Carlsbad Eschatology Conference 2008 - Daily Reports!

Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn have arrived in Carlsbad to attend this year's Carlsbad Eschatology Conference!

We will be offering a daily report about the events, speakers, and fellowship that takes place over the next few days of the conference. Check here to see pictures and reports on the conference sessions.

Below is a report on the full Mac Deaver vs. Don Preston eschatology debate in Carlsbad. This highly anticipated debate is sure to be at the center of discussions involving eschatology for the foreseeable future.

Thursday, March 13 at the Carlsbad Eschatology Conference

After dinner the mood of the entire conference hit a new level. Quite a few people began to enter the conference center who had not been present before. The cameras were set, and the powerpoint projectors were lined up in front of the screen. The intensity increased as Kurt Simmons introduce the two disputants in this multi-day affair. Don Preston would offer two affirmatives tonight, each followed by a rebuttal by Mac Deaver.

Don Preston's First Affirmative:

Don came out with a salvo of powerpoint slides introducing the debate and his firm conviction that New Testament eschatology is the eschatology of Israel, not the eschatology of the Church divorced from Israel. In rapid-fire succession Don hit all the key points. There were far too many detailed arguments to list. Daniel 9 foretells the time of the fulfillment all prophecy. Don pointed out that Deaver has already agreed that Daniel 9 was fulfilled by A.D. 70, and so had implicitly agreed with the preterist view of the resurrection that took place in assocation with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Don went on to show that the apostles taught nothing but the hope of Israel as found in places like Isaiah 25 and Daniel 12. Don also demonstrated over and over how the time of Israel's salvation is the time of the Resurrection. Therefore, if the salvation of Israel has been fulfilled, then so has the Resurrection. This was a spiritual resurrection for a spiritual kingdom!

Mac Deaver's First Rebuttal:

Mac Deaver took the podium and began his response in a genteel, courteous voice. His rebuttal was composed of the following points:

• Don Preston's errors are based on mistaken assumptions and definitions.
• Preterism is the result of severe theological imbalance due to overemphasis on A.D. 70.
• The fact that Paul taught the gospel to Gentiles, particularly the instance of Paul at Athens, disproves preterism. Why? Because these unbelieving Gentiles could not have been familiar with Israel's history, yet Paul taught them about the Resurrection.
• Preston never told us what the Resurrection is. What was the Resurrection? How could it be a "Universal Resurrection" of all men in A.D. 70 and how was I (Mac Deaver) or you (audience) involved in it?
• It is wrong to force the interpretation of obscure passages in the OT (such as Daniel 9) onto the "plain" Resurrection statements of the New Testament!
• How can the law pass away if believers fulfill the OT Law today. Fulfillments can mean different things and occur in different ways in various parts of the Bible.
• Granted that a lot of things "got done" in A.D. 70. But is a general statement (Luke 21:21) not a technical or precise statement.
• Resurrection/salvation could be fulfilled (Isaiah 25) when the exiles returned from Babylon, people are saved from sin, and when the body is raised from physical death.
• NOTHING in the context of 1 Cor. 15 has ANYTHING to do with what happened in Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
• NO priestly function in Heb. 9. It merely talks about taking the blood into the Holy of Holies to atone for sin.
• Universal event rules out a particular event in the past (at a particular time) or limited to a few individuals.
• Jesus died physically to redeem his people from physical death, ergo the fulfillment of the 2nd Coming and Resurrection is necessarily future. Death (biological) is still very much with us.

Don Preston's Second Affirmative

It was almost as if Don had anticipated many of Mac Deaver's responses. Don went straight to a new set of powerpoint slides that worked through Deaver's objections. Don showed that 1 Cor. 15 is all about the fulfillment of God's old covenant promises to old covenant Israel. Don hammered on all the detailed texts that Mac Deaver simply ignored. Then Don went back to the source of eschatology -- the death in the Garden. Don showed how "the death" that Adam suffered in the Garden is sin-death. That is "the death" at the center of discussion in the New Testament. Don charged Mac with introducing 2 deaths in the Garden, when there is only one death in view -- sin-death that separated Adam and Eve from God. Then Don quoted material written by Mac to the effect that the Law and Prophets must be taken AS A SINGLE UNIT! This proves (through Matt 5) that Deaver's futurism implies that every jot and tittle is still binding (including blood sacrifices in the Law of Moses) if not every bit of the Old Covenant promises to Old Covenant Isreal, i.e. Resurrection, has not been fulfilled. This became a Deaver vs. Deaver moment in the debate. Don also showed how fitting it is for Mac to view Daniel 9 as "obscure." Don's explanation? The reason Mac Deaver would find Daniel 9 "obscure" is because his eschatology cannot handle Daniel 9! It is the presuppositions and conclusions of Mac's futurism that makes Daniel 9 seem "obscure" to him! Don finished up his allotted time (how ironic, no?) revisting Hebrews 9 and the High Priestly typology that is clear from the writer's own detail. The High Priest was not done on Day of Atonement when he ascended, for he must appear "a second time" for the duties of Day of Atonement to be complete. Once again, Don showed the parallel between Daniel 12 (which speaks of the time of the shattering of the holy people -- resurrection) and 1 Cor. 15 (Paul's exposition of the imminent resurrection promised in Daniel 12).

Mac Deaver's Second Rebuttal:

Mac took to the podium a second time. He began in a quiet voice (compared to Don's ending crescendo) which gradually quickly raised to meet the passion of Don's previous affirmative. Mac tried to undermine Don's position by making the following points:

• The trouble in communicating during this debate (why there is no "meeting of the minds") is the hermeneutical presuppositions Don brings to the table. Mac claimed that Don's problem is that he assumes the nature of fulfillment must be the same as the nature of the prediction.
• Fulfillment can and often is very different from the original prophecy.
• Israel is the Church, according to the New Testament, so the fulfillment of the Resurrection in the Church's future is the fulfillement of God's promises to Israel.
• Context must determine the nature/meaning of the death/resurrection in question. It is error to take one definition from one text and assume the same definition in another text.
• There are different kinds of death, then there are different kinds of resurrection.
• Mac said he did not agree with Don's view of death in the Garden. Adam and Eve lost access to the tree of life by which they could have lived forever PHYSICALLY, according to Genesis.
• Biblical doctrine of Death and Life is Universal. The Universality of physical death matches the universality of physical Resurrection to come based on the universality of the death all men now experience.
• A past event in time, or an event involving a limited number of people does not do justice to the universal nature of the judgment and the Resurrection, therefore any past view is in error.
• Gen. 8:22 is universal based on the universal experience of summer and winter. This text shows that God keeps his old covenant promises even after the old covenant passed away ---> God will keep the promise of Resurrection given under the old covenant even though the old covenant has passed away
• The universal flood gives us guidelines by which to understand the biblical meaning of universal judgment and universal resurrection.
• The Resurrection is future precisely because it is universal. A past event or limited event cannot be universal by definition.
• Preterists like Don repeat the Hymenean heresy.
• Preterists like Don take away my hope for the Biblical teaching on Resurrection. They take away your hope for a bodily Resurrection.

--- To Be Continued ---

P.S. This debate is being recorded live and will be available in DVD format from Don Preston in the near future! This lively debate will hold your attention. We will announce the arrival of the DVDs for this debate on this site.

  Friday, March 14 at the Carlsbad Eschatology Conference

Well, it's pretty late and "conference fatigue" is definitely setting in. Below are the high points of the events of the day in Carlsbad. The one thing I should mention is that, after taking in the debate tonight, our mental facilities are pretty fried at the moment. There was so much information presented in such a short time (particularly by Don) that it was very difficult to keep up with taking notes by hand, particularly the details of all the Scripture references and comparisons. In fact, there will be some details in the debate and detailed arguments that we may have missed below. We hope to mention all the main issues.

We will tell you one thing, though. You should get this debate as soon as it becomes available on DVD. What happened tonight in Carlsbad will be talked about for years and years in the world of covenant eschatology. What's more is that there were cryptic comments that implied of even more amazing things to come tomorrow.

Preston vs. Deaver Debate -- Part 2

Once again the crowd swelled after dinner in preparation for the second installment of the debate.

Don Preston's First Affirmative:

Don came out with another salvo of powerpoint slides related to the connections between Daniel 9 and Hebrews 9. Don showed that the Most Holy Place was the place of God's presence with his people. What kept God's people out of the Most Holy Place in the Old Covenant? It was sin. There was no atonement for sin under the Law (Torah), so accomplishment of the atonement (which coincides with the removal of Torah) opened access to the Most Holy Place for God's people. Don then asked if Mac Deaver believed that faithful Christians go to heaven when they die. The answer (from previous correspondence) was "NO." Mac believes that Christians who die go to Abraham's Bosom to await the Resurrection. But Mac believes that the Law (Torah) died at the cross! So how can the Law (which spoke of the veil) keep God's people out of the Most Holy Place! Furthermore, Mac's view is precisely what happened at death to Old Covenant saints. That means that, in Mac's view, the ministry, death, burial and resurrection of Christ HAS DONE NOTHING FOR GOD'S PEOPLE TODAY THAT THE OLD COVENANT DID NOT ALREADY DO BEFORE THE COMING OF CHRIST!! That's right. Mac's view implies that the death, burial and resurrection accomplishes nothing that the Old Covenant did not already accomplish! Then Don summed up once again that Israel's access to the Most Holy Place would come at the time of the Resurrection which was salvation from sin which was the Hope of Israel which is precisely what Jesus and the apostles taught all of which would come by the end of the 70 weeks and coming of the Lord.

Mac Deaver's First Rebuttal:

Mac Deaver looked a bit puzzled when he arrived on the podium. His rebuttal included the following points:

• The NT teaches that death is the general appointment that man must face in (Hebrews) in the wider context of Hebrews which Don says has nothing to do with biological death.
• Incredulous at Don's insistence that no Jew could be saved (spiritually) until A.D. 70. Mac had "never seen such a strange statement in his life." Argued this is disproven by Acts 2 when Peter called for them to be "saved" by repentence, faith, and baptism. That means the NT teaches the Jews who believed were saved.
• Incredulous at Don's denial that the NT teaches the physical universe will at some point in our future be terminated. Mac pointed out how odd this view is that says that God created the physical universe back in Genesis, but says absolutely nothing about the end of the physical universe in our future. Mac called this an untenable "dualism." Mac noted in passing that he would have more to say about this tomorrow.
• Pointed to John 11:25 and said that when Jesus claimed to be "the resurrection and the life" it was in the context of bodily resurrection; Lazarus died PHYSICALLY.
• Don's view of the Resurrection is "chipping" away at the biblical doctrine of resurrection; the hope which is the very incentive to become a Christian
• Don "gets away with it" by putting up a lot of similar statments on a chart, but similarity does not mean these are all the same thing!
• Paul teaches that doctrines that deny a future bodily Resurrection deny that Jesus was raised from the dead. Therefore, Don's view is a doctrine that denies that Christ was raised from the dead.
• The Resurrection of Jesus is intimitely tied to our resurrection. This proves a physical, bodily resurrection because Jesus rose physically. Don's "aversion" to biological death is unjustified.
• Biological death is both a friend (to the believer) and enemy (mankind).
• Cannot enter the Most Holy Place in a personal sense because Christians are not clothed yet.
• Can enter the Most Holy Place and approach God's throne by prayer.
• The earth is not heaven. The Church is a glimpse of heaven
• We have not yet come to the last chapter yet.
• Heb. 10:20-22 was penned before A.D. 70
• The Hope of Israel was not A.D. 70, but the coming of John, Jesus and the establishment of the Church.
• It is through physical death that Jesus saves those who feared physical death

Don Preston's Second Affirmative

Don began by saying that Mac had ignored the bulk of the material presented in the first affirmative. Then Don pointed out that Mac's responsibility was to follow the arguments Don made in his affirmative. Don responded to the charge that he was simply stringing together texts with similar language. Mac suggested that similar language does not mean identical referents. However, Don challended Mac to demonstrate exegetically that the "similar language" was not in fact parallel. Don appealed to Mac to stop basing his arguments on "I have never heard of such things" or "Can you believe what Don is saying," and to actually demonstrate, from the text, that the language is not identical in subject. Mac's statement of "never heard of such a thing as an argument like that before" was not Don's fault and certainly did not disprove the case Don presented. "His failure to study these things does not prove my view wrong!"

Don then went to a series of powerpoint slides titled "In Flaming Fire" based on Paul's promise of "relief" to the Thessalonian Christians under persecution. This means that if they did not receive relief, then Paul lied to them. Don then asked a question. If the early believers were already redeemed or saved, then why were they given the Spirit as to GUARANTEE their redemption? Mac needs to reconcile his beliefs with what the text says. At this point Don went into what was the most brutal offensive of the entire debate to this point. Don pointed out that Mac asked (last night) what A.D. 70 would have to do with the men at Athens in Paul's teaching. Mac said last night that I wasn't there in A.D. 70. They weren't there in A.D. 70. What on earth could A.D. 70 have to do with the salvation of the men in Athens who could not have cared less about what happened in A.D. 70. Don responded in a burning low voice by asking this question: "What about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ?" Was Mac at the crucifixion of Christ? Did the men at Athens care that someone condemned as a criminal was crucified at a place called Golgotha? You see the scope of an event has nothing to do with the spiritual significance of that event. What happened in A.D. 70 was relevant to the men at Athens in the same way that the crucifixion was relevant to the men at Athens. These things (both the crucifixion and fiery judgment) are part of Israel's eschatology and and it is the salvation of Israel that brings the Gentiles into the Gospel! Without the salvation and judgement of Israel, the Gentiles could not be saved, for salvation is of the Jews. It simply won't do to posit that the ministry, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is part of the promises given to Israel, but the final coming in judgement is part of the promise given to the Church divorced from Israel!

Mac Deaver's Second Rebuttal:

Mac tried to undermine Don's position by making the following points:

• The idea that no one was saved (spiritually) before A.D. 70 is false because of Acts 2:40. To believe and be baptized was to be "saved," (i.e. baptism for the remission of sins).
• Any doctrine that implies a false doctrine is false. Don's doctrine implies that no one was saved until A.D. 70. This is not true. Therefore, Don's A.D. 70 Theory is false.
• Argued again that the promises in the Law are valid even after the passing of the Law, i.e. Gen. 8:22. Genesis cannot be separated from the rest of the Law. Don made this distinct point a part of his argument last night -- the Law and Prophets are a unit.
• The second coming comes as "A thief in the night" in Thessalonians. This is different than Matt. 24:1-34 because there are signs in those verses. "Thief" indicates surprise and no signs. Therefore, the "thief in the night" reference cannot be A.D. 70.
• Don's case regarding "In Flaming Fire" is based on the belief that it was the Jews who persecuted the Thessaolonians.
• 1 Thess. 2:14 proves that it was not the Jews who persecuted the Thessalonians, but "their own countrymen" of Thessalonica. This cannot be a Jewish persecution.
• Since this is not a Jewish persecution, their relief could not be made possible by the events of A.D. 70!! Don's argument that took up the bulk of the 2nd Affirmative has "gone the way of all flesh."
• Don has not told us what the Resurrection is.
• Don has not dealt with the death that is the appointment for all men.
• The Christian's Hope is in the gospel and the Church, not what happened in A.D. 70. The Resurrection could not have happened at a past event in our history.

--- To Be Continued ---

P.S. This debate is being recorded live and will be available in DVD format from Don Preston in the near future! This lively debate will hold your attention. We will announce the arrival of the DVDs for this debate on this site.

Saturday, March 15 at the Carlsbad Eschatology Conference

Sorry that we weren't able to put up this report earlier. Between the concluding schedule of the conference and travel, we had difficulty finding the time and energy to complete the reporting of the conference. Below is a record of the events of the final day of the conference. This includes four debate sessions before lunch. 

Preston vs. Deaver Debate -- Part 3

Mac Deaver's First Affirmative:

"The Bible teaches that the second (i.e. final) coming of Christ will occur at the end of the Christian age."

Mac Deaver began by clarifying his view of the law. He said that all man are amenable to the Law of Christ today. The only way to become a sinner is by law. What the Mosaic Law did before, the law of Christ does now. All men are sinners because of the Law of Christ, not the Law of Moses. This was the basis of the preaching during New Testament times after the cross/resurrection/ascension/pentecost when the gospel went out (i.e. the book of Acts). Deaver then went to his formal material. He referenced the "passing away" of heaven and earth in Rev. 21:1. Deaver pointed out how crying, death, sorrow are all still with us. "Do you still cry? Do you still have tears? There is still death! How can we identify this NH&E when the first things of the first H&E are still with us." In other words, Deaver's argument was that these things, which Don takes as part of the original creation, are all still with us, so Rev. 21:1 cannot be fulfilled at this point in history.

Deaver then brought up Heb. 9:27 and reiterated that physical death is the appointment that all men face, universally. This is the context of Heb. 9:28 that Don ignores. Deaver then reiterated that the "Hope of the Fathers" was the coming of Messiah, the preaching of the gospel, and the church generally, not a divorced realization of these things in some realized resurrection at A.D. 70. The coming of the Messiah and the preaching of the gospel makes the resurrection possible, both the OT saints' and ours.

Deaver then made an argument from 1 Cor. 15. The similarity between Adam's death and Christ's death is physical, so also is the resurrection of Christ. "No one would argue that Jesus died spiritually, for spiritual death is a result of sin (Rom. 6:23)" Thus, the only similarity between Adam's death and Christ's death is physical, so the resurrection of Christ is a physical body and so shall ours be. According to Deaver, the complete victory over death is not simply the saints enduring physical death or passing through it. This victory entails being delivered or raised out of death (the realm of the dead). Reaching the domain of the disembodied spirit (Hades) is not the end of salvation and damnation. There must be a universal physical resurrection to resolve the issue of death.

Deaver charged that Don is teaching a modified Saduccean view of the resurrection. Referenced that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage. Don is presenting "strange stuff to my ears! I'm still married. Are you still married? But Jesus says that they neither marry nor are given in marriage in the resurrection." Furthermore, Don's view unintentionally attacks the imoortality of the soul; 2 Cor. 5 talks about groaning in the body. We receive heaven when we are through here (when the resurrection takes place). That is why we have the "earnest" of the Spirit so that we can have eternal life to come, for our citizenship is in heaven. Deaver also charged that 1 Cor. 15 teaches that Christ will hand over the kingdom to the father at the 2nd Coming. Yet "isn't Christ the head of the Church? If Don's view is accurate then did Christ abdicated the throne in A.D. 70? Did Christ abandon the Church? Don is teaching a dangerous doctrine that leads to many heretical beliefs

Don Preston's Rebuttal

Don tried to undermine Mac's position by the following points:

• Began by addressing the arguments from last night regarding the "thief coming" as different from the coming of Matt. 24:1-34. Don pointed out that the church at Sardis in Revelation could know the generation, but not the day or hour. The wedding in Matt 25 is the context of the "thief coming" yet it says that the wicked servants and their city would be in the "thief coming."
• Don made the following argument: The thief coming in Matt. 25 is the thief coming of 1 Thess. 4 [Deaver would agree]. The thief coming of Matt. 25 is the coming of Christ for his wedding [Deaver would agree]. But, the coming of Christ for the wedding occurred at the fall of Jerusalem according to Matt. 22:1-7! Therefore, the thief coming of Matt. 25 and 1 Thess. 4 occurred at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Don challenged Mac to tell us if there were two weddings or if the wedding was postponed for some reason. [Note: Mac never mentioned the thief coming again in the entire debate.]
• Don returned to the material from last night regarding the deliverance promised to the Thess. "in flaming fire." Don asked Deaver a yes or no question. Did Jesus come, in the lifetime of the Thessalonians, and give them relief from their persecution? Mac implies "no" for they got relief when they died.
• But what did Paul explicitly promise? He promised relief at the coming of the Lord in flaming fire! Mac has effectively asserted that "Paul lied to them!" -- an effective denial of divine inspiration. Mac rips that promise of Paul from the people to whom it was made and gives it to another generation not even born. Don then made these points that overthrows Mac's objection 1) it doesn't matter who was doing the persection! Paul promised deliverence to the Thessalonians to come at the coming of the Lord in flaming fire. Mac's identification of the persecutors is irrelevant (a red herring) to the promise of the text. 2) we can know the identity of the persecutors from Acts 17. "Who stirred up the persecutors?" Don pointed out that "their countrymen" in 1 Thess. could have been Jews who were also Thessalonians, for "countrymen" is a geographical, not ethnic designation!! 3) Don pointed out that these persecutors were going to be "cast out from the presence of the Lord. Who could possibly be identified by that phrase, Jews or Gentiles?
• Don cited Deaver's writings that state that the Law and Prophets must be considered as one unit. Not one jot or tittle could pass until all of the law was fulfilled. Jesus said not one would pass until all was fulfilled. Mac says the law died at the cross with prophecies given in the law (e.g. resurrection) unfulfilled.
• Don pointed out that Mac's definition of death is the separation of the body from the soul. But Adam's death could not be physical for Adam and Eve did not die when they ate the forbidden fruit. Death is spiritual separation from God. God did not say "you will begin to die in the day you eat." Therefore, Adam and Eve were created mortal, as clearly implied by the text since they needed access to the tree of life for life to continue.
• Don made another argument that the death we are saved from cannot be biological. His point began with this question: "Who died first?" Adam did not die physically until many years later. But Gen. 4:8 says that Cain killed Abel. Who was the first person to experience physical death? ABEL!! But Jesus did not come to overcome the death of ABEL, but from the death of ADAM!
• Pointed out that Jesus was the "firstborn from the dead," yet there were other physical resurrections before Christ's. This shows that Christ's resurrection is a "better" resurrection, not a like-same resurrection of biological resurrections in the past.
• Next argument on biological death was formed from this question: "Why do we begin to die before we sin?" If sin is the cause of death (biological) then why do we "begin to die" at birth before any sin is committed? The clear fact we can observe in this world is that INFANTS DIE! That means, in Mac's view, either infants sin or infants inherit the sin nature from Adam through biological descent. WHICH HORN OF THE DILEMMA DOES MAC WANT TO ACCEPT? The truth is that Mac denies both! (infants sin and infants inherit sin nature from Adam) Yet infants die biological deaths. This proves (in Mac's theological view) that sin is not and cannot be the ultimate cause of biological death!

Mac Deaver's Second Affirmative:

Mac began by asking if Don ever told us who is running the Church? Jesus is still Lord of the Church and has not abdicated the throne. Therefore, the kingdom has not been handed over to the Father, and 1 Cor. 15 references a yet future coming of Christ at the end of the Christian age. Deaver said that Don uses a "peculiar expression" when he references "the death of Adam." Mac asked, "What is the death of Adam?" Preston makes his syllogisms plausible because he does not define the death of Adam. The first premise is ambiguous. The second premise is a wrong definition. But Heb 9:27 is the context of Heb. 9:28!

Mac then asked if the Thessalonians were waiting on the Lord or were they waiting on A.D. 70? This coming they were waiting on ws the coming to terminate the affairs of this life (Matt. 24:36). We live during the time of the last age or the time to be terminated (1 Cor. 15). There is no promise of another time period on earth following the time period when the law of Christ is the divine operative law. 1 Cor. 15:24 says that he will (on that day to come in the future) put down all rule, authority, and power. We still have rule, authority, and power on earth. Therefore, the fulfillment of 1 Cor. 15:24 is in our future.

Mac then cited the Don's work, "The Late Great Kingdom" regarding the unending nature of the church age. Mac then pointed out that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that the universe cannot be eternal. It had a beginning and it must have an end (at least as we know it). Mac then referenced the Warren vs. Antony Flew debate regarding the existence of God. His conclusion was that Preston's view of an eternal church age (earth?) is opposed to the philosophy of science and scripture which teaches the end of the universe.

Mac then made an argument that life cannot be fully experienced without a body. The body appropriate to the full experience of eternal life is a spiritual body. This body will be provided at the coming of Christ. This physical body we have now DOES NOT FIT THERE!! (1 Cor. 15:50-58), therefore the resurrection must be future, a resurrection or translation at the end of the Christian age. Deaver then said that we experience death (alluding to infants as well) for the simple reson that we do not have access to the tree of life referenced in Gen and promised in our future at the end of Rev. Deaver said the entire mistake is that Don is missing the fact that the Bible speaks of various (different) "ends." 1 Cor. 15:24... that end cannot be A.D. 70 because there remained authority, rule, and power after A.D. 70, but the text says that Christ will "abolish" these at his 2nd Coming.

Mac then made an argument from 1 Cor. 11:26. If words men what it says then there is a time reference to the observance of the Lord's Supper. Don's view means that we (anyone) observe the Table without biblical authority post A.D. 70? Is this where Don's past-2nd coming view takes us? Are we observing the Table without biblical authority since we now live past the 2nd coming?

Don Preston's Rebuttal

Don worked through Mac's material by making the following points:

Mac Deaver's Third Affirmative:

Mac began by pointing out that Don never answered the last affirmative. In regard to the Table, Mac said that Don has made "quite an admission about an eschatological element in the Lord's Table." Does this not change the nature of the Table, post A.D. 70? The death that we commemorate was the personal, bodily, PHYSICAL death. IT is attached conceptually to the our resurrection of the same kind. It is also connected conceptually to the coming which is yet to be personal and bodily. All of these elements are connected: physical death of Christ, physical coming of Christ and the resurrection of the body. Jesus did not come in A.D. 70 personal and bodily, therefore, the final coming can only be at the end of the Christian age.

Mac then pointed to the nature of this (future) bodily coming. This is a universal coming that every eye on earth will see. EVERY EYE WILL SEE (UNIVERSALLY) THE COMING OF CHRIST. Not every eye saw him at his coming in A.D. 70, therefore, there remains a final coming of Christ in our future.

Mac said the difficulty is that Don does not understand that there are two kinds of resurrections in the New Testament. 1) Resurrection of life in every sinner. They, as believers, are a new creation. 2)Resurrection of the body at the end of the world where Christians will put on immortality forever.The immortal body is still future to us, for our bodies are not immortal, but are mortal. Physical death must be defeated.

Mac's next argument is that Don's confusion is the result of a "preconceived hermeneutic" that bleeds over into his oversight about the many kinds of the Lord's comings as taught in the NT. 1) Came in person, bodily, the first time. 2) Left the earth and came back in spirit. 3) Came in judgement to punish the Jews in A.D. 70. 4) Comes in the presence of even a small group (Matt. 18:20) so that the Lord is present in every authorized service. 5) The Lord comes in the heart of converted persons. 6) There will be a coming in person, bodily, at the end of time (1 Thess 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:23; 2 Thess. 2:1ff; Heb. 9:28; James 5:7; 2 Pet. 3; 1 John 2:28; Phil. 3:20).

Don Preston's Rebuttal:

Don tried to undermine Mac's position by the following points:

Mac Deavers Fourth Affirmative:

Mac began with a powerpoint slide "Various Ends." The argument is that Don has mistakenly assumed that the "End" is one reference in all the NT. 1) Cross was an end (John 19:28) 2) End of an era (Luke 16:16) which brought new obligations, i.e. the gospel. 3) Old law taken away Col. 2:14, Rom. 7:1-6 because the first husband died. 4) The end of amenability under Gentile-ism and Judaism (rolled into amenability to the law of Christ). 5) End of the Jewish civil state. 6) End of a person's life -- Matt. 24:13 and 14 are not the same "end" -- enduring to the end will be saved is the end of each and every Christian's life. 7) End of the world (2 Pet 3).

Another chart titled "Two Kinds of New Beginnings." 1) New beginning 1 Cor. 5:17. Later Rev 21:1-8 teaches all things new, no more death, tears, pain, mourning, all part of (according to Don) the original creation. If they still exist, then the original creation has not passed away.

Another chart titled "Passing Away of the Law. Cannot mean fulfillment of all promises because every time a person is converted, then the promises are fulfilled!! Matt. 5:17-19 says it is EASIER for the physical heavens and earth to pass away than for the Law of Moses to fail to accomplish its purpose.

Another chart titled "Hope, Comfort, Death, Deliverance." God delivered Paul out of death, but Paul was also confident of a future deliverance as well. The time came when God finally delivered Paul unto the heavenly kingdom - ultimate fulfillment to the eternal kingdom at the end of the age. "What is Don doing to our hope?"

If the principle of evangelism is still obligatory upon the Church, then the promise of Divine Care entailed in that assignment is still operational.

The Scriptures teach a UNIVERSAL resurrection of the dead. Ex. 3 and Job 14:14 [19??]. There is a necessary connection between immortality and resurrection. Finished only when Christ's resurrection and ours match!!

Don Preston's Rebuttal:

Don responded by making the following points: