Don Preston’s Contorted Logic

July 20, 2012 by Jason Bradfield

20 Comments 20 Comments

I caught only the tale end of the McDurmon – Preston debate last night and was able to view the entire debate tonight. To my delight, Joel McDurmon opened the debate with a proof of the resurrection from Exodus 3, something of which i have wrestled with and proposed a solution here. Don’s response was incredibly weak; but i’m saving that for my next blog post.

All i wanted to do in this entry is provide a little visual of one of Don’s slides from the debate and throw out a question as a little exercise in debating: see any problems?

Jason Bradfield

If you can’t read it, the argument is as follows:

~ Per Joel, Luke 20 is the “final” resurrection – the restoration of Eden – prior to the fall

~ Adam and Ever were married – with the mandate to be fruitful and multiply – Prior to the fall!

~ But wait; Catch the Power of This!

~ Jesus said that in “the age to come” when Eden was restored – there is no marriage

~ Per Joel’s position: Marriage (being fruitful and multiplying) ends at the very moment that Joel says it is restored!

~ This is a hopeless contradiction!
~ Luke 20 is a contrast of covenant worlds!
sharon nichols

Eden wassn’t “restored” when Jerusalem was destroyed.
http://endthefedcoin.wordpress.com Admin

I don’t follow.
Samuel Frost

bait and switch
sharon nichols

Oh, okay! I couldn’t quite put my mind around it – obviously. lol
Samuel Frost

Don himself believes that Eden has been restored, but based on his model here, he still is married.
http://www.historicalpreterism.com Ken Palmer

What a conundrum.
Paul Gates

Folks,

This is an interesting comment regarding the debate by the esteemed Duncan McKenzie…

“I saw a bit of a retreat into partial preterist idealism by Joel on the question of the Second Coming. This is in contrast to the partial preterism of someone like Kenneth Gentry. For example, Dr. Gentry says the parousia before Matthew 24:36 is a metaphorical AD 70 coming of Jesus and that the parousia after verse 36 refers to a literal end of time coming of Jesus. This creates problems in that it would mean that Jesus was using parousia in two very different senses, talking about two very different times, without explicitly making a distinction. In a wider sense it creates the conundrum of pinning the tail on the end of time Second Coming (as opposed to the AD 70 coming) in the rest of Scripture.”

Gee, it’s almost as if Duncan thinks the term “parousia” in the first century meant, “Second Coming”, sounds like he has been watering at dispensationalist wells. I wonder if he has any lexical support to back-up his presupposition. Evidently Duncan isn’t up on recent scholarship which explains the term simply means “presence”. And given Duncan never delves in to didactic texts, its clear he doesn’t understand those texts which deal with the second “appearance” of Christ Jesus do so in tandem of the resurrection of the dead. Which of course would be dead people being brought back to a full bodily life. Texts which deal with this concept would be Romans 8, 1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4, Phil 3, etc. Thus the “conundrum” Duncan claims exists doesn’t given those texts all explain when Christ Jesus does make His second appearance of which His presence will be an instrumental part, I mean you can’t appear without a presence.

Folks, your cash would be better spent on the work of a true scholar like N.T. Wright than the stuff produced by the psychologist, Duncan McKenzie.

God Bless,
SharonNichols

Joel was asked about Sam’s comment in his book about hyper-preterists being Christians or not. What most of them don’t seem to deal with is that it isn’t about what hyper-preterists do believe, but what they DON’T believe which sets them on the outskirts of Christianity. They don’t believe in the bodily resurrection of the believers on a transformed earth. Many (most?) don’t believe Jesus Christ was glorified including his physical body. Most don’t believe Genesis speaks of a spiritual AND physical death of Adam.

So it isn’t so much about what they affirm with historic Christianity. Its what they DON’T affirm and agree with historic Christianity that sets them apart from historic Christianity.

In the chat room, one person wrote that historic Christianity looks to the grave fore his hope. But that is not an accurate assessment of the historic Christian view, although that IS accurate in the hyper-preterist view. It is the hyper-preterists who’s hope lies in their physical death because this is what takes them to heaven.

In the historic Christian view, one of our future hopes is for a future bodily resurrection but our physical death does not discount or become a shortfall for that hope. Once we die, we go to the Lord, as Paul stated.

Another thing which was highlighted in this debate was in the Q&A today, in which Joel was asked about Genesis and the death. Joel made an excellent point that in the day Adam ate, he died a sin death, but that by the Grace of God, he didn’t die physically that day. Instead, God provided a substitute in the animal which provided the coverings for Adam and Eve. This makes perfect sense and highlights the different aspects of the meaning of death in the Scriptures.

What was interesting though is how when Don was responding (along with some of the comments in the chat), they did not acknowledge the two aspects of death, insisting on a spiritual/sin death only. But this ignores the remainder of the Scripture concerning Adam and Eve. God, in His grace, knowing the outcome of the events in the garden before Adam was born, provided Adam and Eve the opportunity to repent and be saved in the coming Messiah. This, to me, is a very important part of Genesis and one which hyper-preterism shoves off to the side as not important. Yet, this may be the MOST important part of Genesis 3!

It shows us not only God’s grace, which is the main point, but also the progression of history in the Old Testament, which is built from the history we read of in Genesis. It tells us of how the OT sacrificial system came about. It points us to the Cross of the Messiah and its impact on our salvation. Without the Grace of God to Adam and Eve in Genesis, we would struggle to understand the point of the whole OT system.

It is this which hyper-preterism takes away from us.

Once I read someone state that if we got Genesis wrong, then we were more than likely to get the rest of the Biblical story wrong. I agree.

Blessings
- Paul Gates
  
  Sharon,
  
  What I found interesting about Joel’s response to the question dealing with Gen 2 was Mr. Preston’s response. According to Mr. Preston it was disingenuous for God to enact grace. I couldn’t believe it.
  
  God Bless,
Jason Bradfield

Duncan is nothing more than a confused hyperpreterist.
- Paul Gates
  
  That is a fact.
Jason Bradfield

Sharon, did you notice how Don wants to poo poo away any talk of “heresy” by whining about the abuses?

He then appeals for folks to work together. This is the same guy who had a slide entitled, “Joel vs. Jesus.” Imagine the fuss if Joel had put up a slide entitled, “Don vs Jesus.”

They don’t want to work together. They want to weasel their way into the church and take over. That’s what false teachers do.

Also, in the chat room, one hyperpreterist compared Christians to wicked Israel who did not want to serve God, but instead asked for a king. Our teaching of a bodily Christ is apparently a rejection of the invisible king.

Heck, John Scargy says that young earth creationist don’t serve the same God they do.

So all this baloney and whining about our “heresy” charge is a bunch of nonsense.

We should not feel intimidated in the least at calling it for what it is…they certainly don’t hesitate.
SharonNichols

PaulT, I read most of Duncan’s comments about the parousia. I thought it was similar to the hyper-preterist concept of “death” (i.e. it is ONLY spiritual death). IOW, there is strictly one meaning and that one meaning must be carried throughout Scripture to be consistent, i.e. parousia = second coming. Yet, the Bible isn’t that simplistic.
SharonNichols

Exactly Jason! On the one hand many want to whine about not being considered Christians and accepted into the fold, yet on the other hand many will slam historic Christianity and anyone who believes in “traditional” Christianity. Many will pridefully speak of being outside tradition and how they are leading a new reformation, yet at the same time whine because they aren’t accepted by historic Christians. They need quit waffling back and forth.
SharonNichols

Jason, you wrote, “They don’t want to work together. They want to weasel their way into the church and take over. That’s what false teachers do.”

That is an important point Jason and I’m glad you brought it up.

Act 20:29 I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
SharonNichols

Jason, you wrote, “He then appeals for folks to work together. This is the same guy who had a slide entitled, “Joel vs. Jesus.” Imagine the fuss if Joel had put up a slide entitled, “Don vs Jesus.””

The uproar would have been heard in China!
SharonNichols

PaulT, you wrote, “What I found interesting about Joel’s response to the question dealing with Gen 2 was Mr. Preston’s response. According to Mr. Preston it was disingenuous for God to enact grace. I couldn’t believe it.”

I caught that too! (Inadvertently?) that IS what he was saying. If we correctly understand that it was the Grace of God who gave Adam and Eve a chance at salvation, then we understand the whole plan of God. To ignore this aspect shortchanges the whole Biblical story.
http://www.historicalpreterism.com Ken Palmer

Jason, Sharon and Paul – excellent points. I noted in my article the Mystagogy of Full Preterism where I sourced Tami Jelinek’s comment on pret cosmos concerning Christ’s atoning death:

“And it’s right up there with saying that Christ conquered death for us by His *physical* resurrection from *physical* death, which of course leads even “preterists” to physicalize and futurize their own salvation by looking for a “[physically] immortal body at death.“

The above is how far it has been taken. Death is riddled throughout the OT as sacrifices to atone for what? Death. Another dies in place of another. It is a contradiction for full preterists to try and systematically juxtapose a physical death, to atone for a spiritual death. It is simply unsupported as a dominating factor in the whole system that God had set up in the garden himself. One dies for another.

“Joel made an excellent point that in the day Adam ate, he died a sin death, but that by the Grace of God, he didn’t die physically that day. Instead, God provided a substitute in the animal which provided the coverings for Adam and Eve.”

FP completely misses the boat on this and forces it to compromise itself from not the outskirt of the historic faith, but the actual entrance itself.

Blessings to you all.
William Bell

If death in Genesis and is two fold, why did God’s grace only prevent Adam from dying physically but allowed him to die spiritually and be separated and banished?

Are there two “the deaths” in Genesis and must we have “two” graces of God? Do we only get one half of God’s grace at a time?

If physical death was not a part of God’s original creation, how could a seed be sown & grow? That which you sow is not made alive unless it dies? (1 Cor. 15:36)

Jesus said “unless” i.e. if and only if, a grain of wheat falls into the ground and DIES, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. (John 12:24)

How can their be reproduction (Gen. 1:11) every seed bringing forth after it’s kind, unless it dies. Did Jesus lie?

How could there be death of the seed if there was no death prior to Adam’s fall?

Were there no carnivorous animals? Did grass, leaves, twigs and fruit die when herbivores tore it from its roots, chewed, digested and excreted it? Is digestion a post fall process?

Please explain the food supply chain of creation. Thanks

Share with your friends!