- the judgment of the dead and rewarding of the prophets occurred at the fall of Rome.
If the great city was Rome- that is when the martyrs were vindicated– in violation of Matthew 23.
Jerry’s eschatology is falsified.

2 Peter 3– And Time
I continue to be stunned at how Jerry continually abandons the church of Christ doctrine. In arguing with dispensationalists, c of C ministers have argued, convincingly, that Jesus said “the kingdom of heaven has drawn near” and near cannot mean 2000 years! And, Jerry has admitted that eggeken (perfect tense of eggus) in Matthew 3 demands literal nearness. But, when it comes to the parousia, Jerry becomes a dispensationalist: “Why, God is not on our calendar!” Like a good dispensationalist, Jerry cites 2 Peter 3:8– “One day is with the Lord as a thousand years…” But, what a dilemma this creates.

Note that in 1 Peter the apostle wrote of the salvation fore
told by the OT prophets (chart). That salvation was to be revealed at Christ’s parousia. (CHART) Now watch. Peter said the OT prophets were informed that those things were not for their day, but for Peter’s day, Peter’s generation!

If God can’t tell time, and time words don’t mean anything to Him, how did God communicate that the parousia and the end was not for their day? Furthermore, when Peter wrote of the parousia, IN FULFILLMENT OF ALL OT PROMISES, he said that all those prophets “foretold these days” (Acts 3:23-24). Peter, through the Spirit, was shown that what was not near in the OT was now near in his days. Those OT prophets spoke of Peter’s generation (cf. Matthew 13:17). And that demands that the “restoration of all things” was for Peter’s day.

This matches what Peter wrote in 1 Peter. He said Christ was “ready to judge the living and the dead” (1:4:5). See my discussion and chart on hetoimos and Jerry’s abject desperation to avoid its meaning.

In 1 Peter 4:7 the apostle said: “The end of all things has drawn near.” He used the perfect tense of engus, just like in Matthew 3:2; 4:17 where Jerry says eggeken demands nearness! Jerry, if time statements about the parousia are elastic and subjective, then time statements about the kingdom mean nothing! (See my charts on the anaphoric article– I-B-J). He has not touched this!

2 Peter 3– Malachi– Elijah- John the Baptizer
I offered an affirmative on John the Baptizer.  Jerry dismissed it because it is fatal to his theology. I will expand and offer it again as a negative argument, since it is directly related to 2 Peter 3.

Malachi 3:1-5:
1.) The coming of “the Messenger” (v. 1).
1.) The Messenger would proclaim the Great And Terrible Day of the Lord (3:1-2; 4:5-6). This is the Day of the Lord of 2 Peter 3. I challenge Jerry to refute this.
2.) The Lord would come “suddenly” to his temple– in judgment: “who shall stand at the Day of his coming”; “I will come near to you in judgment” (v. 2, 5).
3.) The Lord would come in judgment of the sorcerer, adulterer, liars, those who mistreated the widows, orphans, and turned away the foreigner (Gentiles– V. 5).
4.) Verse 5 is a direct citation of Exodus 22:21-23;  Leviticus 19-20 and Deuteronomy 27:19.
5.) This coming would be in application of the Law of Blessings and Cursings (Deuteronomy 28-30) at the Day of the Lord.
6.) This punishment would be national punishment: “I will punish you with the edge of the sword” (Exodus 22)– and national destruction (Deuteronomy 28:43f).

It is indisputable therefore that the Law of Blessings and Cursings (the law) would still be in effect at the Great Day of the Lord of Malachi 3:5-4:5-6. Now…

The Baptizer was undeniably Elijah foretold by Malachi (Matthew 11:10; 17:10-12).
John foretold the coming judgment: “Who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come?”; “the axe is already at the root”; “his winnowing fork is already in his hand” (Matthew 3:7-12).
John, as Elijah, was therefore preparing for the coming of the Lord in application of the Law of Blessings and Cursings– and he said it was near.

I asked Jerry– when did the Great Day of the Lord– in fulfillment of Malachi – in the application of Mosaic Covenant wrath, occur, after John, but, before the cross?
He ignored the thrust of the question, knowing he could not properly answer. He claimed that Malachi predicted the incarnation. False.
Jerry, Jesus said, “I did not come to judge the world” (that is his incarnation). You are wrong.
Malachi predicted the Great Day when, “I will come near to you in judgment” (3:5).

So, here is the argument:
Malachi predicted the Great Day of the Lord– in judgment of Israel in application of Mosaic Covenant Wrath.
That Great Day of the Lord was the Day of the Lord of 2 Peter 3. (More on this momentarily. But, Malachi had not been fulfilled when Peter wrote!)
Therefore, the Great Day of the Lord of 2 Peter 3 was to be the judgment of Israel- in application of Mosaic Covenant Wrath.

John and The Law
John, as Elijah, proclaimed the imminent Day of the Lord  in application of Mosaic Covenant Wrath. This is irrefutable, and Jerry has not touched it. Now watch this.

The Law of Blessings and Cursings (Deuteronomy 28-30) was “the law of Moses”; and “the law.” (Will Jerry tell us now that although the curses in Deuteronomy were “in the law”, that they were not “the law”)? How about it, Jerry?

Not one iota, of “the law,” “the law of Moses” could pass until it was all fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18).

Therefore, until the fulfillment of John’s prophecy of the Day of the Lord against Israel for violation of Torah, (in fulfillment of Malachi 3-4) “the law of Moses” (the Law of Blessings and Cursing) would remain valid.

The Law of Blessings and Cursing was likewise “the (Mosaic) COVENANT” (Deuteronomy 29:21):  “And the LORD would separate him from all the tribes of Israel for adversity, according to all the curses of the covenant that are written in this Book of the Law.” So… (You really must catch the power of this!!)

The Law of Blessings and Cursings was “the (Mosaic) covenant.”
John, as Elijah, proclaimed the imminent Day of the Lord in the application of the law of Blessings and Cursings– i.e. the curses of the Mosaic Covenant.
Therefore, GOD’S COVENANT WITH ISRAEL would remain valid until the Day of the Lord foretold by John. (This corresponds perfectly with my arguments on Romans 11:25-27 being the fulfillment of Isaiah 27 / 59 predictions of the coming of the Lord in application of Mosaic Covenant Sanctions).

JERRY, TELL US WHEN THE DAY OF THE LORD, FORETOLD BY MALACHI AND JOHN, WAS FULFILLED, IN APPLICATION OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT.
STOP EVADING THIS QUESTION!

What the Scoffers Denied
Jerry claims that when Peter responded to the scoffers (2 Peter 3), “He doesn’t say that these people are looking for the wrong kind of coming.” WELL, JERRY, I NEVER SAID THEY WERE!

It is YOUR ASSUMPTIONS that are wrong!

2 Peter was written to respond to the scoffers denying the parousia.
Peter offers the Transfiguration as exhibit #1 in refutation of the scoffers: “We have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and parousia of the Lord….we were eyewitnesses of his glory… we were with him in the Mount…” (2 Peter 1:16f).

Peter uses a hendiadys here. In simple terms, his referent to the “power and coming” (parousia) is another way of saying, “his powerful coming” or “his coming in power.” So, Peter, to refute the scoffers, appealed to the Transfiguration as a visionary proof of Christ’s parousia in power.

But, what was the Transfiguration? Was it a vision of the end of the Christian age? Patently not! Let me frame my argument, in refutation of Jerry’s “argument” on 2 Peter 3.

The scoffers of 2 Peter 3 were denying the parousia of Christ.
Peter, in refutation, said that on the Mount of Transfiguration the apostles were eyewitnesses of Jesus’ power and parousia.
But, the Transfiguration was a vision of the end of Moses and the prophets. (The transfiguration was not a vision of the end of the New Covenant age, but of the end of the Mosaic age).
Therefore, the scoffers were denying the parousia of Christ to accomplish end of the age of Moses
and the prophets – i.e. the end of the Old Covenant age.

The indisputable fact is that the Transfiguration was a vison of what the scoffers were denying.

It is equally irrefutable that the Transfiguration was not a vision of the end of the Christian age.

Therefore, the scoffers were not denying the end of time or the Christian age.

So, Peter and the scoffers were on the same page regarding the nature and identity of the parousia. Peter did not correct the scoffers as to the identity of the coming of Christ, because they were denying the coming of what Peter saw on the Mount– the end of the Old Covenant world of Moses and the prophets! It is Jerry whose concept is wrong!

Let me address one of Jerry’s fundamental syllogisms.

<If the world is going to melt with fervent heat and be dissolved when Christ returns, and if the world has not done this, then the second coming has yet to happen.
The world is going to melt with fervent heat and be dissolved when Christ returns, and the world has not done this.
Therefore the second coming has yet to happen.>

Someone once said, “Grant a man his presuppositions and he can prove anything!” Well, Jerry’s presuppositions are manifested in his minor premise. He assumes, (petitio principii) WITHOUT A WORD OF PROOF, that the “world” and the “elements” that Peter mentions are the physical universe. Let me falsify Jerry’s syllogism.

I asked Jerry to give at least two OT prophecies of the end of the Christian age and the destruction of the material universe. Jerry gave me: Isaiah 65:17-19 and. 66:22. Jerry has surrendered his affirmative. I will focus for brevity on Isaiah 65.

Peter anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65- the coming of the Lord to bring in the New Creation (Jerry). (Don’t forget that Paul called Isaiah “the law” in 1 Cor. 14:20-22. Thus, Matthew 5 once again destroys Jerry).
But, the New Creation of Isaiah 65 would come when Old Israel was destroyed and YHVH created a New People with a New Name (Isaiah 65:13-19); “The Lord God will slay you, and call His servants by another name” (v. 15).
Therefore, the New Creation of 2 Peter 3 would be when Old Israel was destroyed and YHVH created a New People with a New Name (Isaiah 65:13-19; cf. Rev. 3:12).

Jerry turns Isaiah and 2 Peter up side down, applying them to something that is not in the text! Jerry, where is the end of the Christian age in Isaiah? But, there is more.

Peter anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65- the coming of the Lord to bring in the New Creation (Jerry).
But, the coming of the Lord to bring in the New Creation of Isaiah 65 would be the coming of the Lord IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE LORD HAD COME IN THE PAST (Isaiah 64:1-3).
Note the prayer for the Lord to come down out of heaven, shake the earth and nations, and burn the creation in v. 1-2. Then, note that it is a prayer for Him to come AS HE HAD COME IN THE PAST: “When you did awesome things for which we did not look, you came down, the mountains trembled…”
Now, I am pretty sure even Jerry will agree that God had never literally, bodily, visibly come down out of heaven, and literally destroyed the creation, right Jerry? So, that leads to this:

Peter anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65- the coming of the Lord to bring in the New Creation (Jerry).
But, the coming of the Lord to bring in the New Creation of Isaiah 65 would be the coming of the Lord in the same manner AS THE LORD HAD COME IN THE PAST (Isaiah 64:1-3).
The previous comings of the Lord  were historical events– not literal, visible comings of the Lord.
Therefore, the coming of the Lord of 2 Peter 3– in fulfillment of Isaiah 64-65 would not be a literal, visible, bodily coming of the Lord. (Jesus would come “in the glory of the Father).

Let me apply this to his syllogism on Acts 1.
The parousia of Acts 1 is the parousia of 2 Peter 3– Jerry.
But, the parousia of 2 Peter 3 would be a coming of the Lord in the same manner as previous Days of the Lord (Isaiah 64-65).
The previous Days of the Lord were not literal, physical, bodily descents of God out of heaven.
Therefore, the parousia of Acts 1 was not to be a literal, physical, bodily descent of Christ out of heaven.

Jerry’s admission that 2 Peter 3 anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65 is fatal to his eschatology.

According to His Promise– Everlasting Righteousness
Peter anticipated the arrival of the world of everlasting righteousness in fulfillment of the OT promises made to Israel. Jerry says the promise was Isaiah 65-66. Correct. But, notice.

Daniel likewise foretold the arrival of everlasting righteousness (Daniel 9:24).

So, both Isaiah and Daniel foretold the arrival of the world of righteousness.
Both foretold the arrival of the world of righteousness at the time of the destruction of Old Covenant Israel (Isaiah 65:13-17; Daniel 9:24-27).
But, Daniel’s prophecy of the coming world of righteousness is confined to the seventy weeks, that ended no later than AD 70.
Therefore, since Peter anticipated the fulfillment of Isaiah 65, which is parallel with Daniel 9, and since Daniel 9 restricts the arrival of the world of righteousness to the seventy weeks ending no later than AD 70, it must be true that the world of righteousness of 2 Peter 3 was fulfilled no later than AD 70.
Of course, this also proves that Daniel 9 was not completely fulfilled at the cross, since Peter was still anticipating fulfillment in 2 Peter 3.

These arguments demonstrate the fallacy of Jerry’s syllogisms, and falsify his proposition.

Jerry’s illogical (and False) claims about Obadiah
Jerry asked what the Day of the Lord in Obadiah was. I responded: The sixth century destruction of Edom at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. Jerry agreed. But then, JERRY FALSELY ACCUSED ME OF BELIEVING THAT ALL REFERENCES TO THE DAY OF THE LORD = AD 70. Here is Jerry’s “argument”:
All references to the Day of the Lord = AD 70, per Don K. Preston.
But, Preston agrees that the Day of the Lord in Obadiah refers to the fall of Edom in BC 583.
Therefore, Preston is wrong, for all references to the Day of the Lord do not = AD 70.

Jerry has set up a “straw man” argument. He claims I believe something. i.e. all references to the Day of the Lord = AD 70.
He can easily falsify that claim, thus claiming victory.
The problem is JERRY, HAS TOTALLY MISREPRESENTED ME! (Chart)
I HAVE NEVER ARGUED THAT ALL REFERENCES TO THE DAY OF THE LORD = AD 70! NEVER!

JERRY, WHY DID YOU MISREPRESENT ME?
Jerry’s straw man argument goes up in smoke.

The Day of the Lord
There are many Days of the Lord in the OT. In my books I document this extensively. Jerry should have known this. It would have prevented him from embarrassing himself like this.
All of those Days of the Lord used similar “end of the world” language, but, that language was never fulfilled literally. It is invariably metaphoric and apocalyptic. Oh,  Jerry admits Revelation 11:15-19f is apocalyptic language– thus– non-literal!
In the NT, this same metaphoric language is used to describe the coming of Christ “in the glory of the Father” on the clouds, with the trumpet, the shout, etc.
The NT writers tell us that they are anticipating the fulfilment of the OT prophecies of Christ coming– as the Father had come before, in those non-literal Days of the Lord (Isaiah 64:1-3; 2 Peter 3:1-2; 13).
Jerry admits that the Day of the Lord language is not literal– i.e. Obadiah = BC 583!
So: The NT writers use the Day of the Lord language of the OT, which is demonstrably metaphoric.
They tell us they were anticipating the imminent fulfillment of the OT prophecies of the last days Day of the Lord.
Upon
what hermeneutic do we change that consistently metaphoric language into a description of a physical descent of Jesus on literal clouds, at the literal end of the Christian age?
Oh, don’t forget– THE CHRISTIAN AGE HAS NO END!

SO, AGAIN, JERRY’S SYLLOGISMS ARE BASED ON FALSE CHARGES AND PRESUPPOSITIONS. His arguments fail.

What Jerry ignored:
I proved that Isaiah 2-4 is a united prophecy of “the last days.” Jerry applies 2:2-4 to the first century.
The multiple use of “in that day” in chapters 2-4 tie the prophecy together as a united discourse. Jerry has not touched this, top, side, or bottom. Chart
I demonstrated Jerry’s blatant falsification of even the word count (Three words)  in Thessalonians where, per some of the world’s finest linguists– Paul quotes Isaiah. (Chart-Jerry’s rejection of Paul’s Hope)  I challenged Jerry to give us his  credentials for rejecting these linguists. Response: Silence! He just continues to deny the connection, without any proof.
Isaiah foretold the last days Day of the Lord for the vindication of the martyrs (4:4) through judgment on Jerusalem. I asked Jerry when the Lord came, in the last days, in judgment of Jerusalem, in vindication of the martyrs. He said Isaiah 4 has nothing to do with Jesus’ day. (Chart)
Of course, Jesus refutes that in Matthew 23, but Jerry denies Jesus’ words! (Chart)

Job and the Resurrection
I asked Jerry to give at least two OT prophecies of the resurrection of dead corpses at the end of the Christian age. He gave one: Job 14:13-14. But, note:
Job asks the question of whether man lives after death.
He does not mention coming out of the ground– he mentions his “change,” but does not describe it.
It says not one word about the end of the Christian age– or time.
Jerry’s take on Job is completely dependent on his false pre-suppositions.
Job 14 is no help to Jerry. It mentions nothing that Jerry claims occurs at the “end of time.”

Jerry repeats his misguided, desperate claim that because Job pre-dated Torah, that this means resurrection was not part of Torah. Chart.

The Sadducees and Marrying and Giving in Marriage
More of Jerry’s fallacious presuppositional “logic.”
Jerry says: “The people of Jesus’ day understood it to be a literal resurrection.” Therefore, per Jerry, the resurrection must be a literal resurrection.

Let’s try that, shall we:
The people of Jesus’ day understood the establishment of the kingdom to be a literal kingdom.
Jerry, was the people’s understanding of the nature of the kingdom as a nationalistic restoration accurate? Yes or No?
Something critical: The arrival of the kingdom and the resurrection are synchronous (Matthew 25:31f; 2 Timothy 4:1; Revelation 11:15-19!)
Now, the kingdom does not come with observation (Luke 17:20-21).
The resurrection comes at the time of the kingdom.
Therefore, the resurrection does not come with observation.

Jerry conveniently overlooks the fact that at the core of the Sadducean argument is the Levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25), which commanded the situation they were arguing from. They assumed– just like Jerry does about the nature of the resurrection– THAT TORAH WOULD STILL BE VALID IN THE RESURRECTION WORLD.
THE ISSUE IS NOT MARRIAGE UNIVERSALLY CONSIDERED! To ignore the covenantal context of the discussion is to take it out of context.

Jesus did rebuke them for their ignorance. How? By citing Exodus 3: “I am the God… of the living, not of the dead.” So, their denial of life after death was false. Note that Jesus did not affirm the raising of corpses. He affirmed life after death– which alone refuted the Sadducees.

Jerry conveniently ignores something critical in his: “If people in the church today do marry then the resurrection of the dead has not yet occurred.”

Notice:
Jesus said “the sons of ‘this age’ marry.” Jesus is referring directly to the argument based on Torah.
But notice his referent to the fact that “the sons of this age” practiced that.
Jerry, in what age was Jesus living, and in what age was the Levirate Marriage Law applicable?

Jesus uttered these words before he died on the cross. Jesus was living in the Mosaic age, the age that mandated the Levirate Marriage. He anticipated “the age to come” that would follow his  “this age.” In the age that would follow his “this age” the Mosaic age, they would neither marry or give in marriage– as prescribed in Torah.

So, once again, Jerry’s presuppositions underlying his syllogisms are false. Thus, his syllogism are false.

Also, I wonder why Jerry conveniently omitted Jesus’ promise that in the age to come “neither do they die anymore”(Luke 20:36)?

Under Jesus’ then current “this age” they lived under a ministration of death– Jerry agrees! They were “dead men walking” because Torah could not give life or righteousness (Galatians 3:20f). But, in the age to come, Jesus promised, “If a man keep my words he shall never die.” Jerry, do we today, in Christ, die if we keep Jesus’ commandments? Let me offer this:

In the “age to come” which was to follow Jesus’ “this age”, men would not die, and they would neither marry or give in marriage.
Today, in Christ– the age that followed Jesus’ “this age” those who keep Christ’s words do not die.
Therefore, men today, in the age that followed Jesus’ “this age”, those who keep Christ’s word do not marry or give in marriage. Jerry, if the “not dying” is not a referent to physical life, and you know it isn’t, then why is not the “no marrying” likewise not physical?

Things equal to each other are the same, right Jerry? We are living in the age that followed Jesus’ then present “this age” and we are not under Torah– where marrying and giving in marriage defined the kingdom. Thus, Paul could say “in Christ, there is neither male or female.” On what level and in what way are we NEITHER MALE OR FEMALE, Jerry?

Under Torah, “sons of God” were produced by marrying and giving in marriage. Jesus said “in the age to come” sons of God would be “sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” Jerry, tell us, in the age that followed Jesus’ then present “this age” what does Paul say about “resurrection” and “sonship”? Hint: Romans 6 / Galatians 3:26f.

The “age to come” had broken into “this age” and was awaiting full manifestation at the Day of the Lord (Romans 13:11f). The age to come was “about to come” (Hebrews 2:5; 1 John 2:5-8). Oh, this brings up Jerry’s question about what verses are applicable to us today.

Once again, his question does not address whether Jesus came or not, and Jerry’s own “arguments” prove it. Nonetheless, let me note something in Romans 13.

Paul called on the Romans to “Let us walk properly as in the day” (13:12). He was calling them to live as if the Day of the Lord –which calls for righteousness and holiness– had already come! Thus,  here is current applicability. The Day has come, we are to be holy. This alone refutes Jerry’s misguided arguments on Acts 17 as well. The call for holiness was not to end at the parousia, Jerry! That is your false presupposition at work– again.

I have effectively responded to and refuted all of Jerry’s major points. Let me introduce some critical issues.

Jesus’ Substitutio
nary Death

I asked: Was Jesus’ death on the Cross “substitutionary?”
Response: “Yes or No? He died as a substitute for our punishment because of our sins.  He bore the sins of the world in his death. Therefore God substituted him as the sacrifice rather than making us bear the punishment.” (See my book “We Shall Meet Him In The Air” for a full discussion of this critical issue)
DO YOU CATCH THE POWER OF THAT?

Jesus’ physical death on the cross was substitutionary– “God substituted him…rather than making us bear the punishment” (Jerry– See This Chart).
But, every man– even the most faithful Christian– still dies physically!
Therefore, Jesus’ substitutionary physical death in which, “God substituted him as the sacrifice rather than making us bear the punishment”– FAILED, SINCE ALL MEN STILL DIE PHYSICALLY!

Folks, Jerry’s emphasis on all things purely physical DEMANDS THE FAILURE OF JESUS’ SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH. Substitutionary– Jerry admits– means in the place of, instead of. Jesus died, Jerry admits, so that we “should not bear the punishment.”
Well, the punishment for sin is supposedly physical death– right, Jerry? That is your definition of  the curse of Adam.

JERRY, IF  JESUS DIED IN MAN’S PLACE (SUBSTITUTIONARY DEATH) SO THAT THOSE IN CHRIST  DO NOT HAVE TO DIE, THEN WHY DO CHRISTIANS HAVE TO STILL “BEAR THE PUNISHMENT” EXACTLY LIKE THOSE OUTSIDE OF CHRIST? (See This Chart)

DO NOT FAIL TO ANSWER THIS!

Jesus and the Atonement
The entire issue of the resurrection and eschatology is related to the Atonement. Lamentably, Jerry  tries to divorce these inseparable issues.
Jerry says Christ perfected the Atonement at the cross. But, there is a huge problem with Jerry’s soteriology!
The wages of sin is death– physical death, per Jerry (Romans 5:12; 6:23).
Christ took on himself the penalty of sin– he died to make the Atonement– so that those in him would not have to pay the penalty of sin. Right, Jerry?
Those in Christ do not have to pay the penalty of sin– since they receive the benefit of the Atonement.
Therefore, those in Christ do not have to die.
BUT WAIT! ALL CHRISTIANS DIE, DON’T THEY, JERRY?

If Christ took on himself the penalty of sin, i.e. physical death we are told, so that those in him do not have to pay the penalty, then…

Either
Jesus’ atoning work–paying the penalty of sin– has been, so far, totally ineffective. Every man has or will die, since Christ died. Thus, every man since Christ has or will pay the penalty for his own sin if physical death is the penalty for sin!
Or,
No man, since Jesus perfected the Atonement has truly entered into the power of Christ’s Atonement.

Which is it, Jerry?

Now, it will not do to say that man will one day be raised from the dead. To argue that man will be raised from the dead, admits that man still has to pay the penalty of death for his sin.
To be raised from the dead is not the same as NOT DYING due to the substitutionary, atoning work of Christ, who (ostensibly) paid the penalty for our sin so that we would not have to die.

Jerry’s emphasis on physical death as the death of Adam, and the focus of Jesus’ substitutionary, atoning death, demands that Jesus’ death failed, or, no one has ever entered into the power of that death, since all men still pay the penalty of sin, i.e. physical death.

Jerry, why do faithful Christians have to die physically if Jesus died a substitutionary, atoning death so that we do not have to pay the penalty for sin (physical death)?
IF HE DIED PHYSICALLY TO TAKE OUR PLACE, WHY DO  FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS STILL DIE?

Jerry says that physical death is not the enemy of the child of God. Well, Jerry, if physical death is the penalty of sin, as you identify the Adamic Curse, THEN PHYSICAL DEATH IS UNDENIABLY THE WORST ENEMY OF THE CHILD OF GOD. And if it is not the enemy, why does it have to be destroyed at the end of the (Endless) Christian age?

Make no mistake, in Jerry’s view of the death of Adam as biological death– THE DEATH OF EVERY CHRISTIAN PROVES BEYOND DOUBT THAT WE ARE STILL UNDER THE POWER OF SIN!

Jerry’s doctrine of biological resurrection, and a physical parousia, are inextricably tied to his mistaken concept of the Death of Adam as biological death. From the above, however, it is irrefutably true that his paradigm is fatally flawed.

Notice now some charts addressing written questions that I asked Jerry.

Charts on Daniel 9:24-27
Make and End of Sin
Seal Vision and Prophecy

Chart– First Raised

Jerry’s closing Questions:

1. If Jesus’ ascension was literal, and if the angels said that they would see him come in like manner as they had seen him go, doesn’t logic suggest that the return will also be literal? Yes or No!
Answered above.

2. If the words “Day of the Lord” in Obediah 15 can refer to the judgment of Edom by the Canaanites and the same words in 2 Pet. 3:10 refer to the final judgment of man, then logically doesn’t this mean that the words “glory of his power” in 2 Thess. 2:9 refer to the final judgment of man while the same words in Isa. 2:19 refer to the judgment of Israel for their sins in their day? Yes or No!

Answered above.
You are guilty of misrepresenting my position on the Day of the Lord. See above.
Further, you overlook that Paul’s eschatology was the anticipation of the fulfillment of the OT promises– including Isaiah, which was a prediction of the last days, Day of the Lord.
You must show how Paul is RADICALLY CHANGING THE APPLICATION OF ISAIAH, even though Isaiah foretold the events of Paul’s day– the last days.
You ignore the fact that Paul promised those living Christians relief from the then present persecution “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven.” Chart
You ignore the fact that only Israel had dwelt in the presence of God– you admitted this– and would be cast out for persecuting the church.

3. Are we obligated to partake of the Lord’s Supper today?  Yes or No!
Answered above.
Once again, the question is irrelevant to proving or disproving your proposition or mine. You have tacitly admitted that in your “argument.”

Jerry, I have a question for you:
Passover was typological of the Supper.
Passover was to memorialize (look back on) deliverance from bondage and death.
Thus, the Supper would be (is) to memorialize (look back on) DELIVERANCE FROM BONDAGE AND DEATH.
So, Jerry, when were we (objectively, not prospectively) DELIVERED FROM DEATH, so that we could (can) take the Supper as a MEMORIAL (a looking back on) of DELIVERANCE FROM DEATH?
Don’t fail to answer this, Jerry.

4. If the judgment has already past, then what will happen to men today who die? Will they not face the judgment? Yes or No!
Answered above: Those in Christ, i.e. forgiven, “do not come into judgment.” Jerry, is being forgiven, judgment? Yes or No?
In my affirmatives I answered this repeatedly. The child of God enters the MHP when they die. You, on the other hand, say that we have no forgiveness, no eternal life, no entrance into the MHP– just the hope and promise of this–  until the end of the (ENDLESS) Christian age.
You say that the Christian does (MUST) come into judgment.

You say theh Christian must still pay the penaty for sin– physical death!

5. Is 1 Cor. 11:26 an integral part of the Lord’s Supper?  Yes or No!  
Answered already.
Jerry, the CORINTHIANS were to declare his death UNTIL HIS PAROUSIA.
THEY would live UNTIL the end, the Day of the Lord (1 Corinthians 1:4-8).

Jerry, what is your exegetical basis for claiming that the personal pronouns in 1 Corinthians 11:26 do not refer to the Corinthians living until the parousia. After all, Paul said, “YOU do shew forth his death, UNTIL he comes. It is “YOU -Until.”

Paul told the Corinthians: “YOU come behind in no gift, waiting for the Day of the Lord… who has confirmed YOU (by the charismata) and will confirm YOU until the end.”
Jerry, can  we take that “YOU” to refer to the church, timelessly, being empowered by the gifts until the end, the parousia of 1 Corinthians 11:26? If not, why not?

1 Corinthians 1– Gifts and confirmation of “YOU” UNTIL the end, the parousia. – “YOU- UNTIL”
1 Corinthians 11– YOU shew forth the Lord’s death UNTIL the parousia – “YOU-UNTIL”

Jerry, what is the difference in the personal pronouns?

Leave a Reply

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